"Marine kills wounded Iraqi"- Why should I care?

J-Rod: Hm, so far I know, Iraq (or the shoot insurgent) has nothing to do with 9/11. If Osama would be the chief in Iraq, it would be different, but he was. You could ask very well if the insurgents would fight US, if America had not invade Iraq. Most of them would not, I think...

 

J-Rod, Adriff made a really good point.

If you say we can't judge the soldiers until we have been in their shoes, then you shouldn't be judging the terrorists until you have been in theirs.

Of course, all that is a load of bunk. You should be able to judge other people even though you haven't been through the same situations. After all, as someone said in one of the X-Wing books, the doctor doesn't need to catch the disease in order to diagnose and treat it.

 

we're getting to be like that guy who helped you move some furniture way back in the day and never shuts up about it.

But that is not really accurate either, because those same nations repeatedly defaulted to the US after 1945..

I'm not just refering to the brushfire wars that the US undertook on its own, but the valid actions that should have involved the West, but fell on the shoulders of the US.

Korea, for example.

Cuban Missle Crisis

Suez Crisis

Requiring the input of 100,000's US troops to guard the Fulda Gap during the Cold War.

Berlin airlift..The US guarding West Germany..

Up to the Balkans and Iraq.

There are two sides to every story..Sure the US throws its weight around, but for over 50 years, the rest of the West deferred to this system, partly because they were rebuilding their own countries, partly because it switched the focus off of them.

Growing pains are going to be felt by all parties involved.

 

Hm, so far I know, Iraq (or the shoot insurgent) has nothing to do with 9/11.

You are right. But as a terrorist sponser, Saddam was in league with the people who declared war on us.

The 9/11 Commission Report detailed his connections with terrorists and al-Quiada.

 

You are right. But as a terrorist sponser, Saddam was in league with the people who declared war on us.

Using that reasoning, we are in league with China because we both use airplanes.

Terrorism is a weapon, not an nation-state. Just because Saddam used a weapon that was used against us on 9-11 in no way shows that he was allied with those who used the weapon on 9-11.

 

Using that reasoning, we are in league with China because we both use airplanes.

Wrong, if you read the 9/11 Commission Report, he also had dealings with al-Quiada. And that is who we are capturing and killing in Iraq right now. Thus Iraq is a continuation of the war on al-Quiada, which is only part of the war on terror.

 

Then why not just separate the 2, JF?

Treat them as 2 distinct bullet points under the concept of terrorism?

 

For the same reason you wouldn't put China and the U.S. as bullets under airplanes, Mr.44.

And J-Rod, quote the reports for us showing the links between Saddam and Al-Qaida.

 

Gotta go home and look it up. It'll be here tomarrow. (Hopefully)

EDIT: If airplanes were outlawed by international law, then you certainly could say we were in league with China, and that kinda makes my point for me.

 

For the same reason you wouldn't put China and the U.S. as bullets under terrorism, Mr.44.

I don't know what that means..

There are Chinese terrorists. There are terrorists in the US..

However, I would hardly make the claim that the US or China are state sponsors of terrorism.

Back in the 80's, before Libya turned to Africa, Libya was a state sponsor of terrorist acts. A German nightclub was bombed. A Pan Am flight was blown up over Lockerbie.

The Libyan government as a whole, provided the resources and means for the terrorists to act.

When we actually attacked Libya, and the UN levied fines against the Libyan government, their support for terrorists ceased.

Sure, back then, we arrested the individuals responsible for the acts, but unless you diminish the source, how effective would such action be?

One needs to bring the individuals directly responsible to justice, but one also needs to look at their support.

Otherwise, we are back to the old example of just arresting people who leave the crackhouse, but doing nothing about the house itself.

 

I'm going to assume you were joking.

I'm dead serious.

That weak arguement applies to every terrorist organisation. If these guys ain't terrorists then who is?

So...being objective and impartial is "weak"? I don't condone their actions...but to think they don't believe in their cause is foolish.

After WW II Libs have been on the wrong side of too mush history. So yeah study history Devil.

And...I guess you think I'm a liberal. Good little partisan drone. You follow the herd quite nicely.

We already know. They wish to continue Saddam's rape and torture of Iraq and her people. To believe otherwise is simply looking for reasons to hate what the US is doing, IMO.

In other words...no you don't know a damn thing.

I was talking about race relations in the US. Or do you believe we aren't better than we were in the 60's?

I don't know about that...I wasn't commenting on race relations.

I've acknowledged that in many posts, and voted for Bush. Kinda blows that thoery, huh?

Actually, it proves my "theory".

Just callin' 'em as I see 'em. Though that is the harshest of insults.

You enjoy making yourself out to be ignorant?

As for my comment about the French. Oui, I stand by it. If it weren't for the US, France would be goose stepping.

If not for France...this country would still be part of England.

But you failed to see the wink behind it. It was a joke. I don't hate the french, just their cowardice.

You hate cowardice but love ignorance.

 

For the same reason you wouldn't put China and the U.S. as bullets under terrorism, Mr.44.

I don't know what that means..


Sorry about that. I was trying to think and write at the same time. What I meant to say (and what I edited it to say) was that you wouldn't put Saddam and Al-Qaeda under the same bullet point of terrorism just as you wouldn't put China and the U.S. under the same bullet point of airplanes. Yes, both China and the U.S. have airplanes in common, but their is no real relationship to be gleaned from that information.

 

Devilanse said...So...being objective and impartial is "weak"?

If it prevents you from being able to tell the difference between good and bad...absolutely.

And...I guess you think I'm a liberal. Good little partisan drone. You follow the herd quite nicely.

Yes... Care to give your conservative view points?

We already know. They wish to continue Saddam's rape and torture of Iraq and her people. To believe otherwise is simply looking for reasons to hate what the US is doing, IMO.

In other words...no you don't know a damn thing.

You haven't said why I was wrong with that statement, so maybe you don't know a damn thing.

I don't know about that...I wasn't commenting on race relations.

Well, that's what I was talking about and what you commented on. Try to keep up.

I've acknowledged that in many posts, and voted for Bush. Kinda blows that thoery, huh?

Actually, it proves my "theory".

Care to explain?

Just callin' 'em as I see 'em. Though that is the harshest of insults.

You enjoy making yourself out to be ignorant?

You still haven't explained how.

And keep in mind, saying,"You're stupid" is not an explanation. Hope that helps.

Flyer said...put China and the U.S. under the same bullet point of airplanes.

Read my edit in my post.

 

EDIT: If airplanes were outlawed by international law, then you certainly could say we were in league with China, and that kinda makes my point for me.

No you couldn't. It would mean we were both breaking international law, but it would show no link between us other than that. The same goes with terrorism. Just because two entities practice it, it doesn't follow that they are in cahoots.


Cahoots. Everyone should try to use that word at least once a day. The world would be a much happier place.

 

Just because two entities practice it, it doesn't follow that they are in cahoots.

Yes, but if France declared war on airplanes...

 

Yes, but if France declared war on airplanes...

And that is why I don't believe in a "War on Terror" We shouldn't be at war with means. We should be at war with people's ideologies.

And no, terror is not an ideology.

 

The 9/11 Report and the Duelfur Report let us know that Iraq had resources to be a threat. We learned from WWII that we have to stop countries that have intent before they have the capability, IMO.

But tons of countries also have those resources. They're not invaded. What about Cuba, Libya, Indonesia? The lesson of WWII was not to invade every single country that could possibly project a threat somewhere down the line. The lesson was to intervene against actively belligerant nations who go around demanding territory. If Iraq was demanding territory in 2002 I would see your point. It wasn't. The point at which it had been demanding territory was 12+ years ago and a treaty had already been signed on that matter.

 

The point at which it had been demanding territory was 12+ years ago and a treaty had already been signed on that matter.

Signed a broken 17 times. Saddam ran out of chances. Simple as that. We couldn't wait to make a mistake. He just needed to go.

 

we're getting to be like that guy who helped you move some furniture way back in the day and never shuts up about it.

Heh, I think you could make that analogy although I think many of these former allies were beginning to think the same things back around 1980. For some reason in Canada I get the feeling there was a tipping point somewhere with the 'Miracle on Ice' performance at the Olympics where people started getting peeved at the overabundance of patriotism.

Sad thing is, I actually don't think this was especially apparant before 1960, or even in the 70s. It probably mostly happened in the early 80s because of what happened in Vietnam. America needed to feel good about itself again and the rest of the world didn't -- at still doesn't exactly -- get it. Vietnam, unlike the current Iraq conflict always meant much more to America than the rest of the world and although many thought it was wrong, the outcry was not as great outside the US (though it was present) and nobody spoke of the possibility of an American Empire.

So when Vietnam was lost, there was a big need for heros and victories and myth-making (Ronald Reagan and the Republican/religious revolution, the Olympic victories and SW itself ended up catering somewhat to that need). Europe, relatively unchanged, didn't quite get it and at this point they're of the opinion that it's WELL outlived it's non-existant welcome.

Essentially, America as a whole isn't the same place it was 1945. It's not the same nation that won WWII or even the Cold War as the grandfather generation of WWII that was in control in those days slips away. It's less eager to learn and more eager to tell stories to itself and it seems to be finally creeping into areas of the leadership. This isn't in itself a bad thing, but it is if it just starts going too far and policy is made on the basis of it.

 

Signed a broken 17 times. Saddam ran out of chances. Simple as that. We couldn't wait to make a mistake. He just needed to go.

So it was a war of choice.

Perfectly justified, IMO, but still a war of choice.

But just because it was justified doesn't mean it was the best or smartest course of action.

 

But tons of countries also have those resources. They're not invaded. What about Cuba, Libya, Indonesia? The lesson of WWII was not to invade every single country that could possibly project a threat somewhere down the line.

But it is just not about "having those resources," it is about how those examples use them..

Force or the threat of force still played a major role in each of your above examples.

Had Cuba continued to attempt to acquire Soviet missles during the 60's, you can bet invasion would have been a forgone conclusion. Invasion was on the table even after the missle crisis, it was simply supplanted by other means.

Imagine if you will, that after the missle crisis, Cuba continually attempted to establish Soviet missle bases. It was only through constant blockcade and the projection of a US carrier group that it was prevented. How long would it last before such hostile intent was addressed?

Had Libya continued to offically support terrorism after EL DORADO CANYON, I would guarantee that it would have been invaded by US/UK forces before Reagan was out of office. A strong case could be made that Thatcher would have taken action even without the US's involvement.

US Green Berets have operated in Indonesia to address those specific concerns.

Each individual case exists on its own, and certainly Iraq doesn't represent a precedent of "invading every single country that could possibly project a threat somewhere down the line.."

Alternate methods were unsuccessful in Iraq, so action was undertaken.

 

Bottom line (without the benefit of armchair quarterbacking):

Q: Did the marine follow the rules of engagement?

A: We don't know. That is why there is an investigation.

Right now, the videotape is only evidence of the action, neither incriminating nor exonerating.

Was it a terrible act? Of course. If it wasn't, there would not be so much outrage over it.

But all actions in war are terrible acts. That should not be the question. The question should be, "Was what he did justified, and legal under the Corp's Rules of Engagement?"

We should try to keep that in mind as we debate this.

 

Cheveyo is correct, this last page has nothing to do with the topic. The topic of invasion or hate/love for other countries is reserved for other threads.

We may never know what truly happened that day with this Marine.

 

Cheveyo is correct, this last page has nothing to do with the topic. The topic of invasion or hate/love for other countries is reserved for other threads.

Thank you, Sir.. Are there any other threads you would like to moderate?

 

Why sure ... Couldn't do any worse than any other Mod