Needs to be said about Bush & Iraq

[Gunslinger]

DMDNexus,


Your WHOLE statement...wich may be partley mostly or not at all true...doesnt matter in my opinion.

By your statement because we may have had a bad track record in the past means we do nothing in the present or in the future.  Its that same attitude that IMO got us in trouble in the first place.  By your statement becuase we may have supplied future terrorists in the past for what ever reason we dont fight them in the future because they threaten the lives of the innocent.

If your gonna complain bout the current administration and not offer any other opinion other than that he did wrong IMO you are ignorant....you cant offer a complaint with out offering a viable solution.

[Rude]

Originally posted by GScholz
If it were up to me, the invasion would not have taken place unless a credible justification was presented. Yes, that would in all likelihood leave Hussein in power to this day.

Well, guess what?

It's not up to you or your EU or the UN...sucks don't it? Looks like the only thing you get to do is come to a US owned and operated BBS and whine about how unfair the US is.

Knock yourself out...hope ya have fun.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by DmdNexus
Aberdeen proving grounds, secret chemical and biological experiments on US citizens up into the mid 70s.

Some type of documentation here? Or is this off one of your 'Black Helicopter Sighting' websites?

Anthrax experiments - to this day.

Trying - trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. What do you mean - *specifically* - by 'experiments'? Do you mean work with anthrax to develop vaccinations?

Nuclear tests in Arizona and New Mexico with military personelle exposed to radition.

True, but they had no idea what the effects would be. I'd call that 'inexperience' as opposed to 'evil experimentation'.

Jet pilots order to fly through mushroom clouds.

I have never heard of this. I have heard of aircraft flying near mushroom clouds to collect data/samples/etc.

Bikini Island - sailors told to stand and face the blast.

You forgot the 'while wearing protective eyewear' part. I had an Uncle who was there. He said it was one of the most amazing things he'd ever seen.

The US Governement tested WMD upon its own people.... mostly military personel... in some cases US cities were down wind of the fall out.

They tested nuclear weapons in the desert and had no clue as to what fallout was. It was a mistake caused by inexperience. My Mom grew up in a mining town in the middle of the desert in Utah. The cancer rate in that town was unbelievable. My Mom has had cancer numerous times. One of her Sisters died from leukemia that was determined to have been caused by fallout. The Government SCIENTISTS (yes, they determined how the tests were conducted, etc. so some 'evil government conspiracy to test weapons on the unsuspecting people' won't really hold up here - the guys involved with the nuclear program were recruited from the civilian sector - so if you are going to convene a war crimes tribunal don't forget to invite the academia) simply had no idea. And in the '70s and '80s the U.S. Government offered to heavily compensate (monetarily) almost everyone who was affected by the tests. Want to hear a shocker (for you)? A lot of the people affected passed on the compensation. They're pretty patriotic out there in those areas, and they figured that since the medical bills were already being covered...why take $$$ the U.S. Government could use elsewhere. Suffice it to say that's not a particularly 'liberally extreme' part of the Nation.

Let's not forget CIA assasinations and coups in other countries...

Yup, assassinating and overthrowing leaders propped up by Nations hostile to the U.S. and (sometimes) the Allies of the U.S. They were doing their job - like everyone else's intelligence services. The only difference is they were working from the disadvantage of representing an open, democratic society.

But your disdain is okay - dislike of the 'dirty play' *required* in covert and clandestine situations is disliked by many Americans both conservative and liberal. That just makes you guys naive - in a good way (not joking). But if you're going to list the coups and assassination (attempts - the KGB were the past masters of actual removal of people they wanted out of the way - and I say this with professional respect not with 'they're bad' disdain in my voice) performed by the CIA, please keep it in context. Every major power screwed over whoever they thought necessary in the intelligence war - and they still do. It's how the game is played. As the saying goes - "I hate to break it to you my American Friend but Benjamin Franklin was a diehard spy and he read other people's mail like you would not believe".

Iran Contra... remember that one? Arms given to terrorists in exchange for hostages..... when was that? 20 years ago... Bush Senior was involved in that fiasco.

What terrorist groups - be specific - were given arms? I think your memory on this is a little faulty. And Bush Senior was in charge of the CIA when some of the greatest victories in the history of American intelligence operations took place. Just because you hate the Bush Family does not mean they sucked at the various services they performed on behalf of the people of the U.S.A.

Yet.. when it comes to an international democratic vote and everyone votes against us... we go and invade a 3rd world country that was never an immediate threat to us.

'Everyone votes against us?' How about a dual homework assignment - you and me together. You list who voted against 'us', and I'll list who helped us. I gurantee I can list some Nations who voted for military action - so 'everyone' is a very, very inaccurate statement.

Self protection - hardly.

'So says a democratic hack with an axe to grind'. We'll keep your opinions in mind.

Not.

We say look they have WMD and they've used them on their own people - we must stop this evil..... yet look at our selves... we sold them the weapons... and we too are quilty of using WMD upon our own people.

What *weapons* did we sell Iraq? Be very specific please. If it happened, I'm sure you can find a detailed manifest on some French website (that probably won't list what Iraq was provided with by France and other Nations). So - to recap - I want a list of *weapons* (chemical and biological) that were sold or given to Iraq by the U.S.A.

Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.

No, they aren't. You're either lying here or you don't have a clue. The IRC was allowed (and still is) 'into the camp' and they don't have complaints. Amnesty International wants them declared 'POW' as opposed to 'enemy combatant', but like you, Amnesty International probably never bothered to read the Geneva Convention in detail - thus the assnine arguments/demands/requests.

Why doesn't Mr. Bush abide by this convention?

Because he does?

We would expect Iran, Iraq, China, and North Korea to abide by it if our military personel were captured.

Actually, we wouldn't 'expect' it. The word I got was if I wound up fighting Iranians, Iraqis, Chinese, or North Koreans was to 'save a couple of rounds for you and your wounded buddies'. If they did abide by it it would be a shocking and pleasant surprise. I guess you never heard about the U.S. POWs (That's UNIFORMED SERVICEMEN WHO SURRENDERED) who were photographed dead - one hole at the base of the skull and hands behind their backs tied at the wrists with barbed wire - courtesy of NK and Chicom troops during the Korean war.

Spare me the 'brutal U.S.' comments. We're Choirboys compared to most of the Nations in the world during wartime.

A captured enemy combatant is a prisoner of war

According to whom? Not the Geneva Convention (see above). I think (know) you have a very flawed understanding of the type of people being detained in Cuba. ATF soldiers who surrendered while wearing a uniform were not taken to Cuba. I know this because I was there several times when they were released to go back to their Family/village/etc.


Leaks of national secrets is punishable by death. Who ever leaked the CIA operatives name... should be executed.

Technically speaking, the leak of the (alleged) covert CIA officer's name is a felony, but it is not treason so it isn't punishable by death.

However, I think it should be. And I agree with you that whoever did leak the information - *if* such a leak occured, i.e. *if* the CIA employee in question had/was actually operating under a NOC - should be hanged...

...regardless of their political affiliation.

The truth will be told.

It will. 20 to 30 years from now for the most part. I'm tempted to have an 'AH BBS reunion' 30 years from now, just to see what people think. Archive the posts, etc.

Violence is stupid.

I'd have to say it is only when there is no cause or purpose. Sometimes violence is necessary. Like when Drex doesn't want to drink his JM.

Mike/wulfie

[mrblack]

Originally posted by AKIron
Say what you want. The fact remains that Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator who tortured and killed thousands. It seems to me that if it were up to you he would still be reigning terror upon his people, no?

But are they really worth American lives?
I dont think so our military is to protect us from our enemies.
At what point did saddum become our enemy?
Before or after we put him in power and gave him the technology to build WMD?

Look Im as glad as the next guy that that Jerk aint killing any more people and his Bastard sons are Dead.
But I am Sick to death of all the Metal coffins coming back to America.

This may sound harsh but I dont think those people are worth ONE American life!

[rpm]

Originally posted by Tumor
WASHINGTON (April 24, 2003) - The statement below was issued today by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi:
...  But there is no truth to any suggestion or assertion that VA`s budget will be "cut" or "slashed" next year.  In fact, funding for veterans programs will increase in fiscal year 2004, probably by record levels.

 President Bush`s fiscal year 2004 budget requests a record $63.6 billion for our nation`s veterans, including a nearly 8-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget for discretionary funding - which mostly pays for VA`s health care system -- and a 32-percent increase in overall funding since fiscal year 2001.  And the Budget Conference report the House and Senate agreed to on April 11 raises the suggested levels of discretionary funding for veterans by an additional $1.8 billion.

If that measure had passed, it would have lowered the amount of the record increase in funding President Bush proposed for veterans, but it would not have cut VA`s funding.  Lawmakers, however, quickly recognized the impact upon veterans and exempted VA from the across-the-board reductions.

So, despite rumors they may hear to the contrary, veterans and their families, including our newest generation of veterans, should rest secure in the knowledge that a grateful nation honors their service to America.


Nice try though

From Gannett News:

Meanwhile, New York's House Republicans are considering a number of options. Kelly has asked Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Syracuse, chairman of a House panel that oversees VA spending, to remove $225 million to implement top priorities of the plan when House and Senate negotiators write the final VA spending bill. The money is already in the House bill.

Other options being considered are a direct appeal to Bush and asking VA to voluntarily give the plan further study.

New York veterans agree with the move to slow down the CARES process. "The acronym CARES doesn't make sense," said Dan Griffin, who heads the Westchester chapter of Vietnam Veterans of America. "Who are they caring about? It's about the almighty dollar. It's supposed to be about veterans."

Nice try tho

[Preon1]

Originally posted by DmdNexus
LSD.... PCP...

Aberdeen proving grounds, secret chemical and biological experiments on US citizens up into the mid 70s.

Anthrax experiments - to this day.

Nuclear tests in Arizona and New Mexico with military personelle exposed to radition.

Jet pilots order to fly through mushroom clouds.

Bikini Island - sailors told to stand and face the blast.

What do all of these have in common?

The US Governement tested WMD upon its own people.... mostly military personel... in some cases US cities were down wind of the fall out.

DAMN, Nexus.  You forgot the use of flouride in our water to control our minds, the introduction of AIDS to pacify the populous, and the use of the VLA to communicate with aliens to direct precision meteor strikes on our enemies.

Just to clear something up.  I'm sure you've seen plenty of footage of US soldiers digging foxholes in a desert and then watching an artillery piece fire a nuclear shell down range.  Then, when the shock is done, the soldiers walk to the mushroom clouds.

Yes, this happened (my Dad was there).  What nobody realizes is that tactical nukes were made much safer (as far as fallout was concerned) in the late '70s and '80s.  The idea was that if we were going to roll over a Soviet tank column, we might have to nuke them and then assault their position.  Those soldiers walking into ground zero were all carrying geiger counters and RED badges.  The point was to show the soldiers that there was very little fallout and the ambient radiation was just slightly over what we get from the sky every day.  American nukes haven't been 'dirty' since the city killers of the early '60s.

[Nash]

[Tumor]

Originally posted by rpm371
Nice try tho

RPM...  I don't do google wars, but you really should read the whole article, I'll refrain from embarrasing you in public.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes why didn't the USA do something about Pol Pot? Why did they do something about Hussein?

I'll give you a clue, take a look in the mirror...

Now would you like to buy a vowel?

[Nash]

DmdNexus: Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.

Mike/wulfie: No, they aren't. You're either lying here or you don't have a clue.

Associated Press:
Red Cross Condemns Guantanamo Detentions
Fri Oct 10, By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

Reuters, 10.10.03, 2:57 PM ET:WASHINGTON - The International Red Cross said it was unacceptable that the United States continues to detain more than 600 people at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without charges or prospect of a timely trial.

But [the United States] refuses to treat the detainees as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and reserves the right to hold them indefinitely without bringing them to trial.

Nash: Not the first time you've used the "lying or doesn't have a clue" remark, Mike. Pot/kettle/black... shack?

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Nash
DmdNexus: Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.

Mike/wulfie: No, they aren't. You're either lying here or you don't have a clue.

Associated Press:
Red Cross Condemns Guantanamo Detentions
Fri Oct 10, By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

Reuters, 10.10.03, 2:57 PM ET:WASHINGTON - The International Red Cross said it was unacceptable that the United States continues to detain more than 600 people at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without charges or prospect of a timely trial.

But [the United States] refuses to treat the detainees as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and reserves the right to hold them indefinitely without bringing them to trial.

Nash: Not the first time you've used the "lying or doesn't have a clue" remark, Mike. Pot/kettle/black... shack?

Nash,

When DmdNexus said what he said:

'Now the International Red Cross is calling for us to abide by the Geneva convention in regards to those being detained for 9/11.'

'A captured enemy combatant is a prisoner of war'

I thought he was stating that the ICRC had said that the U.S. was in violation of the Geneva Convention. Amnesty International said this shortly after the detention center was opened (their charge was 'inhumane living conditions) and it was the ICRC that 'debunked' the AI charges when the U.S. allowed the ICRC to review the facility (this is where my thinking that maybe DmdNexus had confused the ICRC with AI came from, along with my comment about the ICRC 'finding nothing wrong').

I also took exception to what I thought his line of reasoning was: 'ICRC says U.S. in violation of Geneva Convention' = 'U.S. in violation of Geneva Convention'.

To be in violation of the Geneva Convention is a strong accusation. It usually has something to do with actions in the realm of war crimes. I did not feel that describing a difference of opinion between the ICRC and the U.S. over 'who is a POW and who is a battlefield detainee' as 'a violation of the Geneva Convention' was 'accurate wording', and to be honest - when considering the tone of most of DmdNexus posts - I thought he was intentionally mistating things. He has before.

The article which you posted a link to (an article which I had no idea existed - it was released by AP on the same day that my repsonse to DmdNexus was posted to the AH BBS) primarily addrsses concern over detainees mental state as affected by their lack of legal status and thus any certainty regarding their future (as opposed to inhumane treatment, torture, etc.) and ICRC concerns over the detainees not being given the due process and legal rights afforded to POWs (kind of an impasse as the U.S. considers itself to be classifying the detainees correctly as detainees as far as the Geneva Convention goes). DmdNexus statements, while apparently referring to the report that you listed, in fact deal with entirely different issues.

If he had posted the link you did, and/or worded things with any attention to accuracy I think a misunderstanding could have been avoided.

Did that make any sense?

Mike/wulfie

[wulfie]

Originally posted by GScholz
Mike/wulfie, you are right of course! It's not like Dr. Oppenheimer and his team had already figured out the theoretical fallout effects of atomic bombs before they were even made, and I'm sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a good indication of what would happen seeing how radioactivity was an unknown thing, and the Geiger counter suuuuuure as hell wasn't invented in 1928! (You're such a tool!)

I don't think they had theorized about fallout yet. And I'm fairly sure that the tests that caused fallout to impact the small towns in the midwest and southwest took place before the weapons were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My memory on it could be fuzzy, but I recall my Dad telling me how he saw the light from the first atom bomb test on the horizon while he was delivering papers in Salt Lake City, UT. and that was while the war was still going on.

Sorry to hear that you consider me a 'tool'.

Mike/wulfie

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Nash
shack?[/COLOR]

What does 'shack' mean? I know it's probably a 'put-down' but I was curious as to the specific meaning.

Mike/wulfie

[Nash]

Originally posted by wulfie
So Nash - I'd like your personal opinon. Be honest - do you think I was lying and/or 'clueless' with regards to the situation?
Mike/wulfie

It wasn't lying... but...

Unlike DmdNexus, you just weren't aware of the facts when you called him clueless or a liar for posting those facts. Which would put you in the "clueless" category (your labelling system, not mine), wouldn't you say?

"Shack" is a term used around here when one makes an irrefutable point. I have to confess, however... Due to the highly selective nature of its use, I'm not sure which is a more egregious abuse of AH BBS protocol; to use it referring to your own post, or to use it when it's not given as the official 'attaboy' response to a right wing/conservative/republican poster. No matter how good an argument you'll hear out of, say, MT, Dowding, Thrawn or Erlkonig, you'll never see it followed by the word "Shack" and some smug little emoticon... such as this:

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Nash

Nash,

I edited my response above to better explain where I was coming from.

By the way - is your squadron named after a band?

Mike/wulfie