myata Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Just in case it hasn't been made clear enough: I do not support people who blow up cars in crowded markets. In my view it's a crime. However, it is also a crime to start a war, on a flimsiest pretext, that kills hundred (possibly hundreds) of thousand people, thousands of them children, thousands miles away. If you want to talk about justice, show me how it's done to those who started the bloody business (one won't have to look far for them), and I'll support you against those who took it to the new bloody horisons. Before then, this rightful anger doesn't worth much to me - other than, of course, a propaganda tool in a war where everything goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 It may come out in mainstream but Gonzales is being implemented in looking the other way while jeuveniles in jevenile detention centers are being raped by their guards. Raping of children seems to be a popular past time in the southern states. Many children abducted by the childrens aid society in Florida have dissapeared or been found in foreign brothels. This broke out in Florida papers according to Alex Jones. On Jones show today they had Dr Jerome Corsci talk about this and they were talking about how this problem is being ignored by the mainstream corporate press and the legal authorities in Florida & Texas. Many of the people hired to gurad the kids in these facilities - as many as half have past child abuse and records for child rape. Many high level legal authorities Texas have written letters to the effect that if the rape cannot be shown to involve physical pain they will not prosecute. An Mp3 can be downloaded from PrisonPlanet. Look under Multimedia. He discusses the evidence of coverup in the form of letters from legal authorities. The republicans seem to be into a lot of this. This is partly why it would not surprise me if it was the IMF / Imperial forces that were doing this and not the "insurgents". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 If you aren't to be bound by any rules, then what's this squeaking all about? The Americans are bound by rules. However the enemy isn't. btw: who started the Viet-nam War again? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Neither Johnson nor his party nor the government as a whole were willing to raise, train, equip, and then send to Vietnam sufficient manpower to do the job. ---Stephen Ambrose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 If you aren't to be bound by any rules, then what's this squeaking all about?The Americans are bound by rules. However the enemy isn't. Please state the rules of engagement for going into Iraq, given that there was no imminent threat? Also where are the rules for taking out Saddam, a dictator the U.S. financially supported for years, a dictator gasing his own people using U.S. aid under the watchful eye of the U.S.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Please state the rules of engagement for going into Iraq, given that there was no imminent threat? Also where are the rules for taking out Saddam, a dictator the U.S. financially supported for years, a dictator gasing his own people using U.S. aid under the watchful eye of the U.S.? You're free to paroose the US government web-sites for the current ROEs. As stated before on this website but probably not to you: I'm against the War in Iraq. Never should have happened. Prefered to have Saddam murdering and torturing his own people while keeping Ahmeddinnerjacket in line over in Iran. But times change well beyond my control... Re: Chemical Warfare...we touched on this in the other thread "British Navy Sailors, taken by Iranians" on page two. You are free to take note that the prime supplier of Iraqi chemical weapons was an Arab company based in Singapore. Private US companies apparently supplied elements of the needed products for certain types of chemical weapons production according to Iraqi sources. Holland, Egypt and India are the next highest contributors. But it was the Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore that provided the VX nerve agent...the deadliest chemical on the planet and a true WMD. This was the stuff Saddam had weponized in the form of a SCUD warhead that had Israel all nervous during Gulf War I. As it takes special facilities not present in Iraq to destroy VX nerve agent; one might wonder where it all went. 4500 tons of the stuff. A tiny droplet of it can kill. Near impossible to 'clean-up'..... cricket...cricket...cricket.... But there's no WMDs in Iraq...of course... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We dance round in a ring and suppose, While the secret sits in the middle and knows. ---Robert Frost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 If you aren't to be bound by any rules, then what's this squeaking all about? The Americans are bound by rules. However the enemy isn't. Please state the rules of engagement for going into Iraq, given that there was no imminent threat? Also where are the rules for taking out Saddam, a dictator the U.S. financially supported for years, a dictator gasing his own people using U.S. aid under the watchful eye of the U.S.? ROE are not what you think they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Okay, let me simplify. What rules were the U.S. bound by in going into Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonardcohen Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 If you aren't to be bound by any rules, then what's this squeaking all about? US kill some children by dropping bombs, them by blowing up cars. Isn't it, like, the winner takes all? And one will win - in time we'll know who. Wanna make bets? The point is,we're not trying to kill children, in both cases the children die, but there is a world of difference between accidently killing someone and deliberately killing someone. Try to understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 What rules were the U.S. bound by in going into Iraq? Well my answer would be to kill/capture combatants on the enemy side while protecting civilians and infrastructure. That these combatants don't wear uniforms and hide amoungst civilians when not blowing them up with car bombs makes this job much harder. What's your version? --------------------------------------------------------------------- There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances. ---Leon Trotsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 The point is,we're not trying to kill children,in both cases the children die, but there is a world of difference between accidently killing someone and deliberately killing someone. Try to understand that. Try to understand that there's none. Or, if there was real serious intent to not have them killed, there wouldn't be so many killed already - as direct result of their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 What rules were the U.S. bound by in going into Iraq?Well my answer would be to kill/capture combatants on the enemy side while protecting civilians and infrastructure. That these combatants don't wear uniforms and hide amoungst civilians when not blowing them up with car bombs makes this job much harder. What's your version? --------------------------------------------------------------------- There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances. ---Leon Trotsky An illegal invasion based on groundless evidence, breaking international law in the process. The fact is the U.S. wasn't bound by anything. The Iraq war was driven by three stoogies in Washington: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 The empire always says these things about nations that will not undergo austerity measures set out by the IMF. It gets people tuned up for war and prevents critical thought and reflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 An illegal invasion based on groundless evidence, breaking international law in the process. The fact is the U.S. wasn't bound by anything. The Iraq war was driven by three stoogies in Washington: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. That's nice. You and PolyNewbie will have much to discuss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you tell people where to go, but not how to get there, you'll be amazed at the results. ---Gen. George S. Patton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 An illegal invasion based on groundless evidence, breaking international law in the process. The fact is the U.S. wasn't bound by anything. The Iraq war was driven by three stoogies in Washington: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney.That's nice. You and PolyNewbie will have much to discuss. What can you say to this kind of rhetoric? It's like a bunch of kids in the 60s chanting reductionist slogans while angsting over adolescent worries. Virtually every element of it is factually wrong, including "illegal" and "breaking iternational law", but it plays so well to teenage ears. And provides an amazing outlet for pubescent rage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Well, we've been through this discussion before (with different players), the legality or otherwise of Iraq invaision could not be proven formally, however with the facts like: 1) the majority of the security council did not approve direct "war" resolution; 2) such resolution was considered a condition of participation by many countries including this; 3) UN General Secretary is on record stating that war was illegal; 4) chief of the inspection team on record stating the need for continuation of inspections as opposed to military solution of finding - and so on, one would be fully justified to consider the Iraq action as unnecessary, whatever hired lawyers may be able to suck out of their thumbs on the matter of its formal legality. Starting an unnecessary war leading to hundred(s) of thousands of casualties must be a crime, from any moral point of view. And if one does not treat it as such, I don't see how one could credibly complain or condemn other crimes, on much smaller scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Well, we've been through this discussion before (with different players), the legality or otherwise of Iraq invaision could not be proven formally, however with the facts like:1) the majority of the security council did not approve direct "war" resolution; 2) such resolution was considered a condition of participation by many countries including this; 3) UN General Secretary is on record stating that war was illegal; 4) chief of the inspection team on record stating the need for continuation of inspections as opposed to military solution of finding - and so on, one would be fully justified to consider the Iraq action as unnecessary, whatever hired lawyers may be able to suck out of their thumbs on the matter of its formal legality. Starting an unnecessary war leading to hundred(s) of thousands of casualties must be a crime, from any moral point of view. And if one does not treat it as such, I don't see how one could credibly complain or condemn other crimes, on much smaller scale. Tell you what. When I have time, I'll open a thread and explain exactly why the invasion is not "illegal". Suffice it to say for now that there are 16 UNSC resolutions authorising a resumption of hostilities, all 'recalling' and 'reaffirming' (specific legal terms with specific meanings in intl law) the original ceasefire resolution. In fact, 15 of them were unecessary, and simply existed as Bush chose to go the extra mile. Clinton launched attacks on Iraq SOLEY on the strength of the original UNSC res. Until such time as you can show me an interpretive UNSC res claiming that the invasion is illegal, it is illegal only in your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 It won't be necessary as in all likelihood you may have trouble reading the posts, however you're free to prove the legality and absolute necessity of the war to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Until such time as you can show me an interpretive UNSC res claiming that the invasion is illegal, it is illegal only in your mind. Yep, mine and pretty much the world's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Until such time as you can show me an interpretive UNSC res claiming that the invasion is illegal, it is illegal only in your mind. Yep, mine and pretty much the world's. Well an interesting thing about legal issues is that they actually have to be documented in law. Simply skipping along and announcing that something is illegal and that everyone else agrees with you doesn't quite make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Yep, mine and pretty much the world's. Richard Perle agrees with you. Not so sure about the world , although likely most people do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Well...this is a disturbing new tactic. Children in the backseat are confirmed to have been used as a decoy to allow car bombers through a Baghdad checkpoint...then they were blown up. “Children in the back seat lower suspicion,” he said (Maj. Gen. Michael Barbaro), according to a transcript. “We let it move through. They parked the vehicle. The adults run out and detonate it with the children in back.” I'm not sure what else to say... I'm also not sure what would motivate someone or some group to employ such horrible methods. I'd die for my wife and kids...not the other way around. Link.... Link 2.... Link 3.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The insane, on occasion, are not without their charms. ---Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. It might be new to you but not to some of us who have lived in the Middle East and witnessed it. I saw kids as young as 5 and 6 being used as decoys back in the early 70's in Gaza. Not just children, preganant women, the disabled, the elderly, mentally ill in the name of Islam. Only this time, they can't blame Israel for the behaviour. Or will they. Israelis still use children and pregnant women as shields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Israelis still use children and pregnant women as shields. Do tell Woody. When was that? You mean they let women and children live in Israel so they get blown up by suicide bombers? What particular brainfart has siezed your mind this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Israelis still use children and pregnant women as shields. And that's wrong, too...if true. However, it still isn't detonating children in a crowd while the bombers run away. I've heard tale of Israelis doing this or that to 'children' (read: rock/molotov throwing teens) but the sources tend to be from 'Palestinian News Services' so I'm always dubious that the incident didn't happened quite the way they claim. Pallywood and all that. Since they've fibbed before, I can no longer trust anything they say. Funny how that is... Care to provide a link to the pregnant women being used by the Israeli army as human shields? I'd be interested in reading that and seeing what the sourse is. Thanks in advance. ---------------------------------------------------------------- We don't point a pistol at our own forehead. That is not the way to conduct negotiations. ---Benjamin Netanyahu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 ... it still isn't detonating children in a crowd while the bombers run away. ... close enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 ... it still isn't detonating children in a crowd while the bombers run away. ... close enough No woody, it's not. Where's that link Dog asked for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.