KrustyKidd

According to your article this is not the case. In fact, it said this; Article Then, they were released (note that to be released, you could not have been shot which makes the above statement untrue); Article Furthermore, the article goes onto blame the IDF for the mistakes of a woman in the family; Article The soldier was doing his job. He was instructed to shoot anyone coming to his position, not to challenge them or, to decide if they were a white hat or a black hat. That the woman did not understand instructions or that the sniper was not informed is not a war crime but a tragedy. In any case, the investigations both internal and UN will hopefully clear this all up.

Doesn't bother me either as, if it ever comes to pass will be a short lived event. As for a US attack, them having one nuclear weapon which would q2uickly become a puddle of waste on the first wave provides squat for detterence, rather, it makes them more of a target. We're not going to live with it. Either is Israel.

Myata Bad idea. Many missiles are aimed at missile sites and launching platforms in each other's countries and so, more missiles are needed to ensure that in case one platform is compromised, another will still provide the detterent required by having full capability of destroying the enemy. Thus, the more there are in this case, the safer we are in that nobody gets any bright ideas of attemting a first strike, as it would simply result in their own destruction. It is a rationale that many peaceniks miscontrue by saying that there is no reason to have the capability to destroy the world several times over. In fact, there is no intention to do that but rather, to be one hundred percent sure that they, and we, can both retaliate with full certain destructive capability no matter what, or, even if ninty percent of the retaliatory capability is destroyed. In this way, nobody even thinks about second guessing the other. It's called peace and, as one poster observed, it has keep this peace for more than a half century. To lower the amounts of weapons is to create an imbalance that one side may try to exploit and thereing lies the danger. Another danger is that while these countries are stable, other countries such as North Korea and Iran are not. To state that they have the right to nuclear arms is wrong when there is no intent on the parts of these regimes to use them as a responsible detterent, but rather a means to intimidate neighbors who do not have these devices.

kactus I am sure that many on the extreme far right in both the US and Isarael agree with you.

BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is defined by American conservative political columnist, and psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer as; The term indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of President Bush are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic. The test Respond to the following statement without denigrating Bush. If you can, then you are free of this affliction;

BC And, he uses a disease itself to endorse his presidency. Very strange to hold office of a union that is wrong but now on it's way to change itself. How does one balance this - be strong without teeth yet condemn those who did have teeth?

They are not asking for help. Basicly telling them that they can stop interferring and get things or, continue and at bare minimum, only be isolated if they are lucky. Syria - Sunni. Iran - Shiite. Both supplying destabilizing forces in a big way. And, both have a lot to lose as they cannot wilt away innocently into a crowd as they are nations.

It will take at least a couple more Liberal terms to accomplish that. Get a grip on reality J. Only half of us got it as it was sent in Chinese.

Bradco, not sure I understood this. Can you put it in another way please.

I don't believe that Baker is working with an independent agenda. I thnk he is performing with a predetermined outcome, in cahoots with the Administration. Simply manipulating public opinion and the Iraqis government themselves. I believe that with Baker's endorsement of Bush's plan, with a few 'origional' caveats, the Iraqis will find themselves under a lot of pressure to perform in the near future. And ...... voila! The Administration will be working with Baker's 'origional' plan and, as you say, be able to 'declare victory' as the Iraqis meet benchmark after benchmark with 'A' grades.

You are correct sir, and I was mistaken. However, read between the lines here. Bush is giving Baker legitimacy but need not heed his advice, Bush going on about benchmarks, Baker's team leaking information about talks with Tehran and timetables. It's all trial balloons to best judge which one to run with once the ball goes into play. I doubt it is going to focus on something the President is not going to go with such as a simple timetable to pull out, nor is he going to allow US strategy to be dependent on what the Iranians feel like on any given day which leaves benchmarks. Baker doesn't leak that one as he wants to make sure he comes off as impartial.

You should talk to 'Ol Uncle Krusty when you're not sure on the rumor mill skinny. Some background Lots of trial balloons going on with Bush uttering 'benchmarks' and Baker unlikely to back stab them so, I say the focus will be on benchmarks rather than the Iran and Syria talks.

It is widely circulated that he will be reccomending the benchmarks we spoke of as his function is thought to be setting the US up for a withdrawl.

I don't think he hates Canada but rather recognizes that the US has made their culture a strong singular entity and asks the immigrants to adapt while here in Canada, we change our society to fit immigrants demands. It is a very unpopular war he is waging against a political and idealogical enemy who has unwilling accomplices in the west. Speak of the devil.

You and I talked about him and his proposals. You thought he is out to lunch and his solutions are nill. Hence, guess you are still out of the post invasion discussion.

Yes I did. And no it is not. Good post though.

Ok, marking you down as 'never thought invasion should have happened' and count you out of the post invasion discussion we are having then.

We were not talking about 'now' rather what it would have taken upon invasion to lay down law and complience so the US and the provisinal Iraqi government could ferment order. 'Now' it is dependent upon the Iraqis themselves who are handicapped with more disorder than origionally expected. This calls for morre commitment on their part as there will be no massive US troop aid comming. A side note to your post thought. If the US had sent five hundred thousand troops they certainly would have provided simply more targets to shoot at in the initial period of the occupation when the Iraqi government was being organized. Would you have gone along with a press supression and a curfew as well or would you have called that a violation of people's basic human rights? Would you have said 'right on' if the US had simply stormed into Sadr City to arrest Al Sadr after he cut off his rival cleric's head and allowed him to print his anti US and Iraqi government newspaper or would you allow him to ferment disorder?

I totally agree with the troop number scenario in hindsight. However, intelligence estimates and advice from experts precluded otherwise. Rumsfeld initially wished to do it (upon consultation with his military subordinates) with one fifty and Powell stomped and ranted for three and a half. Two and a half was a compromise, a 'Desert Storm Lite' type of thing which was designed to provide secrecy in the initial runup to invasion (well prior to 1441) as units were separated in the states with part of them being sent to Kuwait to begin a gradual and unnoticed buildup. Bush should still get your support as he had these two experienced staffers advising him. If not for a former four star general and a multi termed secretary of defence, where else should he get his briefings and alternatives from? Your second item about the disbanding of the Iraqi military and administrative powers is also a two edged point in that, to keep it intact was to keep the regime in power with only the head removed. It would also change nothing in day to day Iraq as the corruption and power centers within the population would effectively remain the same inspiring nothing as to democracy comming to the people. However, I would be interested how you would have gotten around this particular problem. Myself, I have often thought of the possibility of simply bringing Saddam to the precipice and then offering him a 'do or die' ultimatum with an actual option other than "leave Iraq within 48 hours" such as fulfil the outstanding ceasefire demands including himan rights reforms, repatriation of foreign nationals, come clean with WMD issues and the ecolology and relinquish the Kuwaiti border issue. Then possibly do something like have free elections with himself as a sort of quasi 'Monarch' or figurehead of sorts and allow US bases to be placed on Iraqi territory for whatever perpetuality. Might have worked but, would not have shown US resolve and determination to people who seem to respect that sort of thing. No appology necessary. Only an idiot would think you were serious.

True, however, it is gone over by others, who have interest and expertise over and over with background discussions that make this forum look lame intellectually all the time. Often, subjects are frozen while discussion take place and a consensus can be reached on the matter discussed. For example, the US invasion of Iraq will not allow you to edit nor will GW Bush. In short, the Wilkpedia will, to the creators chagrin, never be an encyclopeida but it will become a bridge of sorts between random and baselss knowledge and an impossibly (due to the rapidity of the changing times) outdated, but approved encyclopedic source.

In most cases yes. Huh? So they are under fire while reading a suspect's rights? I would think that subduing the suspect comes first, then placing the cuffs on them. Then reading them their rights once things are under control. If the guy is running around with a machine gun taking potshots and emptying clips at kids while the officer is making the 'split second decision' of letting him call his lawyer or not at the precinct I would wonder what level of insanity has set in. When they lose a case or get disbarred. And, all they have to do is follow their training, and, once the suspect is subdued, read them their rights and allow the tester to do his or her job in the safety of the administrative area or station. Like what in this case? Armed cops pull car over, unarmed guy is suspected of being under the influence and they give him roadside test. Tests positive and they place him in car, bring him to station (while not taking fire from RPGs) and allow him a call to lawyer. Then give him test with lawyer present. I thought this scenario, (which happens all the time) out as I typed. As a varience, I will put in the suspect is shooting people and the cops pull him over after throwing out a spike belt and wounding him to stop him. They subdue him and then, placing him in the back of the car, take him to the hospital where things are much calmer and safety to the public is a given where he is treated and a court appointed lawyer is present while he is given a test. When a lawyer can beat them in court I would suppose that they did because they were under stress while the proceedings were taking place or, we can presume that maybe the officer did something wrong at some point ie: used too much force during the apprehension or, did not carry out the proper administrative steps after things calmed down.

I'll put it on my calander once the feds give us a date, right beside Gay Day and whatever else. In the meantime, let's take this day and honor our vets and reflect on the horrors of war and the necessity to have the courage to nip it in the bud before it reaches horrific proportions where acts such as the above create the fear to take actions like that.

Sure. If you didn't care about the Iraqi people it would make sense to me. However, if Iraq can grow into what was first envisioned (that being a democratic and thrieving oil based market economy) then the War on terror can probably be scaled down to a beefed up police action within a decade or two. And politicians the same? They also endure similar hardships yet the positions are filled as are police, military etc. I brought this over from another thread, you will recognize the quote as yours. This freedom you speak of. is it a valuable thing? I mean, is it worth a life or many lives? Do you think that only we in the west understand it and reach for it or can others participate in it as well? Further, when it is tough, should the Iraqis just roll over and let whomever rule them? Should we not support their freedom or, just say 'sorry, freedom for you is too high a price for us' and pull out because Bush didn't handle certain parts as well as hindsight has shown us? Lastly, how should Bush have run this campaign that would have pleased you?

On Al Queda's side idealogicaly, not active. If they were actively, then there would be no US soldiers in Iraq as they would all be dead. And how would you hav e conducted a military operation to oust Saddam other than to take ground and deny it to Iraqi military? They were. Or when your teacher gets his head chopped off in front of the class and the next day another is there to replace him it speaks volumes of the drive and courage these people have to take the bull by the horns and carry on to build their country. They do though. Any moron knows that Saddam was ousted by them hence, by definitition they are liberators. I am sure that Iraqis grow sick and tired of their prsence just as they are tired of the continual violence from a mirad of groups but, they understnad that the US must stay until the government can stand on it's own. An very unpleasent reality to say the least. We don't win in Iraq. The Iraqis do. The US already has acheived most of their objectives there so they have won which only leaves the win for the Iraqi people at stake. Support of the government they themselves have chosen is what needs to be maintained until it can stand on it's own.