War crimes by US troops

[Cpl Kendall]

Funny . . . Churchill didn't seem to think so. We'll try to remember that you'll downplay things next time you're asking for help.

Churchill was a well known exagerator and often played up things to benefit Britain and her Empire, the whole mess in the Med was an attempt to secure more influence for Britain after the war was over. We're also looking at the war with 20/20 hindsight, wartime intelligence was imperfect and in 1940 it wasn't apperent that Nazi Germany was incapable of invading the UK. It is now and was by at least 1941.

Ah, so now Churchill was a buffoon? Excellent.

He was simply in error. And he made several infamous lapses in judgement, the Gallapolli campaign in WWI and the Italy landings in WWII are both infamous examples of his failings.

Ah, and now Hiroshima was an evil American atrocity! Good heavens, what a horrifying place your mind must be. Tell me, do you like Che Guevara?

But I digress. I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that lives on both sides were saved from a protracted invasion, though of course at that moment in history we were far more concerned with our own. In fact, I won't repeat all the arguments with you. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were perfectly ethical and flawless in every way, though Nagasaki was a bit of a misdrop and so got contained by the terrain. Oh well. It made the point.

Given the opportunity and a time machine, I'd drop the bombs again myself. And I'd be damn happy to do it, smoking a cigar and having a swig of Gentleman Jack afterward, laughing in your face.

I am, generally speaking, very much against war. War is very ugly business. But when war is thrust upon us, I'll be damned if a bunch of wrong-headed faux moralizing will carry any weight with me.

The Americans could have simply negotiated an end to the war. By the time the bombs were dropped Japan was in no position to continue to wage war or even to continue to feed herself.

*snip*

Attacking a civilian vehicle in wartime is a warcrime.

[sonofccn]

Actually it took a soldier to report it publicly before anything happened and even at that only the lowest on the totem pole got anything resembling a just punishment. The CO of the MP Brigade got demoted on an unrelated shoplifting charge.

I have to disagree. What I heard was the soldier was in trouble for his actions and went public with the pictures in exchange for his side of the story. Regardless this was a single incident and we cleaned up the mess. Maybe not to your prefrence but we did put a stop to it. Frankly I think thats the best any country can be expected to perform.

No, it's quite the bucket load of BS.

Then it is something we can agree on.

Churchill was a well known exagerator and often played up things to benefit Britain and her Empire, the whole mess in the Med was an attempt to secure more influence for Britain after the war was over. We're also looking at the war with 20/20 hindsight, wartime intelligence was imperfect and in 1940 it wasn't apperent that Nazi Germany was incapable of invading the UK. It is now and was by at least 1941.

Something tells me if Germany controlled Europe and set it mind to it, Britain would go down in the not so distant future. So one way or another Britain would be speaking German about now or Russian if the Soviets managed to win with out US involvment.

The Americans could have simply negotiated an end to the war. By the time the bombs were dropped Japan was in no position to continue to wage war or even to continue to feed herself.

Surrender to them was worse then death. Hell even after the two bombs there was a faction that wanted to continue fighting and I think tried to either plan or stage a coup to prevent Japan from surrendering. They would have fought to the last man making us pay for every bloody inch we took. Instead we chose to show them how outclassed they were and they saw reason.

[Cpl Kendall]

I have to disagree. What I heard was the soldier was in trouble for his actions and went public with the pictures in exchange for his side of the story. Regardless this was a single incident and we cleaned up the mess. Maybe not to your prefrence but we did put a stop to it. Frankly I think thats the best any country can be expected to perform.

You have a strange definition of "best", frankly had that been a Commonwealth country the Brigade commander would have been run out on a rail. And the entire lot of them would be serving life sentences for torture.

Then it is something we can agree on.

Definetly.

Something tells me if Germany controlled Europe and set it mind to it, Britain would go down in the not so distant future. So one way or another Britain would be speaking German about now or Russian if the Soviets managed to win with out US involvment.

The facts speak against you. The best Germany could come up with for Operation Sealion was a handful of barges and amphibious tractors, all of which would have been easily swamped in the Channel. And of course the infamous paratroops, of which there were too few too matter.

Surrender to them was worse then death. Hell even after the two bombs there was a faction that wanted to continue fighting and I think tried to either plan or stage a coup to prevent Japan from surrendering. They would have fought to the last man making us pay for every bloody inch we took. Instead we chose to show them how outclassed they were and they saw reason.

A few months of no food would have convinced them that there wasn't much of a choice.

[Who is like God arbour]

sonofccn



As I have tried to describe, the fact that the Taliban hasn't handed over can't be a casus belli.

No state in the EU is allowed to hand over a terrorist to the U.S.

And as I have described already too, most terrorists don't get in Germany such hard penalties as they would get in the U.S and some even get a verdict of not guilty in an ordinary court, where the U.S. would only have an unconstitutionally military tribunal and would sentence someone to death without sufficient evidences.

If the fact that the Taliban have decided to not hand over Osama Bin Laden - without any evidence for his responsibilty - to the U.S. would be a casus belli, than the U.S. can justified attack Germany - and many other nations.

That's the logical consequence of your reasoning.

• The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan has said: "They are thinking of direct attack. We are thinking of negotiation. They have provided no evidence, but they want the man. [...] But we say if they change and talk to us, if they present evidence, we will respect their negotiations and might change things."

The U.S. have had no right to demand such thing from the Taliban, especially if the Taliban have said that they would consider to hand over Osama Bin Laden when the U.S. bring forward evidences for the responsibilty of Osama Bin Laden - either to a third nation or - with some assurances - to the U.S.

It would have been the duty of the U.S. to negotiate with the Taliban before starting a war, the worst and most prohibited act in international affairs.





You have asked me if I would allow that Germany is attacked.

But that's the wrong question.

Nobody prohibit the U.S. to protect themself.

But that doesn't mean that the U.S. has the right to attack innocents - or ad libitum start wars

The Taliban had have nothing to do with 9/11. And they haven't substantial supported the El Quaeda.

We don't even know today, if Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11.

All we know is that the terrorists have come from Germany - and not from Afghanistan.

The 9/11 could have been allone their project. That's the problem with terror cells. They operate allone and independently.



And a defensive measure has to be suitable to ward of an imminent attack. But the attack on Afghanistan was not suitable to ward of any imminent attacks because the terrorists who would attack the U.S. were not in Afghanistan but in the U.S., in Germany, in U.K. and other western nations.



Although the Charta of the U.N. prohibit even that, I maybe wouldn't say anything if the U.S. would have only attacked the El Quaeda and not also the Taliban.

But that is not what happened. They have abused 9/11 for their own agenda which has nothing to do with the 9/11.

The perfect example is the Iraq war.

They are hypocrites.

[sonofccn]

As I have tried to describe, the fact that the Taliban hasn't handed over can't be a casus belli.

And i have tried to describe that it is. Face it we are two very differnt people.

And as I have described already too, most terrorists don't get in Germany such hard penalties as they would get in the U.S

The fact that your soft on terrorists is irrevelent.

to the U.S. would be a casus belli, than the U.S. can justified attack Germany - and many other nations.

You have more slack as a civilized, democracy but yeah you provide aid and comfort to a guy who slams 747s into our buildings and your on our short list.

The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan has said: "They are thinking of direct attack. We are thinking of negotiation. They have provided no evidence, but they want the man. [...] But we say if they change and talk to us, if they present evidence, we will respect their negotiations and might change things."

Hmmm the ambassador to what amounted ot a mafia crime ring, yeah he's an honest capable bloke.

It would have been the duty of the U.S. to negotiate with the Taliban before starting a war, the worst and most prohibited act in international affairs.

We gave them thier shot, they refused, and we dind't feel like arguing ot a brick wall.

You have asked me if I would allow that Germany is attacked.

Yeah and I want an answer.


Once again here is a scenario.Since you can't seem to understand a purely hypeticaly scenrio I'll use this one. We have a nutjob in power in a country. He says he has atomic weapons, your best intel, and the best intel of just about every nation says he has them. He is friends with the blokes who have just killed thousands of your countrymen. He has also been directly involed in funding guys to blow themselves up, ie Terrorism. The UN isn't gonig to do anything beyond pass another resolution. Your allies are too busy selling the guy military hardware to bother doing anything about him. So WILGA what do you do. Wait and hope he's bluffing and risk Berlin going up in atomic ash? Will you trade millions of lifes for a feel good law? Now quite sidestepping the issue and answer.

Nobody prohibit the U.S. to protect themself.

You are by saying we have to sit and wait for them to set a nuke off before we can do anything, and even then it appears we need the UN case by case permision. That's a good way to end up dead.

But that doesn't mean that the U.S. has the right to attack innocents - or ad libitum start wars

Which when we do that you may have a point.

The Taliban had have nothing to do with 9/11. And they haven't substantial supported the El Quaeda

Besides not handing him over. Twice. Face it they were asking for a fight. Maybe instead of bad mouthign us and our president you should be looking into why we had to do what we needed to do. you know do something productive instead of yelling from the sidelines at the guys fighting the slags who want you dead.

All we know is that the terrorists have come from Germany - and not from Afghanistan.

I was unaware any were German. Eleven were from sadia arabia, a couple from egypt I think and a handful of other two-bit nations in the middle east area.

The 9/11 could have been allone their project. That's the problem with terror cells. They operate allone and independently.

We declared war on Terrorists, as in any slagger who would think of slamming planes filled with *real* civilians into buildings filled with *real* civilians.

And a defensive measure has to be suitable to ward of an imminent attack. But the attack on Afghanistan was not suitable to ward of any imminent attacks because the terrorists who would attack the U.S. were not in Afghanistan but in the U.S., in Germany, in U.K. and other western nations.

Afgan was a terriorst harbing nation. In order to fight the blokes we declared war on we have to follow them where they run. As Bush said, either you are with us or your against us. Pick a side and fight.

Although the Charta of the U.N. prohibit even that, I maybe wouldn't say anything if the U.S. would have only attacked the El Quaeda and not also the Taliban.

So if we only attacked the guys who just *bleeping* fragged a couple of our buildings we would be in the wrong but you might be okay with it? So what do we do when the enemylaughs at us from the border of a country that shelter them? Ask the UN to do something? This is just to funny.

But that is not what happened. They have abused 9/11 for their own agenda which has nothing to do with the 9/11.

9/11 was an incident, just like pearl harbor. It marked teh start of the war. Not the total sum of the war.

The perfect example is the Iraq war.

They are hypocrites

No, you are free to launch a premtive strike to defend yourself. Infact we strongly encourage you to help defend yourself. We did what we did to ensure our and your survival. Iraq broke several points of the treaty which even the UN said allowed us to what ever force neccasry. Guess what that includes crushing the country like a bug.

That said, I'm shouting into the wind. You have already made up your mind that Bush is the great Satan. Just as I think the UN is corropt anti-american club for dictators and that Europe in general needs to grow a backbone. Lets agree to disagree and call it a day.

You have a strange definition of "best",

Thier was a problem, the problem was stopped, and those responable punished. That they were not punished to your personal expections is unimportant to the subject as a whole.

frankly had that been a Commonwealth country the Brigade commander would have been run out on a rail. And the entire lot of them would be serving life sentences for torture.

Oh God.
Was what happened their wrong? yes.
Did those Men and women disgrace thier uniform in doing those acts?yes.
Should they be punished?yes.

However by any sane reason that stuff was not torture. Degrading, cruel, appaling but not torture. I dont' recall anyone putting a hot poker to thier flesh, removing limbs, or anything. It was a shameful incident but that is all it is. You downplay real torture that happens in the world by holding that up as if it is the end all be all of depravity or even worth more then putting an end to it and forgetting it.

[sonofccn]

Okay I just want to say that I'm sorry that my last few posts have been heated to say the least. Wilga I owe you apolagy, I shouldn't have vented the way I did. I can't understand why you think the way you do, but I understand you are just trying to be the best human being you can be and I can't fault that. So again, sorry for the harsher then needed words.

Kendall I'm sure I was a bit snippy with you as well. Sorry.

JMS I assume I deserve a warning for losing my cool and yelling at two people staying civil.

[Kane Starkiller]

You have more slack as a civilized, democracy but yeah you provide aid and comfort to a guy who slams 747s into our buildings and your on our short list.

Actually it was US that aided taliban and other religious extremists in Afganistan to fight off the eeeeeevil USSR commies. That sure backfired didn't it. Maybe next time you won't get in the bed with islamists.
But you will won't you? Already giving billions of dollars of military aid to Saudi Arabia which are known to harbor the terrorists.

No, you are free to launch a premtive strike to defend yourself. Infact we strongly encourage you to help defend yourself. We did what we did to ensure our and your survival. Iraq broke several points of the treaty which even the UN said allowed us to what ever force neccasry. Guess what that includes crushing the country like a bug.

That said, I'm shouting into the wind. You have already made up your mind that Bush is the great Satan. Just as I think the UN is corropt anti-american club for dictators and that Europe in general needs to grow a backbone. Lets agree to disagree and call it a day.

Preemptive strike? Was Iraq military massing on US borders? Was there an unusual military buildup in Iraq? What exactly did they do?
Oh yeah that's right they broke "several points of the treaty" which you feel gives US the right to "crush it like a bug".

Once again here is a scenario.Since you can't seem to understand a purely hypeticaly scenrio I'll use this one. We have a nutjob in power in a country. He says he has atomic weapons, your best intel, and the best intel of just about every nation says he has them. He is friends with the blokes who have just killed thousands of your countrymen. He has also been directly involed in funding guys to blow themselves up, ie Terrorism. The UN isn't gonig to do anything beyond pass another resolution. Your allies are too busy selling the guy military hardware to bother doing anything about him. So WILGA what do you do. Wait and hope he's bluffing and risk Berlin going up in atomic ash? Will you trade millions of lifes for a feel good law? Now quite sidestepping the issue and answer.

Why is Saddam a nutjob? Because he invaded Kuwait? How is this different that US invasion of Panama in 1989 for example?
When did he say he will use an atomic weapons, against whom and under what circumstances? And as we have all heard the reports were falsified by the Bush administration. Not that anyone with an ounce of brain wouldn't figure out that a nation devastated a decade ago and under heavy sanctions cannot produce such weapons.
Furthermore for all his ruthlessness Saddam was a secularist so, no, he sure as hell wasn't friends with Al-Qaeda and other religious nuts.
Finally the United States was the one selling weapons to Iraq during Iraq-Iran war. Naturally they also sold them to Iran at the same time (The Iran-Contra affair).

You are by saying we have to sit and wait for them to set a nuke off before we can do anything, and even then it appears we need the UN case by case permision. That's a good way to end up dead.

Except they weren't within a hailing distance of developing a nuke and US provided no evidence that they were.

But that doesn't mean that the U.S. has the right to attack innocents - or ad libitum start wars

Which when we do that you may have a point.

Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, Panama etc. etc. etc.

Besides not handing him over. Twice. Face it they were asking for a fight. Maybe instead of bad mouthign us and our president you should be looking into why we had to do what we needed to do. you know do something productive instead of yelling from the sidelines at the guys fighting the slags who want you dead.

And why exactly did you need to attack Iraq? I can accept Afganistan even though most of support for Al-Qaeda was coming from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, US allies.

Afgan was a terriorst harbing nation. In order to fight the blokes we declared war on we have to follow them where they run. As Bush said, either you are with us or your against us. Pick a side and fight.

Are you serious? The world can help US to fight terrorists but has no obligation to follow the US on a moronic crusade against every country in the Middle East the current administration declares Axis of Evil or whatever.

[sonofccn]

Actually it was US that aided taliban and other religious extremists in Afganistan to fight off the eeeeeevil USSR commies

1.The USSR was evil. I mean evil in the fullest extent. As in it's way more evil then you *think* the US is and the general agreement appears that America is evil incarnate. You should thank your lucky stars you do not live in the now defunct USSR.

2. We supplied Afganians weapons to defend thier homeland. We did not deliberatly give support to radicals who one hated us as much as the they might have hated the soviets, and were not generaly willing to fight the soviets. Instead using the invasion as polital capitol to further thier own ends.

Preemptive strike? Was Iraq military massing on US borders? Was there an unusual military buildup in Iraq? What exactly did they do?

Say he had WMDs even through he wasn't suppose to, hang around with evil people who would love to detonate that in a major population center, and of course 19 treaty violations, but I guess we shouldn't hold them accountable for thier actions right?

Why is Saddam a nutjob?

Paying people to blow themselves up I consider grounds for nutjob status. he was alsoa brutal dicator with no ethics who invaded a nieghoring state. The guy is no saint, or even close.

When did he say he will use an atomic weapons, against whom and under what circumstances?

Teh cease fire agreemant stated he could not have WMDs period, so he's just having them is grounds for invasion. Second thier the whole handing it off to terriorst bit.

Furthermore for all his ruthlessness Saddam was a secularist so, no, he sure as hell wasn't friends with Al-Qaeda and other religious nuts.

Uh yeah he kinda was. It's a fact he hung around with those nuts, now sure they might have all planned to stab each other in teh back one day, but for the moment they had a common enemy. The US.

And as we have all heard the reports were falsified by the Bush administration

Clinton said it, Gore as well, as well as just about every single intellgence agency. So no he didn't falsify them. Please don't use tired old Liberal talking points, it's dull.

Finally the United States was the one selling weapons to Iraq during Iraq-Iran war. Naturally they also sold them to Iran at the same time (The Iran-Contra affair).

Yep we sold weapons to Iraq, none WMDs when we considered Iran worse. If thats a crime, well everyone appears to be guilty.

Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, Panama etc. etc. etc.

Korea pushed back a soviet agression, Vietnam ditto(attempted of course but hey atleast the peacemovment can be proud of the death they caused when we pulled out). Cambodia I believe was part of that conflict, wideing it and all that, Panama wasn't that to get druglords or something? So no rampampt agressin for agression sake.

And why exactly did you need to attack Iraq?

I've told you. If you refuse to believe it, well that's your right.

Are you serious? The world can help US to fight terrorists but has no obligation to follow the US on a moronic crusade against every country in the Middle East the current administration declares Axis of Evil or whatever

Thier comes a point in time when you need to make a decision. Are you for freedom or tryany. Justice or destruction. This is a world war and you can't stay on the sidelines. So either you are helping us track down and remove from circulation terriorest are you are part of the problem. So again pick a side and fight for it.

The facts speak against you. The best Germany could come up with for Operation Sealion was a handful of barges and amphibious tractors, all of which would have been easily swamped in the Channel. And of course the infamous paratroops, of which there were too few too matter.

In 1941. Assuming they won the wor in Europe and they cared to invade, instead of cutting Briton off and allowing it to wither on the vine as germany domination swelled, do you really think England could have held on and pushed back the Nazi's? I mean even Hitler didn't plan to rule the world in his lifetime. He just wanted bacily Europe which would have provided Germany with the strengh to dominate the world leading up to a massive invasion of America circa 1980's....blah blah blah. So unless you think teh brits on thier lonesome could beat back the Nazi/ and or the Soviets yes they owe thier freedom to us mean evil Americans.

A few months of no food would have convinced them that there wasn't much of a choice.

So you kill more people just to feel good? Funny logic. I prefer to keep the body count as low as possible and just frag a city and let them know who going to win.

[2046]

Out of respect for Jedi Master Spock, this must be my last post in the thread. There is simply no way that a person such as myself can possibly be polite to Holocaust-deniers and their intellectual brethren that are active in this thread.

The following post, for instance, is as polite as I can bear to make it after six different edits spaced up to an hour apart.

What were the proofs, in fact, that Al Quaeda was behind those attacks, exactly?
Between the fatty Bin Laden and the terrorists who died in the planet but didn't die... and were not islamic nuts by the slightest margin...

Please tell me this post is a poor attempt at humor.

No. I've seen data formulated, showing that the list of islam fundamentalists terrorists said to be on the planes, and died on these planes... were apparently not on these planes...

So you went to conspiracy nut websites and are sick enough to buy into them? Despite the fact that all reputable sources (and the very sources who gave the initial reports of surviving hijackers) acknowledge mistaken identity regarding common Islamic names?

If they're alive, where are the pictures? Where's the Al-Jazeera interview with that dead-eyed sonofabitch Atta saying "yeah, uh, I'm alive and shit, so WTF?"

You waste time going to those loony sites yet are wholly ignorant of bin Laden's admissions and boasts that he did it? You listen to third-party tinfoil-hat whackaloons and never bother to read up on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who helped bin Laden plan it?

For crying out loud, you just confirmed Wayne Poe's suggestion about your headwear. It's a rare thing for me to agree with Wayne, but by damn you just made it happen. Doesn't that extraordinary event even give you pause?

and had activities (related to sex and alcohol) which didn't seem to fit with the protrait of your traditional AQ nutcase.

Islamic terrorists frequently engage in debauchery, often the night before attacks. They believe their sins will be washed away when they slaughter innocents in suicide attacks.

How is it that you can make some flawlessly logical post on Trek/Wars stuff, then 180 your way on the same topic, and also be so scandalously wrong here? Is your mind really that compartmentalized in regards to where your logic budget goes? Shit, man, if you have so little to go around I'd much rather you spend it on politics and become a rabid Warsie than spend it on (some of) your Trek/Wars ideas and be a conspiracy wacko.

Now to Wilga:

And the interpretation of these rules is out of question. The legal opinion has shown that there is consensus about the interpretation of Article 51 UN Charter.

Okay, then . . . so why did we get UN resolution support in kicking Taliban ass? Even France, along with the rest of the European Council, said we were authorized by 1368.

Of course you don't accept that. Your entire position in this thread is based on failing to understand the text of UN resolutions, cherry-picking the parts you want to misunderstand the most, and doing the misunderstanding intentionally by defining terms with absurd narrowness, along with other semantic games.

And the really great part is when you directly ignore the UN in order to do it. I really love that. What next, EU Completism? It would fit the pattern of semantics gamesmanship and lying.

It's no doubt a perfect house of Teutonic BS in your mind, with the rough parts glossed over via your seemingly limitless capacity for intellectual dishonesty on this matter. All it proves, however, is your effete disdain for western civilization and your particular, deranged loathing for all actions of the United States.

the Taliban have said that they would consider to hand over Osama Bin Laden when the U.S. bring forward evidences

Yeah, just like they did in 1998, I'm sure. We've been over that. You've been ignoring my posts. I was quite fond of the naval example, for instance.

It would have been the duty of the U.S. to negotiate with the Taliban before starting a war, the worst and most prohibited act in international affairs.

It was the duty of the Taliban to fight terrorism within its borders, not harbor and support it even after terrorists operating from within Afghanistan perpetrated what is actually the worst act in world affairs.

Kane:

Actually it was US that aided taliban and other religious extremists in Afganistan to fight off the eeeeeevil USSR commies. That sure backfired didn't it. Maybe next time you won't get in the bed with islamists.
But you will won't you? Already giving billions of dollars of military aid to Saudi Arabia which are known to harbor the terrorists.

So you bitch when we kick their asses and you bitch when we don't? You bitch when we attack and you bitch when we pick our battles. Don't you recognize the fact that you're just bitching about the U.S. no matter what it does?

How is this different that US invasion of Panama in 1989 for example?

THEY DECLARED A STATE OF WAR WITH US! They said it existed, so we gave it to them. They were dumbasses, and met the fate of similar dumbasses through recent history.

Oh, and to whoever . . . using a civilian vehicle in wartime support of escaping enemy forces makes it a military target. Doing that in front of a US tank makes the driver f***ing stupid.

To sum up the thread:

1. US soldiers sent abroad, numbering in the many tens of thousands, unfortunately include a handful of criminal assholes, lefty plants, and other assorted undesirables. Therefore a handful of terrible events have occurred, such as Abu Gharaib, the rapist, and the murderer. Compared to all past wars this is miniscule, and compared to even a civilian population of the same number such things are ridiculous to dwell upon with the pretense of a point.

2. Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the United States and citizens of many countries, by their own statements and admissions. They knowingly and willfully struck at civilian and governmental targets in an effort to foment fear and force US concessions.

3. The War in Afghanistan was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies. More importantly, it was dead right. The Taliban made itself a target by standing with our target at a time when we were not in the best of moods, and they got what was coming to them. There is no rationality in any attempt to claim that our action was unjust or improper, and indeed I cannot escape the suspicion that such claims are evidence of mental illness, brought on by attempting to hold to an impossible philosophy that requires extensive intellectual dishonesty.

4. The War in Iraq was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies of consequence. More importantly, it was dead right. Based on intelligence long known internationally, intel that could not be disproved since Saddam never held properly to the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, the United States removed Saddam from power. His efforts to make the world believe he had nuclear and other WMD facilities, his known willingness to use them, and all that and more mixed with his own terrorist acts (per Wilga) and his known contacts with other terrorist Islamic extremist groups including Al Qaeda, made him a clear and present danger to the United States specifically, and international peace and justice generally.

Besides which, just in general, if you attempt to assassinate a US president, you've gotta know you're gonna get your ass handed to you. I mean, damn. Seriously, dude.

5. Leftist and conspiracist ideals of the sort espoused in this thread have weakened international security. North Korea has a nuke-lette, and successfully blackmailed the world instead of getting its ass kicked. Terror-sponsor Iran, headed by a modern-day Hitler-esque madman, is close to a real nuke. Even broken Russia is resurgent, behaving more and more like the Soviet Union every day as it supports Iran and other similar regimes. Other dictators and madmen are emboldened, and the forces of world evil are uniting.

You want the democracies of the West to stand idly by and invite their destruction from rogue nations, terrorists and their sponsors, and backwards philosophies.

You seek the withdrawal of the United States and its allies from Iraq, guaranteeing a bloodbath of the type seen when American leftists won our withdrawal from Viet Nam. But you don't care, so long as America's nose is bloodied. (That applies to both foreigners and the enemies within.)

You refuse to recognize America's triumphs, even those in your defense, and rejoice at America's failings, even those at your expense.

There is something incredibly twisted about your worldviews. No, not just the irony that you couldn't have them were it not for the people and government of the United States securing your freedoms, but that, for all our failings, for all our fears and doubts, and for all our missteps, the United States has, for the last 70 years at least, done our damnedest to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all we can practically help.

No one's claiming we're perfect, and certainly not me. I'm no huge fan of Bush. And even in the past 70 years this country has done some terrible things, both internationally and within its own borders and society. But we're a damn sight better than every other country that's ever wielded such power, and a helluva lot better than most who couldn't dream of it.

Is that why you hate us? And if those philosophies of life and liberty have made you loathe the United States, what does that say about your philosophy?

[Who is like God arbour]

2046 and sonofccn

• Only to your information:
  
  I have studied jurisprudence and have specialised in international law and human rights. I have studied these subject - beside the regular stuff - three years. I was examined in a juristic state examination. That's the most difficult and therfore highest ranking kind of examination in Germany.
  
  I know from what I speak.
  
  Fact is, that I'm competent enough to judge the lawfulness of the Afghanistan war and the Irag war.
  
  Another fact is that I'm impartial enough to judge the lawfulness of them unbiased and neutral.
  
  Fact is that your own words are showing that you are emotionally involved and - as it seems - not able to judge these affairs unbiased and neutral.
  
  You both are right: there is no sense to continue these debate because you are not amenable for any arguments. Your posts have shown that well enough.
  
  I'm sorry.
  
  
  
  
  The broad international approval of the war in Afghanistan without a doubt reflects the magnitude of the tragedy of September 11. And I'm also sorry for the deads.
  
  
  
  
  But fact is that the wars haven't made the U.S. more secure. Quite the contrary: the threat level is worse than than ever because the wars were the best recruiting program terrorists could wish for.
  
  In less than two months, at least 3'700 and probably closer to 5'000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan as a result of U.S. bombing. And even today - after the U.S. has removed the Taliban from the government and has replaced them with Hamid Karsai - still many civilians get killed by U.S. forces.
  
  In Iraq, according to a study of the Johns Hopkins University, more than 655'000 people died due to the war and its consequences. That are more deads in less than four years than Saddam Hussein has allegedly killed in twenty years.
  
  And an end to the problems is not forseeable - neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq.
  
  
  
  
  But - because the relevant facts were known already then - it was foreseeable that the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq would do nothing to prevent further terror attacks on the U.S. because the terrorists who would attack the U.S. were not in Afghanistan but already in the U.S., in Germany, in U.K. and other western nations.
  • • • That doesn't mean that they all have had the citizenship of the nations in which they were.
  Even if the U.S. would have had success and could have killed Osama Bin Laden and every terrorist in Afghanistan, that wouldn't distinctly weaken al-Qaeda. That is a international acting terror network. It is structured in autonomous cells which operate independently. It was known already at that time that the destruction of one or several cells has nearly no effect for all the remaining cells and that even the killing of Osama Bin Laden would be meaningless.
  
  
  
  
  Furthermore, the U.S. has lost in both wars more of its soldiers than it would have lost citizens if they would have done nothing. The likelyhood that the Taliban could have done a new attack in the dimension of 9/11 is more than low. Smaller attacks are more likely. And - if at all - not the wars abroad could prevent such attacks but the advanced inland security measures.
  
  
  
  
  I'm sorry. But even if I totally ignore international law, I see nothing what could justify that.
  
  • • • And no, the U.N. has neither authorized the war in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. A war is the worst and most prohibited act in international affairs. It's correct that the Security Council can authorize wars. But that has to be done formally and expressly. The expressed threat of serious consequences from the Security Council is still no authorization to war for every other nation. Otherwise every nation, even the Iran, could have ivaded the Iraq under the authorization the notice of serious consequences allegedly shall be. After all, no nation was appointed to execute these serious consequences. Not even the U.S. government argued that the U.N. has authorized these wars. That's the whole point of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war.
  The wars weren't necessary for the inland security of the U.S.
  
  And the kind of warfare the U.S. is practicing, is unnecessary and a crime against humanity.
  
  The U.S. violate without any need several very important treaties and human rights.
  
  And that are not only individual cases. That is either "only" tolerated or even supported and demanded from the establishment.
  
  Guantanamo Bay, folter and abroad folter prisons, the abduction of foreign citizens without any proof, unconstitutional military tribunals and the restriction of civil liberties is official and well known U.S. policy.
  
  
  
  
  It is understandable that the people in Middle East and everywhere else have difficults to believe that the U.S. only wish to propagate human rights, justice and democracy.
  
  And it is understandable that they hate the U.S. and attack them in the only way they have. They can't execute military operations against the U.S. They have only terror attacks.
  
  Not without cause is terror called the war of the small man and it is diffcult - if not impossible - to differentiate between terror and resistance.
  
  And sometimes, especially if one look at the kind of warfare the U.S. is practicing, the difference between an army and terrorists is that the one are better equipped than the others.
  
  
  
  
  Another police would be better to win the hearts of these people.
  
  For example:
  
  • The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $20 billion each year, or about $3 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world's military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced a financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of March 31, 2007, members' arrears to the Regular Budget topped $1,355 million, of which the United States alone owed $785 million (58% of the regular budget arrears). (UN Financial Crisis)
  The U.N. needs $30-70 billion above and beyond current aid pledges to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.
  
  The U.S. has increased its defense budget from about $288.8 billion in 2000 to $399.1 billion in 2004. That's over $110 billion more each year compared to the budget from 2000.
  
  Would they have given that money to the U.N., for development aid or for international mediation and conflict resolution or for the reconstruction and development of the nations they have bombarded, the U.S. would have stolen the thunder of all the propagandists and demagogues and with that money much good could have been done.
  
  Such measures are far more promising and far more capable to reduce terror than all the wars the U.S. is waging worldwide.
  
  • • • And it is not as though that such a meassure would deprive the U.S. forces of a large enough budget. Without these increasings it would still have the stand of 2000: $288.8 billion each year - more than the military budgets of all other nations. That's even still more than five times as much as Japans military budget ($49 billion), the world's second largest military spender.

[Kane Starkiller]

1.The USSR was evil. I mean evil in the fullest extent. As in it's way more evil then you *think* the US is and the general agreement appears that America is evil incarnate. You should thank your lucky stars you do not live in the now defunct USSR.

By all means explain how USSR is more evil than US rather than throwing unsupported accusations.

2. We supplied Afganians weapons to defend thier homeland. We did not deliberatly give support to radicals who one hated us as much as the they might have hated the soviets, and were not generaly willing to fight the soviets. Instead using the invasion as polital capitol to further thier own ends.

Don't make me laugh. Marxist PDPA party took power in 1978 after which there was a civil war between communists and islamists. USSR naturally backed communists and later intervened since they weren't too keen on having a radical islamist country on their doorstep. The glorious US
naturally supported the islamist radicals and we ended up with a country we all know and love. So much better then if eeeeeevil USSR kept the communist regime there.

Say he had WMDs even through he wasn't suppose to, hang around with evil people who would love to detonate that in a major population center, and of course 19 treaty violations, but I guess we shouldn't hold them accountable for thier actions right?

What "evil" people did he hang around? He didn't have WMDs are you deaf? They claimed they didn't have it before the war.

Paying people to blow themselves up I consider grounds for nutjob status. he was alsoa brutal dicator with no ethics who invaded a nieghoring state. The guy is no saint, or even close.

Whom did he pay to blow himself up? Sure the guy is no saint but he is no more evil then the people who ordered the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Teh cease fire agreemant stated he could not have WMDs period, so he's just having them is grounds for invasion. Second thier the whole handing it off to terriorst bit.

Will you stop making stuff up and show some evidence? He didn't have WMDs and he never supported any terrorists.

Uh yeah he kinda was. It's a fact he hung around with those nuts, now sure they might have all planned to stab each other in teh back one day, but for the moment they had a common enemy. The US.

Hanging around with whom? Where? Do I have to reiterate again that Saddams government was secular and thus loathed by islamist terrorists? Saddam had no wish to see the islamists grow in strength.

Clinton said it, Gore as well, as well as just about every single intellgence agency. So no he didn't falsify them. Please don't use tired old Liberal talking points, it's dull.

I'm not an American so I don't give a shit which administration fucked up. United States fucked up.

Yep we sold weapons to Iraq, none WMDs when we considered Iran worse. If thats a crime, well everyone appears to be guilty.

Funny how you ignore my point you also sold weapons to Iran. Selling weapons to both sides. Now that's an evil country if I ever saw one.

Korea pushed back a soviet agression, Vietnam ditto(attempted of course but hey atleast the peacemovment can be proud of the death they caused when we pulled out). Cambodia I believe was part of that conflict, wideing it and all that, Panama wasn't that to get druglords or something? So no rampampt agressin for agression sake.

Soviet agression in Korea? What the hell are you smoking? So Amercians fought soviet troops? Where pray tell did that happened. Vietnam tried to declare independence and Ho Chi Min even read the American declaration of independece as he did so. Naturally, while Americans paid lip service to self determination of nations, they backed France a colonial power. USSR then naturally backed Ho Chi Min. Cambodia was simply bombed without any declaration of war. And then you call flying a couple of planes into some buildings evil.

Thier comes a point in time when you need to make a decision. Are you for freedom or tryany. Justice or destruction. This is a world war and you can't stay on the sidelines. So either you are helping us track down and remove from circulation terriorest are you are part of the problem. So again pick a side and fight for it.

Justice or destruction? Just what the hell are you doing in Iraq? It sure as hell isn't justice. You turned Iraq into a nightmare where not a day goes by without a terrorist attack. Iran is already spreading it's influence and now Iraq truly is a nest of terrorist UNLIKE under Saddam's secular rule.

4. The War in Iraq was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies of consequence. More importantly, it was dead right. Based on intelligence long known internationally, intel that could not be disproved since Saddam never held properly to the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, the United States removed Saddam from power. His efforts to make the world believe he had nuclear and other WMD facilities, his known willingness to use them, and all that and more mixed with his own terrorist acts (per Wilga) and his known contacts with other terrorist Islamic extremist groups including Al Qaeda, made him a clear and present danger to the United States specifically, and international peace and justice generally.

Lies. Hans Blix reported there was no evidence for WMDs and US formed the "coalition of the willing" and Kofi Anan stated that from their point of view it was illegal. And it was not "dead right" since no WMDs were found, Iraq was destroyed and in place of a ruthless but secular goverment there are various islamist radicals blowing themselves up.

5. Leftist and conspiracist ideals of the sort espoused in this thread have weakened international security. North Korea has a nuke-lette, and successfully blackmailed the world instead of getting its ass kicked. Terror-sponsor Iran, headed by a modern-day Hitler-esque madman, is close to a real nuke. Even broken Russia is resurgent, behaving more and more like the Soviet Union every day as it supports Iran and other similar regimes. Other dictators and madmen are emboldened, and the forces of world evil are uniting.

You are a fucking lunatic. When a certain idiot declares your country "Axis of Evil" of course you are going to step up the production of nuclear weapons since you don't want to be invaded. How is Iranian president even close to Hitler? Did he invade any country? He was reported making statements about Israel which is certainly not nice but how does it justify bombing the country?
But you are right, certain madmen are emboldened and are reducing freedoms and starting wars all over the place.

You want the democracies of the West to stand idly by and invite their destruction from rogue nations, terrorists and their sponsors, and backwards philosophies.

You mean what US idiotic administration declares are "rouge" nations? How much money does a guy with a knife need to hijack a plane and ram it into a building? I'm sure he needs the budget of a country to back him up.

You seek the withdrawal of the United States and its allies from Iraq, guaranteeing a bloodbath of the type seen when American leftists won our withdrawal from Viet Nam. But you don't care, so long as America's nose is bloodied. (That applies to both foreigners and the enemies within.)

It's too late now my friend. When French told you invading Iraq was a mistake you didn't listen and marched on like morons. It's nightmare either way now. Same with Viet Nam. Support of the people was for Ho Chi Min rather than French colonial goverment.

You refuse to recognize America's triumphs, even those in your defense, and rejoice at America's failings, even those at your expense.

No you ignorant twerp it is you who cannot accept when America has failed.

There is something incredibly twisted about your worldviews. No, not just the irony that you couldn't have them were it not for the people and government of the United States securing your freedoms, but that, for all our failings, for all our fears and doubts, and for all our missteps, the United States has, for the last 70 years at least, done our damnedest to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all we can practically help.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Oh yes if it weren't for United States we would all be slaves! The sad thing is you really believe it.

Is that why you hate us? And if those philosophies of life and liberty have made you loathe the United States, what does that say about your philosophy?

So your constant interventions and slaughter of civilians for the past 50 years was a philosophy of "life and liberty"? Give me a fucking break. No one said US is all bad. We are discussing certain US actions which ARE bad.

[Cpl Kendall]

Thier was a problem, the problem was stopped, and those responable punished. That they were not punished to your personal expections is unimportant to the subject as a whole.

No it was not resolved to the standars of the world. Only the US has such lax standards for discipline and punishment. For comparision aq Canadian Forces private was convicted to seven years imprisionment for torture, merely for hitting once a POW in Somali. That is the standard the world expects.

Oh God.
Was what happened their wrong? yes.
Did those Men and women disgrace thier uniform in doing those acts?yes.
Should they be punished?yes.

However by any sane reason that stuff was not torture. Degrading, cruel, appaling but not torture. I dont' recall anyone putting a hot poker to thier flesh, removing limbs, or anything. It was a shameful incident but that is all it is. You downplay real torture that happens in the world by holding that up as if it is the end all be all of depravity or even worth more then putting an end to it and forgetting it.

I see you are blissfully ignorant between that there exists both physical torture and mental torture. Both of which are valid and harmful methods of doing business. Guess which method the US is employing the majority of the time?

[Cpl Kendall]

In 1941. Assuming they won the wor in Europe and they cared to invade, instead of cutting Briton off and allowing it to wither on the vine as germany domination swelled, do you really think England could have held on and pushed back the Nazi's? I mean even Hitler didn't plan to rule the world in his lifetime. He just wanted bacily Europe which would have provided Germany with the strengh to dominate the world leading up to a massive invasion of America circa 1980's....blah blah blah. So unless you think teh brits on thier lonesome could beat back the Nazi/ and or the Soviets yes they owe thier freedom to us mean evil Americans.

The Germans didn't have the means to starve Britain either. Apperently total allied shipping losses in WWII only amounted to 3 million tons, insufficent to starve Britain out. Allied convoy tactics were to efficient against the U-Boat and German losses to great to have an effect.

I never said the British could have beaten the Germans on their own. But the Soviets could have. So I don't know where your getting that idea from.

So you kill more people just to feel good? Funny logic. I prefer to keep the body count as low as possible and just frag a city and let them know who going to win.

And the evidence that the food shortage would have killed more than the 160,000 odd from the bombings is? Even if we just bottled them up and let in food, we could have left them in there forever, they couldn't do anything. They were spent.

[sonofccn]

KENDALL-

The Germans didn't have the means to starve Britain either. Apperently total allied shipping losses in WWII only amounted to 3 million tons, insufficent to starve Britain out. Allied convoy tactics were to efficient against the U-Boat and German losses to great to have an effect.

I never said the British could have beaten the Germans on their own. But the Soviets could have. So I don't know where your getting that idea from.

If you can't beat them on your own somewhere down the line Hitler is going to win,understand? And the soviets winninig,without the aid the US shiped them is by no means assured and would still be the same mess. As to the 1980 stuf that was all part of Hitler's plan and thoughts on how wwII would turn out.

And the evidence that the food shortage would have killed more than the 160,000 odd from the bombings is?

Let see you plan to wait until people are dieing left and right so that they realize they can't win, assuming they do accept defeat instead of mass suicide, and you think the losses will be less?

Even if we just bottled them up and let in food, we could have left them in there forever, they couldn't do anything. They were spent.

Even better let them rot as savages huh? Instead of defeating them and rebuilding thier society into a productivy peaceful we should have simply wasted time and money by putting a flotilla around thier island. So again suffering and death are okay as long as you give the appearne caring.

No it was not resolved to the standars of the world.

At best half the world. The other half wouldn't even care. Added to this the half that cares seems bent on criticising itself every little flaw and exacting maximum punishment do "right" thier wrongs then stopping the guys doing the real trouble and no that is not the US.

I see you are blissfully ignorant between that there exists both physical torture and mental torture.

Oh I'm aware of them, but mental is muchmore subjective. Being forced to watch while your family members are raped and killed I think falls under it, but do we now have to consider every discomfort toture? As I said it was shameful behavior, but even if mental torture it pales in comparsion to what those guys,who your defending did, and what many counties are doing right now. So please get this worked up over China, Iran, cuba etc.


KANESTARKILLER-
Anyone not realising the Soviet Empire was an Evil empire is so far beyond the bend I'm not wasting my time on. So to avoid a lot of unpleasentness I'll just say I conceed on every point. You win, happy? so please go back to your world where America is EVIL! and the Soviets were peace loving do gooders. I just hope your happy living in that world.


WILGA-
Not much to say. Your idea to combat global terrisome is let's sit down and hope the Jihadist get tired of trying to kill us. Didn't we try that during the ninties? Didn't seem to work then, I doubt it will do much good now.

[Who is like God arbour]

BBC World Service poll:

• • • The BBC has been tracking opinions about countries’ influence in the world over three years (2005 – 2007). During that time most ratings have remained relatively stable. There has been improvement in ratings of India, a slight decline in views about Britain and a significant fall in positive evaluations of the United States. Russia, China, and France also lost ground over the period, mainly between 2005 and 2006.
      
      Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, commented: “It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the use or pursuit of military power. This includes Israel and the US, who have recently used military force, and North Korea and Iran, who are perceived as trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
      
      “Countries that relate to the world primarily through soft power, like Japan, France, and the EU in general, tend to be viewed positively,” he added.
      
      • • 
      As reported earlier, worldviews of the United States continue to worsen, with most countries having a largely negative view of the US. Across all 27 countries polled (excluding the US self-evaluation), half (51%) now say the US is playing a mainly negative role in the world. However, among the countries that receive large negative evaluations, the US has the
      largest percentage—30 percent—saying it has a positive influence.
      
      Across the 19 countries that have been polled for the last three years the average percentage saying that the United States is having a mainly positive influence in the world has dropped six points from a year ago after having dropped four points from the previous year.
      
      Among the 26 countries polled this time (excluding the US), in 20 the most common view of the United States’ influence was negative, whin just four it was mainly positive and two were evenly divided. Negative views are particularly widespread in Europe (especially Greece 78%, Germany 74%, and France 69%) predominantly Muslim countries (Indonesia 71%, Turkey 69%, Eg59%, and Lebanon 58%). The only countries with positive majorities arefound in Africa (Nigeria 72%, and Kenya 70%), and the Philippines (72%).
      
      Some of the sharpest drops in positive ratings over the last year came from four countries that have tended to be quite positive about the United States. Poland’s positive ratings dropped 24 points, from 62 percent a year ago to 38 percent today. The Philippines dropped 13 points, from a very high 85 percent to a still-high 72 percent. India fell from 44 percent to 30 percent. And Indonesia plunged 19 points—from 40 percent to 21 percent positive—perhaps due to the waning of the positive effect of the American aid to Indonesian tsunami victims.
      Additionally, the number of American respondents who believe the United States is having a positive influence in the world has also decreased six points, from 63% to 57%, and has dropped a total of fourteen points (from 71%) from 2005.

How does that come?

Why do even nations - like Canada or these in Europe - which have no direct disadvantages from the U.S. exploits - nations which were and are allied with the U.S. - nations which owe the U.S. very much - have now an increasing bad opinion of the U.S.?

That has to have a reason.

And that reason is not that the whole world but the U.S. is stupid and that they all aren't able to see what great things the U.S. are doing.