Do you wonder why the US troops loose the population support in Iraq?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by GScholz
I don't think any government would consider people taking up arms and fighting alongside an enemy army "their people" no matter where they were located.

Lincoln's did.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
I contest that. When did the UN declare Iraq was "coddling" terrorists? When did the UN declare Iraq funded "suiciders"? When did the UN declare Iraq was a threat to the United States of America?

The UN did not reach the exact same assessment. The UNSC voted against the US and UK ... France didn't even have to use its veto.

Ah, the semantics game...fun fun fun...and IMPORTANT most of all.

The UN never declared that Iraq was funding suicide bombers, probably because that fact was not even disputed...since both Saddam himself and his UN embassador openly stated that they did.

The UNSC declared several times that Iraq was a threat.

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
How about Israel?

What about Israel? Are you next going to say something about how the Palestinians are really Israelis?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
Actually I contest that. He used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Neither are "his own people". Iran also used chemical weapons in that war. Chemical weapons weren't even classified as WMD until 1991. I'd like to see some proof that he "coddled" terrorists, his intelligence operatives actually killed Abu Nidal. He did not fund "suiciders", he gave money to the families of everyone who died by Israeli hands or in the fight against Israel. Obviously a PR campaign to gather some support from the Islamic populations that didn't like his secular regime much.

I don't see how Iraq was a threat to the US.

Who cares what you see or don't see?  Our decisions on national security aren't beholden to you.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
And again, please find where the UN declares Iraq a threat to the United States of America, and that the are funding "suiciders". Iraq has made no such statement.

No, you are (trying?) to play the semantics game again here.

Let me walk you through it *again*

1) 9-11 taught the US one thing, the need for preemptive self-defence.
 
Bush formulates it thusly:
when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm.

Ok, are you with me so far? This is the basis of the attack on Iraq, the foundation if you will. If there is a threat or a gatering threat, just sitting idle and wishing it away will not help, nor will appeasement or whatever. See a threat? Deal with it now, instead of having another 9-11.

Ok...everyone following this so far?

2) Iraq was percieved to be a threat to the US, or at least a gathering threat. Why?
- Insane dictator that hates the US
- WMDs used before by said dictator
- Ties between said dictator and various terrorist organizations
- Said dictator has already started numerous wars of aggression

That combination makes Iraq a threat or a gathering threat to the US.

Because the combination of mad dictator + WMDs + ties to international terrorism + intense hatred of USA = Threat.

The UNSC has said several times that Iraq was a threat to international peace and stability. Check. The UNSC has stated several times that Iraq had to do several specific things in order to stop being considered a threat to international peace and stability. Iraq did not do that.

Ok, what does all this mean? Well, we have a threat/gathering threat (Iraq) and we have the realization that you cannot just sit on your arse and wish for all the bad people to go away.

= War

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Hortlund
No, you are (trying?) to play the semantics game again here.

Let me walk you through it *again*

1) 9-11 taught the US one thing, the need for preemptive self-defence.
 
Bush formulates it thusly:
when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm.

Ok, are you with me so far? This is the basis of the attack on Iraq, the foundation if you will. If there is a threat or a gatering threat, just sitting idle and wishing it away will not help, nor will appeasement or whatever. See a threat? Deal with it now, instead of having another 9-11.

Ok...everyone following this so far?

2) Iraq was percieved to be a threat to the US, or at least a gathering threat. Why?
- Insane dictator that hates the US
- WMDs used before by said dictator
- Ties between said dictator and various terrorist organizations
- Said dictator has already started numerous wars of aggression

That combination makes Iraq a threat or a gathering threat to the US.

Because the combination of mad dictator + WMDs + ties to international terrorism + intense hatred of USA = Threat.

The UNSC has said several times that Iraq was a threat to international peace and stability. Check. The UNSC has stated several times that Iraq had to do several specific things in order to stop being considered a threat to international peace and stability. Iraq did not do that.

Ok, what does all this mean? Well, we have a threat/gathering threat (Iraq) and we have the realization that you cannot just sit on your arse and wish for all the bad people to go away.

= War

Funny how pre 9/11 Powel himself is quoted as saying the exact opposite to every point you've made. Sadam wasn't a threat to his own region let alone the world.



...-Gixer

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Gixer
Funny how pre 9/11 Powel himself is quoted as saying the exact opposite to every point you've made. Sadam wasn't a threat to his own region let alone the world.

...-Gixer

I've been looking for the Powell quote that says "Saddam is not an insane meglomaniac and never used gas against the Kurds."

so far no luck.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I've been looking for the Powell quote that says "Saddam is not an insane meglomaniac and never used gas against the Kurds."

so far no luck.

Oh so that's the reason why we invaded Iraq, he had used WMD"s before and was a meglomaniac? Excellent then how come that wasn't done back in the 80's when he used those WMD's?

Probably cause at that time he was supported by the west. Strange how things change. Also strange how much the Bush admin changed it's tune after 9/11

Guess someone was looking for a easy war. Problem is no wars are easy. Especially occupations. Easy to get into, hard to get out of.


"On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

[Chairboy]

In regards to the original video, I've read on some blog someone said that the soldiers were reprimanded and sent home, but I can find no verification.

Does anyone know if that's true?

Also, a Marine friend of mine found the video distasteful and said that while it was conceivable (he stressed that it wasn't likely, but possible) that they had received orders to crush the car, discharging their firearms into the car was a clear no-no because:
a. The vehicle did not pose am immediate threat.
b. because of item a, the risk of ricochet should have prevented them from firing.

He also mentioned that he would assume they could face courts martial for unauthorized discharge of firearm, even though it's a war zone.

Any thoughts?

[CyranoAH]

Naso Naso Naso... why did you have to ask for it?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by mosgood
ya, another thing to remember is that these troops did NOT get criminal justice schooling like a cop does.  They ARE just kids and are being asked to do something that they were NOT trained for.

You'd think people has common sense.. especially their officers should have some idea how things are done.