Journal Timex's Journal: Interesting turn of events 54
WikiLeaks has dumped a lot of information that was considered classified.
What I found interesting is that some chemical weapons were actually found in Iraq. Why the Bush administration chose to keep this information to itself, I don't know. I don't have to guess at why Obama would want to bury the information: to release it would only justify Bush's action(s), even in part, which Obama himself ran against.
If you're of the mind that the quantity of the weapons found makes this whole "revelation" a non-issue, let me remind you that one doesn't need a whole lot of this stuff to hit a target, if the target is well-chosen and the plan well executed. al Qaida has demonstrated their ability to execute plans against US forces, so it isn't hard to imagine that this would be enough to become a problem. It wouldn't be difficult to imagine this stuff being used even as a distraction in an attempt to get more useful weaponry or parts, at the very least.
The last line of the second article quoted above is interesting:
And the irony, of course, is that it was the invasion that gave insurgents and Islamists access to these remnants.
I think that the author is making an assumption-- members of Iraq's pre-invasion government had been meeting with representatives of al Qaida which, to make an assumption of my own, implies the possibility (however slight) that Saddam might have been willing to share his arsenal with terrorist groups, if it suited his purpose. The "Islamists" part is utterly ridiculous. The majority of people living in that part of the world are muslim. Saddam himself, as I understand it, ran a government that was more secular than not, which was a bit out of the ordinary for that region.
Nothing new (Score:2)
We've known this for years [military.com]. No one cared.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know this. If you remember, I never denied that WMDs were found in Iraq. There were (and still are) a whole lot of people on Slashdot that are living in denial about the matter, and I was just reminding them that they were wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Nod. But if they didn't believe it then ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So then why didn't the political powers in charge bring that news forward when it came up?
They did. I'd point to the White House documents except the Obama administration doesn't give a shit about preserving historical links on the web [pudge.net], so it'd take more work than I am prepared to do.
They could have used this to bolster their original excuse for the war if they wanted to
No, because it would only bolster the case that didn't need bolstering: that Iraq was not in compliance with UN Resolutions, and as such, could not be trusted no matter what they said. This wouldn't have made a difference to that case, which was already very strong.
What people wanted to know was that there was an
Re: (Score:2)
So then why didn't the political powers in charge bring that news forward when it came up?
They did. I'd point to the White House documents except the Obama administration doesn't give a shit about preserving historical links on the web, so it'd take more work than I am prepared to do.
So the Bush Administration's failure to bring the discovery of WMDs to the media is somehow the fault of Obama? I guess I can't say that logic surprises me coming from you...
They could have used this to bolster their original excuse for the war if they wanted to
No, because it would only bolster the case that didn't need bolstering: that Iraq was not in compliance with UN Resolutions
Since when did the Bush administration give a shit about the UN? They were the only ones on the world stage who showed less concern for the UN than Saddam Hussein.
and as such, could not be trusted no matter what they said
Nonsense. Nobody was listening to what Hussein was saying.
This wouldn't have made a difference to that case, which was already very strong.
If only that was the case they were presenting. The original case for invading Iraq was "OMG! WMD!", which w
Re: (Score:2)
So the Bush Administration's failure to bring the discovery of WMDs to the media
I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite, that they DID mention it to the media. You're lying about what I said.
I guess I can't say that dishonesty surprises me coming from you...
is somehow the fault of Obama?
No, the fact that I can't easily look up the online press briefings from the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. Obviously. He controls the White House web site ultimately.
Since when did the Bush administration give a shit about the UN?
Ummmm. Their main justification for going into Iraq was that Iraq had an active WMD program in violation of UN resolutions. So ...
Nonsense. Nobody was listening to what Hussein was saying.
Wow. I fee
Re: (Score:2)
So the Bush Administration's failure to bring the discovery of WMDs to the media
I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite, that they DID mention it to the media
Funny, I don't recall any mention of it in the media. If they had even so much as brought it to the attention of Fox News it would have been prominently featured on their front page, after which it would have dutifully spread to the front page of all the other main media sites.
You're lying about what I said.
Actually I was asking you a question, to clarify what you did say. Is the distinction between a statement and a question that difficult for you to comprehend? Someone with a degree in journalism should understand the difference -
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I don't recall any mention of it in the media.
Shrug. I do.
If they had even so much as brought it to the attention of Fox News it would have been prominently featured on their front page
No, because of the reasons I already clearly stated: they were leftover weapons from the prior war that were no longer effective, and not the sort of WMD that we were mostly looking for.
You're lying about what I said.
Actually I was asking you a question
By dishonestly restating what I clearly wrote to have it appear that I meant something completely different.
Is this some sort of weird joke? Do you really expect us to believe that the POTUS has nothing better to do with his time than personally dictate what is or is not accessible on the white house web site?
Um. OK, so Obama is not responsible for the Executive Branch. Are you really that stupid?
Answer: yes.
Ummmm. Their main justification for going into Iraq was that Iraq had an active WMD program in violation of UN resolutions. So ...
No, it wasn't.
You're a liar or an idiot. From November through March, almost everything we said and did was in refe
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I don't recall any mention of it in the media.
Shrug. I do.
Will you please provide a link to a story from the media that covered it? I honestly do not remember it being covered at all. I believe you said it was in 2006, so that shouldn't be too hard to find if you remember it happening.
If they had even so much as brought it to the attention of Fox News it would have been prominently featured on their front page
No, because of the reasons I already clearly stated: they were leftover weapons from the prior war that were no longer effective, and not the sort of WMD that we were mostly looking for.
Except that part of the Bush Administration argument for going to war was that Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD. If they found any at all, why wouldn't they want to show the world that they weren't completely full of shit with their argument?
In other words, if they had at
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, the UN action did not seem to include invading and occupying the country...
Resolution 687, and following, all promised the UN would do what was necessary to force Iraq's compliance. The UN refused to uphold its obligations in that regard.
Then they said it was because he had Bin Laden on speed dial and helped orchestrate 9/11.
You're a liar. That was never said by our government.
Except that Dick Cheney said it. [bbc.co.uk]
Can you provide a quote?
No, you can't ... and no, you didn't. And I knew that even before I looked at the link, because I actually know what the hell I am talking about. You do not. NOTHING in what Cheney said implies ANY link between Iraq and 9/11.
There was an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi officials, but that is the furthest
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, the UN action did not seem to include invading and occupying the country...
Resolution 687, and following, all promised the UN would do what was necessary to force Iraq's compliance. The UN refused to uphold its obligations in that regard.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country was not necessary to "uphold its obligations"?
Except that Dick Cheney said it.
Can you provide a quote?
Absolutely, but I figured someone with a journalism degree could ... read a piece of journalism. Nonetheless, here is the quote from the article:
"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organised the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," he told the show.
Which was in reference to a top Al-Qaeda official, who was implicated in 9/11. Hence Dick Cheney very explicitly stated that Iraq aided the 9/11 attacks.
No, you can't ... and no, you didn't
Except that I did.
And I knew that even before I looked at the link
I rather doubt you looked at the link, but I'm willing t
Re: (Score:2)
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country was not necessary to "uphold its obligations"?
Then what would have accomplished that goal? After more than a decade? The UN was out of ideas, and was doing nothing to actually achieve their own goals. The UN utterly failed, and if one good thing has come from this, the world will never again be under the illusion that the UN will actually back up their tough talk with action.
Absolutely
You're a damned liar.
Which was in reference to a top Al-Qaeda official, who was implicated in 9/11. Hence Dick Cheney very explicitly stated that Iraq aided the 9/11 attacks.
You're a damned liar. NOTHING in that quote mentions ANY tie to 9/11. It doesn't even say that Iraq aided him: it simply says he was IN IRAQ. That's like
Re: (Score:2)
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country was not necessary to "uphold its obligations"?
Then what would have accomplished that goal? After more than a decade? The UN was out of ideas, and was doing nothing to actually achieve their own goals
Now that is an outright lie. The UN was continuing with inspections and sanctions. They were investigating additional potential sources and sites. Just because it didn't meet your arbitrary timetable and objectives does not in any way support your notion of them "doing nothing".
Absolutely
You're a damned liar.
That response - like many of yours - makes no sense whatsoever. You didn't even provide enough quoted material to tell us what you are blabbering on about with your empty assertion.
You're a damned liar.
Wrong again. But we have seen many times bef
Re: (Score:2)
Now that is an outright lie. The UN was continuing with inspections and sanctions.
Bull. Blix left Iraq, fed up with the stone-walling from Iraqi officials. Time and again, He and his crew would arrive at a location to inspect, and whether or not there was anything there to find, the Iraqis forced the inspection team(s) to wait for days before allowing them access. If Blix had any ideas (or any direction from the UN), I'd love to hear about it. I'll wait.
You didn't even provide enough quoted material to tell us what you are blabbering on about with your empty assertion.
Why should links be provided for something as simple to find as the UN resolutions? You're just being LAZY. Find it yourself.
He's talking about Al-Qaeda. The only thing anyone was talking about Al-Qaeda for at that point was 9/11. Dick Cheney wasn't trying to be vague here, he was drumming up support for the war by trying to tie Iraq to 9/11. You can also hear Cheney explicitly alleging ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda in an NPR interview (around 6:50 Cheney begins to assert that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda).
Screw
Re: (Score:2)
If Blix had any ideas (or any direction from the UN), I'd love to hear about it. I'll wait.
It wasn't up to Hans Blix to set UN policy towards Iraq. He was the chief weapons inspector, he was supposed to inspect the sites selected.
You didn't even provide enough quoted material to tell us what you are blabbering on about with your empty assertion.
Why should links be provided for something as simple to find as the UN resolutions?
At that point in the conversation (you might want to read back a bit) you'll find that Pudge's comments have lost all context. He previously quoted me saying "absolutely" and then himself as saying "you're a damn liar", but cut out what those were referring to. It could have been pretty well anything at that point; hence I criticized him there for not providing cont
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the very Cheney interview I linked to was talking about genuine interest between Saddam's government and Al-Qaeda. He says it, just go back and listen to it. He very specifically claims that a relationship will be found.
When was the interview? If you care to check dates, it wasn't much longer after that that it was understood that the person from the Iraqi government that was meeting with al Qaida may not have been meeting with them in an official capacity. The problem is that whether it was official or not could not then, nor could it now, be determined.
If you know of a Democrat lemming, then perhaps he or she says that. I am neither a lemming nor am I accusing Cheney of being inept.
In that case, you're a rare breed. :\
If anything, Cheney was one who was extremely dedicated to the causes that he believed in. I can't for the life of me think of a single cause that he and I share an opinion on, but he was very dedicated to the ones he believed in.
That is a very fair assessment.
I never saw the hunting accident as being relevant to Cheney's role as VP.
That's the thing: it wasn't. To listen to Cheney's usual criticizers, it was par for the course.
I would never accuse him of being trustworthy. His dedication causes him to apply moral relativism to pretty well everything he does...
Then
Re: (Score:2)
If you know of a Democrat lemming, then perhaps he or she says that. I am neither a lemming nor am I accusing Cheney of being inept.
In that case, you're a rare breed. :\
I don't know many people who would call Cheney inept. I, along with many others, freely call GWB inept. GWB was busy playing dress-up while Cheney was calling the shots. Which is probably why Cheney attached himself to the campaign as VP; he knew he could gain maximum power while having to display minimal concern for approval.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams - "the purpose of the office of the president is not to hold power, but to draw attention away from it" - which GWB did an excellent job of during the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know many people who would call Cheney inept. I, along with many others, freely call GWB inept. GWB was busy playing dress-up while Cheney was calling the shots. Which is probably why Cheney attached himself to the campaign as VP; he knew he could gain maximum power while having to display minimal concern for approval. ... during the 8 years of the Cheney administration.
Wow. I have to say, this is the first time I've heard this junk. The whole time Bush was in office, I've heard nothing from Democrats but how Bush was dangerous for the country and (after the shooting incident) how clumsy Cheney was. I've never heard Democrats (or many Republicans, for that matter) put Cheney in that sort of light.
I suspect that is because to some people, Cheney was generally trigger-happy. I disagree with that assesment, however. The war in Iraq was, from my vantage point, an objective in his agenda for quite some time. It was 9/11 that gave him the final bit of momentum to push it over the top and moving forward. Some people claim that invading Iraq was a case of invading "the wrong country"; while I opposed the war from the very first time it was suggested to the public, I don't think that it ever was to Cheney "the wrong country".
That may be. The US involvement between Iraq and Iran has never been what one might call "clear and easy to follow". The only point regarding that region that I could easily
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know many people who would call Cheney inept. I, along with many others, freely call GWB inept. GWB was busy playing dress-up while Cheney was calling the shots. Which is probably why Cheney attached himself to the campaign as VP; he knew he could gain maximum power while having to display minimal concern for approval. ... during the 8 years of the Cheney administration.
Wow. I have to say, this is the first time I've heard this junk.
I don't know who you've been talking to, but I can assure you I am not the only person who views the Bush-Cheney team this way. Exactly why you see it as "junk" is another question...
The whole time Bush was in office, I've heard nothing from Democrats but how Bush was dangerous for the country
Well, Bush was dangerous by being a short sighted idiot. However, there are usually controls in our government that allow useful work to be accomplished even with an idiot as an executive. Unfortunately, Cheney steam-rolled right over some of them.
and (after the shooting incident) how clumsy Cheney was. I've never heard Democrats (or many Republicans, for that matter) put Cheney in that sort of light.
I don't know who you've been listening to, then. Most liberals I know view
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who you've been talking to, but I can assure you I am not the only person who views the Bush-Cheney team this way. Exactly why you see it as "junk" is another question... ... I don't know who you've been listening to, then. Most liberals I know viewed Cheney as the real driving force behind the administration, the true power broker.
I live in Massachusetts. Do you honestly believe it's possible to hear much of anything that isn't from a Liberal viewpoint? If you find it possible, I'd like to know exactly where, because it certainly isn't where I'm at.
It appears that we like to play governmental whac-a-mole out there, which is a game that we should have stopped a long, long time ago.
I won't deny this.
We don't make a habit of thinking long-term governmentally here.
There is only ONE thing that our government ever thinks about "long term": spending. Everything else is "here and now". They expect to do things NOW, and it gets paid-for with monies that get collected over the next five to ten years.
If I ran my finances the way the g
Any WMDs were from Reagan or Bush 1 as per policy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Iraqi mustard gas was used with the tacit approval of the US [wikipedia.org]
To the extent that is true, it bears no relevance whatsoever, since the U.S. under Bush 1 required, as part of the UN Security Council, Iraq to declare and destroy those weapons. Clinton bombed Iraq when it ultimately refused. And Bush 2 removed Hussein from power when (in part) Hussein lied and said they were all gone.
Whatever happened prior to the Gulf War, our policy since then -- with the false agreement of Hussein, and the false promise of the UN to force compliance if necessary -- has been that Iraq
Re: (Score:2)
The "weapons" were unusable, hence not weapons. Rusted shells that can't be fired aren't weapons, unless you plan to go up to your enemy and insert the bullets manually ... the same applies to stuff that was s
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely relevant.
Well, no. It's entirely tangential.
The "weapons" were unusable, hence not weapons.
Wrong answer. What we're talking about here was whether Iraq was in compliance with its obligations under various UN Resolutions, which considered these things to be proscribed weapons.
Nice try, but the facts won't let you get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if you want to talk about improper disposal of WMDs, look at the (at least) 248,000 pounds of VX nerve gas that the US dumped into the ocean. Included in that are 19 bulk containers with 2/3 of a ton each - anyone want to rent a used remote submersible from BP?
That stuff didn't just "disappear", and the ocean is cold enough to make a nice preservative.
Re: (Score:2)
They were in compliance. They had NO WMDs.
Incorrect on both counts. Even if they had no WMD -- which is simply untrue -- they were out of compliance in several other ways, most obviously in that they did not immediately comply with UNMOVIC requests as required. Even Hans Blix said this in his January 2003 report to the Security Council.
However, while you don't want them to be counted as WMD, the very clear language of the resolutions and UNMOVIC disagree with you. That means you're simply wrong, in this context.
Now if you want to talk about improper disposal of WMDs
Not particularly, no. I am just t
Re: (Score:2)
It was so funny to see Colin Powell lie to the American people on national TV less than 2 hours after Blix said that the bunker in question was NOT used for WMDs and that the aluminium tubes were NOT for centrifuges.
Try reading War is a racket. The guy who wrote it was a w
Re: (Score:2)
They were in compliance as to the lack of WMDs.
You can say that all you like, but it's false. These WMD were the exact sort of proscribed weapons Blix and UNMOVIC were talking about that were required to be disclosed, and were not. That was part of the whole point of the process starting in November, where Iraq was required to update on all its existing WMD stockpiles, including from the Gulf War, such as these. You are simply wrong.
You're right to say that, as best we know, Iraq had no active WMD program. You are right to say that the effectiveness
Re: (Score:2)
What Blix was complaining about (oh, I forgot - US network TV wasn't permitted to show the whole interview) ...
Wow. Make things up much?
No - I commented on it at the time in one of the threads. But don't take my word for it - read what the people who worked on the speech had to say about it [cnn.com]. There was basically NO intelligence to support it, just some very poorly sourced material - and the rest of the world was already in on that fact an hour before Powell went on the air at the UN. Either CBC-TV or CTV broadcast it as a news item - that the bioweapons didn't exist, that the aluminium tubes were not for a centrifuge, that there was no evid
Re: (Score:2)
What Blix was complaining about (oh, I forgot - US network TV wasn't permitted to show the whole interview) ...
Wow. Make things up much?
No
Yes.
I commented on it at the time in one of the threads. But don't take my word for it - read what the people who worked on the speech had to say about it [cnn.com].
Nothing in that article implies networks were not allowed to show what Blix said. Perhaps you thought I was referring to "Blix was complaining about," but no, that article has nothing to do with what you said Blix was complaining about, either. Indeed, it doesn't even mention Blix.
There was basically NO intelligence to support it ...
And as I already said, I was completely unconvinced by what Powell said. I am not talking about what Powell said. I am talking about the fact that Blix said Iraq was not complying with Resolution 1441.
Seriously, learn to r
Re: (Score:2)
What Blix was complaining about (oh, I forgot - US network TV wasn't permitted to show the whole interview) was access to a specific site, that was determined not to be involved in WMDs.
That is COMPLETELY immaterial. The terms specified that inspectors would get access to ANY location at ANY time. Saddam specifically refused access to at least one site, and on other occasions, stalled before granting access to several other locations.
At NO POINT did the terms state that it was acceptable to refuse access if there was nothing there to inspect.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW - why are you in Iraq? Wasn't it supposed to be to go after that terrorist bin Laden? You know, the whole "Axis of Terror" thing?
If you had stuck to the original program, instead of Bush trying to prove to everyone that he was a better man than h
Re: (Score:2)
Typical Liberal bullshit. It's Clinton fault in the first place that we had to invade Iraq because he wasn't as tough on Iraq in the 90s as he should have been, and now I'm supposed to believe a Democrat president was engaged in bombing them? Ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
So the US supplied WMDs including mustard gas shells, under Reagan's direct orders, US military personnel helped the Iraqis target Iranians , and then tried to blame it on Iran when it was used, with their knowledge, against civilians. You're known by the company you keep ... nice war criminals you got there ... :-(
If you want to be pedantic about it, which side we were on in the war between Iraq and Iran depends largely on what point in time you care to choose. We've been on both sides there.
War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"
"Keeping the oil flowing" is not "civilian necessity."
"dressing as civilians", "combatants wearing burqas as disguise" and "keeping combat equipment in a religious building (aka mosques)" are violations of "customs of war", but strangely enough, I don't hear crap from the Liberal Left and the anti-war crowd about that. As far as I care, if the terrorist factions want to play "dirt
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should stop thinking like this was was anything but an unwanted invasion under a false pretext. This war was illegal. Your former president is a war criminal, as are many who worked with him. That is not going to change.
The US is not on the moral high ground here, and hasn't been for most of the last 170 years [wikipedia.org], being the aggressor mos
Re: (Score:2)
If another country were to invade the US, do you seriously expect that US citizens would refuse to engage the enemy if they didn't happen to have a uniform handy?
Wow. You really don't get this, do you? When Iraqi officials investigated, they found that the "women" were nothing of the sort. They were men, wearing burqas for the sole purpose of hiding their identities and their weapons. That is hardly anything close to "acceptable" in war, no matter HOW you care to look at it. It is nothing short of a cowardly act, at best.
Maybe you should stop thinking like this was was anything but an unwanted invasion under a false pretext. This war was illegal. Your former president is a war criminal, as are many who worked with him. That is not going to change.
The US is not on the moral high ground here, and hasn't been for most of the last 170 years, being the aggressor most of the time.
Yes, Hudson, you're right. Canada took the moral high ground in ignoring the torturous ways that Saddam's government treated the Kurds. Cana
Re: (Score:2)
And before Saddam? Your previous buddy in the country next door - The Shah of Iran, Pavlavi, who had his opponents raped to death by German Shepherds.
And Canada was one of the countries that was lobbying FOR a united UN response, as opposed to retard Bush's "you're for us or against us" cra
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and tackling the biggest? Not the US. Russia is the biggest country in terms of land mass. The EU is the biggest "country" in terms of GDP.
No, "biggest" as in "big man on campus"-- the most powerful nation around. Canada wouldn't know about that- snowballs and ice floes don't count.
Nothing would make me happier than to build an electric fence around the US and fry any poor soul trying to cross it, in either direction, and EMP generators to take down most aircraft and/or ships trying to land here. The world is more trouble than it's worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you can always use more corn to make more ethanol, and have food prices skyrocket ...
And then there's the other products ... like windshield washer, plastics, computers, televisions, steel, aluminium, 92% of your uranium ...
And who's going to pick your fruits and veggies?
-- Barbie
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't work. Without the energy from the rest of the world, you couldn't run an EMP generator,
Short-term problem, at best. Either we would figure out better ways to generate energy, or we would pare-down consumption. (Given the habits of government, I'm guessing it would the latter, and it would be forced due to government dragging their collective tails.)
never mind a modern economy.
This would hurt the US, sure. We've gotten to the point where we don't generate as much within the country. On the other hand, it would affect other nations, since going isolationist would mean that other nations would be making more than they
Re: (Score:2)
The government is the single largest user of energy - what is the likelihood that they will take their share of the 60% cut? Not very - so Joe Public will have to cut back 75%-80%. And so will farmers and employers. Rationing ... and ma
Re: (Score:2)
You would need to cut down energy consumption by almost 2/3. To put that into perspective, that's 5 permanent Hurricane Katrinas, just in terms of oil and gas, and without the ability to ask your 2 neighbors to help make up the gap, since you want to be totally isolated.
Well, if the environmentalist whackos are correct, that can't be a bad thing, can it?
The government is the single largest user of energy - what is the likelihood that they will take their share of the 60% cut? Not very - so Joe Public will have to cut back 75%-80%. And so will farmers and employers.
You mean Government is wasteful?!? Say it isn't SO!!!
Seriously, what you say is no surprise to me, and only the truly ignorant would think this is a new thought.
Rationing ... and massive unemployment.
Again, I am saying, "This is news?"
Do you really want to see the average US citizen reduced to 3rd-world poverty levels?
No, I don't. That is why I am NOT voting for anyone that plays lemming to Obama's Pied Piper. I encourage all Americans with a shred of self respect to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
All that, and you still didn't answer the question of whether how anybody, including Americans, would act under the same circumstances. Your quaint "rules of war" work very nicely as seen from the winning side. How "brave" were the guys who dressed like women to escape from a prison camp? Or to pass secret information? Is anything less than blasting your way out a cowardly act? You want to know cowardly? Drone pilots dropping bombs on wedding parties (al quaida war rooms, I'm sure) from an air conditioned b
Re: (Score:2)
Your quaint "rules of war" work very nicely as seen from the winning side. How "brave" were the guys who dressed like women to escape from a prison camp? Or to pass secret information? Is anything less than blasting your way out a cowardly act?
The part YOU aren't understanding is that the MSM sees a burqa and assumes that whoever is wearing it is an innocent woman, when it may not always be the case. The MSM, in turn, vilifies American forces just because. It's exactly like the stupid stunts that Hamas pulls, when they stage photos of some innocent person(s) getting killed or harassed by Israeli soldiers. The MSM eats that crap up, spewing it as if it were impossible for Hamas to lie. (For all the times that Israel was condemned for calling i
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not concerned about MSN. They can go eat mud pies. And I'm not concerned by the WMDs issue. Yes, they had the weapons, and yes, they were immediately secured by the allies before or during the initial invasion (or even possibly in GW I). But the pretext of "loose" weapons had to be kept alive in order to "build" a friendly nation. Gotta surround Iran...
My comment was about your apparent distaste for an opponent's "cowardly" use of an age old, widely practiced, on all sides, tactic of armed conflict. You
Re: (Score:2)
My comment was about your apparent distaste for an opponent's "cowardly" use of an age old, widely practiced, on all sides, tactic of armed conflict. You are making assumptions about things you can't possibly have any idea. I don't care how much information you have, you can't know the life. So I repeat my contention that you, and most anyone else will act exactly the same under equal circumstances.
Riiiight... We have masqueraded armed soldiers as female civilians, with the intention of catching the enemy off guard, and when they shoot back, we proclaimed to all the world that our enemy was shooting at innocent women for no reason. You don't get away from your video games much, do you? It would seem that jumping to conclusions is the only exercise you get.
Re: (Score:1)
We have masqueraded armed soldiers as female civilians, with the intention of catching the enemy off guard...
Are you actually saying the US never partook in such a thing? Got a bridge for sale... You know I remember reading somewhere that the British had similar complaints about the guerrilla tactics of the rebels during the revolutionary war.
It would seem that jumping to conclusions is the only exercise you get.
Anyway, since it's not your country that has been invaded, your house destroyed
Re: (Score:2)
Are you actually saying the US never partook in such a thing? Got a bridge for sale... You know I remember reading somewhere that the British had similar complaints about the guerrilla tactics of the rebels during the revolutionary war.
Oh, I would LOVE to read this one. Got a link? I suppose we sent people to Britain and France, telling them how terribly evil the Crown was, for ordering the slaughter of helpless women, too!
It would seem that jumping to conclusions is the only exercise you get.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear: Do I jump to conclusions? You betcha. I also happen to be informed about the things I care about, which seems to be more than I can say about at LEAST 3/4 of the human population.
Anyway, since it's not your country that has been invaded, your house destroyed, your family killed, you simply can't understand, and I will have to forgive your lack of empathy. There is no argument to deal with that.
I'll forgive your willingness to deny the necessity of some actions, taken to prevent others. Given
Re: (Score:1)
Being informed is not the same as "knowing". Book knowledge is not street knowledge. In this case Wall Street...
I suppose we sent people to Britain and France, telling them how terribly evil the Crown was, for ordering the slaughter of helpless women, too!
Nope, we were too busy slaughtering the natives right here. And we did a bang up job of that.. Just think of the transport charges from Africa that could have been saved if we merely enslaved them. And as invaders the tactical value of dressing up in drag
Re: (Score:2)
Being informed is not the same as "knowing". Book knowledge is not street knowledge.
So... Which do you lay claim to? I'm guessing "street knowledge", which (from my perspective) is like believing in old wives' tales.
Nope, we were too busy slaughtering the natives right here. And we did a bang up job of that.. Just think of the transport charges from Africa that could have been saved if we merely enslaved them. And as invaders the tactical value of dressing up in drag is very limited. And now we can carry on the slaughter from our own living room. Ain't war hell?
Not good enough. I wanna be able to eliminate entire continents from the comfort of my own bed.
Necessity you say?! Now that's funny. I got bad news for you. The only necessity of these wars on our part is profit, pure and simple. They are resisting out of necessity. Of course you won't accept that, but it's the truth. You think we actually care about the women of the Middle East while we continue to do business with Saudi Arabia? Please, pull the other one. Feel free to come down off that high horse anytime. And let me know how you feel when you know how it feels. Until then you should wipe the word "coward" from your lexicon. All I hear at this point is, "It's good to be king".
There are always two sides to every story, especially in war, and it looks to me like you're stuck on only one side. How very big of you. Instead of trying to rationalize vilifying people, perhaps you should consider that there are some people (like al Qaida operatives, but not l
Re: (Score:1)
Al Quaida is a CIA creation. That might explain the evil bit.
Hmmm, I'm sitting here trying to explain to you that nobody has a monopoly on the practice of guerrilla warfare, and you're telling me I'm one sided? Eh...Learn something new everyday...
Instead of trying to rationalize vilifying people, perhaps you should consider that there are some people (like al Qaida operatives, but not limited to them) that are inherently evil at their core.
Wait, what? "inherently evil"... Is that what they're telling you? I