I don't think Bush is going out of his way to get civillians killed - kinda rediculous. Sure, he has ranged from stupid to less than brilliant on many things but trying to kill civilians is as foolish as him being behind 9/11.

The rules of engagement by the US military are probably more inline with minimizing civilian casualties than any military in the past 100 years.

Shock and Awe was just that. Precision munitions and missiles that destroy what they are aiming at 85% of the time.

From a military standpoint to be able to take out a single target now means that one aircraft can often destroy today, in 2006, what probably would have taken a squadron of B17s in WW2. Two smart weapons from one aircraft hitting the intended target instead of a fleet of aircraft indiscriminently unloading hundreds of bombs for the same target. Even in Vietnam there was often several attempts at a target with "dumb" bombs that were within a few years hit with the early versions of laser guided weapons.

Using the unguided weapons caused far more civilian deaths and the deaths of our military (takes a lot more planes to hit a target means a lot more planes can get shot down).

Add to the top of it that these people on the other side put THEIR civilians in harm's way. Mosques, schools, hospitals.

Skip....are you really this dumb?

Man do I know how to stir up some %$%$%$%$ or what!!

Good post, right on the money!

But Skitterpop thinks we are bunch of dummies for thinking this way! :rollem:

STOP

You guys are missing the point.

Nobody has said Bush targets civilians, and the fact that terrorists might do it is moot unless you care to stoop to their level.

The simply fact is that many tens of thousands of civilians are being killed for a variety of reasons and this is adding kerosene to the already blazing fire. Regardless if it's a US bomb, insurgent or terrorist attack...the Iraqi finger points back at the USA as we're supposed to be providing protection.

More Iraqis pushed into the insurgency for nationalistic reasons means even more pushed into sectarian violence and more into Jihad.

We're in a very bad place right now. I hope everyone has a lot of tuna stocked under the bed.

-spence

No I don`t Skip....but nice try at the cover....I make one very brief statement which you add names and much content to which I never mention....you make up all this crap I never said to fit your war on you being right about everything you comment on.....its funny :whackin:

I'm not sure Skitter will agree with you on that.

So you are now saying that Bush hasn't targeted civilians? Should Clinton have been charged with War Crimes for his bombing in the Balkins?

No, he's never said that. He may be saying that he believes our use of force has at times been illegal...

-spence

Wow, draft wins.

Good luck with that, I'll be somewhere warm and fishing if that happens. :wave:

Here it is..... nice gymnastics TRYING to make it something else :doh:

Then we can assume that the Bombing of the Balkins was a war crime for the same reasons and those responsible should stand trial?

The problem with this war is it is being fought in a time of political correctness that is going to destroy our youth and our country. Most of the left that are now intent on weakening our war effort voted for it. This country does not produce men anymore! This war is nothing compared to what our fathers and grandfathers fought. I work in the Lexington,Concord area of Ma. and let me tell you. If the Revolutionary War happened today we would cave in like the bunch of pansies we are rapidly becoming. I call for the real men to stand up to this bunch of weak, left leaning people who run their lifes based on emotion instead of reality. the way I see it,this country is in a whole lot of trouble.

Skip? Is that you? You can continue to assume as much as you want as that is your forte.

Cute. Now answer the question please.

How is this relevent to the conversation on Iraq? Unless you want to dive into the nuances of each action it doesn't add much value.

-spence

It's totally relevant to the point of Bush being charged with War Crimes for actions in Iraq which as you'll remember is the fourth choice in the poll question.
Or maybe we should start a new poll which could be:

Should Bush be held to higher standards than past Presidents?

Potential illegallity of the Balkins action under Clinton does in no way mean Bush is being held to a higher standard. Two wrongs wouldn't make a right...

I think there's good reason to take issue with both, but for very different reasons. To use one as a precident though doen't make much sense.

-spence

Your absolutely right.........and I never expected an answer from you or Skitter on the Balkins question. It just wouldn't fit.

Thanks then, this has been very productive :yawn:

Any babies yet?

-spence

More revealing than productive.

No babies yet she's twenty seven weeks and the Doctors said they wont let her go anymore than 30 weeks. She's been condemned to bed rest for the remainder. The good news is babies Alpha, Beta, and Cappa are doing excellent. Thanks for asking.

Yes, it has revealed an inability for you and Skippy to make substantial comments :hihi:

-spence

Excellent, should make your new year a bit more exciting.

Also, it should be Alpha, Beta and Gamma...oh and Kappa is spelled with a K ;)

-spence

Ther babies were designated A,B, and C. So my daughter assigned those temporary names. Gamma and Kappa just didn't work. She's a product of a Liberal University, what can I say.

Is there anything but? Oh yea, Bob Jones :hee:

-spence

Spence, entering the mosques and killing Sadr is my stated opinon, not that of anyone else, yet anyways. We've been told we cannot enter mosques for any reasons. Only Iwaqi soldiers and stupid dumb rabbits can. My only point here is that is an assinine policy. Most of the murderers in Iraq hide there.

It's simply not feasable most of the time. This isn't political correctness as much as pragmatic strategy. There are so many negatives they outweight the benefit. I'm speaking both locally (revolt) and Globally as it would be a PR boon for Jihadists.

We may have had an opportunity to nail Sadr a few years ago, but his position is so strong now that to directly go after him would be very difficult. It would appear to be US hegemony rather than democratic process.

We do need to find a way to minimize his influence in the Iraqi government. This certainly looks to be a long tent pole.

-spence

I would if your question had anything to do with what I`ve posted.....assuming you have read my post?

Asking if you felt War Crimes were commited in the Balkins bombing isn't relative to your feeling that War Crimes were commited in the bombing of Iraq? Okay. Like I said I didn't expect you to answer.

Just for the record Skitter, this was your response to my post when i described what i believed real war crimes were, holocaust, bataan death march etc.

So you respond to that post with your above comments, basiclly implying that shock and awe should be considered with the real war crimes i mentioned.

So how am i twisting your statements again?? Its pretty clear what you were implying, that sock and awe should be considered a war crime.

How am i misquoting you again!?

Skipper-lou,

A war crime is any violation of the laws of war. It's not just the really big stuff...

-spence

Perhaps, but that's not the point here. Skitter clearly implied that shock and awe should be in the war crimes category. How was shock and awe a war crime? I'm waiting for his reply....

Implying that civilians were killed is not saying Bush should be charged with war crimes....my war crimes comment was in general about all wars,no matter what country is doing the killing.... all wars bring death and destruction..... and its not sock and awe :usd:

Then end this drivle and say "I dont think Bush is guilty of war crimes"..........and if that doesn't work for you say: "I dont think Bush is any more guilty than his predecessor is of commiting war crimes".

Ok, that's no trying to lead the witness :hs:

-spence

Are you wearing a leather mask? :btu:


Control freaks are generally people who realize that they have no control but carry on none the less.

We are who we are and i refuse to be DEVOURED by any little big bad wolf of intellect imagined.

He asked a simple question. Do you believe president Bush is a war criminal? Yes or No

And if yes please explain why. With facts to back up your answer of course.

We're just trying to figure out what the hell your position is!

doggie style

just keep dodging the question....