# Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!



## actsnoblemartin

Agree or disagree and why?. Please do not attack any political party, politician, or person on the board, Please stay on topic, and relate only to the authors points, and whether you agree or disagree and why. 

Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now! 


May 18, 2007
by Michael Boldin

10. The U.S. military has absolutely no right, whether legal or moral, to be killing people who live in Iraq. It has no right to even be in Iraq. Why is this? Because neither the Iraqi government nor the Iraqi people ever attacked the United States. This fact makes the war in Iraq an optional one, not a necessary one. 

To reiterate what should be obvious, the fact that the U.S. was attacked in 2001 does not give this country the right to attack and kill people who had nothing to do with those crimes. It is morally acceptable to go after criminals, but it is a crime to kill their families, their friends, their neighbors, or anyone else not criminally complicit.

9. Both political parties have pursued a foreign policy of aggression for decades, and where has that gotten us?

Our military is based in over 120 countries around the world. The U.S. government has spent billions and billions of dollars of our tax money to prop up dictators and despotic regimes. It has armed people such as Osama bin Laden and the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega, only to use military force to oust them later on. This type of foreign policy has driven people all over the world to hate us. Don't we have enough enemies yet? Isn't it time to say enough is enough?

8. Since this war began back in 1991, millions of people have been driven from their homes, injured, or killed. Considering this fact, I cannot be convinced that the Iraqi people are better off in any way.

7. In a free country, aggressive war should never be used as a tool of foreign policy. Using force to impose what American politicians consider to be a proper government for Iraq violates every principle of freedom which this country is supposed to stand for. This is not freedom for Iraqis

6. No one can convince me that kindness and charity are the primary motives in a war where hundreds of billions of dollars are forcibly redistributed from American citizens to the military-industrial complex; especially the weapons-manufacturers. Maybe something else motivates the war-makers. Could it be greed?

5. Like virtually every war, this war is being funded through the coercive method of taxation. The wealth of the American people is being forcibly transferred to the government and their corporate partners; the merchants of death. Just considering this one point, the war in Iraq is just as immoral and illegal as stealing from one person to give to another. 

On top of this, taxation, deficit-spending, and the printing of money gives the government an almost unlimited source of funding. Thus, there is no incentive for the government to spend the money wisely, because it can always get more - from us. Conversely, the access to such vast wealth is actually an incentive to continue the war perpetually. The ability to grow in wealth and power is something that not many politicians have had the strength to resist throughout history. American politicians are no different.

4. The Iraq War is the polar opposite of any proper concept of self-defense. The United States is the aggressor and Iraq is the defender; plain and simple. This fact brings up some very difficult moral and legal issues for everyone involved. Thomas Paine may have summed it up best:

"Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder."

3. We fought in Vietnam to stop the "domino effect" of communism, but when the communists took over, the world didn't come to an end. We "saved" Kuwait from an evil dictator, but it's still run by a family dynasty that has no interest in liberty for the people. We waged war on Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. Oddly, rights violations are still rampant and Afghani opium production has soared since the invasion. And then, of course, we have all the "good" done in Iraq.

This foreign policy of aggression and intervention, which we have seen grow in preeminence over the last century, just doesn't work. The politicians promise us peace; they promise us security; they promise us anything to get us to go along with their policies, but what happens? In virtually every situation, the intervention totally fails, or the "enemy" is replaced by another despotic regime. The U.S. government has caused chaos in Iraq, and the time for that to come to an end is now.

2. You don't bring freedom to people by waging war on their cities and towns, and you don't protect innocent people by killing innocent people. It is a crime to aggressively take the life of another person. There is no murder of innocent people that can be justified by claiming that it was necessary for the "greater good." 

If you consider that to be the right way of handling the problems in Iraq, you more closely resemble Joseph Stalin's way of thinking than that of liberty-lovers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine.

And the No. 1 reason to get the U.S. out of Iraq...now...

1. The warfare state is, hands down, the greatest threat to liberty. In war, the government always claims the need for massive power, and it uses war as an excuse to expand its control over our lives in every way possible. 

War, the politicians claim, "changes everything." They tap our phones, read our emails, monitor our bank accounts, and give us "free speech zones." They consider torture acceptable and imprison people indefinitely. They take our property, waste our resources, and threaten to spend our economy into oblivion.

Throughout history, even kings and queens have often failed to survive such disastrous governance.

And, just in case that's not enough, here's one more "bonus" reason to get out Iraq now:

The Constitution does not give the president the power to wage war without first getting a declaration of war from Congress. Although some try to claim that the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) fulfilled this requirement, it did not. All it did was transfer a Constitutional power - the power to declare war - from congress to the president. This transfer of power is a violation of the Constitution in and of itself.

Thus, the president violated the Constitution by waging war on Iraq without a declaration of war from congress. And, possibly even more important, everyone in congress who voted for the AUMF in 2002 violated the Constitution as well by illegally transferring their power to declare war to the president.

This is how the U.S. government has handled every war since World War II. By allowing the government to wage undeclared wars, politicians from both political parties have violated their Constitutional oaths repeatedly.

Whether you like it or not, the Constitution is not just a set of loose guidelines, it's the law. Now is the time to demand that our representatives in government abide by the law. We must stop allowing Presidents to drag us into wars, which they later claim we have to continue for years and years until the "job is done."

NATIONAL DEFENSE, NOT OFFENSE

If government should be playing any role at all in foreign affairs, it should be only to keep us out of wars. Their sole job is to ensure that this country will not be attacked so you and your family can live in peace.

I'd actually like to see some national defense for once in this country; all we have now is a national offense. Such things as staging coups, backing dictators with billions in foreign aid, basing our military in over 120 nations, and attacking other countries does nothing to keep this country safe. In fact, it does just the opposite, and almost guarantees more war in the future.

To make this country safer, we don't need to increase the power of the politicians, and we definitely don't need more national offense. We don't need more weapons, a larger military, or wars in more countries.

We need the exact opposite of this. We need to focus on defending the country rather than aggressing against the rest of the world.

The only reason to have a military force at all is to deter and discourage potential invaders; it's not to be used as a pre-emptive strike force. If the attackers come anyway, it's the military's job to repel them at our borders. Nothing more, nothing less. If they're unable to do that job, maybe we should consider something different.

WHAT NOW?

The path this country is on right now, the path of empire and militarism, will only guarantee us more violence, death, and loss of liberty.

This state of affairs is intolerable.

The right plan, in the short term, is the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq. Now. Not when the violence "subsides." Not when Iraq has a stable government. Not when more Iraqi forces are trained. Not when the Democrats tell us the war is over, not when the Republicans tell us the war is over, and not when we have a new president.

The time to leave Iraq is now. Not in the fall. Not next year. Not next month or next week. Today, not tomorrow - right now.

Could the entire U.S. Military machine and its associated contractors leave Iraq this very moment? Obviously not. But, we could easily announce an immediate cessation of aggressive hostilities, and start mobilizing all of our resources to transport the troops out right away. It didn't take all that long to march into Iraq, and it won't take that long to march right on out.

FOR THE FUTURE

I hope that the painful lessons of the Iraq war will cause the American people to realize that the only solution to our foreign policy problems, including our nation's security, is not just a withdrawal from Iraq.

These long-term measures should be taken:

* Bring all U.S. troops home. All of them.
* Stop inciting violence against us by backing coups and despotic regimes.
* Stop telling other countries what type of government they should have, who their leaders should be, and what their policies should be. 
* End all foreign aid; both military and economic. Allow the American people, with their own free will, to decide which charities and movements they want to support with their money and lives.

On top of these essential measures, we must clearly recognize that people in other countries don't hate us for "being free." They attack us when our government continually interferes in their lives.

This long-term solution requires a return to our nation's founding principles of individual liberty. This is quite contrary to America's current policies of militarism, endless foreign aid, massive standing armies, assassinations, coups, deadly sanctions, and wars.

As a nation, we cannot solve all the problems of the world. We cannot bring peace to the world. And, as the historical record shows, we cannot trust our politicians to do so either. Such has been the arrogance of many of the most murderous tyrants in world history, and such has been the path to their destruction.

We may not be able to stop war and bloodshed in places like Darfur, and we may not be able to bring liberty to places like North Korea. But, by standing up for what we believe in, our voices can make a real difference in what our own government is allowed to do.

When a government that rules in our name engages in torture, killing, and war, the number one question that will be asked of us someday is this: did you rise in opposition to it? Did you speak out against it? Or, did you approve of it by remaining silent?

I, for one, rise in opposition, and will continue to speak out.


----------



## Ruby

I couldnt find anything in there I disagreed with. I doubt we are going to embrace this kind of wisdom though. I think we are determined to learn these lessons the hard way.

If we look around the world and at our history (world history) we find that people have to hit some very low depths before they make real changes. We humans seem to have high tolerance for suffering. We have already pushed Iraq into that stage so we arent going to see resistance decrease, the more they suffer the more they will resist.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> I couldnt find anything in there I disagreed with. I doubt we are going to embrace this kind of wisdom though. I think we are determined to learn these lessons the hard way.
> 
> If we look around the world and at our history (world history) we find that people have to hit some very low depths before they make real changes. We humans seem to have high tolerance for suffering. We have already pushed Iraq into that stage so we arent going to see resistance decrease, the more they suffer the more they will resist.



Looks like a bunch of backwards-assed, twisted facts to me.


----------



## dilloduck

Ruby said:


> I couldnt find anything in there I disagreed with. I doubt we are going to embrace this kind of wisdom though. I think we are determined to learn these lessons the hard way.
> 
> If we look around the world and at our history (world history) we find that people have to hit some very low depths before they make real changes. We humans seem to have high tolerance for suffering. We have already pushed Iraq into that stage so we arent going to see resistance decrease, the more they suffer the more they will resist.



OF course not--the guy hates America.


----------



## Ruby

dilloduck said:


> OF course not--the guy hates America.



The old "you hate america" schtick ONCE AGAIN. Its a very lame refuge to hide in when you cant deal with the issues themselves . Its merely a feeble attempt to draw attention away from those issues raised.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> Looks like a bunch of backwards-assed, twisted facts to me.




What specifically is not a fact or a twisted fact?


----------



## maineman

dilloduck said:


> OF course not--the guy hates America.



because you may not agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle, does that mean you HATE all gays and lesbians?

As any good Christian knows, it is the sin that you should abhor, not the sinner. 

Similarly, it is quite possible to LOVE America deeply and hate what her leaders are doing in her name.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> What specifically is not a fact or a twisted fact?



Start with #10.  We didn't go into Iraq because of 9/11.  It appears from past arguments, that only the lefties on this board thought we did; which, belies their self-proclaimed intellectual superiority if they did.

Claiming that it was packaged and sold that way is just so much BS.

And before you set yourself up by arguing/accusing that I was for invading Iraq, and/or am for staying in Iraq, feel free to search past threads on the topic and my stance.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> because you may not agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle, does that mean you HATE all gays and lesbians?
> 
> As any good Christian knows, it is the sin that you should abhor, not the sinner.
> 
> Similarly, it is quite possible to LOVE America deeply and hate what her leaders are doing in her name.



Just as it is possible to us the appropriate forum for redress of grievances rather than ensuring everyone outside this Nation knows that we live in a house divided.


----------



## dilloduck

Ruby said:


> The old "you hate america" schtick ONCE AGAIN. Its a very lame refuge to hide in when you cant deal with the issues themselves . Its merely a feeble attempt to draw attention away from those issues raised.



Hating America IS the issue. One of the PRIMARY facets of America is capitalism. Our economy is dependent on it. Name me a country that does not do everything it can to protect it's economy.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Just as it is possible to us the appropriate forum for redress of grievances rather than ensuring everyone outside this Nation knows that we live in a house divided.



the public square IS the appropriate forum for the redress of grievances!  This house has always been "divided".  We have always had raucous and unruly public political squabbles.  It is part and parcel of the glorious and unique nature of our country.

Were all the republicans listed in this website traitorous treasonous cowards for publicly showing the world that we lived in a house divided?

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf

And can you think of a more appropriate forum than the chambers of congress to debate the wisdom of foreign policy? or do you suggest that as soon as american troops are sent into harm's way, that all debates on the subject be stifled and all votes on any issues surrounding that military adventure be unanimous, just so we can appear to be something other than a house divided? 

And how, pray tell, would everyone INSIDE this nation ever ascertain that we were or ought to be "a house divided" if public debate on any and all issues surrounding foreign policy are muzzled once troops are in battle? Would you advocate the use of sign language?  Would we all silently pass notes to one another?


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Start with #10.  We didn't go into Iraq because of 9/11.  It appears from past arguments, that only the lefties on this board thought we did; which, belies their self-proclaimed intellectual superiority if they did.
> 
> Claiming that it was packaged and sold that way is just so much BS.
> 
> And before you set yourself up by arguing/accusing that I was for invading Iraq, and/or am for staying in Iraq, feel free to search past threads on the topic and my stance.



and claiming that the administration did not play on American's deep seated anger and need for revenge in the wake of 9/11 to rally public support for the invasion of Iraq is just so much BS.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> the public square IS the appropriate forum for the redress of grievances!  This house has always been "divided".  We have always had raucous and unruly public political squabbles.  It is part and parcel of the glorious and unique nature of our country.
> 
> Were all the republicans listed in this website traitorous treasonous cowards for publicly showing the world that we lived in a house divided?
> 
> http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf
> 
> And can you think of a more appropriate forum than the chambers of congress to debate the wisdom of foreign policy? or do you suggest that as soon as american troops are sent into harm's way, that all debates on the subject be stifled and all votes on any issues surrounding that military adventure be unanimous, just so we can appear to be something other than a house divided?
> 
> And how, pray tell, would everyone INSIDE this nation ever ascertain that we were or ought to be "a house divided" if public debate on any and all issues surrounding foreign policy are muzzled once troops are in battle? Would you advocate the use of sign language?  Would we all silently pass notes to one another?



I disagree.  The public square is the appropriate forum to inflame others.  Being retired military, I still find it a bit bewildering that you of all people don't get it.  

The appropriate forum is voting, addressing your elected representatives whether in person or writing.  So to answer your question, the chambers of Congress are the appropriate forums, the front page of the NYT or WP are not.

Why do you need to pass notes or use sign language?  Do you need to check with a committee before you decide what you think is right or wrong?


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> and claiming that the administration did not play on American's deep seated anger and need for revenge in the wake of 9/11 to rally public support for the invasion of Iraq is just so much BS.



Not BS at all.  You and others came up with this ridiculous, subliminal crap scenario that only mindless sheep would believe.

And the only people I hear claiming they were fooled are libs.  Are you claiming to be a mindless sheep?  

I didn't think so.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I disagree.  The public square is the appropriate forum to inflame others.  Being retired military, I still find it a bit bewildering that you of all people don't get it.
> 
> The appropriate forum is voting, addressing your elected representatives whether in person or writing.  So to answer your question, the chambers of Congress are the appropriate forums, the front page of the NYT or WP are not.
> 
> Why do you need to pass notes or use sign language?  Do you need to check with a committee before you decide what you think is right or wrong?




inflaming the hearts of men has been a staple of the American democratic movement since Thomas Paine.  Our democracy is all about standing up in the public square and getting people to listen to you.

You would suggest, instead, that we quietly go vote, and then keep our mouths shut until the next election?

And do you not think that our enemies get the congressional record or watch C-SPAN?  Did you read the comments from republicans about Clinton's actions in the Balkans?

and read this statement again:

_And how, pray tell, would everyone INSIDE this nation ever ascertain that we were or ought to be "a house divided" if public debate on any and all issues surrounding foreign policy are muzzled once troops are in battle? Would you advocate the use of sign language? Would we all silently pass notes to one another?_

That was in direct response to your suggestion that debate in the public square of American democracy somehow might be heard by people outside this nation.  I ask, if vocal debate in the public square is somehow "off limits" in your orderly fascist fantasy, how are people supposed to ever learn anything about anything that impacts their lives?  Are we reduced to sign language and passing notes so that our "enemies" can't hear us practice democracy?

You see.... I am perfectly capable of figuring out what I believe is right or wrong.... and I am so fucking happy I live in a country that was founded on my right to stand up in the public square and speak about it in as loud a voice as I can muster and hope that I attract a crowd and that I change their minds.  In fact, that right has been so fucking important to me my whole life that I served my country in a profession whose primary mission was protecting that right for all Americans.  

FREEDOM of speech.  

Speech is NEVER inappropriate.  I am standing on my soap box in the middle of the public square.  If you don't like what I am saying, move on....go listen to someone else talking on their soapbox...but don't EVER try to tell me that being a good America requires that I be silent.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Not BS at all.  You and others came up with this ridiculous, subliminal crap scenario that only mindless sheep would believe.
> 
> And the only people I hear claiming they were fooled are libs.  Are you claiming to be a mindless sheep?
> 
> I didn't think so.




FACT:  on 9/13/01, the overwhelming majority of Americans knew who OBL was and knew that he had attacked us.

FACT:  in September of 2003, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was behind the attacks.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

(and there are nearly a million links on google with similar stories)

Obviously, I never believed it - you claim that you never believed it - and clearly, those who had believed it at the time would likely never own up to answering that way on a poll back then, but clearly, a lot of folks indeed were "fooled" by someone.  Who do YOU think that might have been?


----------



## dilloduck

maineman said:


> FACT:  on 9/13/01, the overwhelming majority of Americans knew who OBL was and knew that he had attacked us.
> 
> FACT:  in September of 2003, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was behind the attacks.
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
> 
> (and there are nearly a million links on google with similar stories)
> 
> Obviously, I never believed it - you claim that you never believed it - and clearly, those who had believed it at the time would likely never own up to answering that way on a poll back then, but clearly, a lot of folks indeed were "fooled" by someone.  Who do YOU think that might have been?



The media ?


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> FACT:  on 9/13/01, the overwhelming majority of Americans knew who OBL was and knew that he had attacked us.
> 
> FACT:  in September of 2003, nearly 70&#37; of Americans believed that Saddam was behind the attacks.
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
> 
> (and there are nearly a million links on google with similar stories)
> 
> Obviously, I never believed it - you claim that you never believed it - and clearly, those who had believed it at the time would likely never own up to answering that way on a poll back then, but clearly, a lot of folks indeed were "fooled" by someone.  Who do YOU think that might have been?



I see.  So even though the Bush admin never said it, but for some reason according to your source, 70% believed it, that makes the admin guilty for something it never said.

I have to wonder WHO exactly was polled, or which mental institution was polled, to get that 70%.  

Seems to me, the only medium in existence that is capable of fooling 70% of the people is the MSM.

I will also add that where we had this discussion before, I provided the link to a statement by the Bush administration prior to invading Iraq stating that there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.


----------



## maineman

dilloduck said:


> The media ?



I suppose, in a way, that is at least partially correct.  If the media had not reported on and published Team Bush's full court press about linking Saddam to 9/11...as very nicely laid out by the Christian Science Monitor link that I provided, then America would probably not have gotten that mistaken idea.

But imagine the stink from Faux/Rush/Hannity/Savage/RNC is the press ever failed to adequately cover the speeches of the president of the united states and his high ranking toadies...


----------



## dilloduck

maineman said:


> I suppose, in a way, that is at least partially correct.  If the media had not reported on and published Team Bush's full court press about linking Saddam to 9/11...as very nicely laid out by the Christian Science Monitor link that I provided, then America would probably not have gotten that mistaken idea.
> 
> But imagine the stink from Faux/Rush/Hannity/Savage/RNC is the press ever failed to adequately cover the speeches of the president of the united states and his high ranking toadies...



You're lucky Bush didn't decide to invade every Arab state at the same time. Can you imagine ?


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I see.  So even though the Bush admin never said it, but for some reason according to your source, 70% believed it, that makes the admin guilty for something it never said.
> 
> I have to wonder WHO exactly was polled, or which mental institution was polled, to get that 70%.
> 
> Seems to me, the only medium in existence that is capable of fooling 70% of the people is the MSM.
> 
> I will also add that where we had this discussion before, I provided the link to a statement by the Bush administration prior to invading Iraq stating that there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.



so when you don't agree with public opinion polls, then obviously the polling methodology must be flawed and the pollsters all had ulterior motives?

that is a very convenient argument.

And the MSM just reports...you decide.

These weren't speeches by NYT editors.... you can't find many MSM commentators who were hawking the Saddam-9/11 connection.... read the CSM article.


----------



## maineman

dilloduck said:


> You're lucky Bush decide to invade every Arab state at the same time. Can you imagine ?



that sentence is nonsensical.  care to edit it?


----------



## dilloduck

maineman said:


> that sentence is nonsensical.  care to edit it?



done


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> so when you don't agree with public opinion polls, then obviously the polling methodology must be flawed and the pollsters all had ulterior motives?
> 
> that is a very convenient argument.
> 
> And the MSM just reports...you decide.
> 
> These weren't speeches by NYT editors.... you can't find many MSM commentators who were hawking the Saddam-9/11 connection.... read the CSM article.



C'mon MM ... you know I don't agree with using opinion polls period, and it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them.  Agree with them or not, opinion polls have at best questionable credibility, IMO.

The MSM manipulates what they report and I was taught for 4 years just how to manipulate the reader, so I would know.


----------



## dilloduck

GunnyL said:


> C'mon MM ... you know I don't agree with using opinion polls period, and it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them.  Agree with them or not, opinion polls have at best questionable credibility, IMO.
> 
> The MSM manipulates what they report and I was taught for 4 years just how to manipulate the reader, so I would know.



I sorta enjoyed it when the peace-niks realized the WOT wasn't going to be over in a week with no casualties. "We shoulda attacked Iran and Saudi Arabia !!! They are the REAL enemies". I wonder why we don't hear that anymore.


----------



## Gunny

dilloduck said:


> I sorta enjoyed it when the peace-niks realized the WOT wasn't going to be over in a week with no casualties. "We shoulda attacked Iran and Suadi Arabia !!! They are the REAL enemies". I wonder why we don't hear that anymore.



My favorite was listening to "Bush didn't finish the job" for 13 years.  Something no one will admit to saying now, and even had a few try to deny it was ever said.


----------



## dilloduck

GunnyL said:


> My favorite was listening to "Bush didn't finish the job" for 13 years.  Something no one will admit to saying now, and even had a few try to deny it was ever said.



It's gotta be tough trying to call somebody stupid after they "fooled" you. Can you imagine the emotional turmoil that they went through during the early days of the Iraq invasion ? I think for a few brief days there they didn't know who to cheer for.


----------



## Gunny

dilloduck said:


> It's gotta be tough trying to call somebody stupid after they "fooled" you. Can you imagine the emotional turmoil that they went through during the early days of the Iraq invasion ? I think for a few brief days there they didn't know who to cheer for.



They were waiting for an overwhelming short and sweet victory so they could jump on the bandwagon and declare their support for the troops.


----------



## dilloduck

GunnyL said:


> They were waiting for an overwhelming short and sweet victory so they could jump on the bandwagon and declare their support for the troops.



First they would have had to find a way to spin it as a Democrats' idea. Hillary would have been pounding her chest saying "Bill and I said all along this Saddam guy was a bad man"


----------



## Ruby

There are a couple of points.

The Bush admin weaved a good "war on terror" bit that did rope Saddam in with 9/11. Everything was "we live in a different world now AFTER 9/11". We did the whole "axis of evil" and said he was part of our "war on terror" that was started with 9/11. The speeches were crafted to not come out and DIRECTLY say Saddam did it, but everytime we talked of 9/11, Saddam would be the next sentence. We made Saddam the central key to fighting terror in this "after 9/11 world". 

It was ALWAYS a jaw-drop to me that so many people FELL FOR IT. 

We have found ourselves in a situation where we are the illegal aggressors staging an aggressive war and we dont have a right to be there or doing this. Not a legal one and not a moral one. 

I dont see any twisted facts or incorrect facts in what the op said.


----------



## maineman

Gunny...I think you missed my reply as it fell at the last of the first page on this thread.



GunnyL said:


> I disagree.  The public square is the appropriate forum to inflame others.  Being retired military, I still find it a bit bewildering that you of all people don't get it.
> 
> The appropriate forum is voting, addressing your elected representatives whether in person or writing.  So to answer your question, the chambers of Congress are the appropriate forums, the front page of the NYT or WP are not.
> 
> Why do you need to pass notes or use sign language?  Do you need to check with a committee before you decide what you think is right or wrong?





maineman said:


> inflaming the hearts of men has been a staple of the American democratic movement since Thomas Paine.  Our democracy is all about standing up in the public square and getting people to listen to you.
> 
> You would suggest, instead, that we quietly go vote, and then keep our mouths shut until the next election?
> 
> And do you not think that our enemies get the congressional record or watch C-SPAN?  Did you read the comments from republicans about Clinton's actions in the Balkans?
> 
> and read this statement again:
> 
> _And how, pray tell, would everyone INSIDE this nation ever ascertain that we were or ought to be "a house divided" if public debate on any and all issues surrounding foreign policy are muzzled once troops are in battle? Would you advocate the use of sign language? Would we all silently pass notes to one another?_
> 
> That was in direct response to your suggestion that debate in the public square of American democracy somehow might be heard by people outside this nation.  I ask, if vocal debate in the public square is somehow "off limits" in your orderly fascist fantasy, how are people supposed to ever learn anything about anything that impacts their lives?  Are we reduced to sign language and passing notes so that our "enemies" can't hear us practice democracy?
> 
> You see.... I am perfectly capable of figuring out what I believe is right or wrong.... and I am so fucking happy I live in a country that was founded on my right to stand up in the public square and speak about it in as loud a voice as I can muster and hope that I attract a crowd and that I change their minds.  In fact, that right has been so fucking important to me my whole life that I served my country in a profession whose primary mission was protecting that right for all Americans.
> 
> FREEDOM of speech.
> 
> Speech is NEVER inappropriate.  I am standing on my soap box in the middle of the public square.  If you don't like what I am saying, move on....go listen to someone else talking on their soapbox...but don't EVER try to tell me that being a good America requires that I be silent.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> Gunny...I think you missed my reply as it fell at the last of the first page on this thread.



When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics.  So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."

If you dont protect the Nation first, and the ideals on which it was formed, you have neither ... and with it goes our freedom of speech.

I doubt we disagree much on the right of freedom of speech itself.  Where we disagree is in the regulation of freedom of speech.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics.  So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."
> 
> If you dont protect the Nation first, and the ideals on which it was formed, you have neither ... and with it goes our freedom of speech.
> 
> I doubt we disagree much on the right of freedom of speech itself.  Where we disagree is in the regulation of freedom of speech.




Regulating free speech is really just a way to take AWAY free speech. 

You seem to advocate stifling free speech that carries an ideology that YOU personally feel is detrimental to the nation, others (like myself) feel its BENEFICIAL to the nation. Trying to regulate such a thing just means stripping away the right. I certainly dont advocate people being silenced that have completely opposing views from me and who propose things I think are VERY detrimental to the nation.....A good example are the racist groups like the KKK. If they want to demonstrate and speak up publically, they have every right to do so. I think their ideals are detrimental and even disgusting. I detest their ideology, but they have a RIGHT to speak up as much as they like.

The true test of a committment to free speech is when you support it even when you HATE everything being said.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> Regulating free speech is really just a way to take AWAY free speech.
> 
> You seem to advocate stifling free speech that carries an ideology that YOU personally feel is detrimental to the nation, others (like myself) feel its BENEFICIAL to the nation. Trying to regulate such a thing just means stripping away the right. I certainly dont advocate people being silenced that have completely opposing views from me and who propose things I think are VERY detrimental to the nation.....A good example are the racist groups like the KKK. If they want to demonstrate and speak up publically, they have every right to do so. I think their ideals are detrimental and even disgusting. I detest their ideology, but they have a RIGHT to speak up as much as they like.
> 
> The true test of a committment to free speech is when you support it even when you HATE everything being said.




Regulating free speech is justa  way to keep people who obviously have no common sense from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

I have said nothing about taking away anyone's rights.  The Constitution does not give you the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want and never has.

If you see that ensuring our enemies know exactly how to divide us and play us against one another as beneficial, then I'd say you need to have your glasses checked.

The true test of freedom of speech, or any right for that matter, is accepting the responsibility that goes with it instead of just using it in any manner you see fit without regard for the consequences of your actions.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> Regulating free speech is justa  way to keep people who obviously have no common sense from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
> 
> I have said nothing about taking away anyone's rights.  The Constitution does not give you the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want and never has.
> 
> If you see that ensuring our enemies know exactly how to divide us and play us against one another as beneficial, then I'd say you need to have your glasses checked.
> 
> The true test of freedom of speech, or any right for that matter, is accepting the responsibility that goes with it instead of just using it in any manner you see fit without regard for the consequences of your actions.



While I do agree there are limitations, such as the "fire" example you  give, what you are proposing to do is to regulate speech that is about political views and ideology. 

It is your view that this aids the enemy, I disagree.

Where is anyone proposing they arent responsible for what they say? I am not sure where you are going with that point. 

Just because you claim what people say endangers  the nation dosent make it a FACT, it remains just your OPINION.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> While I do agree there are limitations, such as the "fire" example you  give, what you are proposing to do is to regulate speech that is about political views and ideology.
> 
> It is your view that this aids the enemy, I disagree.
> 
> Where is anyone proposing they arent responsible for what they say? I am not sure where you are going with that point.
> 
> Just because you claim what people say endangers  the nation dosent make it a FACT, it remains just your OPINION.



Trying to play more semantics?  It doesn't matter what topic you wish to call it, the public good is the public good.

It is nothing but YOUR opinion that the nation is not endangered.  It's pretty much fact that providing your enemies with the wherewithall to destroy you "endangers the nation."

And the topic of "liberals and personal accountability" has a life all its own.  The short version is, y'all do not hold yourselves accountable for the consequences of your actions as manifested by most of your political ideology.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Trying to play more semantics?  It doesn't matter what topic you wish to call it, the public good is the public good.
> 
> It is nothing but YOUR opinion that the nation is not endangered.  It's pretty much fact that providing your enemies with the wherewithall to destroy you "endangers the nation."



it is nothing more than your opinion that speech in the public square provides our enemies the wherewithall to destroy our nation...

and it is MY opinion that an America that stifled speech in the public square would be well on the way to destroying itself.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics.  So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."
> 
> If you dont protect the Nation first, and the ideals on which it was formed, you have neither ... and with it goes our freedom of speech.
> 
> I doubt we disagree much on the right of freedom of speech itself.  Where we disagree is in the regulation of freedom of speech.



and this determination of "detriment" is left up to ....you, I guess?

and here's a news flash:  people's personal politics and the fervency of their belief in those political principles IS the lifeblood of this nation - not something apart from it.  

The fact that YOU have seen no good and much harm in public debate is an opinion that I do not share.... and I must say that I pity you for even feeling that way.  That is truly sad.  What were you protecting all those years, if not the freedoms that make America unique?


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> Regulating free speech is justa  way to keep people who obviously have no common sense from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
> 
> I have said nothing about taking away anyone's rights.  The Constitution does not give you the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want and never has.
> 
> If you see that ensuring our enemies know exactly how to divide us and play us against one another as beneficial, then I'd say you need to have your glasses checked.
> 
> The true test of freedom of speech, or any right for that matter, is accepting the responsibility that goes with it instead of just using it in any manner you see fit without regard for the consequences of your actions.




Actually, if one is a strict constructionist, then one would believe that the Constitution does give you the right to say whatever you want, whereever and whenever you like.  Of course, the judiciary, being reasonable, has placed some common-sense prohibitions on the exercise of speech by citizens (time/place restrictions, obscenity, solicitation, etc).  I don't believe that it has ever been widely accepted (especially in the last century) that the Constitution provides the ability to prohibit content-specific speech, except perhaps with respect to obscenity.  Certainly, political speech has always been the most respected and protected form of speech.  To hold otherwise would rip the First Amendment of all of its force.  If government A has the authority to prohibit speech X because it finds it dangerous, then what prevents government B from prohibiting speech X, Y and Z.  Once the power to regulate a certain type of speech is granted, then who has the authority to determine that speech X is dangerous, but speech Y is not.  What principled basis can they use to make this determination?


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> Trying to play more semantics?  It doesn't matter what topic you wish to call it, the public good is the public good.
> 
> It is nothing but YOUR opinion that the nation is not endangered.  It's pretty much fact that providing your enemies with the wherewithall to destroy you "endangers the nation."
> 
> And the topic of "liberals and personal accountability" has a life all its own.  The short version is, y'all do not hold yourselves accountable for the consequences of your actions as manifested by most of your political ideology.



There arent any semantics here by a long shot. You just want people you dont agree with to be silenced by the law.

Then you just moved onto a partisan "liberals are bad" routine....sorry, thats just plain weak and certainly isnt dealing with the merits of the issue.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> There arent any semantics here by a long shot. You just want people you dont agree with to be silenced by the law.
> 
> Then you just moved onto a partisan "liberals are bad" routine....sorry, thats just plain weak and certainly isnt dealing with the merits of the issue.



You would be incorrect in your assumptions on both statements, as seems to be the case with you.  

I said NOTHING about silencing only those who don't agree with me, and the accusation is bullshit.

There's nothing weak about any of my arguments.  You're just doing what you accuse me of doing .... trying to call me partisan to dismiss and deflect from an issue you don't wish to address.

I believe I made a specific allegation, not some "liberals are bad" statement.  Myabe you ought to try doing a little homework on my stances rather than blindly running off at the mouth.  There're 3 years worth of posts on this board.  Feel free to browse.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> You would be incorrect in your assumptions on both statements, as seems to be the case with you.
> 
> I said NOTHING about silencing only those who don't agree with me, and the accusation is bullshit.
> 
> There's nothing weak about any of my arguments.  You're just doing what you accuse me of doing .... trying to call me partisan to dismiss and deflect from an issue you don't wish to address.
> 
> I believe I made a specific allegation, not some "liberals are bad" statement.  Myabe you ought to try doing a little homework on my stances rather than blindly running off at the mouth.  There're 3 years worth of posts on this board.  Feel free to browse.




I am not gonna sit and study your posts or view you as homework...amazing amount of ego there. If its too much trouble to discuss for you, then simply dont. Your few sentences arent complicated nor hard to understand. 

You want to silence the voices that are anti-war and are not in agreement with the administration..its not all that complicated. You want the US to have a harmonious public voice so no one hears us disagree, that is most definitely silencing ONE SIDE of the political debate and I doubt you are trying to silence the side you AGREE with. 

You sure did make a very partisan "liberals are bad" statement. Here it is again



> The short version is, y'all do not hold yourselves accountable for the consequences of your actions as manifested by most of your political ideology



Just a jab at liberals and support of the idea that dissent over the war should be silenced  (using a rationale that it "helps" our enemies). Honestly, we are own worst enemy.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> I am not gonna sit and study your posts or view you as homework...amazing amount of ego there. If its too much trouble to discuss for you, then simply dont. Your few sentences arent complicated nor hard to understand.
> 
> You want to silence the voices that are anti-war and are not in agreement with the administration..its not all that complicated. You want the US to have a harmonious public voice so no one hears us disagree, that is most definitely silencing ONE SIDE of the political debate and I doubt you are trying to silence the side you AGREE with.
> 
> You sure did make a very partisan "liberals are bad" statement. Here it is again
> 
> 
> 
> Just a jab at liberals and support of the idea that dissent over the war should be silenced  (using a rationale that it "helps" our enemies). Honestly, we are own worst enemy.



Not ego, ma'am ... simply tired of repeating my every stance for every new liberal that wants to roll in with the tide. 

The statement is far from a "liberals are bad" partisan jab.  It's supported by the liberal stance on quite a few issues.  That would make it fact, not a jab.

You're only half-right about who I would silence and why.  It damned-sure isn't to support this administration.  That's your failure to do your homework talking.

If ti makes you feel any better, I didn't agree with conservatives doing it when Bill Clinton involved us in another nation's civil war anymore than I agree with liberals doing it now when Bush has done the same exact thing.

But I DO wonder where all you naysayers and anti- folks were THEN, as opposed to now.


----------



## dilloduck

Ruby said:


> We made Saddam the central key to fighting terror in this "after 9/11 world".



We sure did--it's about time you accept some responsibility instead of this "we were lied to" mantra.


----------



## jodylee

I'll give you one good reason to stay. You havn't finished the job yet. and as the whole world said 'don't attack iraq' its on americas head to finish it.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> Not ego, ma'am ... simply tired of repeating my every stance for every new liberal that wants to roll in with the tide.
> 
> The statement is far from a "liberals are bad" partisan jab.  It's supported by the liberal stance on quite a few issues.  That would make it fact, not a jab.
> 
> You're only half-right about who I would silence and why.  It damned-sure isn't to support this administration.  That's your failure to do your homework talking.
> 
> If ti makes you feel any better, I didn't agree with conservatives doing it when Bill Clinton involved us in another nation's civil war anymore than I agree with liberals doing it now when Bush has done the same exact thing.
> 
> But I DO wonder where all you naysayers and anti- folks were THEN, as opposed to now.



I repeat, if you find it too tiring to discuss it, then dont but dont expect me to sit up and study your posts and make a project out of you.

At least now you are admitting you want to silence people you disagree with.

I have never concerned myself wiht just ONE particular admin and it was YOUR assumption that its my focus. We have decades of predatory foreign policy and that spans many administrations and covers both of our puppet parties.

There isnt much Clinton did that I agree with and I wasnt supportive or silent about his actions either or his bombings or his assistance to get NAFTA done. His welfare to work program was nothing more than handing large corps cheap labor and giving them corporate welfare (shifting part of those low wages onto tax payers) etc. 

So I will tell you that I wasnt silent nor supportive of Clinton, I wont tell you to go study previous posts of mine or try to get you to study me as if I were homework!

Bottomline, you just like to support us going around and bullying other nations and want the public to be silent about any disagreement they have with it or any steps they take to STOP IT. Ok have it your way, but eventually we will self combust and crumble from it all...


----------



## Ruby

dilloduck said:


> We sure did--it's about time you accept some responsibility instead of this "we were lied to" mantra.




I do accept responsibility for what we as a nation have become and what we do. Its you who keep trying to defend the indefensible, I dont.

I want to be clear, MANY realized the WMD was a lie when the Bush admin was so busy telling it...we saw inspectors there and they werent coming up with a smoking gun...we knew what was up when the US told the inspectors to leave...we new about PNAC. I dont think the american people get a pass because they were "lied" to, it is our responsiblity to control our own govt and not allow it to wage wars of aggression. We, as an american public have failed miserably and we are 100% responsible for waging a war of aggression and violating some of the principles we hold in very high esteem.


----------



## Ruby

jodylee said:


> I'll give you one good reason to stay. You havn't finished the job yet. and as the whole world said 'don't attack iraq' its on americas head to finish it.




I would say its on americans to PAY for it but for Iraqis to finish because Iraqis shouldnt be denied their rights to self determination or sovereignty because of the crimes of the US. That would be punishing the victims.


----------



## maineman

dilloduck said:


> We sure did--it's about time you accept some responsibility instead of this "we were lied to" mantra.



and as someone who has spoken out since the very moment Bush&Co. started talking about "Saddam" and "9/11" and "Al Qaeda" and "weapons of mass destruction" and "gassed his own people" "blah blah blah" INSTEAD of focusing on Osama bin Laden and the guys who really DID attack us, I will not be counted among those in the "we" who made Saddam so artificially urgent.  And...I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so", but I will definitely say it nonetheless.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> I repeat, if you find it too tiring to discuss it, then dont but dont expect me to sit up and study your posts and make a project out of you.
> 
> At least now you are admitting you want to silence people you disagree with.
> 
> I have never concerned myself wiht just ONE particular admin and it was YOUR assumption that its my focus. We have decades of predatory foreign policy and that spans many administrations and covers both of our puppet parties.
> 
> There isnt much Clinton did that I agree with and I wasnt supportive or silent about his actions either or his bombings or his assistance to get NAFTA done. His welfare to work program was nothing more than handing large corps cheap labor and giving them corporate welfare (shifting part of those low wages onto tax payers) etc.
> 
> So I will tell you that I wasnt silent nor supportive of Clinton, I wont tell you to go study previous posts of mine or try to get you to study me as if I were homework!
> 
> Bottomline, you just like to support us going around and bullying other nations and want the public to be silent about any disagreement they have with it or any steps they take to STOP IT. Ok have it your way, but eventually we will self combust and crumble from it all...



Not even a nice try.  Nothing in my post indicates I want to silence sloely people who disagree with me.  Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

Your "bottomline" is as incorrect as the rest of your assumptions.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Not even a nice try.  Nothing in my post indicates I want to silence sloely people who disagree with me.  Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.
> 
> Your "bottomline" is as incorrect as the rest of your assumptions.




you DID say, however:

_When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics. So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."
_


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> you DID say, however:
> 
> _When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics. So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."
> _



That does not say one word about me silencing anyone.  It doesn't say anything about legislating anything, nor using force.  It's an opinion.

I believe if you look at the statement closely, it puts the onus on the individual to think about the consquences of what they are saying before saying it.

So the accusation that I want to silence only those who disagree with me is just partisan bullshit by someone who thinks she already has all the answers to what I think.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> That does not say one word about me silencing anyone.  It doesn't say anything about legislating anything, nor using force.  It's an opinion.
> 
> I believe if you look at the statement closely, it puts the onus on the individual to think about the consquences of what they are saying before saying it.
> 
> So the accusation that I want to silence only those who disagree with me is just partisan bullshit by someone who thinks she already has all the answers to what I think.



Firstly, I dont have all the answers and have never claimed to so thats just an incorrect statement on your part.

When you said this to maineman....



> I doubt we disagree much on the right of freedom of speech itself. Where we disagree is in the regulation of freedom of speech.



...it lead me to believe that you would like to see different regulations put into place since its the REGULATIONS you dont currently agree with. You also made it clear that the PUBLIC criticism HARMS the nation and thats the speech you want to be more regulated. You felt we could write our reps and vote but that the the disagreement shouldnt be in major publications (like newspapers).

To me, it is your opinion and you are supportive of any measures that would tighten regulations on free speech to silence those things you feel shouldnt be said publically OR are you saying that while you hold the opinion we should have tougher regulations on free speech you wouldnt actually support those tougher regulations becoming a legal reality?


----------



## jodylee

Ruby said:


> I would say its on americans to PAY for it but for Iraqis to finish because Iraqis shouldnt be denied their rights to self determination or sovereignty because of the crimes of the US. That would be punishing the victims.



Its all very well letting the iraqi's do it for themselves but this needs to be done when they are ready. leaving before this point is cut and run, and will plunge the country into even deeper civil war. The fact that you guys voted bush back in after the invasion, shows the world you wanted the war and thought it was right, you need to pay the price for this misjugement and finnish the job.


----------



## ReillyT

jodylee said:


> Its all very well letting the iraqi's do it for themselves but this needs to be done when they are ready. leaving before this point is cut and run, and will plunge the country into even deeper civil war. The fact that you guys voted bush back in after the invasion, shows the world you wanted the war and thought it was right, you need to pay the price for this misjugement and finnish the job.



Fair assessment.  We did vote him back into office (although only about 25-30% of the population actually voted for him).  However, it is not clear that our continued presence will improve the situation in the long-run.  I think this is where a very large area of disagreement exists.

Nonetheless, I can appreciate the "You broke it, you have to fix it" line of thought.  

Just curious, where are you from?


----------



## maineman

I am curious as to why anyone would believe that the eventually well trained Iraqi Army will not rapidly devolve into (well trained) sectarian militias the minute America leaves, whether that is in six months or six years or six decades?


----------



## ReillyT

maineman said:


> I am curious as to why anyone would believe that the eventually well trained Iraqi Army will not rapidly devolve into (well trained) sectarian militias the minute America leaves, whether that is in six months or six years or six decades?



Well, it certainly could be possible that given a sufficient amount of time with decent security, a reasonable power sharing arrangement and effective reconstruction that the country could hold together.  It may not be likely, but it is possible.  Nigeria is really just a collection of competing ethnic and religious groups, and it still exists as a country.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> Firstly, I dont have all the answers and have never claimed to so thats just an incorrect statement on your part.
> 
> When you said this to maineman....
> 
> 
> 
> ...it lead me to believe that you would like to see different regulations put into place since its the REGULATIONS you dont currently agree with. You also made it clear that the PUBLIC criticism HARMS the nation and thats the speech you want to be more regulated. You felt we could write our reps and vote but that the the disagreement shouldnt be in major publications (like newspapers).
> 
> To me, it is your opinion and you are supportive of any measures that would tighten regulations on free speech to silence those things you feel shouldnt be said publically OR are you saying that while you hold the opinion we should have tougher regulations on free speech you wouldnt actually support those tougher regulations becoming a legal reality?



I think I clarified myself as to "what I think."  "Regulation" can be "SELF-regulation" just as well as from an outside source.

And yes, public criticism DOES harm the nation's efforts.  Obviously, some people are too caught up in "self" to see that.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> And yes, public criticism DOES harm the nation's efforts.




you may be correct, but I would argue that a lack of public criticism hurts the very fabric of our democracy much much more.  I am standing on a soapbox in the public square.  If you don't want to listen, go away.  If you think my message is wrong, stand on a soapbox nearby and speak more convincingly than I do.  But don't EVER suggest that the act of public discourse about how and what our country does is somehow wrong.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> you may be correct, but I would argue that a lack of public criticism hurts the very fabric of our democracy much much more.  I am standing on a soapbox in the public square.  If you don't want to listen, go away.  If you think my message is wrong, stand on a soapbox nearby and speak more convincingly than I do.  But don't EVER suggest that the act of public discourse about how and what our country does is somehow wrong.



I am not only suggesting it, I'm saying.  If it is divissive during a time of war or emergency, it is wrong.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I am not only suggesting it, I'm saying.  If it is divissive during a time of war or emergency, it is wrong.




so you would not, for example, call out to the light brigade that they were riding into danger for fear of showing a lack of unity during time of emergency?


----------



## maineman

so the minute a president commits troops to battle, regardless of how incredibly ill-advised such a move might be, you think we should all be silent until the conclusion, regardless of how things might progress?


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> so you would not, for example, call out to the light brigade that they were riding into danger for fear of showing a lack of unity during time of emergency?



You aren't doing that.  You've consistently criticized the person who sent the light brigade out. 

BIG difference.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> so the minute a president commits troops to battle, regardless of how incredibly ill-advised such a move might be, you think we should all be silent until the conclusion, regardless of how things might progress?



That isn't what I said at all.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> That isn't what I said at all.



so what are we to do if we truly believe that the president is driving the bus over the cliff?  First you say that any sort of statements to that effect are damaging and then you seem to say something else.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> You aren't doing that.  You've consistently criticized the person who sent the light brigade out.
> 
> BIG difference.



Because the only way to get the light brigade called back from their mission in our society is to convince the public - and thus pressure the person who sent the brigade out - to bring them back.

And what is the difference - from our enemy's perspective - in the two approaches you claim such a big difference between?


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> I am not only suggesting it, I'm saying.  If it is divissive during a time of war or emergency, it is wrong.




Nope, whats wrong is going along with an aggressive war.

This is what they did in Germany....they went along. Even those who disagreed...they were afraid to speak out so they went along. Too bad they did that huh? Thats why freedom of speech and dissent are so important. 

Its never RIGHT to go along with a wrong....aggressive wars are just mass murder and thats exactly what you are going along with.


----------



## dilloduck

Ruby said:


> Nope, whats wrong is going along with an aggressive war.
> 
> This is what they did in Germany....they went along. Even those who disagreed...they were afraid to speak out so they went along. Too bad they did that huh? Thats why freedom of speech and dissent are so important.
> 
> Its never RIGHT to go along with a wrong....aggressive wars are just mass murder and thats exactly what you are going along with.



How about passive wars ?


----------



## Ruby

dilloduck said:


> How about passive wars ?



LOL, you do make it obvious you cant put together a coherent or intelligent comment or rebuttal, thanks for making it so crystal clear.


----------



## maineman

dilloduck said:


> How about passive wars ?



you really have nothing to offer here, do you?


----------



## dilloduck

maineman said:


> you really have nothing to offer here, do you?



My condolences--for those of you who think this can be stopped any time son.


----------



## maineman

dilloduck said:


> My condolences--for those of you who think this can be stopped any time son.



the first thing we have to do to stop it...is to get the wackos that started it out of the white house so that no one will care anymore to listen to and watch pompom waving chickenhawk assholes like YOU!  Son.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> the first thing we have to do to stop it...is to get the wackos that started it out of the white house so that no one will care anymore to listen to and watch pompom waving chickenhawk assholes like YOU!  Son.



The whackos that started it aren't in the White House ... they're in the Middle East.  

Regardless what you wish to believe, the second we disengage, it's the beginning of the end for us.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> The whackos that started it aren't in the White House ... they're in the Middle East.
> 
> Regardless what you wish to believe, the second we disengage, it's the beginning of the end for us.



The wackos who started the war against us are in the hills of Pakistan....STILL... just as strong as the day they first attacked us.  The wackos who started the war in Iraq are in the white house.  

And who said anything about disengaging?  I want us to start engaging our enemies and quit fucking around in the middle of a civil war in Iraq where our presence annoys both sides.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> The whackos that started it aren't in the White House ... they're in the Middle East.
> 
> Regardless what you wish to believe, the second we disengage, it's the beginning of the end for us.




Its a very clear matter of public record that the US started it by invading...I wouldnt try to lie about, the entire world knows the truth.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> Nope, whats wrong is going along with an aggressive war.
> 
> This is what they did in Germany....they went along. Even those who disagreed...they were afraid to speak out so they went along. Too bad they did that huh? Thats why freedom of speech and dissent are so important.
> 
> Its never RIGHT to go along with a wrong....aggressive wars are just mass murder and thats exactly what you are going along with.



OK, LARKINN , Maineman and all you other Liberals, here we have Ruby ONCE again calling our troops mass murderers. I won't hold my breath for your condemnation though.


----------



## Gunny

RetiredGySgt said:


> OK, LARKINN , Maineman and all you other Liberals, here we have Ruby ONCE again calling our troops mass murderers. I won't hold my breath for your condemnation though.



Are you kidding?  The same people who whined like little bitches about red states rule but said not word one about truthmatters?


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> OK, LARKINN , Maineman and all you other Liberals, here we have Ruby ONCE again calling our troops mass murderers. I won't hold my breath for your condemnation though.



Aww its rather cute how you want to play the "shes bashing our trooops card"...the propaganda on that issue has been well laid out by people much smarter than yourself.

But it wont work on me anyway. 

US troops are a bunch of human beings, like any other bunch of human beings. They are good and bad and everything in between. They are not mini-gods nor are they devils incarnate. They are a group of people. 

I doubt your basic military guy has ANY say over what his orders are, nor am I under the illusion that most would stand up against the military and disobey orders and suffer the consequences but would rather just fulfill the orders handed down. Some are in agreement with what we are doing, some are not...just like any other group of people you find. 

I blame us ALL, the citizens of america. Its OUR GOVT and our responsiblity to control them. If anything, we are victimizing our own military and abusing them by mis-using them. Many will have to live with nightmares the rest of their lives, so many wont come home whole...and some wont come home at all. 

If you are looking for the people who really let the troops down, its we, the american citizens and the corrupt govt we failed to control.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> Aww its rather cute how you want to play the "shes bashing our trooops card"...the propaganda on that issue has been well laid out by people much smarter than yourself.
> 
> But it wont work on me anyway.
> 
> US troops are a bunch of human beings, like any other bunch of human beings. They are good and bad and everything in between. They are not mini-gods nor are they devils incarnate. They are a group of people.
> 
> I doubt your basic military guy has ANY say over what his orders are, nor am I under the illusion that most would stand up against the military and disobey orders and suffer the consequences but would rather just fulfill the orders handed down. Some are in agreement with what we are doing, some are not...just like any other group of people you find.
> 
> I blame us ALL, the citizens of america. Its OUR GOVT and our responsiblity to control them. If anything, we are victimizing our own military and abusing them by mis-using them. Many will have to live with nightmares the rest of their lives, so many wont come home whole...and some wont come home at all.
> 
> If you are looking for the people who really let the troops down, its we, the american citizens and the corrupt govt we failed to control.



You can spin it anyway you want, but in thread after thread you have clearly stated the US Military purposefully targets civilians, the US Military are terrorists, the US Military murders civilains, and you have stated for the record that our troops are mass murderers. Further you have openly compared them to Germans in WW2.

And what is the response from the left? TOTAL , UTTER, COMPLETE silence.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can spin it anyway you want, but in thread after thread you have clearly stated the US Military purposefully targets civilians, the US Military are terrorists, the US Military murders civilains, and you have stated for the record that our troops are mass murderers. Further you have openly compared them to Germans in WW2.
> 
> And what is the response from the left? TOTAL , UTTER, COMPLETE silence.




I have never suggested that our military MURDERED civilians -except in those cases where they did, of course... I never suggested that our military are terrorists, but I do wonder how you think we could conduct massive shock and awe air/missile strikes against a heavily populated urban center for days on end and not fully expect to kill civilians.  

_"Yeah...we dropped shitloads of bombs on a city for days and days, but we were aiming for the military installations that were scattered throughout the neighborhoods.  If ANY innocent civilians died, it certainly wasn't on purpose!"_  LOL

_Yeah...we fired a cruise missile into a restaurant next to an apartment building because we thought that Saddam might have been dining there - even though he wasn't - but we certainly didn't plan on killing the other non-Saddam diners in restaurant and we certainly were completely unaware that the apartment building was actually inhabited by innocent civilians!  Their deaths were certainly not "on purpose"!_  LOL


----------



## Gunny

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can spin it anyway you want, but in thread after thread you have clearly stated the US Military purposefully targets civilians, the US Military are terrorists, the US Military murders civilains, and you have stated for the record that our troops are mass murderers. Further you have openly compared them to Germans in WW2.
> 
> And what is the response from the left? TOTAL , UTTER, COMPLETE silence.



How do like THIS ... Miss Know it All is telling YOU what troops think and do and are like.

Classic.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can spin it anyway you want, but in thread after thread you have clearly stated the US Military purposefully targets civilians, the US Military are terrorists, the US Military murders civilains, and you have stated for the record that our troops are mass murderers. Further you have openly compared them to Germans in WW2.
> 
> And what is the response from the left? TOTAL , UTTER, COMPLETE silence.



No spin needed. The ENTIRE invasion IS the targeting of innocent civilians. 

I have no problem with the comparison of them with nazi soldiers.....most of those soldiers were also just people taking orders, being fed propaganda and would rather follow orders than face the massive consequences of objecting would bring. They were just people too, some good and some bad. Many who agreed with what the nazi govt did, and many others who DIDNT.

The evils of the nazis wasnt in the large group of its soldiers, it was in a govt that planned and used people to execute its evil. Its also in the public who were too afraid or too mired down in propaganda to control their govt. That comparison can also be made to the american public now...the difference is that we still have time to speak up and arent yet at the point the Nazis were in their brutality towards their own population.....on this note, we may be viewed as MORE evil since we dont have to overcome or risk our very lives to speak out and exercize control over our govt. We are in a better position but we are going along....they went along to save their lives, we dont have this excuse yet.

It seems to me you really need someone else to object cause you are having problems dealing with the ACTUAL FACTS I raise.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> How do like THIS ... Miss Know it All is telling YOU what troops think and do and are like.
> 
> Classic.



That spin wont work. Its obvious they are like ANY OTHER group of people and have a variety of thoughts and feelings....which I already stated. You will find many who agree with our invasion, many who dont agree as well.  Its common sense to understand that no large group has a harmonious and identical views. Its common sense to know they are just HUMAN and operate under the same human nature we all do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> That spin wont work. Its obvious they are like ANY OTHER group of people and have a variety of thoughts and feelings....which I already stated. You will find many who agree with our invasion, many who dont agree as well.  Its common sense to understand that no large group has a harmonious and identical views. Its common sense to know they are just HUMAN and operate under the same human nature we all do.



His point, obviously missed by your stellar reasoning abilities is that I spent 16 years living with, working with, following and leading Marines. Some of the mass murderers you portray as Nazis and criminals. Where as you? All you know is what your warped brain tells you and your political agenda.

Also I notice again that your refering to large groups of people even though when called on it you keep claiming your just voicing a lone opinion and not speaking for others.

I AM STILL WAITING LIBERALS. She has called our troops mass murderers, terrorists, Nazis and compared our Government to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. Exactly how far are you willing to support her views because if she voted she might vote liberal?

Come on Larkinn you could at least make the claim you just didn't see her make the claims couldn't ya? Maineman? Reilly? 

As for my need. I don't need anything from people that would openly support a person like you. They prove by their silence that ends justify means. That given the reins of power they would have no problem doing what ever it took to remain in power given the chance. That politics are more important then reality, truth or sanity. I already knew these things, I am just rubbing it into the liars that claim otherwise.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> His point, obviously missed by your stellar reasoning abilities is that I spent 16 years living with, working with, following and leading Marines. Some of the mass murderers you portray as Nazis and criminals. Where as you? All you know is what your warped brain tells you and your political agenda.
> 
> Also I notice again that your refering to large groups of people even though when called on it you keep claiming your just voicing a lone opinion and not speaking for others.
> 
> I AM STILL WAITING LIBERALS. She has called our troops mass murderers, terrorists, Nazis and compared our Government to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. Exactly how far are you willing to support her views because if she voted she might vote liberal?
> 
> Come on Larkinn you could at least make the claim you just didn't see her make the claims couldn't ya? Maineman? Reilly?
> 
> As for my need. I don't need anything from people that would openly support a person like you. They prove by their silence that ends justify means. That given the reins of power they would have no problem doing what ever it took to remain in power given the chance. That politics are more important then reality, truth or sanity. I already knew these things, I am just rubbing it into the liars that claim otherwise.




Yes its not hard to figure out that any large group of people will have an array of agreements and an array of disagreements...thats hardly rocket science is it. That dosent mean I speak for anyone other than myself, I just pointed out a very obvious and common sense fact.

Do you really think the nazi soldiers were all jew hating blood thirsty eagar soldiers who agreed with Hitler and his govt? Or do you wish to take a more realistic view that they were a group of human beings, like all others with an array of beliefs and views. Some were in total agreement with Hitler, some others were in total disagreement with Hitler. 

There are even some amazing documentaries out there that talk to ex nazi soldiers, german citizens etc who lived during that time and recall their feelings of it all then and now. You may be surprised to find out they were just mere humans and not little red evil devils. Many were scard, many were caught up in propaganda, some were just young and didnt question, other were fearful and just crossed their fingers and tried to survive it, others embraced it fully with passion..then others worked for the resistance. An array of views and actions, like any other large group of people would have and do have.

I am sorry if you dont like the fact that our govt is giving such terroristic orders and that our military dosent really have much choice but to do as they are ordered. I am sorry you dont like the fact that all american citizens are responsible for this clusterfuck and that you dont want to face that the REAL abuse of the troops is coming from the people who support this aggregious abuse of our troops.

I hope you have a steady supply of sand to keep burying your head in. I can understand your investment in trying to cling to the propaganda even in the face of facts that disprove the propaganda, you have too much of your own personal identity tied up in it. One of the best tools of propaganda used, its classic in fact!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> Yes its not hard to figure out that any large group of people will have an array of agreements and an array of disagreements...thats hardly rocket science is it. That dosent mean I speak for anyone other than myself, I just pointed out a very obvious and common sense fact.
> 
> Do you really think the nazi soldiers were all jew hating blood thirsty eagar soldiers who agreed with Hitler and his govt? Or do you wish to take a more realistic view that they were a group of human beings, like all others with an array of beliefs and views. Some were in total agreement with Hitler, some others were in total disagreement with Hitler.
> 
> There are even some amazing documentaries out there that talk to ex nazi soldiers, german citizens etc who lived during that time and recall their feelings of it all then and now. You may be surprised to find out they were just mere humans and not little red evil devils. Many were scard, many were caught up in propaganda, some were just young and didnt question, other were fearful and just crossed their fingers and tried to survive it, others embraced it fully with passion..then others worked for the resistance. An array of views and actions, like any other large group of people would have and do have.
> 
> I am sorry if you dont like the fact that our govt is giving such terroristic orders and that our military dosent really have much choice but to do as they are ordered. I am sorry you dont like the fact that all american citizens are responsible for this clusterfuck and that you dont want to face that the REAL abuse of the troops is coming from the people who support this aggregious abuse of our troops.
> 
> I hope you have a steady supply of sand to keep burying your head in. I can understand your investment in trying to cling to the propaganda even in the face of facts that disprove the propaganda, you have too much of your own personal identity tied up in it. One of the best tools of propaganda used, its classic in fact!



And still no response from the left. Your all a bunch of hypocrites. But then I already knew that, this is just icing on the cake, the absolute verifiable proof that liberals don't care what another liberal does. Any offense is acceptable, any lie tolerable. Any Ignorance backed up. Why? because liberals only care about the end. ANY means are justified.


----------



## maineman

it is easy to claim that no one responds to your challenges when you have everyone on ignore!


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> And still no response from the left. Your all a bunch of hypocrites. But then I already knew that, this is just icing on the cake, the absolute verifiable proof that liberals don't care what another liberal does. Any offense is acceptable, any lie tolerable. Any Ignorance backed up. Why? because liberals only care about the end. ANY means are justified.



It seems to me that you are begging someone else to take on the facts and explain how they are OK to do because you need someone smarter than yourself to do it, no wonder you are calling on the liberals.

What makes a person a hypocrite for wanting to TRULY support the troops by disallowing a govt to abuse them and use them. The troops didnt sign up to commit murder and attack nations in illegal aggressive wars, yet that is exactly what our govt has ordered them to do.

Tell me how its NOT targeting innocent civilians when you bomb blocks of residential neighborhoods? You cant seem to deal with that question can ya?

Tell me how its not a terrorist act to engage in aggressive illegal wars? Tell me how its not a terrorist act to overthrow other nations leaders (including numerous popularly backed and elected leaders)? I have provided plenty of evidence of all these things and you have yet to explain why they shouldnt be labeled as the terrorist acts they are (and by our own definition!).


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> That spin wont work. Its obvious they are like ANY OTHER group of people and have a variety of thoughts and feelings....which I already stated. You will find many who agree with our invasion, many who dont agree as well.  Its common sense to understand that no large group has a harmonious and identical views. Its common sense to know they are just HUMAN and operate under the same human nature we all do.



Of course.  I would expect no other argument from someone with no experience in the military trying to sell a load of hogwash to RetiredGySgt's and my 40+ years combined experience both being troops and leading them.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> It seems to me that you are begging someone else to take on the facts and explain how they are OK to do because you need someone smarter than yourself to do it, no wonder you are calling on the liberals.
> 
> What makes a person a hypocrite for wanting to TRULY support the troops by disallowing a govt to abuse them and use them. The troops didnt sign up to commit murder and attack nations in illegal aggressive wars, yet that is exactly what our govt has ordered them to do.
> 
> Tell me how its NOT targeting innocent civilians when you bomb blocks of residential neighborhoods? You cant seem to deal with that question can ya?
> 
> Tell me how its not a terrorist act to engage in aggressive illegal wars? Tell me how its not a terrorist act to overthrow other nations leaders (including numerous popularly backed and elected leaders)? I have provided plenty of evidence of all these things and you have yet to explain why they shouldnt be labeled as the terrorist acts they are (and by our own definition!).



The entire premise of your argument is based on bullshit.   The invasion or Iraq was completely legal.  Engaging enemy combatants in war is NOT murder.  Civilians being killed as a result of targetting enemy combatants is NOT targetting noncombatants.

DO try to get in touch with some facts, huh?


----------



## Truthmatters

The problem is the threat was based on lies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Truthmatters said:


> The problem is the threat was based on lies.



Keep repeating the same tired old lie. Maybe if you say it often enough enough people will suddenly believe it.


----------



## Truthmatters

The majority of Americans think this


----------



## jodylee

maineman said:


> and claiming that the administration did not play on American's deep seated anger and need for revenge in the wake of 9/11 to rally public support for the invasion of Iraq is just so much BS.



amen


----------



## dilloduck

jodylee said:


> amen



Rubbish. The administration responded to the anger of some Americans, they didnt' "play" on it ! Are you another person who is still angry about being "tricked" by a president that you claim is so stupid ?


----------



## maineman

dilloduck said:


> Rubbish. The administration responded to the anger of some Americans, they didnt' "play" on it ! Are you another person who is still angry about being "tricked" by a president that you claim is so stupid ?



responded to...played on...

semantic gymnastics.

fact:  on 9/12/01, nearly everyone in America knew who Osama bin Laden was and what he had just done to us.

fact:  less than two years later, 70&#37; of Americans thought that Saddam was responsible.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm


----------



## maineman

dilloduck said:


> Rubbish. The administration responded to the anger of some Americans, they didnt' "play" on it ! Are you another person who is still angry about being "tricked" by a president that you claim is so stupid ?



and, by the way, I have NEVERE ONCE suggested that Karl Rove was "so stupid".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Truthmatters said:


> The majority of Americans think this



Sure they do, you know this cause your tin foil hat came loose and you caught an errant mind ray reading, of course.


----------



## CSM

maineman said:


> and, by the way, I have NEVERE ONCE suggested that Karl Rove was "so stupid".



Nice misdirect but I believe RGS mentioned Bush specifically and not Mr. Rove.  Gotta watch you every second don't we!


----------



## maineman

CSM said:


> Nice misdirect but I believe RGS mentioned Bush specifically and not Mr. Rove.  Gotta watch you every second don't we!



no misdirect at all.  Bush IS stupid.  If he didn't have Karl Rove and a band of daddy-picked and groomed handlers around him at all times, he couldn't figure out how to find the restroom.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure they do, you know this cause your tin foil hat came loose and you caught an errant mind ray reading, of course.



interesting concept:  public opinion polls.  they are much more reliable than errant mind rays.


----------



## ErikViking

RetiredGySgt said:


> And still no response from the left. Your all a bunch of hypocrites. But then I already knew that, this is just icing on the cake, the absolute verifiable proof that liberals don't care what another liberal does. Any offense is acceptable, any lie tolerable. Any Ignorance backed up. Why? because liberals only care about the end. ANY means are justified.




What do you think is the worst about comparing US troops to German troops in the 40ies?

Germany presented a well trained, ahead of its time army. The soldiers where skilled and highly motivated. During the course of the war they fought hard and brave and in the end sacrificing their lifes to buy time for having the remaining civilians not falling under soviet control.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ErikViking said:


> What do you think is the worst about comparing US troops to German troops in the 40ies?
> 
> Germany presented a well trained, ahead of its time army. The soldiers where skilled and highly motivated. During the course of the war they fought hard and brave and in the end sacrificing their lifes to buy time for having the remaining civilians not falling under soviet control.



Her intent is not to make a favorable comparison, the intent is to place a seed of doubt to make one envision a totalatarian regime with an army and people willing to follow immoral and illegal orders, murdering innocents because they either agree or are afraid to disagree.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> responded to...played on...
> 
> semantic gymnastics.
> 
> fact:  on 9/12/01, nearly everyone in America knew who Osama bin Laden was and what he had just done to us.
> 
> fact:  less than two years later, 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was responsible.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm




Fact, once again you dredge up the same tired poll.  It's credibility is questionable.  I don't believe 70% of all Americans believed any such nonsense, since, it IS nonsense.  I already provided a link to a statement by the Bush Administration on this where it is clearly stated one is not linked to the other.

Then you claim it was done by subliminal message.  How come onlt liberals who want to claim the admin used subliminal messaging appear to have fallen for it?  Again, highly questionable.


----------



## Gunny

ErikViking said:


> What do you think is the worst about comparing US troops to German troops in the 40ies?
> 
> Germany presented a well trained, ahead of its time army. The soldiers where skilled and highly motivated. During the course of the war they fought hard and brave and in the end sacrificing their lifes to buy time for having the remaining civilians not falling under soviet control.



That is not the comparison being made.  The comparison being made is to the carrying out a madman's program of genocide.  Some people just like to talk out their asses knowing little of the subject they're talking about -- that there is a difference between the SS and the Wermacht.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

GunnyL said:


> That is not the comparison being made.  The comparison being made is to the carrying out a madman's program of genocide.  Some people just like to talk out their asses knowing little of the subject they're talking about -- that there is a difference between the SS and the Wermacht.



You got it wrong Gunny, according to Reilly we just are not Nuianced enough to understand her REAL point. According to Reilly she didn't call American troops mass murderers, terrorists or Nazi's. I am just making it all up.


----------



## ReillyT

RetiredGySgt said:


> You got it wrong Gunny, according to Reilly we just are not Nuianced enough to understand her REAL point. According to Reilly she didn't call American troops mass murderers, terrorists or Nazi's. I am just making it all up.



I don't know how exactly I put a bee in your bonnet.  Easy boy...

I really can't vouch for everything Ruby may have said, as I haven't read all of her posts.  However, at least with respect to her characterizations of the US as engaging in terrorist acts, she was relying on a technical definition of terrorism that derived from her characterization of the war as an illegal act itself.  It is an interesting point, and I have no qualms about her making the argument (although I don't care enough to actually think about whether the war is illegal, which I find a point of scemantics with little practical significance).   As for her reference to Nazism, I think she was making an analogy between the leeway granted to the Nazi regime (in its illegal activities) by its citizens, and the leeway granted to the current administration by the American populace.  I don't believe (to the extent that I have read her posts) that she was actually stating that American soldiers are morally comparable to Nazi prison guards or anything like that.  Of course, there is an easy way to settle this question, ask Ruby.  Don't bring me into it.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> I don't know how exactly I put a bee in your bonnet.  Easy boy...
> 
> I really can't vouch for everything Ruby may have said, as I haven't read all of her posts.  However, at least with respect to her characterizations of the US as engaging in terrorist acts, she was relying on a technical definition of terrorism that derived from her characterization of the war as an illegal act itself.  It is an interesting point, and I have no qualms about her making the argument (although I don't care enough to actually think about whether the war is illegal, which I find a point of scemantics with little practical significance).   As for her reference to Nazism, I think she was making an analogy between the leeway granted to the Nazi regime (in its illegal activities) by its citizens, and the leeway granted to the current administration by the American populace.  I don't believe (to the extent that I have read her posts) that she was actually stating that American soldiers are morally comparable to Nazi prison guards or anything like that.  Of course, there is an easy way to settle this question, ask Ruby.  Don't bring me into it.




You're defending a person who is anti-US, anti-Bush, and labels our military and its leaders murderers and terrorists.  Not agreeing with Bush and the war is one thing ... being just flat-out far-left extremist spreading lies quite another.


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> You're defending a person who is anti-US, anti-Bush, and labels our military and its leaders murderers and terrorists.  Not agreeing with Bush and the war is one thing ... being just flat-out far-left extremist spreading lies quite another.



I agree that she is anti-Bush.  I don't think she is anti-US (she just wishes the US acted differently than it does).  She has labeled the military and its leaders "murderers."  However, I think that has more to do with the fact that she is a pacifist (or at least appears to be).  She holds the ideological view that any agression, and specifically, any agression that results in the deaths of many civilians, is inherently unlawful, and hence murder.  Could she use less-inflamatory language? Yes, I think she could.  However, her view is not so extreme that it should immediately be discounted.  In fact, it is held by a lot of people throughout the world.

As for the claim that she spreads lies, I don't agree with that.  She is not one hundred percent accurate in everything that she says, but generally speaking, I have found her more than willing to provide links to support her factual claims.  In sum, I find her no less factually accurate that most on this board.

Do I agree with Ruby all the time?  No, I don't.  Do I agree with your assessment of her?  No, I don't.  

Why for the life of me it is important to some that I and others actively debate Ruby on these issues, I don't know.  If you or anyone else disagrees with Ruby, feel free to debate the issue with her.  She is more than willing.  I don't know why I need to be involved.


----------



## maineman

ReillyT said:


> I agree that she is anti-Bush.  I don't think she is anti-US (she just wishes the US acted differently than it does).  She has labeled the military and its leaders "murderers."  However, I think that has more to do with the fact that she is a pacifist (or at least appears to be).  She holds the ideological view that any agression, and specifically, any agression that results in the deaths of many civilians, is inherently unlawful, and hence murder.  Could she use less-inflamatory language? Yes, I think she could.  However, her view is not so extreme that it should immediately be discounted.  In fact, it is held by a lot of people throughout the world.
> 
> As for the claim that she spreads lies, I don't agree with that.  She is not one hundred percent accurate in everything that she says, but generally speaking, I have found her more than willing to provide links to support her factual claims.  In sum, I find her no less factually accurate that most on this board.
> 
> Do I agree with Ruby all the time?  No, I don't.  Do I agree with your assessment of her?  No, I don't.
> 
> Why for the life of me it is important to some that I and others actively debate Ruby on these issues, I don't know.  If you or anyone else disagrees with Ruby, feel free to debate the issue with her.  She is more than willing.  I don't know why I need to be involved.



exactly...this conflation of anti-Bush with anti-US is really getting tedious.

When the republicans in congress were speaking out against Clinton's actions in the Balkans - WHILE TROOPS WERE ON THE GROUND - were THEY "anti-US"?????  And if so, how does one go from being anti-US to honorable patriot simply with the changing of the guard at the white house?


----------



## ErikViking

RetiredGySgt said:


> Her intent is not to make a favorable comparison, the intent is to place a seed of doubt to make one envision a totalatarian regime with an army and people willing to follow immoral and illegal orders, murdering innocents because they either agree or are afraid to disagree.



Okay, but without referring to her intention I find historical comparisons useful. They show both similarities and differances. To ensure a society not turns into something like Nazi germany in the 30ies those comparisons are good to make. That is not the same thing as _making_ something look like something it ain't. 




GunnyL said:


> That is not the comparison being made.  The comparison being made is to the carrying out a madman's program of genocide.  Some people just like to talk out their asses knowing little of the subject they're talking about -- that there is a difference between the SS and the Wermacht.



A comparison can always be made. The conclusions are what matters. Of course US troops, leaders and society shows similarities with their historical counterparts. But is it alarming? Not to me. Most worrying similarity is how citizens freely sacrifice integrity (Patriot act) to a higher good and the widthspread dehumanization of muslims. But the differances weigh heavy. This very messageboard would have been a serious threat to Nazi Germany. 

What did you mean by that last thing? Would you say an average infantry soldier is no different from a member of SS? Then I would have to disagree.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> I agree that she is anti-Bush.  I don't think she is anti-US (she just wishes the US acted differently than it does).  She has labeled the military and its leaders "murderers."  However, I think that has more to do with the fact that she is a pacifist (or at least appears to be).  She holds the ideological view that any agression, and specifically, any agression that results in the deaths of many civilians, is inherently unlawful, and hence murder.  Could she use less-inflamatory language? Yes, I think she could.  However, her view is not so extreme that it should immediately be discounted.  In fact, it is held by a lot of people throughout the world.
> 
> As for the claim that she spreads lies, I don't agree with that.  She is not one hundred percent accurate in everything that she says, but generally speaking, I have found her more than willing to provide links to support her factual claims.  In sum, I find her no less factually accurate that most on this board.
> 
> Do I agree with Ruby all the time?  No, I don't.  Do I agree with your assessment of her?  No, I don't.
> 
> Why for the life of me it is important to some that I and others actively debate Ruby on these issues, I don't know.  If you or anyone else disagrees with Ruby, feel free to debate the issue with her.  She is more than willing.  I don't know why I need to be involved.



You're entitled to your opinion, and i could care less whether or not you debate ruby.  Seems to me, you involved yourself.

As far as factual accuracy goes, anyone who is a pure pacifist is not dealing in factual accuracy nor reality.


----------



## Gunny

ErikViking said:


> Okay, but without referring to her intention I find historical comparisons useful. They show both similarities and differances. To ensure a society not turns into something like Nazi germany in the 30ies those comparisons are good to make. That is not the same thing as _making_ something look like something it ain't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A comparison can always be made. The conclusions are what matters. Of course US troops, leaders and society shows similarities with their historical counterparts. But is it alarming? Not to me. Most worrying similarity is how citizens freely sacrifice integrity (Patriot act) to a higher good and the widthspread dehumanization of muslims. But the differances weigh heavy. This very messageboard would have been a serious threat to Nazi Germany.
> 
> What did you mean by that last thing? Would you say an average infantry soldier is no different from a member of SS? Then I would have to disagree.



You would be incorrect.  SS troops swore a an oath of loyalty to HITLER, not Germany.  Wermacht troops were regular army troops mostly used in combat, not to carry out Hitler's genocidal "final solution."


----------



## eots

The Nazis didnt lose the war they just changed locations

The Truth Seeker - Operation PaperclipThe U.S. Military rounded up Nazi scientists and brought them to America. ... Convinced that German scientists could help America's post-war efforts, ...
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=122 - 45k


----------



## ErikViking

GunnyL said:


> Some people just like to talk out their asses knowing little of the subject they're talking about -- that there is a difference between the SS and the Wermacht.






ErikViking said:


> What did you mean by that last thing? Would you say an average infantry soldier is no different from a member of SS? Then I would have to disagree.






GunnyL said:


> You would be incorrect.  SS troops swore a an oath of loyalty to HITLER, not Germany.  Wermacht troops were regular army troops mostly used in combat, not to carry out Hitler's genocidal "final solution."



GunnyL... I don't know...


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> You're entitled to your opinion, and i could care less whether or not you debate ruby.  Seems to me, you involved yourself.



Actually, it was RGS who brought me in, and then I responded to him, and you responded to me, and...  However, point taken, I did rise to the bait.



GunnyL said:


> As far as factual accuracy goes, anyone who is a pure pacifist is not dealing in factual accuracy nor reality.



On its face, that comment is so silly that I think I must be misinterpreting it.  Pacifism is a normative view of the world; it cannot be fact.  As for reality, if you mean that the world is not pacific, you are right, but no one ever claimed otherwise.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> Actually, it was RGS who brought me in, and then I responded to him, and you responded to me, and...  However, point taken, I did rise to the bait.
> 
> 
> 
> On its face, that comment is so silly that I think I must be misinterpreting it.  Pacifism is a normative view of the world; it cannot be fact.  As for reality, if you mean that the world is not pacific, you are right, but no one ever claimed otherwise.



Make up your mind please.  IS my comment "silly," or is it fact that the world is not pacific?  You may call pacifism a normative view of the world, but I say it is anything but when it refuses to address reality.  It is a view based on a perfect, Utopian world; which, we already agree does not exist.

If I have snakes in my yard, I'm not taking them a bouquet.  I'm bringing a scattergun.


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> Make up your mind please.  IS my comment "silly," or is it fact that the world is not pacific?  You may call pacifism a normative view of the world, but I say it is anything but when it refuses to address reality.  It is a view based on a perfect, Utopian world; which, we already agree does not exist.
> 
> If I have snakes in my yard, I'm not taking them a bouquet.  I'm bringing a scattergun.




Your comment about pacifism not being accurate was silly, because it is purely a normative view.  It isn't a factual stance - the normative view can be neither accurate nor inaccurate.  It doesn't address the reality of today, except to say that this reality is an inferior one to a reality guided by pacifist principles.  

Aside from the normative nature of pacifism, it is fact that the world is not pacific - a fact no pacifist would deny.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> Your comment about pacifism not being accurate was silly, because it is purely a normative view.  It isn't a factual stance - the normative view can be neither accurate nor inaccurate.  It doesn't address the reality of today, except to say that this reality is an inferior one to a reality guided by pacifist principles.
> 
> Aside from the normative nature of pacifism, it is fact that the world is not pacific - a fact no pacifist would deny.



If one allows an aggressor to beat them half to death with without raising so much as a finger in self defense, that IS a factual stance.  

I have no problem with idealism except where it interferes with addressign reality.  For some reasn, it wsa believed we would be welcome with open arms and cascading rose petals in Iraq due to political idealism that refused to address reality.

Taken one step further ... a pacifist villifying US troops as terrorists and murderers to support an ideal that does not address reality, and I'm running up the bullshit flag.


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> If one allows an aggressor to beat them half to death with without raising so much as a finger in self defense, that IS a factual stance.
> 
> I have no problem with idealism except where it interferes with addressign reality.  For some reasn, it wsa believed we would be welcome with open arms and cascading rose petals in Iraq due to political idealism that refused to address reality.
> 
> Taken one step further ... a pacifist villifying US troops as terrorists and murderers to support an ideal that does not address reality, and I'm running up the bullshit flag.



First, I should say that it was I who referred to Ruby as a pacifist, and I am not absolutely true that this is the case (that was just my impression based upon reading her posts), so if it is not, I apologize to Ruby.

Second, my guess is there are different strains of thought within the general pacifist philosophy and that some may accept certain forms of defensive, but not offensive, violence.

Finally, my intent was just to place some claims made in context.  Ruby, for instance, has backed up her claims/definitions about the US activities through resort to international law and the legality of the US war in that context.


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> First, I should say that it was I who referred to Ruby as a pacifist, and I am not absolutely true that this is the case (that was just my impression based upon reading her posts), so if it is not, I apologize to Ruby.
> 
> Second, my guess is there are different strains of thought within the general pacifist philosophy and that some may accept certain forms of defensive, but not offensive, violence.
> 
> Finally, my intent was just to place some claims made in context.  Ruby, for instance, has backed up her claims/definitions about the US activities through resort to international law and the legality of the US war in that context.



A true pacifist accepts no form of violence, offensive or defensive.  

Ruby has presented a dishonest argument.  Simple as that.


----------



## ReillyT

GunnyL said:


> A true pacifist accepts no form of violence, offensive or defensive.
> 
> Ruby has presented a dishonest argument.  Simple as that.



I guess that is a definitional question. 

I still don't see where Ruby has presented a dishonest argument.  Also, what argument are you talking about?


----------



## Gunny

ReillyT said:


> I guess that is a definitional question.
> 
> I still don't see where Ruby has presented a dishonest argument.  Also, what argument are you talking about?



You're the one who says she's backed it up.  You tell me.


----------



## Ruby

Ok, had a crazy busy week but now have some time and can certainly answer some points raised about me and my intentions as well as my views.

Ok, am I am pacifist? In the sense that violence should only be used as a last resort and in self defense, yes. I dont however believe that violence can always be avoided since it can be forced upon you...as it has been forced upon Iraq by the US. They have now been forced to defend themselves as best they can.

Secondly, many of the principals laid out by the allies after WW2 in the nuremburg trials (and are the basis of many international laws) are the very principals we now are violating. We cannot say we were in danger from attack from Iraq or needed to defend ourselves against Iraq. Such an assertion would need to be supported with facts and evidence, we had none and still have none.....which is understandable because the threat didnt exist.

So the self defense condition is NOT met.

The other condition we would need to meet to make this war legal and not one of aggression is a UN sanctioning of the war...again this was not given.

It is an aggressive illegal war. Its not that complicated.


----------



## Ruby

Ok, my comparison to nazis and the US soldiers and even the state of the US currently.

Both used heavy propaganda and used lies to convince a populace they were under attack to rationalize and justify their own aggression.

The soldiers in both groups had a fair amount of coercion into becoming a soldier, in fact, the nazi soldiers were more coerced than our soldiers are which would make ours a bit more guilty. The fact that various forms of coercion are employed against american soliders are noted though and it must be understood that they dont make the decision to go to war or where and who to bomb. 

Just like nazi soldiers, you will find an array of views about what they do. Its silly to pretend all the soldiers in nazi germany agreed with the nazi movement.

The soldiers in both cases are carrying out the orders of their govt and both were ordered to participate in wars of aggression and both would pay a high price to stand against those decisions. It isnt the norm in any society (going back far far into history) to see massive refusal by soldiers, no matter how heinous the orders were. They have patriotic pressures, overt pressure (threats of jail), investment in their nation no matter how wrongfully it behaves, financial pressures, cultural pressures, propaganda pressures etc. These are all forms of coercion.

In both cases, much lip service and propaganda was paid to the soldiers as "heroes"  but in reality their actual treatment was that of disposable objects to be sacraficed.

Nazi germany is also a great example of how a democratic society can be convinced to give itself over to somthing less democratic. Its a good example of the harmful effects that can come from extreme patriotism. Its a good example of how effective propaganda can be.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> Ok, had a crazy busy week but now have some time and can certainly answer some points raised about me and my intentions as well as my views.
> 
> Ok, am I am pacifist? In the sense that violence should only be used as a last resort and in self defense, yes. I dont however believe that violence can always be avoided since it can be forced upon you...as it has been forced upon Iraq by the US. They have now been forced to defend themselves as best they can.
> 
> Secondly, many of the principals laid out by the allies after WW2 in the nuremburg trials (and are the basis of many international laws) are the very principals we now are violating. We cannot say we were in danger from attack from Iraq or needed to defend ourselves against Iraq. Such an assertion would need to be supported with facts and evidence, we had none and still have none.....which is understandable because the threat didnt exist.
> 
> So the self defense condition is NOT met.
> 
> The other condition we would need to meet to make this war legal and not one of aggression is a UN sanctioning of the war...again this was not given.
> 
> It is an aggressive illegal war. Its not that complicated.



Thought maybe you ran off. 

Iraq forced itself on a completely defenseless nation to precipitate everything that has transpired since.  You can't just arbitrarily join in the game in the second half and start villifying the US.

Second, the Iraqis are not "defending themselves."  That's hogwash.  They're killing each other, and pretty much anyone that isn't part of their respective "clique."

The UN is useless.  I suppose we should wait on them to do something like they did in Rwanda and are doing in Darfur, right?  We are a soverign nation and not beholden to bunch of corrupt, self-serving and inept politicians.  Not yet.  I'm sure if those like you have your way we will be though.  

Will be a SAD day.

Fact is, we should NOT have invaded Iraq and/or deposed Saddam.  I have said that all along.  But not for any overly-sanctimonious, holier than thou BS moral reasons ... strategically, leaving him in place was the lesser of two evils.

That does not negate the justification for taking him out.  There was more than enough.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> Ok, had a crazy busy week but now have some time and can certainly answer some points raised about me and my intentions as well as my views.
> 
> Ok, am I am pacifist? In the sense that violence should only be used as a last resort and in self defense, yes. I dont however believe that violence can always be avoided since it can be forced upon you...as it has been forced upon Iraq by the US. They have now been forced to defend themselves as best they can.
> 
> Secondly, many of the principals laid out by the allies after WW2 in the nuremburg trials (and are the basis of many international laws) are the very principals we now are violating. We cannot say we were in danger from attack from Iraq or needed to defend ourselves against Iraq. Such an assertion would need to be supported with facts and evidence, we had none and still have none.....which is understandable because the threat didnt exist.
> 
> So the self defense condition is NOT met.
> 
> The other condition we would need to meet to make this war legal and not one of aggression is a UN sanctioning of the war...again this was not given.
> 
> It is an aggressive illegal war. Its not that complicated.



Your wrong, one does NOT need the UN to sanction anything. I will now point out Kosovo was never "sanctioned" by the UN. Once again, the UN has no power except what the Member States give it and more pointedly no power to do anything without the blessing of the Security Council. It is not a Government and has no binding authority nor anyway to impose its will on anyone except by getting member states to agree to do the work.

The UN has made no official statement or proclamation nor passed any resolution stating the US OR the MANY allies involved are conducting an Illegal War. If they have be so kind as to provide the resolution number so I can look it up. In fact the UN is PARTICIPATING , they have recognized the current Iraq Government and are helping it in numerous ways. So much for a claim the UN has condemned the war or its aftermath.

Until you can cite us a Court case in Federal Court where the US has been found to be in violation of a Treaty involved in conducting the original Invasion and subsequent aid to the new Government, you can not even make the claim that the US has broken its own laws. 

What IS fact is that all 3 branches of the Federal Government have consistantly ruled for almost 5 years now that the original invasion and the subsequent aid to Iraq is legal and authorized under the laws and Constitution of the United States.


----------



## Ruby

Lastly, my point that the US is a prime example of state sponsored terrorism. I dont think its ONE thing either, I think the US has a very clear pattern spanning decades of using terrorism, supporting terrorism and enhancing terrorism.

Examples I have given and that support my point are our coups in the middle east (such as Iran when we installed the Shah) and our coups in the Latin American region...I cant think of a country in the region we havent touched. We have sent in death squads, funded terrorist groups, overthrown democratically and popularly backed govts to install brutal military regimes and denied the very basic right of self determination. 

We have invaded the nations as we did in Panama illegally and immorally. 

These are examples of our own terrorism. These are things WE ADMIT to, there are many more incidents we dont yet admit to but have an overwhelming amount of evidence against us.

Progams such as USAID, NED, World bank and the CIA are tax funded, state supported entities that facillitate our terrorism.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76824/mike_davis_return_to_sender_car_bombs_part_2_



> The CIA's own operatives, however, proved incapable of carrying out the bombing, so Casey subcontracted the operation to Lebanese agents led by a former British SAS officer and financed by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar. In March 1984, a large car bomb was detonated about 50 yards from Sheikh Fadlallah's house in Bir El-Abed, a crowded Shiite neighborhood in southern Beirut. The sheikh wasn't harmed, but 80 innocent neighbors and passersby were killed and 200 wounded.



Here is an incident when the US used a CAR BOMB on a residential street...isnt that terrorism?

Not only do all these things meet the definition of terrorism (our own definition) but if those acts were commited AGAINST us, we wouldnt hesitate to call it terrorism. The rules should be the same for us....the act itself should be judged against the criteria and if it meets the criteria...then by george thats what it is!

Please tell me why it would be ok for another nation to finance and plan an overthrow of the US govt and install a dictator/military regime that is sympathetic and friendly to them while being hostile to american citizens? Wouldnt that be deemed terrorism of the worst kind? Its what we have done to NUMEROUS nations, that makes us terrorists.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your wrong, one does NOT need the UN to sanction anything. I will now point out Kosovo was never "sanctioned" by the UN. Once again, the UN has no power except what the Member States give it and more pointedly no power to do anything without the blessing of the Security Council. It is not a Government and has no binding authority nor anyway to impose its will on anyone except by getting member states to agree to do the work.
> 
> The UN has made no official statement or proclamation nor passed any resolution stating the US OR the MANY allies involved are conducting an Illegal War. If they have be so kind as to provide the resolution number so I can look it up. In fact the UN is PARTICIPATING , they have recognized the current Iraq Government and are helping it in numerous ways. So much for a claim the UN has condemned the war or its aftermath.
> 
> Until you can cite us a Court case in Federal Court where the US has been found to be in violation of a Treaty involved in conducting the original Invasion and subsequent aid to the new Government, you can not even make the claim that the US has broken its own laws.
> 
> What IS fact is that all 3 branches of the Federal Government have consistantly ruled for almost 5 years now that the original invasion and the subsequent aid to Iraq is legal and authorized under the laws and Constitution of the United States.



No you are avoiding an important fact, I am guessing on purpose.

International law (which we were part of creating and agreed to) states we must meet one of the two criterias....we did bring it to the UN for sanctioning and they said no. Its really that simple. We can try to search for and cling to any loop hole we create, but it wont change ANYTHING at all. 

We have no legal or moral basis for what we have done here.

Its also interesting to note that in the nuremberg trials it was determined that wars of aggression meant that EACH AND EVERY death was MURDER even if you followed the laws of war (not killing enemies you take prisoner, doing your best to avoid civilian casualties etc). This was somthing laid into the moral and legal fabric by the allies after WW2, yet here we are violating that very concept.

BTW, there are 2 components to a war. If the cause is just and if the actual battle is fought justly. I would say the cause is not just, I would say that the battle is not fought justly but that there are the majority of soldiers who DO themselves fight the war justly and do their best to abide by the rules of war. Of course, that cant change that all their kills are deemed murder since its an aggressive war and it cant change the unjust targets they are given or the unjust orders they are given.

I think this soldier illustrates the complicated nature of a soldier ordered into an unjust war.

http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/



> Working with 1920s  A Sunni insurgent group weve been battling for months, responsible for the death of my friend and numerous attacks, agreed to fight Al Qaeda alongside us. Since then, theyve grown into a much more organized, lethal force. They use this organization to steal cars and intimidate and torture the local population, or anyone they accuse of being linked to Al Qaeda. The Gestapo of the 21st century, sanctioned by the United States Army.



And there the US is repeating the same ol mistakes. Is this not supporting terrorists? Did he not just compare the group the US is supporting to a nazi group? This is not a new tactic for the US, its just one thats proven to be bad and comes back to haunt over and over. The islamic extremists we supported, armed, trained and funded in afghanistan against the USSR later merged and formed the taliban....was that really a wise move on our part? Should we repeat actions that inevitably lead to outcomes we claim to fight against?



> In the future, I want my children to grow up with the belief that what I did here was wrong, in a society that doesnt deem that idea unpatriotic.



Theres a soldier who dosent mind admitting that what he is doing there is wrong...he isnt the only one either.


----------



## Ruby

BTW, RGS, you can keep neg repping me til the cows come home...it wont have the desired effect to silence me or make me change my views, or change the words I use to suit you and make you comfortable. Its a very obvious bully tactic by you but it will only work if I allow it to...and thats not somthing I will allow. I will continue to speak my mind as I see fit and use the words as I see fit and will continue to support those views with facts and evidence.

Happy neg repping!


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> Lastly, my point that the US is a prime example of state sponsored terrorism. I dont think its ONE thing either, I think the US has a very clear pattern spanning decades of using terrorism, supporting terrorism and enhancing terrorism.
> 
> Examples I have given and that support my point are our coups in the middle east (such as Iran when we installed the Shah) and our coups in the Latin American region...I cant think of a country in the region we havent touched. We have sent in death squads, funded terrorist groups, overthrown democratically and popularly backed govts to install brutal military regimes and denied the very basic right of self determination.
> 
> We have invaded the nations as we did in Panama illegally and immorally.
> 
> These are examples of our own terrorism. These are things WE ADMIT to, there are many more incidents we dont yet admit to but have an overwhelming amount of evidence against us.
> 
> Progams such as USAID, NED, World bank and the CIA are tax funded, state supported entities that facillitate our terrorism.
> 
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76824/mike_davis_return_to_sender_car_bombs_part_2_
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an incident when the US used a CAR BOMB on a residential street...isnt that terrorism?
> 
> Not only do all these things meet the definition of terrorism (our own definition) but if those acts were commited AGAINST us, we wouldnt hesitate to call it terrorism. The rules should be the same for us....the act itself should be judged against the criteria and if it meets the criteria...then by george thats what it is!
> 
> Please tell me why it would be ok for another nation to finance and plan an overthrow of the US govt and install a dictator/military regime that is sympathetic and friendly to them while being hostile to american citizens? Wouldnt that be deemed terrorism of the worst kind? Its what we have done to NUMEROUS nations, that makes us terrorists.



Using the CIA is the best example you can come up with?  Leaving out the fact that the CIA has been under fire from every side for being a rogue agency that plays as dirty as it wants to and holds itself above our laws?

Calling the US terrorists is absurd.  Any form of terrorism used by individuals is a violation of US law ... which makes your argument baseless.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> No you are avoiding an important fact, I am guessing on purpose.
> 
> International law (which we were part of creating and agreed to) states we must meet one of the two criterias....we did bring it to the UN for sanctioning and they said no. Its really that simple. We can try to search for and cling to any loop hole we create, but it wont change ANYTHING at all.
> 
> We have no legal or moral basis for what we have done here.
> 
> Its also interesting to note that in the nuremberg trials it was determined that wars of aggression meant that EACH AND EVERY death was MURDER even if you followed the laws of war (not killing enemies you take prisoner, doing your best to avoid civilian casualties etc). This was somthing laid into the moral and legal fabric by the allies after WW2, yet here we are violating that very concept.
> 
> BTW, there are 2 components to a war. If the cause is just and if the actual battle is fought justly. I would say the cause is not just, I would say that the battle is not fought justly but that there are the majority of soldiers who DO themselves fight the war justly and do their best to abide by the rules of war. Of course, that cant change that all their kills are deemed murder since its an aggressive war and it cant change the unjust targets they are given or the unjust orders they are given.
> 
> I think this soldier illustrates the complicated nature of a soldier ordered into an unjust war.
> 
> http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> 
> And there the US is repeating the same ol mistakes. Is this not supporting terrorists? Did he not just compare the group the US is supporting to a nazi group? This is not a new tactic for the US, its just one thats proven to be bad and comes back to haunt over and over. The islamic extremists we supported, armed, trained and funded in afghanistan against the USSR later merged and formed the taliban....was that really a wise move on our part? Should we repeat actions that inevitably lead to outcomes we claim to fight against?
> 
> 
> 
> Theres a soldier who dosent mind admitting that what he is doing there is wrong...he isnt the only one either.



Yup, we must accept the opinion of a tiny miniscule minority when they agree with you and ignore the HUGE vast majority that do NOT agree with you.

I am waiting still for the UN sanction, the UN resolution and or the Court case to prove your point. Not only hasn't the UN done any of that, they are working in concert with us in Iraq, they have recognized the Government you claim is not legal and they are working to help that "illegal" Government grow stronger and become more stable.

No Nation requires approval from the UN to do anything. The UN is NOT a Government, they can not tell a sovereign nation what they can and can not do. They can pass resolutions and ask member states to follow those resolutions. Show me again the resolution condemning the US and her allies for Invading Iraq.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, we must accept the opinion of a tiny miniscule minority when they agree with you and ignore the HUGE vast majority that do NOT agree with you.
> 
> I am waiting still for the UN sanction, the UN resolution and or the Court case to prove your point. Not only hasn't the UN done any of that, they are working in concert with us in Iraq, they have recognized the Government you claim is not legal and they are working to help that "illegal" Government grow stronger and become more stable.
> 
> No Nation requires approval from the UN to do anything. The UN is NOT a Government, they can not tell a sovereign nation what they can and can not do. They can pass resolutions and ask member states to follow those resolutions. Show me again the resolution condemning the US and her allies for Invading Iraq.



There was no TINY MINORITY, the UN is not a tiny minority. You can pretend that it must be a UN SANCTION AGAINST, but thats not the international laws we helped to create and agreed to. It must be sanctioned in the first place, that sanction was asked for by the US and the answer was NO.

They are not actually working with the US in the way you would like to spin it. They have been involved on a humanitarian level and have also been bullied by the US which is not really anything new. I think the US admin was downright shocked (as was I quite frankly) that they werent able to bully the UN into sanctioning the invasion of Iraq to give it a legal basis.

The US also cannot tell a soveriegn nation what they can and cannot do....yet we are doing just that. 

There is a difference between what is moral and legal to do and what is done via the sheer force of power. What we CAN do and get away with exceeds the limits of moral standards and international law. We can either bolster a world run by a set of prinicpals and laws or one where sheer force and power rule....so far we support the latter which means we use state sponsored terrorism since thats exactly what a nation is doing when it abandons laws and morals in favor of bully power.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> There was no TINY MINORITY, the UN is not a tiny minority. You can pretend that it must be a UN SANCTION AGAINST, but thats not the international laws we helped to create and agreed to. It must be sanctioned in the first place, that sanction was asked for by the US and the answer was NO.
> 
> They are not actually working with the US in the way you would like to spin it. They have been involved on a humanitarian level and have also been bullied by the US which is not really anything new. I think the US admin was downright shocked (as was I quite frankly) that they werent able to bully the UN into sanctioning the invasion of Iraq to give it a legal basis.
> 
> The US also cannot tell a soveriegn nation what they can and cannot do....yet we are doing just that.
> 
> There is a difference between what is moral and legal to do and what is done via the sheer force of power. What we CAN do and get away with exceeds the limits of moral standards and international law. We can either bolster a world run by a set of prinicpals and laws or one where sheer force and power rule....so far we support the latter which means we use state sponsored terrorism since thats exactly what a nation is doing when it abandons laws and morals in favor of bully power.



Wrong again. There is NO "law" that requires a nation to get "approval" to do as it wishes from a foreign entity. As to the specific UN entity, it has not done anything at all to proclaim the US OR HER ALLIES in breach of any Treaty or any "Law" at all. One is not guilty of something simply because they did not get permission from an Entity that has no power before acting. 

It is specific. The UN MUST act with a Resolution for anything to be "official" You can pretend otherwise all you want. That is how it works, always has, always will. The UN can not be silent, but still be condemning a nation. Doesn't work that way.

If we violated the UN Charter it REQUIRES that the UN say so officially for it to be true, you don't get to pretend their silence is proof. You can not on the one hand claim we violated some "Law" and on the other hand claim the failure of the supposed power behind the "Law" to make its case and make a finding is PROOF we broke said "Law".

Not only has the UN failed to pass a resolution proclaiming we broke the UN Charter, they have not even DISCUSSED doing so. Your claim is false ON IT's FACE.

You might have a shred of an argument if a Resolution had been proposed and then defeated by the evil US and her minions. You do not even have that. Thus the actions the US and HER ALLIES took in Iraq and continue to take are not "Illegal" under the UN Charter.

Further they are not illegal under the US Constitution or her laws. All 3 Branches of the US Government have agreed from day one that the action was both legal and justified. All 3 Branches CONTINUE to this day to make the actions legal and justified.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong again. There is NO "law" that requires a nation to get "approval" to do as it wishes from a foreign entity. As to the specific UN entity, it has not done anything at all to proclaim the US OR HER ALLIES in breach of any Treaty or any "Law" at all. One is not guilty of something simply because they did not get permission from an Entity that has no power before acting.
> 
> It is specific. The UN MUST act with a Resolution for anything to be "official" You can pretend otherwise all you want. That is how it works, always has, always will. The UN can not be silent, but still be condemning a nation. Doesn't work that way.
> 
> If we violated the UN Charter it REQUIRES that the UN say so officially for it to be true, you don't get to pretend their silence is proof. You can not on the one hand claim we violated some "Law" and on the other hand claim the failure of the supposed power behind the "Law" to make its case and make a finding is PROOF we broke said "Law".
> 
> Not only has the UN failed to pass a resolution proclaiming we broke the UN Charter, they have not even DISCUSSED doing so. Your claim is false ON IT's FACE.
> 
> You might have a shred of an argument if a Resolution had been proposed and then defeated by the evil US and her minions. You do not even have that. Thus the actions the US and HER ALLIES took in Iraq and continue to take are not "Illegal" under the UN Charter.
> 
> Further they are not illegal under the US Constitution or her laws. All 3 Branches of the US Government have agreed from day one that the action was both legal and justified. All 3 Branches CONTINUE to this day to make the actions legal and justified.




The US wouldnt need a UN mandate if it was a case of self defense, but that isnt a case we can make. That is why we are left with the second condition which is to get UN approval. The UN wasnt silent, we did go and ask for their approval and they said no....nothing silent about that.

We are also in violation of the geneva conventions..but via sheer force and will we will get away with that for a bit as well. This is also not legal according to US law but rule of law dosent seem to matter much in the US anymore...its more about the law of the jungle (what a sad state of affairs that is and certainly nothing to be proud of).

It seems the US now favors terrorism as its methods instead of any rule of law. 

I still havent heard you claim it would be right for the US to be invaded so that another nation could change our regime and that be considered a legal act. A case can certainly be made that we are dangerous to the world and are guilty of waging aggressive wars. A case can also be made that we abuse our own citizens...the chemicals and illnesses our own citizens have been exposed to by our own govt would certainly qualify. Our support of numerous terrorists and terrorist groups can also be illustrated rather easily...all supporting evidence would come straight from US govt documents! 

We cant make others adhere to rules we arent ready to live by...unless we just adopt the law of the jungle, which it seems we have.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> The US wouldnt need a UN mandate if it was a case of self defense, but that isnt a case we can make. That is why we are left with the second condition which is to get UN approval. The UN wasnt silent, we did go and ask for their approval and they said no....nothing silent about that.
> 
> We are also in violation of the geneva conventions..but via sheer force and will we will get away with that for a bit as well. This is also not legal according to US law but rule of law dosent seem to matter much in the US anymore...its more about the law of the jungle (what a sad state of affairs that is and certainly nothing to be proud of).
> 
> It seems the US now favors terrorism as its methods instead of any rule of law.
> 
> I still havent heard you claim it would be right for the US to be invaded so that another nation could change our regime and that be considered a legal act. A case can certainly be made that we are dangerous to the world and are guilty of waging aggressive wars. A case can also be made that we abuse our own citizens...the chemicals and illnesses our own citizens have been exposed to by our own govt would certainly qualify. Our support of numerous terrorists and terrorist groups can also be illustrated rather easily...all supporting evidence would come straight from US govt documents!
> 
> We cant make others adhere to rules we arent ready to live by...unless we just adopt the law of the jungle, which it seems we have.



Yup sure thing, cause you say it, is there for true. Akin to claiming someone murdered someone and your proof is because the police didn't arrest him and didn't charge him. He is guilty because no court charged him or tried him or made a finding of fact. Further not only didn't the police arrest him, they hired him and are helping him. Yup stellar logic you have.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup sure thing, cause you say it, is there for true. Akin to claiming someone murdered someone and your proof is because the police didn't arrest him and didn't charge him. He is guilty because no court charged him or tried him or made a finding of fact. Further not only didn't the police arrest him, they hired him and are helping him. Yup stellar logic you have.



Actually the information has been linked to you numerous times by a few people. 

When you ask permission, you get an answer and when we asked permission to invade Iraq we got an answer...it was no.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> Actually the information has been linked to you numerous times by a few people.
> 
> When you ask permission, you get an answer and when we asked permission to invade Iraq we got an answer...it was no.



The resolution condemning us has been linked to me numerous times? And I repeat sovereign Nations don't need to ask " permission" do anything from the UN.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> The resolution condemning us has been linked to me numerous times? And I repeat sovereign Nations don't need to ask " permission" do anything from the UN.




I can see how hard you work to be ill-informed and in some ways its consistency is admirable, in a very sick way of course.

No you have been linked to all information that shows you just how illegal the war is. Nations DO need to get a UN mandate OR it has to be self defense. Those are the two conditions, a nation must meet at LEAST one of those conditions for the war to have a legal basis. The US has met NEITHER. 

Its really just that simple and uncomplicated yet you seem to illustrate that even such a very simple concept is far too complicated for you to understand. Its the kind of ignorance that is a choice.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> I can see how hard you work to be ill-informed and in some ways its consistency is admirable, in a very sick way of course.
> 
> No you have been linked to all information that shows you just how illegal the war is. Nations DO need to get a UN mandate OR it has to be self defense. Those are the two conditions, a nation must meet at LEAST one of those conditions for the war to have a legal basis. The US has met NEITHER.
> 
> Its really just that simple and uncomplicated yet you seem to illustrate that even such a very simple concept is far too complicated for you to understand. Its the kind of ignorance that is a choice.



Yes, I am sure, kindly point to me the section in our Constitution that spells out we have no sovereign rights and must seek approval for any action from a NON Governmental Foreign agency.

Ohh and if you trot out the treaty part, provide me with the Court case that has found the US in violation of her treaty obligations. Or better yet, an actual binding statement from the UN Security Council that states we violated the UN Charter or any treaty we have signed.

One is not guilty because no one has accused them of something, nor are they guilty because no one has charged them with a violation. The UN MUST take action, they must actually propose a resolution stating the US violated the Charter. Failing that, in fact, the UN does not think a violation occurred. 

Further proof of that would be the fact that the UN is working hand in glove with the "illegal" Government in Iraq and is working as well with the Immoral mass murdering, Nazi American Government. Pretty much blows your argument out of the water.

But do keep claiming total silence on the issue and no action taken at all, is proof of condemnation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Here is an applicable section of your cherished UN Charter. You keep claiming the US violated it and specifcally has waged an illegal Aggression.

http://uncharter.org/chapter/7

This article starts the section of..



> Article: 39
> 
> The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.



Be so kind as to show me where the Security council has even met to discuss the matter of illegal US and allied nations Aggression on Iraq.

The next Article states the Security Council doesn't even have to vote to make demands and recommendation if a violation has occurred.



> Article: 40
> 
> In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.



Be so kind as to provide me with the text of any demands or recommendations from the Security Council to the US or her Allies concerning the Invasion of and so called occupation of Iraq.

Please be so kind as to reference me to any meeting, any demands, any findings, any requirements or recommendations from the Security Council regarding the US and her Allies in regards to Iraq, the Invasion or so called occupation.


----------



## Ruby

LOL, you are such a tool.

The UN wouldnt vote to give the US authorization to attack and therefore deny it a legal basis...thats the only power the UN is going to have against a security council member, especially one of the most powerful ones that like to throw its power around.

Just because a nation or an organization dosent have the power to get justice dosent validate or give a "just" basis to the more powerful player. It just means that the more powerful player has decided to abandon principals, morals, justice and the rule of law in favor of the "law of the jungle". Not exactly a moment of pride for the US.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> LOL, you are such a tool.
> 
> The UN wouldnt vote to give the US authorization to attack and therefore deny it a legal basis...thats the only power the UN is going to have against a security council member, especially one of the most powerful ones that like to throw its power around.
> 
> Just because a nation or an organization dosent have the power to get justice dosent validate or give a "just" basis to the more powerful player. It just means that the more powerful player has decided to abandon principals, morals, justice and the rule of law in favor of the "law of the jungle". Not exactly a moment of pride for the US.



In other words none of your claims can be proven or even reasoned with, no proof is your proof. You keep making a false claim. I have provided you with the relevant portion of the UN Charter. You have nothing except your delusions.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words none of your claims can be proven or even reasoned with, no proof is your proof. You keep making a false claim. I have provided you with the relevant portion of the UN Charter. You have nothing except your delusions.




I cant figure out if you are obtuse as a defense to information you cant handle or it you truly lack the brain power to absorb the fact that the US couldnt get the go ahead from the UN to invade Iraq which would have given the US a legal basis...without it we have to rely on the self defense criteria and we cant meet that criteria either.

I really dont know how to make it any more simple for ya...

Here is another freebie for ya...the UN have also tried to intervene with Israel and Palestine but are powerless because the US makes sure that the UN can do nothing in that regard either. What is right and what you have the POWER to rectify are two very different things. 

The UN did the only thing they have the power to do, with-hold providing the US with a legal basis, somthing that very well may come back to haunt the US.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> I cant figure out if you are obtuse as a defense to information you cant handle or it you truly lack the brain power to absorb the fact that the US couldnt get the go ahead from the UN to invade Iraq which would have given the US a legal basis...without it we have to rely on the self defense criteria and we cant meet that criteria either.
> 
> I really dont know how to make it any more simple for ya...
> 
> Here is another freebie for ya...the UN have also tried to intervene with Israel and Palestine but are powerless because the US makes sure that the UN can do nothing in that regard either. What is right and what you have the POWER to rectify are two very different things.
> 
> The UN did the only thing they have the power to do, with-hold providing the US with a legal basis, somthing that very well may come back to haunt the US.



You are the one that can't seem to grasp reality or facts. The UN Security Council decides who has violated UN Charter, not you. Given 6 years they have yet to even bring it up in the council. I suggest you reread my link to the APPROPRIATE UN Article of the UN Charter. It is crystal clear. ONLY the Security Council can determine if one has waged an Aggressive war. And have they done so?


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are the one that can't seem to grasp reality or facts. The UN Security Council decides who has violated UN Charter, not you. Given 6 years they have yet to even bring it up in the council. I suggest you reread my link to the APPROPRIATE UN Article of the UN Charter. It is crystal clear. ONLY the Security Council can determine if one has waged an Aggressive war. And have they done so?




So then tell me, which of the conditions has the US met to give legal basis to the war. Is it self defense or is it by UN resolution? If we can pick one of those, its illegal. Is that dumbed down enough for ya....I just cant dumb it down any further.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> So then tell me, which of the conditions has the US met to give legal basis to the war. Is it self defense or is it by UN resolution? If we can pick one of those, its illegal. Is that dumbed down enough for ya....I just cant dumb it down any further.



Wrong. it is only an "illegal" war if the UN says it is. As is stated in the UN Charter. Until and unless the Security Council makes that statement, it simply is not true. You can huff and puff all you want, doesn't change the facts. I suggest you read the relevant articles.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> LOL, you are such a tool.
> 
> The UN wouldnt vote to give the US authorization to attack and therefore deny it a legal basis...thats the only power the UN is going to have against a security council member, especially one of the most powerful ones that like to throw its power around.
> 
> Just because a nation or an organization dosent have the power to get justice dosent validate or give a "just" basis to the more powerful player. It just means that the more powerful player has decided to abandon principals, morals, justice and the rule of law in favor of the "law of the jungle". Not exactly a moment of pride for the US.



The UN doesn't even have THAT power.  You have no argument.  A UN decisions is not the basis of a legal argument, and if it was, I have to then ask how legtimate is that when France openly PURCHASED votes against the US trying to protect its under-the-table deals with Saddam.  How legitimate is THAT?

Anytime the US defies a corrupt, bureaucratic clusterfuck like the UN is DEFINITELY a moment of pride.  Too bad we don't ignore the peanut gallery more often.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> The UN doesn't even have THAT power.  You have no argument.  A UN decisions is not the basis of a legal argument, and if it was, I have to then ask how legtimate is that when France openly PURCHASED votes against the US trying to protect its under-the-table deals with Saddam.  How legitimate is THAT?
> 
> Anytime the US defies a corrupt, bureaucratic clusterfuck like the UN is DEFINITELY a moment of pride.  Too bad we don't ignore the peanut gallery more often.



Yea the UN does have the power to authorize an invasion, the US just faced the problem of not getting enough votes in its favor.

The US defies corruption? Is that a joke? The US embraces corruption, it wallows it in like a pig in shit! The entire security council are certainly corrupt which is the reason the UN is so slow, inefficient and undemocratic...the corrupt powers (with the US as one of the worst) make up the security council and use it as to further their own agendas instead of using it for its intended purposes.

I do believe the US would be doing the world a favor if it just withdrew from the UN altogether, I really wish it would. Its one of the largest contributors of corruption.


----------



## ReillyT

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong. it is only an "illegal" war if the UN says it is. As is stated in the UN Charter. Until and unless the Security Council makes that statement, it simply is not true. You can huff and puff all you want, doesn't change the facts. I suggest you read the relevant articles.



I think you are confusing a finding of illegality with illegality itself.  Throughout most of the last two centuries, crimes against black people occurred in the South (and North) that went unpunished.  Even cases brought to trial generally failed to yield convictions.  This doesn't mean that the lynchings that occurred weren't illegal.  They were illegal whether justice was ever obtained or not.  Legality is the measure of the act itself, not any subsequent resolution.

I think that the same thing applies here.  If you believe that there is an international law, with international norms and rules, then a state may violate international law even if the Security Counsel, for political reasons, never makes such a finding.   These are two different questions - apples and oranges if you will.


----------



## ReillyT

I have to modify what I wrote above.  I think that it holds true when the rules in question are relatively clear (or even arguably clear - although then the question of illegality relates more to the clarity of the rules).  When the rules aren't clear, then the decision of the legal tribunal may actually determine the legality of classes of actions.  That is my caveat.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ReillyT said:


> I have to modify what I wrote above.  I think that it holds true when the rules in question are relatively clear (or even arguably clear - although then the question of illegality relates more to the clarity of the rules).  When the rules aren't clear, then the decision of the legal tribunal may actually determine the legality of classes of actions.  That is my caveat.



The Article is clear as a bell. Unless and until the Security Council takes it up, It is not a violation of the Charter as specified in said charter. It even States the Council can act with NO vote. Last I checked there are 15 members of that Council.

More to the point, NO ONE has even suggested a resolution should occur. Not only do we have no resolution we have no one even suggesting it be brought up for vote.


----------



## ReillyT

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Article is clear as a bell. Unless and until the Security Council takes it up, It is not a violation of the Charter as specified in said charter. It even States the Council can act with NO vote. Last I checked there are 15 members of that Council.
> 
> More to the point, NO ONE has even suggested a resolution should occur. Not only do we have no resolution we have no one even suggesting it be brought up for vote.



First, let us not forget the obvious practical signficance of the UN Security Council.  The US has a vote and can veto any measure.  Now, lets get to the more nitty gritty.

Two things stand out about Art. 39.  First, it establishes a duty that the Security Council must undertake.  Granted.  However, please show me where Article 39 states that a failure to make a finding equates with legality on the facts.  I'll wait a while, because it doesn't say that.  Statutes creating the US courts also establish duties and state what cases the courts shall hear.  Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that individual acts can be illegal, even if they are not brought before a court.  Think back to the lynching example.  Courts were required to hear those cases.  However, just because no one was ever convicted doesn't mean that lynching wasn't an illegal act.

Also, take a close moment to think about what else Article 39 says.    It says the Security Council "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."   This clearly implies that only the UN may either recommend or decide on a course of action, presumably to be carried out by member states or the UN itself, to maintain/restore peace.  The UN neither recommended that an invasion of Iraq take place, nor did it decide that the organization or member states should take this action.  In fact, it could have made such a recommendation and pointedly did not do so.  Therefore, wouldn't this suggest that the war was illegal (which I think is a pointless question to begin with)?



> Article: 39
> 
> The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.





> Article: 40
> 
> In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ReillyT said:


> First, let us not forget the obvious practical signficance of the UN Security Council.  The US has a vote and can veto any measure.  Now, lets get to the more nitty gritty.
> 
> Two things stand out about Art. 39.  First, it establishes a duty that the Security Council must undertake.  Granted.  However, please show me where Article 39 states that a failure to make a finding equates with legality on the facts.  I'll wait a while, because it doesn't say that.  Statutes creating the US courts also establish duties and state what cases the courts shall hear.  Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that individual acts can be illegal, even if they are not brought before a court.  Think back to the lynching example.  Courts were required to hear those cases.  However, just because no one was ever convicted doesn't mean that lynching wasn't an illegal act.
> 
> Also, take a close moment to think about what else Article 39 says.    It says the Security Council "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."   This clearly implies that only the UN may either recommend or decide on a course of action, presumably to be carried out by member states or the UN itself, to maintain/restore peace.  The UN neither recommended that an invasion of Iraq take place, nor did it decide that the organization or member states should take this action.  In fact, it could have made such a recommendation and pointedly did not do so.  Therefore, wouldn't this suggest that the war was illegal (which I think is a pointless question to begin with)?



Reread them .... then apply them to accusation that the US conducted an illegal aggression under the charter. Not only hasn't the Council passed any resolution, they haven't even talked about it, they haven't considered it, it is a non issue. The US made a case for self defense, you don't get to dismiss it cause you don't agree with it ( you being anyone that makes the claim not necassarly you in particular) IF the Un Security Council disagrees with that claim then they have a duty to act, failure to act implies acceptance of the claim the US made under the appropriate article. Not oly does it imply it, it states in the Article ONLY the Security Council can rule otherwise. They have done no such thing, they haven't even brought it up, so they argument the US would Veto is moot.

You do not get to decide your neighbor broke a law and claim loudly he is a criminal, UNLESS you press for charges and even then, failure to bring said charges means if you continue to make the claim your open for action for Liable.


----------



## ReillyT

RetiredGySgt said:


> Reread them .... then apply them to accusation that the US conducted an illegal aggression under the charter. Not only hasn't the Council passed any resolution, they haven't even talked about it, they haven't considered it, it is a non issue.



That would mean something if we could just ignore the real world facts relating to the workings of the Security Council.  It is ultimately a political institution, not legal.  



RetiredGySgt said:


> The US made a case for self defense, you don't get to dismiss it cause you don't agree with it ( you being anyone that makes the claim not necassarly you in particular) IF the Un Security Council disagrees with that claim then they have a duty to act, failure to act implies acceptance of the claim the US made under the appropriate article.



Once again, this only means something if we ignore how the UN works in the real world.

Also, anyone can dismiss (or adopt) the argument that the US acted in self-defence.  As you pointed out with respect to French efforts to trade votes in the UN, the UN is not a very good forum for detached decision-making.  Acknowledging this, it is perfectly reasonable to argue (on any side) about what rulings a more neutral, rule-based, international organization would make - were such an organization to exist (which it doesn't).



RetiredGySgt said:


> Not oly does it imply it, it states in the Article ONLY the Security Council can rule otherwise. They have done no such thing, they haven't even brought it up, so they argument the US would Veto is moot.



It isn't moot.  Once again, the UN is a political institution.  The fact that an issue has not been raised at the UN deals more with the political dynamics than the legal dynamics.



RetiredGySgt said:


> You do not get to decide your neighbor broke a law and claim loudly he is a criminal, UNLESS you press for charges and even then, failure to bring said charges means if you continue to make the claim your open for action for Liable.



I (or anyone else) can definitely decide and claim that my neighbor has broken the law.  My neighbor may very well have broken the law, even if he is never arrested or prosecuted (which might not occur for a variety of reasons - including prosecutorial discretion).  The question of whether my neighbor broke the law is a separate question from whether my neighbor can sue me for lible or slander (under which however, I would get to try to prove that my neighbor did what I say he did). 

There are two separate issues:  what my neighbor (or the US) did, and what a tribunal might acknowledge that my neighbor (or the US) did.  These issues may align, or they may not.

As a practical matter, no body (in the near future, at least) is likely to state that the US went to war illegally.  That is because (in my opinion) most international law is a joke, and there is no mechanism to hold powerful countries accountable.  

The question as to what an impartial judicial body might hold were one to exist to hear such a claim is clearly open to argument.  There are respected jurists who feel that the US acted illegally.  I am sure that there are respected jurists who would argue otherwise.  In the real world, no tribunal is ever going to answer this question (at least during this decade).  Nonetheless, as an intellectual pursuit, we can always debate this question - there just will be no final answer.  

It is sort of along the lines of debating whether dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was justified.  People have opinions and arguments, but there is no authoritative body to ever make a determination one way or the other.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ReillyT said:


> That would mean something if we could just ignore the real world facts relating to the workings of the Security Council.  It is ultimately a political institution, not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, this only means something if we ignore how the UN works in the real world.
> 
> Also, anyone can dismiss (or adopt) the argument that the US acted in self-defence.  As you pointed out with respect to French efforts to trade votes in the UN, the UN is not a very good forum for detached decision-making.  Acknowledging this, it is perfectly reasonable to argue (on any side) about what rulings a more neutral, rule-based, international organization would make - were such an organization to exist (which it doesn't).
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't moot.  Once again, the UN is a political institution.  The fact that an issue has not been raised at the UN deals more with the political dynamics than the legal dynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> I (or anyone else) can definitely decide and claim that my neighbor has broken the law.  My neighbor may very well have broken the law, even if he is never arrested or prosecuted (which might not occur for a variety of reasons - including prosecutorial discretion).  The question of whether my neighbor broke the law is a separate question from whether my neighbor can sue me for lible or slander (under which however, I would get to try to prove that my neighbor did what I say he did).
> 
> There are two separate issues:  what my neighbor (or the US) did, and what a tribunal might acknowledge that my neighbor (or the US) did.  These issues may align, or they may not.
> 
> As a practical matter, no body (in the near future, at least) is likely to state that the US went to war illegally.  That is because (in my opinion) most international law is a joke, and there is no mechanism to hold powerful countries accountable.
> 
> The question as to what an impartial judicial body might hold were one to exist to hear such a claim is clearly open to argument.  There are respected jurists who feel that the US acted illegally.  I am sure that there are respected jurists who would argue otherwise.  In the real world, no tribunal is ever going to answer this question (at least during this decade).  Nonetheless, as an intellectual pursuit, we can always debate this question - there just will be no final answer.
> 
> It is sort of along the lines of debating whether dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was justified.  People have opinions and arguments, but there is no authoritative body to ever make a determination one way or the other.



Citing the UN as proof of a violation won't fly. The UN Charter is clear. Have any opinion you want. I do not care. But do not proclaim it is fact or true using as proof a charter that clearly indicates it is NOT fact or true.

Do not cite the UN Charter on supposed illegal war as proof while ignoring the rest detailing who decides it is aggression and the actions necassary to make it so.


----------



## maineman

what a renaissance man.... D&D game geek AND international legal scholar!


----------

