Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
34 online now:
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,715 Year: 18,751/19,786 Month: 1,171/1,705 Week: 423/518 Day: 41/58 Hour: 8/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War in Iraq, is there a point?
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6803
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 286 of 308 (236241)
08-23-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by FairWitness
08-23-2005 6:07 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
quote:
... your fellow American citizens?

He's new here, Charles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by FairWitness, posted 08-23-2005 6:07 PM FairWitness has not yet responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4760 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 287 of 308 (236242)
08-23-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 5:49 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 5:49 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 6:12 PM CanadianSteve has responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 288 of 308 (236244)
08-23-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by FairWitness
08-23-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
Millions of us in America support this war...

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by FairWitness, posted 08-23-2005 6:04 PM FairWitness has not yet responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4760 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 289 of 308 (236245)
08-23-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 5:47 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 5:47 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 6:22 PM CanadianSteve has not yet responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 290 of 308 (236246)
08-23-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by a servant of Christ
08-23-2005 4:13 PM


I'm growing weary of your ignorant posting, but I'll patiently correct you again.

Why aren't they POW's?

Because they don't wear a uniform, or a "distinguishable sign"?

That's dishonest and immoral to believe that.

Allow me to educate you.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:

Article 4 A 2

2. 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.

being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates

Yes, the arguement can be made that they take orders for higher ups.

That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

Ooo sorry (jeapordy incorrect beep) they don't fit this category.

That of carrying arms openly

Ooo sorry again, they don't fit this criteria either.

That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

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.

You shoot an enemy, you disobey God.

Where is that?

I'll post a few stories tonight about a taxi driver named Dilawar that was tortured and murdered at Guantanamo bay and a few others.

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*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by a servant of Christ, posted 08-23-2005 4:13 PM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 291 of 308 (236247)
08-23-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by CanadianSteve
08-23-2005 6:09 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
He tried desperately. In fact, he delayed the war by 6 months...

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-23-2005 6:09 PM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-23-2005 6:18 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 292 of 308 (236248)
08-23-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by CK
08-23-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
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*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by CK, posted 08-23-2005 6:04 PM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by CK, posted 08-23-2005 6:18 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 293 of 308 (236249)
08-23-2005 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
deerbreh writes:

Beside the point. Nobody's hands were clean, including American companies.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 6:04 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 6:34 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4760 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 294 of 308 (236250)
08-23-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by docpotato
08-23-2005 5:52 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by docpotato, posted 08-23-2005 5:52 PM docpotato has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 295 of 308 (236251)
08-23-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Tal
08-23-2005 6:13 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Tal, posted 08-23-2005 6:13 PM Tal has not yet responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4760 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 296 of 308 (236252)
08-23-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 6:12 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 6:12 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1181 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 297 of 308 (236254)
08-23-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by CanadianSteve
08-23-2005 6:11 PM


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

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-23-2005 6:11 PM CanadianSteve has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2005 6:27 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3335 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 298 of 308 (236255)
08-23-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by FairWitness
08-23-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by FairWitness, posted 08-23-2005 6:04 PM FairWitness has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by FairWitness, posted 08-23-2005 6:45 PM docpotato has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6803
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 299 of 308 (236256)
08-23-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 6:22 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 6:22 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31495
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 300 of 308 (236257)
08-23-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by GDR
08-23-2005 4:42 PM


Re: Opposing Terrorism
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 ...

GDR writes:

When there is no longer the threat of terrorism from that country there will no longer be troops.

IMHO that's a very shortsighted tactic and also one designed for failure.

The goal in Iraq is again to establish a democratically elected local gov't and get out.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by GDR, posted 08-23-2005 4:42 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by GDR, posted 08-23-2005 6:45 PM jar has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019