Feeling belligerent today!Follow

As your president, I will see to it that anyone posting double dashes will be publicly flogged wearing lederhosen.

Vote for real change in america, Vote Kaolian for E-President!

Nope. I didn't use it in an insulting way. I have a 'kid'. He is 13 months old. I was using it in a way that was mean't to make clear how 'I' felt about a harebrained scheme to rescue Bush's ego, by using thousands of mothers sons (for surely, that is what they are)to pacify the warring factions in Baghdad and Anbar. A scheme that was tried last year, and failed last year. Miserably.

You said in another thread that I don't have the balls to present my opinions in an argument. Well. Here are my opinions.

Bush is a dolt. A liar and an incompetant. He has no 'feelings' whatsoever for the troops. They are nothing more to him than numbers in a scheme he has to dominate the ME. A scheme that even he can now see has failed miserably. He cares nothing for their families, and he cares less than nothing for the Iraqis, or Iranians or whoever is next on his list of people who need to be forced into his way of thinking. All he can do is to try and pass the fiasco in the ME on to the next administration. And if a few thousand more 'kids' die in the process? Well tough ****** At least it wasn't a war that was lost on his 'watch'. Thats all that matters to him. His legacy.

Thats my 'opinion'.

Another of my opinions is that you should stop making excuses for him.

Surely even the most die-hard Bush supporter can see that he's flailing around looking for a lifeboat, and doesn't care how many people he has to throw overboard in order to save himself.

Hey Bhod. Ummm....your avatar keeps looking at me.

Its creeping me out, dude....

Would you have a word......?

Using them how? Aren't you implying that they're "victims" of Bush?

I'd also argue that every male is a "mother's son". What exactly is your point? Once again, you're spewing rhetoric but not actually making an argument. What's your alternative suggestion? Why do you believe it would work better? Heck. While we're at it, how about if you define exactly what you think we *should* be trying to do in Iraq (and the ME in general for that matter)?

As I stated in the same thread when you presented this argument (but you didn't include in the quote:



Those soldiers were also "mother's sons". They were also sent to war. They also died (in much greater numbers then those in Iraq). Explain to me why the loss of life of US soldiers in Germany was ok, but the loss of life of US soldiers in Iraq is not. Surely, you aren't taking the "best interest of the US alone" position are you? You personally would be speaking German if we followed the logic you're insisting we follow today.

Odd that a "silliness" of the US that saved your own nation's bacon is the same thing you're condemning now. Maybe we view things a bit differently then you do. Maybe you should be thankful that we do...





Great! I didn't ask for an opinion. I asked for an argument. You still don't have one.

What's staggering to me, is that it appears you don't even understand what I'm talking about. An argument is the part where you progress from facts to conclusions, showing why those facts support the conclusion you've reached. Your "opinions" are simply conclusions you've reached. In this case, you haven't bothered with facts *or* argument, but just jumped right to the end point.

I know that each generation seems more impatient then the last, but this is ridiculous. You need to show *why* you believe something to be true, not just declare it over and over and insist that everyone else change their mind to match yours. You haven't even begun to do that...

Godwins.

I will continue though.

The United States was ATTACKED by Japan which was an Ally of Germany. When the US declared war on the **** they automatically got entered into the European shin dig as well. Thus US troops fighting the krauts.

The war in Iraq was pre-emptive. Their was no attack on the United States. History has shown the justifications behind the war in Iraq to be non-existant, making it an unpopular war. History has also shown the failings of the Bush administration on a number of points during that war that have lead to the current crisis (dismissing the republican guard, disregarding the nsa/cia compendium on how to rebuild iraq, failing to secure and quickly rebuild infrastructure etc). That coupled with a plan that even top generals can't endorse and which has failed in the past leads to a certain sense of hesitancy that we didnt have back in the day.

Trying to simplify the issue in order to make a **** poor argument is a offense to the brave men and women who fought and died in WW2, Gbaji. You should be ashamed of yourself.

NEW YORK It's often written or said in the media that, despite public opposition to the Iraq war here at home, military personnel strongly back President Bush's handling of the conflict. But a poll for the Military Times newspapers, released Friday, shows that more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it.


Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.

Um... We did not have to declare war on Germany. I've debated this issue many many times. Germany was not required to declare war on us (they did anyway, but they were chomping at the bit to be more agressive against our transports supporting Egland). We did not have to put our priority on taking out Germany *first* though. Nor did we have to do any more then continue support (we didn't technically have to do that either). We could have ignored Germany and only taken action against them if they attacked us.



*cough*. Let me paraphrase.

Iraq ATTACKED kuwait. Kuwait is an ally of ours (and we're under a defense pact essentially by nature of it being a UN nation). We in fact had *more* treaty requirements to go to war with Iraq in 91, then we did to go to war with Germany in 41. Much much more. Iraq's invation of Kuwait drew us into conflict with them. There was no attack on the US by Germany that led us to that war either. Same deal.

We never stopped being at war with Iraq. This is a point most anti-war folks magically seem to forget. There was never a peace treaty signed. We were still at arms and at war with Iraq for the entire time period between 1991 and 2003. We were part of a cease fire agreement, the terms of which were required before a formal peace treaty could be signed. Iraq never met those terms. By every rule of war and nations, that gives us the right to resume hostilities. Period. We did not pre-emptively attack them. They attacked Kuwait. We attacked them back, they promised to surrender (with terms involved), but then never met those terms.



Again. The decision to go to war with Germany was equally unpopular in the US in the early 40s. I'd argue that no war is *ever* popular with the people. The justifications for resuming hostilies were quite "existant". Iraq clearly did not meet, nor ever intended to meet the terms they'd agreed to when they surrendered in 1991. That's the justification. It's quite real, and it's quite valid.



History has shown multiple blunders made during WW2, costing many hundreds of times more lives. Want to talk about Bastogne? Want to talk about the inadequacies of US armor in comparison to the Germans? Want to talk about the relative disaster that was D-day? Mistakes are *always* made during warfare. They do not change the goals you should have, nor the need to achieve those goals.

I guess I just don't understand people who approach warfare from a "as long as it isn't too hard" position. War is *always* hard. It's always going to cost you. You should avoid war unless it's necessary for exactly that reason. But once the decision to go to war is made, you need to commit to it. We can debate endlessly whether the decision to go to war was a good one, but that decision was made by Congress, not the president. And arguing that they are lied to or whatever other nonsense is irrelevant. It's their responsibility to make the decision. It's their choice. The president can say anything he wants. It's Congresses responsibilty to decide what the facts are and to determine if those facts warrant war. They made that choice. They need to support that choice. Period. Otherwise, we will have sent our sons and daughters off to war to die for nothing...




Which top generals are you talking about? Look. No 10 generals are ever going to agree on a single course of action, and there are a lot more "top generals" involved then that. It's a requirement in fact. Each will have their own opinion. They will differ. But only one decision can be reached and one course decided on. The fact that you can find "some" top generals who didn't agree with this plan or that plan is absolutely irrelevant. You will *always* find some who don't agree with whatever plan is enacted. You always have. Do you think every general in Europe during WW2 agreed with the decisions made by Eisenhower? Yet we manage to win that one anyway, not because everyone agreed with everyone, but because we didn't have a media and public overfocused on the disent and trying to use it to undermine the war for purely political gain.





I'm not "simplifying". I made an analogy. A darn good one IMO. We lost a hell of a lot of soldiers in Germany in WW2. We did not need to. We could have simply defended our Eastern Coastline and ignored Germany and focused on Japan instead. After defeating Japan, we could have negotiated a peace with a Germany that likely would have controlled all of Europe at that point. We *could* have done that. And if all we cared about was reducing the loss of US soldiers lives we *would* have done that.

Again. You should be thankful that the US does *not* think in such "what's best for us" ways. Some of us anyway...

Because the War Powers Act changes the way Congress approves military action and when the President must ask for it. You'll note that the resolution is titled: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It does not say "resolution to declare war with Iraq".

In terms of international treaties we were at a "state of war" with Iraq for the entire time between 1991 and 2003. Congress has simply changed the rules over time. The Constitution grants the president signficant "war powers" if Congress declares war in the constitutional sense. So they don't do it anymore, and instead "Authorize the use of the military". But that only applies with regard to constitutional powers. Where is matters in this case, is the international relationship between the US and Iraq. That was, despite what we may label it, a state of war.



I'm not clutching at straws at all. If you are "at war" with a nation, and never sign a peace agreement, you are still "at war" in terms of international "law" (such as it is). The problem is that you're arguing a point that has multiple definitions depending on what "level" you look at it. On the international stage, acts of warfare between nations are judged based on concepts of "Causus Belli", and "Justus Belli". Basically, you must either have a "cause for war", or a "justification for war". Typically, a cause for war is a simple violation of a treaty. Say a nation refuses to trade with you after it promised to, or does not pay debts it owes you. Those are sufficient cause for warfare in terms of international rules. A "justification" for war is stronger. It's a situation where you are either already in a conflict or someone you are allied with is attacked.

In the case of Iraq, the US had a clear Justus Belli. We were in a state of war with Iraq in 1991 as a result of Iraq's attack on Kuwait. We engaged in military action with Iraq. We drove Iraq back and forced it into a surrender. That surrender required that Iraq meet certain terms. Those terms were never met. Until they are, we are still at a state of war with Iraq. Thus, we maintain a Justus Belli condition until a formal peace is signed.

These are pretty standard rules for international agreements that have been around for a very very long time. I guess I'm confused by your confusion. If we were at war, and no peace treaty was signed, what state do you *think* we're at? We had a "cease fire". A cease fire does not end the war, it just means that the two sides agree not to fire. It is *not* binding. Either side may end it at any time. That sort of agreement exists only to allow for negotiation of a peace agreement. Clearly, since Iraq failed to meet the terms of the surrender, we have ever right to resume hostilities.

Technically, we have the same right to invade North Korea at any time. We technically don't need any reason or cause for this. It's purely at our discretion (or theirs, since they retain the same right). Just because you are ignorant of international rules of warfare shouldn't be used as an excuse to pass that ignorance on as truth.

The fact that you use such technicalities to support invasion "without any reason" makes you an unconscionable excuse for a human being.

I have to admit I will never cease to be surprised by gbaji's pig-headedness and devotion to Bush. It's like most criminals, if only you channeled your energy towards a good cause, you could really be a positive force in the world.

Instead, you're just a tool. It's kinda sad.

Anyway, we've debated the legality of this war many times, and your whole "We were always at war with Iraq" is plain wrong. It's wrong, and arguing that it's true is either ignorance, or a lie. I'll let you decide which one it is in your case.

Let's look at the facts, and the law:



Iraq invaded Kuweit in 1991. Kuweit asked for other nations to help him, known in International Law as "collective self-defense". The action of the coalition was agreed upon in the Security Council, under its authority, in Resolution 678. This Resolution

.

Not only, but it also said that the Security Council:



which means that the matter is in its hands. Not the US, not England, the Security Council.

All this, in layman's terms, means that the SC authorised Member States to form a coalition for a specific mission, helping Kuwait get rid of the Iraqi army in its borders. That was the goal of the coalition: It was "Collective Self-Defense".

All the subsequent UN Resolutions concerning Iraq and Kuwait exist only within this context.

The end of the 91 war was Resolution 687. It said, amognst other things:



Meaning, that as soon as Iraq accepted this resolution, and they did, there was an effective cease-fire between all teh Memeber states, as a group, and Iraq. The onyl body that could decide there were breaches of that ceasei-fire which were grave enough to resume hostilities was... The Security Council.

The Resolution then goes on to say that the SC:



See? The Security Council will take further steps for the implementation of the Resolution... Not the US. The SC.

Hence, the US had no right to unilaterally decide to resume hostilities. It was not in his hands, but in the hands of the Security Council. The US was one of many partners in that coalition, and it had no more right to resume hostilities than Morocco or the U.A.E.

Now, I know that I'm beating a dead horse, but I think it is important for non-lawyers to know the truth. It's just too easy to lie.

Now, gbaji will probably come up with some silly arguments saying that a breach of certain terms of a Resolution allows taking the matter into one's own hands. If this were true, then Russia could invade Turkey because of its violation of resolutions on Cyprus, Spain could invade Morocco because of the Western Sahara, Syria could invade Israel, etc...

The international system is not perfect. But at the moment, it's all we've got. Argue for a change, by all means, but stop lying.

This war was illegal under contemporary international law.

Edited, Jan 18th 2007 5:40am by RedPhoenixxx

paulsol is a f'ucking idiot who prattles on about meaningless things.

gbaji is a f'ucking idiot who prattle on endlessly about meaningless things.

paulsol loses for giving gbaji an excuse to unleash his textual diarrhea on the rest of us.

That is all.

Yeah whatever. I said I was feeling belligerent.

But he made an accusation against me. I rebuffed it. This is the asylum, no?

Well. How do you feel when he uses periods as commas? Because. I think it's odd.