tw-acs

Leader

I was quite clear. Maybe you misinterpret the format of my post. Each line break means that I am adressing a different paragraph or making a new pargraph with information I believe to be relavent. Showing me more information does not make anything I say less relevant.

Ironman

I give him respect where respect is due. In my mind miltary service does not give someone the right to boast and claim right without backing it up. That is if they can say they no so much more in the first post why don't they actually put that knowledge there.

Though me saying that now after he has posted more does not have quite the effect but still.

Ray

I do not see this imperative reason to invade Iraq in the manner that it was done. The intelligence used by the Bush Administration for justifying the Way in Iraq has now been determined by U.S. officials to be false and forgeries.

Now I do not understand why they could not figure this out before hand.

And why the intelligence tip-offs on 9/11 were disregarded.

I watched portions of Meet the Press when they were interviewing the president. If you saw these can you honestly tell me that this is a war of necessity. Bush had to ask "Can you repeat the question?" as he stumbled he finally said necessity.

I am just curious, maybe someone on this forum can explain to me why president George Bush has no records of being in the National Guard ( social security, pay stub, we should have records for paying him if he was in the National Guard and did report)
And why he was allowed and he said on Meet the Press I worked a deal out with the military so he could get out of duty 8 months early to go to Harvard. Though he did not go there right away.

Oh and Ray my screen name is " tw-acs "

The US has gotten many things wrong in its day. Including intelligence. Your arrogance to tell me what I think amazes me.

Making the best of the situation is somether we must do. That does not justify the situation.
I will continue to pursue knowledge to find out why Americans die at the hands of terrorists every day since the War in Iraq began yet it is claimed American and Americans are safe from terrorism.

Thats BS They Die Every Day

Veterans can you not see that a war should be just.
Or is it ok risk your life for someone elses personal gains.

smilingassassin

No I know I don't know all that much about the Canadian Military. For one there just isn't a whole lot there. The actual number of submarines was not my point.

The actions of Saddam Hussien do not justify the United States of America to sink even lower than he. And justify a war on false intelligence. It would be so much simple if Bush said Saddam is a bad guy lets get him. Unfortunely congress won't go for that. So fabricate a story and get the USA in too far.

The manner in which Saddam Hussien was removed from power raises a lot uncertainity in the world and in the USA.

There are people concerned about America and its future and more importantly the World's future.

I hope that is something everperson in the world is concerned about, the future of our planet. Though I don't think a lot of people care? Nor realize the kinds of things that we do now will affect us then.
Most people are stuck with the idea self gratification.

We see this with 9/11 and the War in Iraq. America was piseed. I was ready to enlist. Until I saw that I wouldnt even be lookin for OBL I would be a pawn in president Bush's War in Iraq.

What connection between OBL and SH were concered about in regard to the War in Iraq. It is my understanding one is a religious fanatic and the other a fanatic that really dont get along very well.

And they were enemies so the logic that OBL and SH are on the same side is just the same as sayin OBL is with the USA agains SH or SH with USA against OBL or kuwait or the USA on sides with Kuwait and Iraq or something like that.

Granted SH should not be in power and isn't now.

I have no problem with this. However the means in which were used to attain the goal that was sought were not right. And the goal is most likely ulterior in its nature.

Thats politics. You don't take a war, for example and think its about the people. That the USA went to Iraq for thw Iraqi's. Thats ignorance. If that was true we would have been there say 17 yrs ago?

My point is stop acting so damned naive yourselves!! You all know politics!

Ironman

Why did halliburton get those contracts?
Remember what you said?

Thats the same thing here.

Given Contracts to Friends.

The purpose of this war was not out of necessity. There was no imminent danger. Though the actions taken may increase the likelyhood of such danger existing.

This war was about personal gain!

Oh and I wonder why has only one person addressed my question "Why is hemp illegal to be grown for industrious purposes? Would shifting the primary source of fuel from petroleum to vegetable oil decrease tensions around the world. Specifically regions with large concentrations of petroleum i.e. Middle East.

That one person said it was interesting.

There is a very simple reason for hemp being illegal.
Do you know it?

Trooth

I would not want one coalition soldier to think twice about protecting themselves, nor their comrades in a choice between themselves and OBL. That is not my point. My point is not that he should be captured alive. My point is that should he be captured alive he should be tried, in public, with all the rights that he can be accorded. No show trials, no military tribunals. A proper trial. Let the world hear the man speak. Let the world hear his views. He will be convicted, not just by evidence, but by his own "teachings". Much as Saddam's image in the Arab world is lessened by the fact that he is alive, OBL's and Saddam's would be reduced to nothing by having to answer of their crimes.

If OBL wants to start waving the dangerous end of an AK at a collection of well armed squaddies i would want them to gun him down as quickly as possible to protect themselves. If Saddam had been blown all over his spiderhole by a standard issue grenade i would not have lost a moments sleep for the man. If a US soldier had died trying to capture him alive i would have.

I was, perhaps misguidedly, under the impression that the military were tools of the polticians. Therefore if OBL were to be captured military thinking is somewhat irrelevant to what the politicians want.

Only time will tell. We know he had them once. We thought he had them since. We may or may not have been right. We do not know either way yet.

Officer of Engineers

We have a major disconnect here. There are rules governing how a military can behave, even during combat. There are also rules dictating how a military can and cannot be used, even by the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

If OBL is captured, he is handed to the rear echelon who then must go through procedure for processing him. If OBL is determined to be a EPW, then he is headed off to a PoW camp. If he is not, then he is handed over to law enforcement agencies to which is no longer our problem.

If he is an EPW, then OBL is subject to War Crimes as well as Crimes Against Humanity to which a death sentence can be applied. Under the Articles of the Geneva Conventions, only the Detaining Power military or an authorized civilian judical authoriy, the EPW and his legal representatives who may be a fellow EPW or an appointed defence councel, and a representative from a Protecting Power (example Red Cross/Red Crecent) may attend the proceedings.

No one, not even the President of the United States nor the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can change those rules.

__________________
Chimo

Ray

This post is basically prompted by Trooth's post.

May I request all who wish to reply to this post to show some patience and leave their jingoist baggage in the closet for at least this time?

I request all potential candidates who will haul me over the coals i.e. flamers to read the article 'Victory Disease' that has been published in the Military Review written by an US military officer. It is an excellent article not only for Americans to read, but surprisingly for even Indians and others who feel that they are better than others.

We cannot get away from the fact that (as Trooth pointed out) that we have been conned that Saddam had WsMD and was a threat to civilisation. He has None. He may have been an ass to talk BIG, but then, if talking BIG is a fault, then it is another question.

Compare the danger to the world. Saddam had NO Weapons of MD. He was attacked. To believe that the CIA is a bunch of cretins and chumps is doing disservice to the great worked they have done so far. Yet no attack has been organised to knock off Pakistan where their nuclear bomb hero QA Khan SOLD nuclear secrets and EQUIPMENT to Libya, North Korea and Iran! The saving grace is that Musharraf has capped the disease at serious personal risk, both politically and with his life. The Muslim fundamentalists will not take it lying down. Yet, the US, which is the bastion of world safety, is pussyfooting. And so is India pussyfooting. The US was well aware many years back that he was selling the secrets. Then, why this moral indignation of the US at North Korea having nuclear arsenal? Why didn't they stop it? Political expediency. But at what risks? US soldiers in South Korea are now up a gum tree.

My question to all is that: OK, there were missiles a wee beyond the authorised range in Iraq, but where are the WMD?

I have no qualms about going to war against anyone who violates the rules. I bought the theory that Saddam had WMD. But, what I hate is that I have been conned by fat cats.

Blix was not sure that there are WsMD.. Al Baradi was categorical; Kay says its ******** and so does that British expert whose name skips my mind [not the guy who killed himself]. So, who do I believe?

And here is my neighbour's hero of the Islamic bomb using the blackmarket to get richer and selling stuff to Al Qaeda! Lest you think he is wrong, well the way the world has gone against the Islamic chaps, they too have to look after their own. However, he made a personal fortune in the bargain. That is not Islamic.

So, friends, what is the answer? Tarry a while before condemning. We, too, are at fault. Doctor, heal thyself as the saying goes.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

Go ahead haul me over the coals.

It is midnight and more in the US and so I am safe till day break.:yum :ar15 :D :dbanana :smoke

Ray

Colonel,

If OBL is captured, then it will be like what I have read in DELL comics - They will THROW away the KEYs.

Bet you bottom Candadian money, I will pickup that key and throw it into the Pacific Ocean which is the deepest in the world.

The best part is that then the US will not be blamed for not releasing him!!!!!! (Remember someone said that US will be blamed this way or that way, no matter what it does. Well, I will sacrife myself for the US!)

Ray

Tw-acs,

Got your name right?

It is not my 'arrogance' that I addressed you with. It is just to assist you to into the path to logical discussion. Logicality denied and venom spewing doss not lead to education.

Indeed, we must get to the rationality for the Iraq War. Indeed, we have been conned. But will shouting irrationality help reaching the goal? Don't be self motivated and bear the Cross. There are many in the US and UK who too are equally peeved. And there are many in the US, UK and elsewhere who are not peeved. Listen to their viewpoints too. You and I cannot change the leaders of this world. At least, we can learn how they tick.

My famed by-line is - Take it Easy and Look Busy!

Are you are Russian? If so, 'Kak vashe dzaroviye?' Which I think means "how are you?' If that's not OK, then take this - Kak te poshivaesh? Dasvidaniya, Tavatrische. Spoconochi.

Kuri li vuyi cigroo? Light up a cigar.

Yah pa ni mayu pa Russki niyem nagaw.

Calm down.

Trooth

Perhaps we do have a major disconnect, because i do not remember ever saying that OBL should not face the death penalty, or even saying that the military have acted improperly.

I freely admit that i am not an expert on law, either military or otherwise. I defer to those who are. However we all have to realise that OBL and SH will become pawns in the war on terror. The military is there to achieve political objectives. The brave men and women of the armed forces do not start wars, politicians do. The high level objectives are set by politicians.

My opinion is that the political objectives for OBL and SH exist beyond simply elimination.

Much as "unlawful combatants" can exist as is poltically necessary, other clases of prisoner can, and i suspect, will be created.

Officer of Engineers

The General is refering to this Military Review Article

The Victory Disease by Major Timothy M. Karcher, U.S. Army

Sir,

The only thing that we were wrong about was the stockpiles Saddam was supposed to have. We were not wrong about his Research and Development programs nor of his intent. 12 years of air war had already proven that Saddam had no intentions of abiding by the terms of surrender.

The CIA is a bunch of Yahooes. My personal belief based upon the treachery they performed. I'll leave it at that.

Sir, neither North Korea nor Pakistan signed terms of surrender that was enforcable by lethal force. Saddam did sign those terms.

As for the proliferation problem, no one is innocent. Canada unwittingly helped India with her 1st nuke. China told Pakistan that her original nukes would not work. France built Iraq's reactors. The US turned a blind eye to Israeli nuclear esponiage.

That is the big question in discussion. We knew that they existed. We can't find them. We know that they have been very improperly disposed of. It has now become an ecological imperative to find them or more preisely, the site to which these WMDs were disposed and clean it up in some way or at least isolate it. These weapons existed, Sir. That is for certain. The chemicals and biologicals that were in them has now become a health hazzard.

As with people of our profession, Sir. We believe in ourselves and we correct ourselves when we make a mistake and we owe up to those mistakes, even if those mistakes had cost lives.

He was caught, Sir and I'm hoping for a firing squad.

The first thing, though, Sir is to admit that we are sick, or in this case, that we were wrong. However, Sir, I've re-examine my deductions based upon the available evidence and Saddam's intent. I cannot see how I could arrive at any other conclusion.

1) We knew that he had those WMDs.
2) He could not or would not prove he destroyed them.
3) He issued orders for those WMDs to be used.
4) He started wars and initated actions to which he had no hope of success but was willing just to inflict casualties for the sake of casualties

a) The Iran-Iraq War
b) The Kuwait War
c) Assassination attempt on George Bush Sr
d) 12 years of the Iraq Air War

The urgency was created by 11 Sept. 11 Sept had shown Saddam that the traditional terrorist campaign of extremely small and isolated action has now given way to company level executions. There were over several hundred people involve in 11 Sept, not just a small cell, and they operated without the national infrastructure of a national military and intelligence organizations.

Saddam had those and his brain must have been clicking into overtime. He praised 11 Sept and must have been thinking on how could he capitalize on this new tactic.

As a soldier, my thinking was it was time to finish the job once and for all before he gets the chance to use his aim.

Sir, my compliments and respects. I've earned my arrogance as I am well sure, so have you. However, you sure have a way of gently putting people in their place.

tw-acs

As much as I will listen to others views, you should listen to mine.

I agree we must figure out why the US and UK officials acted the way they did. And what reasons they made the choices they did. That is exaclty what I am trying to do. I am focusing on US officials.1

I think that taking the approach that is most readily allowed for by what information is presented to us from the media ( owned by corporations) is not the best approach. I think that the administration is in office for purely personal gain. I do not think they have America nor Americans at heart when they make choices like they have.

I think that me mentioning Cannabis Sativa and hemp in an arguement against the actions taken by the president will get my posts discredited by persons that are too ignorant to read them. I am not saying anyone is just that a controversial issue like that will do that.

Though logically HEMP could help mankind and the earth immensly. Oh and it might hurt established industries( Corporations). Which is why it is illegal today. A process for making paper with wood pulp was successful. The persons that owned this paper making process saw that hemp could make better paper more efficeintely thus very harmful for wood pulp paper.

This man also owned a Newspaper and started calling cannabis sativa/hemp by its spanish name, Marijuana. And playing with mexican racism to get farmers confused. See the farmers did not realize Marijuana was hemp. Thus allowed for the Marijuana tax act of 1937 to be passed.

You are probably dont have a clue why I even bring up hemp in this forum. If you have no clue that is exactly why i do it.

Hemp should be industrialized for many reasons. I.E reducing US dependency on foriegn petroleum. Thus lowering tension in areas with high volumes of petroleum. I.E Middle East

In a democracy or some form of it, the type of government we have in th USA, citizens have all the power.

If it is not difficult to find persons that agree its is even more difficult organizing them to get proper response from officials.

I hope, this is my personal opinion that Bush is not re-elected and that we can have persons in the White house that are not going to throw one over on us. That will have the American at mind every second of every term served and even after.

I am not saying for fact that they did. Just about 99.9% sure that George Bush and Friends and the USA's most dangerous fiends. (Corporations, ironically, they provide the USA with a lot of wealth by exploiting Americans labor. Soon we will not even get the oppurtunity to be exploited ( having a job) because they will be in foriegn countries.

Not that they intend to attack America but exploit it as much as possible. Even to the extent of telling the American worker your fired cause you want too much money. Then they send that labor to a forigen country with very lax standards for working conditions and wage rate.

Exporting jobs is not good for America. Especially during war time. Not the war in Iraq though equally notable. The war on terrorism.

What happens to the USA IF Bush allows for the exporting of jobs. Where will we work? We would lose are manufacturing base and thus in war time we would rely on foriegn nations for manufacturing. I am not the most brilliant strategist but I do know this is not a good strategy.

The only postive I can see from exporting jobs is that corporations will make labor cost less. And allow for more profits. Those profits generally go into the already deeply lined pockets of the Corporate Executives.

And if you look at the policy changes the Bush Administration has made for example healthcare. You see that Corporations are benefitting from every action Bush has made in office.

Bourgeoisies

All the actions of the Bush Administration seem to benefit corporations more than any other entity.

Presumably the Bush Administration has one goal. To make as much money as possible like the capitalist should.

It is clearly explained in the New American Century. American Imperialism.

To summarize all this, Bush is a figurehead, in office for the benefit of Corporations and the further exploitation of Labor.

Centralization of wealth.

To think that wealth is centralized now, is almost amusing when you think about what may be in store for the world if the USA does not get a president with American Ideals in mind.

smilingassassin

Its very simple why the UK and the U.S. attacked Iraq. The mere threat that saddam could produce WMD's and sell them to willing terrorists is enough to go in. Saddam has used them, saddam for whatever reason bluffed that he had them, and at the same time tried to tell the U.N. that he didn't have them and impeeded their progress in proving he didn't have them. The fact that he openly supported anti-Israel terrorist organizations who we all know actively support other terrorist organizations is a resonable enough threat to act on. Chemical and biolodgical weapons are very quick and easy to produce with the know how...and we all know saddams been down that road so all he needed was the "production" components of the program, which there is enough evidence to support that he very likely had in addition to a basic delivery system in place and in small enough numbers to hide from all eyes short of an invasion.

The WMD arguement has been worked up to a froth by those who refuse to accept the inevitable and take action. If terrorists can commondeer 4 airliners and crash them into buildings while they are full of screaming civilians they certainly will have no qualms about aquiring WMD's and using them.

The U.S. govt. did not lie, they acted on information that a multitude of other nations had gathered. The U.S. administration along with the UK administration were the only ones with the "balls" to acctually do something about it. The fact that we have yet to find the "smoking gun" is irelavant, and those who choose to focus on that arguement are not looking at the big picture.

Trooth

When i argue about WMD, i am arguing that my government, intentionally or otherwise, misled me. I would like to know why and if i don't like the reason i will use my small power (my vote) to try to elect a new gonverment.

I acknowledge that Saddam was quite capable of using WMD. I acknowledge that the US and UK had been engaged in a 12 year military campaign against Iraq (the no fly zones). I acknowledge that terrorists work together (the mission defines the coalition is an argument that applies to both sides, after all). I acknowledge that, in perhaps a decade, Iraq may be a stable and propserous democracy.

However, there will be another Iraq, and another Saddam. There will therefore be reasons given to attack these. Brave men and women of the UK will be killed, and wounded, both physically and mentally by such action. Foreign nationals (military or civilians) will be killed. This are big issues that need proper justifcation. When my leaders emphasise their justifcation to me, and it is wrong, i want to know why it is wrong. In a democracy the leaders are accountable to the population at election time, otherwise we have only swapped a dictatorship in Iraq with one in the UK.

tw-acs

The threat that someone could do something some time?


That is the most ridiculous thing i have heard.

In that logic everyone should be fighting eachother.
I believe that is the type of thinking the world was trying to get away from, to avoid unnecessary wars.

That logic fueled the arms race. That was a not good thing. Study history, learn from our mistakes.

What do you mean by

Who is we? And what do we know? Does that include me?

Under what justification is that a reason to attack? Please Explain in detail.

The logic behind Saddam Hussein and WMD

If neigboring countries ( i.e. Israel) has nukes it would be to Saddam's advantage to have nukes. He does not possess nukes and has not ever. His own scientists have explained that they lied to him to allow him to think he could have nukes. Since Saddam never had nuclear weapons but a neighboring country does it would be at Saddam's advantage to bluff he has nukes to gain that respect.

If Saddam was a threat because he may possess WMD, why have we not attacked countries that we know have WMD?

What do you mean by
Intelligence is not supposed to be probable. It should be definite and not the only tool used in determining whether to go to war.

War should be the last choice. Thus pre-emptive is unnecessary and againts American ideals.

What is the inevitable?

Oh what about the whole not scrambling fighter jets to escort the hijacked not commondeered airliners to the ground until authorization from the president. When authorization from the president is for confirmation to kill, not for scrambling the fighters jets. Scrambling fighter jets in this sitaution is what policy calls for.

Terrorists most likely would use whatever weapons at there disposal.

Saddam Hussien was not a terrorist, he was a brutal dictator as some have said on this forum.

The fact that they have not found any WMD is most likely because as David Kay said they dont exist. That was the justification of the whole war, it is quite relavent.

Since I focus on the justification of the war and the actual affects of the war and who benefits from the war i must not be seeing the whole picture.

Could you paint the whole picture with your words? So I can see it.

Ray

Now it has been proved that QA Khan the father of the Islamic Bomb of Pakistan has sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

The US was aware of it. Did it mean that US had to attack Pakistan? If it did not, why? It is callled political expediency. Compare the Iraqi situation with Pakistan selling nuclear secrets to all sworn enemies of the US and all top nations in Bush's 'axis of evil'.

Therefore, the justification to go gung ho on just one regime is not infallible.

Confed999

I call it two-faced. I hate it with a passion.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry