Karzai condemns video of urination on corpses - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/karzai-condemns-video-urination-corpses-120758800.html)

I say no. They treat us allot worse and this will just enrage them more.
To be better behaved than your enemy doesn't work, remember the American revolution? How did that turn out for the Brits who behaved better?
They need to fear us if we want them to stop.

sending in kids with bombs tied to them under their clothes
sure didn't win any popularity contests

Leave these guys alone, they are just waterboarding

I hold ourselves to a higher standard than I hold our enemies.

you beat me to the post....WHAT KIND OF MARINES ARE WE TRAINING

that are so silly as to video that and let it get out. keep that between yourselves, what happens in the middle east, stays in the middle east. senseless media bull crap

I hold ourselves to a higher standard than I hold our enemies.

X's 2.

Aren't we always saying how much better we are than them? If so, let's not stoop to their level.

I hold ourselves to a higher standard than I hold our enemies.

Absolutely.....

you beat me to the post....WHAT KIND OF MARINES ARE WE TRAINING

The Best Fighting force in the world....don't let these 3 reflect badly on those who went before and those who will come after.

Yes, we should be better than this.
But if one minute we are bombing, and shooting them - lets be realistic. I'd rather be peed on that shot.
We are asking a lot of our troops, to kill, be away from their families, etc. These marines should be called in, reprimanded and then sent on their way. Nothing more. This should not be a public execution. This is minor, very minor.

senseless media bull crap

senseless media bull crap?
i fired an employee for running their mouth on facebook about a client.

don't want to get into major crap? keep your mouth shut.

But if one minute we are bombing, and shooting them - lets be realistic. I'd rather be peed on that shot..
Except that these guys got both, dead and pissed on.

We should be better than this. In this day and age you have to realize, videos like that ALWAYS get leaked... the last thing we need is to give the taliban even more incentive to kill American soldiers.

time to get them all home...

[QUOTE=likwid;914079]senseless media bull crap?
i fired an employee for running their mouth on facebook about a client. QUOTE]

This is becomeing a very common thing. People are getting crazy with "sit on my facebook"

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;914082]Except that these guys got both, dead and pissed on.

We should be better than this. In this day and age you have to realize, videos like that ALWAYS get leaked... the last thing we need is to give the taliban even more incentive to kill American soldiers.
QUOTE]

Yeah, when some fat guy in a suit makes a mistake and a drone kills a bunch of pakistani kids we say, oops, sorry. Nothing more comes of it. But some kids FORCED to kill and be away from their families do a stupid thing and it becomes national news. Which gives the taliban more incentive???
It was wrong, I agree. But IMHO its as wrong as kids spray painting grafitti on a school building, nothing more. Reprimand them and let it be. Dont ruin these kids life, what we MADE them do is enough.

But IMHO its as wrong as kids spray painting grafitti on a school building, nothing more. Reprimand them and let it be.
I think that's exactly the wrong way to look at it.

If you don't make an effort to maintain ethics in warfare you're no better than they are. It is certainly possible to be an ethical warrior, in fact its critical to provide a moral foundation for your actions.

This doesn't mean in the heat of battle someone might kill out of rage or hatred. Hell, I'm sure at times it's even encouraged. But outside of this there needs to be respect for the fact that the enemy is/was a human being as well. Even OBL was treated with dignity, partially out of PR and also because it was the right thing to do.

What these guys did was send the message that in their eyes the Taliban are sub-human. That's a lot different than vandalism Jimmy.

Yes, stuff like this happens in war. The intensity, adrenaline, testosterone, stress, maturity etc... but they always look at the leadership don't they...

-spence

Should we have our troops string them up w/wire and hang them from bridges? How about drag them behind humvees?

I agree w/Jimmy though in that peeing on someone is a relatively minor offense (esp. considering that some people evidentially like getting peed on).

they are not worth respecting

do not click this link if your eating

you have been warned

Redirect Notice (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FVPtKIgasQI/Tbgtsgyu8BI/AAAAAAAAHhg/pwl0jjt2ci8/s1600/DSC01732%252Bcopy-753341.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pakistan-observer.blogspot.com/2011/04/taliban-atrocities-in-pakistan-are.html&h=480&w=640&sz=110&tbnid=IobVlILbS5g_UM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtaliban%2Batrocities%26tbm%3Disch%26t bo%3Du&zoom=1&q=taliban+atrocities&docid=kcC94is8YBBmDM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8l8QT_mpAqbt0gHBwPXEAw&ved=0CDcQ9QEwAw&dur=544)

Treat others has they treat you is my motto.

I wouldn't ask our soldiers to do anything that I wouldn't do myself.

Edit - so we should have our soldiers behead capture Taliban?

FYI - I can't hear the sound track.

I also would not punish others who have no issue doing what the enemy does to their brothers and sisters in the armed forces. The line should be drawn when it comes to civilians, hands off unless they are armed.

So the stringing up the enemy from bridges w/wire and dragging them behind humvees is ok then?

Agree w/you on the 2nd part.

They have no respect for us and never will so I say treat them the way they treat you, let the enemy set the bar.

If you're advocating letting somebody else dictate what your own ethics should be I'm not thinking many will agree with you here.

I understand during world war II it was common practice to piss on the German soldiers who occupied pill boxes after the troops killed the occupants.
And in Vietnam they did a lot worse. What's your point?

Maybe it's their feelings of superiority that made them do it, if we are all humans we should treat each other equally, time to take the handcuffs off, you F-with us you pay. I think they ought to put up billboards stating "THIS COULD BE YOU....NEXT".
You can't fight effectively unless you choose sides, on that I'd agree.

But how you fight is up to you.

You seem to be saying that if the Taliban think they're going to get pee'd on they will be intimidated. I think that's silly.

Maybe we should just cover them with pig entrails in a humble ceremony stating that is our way of honoring enemy combatants.

Again, what's the point? Our mission is to help stabilize Afghanistan so they're not a haven for terrorists that might harm US interests.

How does humiliating the same "people" you're trying to help achieve this mission?

-spence

SAD thing is ..... not to jump subjects
these atrocities transferred from the middle east to mexico
namely: hanging people from bridges and lopping off the heads...

i was watching Rob Roy last night
and the noblemen said "hang him from the bridge"
and probably would have left him dangling there

I don't agree with what they did but I can’t put myself in their shoes either. Maybe I would have done the same thing. These kids are probably not even 21. Most likely can't even have a beer in a bar yet.

It was poor judgment on their part but they will probably be punished too harshly given today’s insane media coverage, they will make an example out of them.

Hilary’s comments were “it is absolutely inconsistent with American values” but she may have been talking about that bean job in the oval office........

I don't agree with what they did but I can’t put myself in their shoes either. Maybe I would have done the same thing. These kids are probably not even 21. Most likely can't even have a beer in a bar yet.

It was poor judgment on their part but they will probably be punished too harshly given today’s insane media coverage, they will make an example out of them.

Hilary’s comments were “it is absolutely inconsistent with American values” but she may have been talking about that bean job in the oval office........

And her philandering husband set the bar for ethics and is 3rd on the list of best US presidents, maybe they should have just shoved cigars up their arses.

I think that's exactly the wrong way to look at it.

If you don't make an effort to maintain ethics in warfare you're no better than they are. It is certainly possible to be an ethical warrior, in fact its critical to provide a moral foundation for your actions.

This doesn't mean in the heat of battle someone might kill out of rage or hatred. Hell, I'm sure at times it's even encouraged. But outside of this there needs to be respect for the fact that the enemy is/was a human being as well. Even OBL was treated with dignity, partially out of PR and also because it was the right thing to do.


-spence

you never cease to amaze me.
OBL was shot in cold blood, unarmed.
"in the heat of battle someone might kill out of rage or hatred" - really? you think they KILL out of sense of duty? Orders?
Im gotta drop from this thread because I have a lot of emotion on military topics but I'll leave you with this to chew on spence. please read carefully - you never seem to much of a history guy so this may be shocking to you, but its 100% true
The 101st airborne has been recognized over and over for their heroics in WWII and especially d-day. They were immortalized further by the Band of Brothers movies and book. I've read additonal books written by some of the guys from Band of B. I attending a forum with these guys and heard their stories in person. It may be news to you but they shot, in cold blood, EVERY SS solider that surrendered to them. Everyone. never took an SS prisoner.. that was a war crime. that was wrong. But you know what, who cares? these guys are heroes and most men could never do what they did. I dont believe they are above the law, but the law changes when you see and do what they do every day. the same goes for those guys in afghanistan. Spence - you wouldnt have the balls to look those guys in the eye and condemn them. They've gone through more hell in a minute than you will in your life. To me, pissing on dead guys is equivalent to vandalism. its no big deal.

you never cease to amaze me.
OBL was shot in cold blood, unarmed.
I believe that was the mission and something I don't have an issue with. The point was that we didn't parade his head around on a stake afterwords.

"in the heat of battle someone might kill out of rage or hatred" - really? you think they KILL out of sense of duty? Orders?

I think that's pretty obvious don't you?

Im gotta drop from this thread because I have a lot of emotion on military topics but I'll leave you with this to chew on spence. please read carefully - you never seem to much of a history guy so this may be shocking to you, but its 100% true
The 101st airborne has been recognized over and over for their heroics in WWII and especially d-day. They were immortalized further by the Band of Brothers movies and book. I've read additonal books written by some of the guys from Band of B. I attending a forum with these guys and heard their stories in person. It may be news to you but they shot, in cold blood, EVERY SS solider that surrendered to them. Everyone. never took an SS prisoner.. that was a war crime. that was wrong. But you know what, who cares? these guys are heroes and most men could never do what they did. I dont believe they are above the law, but the law changes when you see and do what they do every day. the same goes for those guys in afghanistan. Spence - you wouldnt have the balls to look those guys in the eye and condemn them. They've gone through more hell in a minute than you will in your life. To me, pissing on dead guys is equivalent to vandalism. its no big deal.
This situation is a lot different than in WW2. You could also think that the taking of prisoners in that situation could be a tactical mistake.

Here the action has no real merit, but it's also potentially destructive considering the context.

I've never been quick to condemn the actions of our troops, and frankly believe they deserve a lot of leeway. Most likely these guys are good Marines who just did something stupid, especially by letting themselves be recorded on camera doing it.

An "anything goes" mentality isn't in the interest of our country or our troops.

-spence

It was poor judgment on their part but they will probably be punished too harshly given today’s insane media coverage, they will make an example out of them.
I don't know. I'm sure there will be discipline, but also proportionate to the action. While I obviously disagree with Jimmy that it's more serious than vandalism it could have been a lot worse.

-spence

Famous line
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

They shouldn't have recorded it. End of story

Science and Islam: Urine Proves Islam is the True Religion! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG66moSHTjk)

Good god you're loosing it.

-spence

I lost it a long time ago, thus I have an open mind and express my opinion freely.

I lost it a long time ago, thus I have an open mind and express my opinion freely.

You didn't happen to start the liquid pregame for the pats game today, did you?

I'm also wondering what the 'it' you duz good.....:confused::confused:

Famous line
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."
I think it's important to understand why this movie quote is so important.

On one hand, it holds what appears to clearly be a fundamental truth and something we'd all ultimately come to agree with.

And on the other, the entire movie is about exposing a weakness to this truth.

Remember, at the end of the film Col. Jessup goes to jail.

-spence

It's a matter of perspective: After you've watched someone's head explode in your scope sight, pissing on their corpse can be perceived as less barbarous.

I like Col Kurtz's line Apocalypse Now, "We train young men to drop fire on people, but we won't let them writ f__k on the side of their planes because it's obscene." War is contradictory and insane.

I'm quite sure they held the values of an honorable warrior at one time. But how long can we reasonably expect those standards to hold? How many tours have these guys done? When's the last time they felt civilized? The picture says that their identity and value system has dissolved to the point where now they perceive themselves simply as killers - accountable only to their brothers-in-arms.

Maybe the enemy would consider what they do before doing it if they knew we would retaliate in the same manner, isn't that what the cold war was all about.



I have to say, I am almost dumbfounded with your comments in this thread, but it makes it very clear how I could be so far apart from you on most of the topics in this forum. Completely different world view and belief of right and wrong, let alone what it means to be an American. If you are under 21 or so, I can chalk it up to age, but otherwise...

Allen West summed it up nicely yesterday....

"The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter."

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell." Col. Allen West

...............................

sadly, isolated incidents like these are often used to denigrate the military and America and grandstand to score political points by those that I guess "fully understand right and wrong and really know what it means to be an American"?


"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin said last week.


"On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'" said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."



Speaking with host Bob Schieffer about Iraq, Sen. John Kerry said, "There is no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the ... of ... the historical customs, religious customs."


Murtha said on ABC's This Week program in May 2006 there was "no doubt" that the Marines were guilty, claiming a cover-up of their war crimes went "up the chain of command."

Among Murtha's unsubstantiated remarks to ABC: “One woman, as I understand it, in talking to officials in the Marine Corps, was kneeling over a child pleading for mercy and they shot her in cold blood. That’s the thing that’s so disturbing. ”


...........................................

it would be nice if we could maintain the perspective that our troops are trying to maintain peace and protect innocents over there every day while the "peed upon" types engage in efforts like this one below every day, I think it is silly to suggest that they will somehow be "more motivated" by an incident like the one in question

BBC News - Iraq suicide bomb kills 50 in Basra pilgrims attack (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16560042)



take the POLL http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-user-polls/post/should-these-marines-be-punished/2012/01/12/gIQA65CctP_blog.html

In the wake of the incendiary bombing of Hamburg 40,000 people died in the napalm-fueled firestorm and another 37,000 were injured in one week. There would have been no insurgency had we bombed Iraq similarly.
From a military perspective, the insurgency was enabled by our generosity of restraint. In retrospect, we should have struck like Jehovah and left no doubt as to our supremacy.

There would have been no insurgency had we bombed Iraq similarly.
Correct, it would have not been an insurgency isolated to Iraq.

More likely it would have erupted into a broader war across the entire middle east.

-spence

I hope I haven't ruined your night, if you would like to elaborate perhaps we could find common ground.
Maybe this will help. I do feel it was stupid what they did but I really have no problem with their actions based upon the circumstances, it's war.

Add to that my belief that when a person dies they leave their body behind and the soul or spirit is free without the pains and limitations of the human body, it is just the vessel they spent their time here in, a carcass if you will. It may seem cold but it actually helps me deal with the passing of loved ones and pets. I'm Agnostic not an Atheist so that might also help explain my view of life here, it's temporary for everyone.

I'm an adult so attack me all you want, I can take it and I will try and continue the conversation without going to the level some others do, most likely because they find it easier to ridicule rather than openly discuss the issue.

I got where you are coming from. I also get that it was war. I don't get the idea that we should do what our enemies do. They do a lot of inhumane crap. I have always felt that we are better than that and should be. I am with McCain on this topic.

I got where you are coming from. I also get that it was war. I don't get the idea that we should do what our enemies do. They do a lot of inhumane crap. I have always felt that we are better than that and should be. I am with McCain on this topic.

I suppose it's because I am feed up with treating them better than they treat us and it gets me angry seeing such a minor (in my eyes) offense causing so much BS both here and now with our enemies. They expect us to be held to a different standard and do what they do like it's just fine. I say give them a taste of their own medicine.

I wish I could be more eloquent but my education didn't go that well when it comes to the proper use of the english language.:o
That is also why, if you haven't noticed under my avatar it says "Limited intellect"

Our we on better terms now:uhuh:

In retrospect, we should have struck like Jehovah and left no doubt as to our supremacy.

I think the connection between wwii and Iraq is a stretch. The German's were the aggressors with a clear plan for world domination. Such a campaign in Iraq would not have been supported by the American people or the global community because of the lack of clear reasons for the war and the false pretenses presented by the president and his cronies. Demonstrates why it to stupid to make up reasons to go to war.

I think the connection between wwii and Iraq is a stretch. The German's were the aggressors with a clear plan for world domination. Such a campaign in Iraq would not have been supported by the American people or the global community because of the lack of clear reasons for the war and the false pretenses presented by the president and his cronies. Demonstrates why it to stupid to make up reasons to go to war.

False pretenses? I know WMD's has the left insinuated was the only reason we went in. It wasn't the only reason we went in, how many resolutions should we have let them violate before taking action, how many of our planes needed to be shot at before we responded?
And they had WMD's because we sold them to Iraq. where did they go? It's a giant litter box over there do you think they might have buried them? They had months to hide/dispose of them before we actually invaded, so they knew we were coming.
Also if you claim finding WMD's was the only reason technically we did:

Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/)

Saddam’s WMDhave been found (http://www.wnd.com/2004/04/24352/)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

I don't see things through a political affiliation type filter, I don't like either party.

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/55498-time-change.html

I don't see things through a political affiliation type filter, I don't like either party.

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/55498-time-change.html

Really, yet you get your info from hotair.com? Ever hear of PNAC? The plan for invasion was laid out long before 9/11 and Bush used every excuse he could think of to moved forward with the "cavalry on the new American frontier." Even in the months prior to the war, when one reason didn't stand up, they found a new one.

They did have WMD, but they did not release evidence to the extent to which they had them. I know somebody who was involved personally.

It wouldn't have mattered what the reason was the left and the main stream media will never give the right any credit. They want to see the republicans gone, which I also would like by the way except I want them gone also.
Obama and the democrats had total control for 2 years and couldn't get squat accomplished because they had their eye's on the up coming elections and didn't want to take a chance of losing control.
This current president has spent more money than all previous presidents and yet he may get voted back in. What do you think is going to happen if he gets back in and the democrats regain total control?
Part of me would like to see this happen because I think it would in the end cause enormous damage to the democratic party for years to come, the other part of me fears what will happen to this country.
I want both parties gone and a complete over haul of the system starting with privatization of many public sector jobs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really, yet you get your info from hotair.com? Ever hear of PNAC? The plan for invasion was laid out long before 9/11 and Bush used every excuse he could think of to moved forward with the "cavalry on the new American frontier." Even in the months prior to the war, when one reason didn't stand up, they found a new one.

Actually that just came up in a fast search so I posted it along with other links pointing out the lame attempt to discredit the republicans. Repeating it over and over won't work when there are facts that totally discredit the no WMD's argument.
Nice attempt at deflecting though....bump ;)

Which party perpetuated lies and still has followers believing them??????

Which party perpetuated lies and still has followers believing them??????

"it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered a lie"

"it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered a lie"

Your right I suppose they were willing to grasp any straw to smear the other party, both parties should hang their heads in shame and get back to doing what's right for the country not just their party of affiliation. We are all in the same boat and it is going down:(
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They did have WMD, but they did not release evidence to the extent to which they had them. I know somebody who was involved personally.

Involved in the discovery of wmd's?

And EZ, if the weapons were there, it is a free press with plenty of conservative outlets and a (there was a) Republican controlled government. It would have been front page news on the wall street journal for weeks. A limited # of mustard gas casings from 1991 does not match what was presented to the American people or congress. The thing that is crazy about this is that even the most staunch supporters of the war that I know, including active military people, one of which who was an army colonel at the time, say we were completely wrong about the state of wmd's. I guess they just didn't report it on msnbc for them to hear about it.

They did have WMD, but they did not release evidence to the extent to which they had them. I know somebody who was involved personally.

By the way, that contradicts what George Tenent and David Kay testified to the senate arms committee.

as a public service and because we're routinely told "they're all the same" I've been scouring "the internets" thinking I'd find, in an election year featuring overflowing hatred toward the current administration, plenty of examples of elected republicans and conservative blowhards attacking the President, the troops and the mission as a result of this incident. Surely this would have been the case from the ususal suspects if 'Miss Me Yet?" were still the Commander-in-Chief :uhuh: ...right? we have ample evidence

surprisingly.....there is precious little...I did find the likes of William Kristol(Ever hear of PNAC?) complaining about the over the top phony reactions of many administration officials and a wonder at the lack of response from Republicans, in particular, the candidates....

hard to know anymore whether this should be described as a "tragedy" an "atrocity" or simply "workplace violence" with a little college humor added or maybe even a "war crime"

I think it goes like this...if they kill us...it's a tragedy and in some cases merely workplace violence depending on what the Justice Department and Pentagon decide regarding state of mind and requisite intent....

if we pee on them(after we kill them )...and a democrat is President .....it's an "atrocity" and probably a "war crime"...only the offending soldiers should be held accountable

if mistreat them in any way...and Bush is President.... the entire Administration and the entire military should be held accountable and compared to the most ruthless regimes in history:uhuh:

crazy stuff

By the way, that contradicts what George Tenent and David Kay testified to the senate arms committee.
Well, it pretty much contradicts what anyone who's investigated the matter has reported...even Dulfer.

This issue has been beaten to death :deadhorse:

-spence

as a public service and because we're routinely told "they're all the same" I've been scouring "the internets" thinking I'd find, in an election year featuring overflowing hatred toward the current administration, plenty of examples of elected republicans and conservative blowhards attacking the President, the troops and the mission as a result of this incident. Surely this would have been the case from the ususal suspects if 'Miss Me Yet?" were still the Commander-in-Chief :uhuh: ...right? we have ample evidence

surprisingly.....there is precious little...I did find the likes of William Kristol(Ever hear of PNAC?) complaining about the over the top phony reactions of many administration officials and a wonder at the lack of response from Republicans, in particular, the candidates....

hard to know anymore whether this should be described as a "tragedy" an "atrocity" or simply "workplace violence" with a little college humor added or maybe even a "war crime"

I think it goes like this...if they kill us...it's a tragedy and in some cases merely workplace violence depending on what the Justice Department and Pentagon decide regarding state of mind and requisite intent....

if we pee on them(after we kill them )...and a democrat is President .....it's an "atrocity" and probably a "war crime"...only the offending soldiers should be held accountable

if mistreat them in any way...and Bush is President.... the entire Administration and the entire military should be held accountable and compared to the most ruthless regimes in history:uhuh:

crazy stuff
The entire frame of reference is different.

-spence

Involved in the discovery of wmd's?

And EZ, if the weapons were there, it is a free press with plenty of conservative outlets and a (there was a) Republican controlled government. It would have been front page news on the wall street journal for weeks. A limited # of mustard gas casings from 1991 does not match what was presented to the American people or congress. The thing that is crazy about this is that even the most staunch supporters of the war that I know, including active military people, one of which who was an army colonel at the time, say we were completely wrong about the state of wmd's. I guess they just didn't report it on msnbc for them to hear about it.

Who said what again? Is this a credible source or not? Ok so it's not the lack of WMD's, now it's the type and amount didn't match what we were told...They had 6 months to hide/dispose them before we invaded.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918)

This issue has been beaten to death :deadhorse:

-spence

I agree with Spence on this...please don't:)

Who said what again? Is this a credible source or not?
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918)

Credibility of the source isn't an issue. But I'd ask if you even read it?

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

If anything this should be classified as a Superfund site, not used as justification for a very long and costly war.

-spence

Credibility of the source isn't an issue. But I'd ask if you even read it?



If anything this should be classified as a Superfund site, not used as justification for a very long and costly war.

-spence

Were there WMD or not? The left simply will not admit there were WMD's because they are to concerned with deflecting and changing the parameters of their previous accusations.

They had 6 months to hide/dispose of the majority of WMD's before we invaded, could it be possible they moved them and perhaps even altered the areas that the inspectors weren't allowed to search after they knew it was imminent that we would invade?

If your answer to either of these questions is not a yes or no I am done with this discussion, I am not going to read through a bunch of BS...as they say "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS" please dazzle me with a simple yes or no with a minimum amount of BS..

Were there WMD or not? The left simply will not admit there were WMD's because they are to concerned with deflecting and changing the parameters of their previous accusations.

They had 6 months to hide/dispose of the majority of WMD's before we invaded, could it be possible they moved them and perhaps even altered the areas that the inspectors weren't allowed to search after they knew it was imminent that we would invade?

If your answer to either of these questions is not a yes or no I am done with this discussion, I am not going to read through a bunch of BS...as they say "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS" please dazzle me with a simple yes or no with a minimum amount of BS..

To quote a defense official I remember reading about years ago...

"These were not the WMD we were looking for".

Use the search, there are dozens of posts on the subject.

-spene

To quote a defense official I remember reading about years ago...

"These were not the WMD we were looking for".

Use the search, there are dozens of posts on the subject.

-spene

A perfect example of why I don't like the left, they can't speak straight foward using their own words without some type of emergency exit. A fine example of the lack of decision making that drives me nuts.
I knew I should have asked you to respond in just three words. One last time because after all I am of limited intellect.

Choose one:
There were WMD's
or
There weren't WMD's

i still think they got moved to Syria
never ever! should our boots hit the ground there
nothin but a shell game

That song from Jeopardy is playing in my head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Use the search, my opinion on the issue is well documented :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Use the search, my opinion on the issue is well documented :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And now your lack of ability to make a decision is documented;)
I will now refer you to the last line below this post , thanks for playing.

There is no inability to make a decision, in fact the question has already been answered.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See I can say your right, a fine example of straight forward communication.

It's your inability to follow directions that is documented now which I mistook for your inability to make a decision, oh wait it's both come to think of it.

Who said what again? Is this a credible source or not? Ok so it's not the lack of WMD's, now it's the type and amount didn't match what we were told...They had 6 months to hide/dispose them before we invaded.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918)

Did you read it?

Were there WMD or not? .

There were scattered chemical weapons made in the 1980's, prior to our 1990 invasion, which according to the article you posted "The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

That was not why we went to war. That is not what we were told they had. It was a current and imminent threat, including a false report of an attempt to buy nuclear materials that was presented to congress and via state of the union. Prior to the speeches by Bush and Powell, the report was deemed not credible, but went forward against the advice of the person who originated the report.

This is such old news it is ridiculous. Why the heck do followers of conservative talk radio keep spewing the childish cry of left wing liberal media bs. It is such horse manor. This isn't China, you can get your news from any source you like and it all concludes that there was no weapons program.

There were scattered chemical weapons made in the 1980's, prior to our 1990 invasion, which according to the article you posted "The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

That was not why we went to war. That is not what we were told they had. It was a current and imminent threat, including a false report of an attempt to buy nuclear materials that was presented to congress and via state of the union. Prior to the speeches by Bush and Powell, the report was deemed not credible, but went forward against the advice of the person who originated the report.

This is such old news it is ridiculous. Why the heck do followers of conservative talk radio keep spewing the childish cry of left wing liberal media bs. It is such horse manor. This isn't China, you can get your news from any source you like and it all concludes that there was no weapons program.

Nice reply see we are finding common ground there were indeed WMD's.
The rest of the reply shall we say leaves me baffled because you state this as facts without providing links which could reinforce your argument. For example who deemed it false and what proof did they have?
When it comes to weapon programs how on earth can anyone prove there were or were not any programs going on without being part of Saddam's regimen? This is a very long report:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02)

Remember the inspectors were not allowed into the mosque and were not given total access to any where they wanted to go:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02)


You say it is ridiculous and old news but consider the fact that I am no longer an avid talk radio fan, which when I was I listened to both sides all day long so I would be better prepared to discuss the issues knowing what both sides had to say. I don't watch foxnews or for that matter much news at all primarily because no matter how much I learned and presented to others they refused to listen and voted this guy into office. Lets just say I gave up on trying to sway anyones opinion after he was voted in. I sincerely hoped he would be a great president not only because I want what is best for this country but also because he was non-Caucasian and I hoped this would once and for all end the racial tensions. I have since realized the tensions will never go away and once again have almost given up hope.
I hope we are getting closer toward respecting each others opinion and look forward to your reply, if you chose to reply again.

Nice reply see we are finding common ground there were indeed WMD's.
The rest of the reply shall we say leaves me baffled because you state this as facts without providing links which could reinforce your argument. For example who deemed it false and what proof did they have?
When it comes to weapon programs how on earth can anyone prove there were or were not any programs going on without being part of Saddam's regimen? This is a very long report:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02)

Remember the inspectors were not allowed into the mosque and were not given total access to any where they wanted to go:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02)


You say it is ridiculous and old news but consider the fact that I am no longer an avid talk radio fan, which when I was I listened to both sides all day long so I would be better prepared to discuss the issues knowing what both sides had to say. I don't watch foxnews or for that matter much news at all primarily because no matter how much I learned and presented to others they refused to listen and voted this guy into office. Lets just say I gave up on trying to sway anyones opinion after he was voted in. I sincerely hoped he would be a great president not only because I want what is best for this country but also because he was non-Caucasian and I hoped this would once and for all end the racial tensions. I have since realized the tensions will never go away and once again have almost given up hope.
I hope we are getting closer toward respecting each others opinion and look forward to your reply, if you chose to reply again.

I am happy to reply, but if my friend died because of spent 500 scattered non-functioning shells of mustard gas from the 1980's then f' that lying sob george bush and cheney. Hardly wmds if they can't even be used. They scared Americans with threats of imminent attack of actual usable wmds and nuclear materials, tied Saddam to 911 and Al Qaeda. They said there were functioning weapons manufactuirng facilities. They wanted the oil and to enact the plan of PNAC. A lot of American's paid with their lives and limbs. Nobody ever denied that Saddam used weapons on the Kurd's at the end of the war with Iran. We supported Iraq in that war, remember? We knew they had them. In fact, it is now declassified that the function of the Liberty ship my dad served on in the 1960's in the Pacific was to test those chemicals. He and the other sailors got to go up and clean the deck after the primates got gassed. He gets to go to the VA regularly for monitoring. Those non-functioning old weapons were not what was presented as reason for war and certainly do not fit the definition of functioning wmd's whether you want to spin it that way or not. I actually didn't know there was anyone out there still trying to spin that bs.

I am happy to reply, but if my friend died because of spent 500 scattered non-functioning shells of mustard gas from the 1980's then f' that lying sob george bush and cheney. Hardly wmds if they can't even be used. They scared Americans with threats of imminent attack of actual usable wmds and nuclear materials, tied Saddam to 911 and Al Qaeda. They said there were functioning weapons manufactuirng facilities. They wanted the oil and to enact the plan of PNAC. A lot of American's paid with their lives and limbs. Nobody ever denied that Saddam used weapons on the Kurd's at the end of the war with Iran. We supported Iraq in that war, remember? We knew they had them. In fact, it is now declassified that the function of the Liberty ship my dad served on in the 1960's in the Pacific was to test those chemicals. He and the other sailors got to go up and clean the deck after the primates got gassed. He gets to go to the VA regularly for monitoring. Those non-functioning old weapons were not what was presented as reason for war and certainly do not fit the definition of functioning wmd's whether you want to spin it that way or not. I actually didn't know there was anyone out there still trying to spin that bs.
I can understand where your hostility comes from but if you take the time to read the links I provided perhaps you will clearly see through the bs. Once again when and if you calm down enough and open your mind you may see through the propaganda that has kept you stoked up or perhaps provide me some proof to back up what your saying, I have no problem seeing actual proof that the republicans also suck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can understand where your hostility comes from but if you take the time to read the links I provided perhaps you will clearly see through the bs. Once again when and if you calm down enough and open your mind you may see through the propaganda that has kept you stoked up or perhaps provide me some proof to back up what your saying, I have no problem seeing actual proof that the republicans also suck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have not given one ounce of real information that supports the reasons for the war were founded. My mind is open, I am just not someone who believes war should be taken lightly. It is a republican, democrat issue. It is an issue of morality. We can't agree on this. It really goes not much farther than that you feel we should behave as our enemies do, so we really aren't going to come to any sort of middle ground. Bush was going to Iraq whether there was a legit reason or not. His own people said it. If you don't believe that... oh well.

Just for fun... from your links

1991: Outstanding issues from UNSCOM "Iraq claimed it lost 550 shells filled with mustard gas, but no evidence was found of these weapons"

So they told us about these circa 1991 when we destroyed or oversaw the destruction of over 100,000 special munitions. Those 550 that we found in unusable ancient condition a decade later after we invaded again count as wmd's Bush spoke about?

"In a February 1999 report after leaving Iraq in December 1998, the IAEA declared that no evidence suggested Iraq had succeeded in producing nuclear weapons.
The same report concluded that IAEA activities 'have revealed no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material, or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material.'

On top of that, at the time they used it, Bush new the yellowcake story was unfounded. Great way to go to war.

Just for fun... from your links

1991: Outstanding issues from UNSCOM "Iraq claimed it lost 550 shells filled with mustard gas, but no evidence was found of these weapons"

So they told us about these circa 1991 when we destroyed or oversaw the destruction of over 100,000 special munitions. Those 550 that we found in unusable ancient condition a decade later after we invaded again count as wmd's Bush spoke about?

"In a February 1999 report after leaving Iraq in December 1998, the IAEA declared that no evidence suggested Iraq had succeeded in producing nuclear weapons.
The same report concluded that IAEA activities 'have revealed no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material, or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material.'

On top of that, at the time they used it, Bush new the yellowcake story was unfounded. Great way to go to war.

Now we are getting solmewhere but please bear with me.
You say Bush knew and yet provide no proof to back it up and get angry that I won't take your words as proof. Show me; the burden of proof is on you to back up your statements is all I'm saying. It is not up to me to search for your information in order to debate your supposed facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now we are getting solmewhere but please bear with me.
You say Bush knew and yet provide no proof to back it up and get angry that I won't take your words as proof. Show me; the burden of proof is on you to back up your statements is all I'm saying. It is not up to me to search for your information in order to debate your supposed facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I think the burden of proof was on our government. I am not angry that you don't take my words as proof. If you read up on PNAC, you should be able to see the connections yourself. I am not here to prove anything to you, sorry.

I would think if it could be proven that Bush lied then he would have faced impeachment, thus I consider both the no WMD's and Bush lied as nothing more than propaganda from the left.

Over the years I feel the left has been more concerned with their power smearing the republicans than they are concerned for the overall welfare of the country. One of the reasons I would like to see elimination of party affiliation so that we elect people to get together and focus on the country and minimize pandering.

It is my opinion more people vote for the letter following the name and they don't care or know what the name preceding the letter has to offer.

For those who may not know the Democrats are left and the Republicans are right.

I hold ourselves to a higher standard than I hold our enemies.

Even those Marines ARE acting on a higher standard than our enemies, and here's why. If our enemies laid down their weapons, so would those Marines. If those Marines laid down their weapons, our enemies would kidnap and decapitate the Marines.

I commanded young Marines, and I was in no-sh*t combat once. I'm not saying I personally condone what they did, but I sure wouldn't bring charges against them either.

When you're in war, particularly against an enemy is barbaric as these Islamic extremists are, you simply cannot win without doing some things that you would never otherwise consider doing. And unfortunately, the reality is we need people who are willing to be super-aggressive when the situation calls for it.

I lost 2 kids under my command, and I've stood over the bodies of those who helped kill those kids. I can't say it occurred to me to urinate on them, but I sure know where that rage comes from.

But to me earlier point...there is zero moral equivalence between the acts of our enemies, and the act of urinating on the body of someone who was just trying to kill you.

I don't condone urinating on the bodies. But don't tell me that urinating on the body of a murderer makes you no better than the murderer. That's stupid.

Even those Marines ARE acting on a higher standard than our enemies, and here's why. If our enemies laid down their weapons, so would those Marines. If those Marines laid down their weapons, our enemies would kidnap and decapitate the Marines.

I commanded young Marines, and I was in no-sh*t combat once. I'm not saying I personally condone what they did, but I sure wouldn't bring charges against them either.

When you're in war, particularly against an enemy is barbaric as these Islamic extremists are, you simply cannot win without doing some things that you would never otherwise consider doing. And unfortunately, the reality is we need people who are willing to be super-aggressive when the situation calls for it.

I lost 2 kids under my command, and I've stood over the bodies of those who helped kill those kids. I can't say it occurred to me to urinate on them, but I sure know where that rage comes from.

But to me earlier point...there is zero moral equivalence between the acts of our enemies, and the act of urinating on the body of someone who was just trying to kill you.

I don't condone urinating on the bodies. But don't tell me that urinating on the body of a murderer makes you no better than the murderer. That's stupid.
Good post...

...although I'm not sure there are many, outside of the Taliban, who would argue moral parity in this specific instance. Seems to more be a case of "outrage about the outrage" as Lewis Black likes to say.

Perhaps the strongest condemnation I've heard interestingly enough has actually come from members of Congress that are veterans.

Generally though I think most people are pretty rational on subjects like this...

Except for this guy, I'd give him the douche of the century award.

Ethan Casey: Marines Urinating on Dead Taliban: How Low Will We Go? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-casey/marines-urinating-on-dead_b_1204010.html)

-spence

I would think if it could be proven that Bush lied then he would have faced impeachment, thus I consider both the no WMD's and Bush lied as nothing more than propaganda from the left.


Impeachment is a difficult process, especially with the balance of congress. Are you aware of how many presidents have been impeached? So because he wasn't impeached, you disregard every piece of information that indicates he misrepresented the reality of the situation as propaganda? You haven't looked at the whole picture, or you are more biased than you are willing to admit. Again, have you read the information on PNAC?

Isn't everyone biased? I suppose I am because I don't feel the need to invest my time searching for information to support your perspective, especially when I was considerate enough to save you the time searching for where I got my information, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the left wants you to do the work for them.
I can only think of Nixon (R) off hand without looking into it, and I haven't looked up impeachment procedures either it just seemed to me if what you say was true it would be an impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't everyone biased? I suppose I am because I don't feel the need to invest my time searching for information to support your perspective, especially when I was considerate enough to save you the time searching for where I got my information, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the left wants you to do the work for them.
I can only think of Nixon (R) off hand without looking into it, and I haven't looked up impeachment procedures either it just seemed to me if what you say was true it would be an impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.

It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.

It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?

It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?

Don't underestimate yourself. Most Americans don't have even a small portion of interest in our political system that you're showing here. That you have the courage to express yourself, knowing there are other supposedly "wiser" people ready to rebut your opinions is the essence of the first ammendment, and if we don't use that freedom of speech to actually speak, we fall prey to the demagogues who think they know it all.

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved. And here we are, still arguing about whether Bush lied or not. Some might say that eventually Sadaam would have been removed as have other dictators in the area, but others might say that Iraqi freedom may well have been a motivating force or, at least, a catalyst behind the "Arab Spring." Who knows? It certainly is farther advanced down the road to democracy, and maybe with a better chance to be free of Islamist Fundamentalist rule. Who knows?

Don't be intimidated. Keep on expressing your opinion.

Thanks detbuch, I just look at myself in the mirror and know if a book was written about me it wouldn't cost more than 44 cents to send in the mail.

Ya Ecduzitgood, no one is ever going to change anybody's mind here and
it does seem like we just go round and round. But it's fun, I learn stuff from
both sides, and it can be a great frustration reliever. :D
There are a lot of guys who let their fingers do the walking through Google,
that's ok, but what's betta is some of the good common sense
you leave here.

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.
In the hundreds of pages of debates on this site over the years I've never asserted that Bush lied.

I do think he surrounded himself with people who were heavily biased towards war with Saddam. I also think he surrendered too much diligence to others without showing much curiosity to their processes.

The result was pretty disturbing. While the threat of WMD were used to justify the invasion to the general public, the real motivation was liberalization of the Middle East. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy...There's enough good investigation and first hand accounts to have a very clear picture of what really happened.

Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved.
Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.


Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

Without force there would not have been regime change. Not in Iraq. Not in any other Arab country. A few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups is a nice token to make it look like your serious about the regime change that you say is necessary, but it was only an uneffective token. The threat of Islamic terrorism had risen to demonstrably real events, and there was no real "plan" to strike at its roots. No, or "moderate," action was just encouragement for more terrorism. Massive retaliation or counter attack would, supposedly, just incite more terrorism. The roots of terrorism were planted in a religious view that the West with its democratic secular views was the Devil. Removing that root and planting a new one of, as you put it, liberization of the East needed to begin. If invading Iraq was the wrong way, history may or may not tell. The writers of history also have differing roots. As far as the cost in blood and treasure goes, there is no telling what the cost might be now and in the future if this liberalization did not begin or if we are not "lucky" enough to have it succeed.

Arguments, as ecduzitgood says, go back and forth. You are absolutely sure your argument is right. I am not sure one way or the other. So I'll defer to your view simply to defer also to ecdu's q "I believe this horse is dead now, yes?"

I think it had to be done. I don't agree with the method. Shock and Awe was just the blowing up of unoccupied government buildings. Going door-to-door clearing neighborhoods was very costly.
I think it comes down to what we can do, and what we shouldn't do. We could have bombed to a much greater extent. We elected not to, and instead engaged the enemy in such a way as to reduce civilian casualties, and then engaged in a protracted occupation which left a teetering democracy in its wake.
We could have gotten away with inflicting significantly more collateral civilian casualties and preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many.
Iraq is little more than lines on a map drawn by colonial powers of the last century. The Iraqi people do not posses a national identity like the USA does. People are more aligned along tribal and religious lines. We should have let the Kurds have self-determination and their own country. If the Shia and the Sunnis can't live in peace together, then they should not live together. We should not have been so insistent on imposing a national unity that never existed of its own volition, but only under the iron rule of a dictatorship.
There had to have been a better way. Let's hope we can find it before the next occupation becomes necessary.

Torture leaving no permanent damage as in fear of dogs snarling at them, placement of panties on their heads, loud music, sleep deprivation, making them stand for long periods of time, and water boarding. All acceptable to me to me if it keeps civilians in this country safe and they don't find themselves trapped in a building getting burned from fires caused by jet fuel or having to jump to their deaths, or get crushed when the building collapses.

Wouldn't you think the victims of 9/11 would prefer water boarding compared to what they went through? Keep in mind we are talking about civilians and first responders here, they did not deserve what happen to them, thats what I consider torture not what you make reference to were we are talking about enemy combatants not civilians. To me it makes a difference when people who are not involved in the war suffer and those that are involved are supposed to be treated well, yeah that will teach them...time out.

It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
No civilian deserves to die over the action of their state. But if you've got a four block area chock-a-block full of insurgents, is there a more casualty conducive method than going methodically, door-to-door? While leaving ample time and opportunity for escape?
Secure the perimeter and burn the hotspots to to the ground. Which in turn would make the next neighborhood less willing to harbor insurgents and more likely to inform if they were present - lest they burn next. Having U.S. servicemen going door to door and getting their as_ses shot off makes little sense. Ask the families who lost soldiers - there were twice as many of them than there was on 9/11.
When civilians equate the tolerance of insurgents with certain death from us, rather than possible death from them,then the the insurgency loses traction.

It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
No civilian deserves to die over the action of their state. But if you've got a four block area chock-a-block full of insurgents, is there a more casualty conducive method than going methodically, door-to-door? While leaving ample time and opportunity for escape?
Secure the perimeter and burn the hotspots to to the ground. Which in turn would make the next neighborhood less willing to harbor insurgents and more likely to inform if they were present - lest they burn next. Having U.S. servicemen going door to door and getting their as_ses shot off makes little sense. Ask the families who lost soldiers - there were twice as many of them than there was on 9/11.
When civilians equate the tolerance of insurgents with certain death from us, rather than possible death from them,then the the insurgency loses traction.

I will have to think that over only because I really would rather not burn or kill civilians. This does have some merit if it's done correctly, but it is beyond me figuring out how it should be done. I don't like the door to door method and agree that's not the way to do it, fear is necessary terror isn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not in favor of killing anyone unnecessarily. But what's the point of the defense budget if we put so little value on American lives that we result to something as primitive as using our soldiers as bait? Is an Iraqi life worth more than an American soldier? I don't think so.
Instructions can be given. Fifteen minutes to clear out before it becomes a free-fire zone. Cash payments for any info that leads to results. Detain anyone suspicious if they try and get through.

It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.

Just to clarify, this ties with reason I did not think Hamburg translated well to Iraq. In hamburg, pretty much all the deaths were civilians. Something like 60 or 70% were women and children, many of whom burned alive as they sank in molten blacktop as they tried to escape. It would have been much harder to defend such a campaign based on the circumstances of the invasion of Iraq. In wwii the Germans were murdering millions and actively pursuing world domination, aided by Japan. The situation was so dire that most people support the use of nuclear weapons to end the war. Iraq was a different situation, and whether or not Bush and Cheney intentionally misled, it was not anywhere near the dire situation of wwii. That said, Joe may very well be correct that a similar type of attack could have shortened the war.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

You forgot the 100,000 civilian deaths.

I think it had to be done. I don't agree with the method. Shock and Awe was just the blowing up of unoccupied government buildings. Going door-to-door clearing neighborhoods was very costly.
I think it comes down to what we can do, and what we shouldn't do. We could have bombed to a much greater extent. We elected not to, and instead engaged the enemy in such a way as to reduce civilian casualties, and then engaged in a protracted occupation which left a teetering democracy in its wake.
We could have gotten away with inflicting significantly more collateral civilian casualties and preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many.
Iraq is little more than lines on a map drawn by colonial powers of the last century. The Iraqi people do not posses a national identity like the USA does. People are more aligned along tribal and religious lines. We should have let the Kurds have self-determination and their own country. If the Shia and the Sunnis can't live in peace together, then they should not live together. We should not have been so insistent on imposing a national unity that never existed of its own volition, but only under the iron rule of a dictatorship.
There had to have been a better way. Let's hope we can find it before the next occupation becomes necessary.

"preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many."

First of all, I was in Iraq, and I assume you were not.

Second, in what way did we "rely on torture"? Do you mean the whopping 3 terrorists who were waterboarded? Are are you referring to Abu Ghraib? If you are referring to Abu Ghraib, we were not "relying" on what went on there, those were the actions of a miniscule minority of our troops. Unfortunately, liberals with an anti-Bush agenda made it seem like that was commonplace, and some simple-minded anti-Bush fanatics boughth into it.

Third, you say torture of a few is less honorable than collateral death of many? Oh, that's precious. So if Bush carpet-bombed the whole country, the liberals would have celebrated that, by saying "well, massive carpet bombing is better than forcing prisoners to have dogs bark at them".

Some people who have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, will blindly accept any liberal criticism of George Bush. Those people are deranged with hatred for Bush, and have no grasp of reality or common sense.

"preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many."


Some people who have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, will blindly accept any liberal criticism of George Bush. Those people are deranged with hatred for Bush, and have no grasp of reality or common sense.
Jim, my take is that Joe was not coming at this from a liberal criticism of George Bush. I think his take was actually much more typical with a conservative view of war. I could be wrong, but you might want to look back at his original point.

No civilian deserves to die over the action of their state. But if you've got a four block area chock-a-block full of insurgents, is there a more casualty conducive method than going methodically, door-to-door? While leaving ample time and opportunity for escape?

That would imply that ANY of them are afraid of death.

They don't live in your first world problems fast food instant gratification world that worries if Dunkin Donuts gets your coffee right.

All stupidity like that would do is solidify their hatred of our troops.

They don't live in your first world problems fast food instant gratification world that worries if Dunkin Donuts gets your coffee right.



Man that's for sure, and some find it hard to understand.
Their idea of society is at the other end of the spectrum compared to ours.

I heard last week senator Whitehouse remarks about the marines pissing on these dirtbags in afghanistan he can kiss my white semper fi ass cause he has no clue what kind of band of brothers we are. If he ever spent a second on the battlefield which he didn't he would crawl up in a little ball and someone would be pissing on him!

what would whitehouse have said about the marines during WWII and some of there encounters with the japenese. Nothing ya know why cause social media wasnt around. so to all my young marines watch your six cause the enemy your fighting is not just the taliban its your own country sad but true semper fi

I didn't see this either. Agree the Band of Brothers remark was really stupid.

I heard last week senator Whitehouse remarks about the marines pissing on these dirtbags in afghanistan he can kiss my white semper fi ass cause he has no clue what kind of band of brothers we are. If he ever spent a second on the battlefield which he didn't he would crawl up in a little ball and someone would be pissing on him!

what would whitehouse have said about the marines during WWII and some of there encounters with the japenese. Nothing ya know why cause social media wasnt around. so to all my young marines watch your six cause the enemy your fighting is not just the taliban its your own country sad but true semper fi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device