What War?

[KONG1]

Originally posted by crockett
First off it's not peace keeping if you started the war. I think that should be simple enough to figure out.

Started the war, won the war. Now just trying to suppress trouble makers from the outside while things are fixed from the inside. Better said: Keeping the Peace  to allow Democracy to take hold. Simple enough to figure out.

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Kong, I do believe we tread waters that we should not swim, here, or anywhere else...I think we should leave it as a fact that if a fella has to face the hell of shot and shell, he earns the right to call it whatever he wants. The rest of us are REMF's at best. It's not our place to say, if we respect vets' as we claim.

Actually everybody has the right to call anything whatever they want. Call a cat a car if you want. This is a question concerning accuracy originally asked by someone that faced "the hell of shot and shell".

Once again you seem to suggest that waging war is more noble than keeping peace. If you believe it is, I'd be interested in the reasoning behind it. Also, have you ever considered that calling it a war lends more respect and validity to the enemy than they deserve.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by crockett
First off it's not peace keeping if you started the war. I think that should be simple enough to figure out.

Yea we are doing great in Iraq. Anything wrong has to be the democrats fault...  

And since when do "peace keepers" violate international law?

IF we are to go by US law, international law, and UN definitions of "war"...
A country needs UN security Council approval for "war", which Bush failed miserably to get.. in part because his BS was transparent and in the end, the UN wasn't voting in favor of his half baked lunacy.. even with that ominous looking Photoshopped mobile WMD factory that looked wicked scary.

Otherwise, a nation can fight only in "self-defense" when attacked. Humm, I don't recall Iraq attacking US soil, granted a few years back then are hazy from my drug / alcohol abuse, but I think I'd remember Iraq attacking US soil.

So we have no UN approval, no attack and no worries of Iraq attacking US soil.. meaning Bush violated the following treaties by occupying Iraq:

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907
The Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928
The UN Charter
The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals
The Nuremberg Charter

These ridiculous treaties were put in place to keep the random sociopath who gains power from being an A-hole and starting crap unnecessarily... but the UN isn't AKA "United Neutered" for nothing... standing up to Bush with a final "nope" vote was all the intestinal fortitude they could muster.

All these treaties are the "law of the land" under Article VI of the US Constitution, BTW. So if the UN hasn't approved "war", and congress hasn't declared "war"... where's the war? other than in Bush / Cheney imagination.

All those clever anecdotal cliches our uncles, brothers and friends come up with to define "war" are cool and all that, but the so called leaders of the world have already decided on a definition of war, and it doesn't jive with whats going on in Iraq.

But we're Americans!! dad-gum it!!, we can tell the rest of the worlds leaders to go have sex with themselves!! we have the moral authority (and military and money) to do whatever we want, we don't need no stink'n treaties!! our leaders know the left / right clones unable to formulate thoughts of their own, will parrot the party talking points AS IF they had thought of it themselves. FTW, NWO is on the way beeeiaches, conform or die.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by KONG1
Someone should have called him on such a gross generalization.
 

Why?  I wasn't flying a F4U while Japanese pilots tried to shoot me down, nor was I flying F4Us while North Koreans were trying to shoot me down.  


ack-ack

[KONG1]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Why?  I wasn't flying a F4U while Japanese pilots tried to shoot me down, nor was I flying F4Us while North Koreans were trying to shoot me down.

Maybe because a hero like that deserves to be treated like a reasonably intelligent person rather than humored like a senile old grandma. Besides I would agree with his assessment of the Korean war, but that's not the subject of this thread.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by AWMac
If we won the war in Germany and Japan why are we driving BMWs and Toyotas?

Shouldn't Germany and Japan be driving Chevys and Fords?




Mac

I think the answer to the question of life, the universe and all that can be found if you can explain why American Jews buy GERMAN Bmw's.


But then again, it is entirely possible that aneurysms can be explained by someone trying to understand why they do it.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by FBBone
Would we?  We haven't been asked, yet you assume we wouldn't.  How do you know?  Simply put, you don't know either way, so why assume?  Political leaning I'd wager, but you're a scientist so you shouldn't give in to such emotions.  Please elaborate on why you think Bush wouldn't leave.  Thank you in advance.

I would say this...

We wouldn't leave for the very reasons we went to Iraq in the first place.  We didn't go there to "give Iraqis democracy".  We  know we didn't go to find WMD's.  There was much intelligence that there were none in the beginning.

We went to Iraq for two reasons, and ostensibly even a third....

#1.  Oil.  We all  know it.  Don't even try to argue this one.

#2.  Bases.   We need new bases in the middle east.  Nobody else wants us around anymore.  Saudis don't like us anymore.  Qatar,  UAE both want to cut down US presence in their countries.  We've ticked off Turkey twice too many times....and Israel has made it clear, no joint basing rights cuz they think a US presence there would only make things worse for them.  With the only other base being Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean.... amazing how we attack Iraq right when it seems all our basing rights are going buh bye....

#3.  Iran.  Americans pretty much have grown up to hate Iran.... and this administration HATES Iran.  The only thing with Iraq is, it was actually keeping Iran in check the whole time.  Iraq was partially a way to put us in a position to keep Iran in check.... A screwed up theory in itself, born from American fright paranoia.  


All of these reason are why I think we'd never leave Iraq, even if asked.  At least, put scientifically, that's my theory.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by MORAY37
I would say this...

We wouldn't leave for the very reasons we went to Iraq in the first place.  We didn't go there to "give Iraqis democracy".  We  know we didn't go to find WMD's.  There was much intelligence that there were none in the beginning.

We went to Iraq for two reasons, and ostensibly even a third....

#1.  Oil.  We all  know it.  Don't even try to argue this one.

#2.  Bases.   We need new bases in the middle east.  Nobody else wants us around anymore.  Saudis don't like us anymore.  Qatar,  UAE both want to cut down US presence in their countries.  We've ticked off Turkey twice too many times....and Israel has made it clear, no joint basing rights cuz they think a US presence there would only make things worse for them.  With the only other base being Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean.... amazing how we attack Iraq right when it seems all our basing rights are going buh bye....

#3.  Iran.  Americans pretty much have grown up to hate Iran.... and this administration HATES Iran.  The only thing with Iraq is, it was actually keeping Iran in check the whole time.  Iraq was partially a way to put us in a position to keep Iran in check.... A screwed up theory in itself, born from American fright paranoia.  


All of these reason are why I think we'd never leave Iraq, even if asked.  At least, put scientifically, that's my theory.

I would add that Saddam ditched the US dollar for the Euro and was going to sell oil in euros. Iran is about to do something similar, sell oil in euros... and put a crimp in the old "petrol dollar".

When we sell the Saudis et al military stuff, they pay us in US dollars... dollars they got from our oil purchases. They have an excess of US cheddar because currently all oil is purchased in the US dollar. When the euro enter the cycle, EU countries will no longer have to convert euros to dollars, at a loss, to buy oil... the end result being they pay more for oil. Thats all about to change and is pretty much supposed to screw the value of the buck big-time.

[lazs2]

moray.. your three points are not that far off the mark.   You off course make them sound negative but they are essentially true.

I would also say that we knew the sadman had pursued all sorts of WMD's in the past including nukes.. he also invaded kuwait... again... threatening our supply of oil and one of our few allies....

There is no sensible reason to think it would not get much worse under the sadman...  he most certainly would have pursued more nukes and WMD's the second he could..  He hated us for kicking his butt in kuwait...  we also had bad intel.. the world had bad intel... and....  he made himself appear to have the WMD's with his attitude.

For whatever reason...  the attacks here have stopped...  I don't really care about that so much... a few hundred thousand less blue voters vaporized is sad but.. there is an up side.

The rest?... yep.. we need oil... no solution.. the democrats won't let us get our own and they won't let us have nukes or even more refineries...

bases?  yep..  would be cool to have a friendly one there...

Iran?  yep.. they are nutjobs... gonna be problems some day no matter what.


lazs