New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iran - Page 4

post #121 of 200
3/6/07 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yes. The situation with Padilla is horrifying. Years in a Naval brig while being denied access to counsel.

I agree with you here and have from the beginning. US citizens should not be held without charges. Period.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #122 of 200
3/6/07 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

Not just afganistan, they also kidnapped enemy combatants in Iraq, Pakistan, and throughout the middle east, often paying the governments for prisoners. They kidnapped a homegrown Brooklynite too, a citizen of these United States of America. Imprisoned for years, without trial.




"Kidnapped"


OMFG.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #123 of 200
3/6/07 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficerDigby View Post

Don't know what the fuss is about. You already have an internment camp. It's called Guantanemo. It's for people who looked suspicious in Afghanistan circa 2002.

That is not the same thing at all. Those are essentially POWs that do not fall under the Geneva Conventions because they are not part of a uniformed army. They were captured outside the US, and certainly for more than "looking suspcious." That is, unless you define "suspicious" as attacking US/Coalition troops, planning attacks on American interests, and having T-Shirts that say "I'M A TERRORIST. DEATH TO AMERICA" on them.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #124 of 200
3/6/07 at 12:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree with you here and have from the beginning. US citizens should not be held without charges. Period.

Anyone else is ok though - the more the merrier.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #125 of 200
3/6/07 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is not the same thing at all. Those are essentially POWs that do not fall under the Geneva Conventions because they are not part of a uniformed army. They were captured outside the US, and certainly for more than "looking suspcious."

Actually, you don't know this. Information about the detainees has not been made public. While I believe you're correct about their legal status (i.e. that they do not fall under Geneva conventions), we simply do not know who these people are or why they are there.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #126 of 200
3/6/07 at 5:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Those are essentially POWs that do not fall under the Geneva Conventions because they are not part of a uniformed army.

It would seem the Supreme Court disagrees with you about that. (Very large PDF)

Here is another link with more in depth information.

Quote:
The Court did not hold -- not even close -- that all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions apply to suspected Al Qaeda detainees, or that they are entitled to all of the protections afforded U.S. POWs. (POWs, for instance, may not be coerced at all in interrogations, and may not be "threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind" for refusing to answer questions beyond name, rank, serial number and date of birth.) The Court held "merely" that the minimum baseline protections of Common Article 3 are binding on the U.S. in the conflict with Al Qaeda. The Court did not suggest that Al Qaeda detainees are entitled to POW status, and did not opine on the procedures that may be required to deprive a detainee of POW status. As OLC explained, "article 3 requires State parties to follow only certain minimum standards of treatment toward prisoners, civilians, or the sick and wounded -- standards that are much less onerous and less detailed than those spelled out in the Conventions as a whole."
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #127 of 200
3/7/07 at 4:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Anyone else is ok though - the more the merrier.....

It's OK for some, yes. Enemy combatants captured outside the US? Yes, that's OK. Terror suspects in Afghanistan, etc....yes. In fact, they should absolutely NOT have access to the civilian court system.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #128 of 200
3/7/07 at 4:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Actually, you don't know this. Information about the detainees has not been made public. While I believe you're correct about their legal status (i.e. that they do not fall under Geneva conventions), we simply do not know who these people are or why they are there.


I'll concede that. More should be released, I agree.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #129 of 200
3/7/07 at 4:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

It would seem the Supreme Court disagrees with you about that. (Very large PDF)

Here is another link with more in depth information.

Uh...you just proved I was correct. Hello? Hello?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #130 of 200
3/7/07 at 4:57am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's OK for some, yes. Enemy combatants captured outside the US? Yes, that's OK. Terror suspects in Afghanistan, etc....yes. In fact, they should absolutely NOT have access to the civilian court system.

Well - then give them the same right.

They should be able to capture and indefinitely detain enemy combatants too - ie any US citizen suspected (ie not proved) of anti-jihadi activity anywhere on the globe - then we're good to go.

See, that is the trouble with the US.... and the reason why it is in the current mess - it sees 'rights' and 'freedom' as only applying to itself, while all the time systematically denying those same things to anyone who is not already subordinated to their ideology.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #131 of 200
3/7/07 at 5:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Well - then give them the same right.

They should be able to capture and indefinitely detain enemy combatants too - ie any US citizen suspected (ie not proved) of anti-jihadi activity anywhere on the globe - then we're good to go.

See, that is the trouble with the US.... and the reason why it is in the current mess - it sees 'rights' and 'freedom' as only applying to itself, while all the time systematically denying those same things to anyone who is not already subordinated to their ideology.

That's pretty extreme. You mean to tell me that we should grant access to the US criminal court system for people that are often captured on the battlefield, firing at US troops? Or those that are caught planning or executing terror operations? Seriously?

A military tribunal should be used in those cases. Clearly, the Geneva Conventions don't apply either, hence the term "enemy combatant."

But getting back to the "extreme" part. I see a major difference betweena US citizen, who is guaranteed certain rights in the Constitution, and someone like I described about. What you're really arguing is that Constitutional rights should apply tro everyone all over the globe, which of course stands in stark contrast to your position of the US not "imposing" freedom where it chooses. It works both ways, Seg. The fact is that people IN the United States (citizens, legal residents, what not) should have Constitutional protections and access to our system. Terror suspects, especiallly those captured outside the country, should not.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #132 of 200
3/7/07 at 6:02am
No, he's saying that the way we do it internally isn't necessarily the problem. It's the fact that when other countries try the same thing on us we throw a hissy fit.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #133 of 200
3/7/07 at 6:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

No, he's saying that the way we do it internally isn't necessarily the problem. It's the fact that when other countries try the same thing on us we throw a hissy fit.

Example?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #134 of 200
3/7/07 at 6:08am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Example?

Let's say that some enemy combatants - jihadis or other freedom fighters of one sort or another - who are opposing US oppression and illegal intervention in the affairs of a sovereign State to which they belong, successfully capture US troops or citizens caught in the act of going about their nefarious business - actually, scrub that, the equivalence would be just 'caught and claimed to be....' - then in my view, this should be accepted as legitimate and no complaints should be made about it at all.

Of course it is barbaric - but it is US-style barbarism so really it should be ok.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #135 of 200
3/7/07 at 6:09am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

No, he's saying that the way we do it internally isn't necessarily the problem. It's the fact that when other countries try the same thing on us we throw a hissy fit.

Précisément
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #136 of 200
3/7/07 at 8:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Let's say that some enemy combatants - jihadis or other freedom fighters of one sort or another - who are opposing US oppression and illegal intervention in the affairs of a sovereign State to which they belong, successfully capture US troops or citizens caught in the act of going about their nefarious business - actually, scrub that, the equivalence would be just 'caught and claimed to be....' - then in my view, this should be accepted as legitimate and no complaints should be made about it at all.

Of course it is barbaric - but it is US-style barbarism so really it should be ok.

Where to begin? You're asking what's different, and I'll tell you:

1. The US is deploying a uniformed army. BIG difference there.

2. One can only assume you're referencing Iraq. As an aside...don't dance around it...just say it...you mean Iraq, we all know it. But back to the point: Saying the Iraq war was "illegal" is and always has been a dubious point. "International Law" is really a misnomer, and is subject to many different interpretations. Kofi Annan, your hero, feels the war was illegal. Many others do not. The UN never passed any resolution condemning our invasion, so it would seem that you're on the short end of that stick.

3. What "nefarious acitvities" are you referring to? Trying to keep civilians and themselves from being blown up? Now, if US troops are suspected of raping and pillaging, that's something different. That's clearly a crime, or crimes.

4. Did someone vote these "freedom fighters" legitimate governmental powers? Under what authority do they operate and speak/act for the populace?



The problem is Seg, like many liberals, you get yourself so twisted up in your own arguments for and against, that you can no longer make basic (and simple) distinctions. For example, how do terror suspects differ from US troops? What makes their activities and possible detention different? These are easily answered questions for most, but not for you. There is no valid or reasonable comparison betweent the activities of a nation's armed forces and those of terrorists. Of course, you'll point to truly unjust occupations, such as the occupation of France and Poland in WWII, but one would hope that even you would not be comparing our current actions in Iraq to such obvious empire building.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #137 of 200
3/7/07 at 8:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Where to begin? You're asking what's different, and I'll tell you:

1. The US is deploying a uniformed army. BIG difference there.

Actually no - the US appears to solely run a uniformed army but in reality it funds many guerilla outfits and has done so for decades. These are the US army by proxy. And that is aside from Special forces undertaking Black Ops who might disguise themselves as 'terrorists' in order to commit acts which would be unacceptable to the populace back home as well as to achieve specific goals and demonize the enemy.

Right now for example the CIA is running and funding the terrorist group the MEK in support of their terror bombing campaign in Iran.

Quote:
2. One can only assume you're referencing Iraq. As an aside...don't dance around it...just say it...you mean Iraq, we all know it. But back to the point: Saying the Iraq war was "illegal" is and always has been a dubious point. "International Law" is really a misnomer, and is subject to many different interpretations. Kofi Annan, your hero, feels the war was illegal. Many others do not. The UN never passed any resolution condemning our invasion, so it would seem that you're on the short end of that stick.

Wrong. It was a general example. I think you need to get this Iraq obsession looked at.

Quote:
3. What "nefarious acitvities" are you referring to? Trying to keep civilians and themselves from being blown up? Now, if US troops are suspected of raping and pillaging, that's something different. That's clearly a crime, or crimes.

Well, of course there are the run of the mill ubiquitous war crimes which happen on a regular basis...rape, murder, torture, theft on a massive scale etc - but I was thinking more of Operations such as dressing up as Arabs and planting bombs or impersonating al Qaeda and carrying out 'terrorist operations' such as is a favourite activity of the British and no doubt the US too.

Quote:
4. Did someone vote these "freedom fighters" legitimate governmental powers? Under what authority do they operate and speak/act for the populace?

Yes. Hamas. Yes. Ahmedinejad (assuming for arguments sake he is behind the insurgency as you believe - although this view is obviously lunacy).

Actually, I think you don;t really care whether the populace votes them in - if they vote someone the US doesn't like then the results just get ignored and sanctions applied. Viva Democracy!!!!

Quote:
The problem is Seg, like many liberals, you get yourself so twisted up in your own arguments for and against, that you can no longer make basic (and simple) distinctions. For example, how do terror suspects differ from US troops? What makes their activities and possible detention different? These are easily answered questions for most, but not for you. There is no valid or reasonable comparison betweent the activities of a nation's armed forces and those of terrorists. Of course, you'll point to truly unjust occupations, such as the occupation of France and Poland in WWII, but one would hope that even you would not be comparing our current actions in Iraq to such obvious empire building.

I think I have had occasion to state before that I am not a liberal in the Political sense. True, I am sexually liberal and have virtually no morals that so-called Christian God-fearing folk would recognize as such but I detest the left almost as much as I detest the right. More in many ways.

It's just that I cannot bring myself to rant against the left when there are so many wingers out there doing the same. It seems somehow......unclean.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #138 of 200
3/7/07 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Actually no - the US appears to solely run a uniformed army but in reality it funds many guerilla outfits and has done so for decades. These are the US army by proxy. And that is aside from Special forces undertaking Black Ops who might disguise themselves as 'terrorists' in order to commit acts which would be unacceptable to the populace back home as well as to achieve specific goals and demonize the enemy.

If they are out of uniform they have no protections just like everyone else. That's the same trade off for everyone.

Fighting by proxy is something everyone does and something we really shouldn't whine too much about. Personally, I think the whining is simply to put on notice that since we aren't fighting by proxy (i.e. our troops are getting killed) then reprisal will not necessarily be limited to the proxies but could carry over to the sponsor by both conventional (bombing) and unconventional means (spec ops).

Its not like Iran is innocent in all this. They choose to play and they know the stakes. Same as Syria. Jabbing an injured tiger with a short stick is still not a WISE move. It still gets you into claw range.

Jabbing an derranged, injured tiger is dumber still. It might ignore you. It might do something monumentally stupid and impale itself on your stick while ripping your throat out. It might die. You almost certainly will.

Which I still think we will avoid.

Vinea
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 200
3/7/07 at 11:17am
Look, if tomorrow Iran invaded the US, would you wait around for the government to issue you a uniform before resisting or would you just fight for your freedom?

We're dealing with a country that even when Saddam sat in power was still quite fractured and dependent on local militias as opposed to federal defense forces, many of whom never had "proper uniforms." They are no less entitled to their own defense because they aren't wearing camis.

We can't just pretend that every war is going to be as relatively straightforward as WWII.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #140 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

Look, if tomorrow Iran invaded the US, would you wait around for the government to issue you a uniform before resisting or would you just fight for your freedom?

We're dealing with a country that even when Saddam sat in power was still quite fractured and dependent on local militias as opposed to federal defense forces, many of whom never had "proper uniforms." They are no less entitled to their own defense because they aren't wearing camis.

We can't just pretend that every war is going to be as relatively straightforward as WWII.

And since it is not so straightforward... the Geneva Convention is about to be obsolete anyway, except for the soon-to-be-defunct nations that cling to that old nation-state paradigm... No one, save Israel, has ever had to fight a war of this size with these (lack of) terms. We (the West) seem to be making it up as we go along.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #141 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh...you just proved I was correct. Hello? Hello?

So, you agree with the SC that they are entitled to fair treatment as as POW would recieve, due process, access to attorneys, actually being charged with something, and a proper court trial? Also no torture, i.e.: waterboarding, etc. Doesn't sound like that from your posts...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #142 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Actually no - the US appears to solely run a uniformed army but in reality it funds many guerilla outfits and has done so for decades. These are the US army by proxy. And that is aside from Special forces undertaking Black Ops who might disguise themselves as 'terrorists' in order to commit acts which would be unacceptable to the populace back home as well as to achieve specific goals and demonize the enemy.

Right now for example the CIA is running and funding the terrorist group the MEK in support of their terror bombing campaign in Iran.

Separate topic, and no...I don't think that's what you were talking about. Secondly, wouldn't they be "off the grid" if they were black ops?

Quote:
Wrong. It was a general example. I think you need to get this Iraq obsession looked at.

I have to call bullshit on that.

Quote:
Well, of course there are the run of the mill ubiquitous war crimes which happen on a regular basis...rape, murder, torture, theft on a massive scale etc - but I was thinking more of Operations such as dressing up as Arabs and planting bombs or impersonating al Qaeda and carrying out 'terrorist operations' such as is a favourite activity of the British and no doubt the US too.

Prove that happens. And then show how outraged everyone is at their treatment after they're caught by foreign governments.

Quote:
Yes. Hamas. Yes. Ahmedinejad (assuming for arguments sake he is behind the insurgency as you believe - although this view is obviously lunacy).

Actually, I think you don;t really care whether the populace votes them in - if they vote someone the US doesn't like then the results just get ignored and sanctions applied. Viva Democracy!!!!

One, don't tell me what I believe. Two, it's not absurd, whether it's actually happening or not. Three, have US troops been captured by Hamas after invading "Palestine?" Your examples are not relevant to the argument you started making. We were talking about "freedom fighters" (read: terrorists) capturing US soldiers. And you're saying there isn't a difference between the two. I say that's batshit nuts, to use the term I coined earlier.

Quote:
I think I have had occasion to state before that I am not a liberal in the Political sense. True, I am sexually liberal and have virtually no morals that so-called Christian God-fearing folk would recognize as such but I detest the left almost as much as I detest the right. More in many ways.

It's just that I cannot bring myself to rant against the left when there are so many wingers out there doing the same. It seems somehow......unclean.

You're so politically liberal you don't even know what liberal means anymore. But we won't get anywhere with that argument, so let's assume that you're correct...you're not "liberal." The issue is that way you're arguing. Boiled down to it's most basic elements, you're arguing, once again, that there really is no difference between terrorists/insurgents and a nation's Armed Forces. They are one in the same morally speaking...it's just that the US is bigger, badder, and richer. Correct?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #143 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

So, you agree with the SC that they are entitled to fair treatment as as POW would recieve, due process, access to attorneys, actually being charged with something, and a proper court trial? Also no torture, i.e.: waterboarding, etc. Doesn't sound like that from your posts...

Pardon this, but are you able to read your OWN quote?

Quote:
The Court did not hold -- not even close -- that all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions apply to suspected Al Qaeda detainees, or that they are entitled to all of the protections afforded U.S. POWs. (POWs, for instance, may not be coerced at all in interrogations, and may not be "threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind" for refusing to answer questions beyond name, rank, serial number and date of birth.) The Court held "merely" that the minimum baseline protections of Common Article 3 are binding on the U.S. in the conflict with Al Qaeda. The Court did not suggest that Al Qaeda detainees are entitled to POW status, and did not opine on the procedures that may be required to deprive a detainee of POW status. As OLC explained, "article 3 requires State parties to follow only certain minimum standards of treatment toward prisoners, civilians, or the sick and wounded --standards that are much less onerous and less detailed than those spelled out in the Conventions as a whole."

Am I missing something here?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #144 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

We (the West) seem to be making it up as we go along.

As opposed to?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #145 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

As opposed to?

As opposed to having a usual Cold War Era playbook and military strategy that has been refined for the enemy (another nation) over a couple of hundred years. There used to be rules, and now there are not. The only rule a terrorist has is that there are no rules. Part of our situation in Iraq is a failure to act with resolve and decisiveness to overwhelm the enemy. Collateral damage was OK in Dresden or Tokyo. We don't have the stomach for it anymore, just at a time where our enemies are hiding within civilian populations. It's going to be a long, bloody road.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #146 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Boiled down to it's most basic elements, you're arguing, once again, that there really is no difference between terrorists/insurgents and a nation's Armed Forces. They are one in the same morally speaking...it's just that the US is bigger, badder, and richer. Correct?

Pretty much spot on - it all depends on whose side you're on and - if you are of western extraction - how deep you conditioning that you are 'moral' actually goes (ie how effectively you have been brainwashed).

Other than that there is no difference. One could argue the west is worse because it lies to it's populace whereas Hamas, Saddam et al actually do not. All Iraqis knew Saddam was a bastard, only a few Westerners know Bush is.

In that sense the West is worse because it not only does what the 'terrorists' do (and does it first - 'terrorism' is just a response to a prior action meted out in kind) but it then lies about it continually.

It oppresses both parties; the 'enemy' and its own people. Admittedly it isn't yet killing it's own people like Saddam sometimes might have - or not on the same scale anyway. Not yet.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #147 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Part of our situation in Iraq is a failure to act with resolve and decisiveness to overwhelm the enemy.

That isn't of usefulness to military strategy.

You're speechifying.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Collateral damage was OK in Dresden or Tokyo. We don't have the stomach for it anymore, just at a time where our enemies are hiding within civilian populations. It's going to be a long, bloody road.

More like the terrorism of Dresden and Tokyo led to the resistance to US barbarity that many freedom fighters and fighters for justice engaged in....Baader Meinhof for example.

When the US sees that a people have the balls to resist it hasn't got what it takes. It's just the schoolyard bully writ large really - Dresden was a sitting duck....the Taleban are a different matter and Iran will be able to look after itself too.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #149 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:32pm
Hmmmm... moral equivalency with Hamas? The same people who do not allow basic human rights to women, still remove limbs for punishment, do not allow people the vote, and blow themselves up to kill innocents in furtherance of a political cause? WOW. I hope you never say that within earshot of a US Marine who has risked his life so that those things do not come here.

Amazing.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #150 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

That isn't of usefulness to military strategy.

You're speechifying.

If you fight a half-assed war, you are going to get half-assed results.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #151 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

More like the terrorism of Dresden and Tokyo led to the resistance to US barbarity that many freedom fighters and fighters for justice engaged in....Baader Meinhof for example.

When the US sees that a people have the balls to resist it hasn't got what it takes. It's just the schoolyard bully writ large really - Dresden was a sitting duck....the Taleban are a different matter and Iran will be able to look after itself too.

Remind me again what brought forth the "terrorist" US against the Axis? I think Pearl Harbor and Adolf Hitler had a bit to do with it. I get the feeling that you really do not like the United States.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #152 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Hmmmm... moral equivalency with Hamas? The same people who do not allow basic human rights to women, still remove limbs for punishment, do not allow people the vote, and blow themselves up to kill innocents in furtherance of a political cause? WOW. I hope you never say that within earshot of a US Marine who has risked his life so that those things do not come here.

Amazing.

err....Hamas were voted in on a free democratic vote

6 women are Hamas MPs!!!

Quote:
Women played a crucial role in getting out the vote for Hamas, knocking on doors and often getting a sympathetic hearing. Hamas's strategy to build political support through its social programmes - the provision of health clinics, nurseries and food for the poor - sealed the loyalty of many Palestinian women.

Linky

Also I think you'll find Hamas does not impose shariah law to which you refer so limbs are pretty much intact.

Perhaps you are getting confused with the US's great ally and friend Saudi - the one the US sells the equipment to so they can do the amputating and torturing - you know, the one where women get 20 lashes for going out of the house unaccompanied and who Bush praised for 'moving towards democracy'.

Easily confused.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #153 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:42pm
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Remind me again what brought forth the "terrorist" US against the Axis? I think Pearl Harbor and Adolf Hitler had a bit to do with it. I get the feeling that you really do not like the United States.

The firebombing of Tokyo was much worse than Pearl Harbor, we destroyed the (wooden) whole city killing mainly civilians. Robert S. McNamara said that if we had lost WWII, we would have been tried for war crimes as a result (he was involved in the planning).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #154 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Remind me again what brought forth the "terrorist" US against the Axis? I think Pearl Harbor and Adolf Hitler had a bit to do with it. I get the feeling that you really do not like the United States.

Well the US refused to move against Hitler for 90% of the war and never would have done so were it not for Pearl Harbour so perhaps we can leave Hitler out of it.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #155 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Well the US refused to move against Hitler for 90% of the war and never would have done so were it not for Pearl Harbour so perhaps we can leave Hitler out of it.

Indeed. Anything else would have been an interventionist FP. And that's bad, right? Would that be considered pre-emptive war?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #156 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

err....Hamas were voted in on a free democratic vote

6 women are Hamas MPs!!!



Linky

Also I think you'll find Hamas does not impose shariah law to which you refer so limbs are pretty much intact.

Perhaps you are getting confused with the US's great ally and friend Saudi - the one the US sells the equipment to so they can do the amputating and torturing - you know, the one where women get 20 lashes for going out of the house unaccompanied and who Bush praised for 'moving towards democracy'.

Easily confused.

You are correct about Hamas, thought their conversion has only been recent to a "mainstream" player. My mistake. I *was* thinking about the fair-weather friends in SA who have a hankering for Shariah. The Saudi's are no great friends- we are mutually parasitic, or symbiotic, as the case may be. We're drunk on oil, and they are great bartenders.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #157 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Indeed. Anything else would have been an interventionist FP. And that's bad, right? Would that be considered pre-emptive war?

I don't ascribe value judgements such as 'good' or 'bad' - I just record facts.

How you ignore them is up to you.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #158 of 200
3/7/07 at 12:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You are correct about Hamas, thought their conversion has only been recent to a "mainstream" player. My mistake. I *was* thinking about the fair-weather friends in SA who have a hankering for Shariah. The Saudi's are no great friends- we are mutually parasitic, or symbiotic, as the case may be. We're drunk on oil, and they are great bartenders.

Well I agree with you. In fact I would say that the US/Saudi relationship is the root cause of the 'terrorism' problem the world faces today.

There are people in that country REALLY fighting for freedom and the US does not even acknowledge their existence. We are not talking about jihadis or fanatics here - just the same kind of people that the US would support, at least diplomatically, in Beijing, Burma or Eastern Europe under Communism.

The reason they don't - and I don't dislike the US btw, just this current administration and any other that puts profit and corruption before leadership - is because Saudis hold the oil and are amenable.

If Iran came to the table with a deal to 'toe the line 100%' then they would be in the same club.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #159 of 200
3/7/07 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

If Iran came to the table with a deal to 'toe the line 100%' then they would be in the same club.

How sickeningly true.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #160 of 200
3/7/07 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Perhaps you are getting confused with the US's great ally and friend Saudi - the one the US sells the equipment to so they can do the amputating and torturing - you know, the one where women get 20 lashes for going out of the house unaccompanied and who Bush praised for 'moving towards democracy'.

Easily confused.

Or he could be confused with your idealized state of Iran. Where just being a journalist can get you dead.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider