Well there appears to be some indications that the Surge is working

[GarfieldJL]

Prime, I just said who considered the BBC to be the English version of Al Jazeerez. The Israelis do.

[mimartin]

I don’t know about all the Israeli people, but I think it pretty clear that GarfieldJL is correct and the Israeli Government at least feels that the BBC is clearly bias against the Jewish Nation.

 

From the little reading I've done I would say that they do seem very bias at first glance.

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article715471.ece

 

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525841951&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1183312,00.html

 

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Documenting_BBC_Documentaries.asp

[GarfieldJL]

mimartin, it isn't just the BBC though, the Guardian also has a bad reputation in Israel as well and your links show that as well.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Are you saying invading Iraq was anything but? He insulted whoever disagreed with his stance on war, fabricated evidence, and went over the head of the UN - all to get his precious Operation Iraqi Wrecking. For no good reason, as I have demonstrated.

In case you haven't heard, Saddam was bribing members of the security council, members like France, Russia, and China. Remember the Oil for Food Scam?

Are you implying that the Security Council refused the US to go into Iraq because of the said scam and the alleged bribery? Prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

Or are you implying that because the UN is corrupt, it should not be followed? What if I live in a shantytown with a corrupt police - is it suddenly OK to murder and rape and rob and then go, 'well, the cops can't exactly tell me to stop, can they, they're not following the law themselves'? Nope.

 

Oh, and if the US doesn't have to abide by the UN's wishes, this surely implies the rest of the world doesn't have to either, right? North Korea is free to make nukes and use them on the South in a full-scale invasion? China is free to start bombing Taiwan? Iran is free to lob missiles into Israel? Iraq would have been fully within its rights to get its hands on WMDs?

 

Yeah right, Bush isn't a warmonger, we were attacked on 9/11, and the Taliban weren't handing over Bin Laden they were trying to turn this into a negotiation.

What about rushing into an illegal preemptive attack on Iraq based on no evidence, then?

 

Let me spell it out to you, no matter what we showed them, they would have ruled that Bin Laden wasn't guilty.

 

Furthermore, Bush made it perfectly clear this wasn't up for negotiation.

You don't know that before you try. And as for it not being up for negotiation, that's the problem exactly: Dubya made it very clear from Day I on that he wouldn't even try any other alternative than war. He was going to ride with his gang into Dawson with guns drawn and smoke the enemy cowboys of their holes like the good Texan cowboy he was. While it may have felt good to the enraged people of the USA, including myself, in hindsight it was out of line. It's akin to a rogue SWAT leader having his teams storm the occupied hotel without even trying to negotiate with the hostage-keepers because 'ah, them darn'd thugs wouldn'ah listen'd anywaysh'. We'd be fighting World War XI by now if every leader of the civilized world acted as childishly as Dubya.

 

It would've been a far smarter move to talk to the Talibans - without simultaneously bombing them- and then, when or if they stonewalled in the face of evidence, go into Afghanistan in force. Bush's cowboy decision to start bombing before the half-hearted talks were even finished brought about massive international animosity and ruined the unparalleled sympathy given to the US by the entire world after 9/11 - the rest of the sympathy Bush would ruin when he bullied and insulted and elbowed his way into Iraq's oil fields.

 

We were attacked on 9/11, and unlike Bill Clinton, Bush wasn't going to lob a few missiles into a village, whine to the UN and call it a day.

I'm not going to dignify you by replying to your childish presumptions of what Clinton would've done if he had faced 9/11 on his watch.

 

Interestingly, You want to see reasons and evidence before Bush is impeached.

You'll probably want to see reasons and evidence before you support sending Rumsfeld off to Europe for trial.

But when the Talibans ask for reasons and evidence, you go to war against them. No, screw that, you started bombing them before they had a chance to even do that.

Okay, so what are you going to blame Bush for next, the Holocaust? What you're proposing is the US not to do anything after 9/11.

I don't understand how your reply applies to my post. Please explain.

 

But to answer your question, I blame the Dubya administration for quite a lot, and, unlike you, provided evidence for my statements. I provided you with the Downing Street Memo, which you have yet to address. And yes, as the quote above implies, I blame Rumsfeld for the torture of detainees. Why? Because he authorized and vehemently defended it.

 

And my point remains: I've heard of very few, if any, cases where nations just agree to send high-ranking people out of country for trial without some sort of discussion. To demand that they do is simply unrealistic, no matter who attacks who.

 

[First] We're fighting fanatics, we don't allow people to drill holes in people's hands, break their fingers, etc.

 

[Then]

Let me just first say, I'm against torture that being said the President is a catch 22 situation here. The captured terrorists often have information of plots to attack our troops or here in the US. Many of the torture cases have been proven to be just the CIA gone overboard or a group of soldiers that ended up being court martialed.

Make up your mind. Are you in favor of torture or are you not? And since the troops got court martialed, isn't it logical that Rumsfeld and the others who authorized and supported the torture should be brought to justice, too? Even mild torture is going completely overboard and breaking multiple human rights conventions.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

--UN Declaration of Human Rights

 

I'd rather have my fingers broken than suffer mental torture like what is being carried out by the USA.

 

BTW, the reasons to impeach Bush are faulty at best, more like a witch hunt. I'm glad we didn't have the press like we do now during WW 2, or Hitler would have won the war.

I registered your desire to return to a state of Imperial-style censorship the first time you uttered it. And the second through the tenth. You can stop now.

 

Furthermore let me spell out how the media is supporting the terrorists. The terrorists believe it or not watch our news they watch us reporting the troops getting killed day to day, the lack of support for the war, about how congress wants out on and on and on. This emboldens them leading them to attempt more and more attacks, the more spectacular and bloody the better to dishearten the American people even more.

And let me spell this out to you: Cite sources for your statements. Give me a verifiable, objective, believable source that says that terrorist attacks are increasing in intensity and numbers as result of 'terrorist-friendly' media. Or desist.

 

Also Wikipedia even states that your article as far as grounds for impeachment's neutrality is in dispute.

Yes, it's neutrality is in dispute. As opposed to its factual accuracy.

 

One of which is reducing Libby's sentence, which is a power spelled out in the United States Constitution! [...]

So it's OK to you that he's pardoning convicted criminals? I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they spelled out whatever part of the Constitution it is you're referring to (read: show me where in the Constitution this is spelled out).

 

The Dems never made any fuss over Clinton pardoning terrorists for his wife to get campaign money.

OK, please stop the 'well, look at what x did!' tactic. I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Clinton-supporter, and either way, others' crimes do not excuse those of Bush.

 

NSA Wiretapping: Contrary what the mainstream media and the Democrats have tried to lead people to believe, the wiretapping without a warrent did not occur with phone conversations where both parties were within the United States.

And why on Earth does that matter?

 

The wiretapping occurred when it was a phone call from a country like say Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan into the US and vice-versa often when the party outside the United States was a known terrorist.

Fine. Then get a warrant. If someone's a 'known terrorist', it should be very easy for the feds to do so, would it not?

 

Oh, and again, what makes this war and these terrorists so darned special? Ordinary criminals take more lives and cause more material damage to the States annually than terrorists, yet no one is asking for us to throw the Constitution out the window on their behalf.

Oh, and just who is the US at war with again? Iraq is occupied, Afghanistan is occupied. The terrorists are not a nation and can't be declared war upon:

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists

between that nation, and one or more others.

--Wikipedia

 

You can't declare war on obscure phenomenas such as terrorism, crime, drunk driving, obesity or global warming and suddenly be allowed to throw the rulebook out the window. Nice try, though.

 

Are you saying the NSA should have just hung up and stopped listening because the phone call was to someone in the United States?

Please cut the strawmen. I'm saying they should follow the law and get a warrant.

 

Also Congress knew about it beforehand

So Congress is part of committing the crime. This clears Dubya how?

 

Contrary to the Wikipedia article, Congress authorized the invasion into Iraq, the attempt to rewrite history is just plain sad.

I've pointed out to you already that this is a red herring. Breach of International Law is breach of International Law. The Bush Adminsitration has shown a total disregard for the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and the Declaration of Human Rights. Don't even try to make the invasion of Iraq look legal just because the aggressor authorized it. To put it another way, was it OK and legal for Iraq to invade Kuwait in 1991? After all, I'm sure that whatever checks and balances were in place in Saddam's party had been met, and by your opinion, the UN doesn't count, right?

 

So there is another reason for impeachment debunked. Only way congress can unauthorize it is to cut off funding for the troops... [yet another red herring omitted]

Cutting funding? You mean like this? Support the troops indeed.

 

Okay despite what many people are now trying to claim, the information Bush had at the time did seem to indicate Saddam was developing Nukes.

Again, read the Downing Street Memo, which I provided to you in an earlier post, and please - be the first Bush-supporter I've showed it to to actually address it. Yes, you'd be the first to do so, out of quite a number - they all went mysteriously silent when I present it to them. Wonder why:D.

 

As far as WMDs are concerned none have been currently found. However, if there wasn't any WMDs there, why was Saddam so adamently opposed to the weapons inspectors or giving them a run-around.

They weren't. Read the interview with Ritter I provided you.

 

Fact is there was a lot of traffic along the Syrian-Iraqi border. Who is to say the WMDs weren't smuggled out while we were busy trying to get UN support.

First of all, I don't believe nonexistent Weapons of Mass Deception are that easy to smuggle anywhere. Downing Street Memo, pal.

 

Second of all, you can't invade countries based on speculation. Do you know for sure that North Korea doesn't possess 100 nukes brought in from Russia? Nope. But on the other hand, there's no evidence to suggest they have bought themselves nuclear weapons from Russia, so no invasion is warranted. Get my point? You don't have to prove people and nations innocent to go against them - you have to prove them guilty.

 

Third of all, the bulk of his WMDs were chemical weapons, which have a very short shelf life. One of the weapons it was implied that Saddam possessed was Sarin gas - which has a shelf life of weeks to months. The fact that the general public of the US has somehow avoided having this pointed out to them is simply frightening.

 

And finally, it's incredibly far-fetched that Saddam should ship out his weapons when he faced a full-scale invasion. How can you claim he was a trigger-happy monster ready to use NBCs at us or Israel and thus should be invaded - and at the same time claim he got rid of them and thus should be invaded? Make up your mind, please.

 

Excuse me but we captured them in Afghanistan, in many cases we asked their countries of origin to take them back and their own home country refused to take them back. What is being proposed is just letting them go, where they'll end up attacking us again.

What is being proposed is that they're given a free trial and then either punished (if found guilty) or freed (if not found guilty). That's how this annoying pinky-liberal phenomenon of 'justice' works. You've probably heard of it.

 

Back in World War 2...

Again:eek:? You really miss that age of semi-democracy and Imperialism, don't you?

 

Okay if the media isn't supporting terrorists why isn't the good news being reported?

For the last time, this would be because the media almost never reports the good news on anything.

 

As a matter of fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that they also report on car accidents every day. By your reasoning, this means that they support car accidents, right, since they only report the bad news on them, day in and day out?

[GarfieldJL]

Are you implying that the Security Council refused the US to go into Iraq because of the said scam and the alleged bribery? Prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

You want information on this you got it in spades.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

 

http://slate.com/id/2111195/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-17-oil-for-food_x.htm

The $64 billion oil-for-food program operated under U.N. oversight from 1996 to 2003. According to the Volcker report, it attracted a large and unusual cast of participants, from Australian wheat farmers to Russian politicians, former French diplomats, U.S. oilmen and Iranian terrorists. Some of the money paid to Iraq in kickbacks and bribes may be funding insurgents who are killing U.S. troops in Iraq, the report says.

 

The scandal tarnished Annan, whose son, Kojo, worked for a Swiss company that obtained a contract from the program. A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that 48% of Americans have a positive view of the United Nations, down from 77% four years ago.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

The list includes former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, the "director of the Russian President's office," the Russian Communist Party, the Ukraine Communist Party, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the son of Lebanese President Emile Lahud, the son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass, and George Galloway, a British Member of Parliament.

 

Ominously, the list also implicates U.N. Assistant Secretary General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the Oil-for-Food program, who has stringently denied any wrongdoing. Sevan, a longtime U.N. bureaucrat with close ties to Kofi Annan, has taken an extended vacation, pending retirement later this month.

 

More from same article:

No fewer than 46 Russian and 11 French names appear on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list. The Russian government is alleged to have received an astonishing $1.36 billion in oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein.

 

The close ties between French and Russian politicians and the Iraqi regime may have been an important factor in influencing their governments' decision to oppose Hussein's removal from power. They also highlight the close working relationships between Moscow and Baghdad and between Paris and Baghdad, and the huge French and Russian financial interests in pre-liberation Iraq.

 

Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country's oil wealth. French oil giant Total Fina Elf had won contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq, which contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil (25 percent of Iraq's oil reserves). Russian company Lukoil had won the contract to develop the West Qurna field, also in southern Iraq, which has an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil.

 

Political and military ties between Moscow and Baghdad were extensive. Documents found in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi intelligence service under Hussein) reveal the full extent of intelligence cooperation between the Russian and Iraqi governments. According to reports in the London Sunday Telegraph:

 

Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders. Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries.

The Russians are also believed to have sold arms to Iraq illegally right up until the outbreak of war with the United States in March 2003. The Bush Administration has accused Russian arms dealers of selling anti-tank guided missiles, electronic jamming equipment, and thousands of night vision goggles to the Iraqis in open violation of U.N. sanctions.13 During Hussein's dictatorship, Russia reportedly provided him with $14 billion worth of arms shipments.

 

Evidence has also come to light of intimate political cooperation between Paris and Baghdad in the period leading up to the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein. Documents found in the wreckage of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry reveal that "Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington."

 

Officials in the French Foreign Office reportedly shared information with their Iraqi counterparts on a sensitive meeting between former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell following the terrorist attacks on September 11. Details of talks between French President Jacques Chirac and President George W. Bush were also reportedly passed on to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry by the French ambassador in Baghdad.

 

I've just gotten started on finding things btw.

 

Or are you implying that because the UN is corrupt, it should not be followed? What if I live in a shantytown with a corrupt police - is it suddenly OK to murder and rape and rob and then go, 'well, the cops can't exactly tell me to stop, can they, they're not following the law themselves'? Nope.

 

I'm implying that members of the UN security council was on Saddam's payroll, that said members were not complying with the UN resolutions.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

 

The UN just wasn't going to enforce their own resolution, so we decided to enforce it.

 

Oh, and if the US doesn't have to abide by the UN's wishes, this surely implies the rest of the world doesn't have to either, right? North Korea is free to make nukes and use them on the South in a full-scale invasion? China is free to start bombing Taiwan? Iran is free to lob missiles into Israel? Iraq would have been fully within its rights to get its hands on WMDs?

 

Read Resolution 1441, it's not our fault the UN wasn't going to back us when we enforced their own Resolution.

 

What about rushing into an illegal preemptive attack on Iraq based on no evidence, then?

 

We had multiple legitimate reasons to invade.

 

1. Saddam providing money to families of suicide bombers to encourage more suicide bombing in Israel whom is a US ally.

 

2. Firing on United States Military Aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zone.

 

3. Resolution 1441 which required him to prove that he didn't have WMDs and/or allow inspectors in with unrestricted access to destroy any WMDs or suffer serious consequences.

 

You don't know that before you try. And as for it not being up for negotiation, that's the problem exactly: Dubya made it very clear from Day I on that he wouldn't even try any other alternative than war. He was going to ride with his gang into Dawson with guns drawn and smoke the enemy cowboys of their holes like the good Texan cowboy he was. While it may have felt good to the enraged people of the USA, including myself, in hindsight it was out of line. It's akin to a rogue SWAT leader having his teams storm the occupied hotel without even trying to negotiate with the hostage-keepers because 'ah, them darn'd thugs wouldn'ah listen'd anywaysh'. We'd be fighting World War XI by now if every leader of the civilized world acted as childishly as Dubya.

 

Very funny, we were attacked on 9/11 and the Taliban gave Bin Laden sanctuary. Bush made it clear it wasn't up for negotiation Bush isn't like Clinton whom let Saddam go multiple times. He gave them time to fork over Bin Laden, they refused Bush had the troops go in.

 

It would've been a far smarter move to talk to the Talibans - without simultaneously bombing them- and then, when or if they stonewalled in the face of evidence, go into Afghanistan in force. Bush's cowboy decision to start bombing before the half-hearted talks were even finished brought about massive international animosity and ruined the unparalleled sympathy given to the US by the entire world after 9/11 - the rest of the sympathy Bush would ruin when he bullied and insulted and elbowed his way into Iraq's oil fields.

 

It's starting to sound like you're just out to blame Bush. The UN wasn't going to enforce its own resolution in fact it could be argued that due to Bush trying to go through the UN we lost more American lives than if he had just decided to go into Iraq from the get-go.

 

I'm not going to dignify you by replying to your childish presumptions of what Clinton would've done if he had faced 9/11 on his watch.

 

It's not childish to predict how someone would react based on past behavior.

 

Terrorist attacks Clinton failed to or inadequately responded to (not in order)

1st World Trade Center Bombing

USS Cole

US Embasy bombings

 

Judging from those past instances of inaction one can probably predict how Bill Clinton would have reacted if 9/11 had been on his watch.

 

But to answer your question, I blame the Dubya administration for quite a lot, and, unlike you, provided evidence for my statements. I provided you with the Downing Street Memo, which you have yet to address. And yes, as the quote above implies, I blame Rumsfeld for the torture of detainees. Why? Because he authorized and vehemently defended it.

 

The downingstreetmemo site is a left wing anti-war activist site, it's hardly reputable source.

 

Also, I'd like to see what Rumsfeld said word for word, rather than read what a bunch of commentators at CNN said he said.

 

And my point remains: I've heard of very few, if any, cases where nations just agree to send high-ranking people out of country for trial without some sort of discussion. To demand that they do is simply unrealistic, no matter who attacks who.

 

Bin Laden wasn't a member of their government, and the Taliban did know Bin Laden had conducted through his organization attacks on the US in the recent past.

 

1st World Trade Center bombing

Bombings of US Embasies

USS Cole

 

Make up your mind. Are you in favor of torture or are you not? And since the troops got court martialed, isn't it logical that Rumsfeld and the others who authorized and supported the torture should be brought to justice, too? Even mild torture is going completely overboard and breaking multiple human rights conventions.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

--UN Declaration of Human Rights

 

Again I would like to see what was actually said, because I pay close attention to politics and I know how the media distorts what people say.

 

I'd rather have my fingers broken than suffer mental torture like what is being carried out by the USA.

 

So you think we should provide them with things they can and have used on our soldiers as weapons and you consider that to be torture. Some things that happened like at Abu Grabe (sp?) was wrong and the people involved were punished.

 

I registered your desire to return to a state of Imperial-style censorship the first time you uttered it. And the second through the tenth. You can stop now.

 

You can stop implying that I'm trying to do anything of the sort, you can also stop trying to twist my words to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not. When I'm saying that the media shouldn't provide aid and comfort to the enemy, like how the media was censored (for good reason) in World War 2, it's common sense, you don't provide information that your enemy that you're fighting can use against you.

 

And let me spell this out to you: Cite sources for your statements. Give me a verifiable, objective, believable source that says that terrorist attacks are increasing in intensity and numbers as result of 'terrorist-friendly' media. Or desist.

 

mimartin has provided some, I've provided some, I've provided some in multiple threads actually. I'm sorry that you consider some heavily biased places to be objective.

 

So it's OK to you that he's pardoning convicted criminals? I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they spelled out whatever part of the Constitution it is you're referring to (read: show me where in the Constitution this is spelled out).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1

The President, furthermore, may grant pardons or reprieves. Pardons may not be granted in cases of impeachment. Originally, the pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Biddle v. Perovich, however, the Supreme Court reversed the doctrine, ruling that "a pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."

 

Fine. Then get a warrant. If someone's a 'known terrorist', it should be very easy for the feds to do so, would it not?

 

Because the guy whose phone they are originally trying to intercept the communications from in the first place isn't in the United States. The Feds didn't know anything about the person on the other end that happened to be in the US until the phone conversation. So you're saying they should have just hung up on that?

 

Oh, and again, what makes this war and these terrorists so darned special? Ordinary criminals take more lives and cause more material damage to the States annually than terrorists, yet no one is asking for us to throw the Constitution out the window on their behalf.

Oh, and just who is the US at war with again? Iraq is occupied, Afghanistan is occupied. The terrorists are not a nation and can't be declared war upon:

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists

between that nation, and one or more others.

--Wikipedia

 

We can declare war on the countries that support terrorism though.

 

First of all, I don't believe nonexistent Weapons of Mass Deception are that easy to smuggle anywhere. Downing Street Memo, pal.

 

Oh so you mean you don't believe in the several tons of Anthrax the purchased by Iraq because someone in the US state dept. stupidly sold to Iraq back during the Iran/Iraq war.

 

Second of all, you can't invade countries based on speculation. Do you know for sure that North Korea doesn't possess 100 nukes brought in from Russia? Nope. But on the other hand, there's no evidence to suggest they have bought themselves nuclear weapons from Russia, so no invasion is warranted. Get my point? You don't have to prove people and nations innocent to go against them - you have to prove them guilty.

 

Have we invaded North Korea recently? There was more than one reason to go into Iraq. Many of those reasons (and I'm not talking about oil) were already proven to be happening and at least one of them Saddam was boasting about.

 

Third of all, the bulk of his WMDs were chemical weapons, which have a very short shelf life. One of the weapons it was implied that Saddam possessed was Sarin gas - which has a shelf life of weeks to months. The fact that the general public of the US has somehow avoided having this pointed out to them is simply frightening.

 

Based on what Saddam was able to get from France and Russia in violation of UN resolutions, it's not unreasonable to assume he could make more relatively quickly.

 

And finally, it's incredibly far-fetched that Saddam should ship out his weapons when he faced a full-scale invasion. How can you claim he was a trigger-happy monster ready to use NBCs at us or Israel and thus should be invaded - and at the same time claim he got rid of them and thus should be invaded? Make up your mind, please.

 

He did use chemical weapons on his own people, I don't recall the US deliberately dropping Nukes on towns in the United States.

 

Again:eek:? You really miss that age of semi-democracy and Imperialism, don't you?

 

Again quit your character assassination attempts, it's annoying.

 

As a matter of fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that they also report on car accidents every day. By your reasoning, this means that they support car accidents, right, since they only report the bad news on them, day in and day out?

 

Last time I checked we weren't at war with automobiles or the automotive industry.

[Prime]

Prime, I just said who considered the BBC to be the English version of Al Jazeerez. The Israelis do.

Ah. When I read it I took it to mean that certain parties looked at the BBC the way Israelis view Al Jazeerez. My mistake.

[mimartin]

mimartin, it isn't just the BBC though, the Guardian also has a bad reputation in Israel as well and your links show that as well.

 

And that has to do with what? I don't follow you.

 

I was agreeing with you on the BBC, I thought the discussion was about the BBC. I was trying not to turn this into another "the media is bias thread", but wanted to add what I read that supported your side of the debate about the BBC. I’m sure people think the Guardian is, I know people think Fox News is, but that has nothing to do with the BBC.

[Jae Onasi]

I'm not going to dignify you by replying to your childish presumptions

Then don't bother mentioning it in the first place, especially if you're going to skate the flame line.

Again:eek:? You really miss that age of semi-democracy and Imperialism, don't you?

That's not necessary, and certainly isn't in the spirit of this forum. I recognize you feel very strongly about this issue, but keep it in the civil realm.

 

Garfield, likewise, make sure you keep the discussion civil.

[Totenkopf]

Are you implying that the Security Council refused the US to go into Iraq because of the said scam and the alleged bribery? Prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.Or are you implying that because the UN is corrupt, it should not be followed? What if I live in a shantytown with a corrupt police - is it suddenly OK to murder and rape and rob and then go,

'well, the cops can't exactly tell me to stop, can they, they're not following the law themselves'? Nope.

 

Oh, and if the US doesn't have to abide by the UN's wishes, this surely implies the rest of the world doesn't have to either, right? North Korea is free to make nukes and use them on the South in a full-scale invasion? China is free to start bombing Taiwan? Iran is free to lob missiles into Israel? Iraq would have been fully within its rights to get its hands on WMDs?

 

In a word, yes. To all of the above even. Last I checked, the UN hadn't yet become the One World Government with authority over all nations. It's still largely a (bloated and hopelessly corrupt) deliberative body with no effective means of imposing its will over anyone. If you have no power to enforce your will, you have no real authority, hence I'm not legally obliged to pay you any heed. Also, as in the case of your shanty town example, you confuse moral imperatives with legal ones. Just b/c the "legal authorities" are unjust, doesn't make it ok for you, but then neither are they in any real position to punish you as they've already made a mockery of the law and invalidated themselves. This generally tends to lead to revolution if the "criminal" becomes more powerful than the government in question. As to your point about the UNSC, I'm not sure that the allegation is that the SC itself was "corrupted", but that members of key nations (ie w/veto powers) were compromised. The guys voting on the council, like good little nazis/bureaucrats (ve have our orders) just vote as they are instructed. BTW, NK and SK are officially still at war (on paper anyway, much like w/Iraq, if you recall). I'm not aware of any statute of limitations that allows that to run out if the option is not exercised w/in a specified period. But, I must say that you are hopelessly naive if you believe that opposition to the Iraq war was based on anything other than the principle of greed (I'm speaking of nations here, btw).

 

 

What about rushing into an illegal preemptive attack on Iraq based on no evidence, then?

 

As there was a cease fire, albeit 12 years old, in place, it was not an illegal attack, just a resumption of hostilities.

You don't know that before you try. It would've been a far smarter move to talk to the Talibans - without simultaneously bombing them- and then, when or if they stonewalled in the face of evidence, go into Afghanistan in force. Bush's cowboy decision to start bombing before the half-hearted talks were even finished brought about massive international animosity and ruined the unparalleled sympathy given to the US by the entire world after 9/11 - the rest of the sympathy Bush would ruin when he bullied and insulted and elbowed his way into Iraq's oil fields.

 

Seriously, DE, you really believe this corny drivel? I know that it's the delusion on what much of diplomacy (such as it is) is based, but these beliefs have pretty much been shattered by history over and over again. The idea that somehow, if we just talk, we can iron things out, is plainly silly. Oh, it works (somewhat) if you have "mature" governments working out trade disputes and the like. It does NOT work with terrorists and their backers, who only use such attempts to replenish their coffers and warchests till the next series of incidents. The only reason Ghadaffi even turned over his materials was b/c he knew what might be in store if he didn't. Don't think he was looking for a repeat of 1986. Look what all the diplomatic hot air has accomplished w/Iran. Zippo. Syria. Bupkiss As for the world's sympathy, they can cram it. That and a quarter won't even get you a **** cup of coffee anymore.

 

Why? Because he authorized and vehemently defended it.

 

I think I missed the part in the article where Rummy "vehemently" defends anything.

 

Make up your mind. Are you in favor of torture or are you not? And since the troops got court martialed, isn't it logical that Rumsfeld and the others who authorized and supported the torture should be brought to justice, too? Even mild torture is going completely overboard and breaking multiple human rights conventions.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

--UN Declaration of Human Rights

 

Is this the same UN that has it's Human Rights Committee helmed by a bunch of human rights abusers? Apparently it doesn't take its own stance on human rights too seriously either.

 

I'd rather have my fingers broken than suffer mental torture like what is being carried out by the USA.

 

You do realize that breaking your fingers would be the equivalent of an ourderve (sp?)?

 

And let me spell this out to you: Cite sources for your statements. Give me a verifiable, objective, believable source that says that terrorist attacks are increasing in intensity and numbers as result of 'terrorist-friendly' media. Or desist.

 

Raises the question of bias. What you would consider "objective/believable" may vary radically from someone else. Second, insurgencies and insurrections eventually die off without the oxygen of attention. Like a tree in the forest, if no one hears it fall, did it effectively make any noise?

 

So it's OK to you that he's pardoning convicted criminals? I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they spelled out whatever part of the Constitution it is you're referring to (read: show me where in the Constitution this is spelled out).

 

Maybe one should ask if a governor should even be able to commute a death sentence for a convicted criminal. As I understand it, the use of the pardon, while controversial, is allowed.

 

Fine. Then get a warrant. If someone's a 'known terrorist', it should be very easy for the feds to do so, would it not?

 

Much depends on the type of judge you have to rely on. I'm sure if it were you, it would be extremely hard to get that warrant.

 

Oh, and again, what makes this war and these terrorists so darned special? Ordinary criminals take more lives and cause more material damage to the States annually than terrorists, yet no one is asking for us to throw the Constitution out the window on their behalf.

Oh, and just who is the US at war with again? Iraq is occupied, Afghanistan is occupied. The terrorists are not a nation and can't be declared war upon:

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists

between that nation, and one or more others.

--Wikipedia

 

"Ordinary criminals" don't tend to attack the armed forces of another nation or inflict 10s of billions of dollars of damage on their victims in a small handful of attacks.

 

You can't declare war on obscure phenomenas such as terrorism, crime, drunk driving, obesity or global warming and suddenly be allowed to throw the rulebook out the window. Nice try, though.

 

I guess that pretty much explains the war against piracy in the 17th/18th centuries or the use of the US Marines against the Barbary piratres in the early 19th century. Nice oversight.

 

Breach of International Law is breach of International Law. The Bush Adminsitration has shown a total disregard for the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and the Declaration of Human Rights. Don't even try to make the invasion of Iraq look legal just because the aggressor authorized it. To put it another way, was it OK and legal for Iraq to invade Kuwait in 1991? After all, I'm sure that whatever checks and balances were in place in Saddam's party had been met, and by your opinion, the UN doesn't count, right?

 

The ruling members, as well as many of the members, of the UN practice a high degree of exceptionalism in observing the wishes and dictates of the UN. Seeing as how Iraq is not ruled by the UN, it matters little what the UN has to say about anything. But I've already covered this above.

 

They weren't. Read the interview with Ritter I provided you.

 

Isn't this the same Ritter who then went on to take $$ from Iraqi interests? Kind of deflates his objective status.

 

First of all, I don't believe nonexistent Weapons of Mass Deception are that easy to smuggle anywhere. Downing Street Memo, pal.

 

DSM is a somewhat overhyped piece of analysis. The DSM doesn't even address how easy or hard it would be to shuttle things around. All the more so if one is discussing chemical weapons (the poor man's nuke) and biological agents. The DSM is still only the analysis of a group of people and not an unimpeachable document.

 

Second of all, you can't invade countries based on speculation.

 

It would be somewhat imprudent, but not unheard of.

 

 

Third of all, the bulk of his WMDs were chemical weapons, which have a very short shelf life. One of the weapons it was implied that Saddam possessed was Sarin gas - which has a shelf life ofweeks to months. The fact that the general public of the US has somehow avoided having this pointed out to them is simply frightening.

 

It is the relative ease with which chemical weapons can be produced that's their most alarming characteristic. Also, if the weapons are binary in form, their shelf life is much greater. And it's not as if sarin were the only option out there.

 

And finally, it's incredibly far-fetched that Saddam should ship out his weapons when he faced a full-scale invasion. How can you claim he was a trigger-happy monster ready to use NBCs at us or Israel and thus should be invaded - and at the same time claim he got rid of them and thus should be invaded? Make up your mind, please.

 

I don't believe that the fear was as much that they might be used against the invading forces as that they might be used against Israel. Couple that with the knowledge that use of those weapons in the field would've sealed his doom, or certainly his military's demise. He may well have thought that if he were captured, he'd be "rescued" from any fate by the UN. But, he's dead now, so speculation on his motives is moot.

 

What is being proposed is that they're given a free trial and then either punished (if found guilty) or freed (if not found guilty). That's how this annoying pinky-liberal phenomenon of 'justice' works. You've probably heard of it.

 

Wow, do free trials really exist (I thought that was only a marketing concept. )

[GarfieldJL]

Oh more good news, another Al-Qaeda leader has been captured.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289727,00.html

[Prime]

That is good news.

[mimartin]

Oh more good news, another Al-Qaeda leader has been captured.

 

Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani now that is indeed a mouthful. Very good news, but another will soon take his place. Unless we can stop the flow of weapons and money there will always be another ready to assume leadership. Anyway I just hope this helps the moral of the troops and shows America that the our troops are not the reason thing have gone badly in Iraq. Without our dedicated well trained troops things would be a lot worst over there.

[GarfieldJL]

Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani now that is indeed a mouthful. Very good news, but another will soon take his place. Unless we can stop the flow of weapons and money there will always be another ready to assume leadership. Anyway I just hope this helps the moral of the troops and shows America that the our troops are not the reason thing have gone badly in Iraq. Without our dedicated well trained troops things would be a lot worst over there.

 

 

Well, problem is that the money and stuff is probably coming from Iran and Syria, as well as Islamic Charities.

[mimartin]

Well, problem is that the money and stuff is probably coming from Iran and Syria, as well as Islamic Charities.

The Government knows where the money is coming from the problem is how do we stop, the money, the men, and weapons from getting into Iraq. Until we figure that out the death toll will continue to rise.

 

I am not comparing the battles or the outcome, but just from a supply stand point this is starting to look a lot like Vietnam. The American military is designed to cut off the enemy’s supply lines, the problem here like Vietnam the enemy’s supply lines are so low tech they are impossible to cut off. I’m sure it is just as difficult to find and stop a couple men traveling through desert at night as it was to stop them walking through the jungle at night. Even if you do find them tomorrow there will be two more traveling a different route.

[GarfieldJL]

There are several key differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

 

1. If we leave the enemy will follow us home, because the people we are fighting are fanatics.

2. Many groups we were fighting not too long ago are now joining our troops in fighting Al Qaeda, having had enough of their tactics.

3. Advances in technology allow satellites to watch the borders if need be.

4. A large number of the people we are fighting now are not even Iraqis, they are led by people whom aren't Iraqis etc.

 

Similarities to Vietnam:

1. the News media reporting to try to stir opposition to the troops and pull our forces out.

2. Antiwar activists that don't care what the consequences will be.

3. It's a tough fight where the enemy tries to hide behind civilians.

[mimartin]

There are several key differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

I am not comparing the battles or the outcome, but just from a supply stand point

 

As I wrote I was not comparing anything, but the supply lines.

 

But since you brought it up the major similarity (and the only one that matter) many young Americans are coming home in body bags or with wounds they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

[GarfieldJL]

But since you brought it up the major similarity (and the only one that matter) many young Americans are coming home in body bags or with wounds they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

 

 

Doesn't that happen in any war we've been in, clear back to the Revolutionary War? Heck it happens to any country in a war.

[mimartin]

I don't know did they have body bags during the Revolutionary War?

 

There are several key differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

 

If we leave the enemy will follow us home, because the people we are fighting are fanatics.

 

You’ve said this numerous times, but my question is if our borders where shut down like they should be, how would they get here?

 

You are right about the Muslims we are fighting being fanatics; do you think our occupying their holy land is causing more to become “fanatics”?

 

Many groups we were fighting not too long ago are now joining our troops in fighting Al Qaeda, having had enough of their tactics.

Or could it be that we are training and supplying the very people that our soldiers will be fighting again next week? Could it be that they are learning our tactics in order to become more proficient at killing our own troops? That is the difficulty in fighting a guerrilla war, you never really know who the enemy is, but they know what the Americans look like.

 

Advances in technology allow satellites to watch the borders if need be.

Then we must have a very big blind spot! If we have the technology to prevent the insurgence from being re-supplied with weapons, man power and money why haven’t we stop them? If we could do that then most of the troops could be home by Christmas and we would have won the war. Or is it National Security preventing us from using this technology in that we don’t want to give away what our capability is?

 

A large number of the people we are fighting now are not even Iraqis, they are led by people whom aren't Iraqis etc.

Agreed, but they are Middle Eastern and they are getting into the country and killing our troops. Until we stop that our troops will continue to suffer.

 

Similarities to Vietnam:

the News media reporting to try to stir opposition to the troops and pull our forces out.

I have not seen any reporting of that type at least from the main stream media. I’ve seen them cover the news and articles that were slightly off center to the left and the right, but not to the point of stir opposition to the troops. I have seen them stir some opposition to the Commander and Chief, but not the troops. I have seen Blogs that attempted to do this however.

 

Antiwar activists that don't care what the consequences will be.

 

Proof? I’m antiwar and I care about not only what happens to our troops, but what happens to the people of Iraq. Don’t you really mean some antiwar activists don’t care about the consequences of a US withdrawal?

 

It's a tough fight where the enemy tries to hide behind civilians.

 

True again and just why the greatest military in the history of this planet did not foresee this happening escapes me. It could be because those in charge criminally miscalculated the insurgence in it infancy and disregard the advice of military commanders on the ground when we could have stopped the insurgence in its tracks.

 

In Vietnam there was a back lash against American troops in this country. What the American people did and said about troops that fought and died for their country is unforgivable. Just because someone disagree with the war in Iraq does not mean they do not support the troops and I find it offensive that you would suggest that someone antiwar (such as myself) is against the troops.

[Achilles]

There are several key differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

 

1. If we leave the enemy will follow us home, because the people we are fighting are fanatics.

I fail to see how this is significantly different than the "domino effect" that was frequently referenced during the vietnam conflict. The policy makers had us convinced that if Vietnam fell to the communists then world-wide domination of the communist regime would be inevitiable. Clearly it was not.

 

This is not to say that the present concerns about Iraq are unfounded, however I see history repeating and need a little more convincing.

 

2. Many groups we were fighting not too long ago are now joining our troops in fighting Al Qaeda, having had enough of their tactics.

The US gov't via the CIA (and/or OSS depending on which era we're referencing) helped to train indigenous people in Laos and Cambodia to help fight against the Northern Vietnamese.

 

3. Advances in technology allow satellites to watch the borders if need be.

Watch stations and regular patrols did nothing to prevent the vietnamese from creating intricate underground tunnels and living spaces. Putting hundreds of geosychronous spy satelittes over the mid-east isn't going to help us indentify which Syrian vistors are students and which are terrorist, etc. We can't use techology to monitor a few hundred miles of southern US border in our own country, but we can rely on satelittes to monitor the entire perimeter of Iraq? And what happens at night?

 

4. A large number of the people we are fighting now are not even Iraqis, they are led by people whom aren't Iraqis etc.

Source please? Assuming for a moment that your point is accurate, how does this make it a "key" difference between Iraq and Vietnam? The Vietnam conflict was about freedom from western oppressors. The insurgents in Iraq (whether they were born their or not) are fighting for the exact same thing.

 

Similarities to Vietnam:

1. the News media reporting to try to stir opposition to the troops and pull our forces out.

I haven't seen any news media outlet trying to stir opposition against our troops. I've seen a great deal of opposition being raised against our policies and our being there, but the support for our troops seems to be unanimous (except, arguably, from the gov't).

 

2. Antiwar activists that don't care what the consequences will be.

I suppose that depends a great deal upon your persepective. I care a great deal that our being there is could potentially create 2 or 3 future generations of people that hate us and want to fly planes into our buildings. It concerns me a great deal that 2 or 3 or more factions seem to be dead-set on killing one another regardless of our presence, therefore it stands to reason that our presence is a non-point. Which then makes our continued presence a curiousity.

 

It concerns me a great deal that I cannot think of a single instance in which a native, organized rebel force was successfully repressed by a foreign military with superior technology. I'm sure Nancy Allen might want to jump in with a star wars reference, however I'm thinking more along the lines of Brits vs. the American colonists, the French vs. the Vietnamese, the Americans vs. the Vietnamese, the Soviets vs. the Afghans, and the Americans vs. the Iraqis.

 

It seems to me that there is a substantial history of rag-tag, but dedicated and organized rebel fighters rising up to defeat "invaders" that boast superior military forces. In other words, I care a great deal that more of my countrymen might die in a conflict they can't win.

 

If Iraq wants to tear itself apart, I say we try to find a way to get the non-combatants out and then let them go nuts. We're so concerned that they want to fight us, but it appears that they only want to fight each other.

 

3. It's a tough fight where the enemy tries to hide behind civilians.

Yep sure is.

 

Thanks for reading.

[GarfieldJL]

I fail to see how this is significantly different than the "domino effect" that was frequently referenced during the vietnam conflict. The policy makers had us convinced that if Vietnam fell to the communists then world-wide domination of the communist regime would be inevitiable. Clearly it was not.

 

This is not to say that the present concerns about Iraq are unfounded, however I see history repeating and need a little more convincing.

 

The US gov't via the CIA (and/or OSS depending on which era we're referencing) helped to train indigenous people in Laos and Cambodia to help fight against the Northern Vietnamese.

 

Okay the difference here is the people we're fighting are religious fanatics that think if they blow up nonmuslims or muslims that don't agree with them they go to paradise with 50 virgins to serve their every whim.

 

Watch stations and regular patrols did nothing to prevent the vietnamese from creating intricate underground tunnels and living spaces. Putting hundreds of geosychronous spy satelittes over the mid-east isn't going to help us indentify which Syrian vistors are students and which are terrorist, etc. We can't use techology to monitor a few hundred miles of southern US border in our own country, but we can rely on satelittes to monitor the entire perimeter of Iraq? And what happens at night?

 

Iraq's location in the world makes it hard to set up a satelite with a geosynchronous orbit.

 

Source please? Assuming for a moment that your point is accurate, how does this make it a "key" difference between Iraq and Vietnam? The Vietnam conflict was about freedom from western oppressors. The insurgents in Iraq (whether they were born their or not) are fighting for the exact same thing.

 

Try the guy from Hezbollah we captured recently, or the Iranians, etc. I've posted numerous sources concerning this, not only in this topic but in others.

 

Btw, they are not fighting to free Iraq, they're fighting to set up an Islamofacist state that harbors and supports terrorism.

 

I haven't seen any news media outlet trying to stir opposition against our troops. I've seen a great deal of opposition being raised against our policies and our being there, but the support for our troops seems to be unanimous (except, arguably, from the gov't).

 

Try any of the following CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, BBC, etc.

 

I suppose that depends a great deal upon your persepective. I care a great deal that our being there is could potentially create 2 or 3 future generations of people that hate us and want to fly planes into our buildings. It concerns me a great deal that 2 or 3 or more factions seem to be dead-set on killing one another regardless of our presence, therefore it stands to reason that our presence is a non-point. Which then makes our continued presence a curiousity.

 

There are several reasons including Al Qaeda trying to get a new base to replace Afghanistan and they're currently trying to get Iraq.

 

It concerns me a great deal that I cannot think of a single instance in which a native, organized rebel force was successfully repressed by a foreign military with superior technology. I'm sure Nancy Allen might want to jump in with a star wars reference, however I'm thinking more along the lines of Brits vs. the American colonists, the French vs. the Vietnamese, the Americans vs. the Vietnamese, the Soviets vs. the Afghans, and the Americans vs. the Iraqis.

 

This isn't a native force though people from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc. are foreigners. Also a lot of the Iraqi tribes are actually helping US forces now.

 

It seems to me that there is a substantial history of rag-tag, but dedicated and organized rebel fighters rising up to defeat "invaders" that boast superior military forces. In other words, I care a great deal that more of my countrymen might die in a conflict they can't win.

 

So you're saying we just hand Iraq over to Iran and Al Qaeda? A lot of the natives that have been fighting us have actually joined US forces in kicking out foreign insurgents now, see Anbar.

 

A lot of the attacks that have occurred are the result of attacks by Iranian special forces and Al Qaeda to try to spark a civil war. A lot of Iraqis are now fighting on the side of US forces to kick Al Qaeda and Iranian forces out of Iraq. If it were just Iraqis trying to kill each other I'd say let em cause we can't referee a civil war, but when other countries are doing things to cause fighting, then it's no a matter of natives fighting it's a matter of other countries trying to start things.

[mimartin]

Try any of the following CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, BBC, etc.[/Quote]

 

Of the American Media (which I believe the BBC is not a part of) please site one story that has attempted to stir opposition against our troops. I would really like to see the article so that I can judge it for myself (I don’t trust Bill O’Reilly, Oliver North or Jack Hanna enough to take their word concerning anything this serious.).

 

This is a very serious accusation and if true will change my opinion of that media outlet. If what you are condemning these media outlets for is the one Blog that military annalist from MSNBC wrote don’t bother, I agree he should be fired and even drawn and quartered, but a Blog has nothing to do with any media outlets. The Blog was his personal views and had nothing to do with any of his employers.

[Achilles]

Okay the difference here is the people we're fighting are religious fanatics that think if they blow up nonmuslims or muslims that don't agree with them they go to paradise with 50 virgins to serve their every whim.

You seems to see a difference but I do not. In both cases, a charasmatic leader obtained a fanatical following while purging their lands of foreign occupiers. It matters little to me that one of these leaders was a communist and the other is a muslim. Religious belief (or lack thereof) would seem to be a non-issue.

 

Iraq's location in the world makes it hard to set up a satelite with a geosynchronous orbit.

Which means that your satellite solution just became more expensive, more difficult to coordinate (and therefore manage), thereby making it less likely.

 

Try the guy from Hezbollah we captured recently, or the Iranians, etc. I've posted numerous sources concerning this, not only in this topic but in others.

They capture a high-profile leader and you want to cite that as source for your argument that "a large number" of the foot soldiers aren't Iraqis? You point may be true, but unless someone is running a census and publishing the numbers somewhere, your argument is highly speculative....which was my point.

 

Btw, they are not fighting to free Iraq, they're fighting to set up an Islamofacist state that harbors and supports terrorism.

Really? Everything I've read and watched about Al-Qaeda seems to indicate that UBL broke away from the Saudi gov't after the king allowed US troops into the region during Desert Storm/Desert Shield (instead of allowing his army to fight Hussein). He then declared jihad against americans and american supporters for occuping the islamic holy lands (not a specific country, like say Iraq). He then proceeded to carry out terrorist acts against US targets in the region (the counsulate in Africa, the uss cole in yemen, etc) in the hopes of drawing arab attention to the fact that their lands were being occupied.

 

In other words, al-qaeda fights to get, what they perceive to be, an occupying force out of islamic holy lands. They are fighting in Iraq because that happens to be where a lot of american soldiers are. In other words, there is a great deal about this conflict that you might not be aware of.

 

Just like most americans didn't know during vietnam that ho chi minh sought US sponsorship of a democracy in vietnam but was turned away because of our alliance with france (their occupiers at the time). Russia agreed to help him fight the french if he agreed to set up a communist state instead. Seems americans have a habit of not fully understanding the wars we involve ourselves in.

 

Try any of the following CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, BBC, etc.

All of these sources are guilty of targeting US troops? Are you sure you're not missing the distinction? How about a specific article from 2 or 3 of these sources, just so I don't think you're making this up?

 

There are several reasons including Al Qaeda trying to get a new base to replace Afghanistan and they're currently trying to get Iraq.

That doesn't even make sense. Their infrastruture is in afghanistan. They have a sympathetic government in afghanistan. The smaller US military force is in afghanistan. They fight in Iraq because that's where the US soldiers are. They fight there because that's where they get to do all the killing. They don't need to replace "afghanistan" because it hasn't been compromised. If it was, we would have captured UBL already.

 

This isn't a native force though people from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc. are foreigners. Also a lot of the Iraqi tribes are actually helping US forces now.

You're thinking in the wrong terms. This is jihad...holy war. The native force isn't broken into geographic areas.

 

Some Iraqi tribes are helping the US while others continue to work against us. This is hardly news. Some people want a pro-western gov't while others don't while others still have completely different agendas.

 

So you're saying we just hand Iraq over to Iran and Al Qaeda? A lot of the natives that have been fighting us have actually joined US forces in kicking out foreign insurgents now, see Anbar.

I'm saying we'll see another "fall of saigon" in our lifetimes. We can do it smart or we can do it like we did before.

 

A lot of the attacks that have occurred are the result of attacks by Iranian special forces and Al Qaeda to try to spark a civil war. A lot of Iraqis are now fighting on the side of US forces to kick Al Qaeda and Iranian forces out of Iraq. If it were just Iraqis trying to kill each other I'd say let em cause we can't referee a civil war, but when other countries are doing things to cause fighting, then it's no a matter of natives fighting it's a matter of other countries trying to start things.

Again, hardly news. Your have different groups with different agendas. The pro-westerners in Iraq are up against the Iranians who probably still hold a grudge from the Iran-Iraq war plus the jihadist who are there to kill infidels, not to mention the Kurds who have their own agenda as well.

[Nancy Allen``]

It concerns me a great deal that I cannot think of a single instance in which a native, organized rebel force was successfully repressed by a foreign military with superior technology. I'm sure Nancy Allen might want to jump in with a star wars reference, however I'm thinking more along the lines of Brits vs. the American colonists, the French vs. the Vietnamese, the Americans vs. the Vietnamese, the Soviets vs. the Afghans, and the Americans vs. the Iraqis.

 

I could but there's no need. We only need to look at when we stomped a mudhole into the Taliban forces that took over Afghanistan and walked it dry.

 

You seems to see a difference but I do not. In both cases, a charasmatic leader obtained a fanatical following while purging their lands of foreign occupiers. It matters little to me that one of these leaders was a communist and the other is a muslim. Religious belief (or lack thereof) would seem to be a non-issue.

 

"The target is the village of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated. They are unarmed". Never happened in the Western world. Terrorist targets on the other hand are almost universially civillian rather than military. The Bali nightclub that was bombed a few years ago, what tactical worth did it hold? No, this was simply an act of mass murder.

[Achilles]

I could but there's no need. We only need to look at when we stomped a mudhole into the Taliban forces that took over Afghanistan and walked it dry.

We did not "stomp a mudhole" in the taliban. They are still around. We may have succeeded in removing them from the gov't, but the organization still exists.

 

"The target is the village of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated. They are unarmed". Never happened in the Western world.

Ok. This one doesn't boast the same body count, but it's a little more recent.

 

I think your point though was that most western gov't don't have a policy of killing civilians...to which I would draw your attention to the shadier parts of latin america or africa. Tis the folly of "never".

 

I'll address your points below before I question how this relates to the part of my message that you quoted.

 

Terrorist targets on the other hand are almost universially civillian rather than military.

Yep, they sure are.

 

The Bali nightclub that was bombed a few years ago, what tactical worth did it hold? No, this was simply an act of mass murder.

Yep, it sure was.

 

How does this have anything to do with the part of my message that you quoted? The viet cong were guilty of acts of terrorism too. How does al qaeda's religious-driven terrorism seem more...important (?)...than the viet cong's politically-driven terrorism. I anxiously await your reply.

 

Thanks.

[Nancy Allen``]

We did not "stomp a mudhole" in the taliban. They are still around. We may have succeeded in removing them from the gov't, but the organization still exists.

 

And since when has any attempt at genocide been completely successful? The people of Afghanistan are free to vote, free to express themselves and the liberating forces are not bogged down in a quadmire like they are in Iraq.

 

I think your point though was that most western gov't don't have a policy of killing civilians...to which I would draw your attention to the shadier parts of latin america or africa. Tis the folly of "never".

 

War is hell and Vietnam would be the pit of it. In this instance there's a lot of blame to share around. The intelligence getting it wrong that there wouldn't be civillians there, Medina for what he may or may not say, and the soldiers themselves. I've heard stories of soldiers in Vietnam who shot and kill a little girl armed with an AK before they turned them and the platoon into hamburger. That however is a very weak arguement when faced with soldiers rounding up civillians and executing them.

 

How does this have anything to do with the part of my message that you quoted? The viet cong were guilty of acts of terrorism too. How does al qaeda's religious-driven terrorism seem more...important (?)...than the viet cong's politically-driven terrorism. I anxiously await your reply.

 

Big fat deal, all of it bites. Vietcong, Al Qaeda, rank and file soldiers, doesn't matter. Those who seek to harm others ought to be strung up.