So hows the war on "Terror" going?

[Ulysses]

ok first off, that artical directly states WAR AGINST IRAQ....

 

WHERE TEH FU*K DOES IT SAY ANY WHERE ON ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT THIS 2000-2005 WAR IS AGINST IRAQ. WE ARE FIGHTING IN IRAQ. THEY ARE TWO VERY DIFFRNET THINGS.

 

you wanna talk war crimes eh? ever hear of the word “genocide� oh a littel something comitted by Sudamn...

 

i will return tomarrow w/ more, i need to do HW and get to bed. nite you all.

 

EDIT: oh, and yeah. all the M1A1 Abrams sabo rounds have depleted uranium in them. It is more effective, kinda slipped my mind opps. ;P

 

But i rather we be using them, and it is not a crime unless they can persicute us, lol. ( I probly shoudnt be laughing but my trigger happy friend is at my side putting a rather interesting spin on this one )

 

I have to agree with ghost on this, also us british use depleted uranium depleted shells as well in our challenger 2 tanks (neat bit of kit) and I think also our AS90's. UD shells are very very effective at knocking out enermy armour.

 

 

[Antipodean]

I have to agree with ghost on this, also us british use depleted uranium depleted shells as well in our challenger 2 tanks (neat bit of kit) and I think also our AS90's. UD shells are very very effective at knocking out enermy armour.

 

Because being more efficient at taking out armoured vehicles is worth doing this to civilians and children:

 

[Beawulf]

what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

I dont see how the US can justify circumventing the Geneva convention and denying people their rights, by holding them for years without trial in guantanamo bay. The US even admitted to detaining children there.

 

I keep hearing people justify the denial of rights by saying they are terrorists, which is essentialy generalizing that all muslims are terrorists. The people there were captured during the invasion of their country, they took up arms to defend their soveriegnty. There is no logic in jumping to the conclusion that this makes them all terrorists. I imagine there are also terrorists who also fought against the Americans. I believe there is a saying in the US: it is better to let 10 guilty people free than jail 1 innocent.

 

is it so easy to throw away principles?

 

 

Things like the patriot act are a bit of a concern, especially when they include a shoot to kill policy. I wouldnt want to be a student (carrying a bag) with muslim appearance where these laws in effect. I believe they are justified in fearing the safety. It isnt accurate to say that if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about, what about the Brazillian guy in London who was shot, after he was restrained, 7 times in the head, once in the shoulder, with 3 other shots missing. Leaked documents quote scotland yard saying he was targetted based on his appearance.

[Ulysses]

what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

I dont see how the US can justify circumventing the Geneva convention and denying people their rights, by holding them for years without trial in guantanamo bay. The US even admitted to detaining children there.

 

I keep hearing people justify the denial of rights by saying they are terrorists, which is essentialy generalizing that all muslims are terrorists. The people there were captured during the invasion of their country, they took up arms to defend their soveriegnty. There is no logic in jumping to the conclusion that this makes them all terrorists. I imagine there are also terrorists who also fought against the Americans. I believe there is a saying in the US: it is better to let 10 guilty people free than jail 1 innocent.

 

is it so easy to throw away principles?

 

 

Things like the patriot act are a bit of a concern, especially when they include a shoot to kill policy. I wouldnt want to be a student (carrying a bag) with muslim appearance where these laws in effect. I believe they are justified in fearing the safety. It isnt accurate to say that if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about, what about the Brazillian guy in London who was shot, after he was restrained, 7 times in the head, once in the shoulder, with 3 other shots missing. Leaked documents quote scotland yard saying he was targetted based on his appearance.

 

A lot of the detainees in guantanamo bay where actually captured during the afganistan campaign, which was FULLY justified due to the attacks on New York.

 

who knows what really happened to that brazillian in London, there must of been something that made the police think he might of been a threat, sadly they where wrong but the police where in a tough desision.

 

Another point is that parliment really let the british public down on the vote about extending the time they can detain a suspect terrorist from 28 days to 90 days before formally charging them, I for one am for increasing the polices power to combat terrorists.

 

Then theres the matter of george galloway former Labour MP who in the eyes of the british public is guilty of treson against the state after his comments during the war. I always remember hearing what he said whilst in north kuwait about the iraqis should take arms against the allies.....that really pissed off the miltary out there.

 

 

[GhostShadow]

what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

I dont see how the US can justify circumventing the Geneva convention and denying people their rights, by holding them for years without trial in guantanamo bay. The US even admitted to detaining children there.

 

I keep hearing people justify the denial of rights by saying they are terrorists, which is essentialy generalizing that all muslims are terrorists. The people there were captured during the invasion of their country, they took up arms to defend their soveriegnty. There is no logic in jumping to the conclusion that this makes them all terrorists. I imagine there are also terrorists who also fought against the Americans. I believe there is a saying in the US: it is better to let 10 guilty people free than jail 1 innocent.

 

is it so easy to throw away principles?

 

 

Things like the patriot act are a bit of a concern, especially when they include a shoot to kill policy. I wouldnt want to be a student (carrying a bag) with muslim appearance where these laws in effect. I believe they are justified in fearing the safety. It isnt accurate to say that if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about, what about the Brazillian guy in London who was shot, after he was restrained, 7 times in the head, once in the shoulder, with 3 other shots missing. Leaked documents quote scotland yard saying he was targetted based on his appearance.

 

no one is gernealizing here.... NOT ALL TERRORIST ARE ARAB, ISLAMIC, OR ANY ONE SPICIFIC RACE OR RELIGION.

 

Ever hear of IRA??? they are Irish. they are terrorist..

 

Ever Hear of Somalia?? They are black, and you guessed it, terrorist.

 

Terrorism is all around the world.

 

And when a man comes from behind a wall, shoots into a crowd of wemon and children, screaming "alia Ackbar!!" throwing hand grenades.... i dont really see that as protecting the sovernty of ones counrty.

 

That is over Iraq has been occupied. The ppl are shooting at there fellow Iraqi, American soildiers, British Royal Troops, and any one who is not on their side ANY ONE, including wemon and children.

 

I personaly think that is more sick and in-humaine than holding a few prisoners geting info from them.

 

 

And i have never heard that saying... about jail.. but i would rather see 10 dead terrorist, then 1 dead American troop, or European Troop.

 

 

I actualy feel something when i look at her, Private Jessica Lynch. She was captured by terrorist, and tourtured.

 

So dont make this out to be Iraq the only ppl suffering, OVER 2,000 American Troops Have giving the ultimate price for freedom, a better world, and so that their children can grow up with out the fear of a man coming from behinde a wall and opening fire into a crowd.

 

[psheldrake1]

 

There's a war on?

[philly]

^^^^ Hahaha yes, but only a couple of countries are involved, and the Swiss are wondering what all the noise is about...

[Antipodean]

So dont make this out to be Iraq the only ppl suffering, OVER 2,000 American Troops Have giving the ultimate price for freedom, a better world, and so that their children can grow up with out the fear of a man coming from behinde a wall and opening fire into a crowd.

 

They are not paying the ultimate price for freedom. ITS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN IN THIS THREAD AND IN THE NEWS MEDIA THAT TERRORISM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY DUBYA WENT TO IRAQ.

 

It has also been shown here that the reason for invading Iraq wasn't even WMD and that the US administration lied on that count.

 

It has also been shown that the Pentagon had documents EVEN BEFORE September 11, on the divvying up of Iraq's oil resources amoungst a select few companies.

 

You see... these brave soldiers ARE DYING FOR OIL. They are DYING for Halliburton. They are dying because Dubya is cosy with the fossil fuel fatcats.

 

If the your administration really cares about freedom, or if you GhostShadow really care about freedom... why don't I hear anything about the genocide in Darfur? Whay don't I hear any concern about Mugabe's dictatorship in Zimbabwe?

 

For one thing - those poor bastards havn't got any oil.

 

Also GhostShadow - When you see that photo of Private Jessica Lynch doesn't it make you question the very practice of torture? How can you feel outraged by another party's use of torture, while defending a millitary campaign and policy that also actively uses torture techniques? (The evidence is growing that the use of torture didn't just stop with Abu Graib)

 

Just something to think about.

[GhostShadow]

It is ilegal for United States to use torture, and to my knowlage there has not been any physical torture done to any prisoner, what america does when it gets a prisoner that wont talk, is we hand them over to a frienldy country that doesn not have the same restrictions of tourture and the infromation is shared.

 

and i think that it is yet to be proven on any of those facts, especialy you say that it has been proven in the news mieda... yeah maybe in the sick one sided liberal news mieda and i dont hold the rest of mainstream media to high markings either so dont be hurt.

 

We have a war vet on this thread saying some exact oppisites of that which this "godly news service" says.

 

And yes, looking at the pic makes me think, makes me think about our ristrictions about tourture, it is regretable that we are part of the geniva.

 

And dont paint America as a bad guy by saying that the Iraqi ppl hate america and loth our pressince there. Today on the radio the American Ambassador to Iraq, the same person whos job it is to live w/ Iraqi ppl, study their culture. be-friend them, said that the Iraqi ppl do not see us as evil tyrints that we are so vividly protrayed as.

 

Also American companies where not the only one after oil. Did you know that France approched the pentagon with a proposal that they would send 18,000 troops to help invade Iraq, if only after the invasion France would be intitled to select a location in Iraq and place an ocupation force there and basicly "imperialize" it. French offer to join invasion of Iraq

 

They wanted to oil feilds.

 

I find you view on America disturbing to say the least. You are so fixed to make America seem like the only bad thing since the Nazi regiem. like i have said before,

 

"Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so"-shakespeare.

 

looking at the situation in Iraq from one side leaves you blind to the rest. Now this thread has opened my eyes a bit more, but i still stand by my statements.

 

"one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter", think about that. I know that the terrorist are not one sided evil beings. but think about that when you slanderize bush.

 

 

[GorunNova]

I think I already mentioned how the US gov't will only use the 'humanitarian cause' card when it's the only card left in their hand... and only for reasons entirely unrelated to humanitarian aid. As Antipodean said, there are a LOT of places the US could 'help out' if they really were concerned about improving the lot of people whose human rights are being violated daily. Of course, as there's no financial profit in going to any of those places, they continue on as they were...

 

It was never about Saddam's abuse of his own citizens... it was about Saddam and his disobedience to the US, the country whose administration at that time helped put him in power in the first place because they thought he would do what they wanted...

 

... the number of dictators who got into power with aid from the US and the CIA is quite large, and many of these have done terrible things to their citizens... the only difference in this case is that Iraq is oil-rich. Unless your idea of freedom is greater supplies of oil, massive profits to a few influential people, and a country whose people are deprived of the benefits of their own natural resources, I don't think that the freedom of it's citizens from tyrrany is what is being fought for in Iraq.

 

Heh... speaking of other terrorists, when's the last time a US President has had anything but nasty words (and only nasty words, if even that) about acts of terrorism and human rights abuses in non-oil rich countries?

 

As a side note, I have a lot more respect for how the British troops behaved (and behave) in Iraq than the US troops... and think that much of the backlash is the fault of the stupid things that a minority of the US troops have done (big example being the torture in the prisons). Locals know when crap like that happens, and when that stuff happens it permanently damages the image of the 'invaders'... ESPECIALLY since in the case of the prison torturing, it makes the US troops look just as bad as Saddam's Republican Guard did, AND drag all the other allies down with them... I don't think it was a coincidence that the number of counterattacks jumped around the time that the torture began (and I doubt that the fact that the torture was happening in one of Saddam's old prisons helped any...)

 

C'mon... if there had been even a token defence of museums, hospitals, and schools instead of just places like the Ministry of Oil right from the beginning, the people would have probably started off with a far more positive opinion of the troops...

 

Note: I like many people in the US... I simply think that their government is getting very corrupt and detached from the people they are supposed to serve. It's already a situation of 'elect your own oligarchy', with a choice of two people from rich families, who pick administrations -mostly- from other rich families like their own. The intentional blurring by the US government to associate itself directly with the country proper is a blatant attempt to protect itself by making it 'unpatriotic' to question governmental policies unless they're very, very bad (and sometimes even then!). Likewise, many US people seem to take personal offense at comments about the behaviour of their government, as if those comments were directly targeted at them! That perspective is entirely incomprehensible to me...

 

One can love one's country without loving one's government or it's actions... us Canadians do it all the time, and it's a VERY important thing to do! Government will get away with anything it can, and if the populace is blinded by feelings of patriotism it'll try to get away with ten times as much! >_<

 

Edit: Damn, I wish I had held off to see that post directly above... Just because others want slices of the pie too doesn't make stealing the pie any more honourable...

 

Edit 2: As the US hasn't dressed mental patients in enemy uniforms to fake an 'invasion' (killing them in the process), unashamedly annexed other nearby countries, or instituted pogroms against minorities, it can't possibly be on par with Nazi Germany... but it ain't exactly got a squeaky clean record, either... (see my comments on CIA assisted dictatorships above...)

 

Edit 3:

It is ilegal for United States to use torture' date=' and to my knowlage there has not been any physical torture done to any prisoner, what america does when it gets a prisoner that wont talk, is we hand them over to a frienldy country that doesn not have the same restrictions of tourture and the infromation is shared. [/quote']

Yes... and because of that policy a Canadian citizen was whisked off to Syria by the US after a vacation to Tunisia with only token contact with the RCMP and an after-the-fact notification to Canada ;p... They snagged him on a stopover on his way home. The guy was stuck in one of their prisons for over a year before he got released, all because he lived in Syria until he was in his late teens and chose the wrong person to cosign on a rental lease -_-'... Google about "Maher Arar", and see what wonderful things pop up.

 

Edit 4: As an interesting sidenote to this, the Arar situation prompted a travel advisory from the Canadian foreign affairs department suggesting that Canadians of Iraqi, Irani, Syrian, Libyan and Sudanese descent not travel to the US...

[GhostShadow]

ok, let me get this stright... You are refering to my opinion as a pice of pie... which is to be disected and taken apart in word for word comment format to portray my ideals as bad, or in bad context... instead of actepting my statement as a whole and apriciateing the time i spent to supply this thread w/ a counter argument...uhm... ok... I guess i am not free to share my opnions about this matter... or at least not able to do it in a respectable enviroment where i will be heard..

 

and i do have no idea about this canandian incident. i am sorry about that but i dont know what its about.

[GhostShadow]

 

If the your administration really cares about freedom, or if you GhostShadow really care about freedom... why don't I hear anything about the genocide in Darfur? Whay don't I hear any concern about Mugabe's dictatorship in Zimbabwe?

 

 

I care about American safty and freedom above all else. And in this time America is far from safe, and freedom is trying to be taken from us by lefty pinko liberals. You know that these same frigging liberal are trying to make is legal for UNITED STATES MILITARY UNITS TO BE TIRED IN CIVILIAN COURT??!!??

 

If you know anything of american military it is that there is a military court and a civilan court. it is not the place of the civilan court to over assert its power onto military men.

 

just another point to why i hold littel merits for liberal ideals.

[Beawulf]

Also American companies where not the only one after oil. Did you know that France approched the pentagon with a proposal that they would send 18' date='000 troops to help invade Iraq, if only after the invasion France would be intitled to select a location in Iraq and place an ocupation force there and basicly "imperialize" it. French offer to join invasion of Iraq

 

Note in the second sentance of that article, the word "rumor".

 

That site is clearly biased if they are passing rumors around as news. The majority of your links have come from strategypage.com I have noticed.

 

 

no one is gernealizing here.... NOT ALL TERRORIST ARE ARAB, ISLAMIC, OR ANY ONE SPICIFIC RACE OR RELIGION.

 

Ever Hear of Somalia?? They are black, and you guessed it, terrorist.

 

Somalia is a country, that is quite a generalization to say they are terrorists.

[GorunNova]

ok' date=' let me get this stright... You are refering to my opinion as a pice of pie... which is to be disected and taken apart in word for word comment format to portray my ideals as bad, or in bad context... instead of actepting my statement as a whole and apriciateing the time i spent to supply this thread w/ a counter argument...uhm... ok... I guess i am not free to share my opnions about this matter... or at least not able to do it in a respectable enviroment where i will be heard..[/quote']

You've got it very, very wrong, actually... that pie analogy wasn't about your views, it was about the rather underhanded pre-Sept11 plans to divvy up Iraq by WHATEVER nation, US, France, whatever. Simply put, it's about some other country snagging the proverbial oil pie from the front porch of Iraq and divvying it up.

 

... at least, that's assuming you were talking about my pie analogy...

 

Edit: I hear you... and I read your comments, but it isn't much of a forum if I can't reply to them with my own perspective on the matter. Don't take it so personally! ^^

 

Also, I'm not in the habit of accepting ANYTHING as-is, and that includes your post. The best compliment for an argument I can think of is to thoroughly look through it and consider it... which I did. ^^

[Arktis]

Please take the time to read this post. It's well worth it.

 

"Why' date=' of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."[/quote']

 

Göring was a very infamous Nazi who was tried at Nuremberg. He also said at a luncheon on 20 April 1942:

 

"The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I' date=' because I set it on fire!"[/quote']

 

Of course, he denied this later. But if it is true, he probably just meant that he was in charge of getting it firebombed, not that he actually did it himself.

 

If you don't know what the Reichstag was and what it's burning meant, I suggest you brush up on your history. It was the Nazi Germany's version of Pearl Harbor. Now, whether or not you believe in what is constantly denounced as a crazy conspiracy theory (which I won't go into here), the fact remains that the Bush government has really taken advantage of 9/11 in a big, big way. 9/11 is consistantly reffered to as The New Pearl Harbor, by the way.

 

What you need to do to push adgenda in a fascist state is to get everyone in media saying the same thing. The only way to do that is to have a small group own the majority of the media. Hmmm...

 

And perhaps the most relevant quote of all:

 

"Oh' date=' that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."[/quote']

 

Is this guy advising policy for the Bush administration? :)

[GhostShadow]

Also American companies where not the only one after oil. Did you know that France approched the pentagon with a proposal that they would send 18' date='000 troops to help invade Iraq, if only after the invasion France would be intitled to select a location in Iraq and place an ocupation force there and basicly "imperialize" it. French offer to join invasion of Iraq

 

Note in the second sentance of that article, the word "rumor".

 

That site is clearly biased if they are passing rumors around as news. The majority of your links have come from strategypage.com I have noticed.

 

 

no one is gernealizing here.... NOT ALL TERRORIST ARE ARAB, ISLAMIC, OR ANY ONE SPICIFIC RACE OR RELIGION.

 

Ever Hear of Somalia?? They are black, and you guessed it, terrorist.

 

Somalia is a country, that is quite a generalization to say they are terrorists.

 

hey good job, notice how i didnt say every one in somalia, i just said somalia had black terrorist. YOU assumed that I ment every one in somalia where terrosit. but i will be more clear in the futuer.

 

And yes, strategy page is a common source of my infromation on this thread, but not all the articals are rumors.

 

And it is only rumor that bush had evil plains to invade Iraq... every thing i have read about it says that every intel angency on the face of the planet thought that there where weapons.

 

And America never sold WMD to terrorist, America's Government did sell weapons to terrorist to fight the cold war. i.e, Osama.

 

And not to sound like a Nazi, but Hermann Goring was a great mind. I do not mean that in a way to support the Neo-Nazi party.

 

But no one has been clasified as un-american for being aginst the war. There are ppl out going around the country speaking out aginst the war. The governemnt is not calling them un-patriotic. they are not being forced to fight.

 

And incase you havent noticed. America has the largest voluntary armed force in the world. No one is being made to fight. If the common ppl didnt want to be over there, if they didnt think this was a cause worth fighting for worth dieing for, then they can quite the military and live a nice civilian life.

 

So when you call our government evil for being over there, you are calling american citizens evil, b/c they are over there by choice. They choose to be there b/c common oppinoin in America is that this war is just, that we should be there. It is just that the few liberals that hate America and wish to protray us as evil, and they have control of media.

 

[Arktis]

It is just that the few liberals that hate America and wish to protray us as evil' date=' and they have control of media. [/quote']

 

This idea of liberal media control is total fiction. In fact, things are quite the opposite. Wherever I turn I see pro Bush, pro war propaganda running through an endless echo chaimber that effectively squashes any opposing views. What we are supposed to interpret "liberal" to mean today is "unpatriotic" (which is sad, because liberalism is intended to mean something to the effect of openess, equality, sharing, and not limiting things to a closed orthodox view and system.), and anyone who expresses a view that goes against the war and Bush is branded as such. On a regular basis, Bush and Cheney release statements claiming that people who speak out are basicly sabotaging the country and making it safer for terrorists. See my previous post for the final quote in it. There is no liberal media control, but there is in fact neo-con news-speak spin telling us there is.

[quosego]

So when you call our government evil for being over there' date=' you are calling american citizens evil, b/c they are over there by choice. [/quote']

 

Nope, ever wondered why so many supported leaders as Bush and Hitler, it's called propaganda. I could convince you that you are a one legged elephant, I only need to repeat it often enough and don't allow you to watch other opinions (or not be susceptable to them).

 

So you can't blame the masses, only the leaders that make the final decision.

 

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

[Beawulf]

And America never sold WMD to terrorist' date=' America's Government did sell weapons to terrorist to fight the cold war. i.e, Osama.[/quote']

 

 

I was saying they sold weapons to Iraq. There have been several links posted with imformation to back this claim, and from various sources....

 

 

According to a congressional transcript

"The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted . . . We continued to approve this equipment until just weeks before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait,"

Made in the USA

Some of the items provided by companies and government agencies are sarin, anthrax, nerve gas, mustard gas, plague, west nile, nuclear detonators...

 

 

it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports--some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above.

Who Armed Iraq

 

among the chemical weapons which had been sold to Iraq were some of the very most lethal available: Sarin, Soman, Tabun, VX, Lewisite, Cyanogen Chloride, Hydrogen Cyanide, blister agents and Mustard Gas. Some of the powerful biological agents sold included anthrax, Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum (causes a tuberculosis-like disease) , Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens and Escherichia Coli.

The Tuite Reports

 

 

and some more:

Wikipedia: US providing Iraq with weapons for Iran war

 

Rumsfeld & Saddam

 

CIA involvement in Baath coup

[Arktis]

You can't ignore all this evidence. This stuff is conclusive, and once you examine it for yourself, you come to realize exactly why it's not given coverage in the mainstream media. Today, a very small and powerful group own the vast majority of of the media, and if you don't go along with the official sanctioned story, you're out, you don't make any money, and you're branded as a threat to the country. News is a buisness, and it's been monopolized by a small elite in order to satisfy the needs of the adgenda.