War in Iraq, is there a point?

quote:

---

... your fellow American citizens?

---

He's new here, Charles.

He tried desperately. In fact, he delayed the war by 6 months in that effort, even going back to the Un for a redundant resolution to 1441 - giving the Hussein loyalists and islamist 6 months to plan their insurgency. Had only Bush known.

Millions more in America don't support it....Beside the point, anyway. If it is wrong it is wrong even if 99% support it and if it is right it is right even if only 40% support it.

No, it was iraqis in hussein's mass graves, rape rooms, meat grinders, hell-hole prisons.

I'm growing weary of your ignorant posting, but I'll patiently correct you again. Allow me to educate you.Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:Article 4 A 22. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;(c) That of carrying arms openly;(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.Now, to be classified as POW you MUST meet all 4 conditions.Let's see if the typical insurgent meets any of the criteria. Yes, the arguement can be made that they take orders for higher ups. Ooo sorry (jeapordy incorrect beep) they don't fit this category. Ooo sorry again, they don't fit this criteria either. And since they target civilians (among many other TRUE atrocities) they don't quite make the cut here either.So they fail 3 out of 4 critereon that would make the elligible for POW status. Where is that? Remember, it doesn't count if it has the Koran flushing story next to it!

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

George W. Bush shared his war plans with a Canadian? Do tell.

Hey, can I go to Iraq?That sense.

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

It isn't beside the point at all. It is the reason that there would never have been Security Council approval from the UN. There would never have been a UN force because countries with vested interests and things to hide had a veto on the Security Council.Your initial point was that the US should have had UN support. My point is that UN support was an imoossibility.

You are assuredly have that right.The problem is when those opposed believe in conspiracy nutbar stuff, like the war is for oil, Haliburton, Israel, Bush's saudi friends. It's wrong when Americans of the far left simply do not care whether democracy is created in the ME, and are willing to align with Islamists in order to see the US defeated. It is wrong when those opposed lie about bush supposedly lying the nation into war.It is reasonable to argue - even if wrongly - that saving Iraqis from a tyrant is noble, but won't help in the war against islamic terror.It is reasonable to argue - even if wrongly -that creating a democracy in Iraq will not serve the interests of world peace.And so on.

em...I asked because I was wondering if you'd post something something like that.let's take a simple example - how would a lance-jack from say the Adjutant General's Corp volunteer to go to Iraq? How does that work?

It would appear that you did not follow the news all that time. For if you had, or were you to refresh your memory, you would know that he went back to the UN over and over, and had Powell constantly on the diplomat trail.

Huh. I don't remember any of that being used as a reason for invading Iraq before the fact. I DO remember WMDs, 9-11, "Iraqi connections to Al Quaeda," "reconstituted nuclear weapons programs", "yellowcake from Niger", "aluminum centrifuge tubes", "drones that could reach the U.S.", and "mobile biological labs", - NONE of which turned up in Iraq.So we INVADED Iraq just to get rid of Saddam? Kind of like using a pile driver as a tack hammer, dontcha think?

So my question is, should those of us who see something morally wrong about the way this war is being conducted, or for that matter, see something morally wrong about the fact that we are in Iraq at all honor our responsibility to voice our opinion or should we be silent and tacitly endorse something we find morally offensive in the interests of supporting our nation?

Funny how none of those things bothered the US when the Shah of Iran or Pinochet were using them.

I don't really see where most of what you posted has to do with the question. I think you're getting both ahead of the argument and also confusing the issue.Let me try to reword some of what I've said and see if it makes more sense.First, we did invade Iraq and Afganistan. Those are past actions. We can't change the past. We're stuck trying to minimize the harm that will be done.But ... IMHO that's a very shortsighted tactic and also one designed for failure. Again, that's another one that IMHO is simply designed to fail.Now that we've invaded and overthrown the governments in these two countries, I think our selfinterest and even honor says that we need to be sure that they get beyond simply having a democratically elected government. We need to stick it out until they are viable. That could well be 50 years, will certainly be decades at a minimum.But those actions have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of terrorism.Does that make any sense or should I try rewording it again?This message has been edited by jar, 08-23-2005 05:27 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion