okay . . . it has been a LONG time since i have posted in this type of a thread, but these words were interesting:
"YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS DONE IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."
now i was not there when the insurgent groups captured and then beheaded those they had kidnapped, but i feel very safe in assuming that words to this effect were some of the last they heard before feeling the cold steel of a sword strike the back of their neck.
interesting that these same words should come from someone whose nation is free because of america and that same nation is still protected by america in the NATO alliance. should i assume that you agree with the actions taken by these insurgents? i probably shouldn't . . . huh?
thanks to those who have previously posted for protecting this nation by serving in wars past and present. freedom isn't free . . .
have a good one! :approve:
May be you should be aware that our troops protect americans in afghanistan... but maybe you dont mind.
May be you should be aware that I already wrote that I am very thankful for what the US did in the past. Remember ... the US that stood for a peaceful and freedom loving nation.
The soldiers are getting ambushed and shot at everyday. They see their fellow comrades dying everyday.They want to come home alive. The iraq fighters come in all shapes and sizes and genders but no one is wearing a uniform. How do you know who to trust? A kid can kill you so can a woman. They kill each other with no discretion so how can a soldier in uniform feel safe. if someone killed one of your family members and then ran into a crowd and you are not sure who did it and the crowd is harboring the killer but wont let you get to him or her then what are you gonna do? The iraqi people know whats going on. The military is after the bad guys and the iraqi people are making it hard for the military to get them. They should be willing to turn over anyone that they know of that attacks the soldiers but instead they let them hide amonst them and expect not to be attacked. I dont care what nobody says if you are a soldier and fighting a war and people are desperately trying to kill you and your comrades then I say use whatever force you have availiable to keep yourself alive because the enemy is not going to play fair with you. Dont fight with your hands tied because the terroist are not. Good luck and my prayers are with all our fine soldiers who put their life on the line just to be critized by people who dont.
Yes, we started the war, by invading Kuwait while wearing Iraqi army uniforms. Then by repeatedly denying access to UN inspection teams who were tasked to ensure that our WMD program was being dismantled. And no, in fact, there never was a WMD program in Iraq in the first place; Tens of thousands of Kurds died of boredom, apparently.
Look, the actions of those few soldiers does not reflect upon the entire body of US citizenry. It was a true tragedy, and those involved shouls be punished. I do realize that the job of the soldiers really sucks, and it is very difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. Still, they should realize that, while this kind of action is horribly wrong just in and of itself, it will also increase general hostility, escalate violence, and cost lives. Those men did more than kill a family; they killed marines, Red Cross/Crescent workers, journalists, engineers, and more Iraqi civilians, in the future. Anybody caught up in the circle of revenge and violence.
Also, note that the job of a soldier is not to kill. The job of a soldier is to protect, to save lives. Unfortunately, the other guy doesn't always respond to polite requests to not invade, so shots have to be fired.
The real burning question of the Iraq conundrum ishow do we pull out without the country collapsing, or the same gang of bullies taking over? American people, American soldiers don't want to be over there any more than the Iraqi people.
Oh, and the mission of U.S. troops is to restore order, Pablo. It is simply not as easy as GWB thought it would be. He should have thought the strategy over a little more.
It has been well documented in the history books that years before the world entered WWII to stop NAZI Germany (BTW I love German people as they are now and was born there) Winston Churchill tried and tried to convince Britain and the world about the threat of Hitler and his regime; he was not listened to and we all know what the result was.
Fast forward to today, we see tyranny in the form of Sadam and his sons and a possible future outcome like we saw in WWII and a few men gave us the same warning that Churchill tried to. After learning from past experiences with tryants we went ahead and took one down. Should we have waited? Sure, maybe Sadam would have never reached the extremes Hitler did, but what if he did? Would we have then (through hind-site) said that we really should have done what we're doing now?
Why do the people who always tell us to learn from the past always refuse to?
No real reason to comment on anything else here, everybody else has already put it perfectly, so I'll just say a HOORAH for our honorable military men and women out there.
Why would having an agenda mean you were expecting some ROI?
__________________
You'd have thought that someone would have put a sig here To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The soldiers are getting ambushed and shot at everyday. They see their fellow comrades dying everyday.They want to come home alive.
They should simply not be there according to international law. They invaded a country that was no threat. Those 30.000 iraqians killed WERE HOME ALIVE.
It has been well documented in the history books that years before the world entered WWII to stop NAZI Germany (BTW I love German people as they are now and was born there) Winston Churchill tried and tried to convince Britain and the world about the threat of Hitler and his regime; he was not listened to and we all know what the result was.
Fast forward to today, we see tyranny in the form of Sadam and his sons and a possible future outcome like we saw in WWII and a few men gave us the same warning that Churchill tried to. After learning from past experiences with tryants we went ahead and took one down. Should we have waited? Sure, maybe Sadam would have never reached the extremes Hitler did, but what if he did? Would we have then (through hind-site) said that we really should have done what we're doing now?
Why do the people who always tell us to learn from the past always refuse to?
No real reason to comment on anything else here, everybody else has already put it perfectly, so I'll just say a HOORAH for our honorable military men and women out there.
Well... after all... maybe we shouldnt wait until Bush becomes that tyrant... at least he killed much more people than sadam did.
No real reason to comment on anything else here, everybody else has already put it perfectly, so I'll just say a HOORAH for our honorable military men and women out there.
From the press:
"The nine year old iraqian girl Iman Abdel Hamid described again the events in Haditha: "First the americans killed my father in the sleeping room und than they fired a rocket on him, so he was burned completely. Than they killed my mother and me and my brother we stuck our heads in our pillows not to see."
Blood spangled banner. Really the home of the brave.
ok, stop! what da f... are we talking about?
Do we think those acts , if commited, are horrible? yes.
Do we think that all US soldiers commit such crimes? no.
So what dahell is this thread about?
should we judge all Americans for the acts of a few, as was suggested in the first post? hell, no!
Is the war in Iraq just? Well it's a mater of perspective , piont of view and knowing the subject - but all this has absolutely nothing to do w/ the first post of this thread.
The Iraqi/US war has nothing to do with the incident, it could happen (and happens) anywhere on the globe. The question is what's been done to prevent and punish the responsible. If such actions are performed under the safty net of the government ie S.Hussein, Nazis, Fashists, we have a problem. When such action are condemned by the society , then we could say that the moral values of this society are high.
Sovereign Rights and Sovereign Responsibilities: Self Defense in an Age of Apocalyptic Terrorism
Thursday, April 22, 2004
By Joseph McMillan
Senior Research Fellow
Institute for National Strategic Studies
Fighting Terrorism and the International Legal Context
...
Nevertheless, given the modern threat, there will be situations that arise when the use of force is necessary. Sometimes that will mean taking military action without the consent of the government of the country where the terrorists are located. There are several reasons why such cases may arise:
• The host nation may not have full control over parts of its own territory. This is the case today in Somalia, which for all practical purposes has no government, but also in remote areas of Yemen, Pakistan, and other countries.
• The host nation may be wittingly allowing terrorists sanctuary on its turf, perhaps in exchange for promises from terrorists to conduct their actual operations elsewhere.
• The host nation may be actively in league with terrorists or even sponsoring them as an element of its own national strategy.
• The threat may be so pressing or the intelligence about the terrorist presence so sensitive and perishable as not to admit the delays or risks of compromise that would be entailed in asking the host government for its agreement to joint action.
For all these reasons, it is a virtual certainty that the United States—and perhaps other countries—will use force against terrorists on foreign soil at some point. The question at hand is how that fact can be reconciled with the rules of international law?
...
Finally, as President Bush has said many times, it is an essential element of the U. S. strategy against terrorism to build a global grassroots consensus that “all acts of terrorism are illegitimate, so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose.” Building such a consensus, particularly in areas such as Europe where the public places a great emphasis on formal international legal norms, depends on our ability to articulate a compelling case that the way we are fighting the war is consistent with those norms. I believe it is possible to articulate such a case derived from three classic
concepts in international law:
• That of the hostis humani generis—the common enemy of humankind.
• The doctrine that possessing the rights of a sovereign state carries with it the responsibility of executing the duties of a sovereign state.
• The logic of the inherent right of self defense as it applies to the realities of dealing with 21st century terrorism.
As I examine each of these concepts, I should emphasize that I do so not from the perspective on an international lawyer—which I am not—but from that of the policy maker. The issue is not to craft legal rules of procedure for argument in a court of law, but to define the limits and possibilities of practical state action in the real world. That is my objective here.
...
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ok, stop! what da f... are we talking about?
Do we think those acts , if commited, are horrible? yes.
Do we think that all US soldiers commit such crimes? no.
So what dahell is this thread about?
should we judge all Americans for the acts of a few, as was suggested in the first post? hell, no!
Is the war in Iraq just? Well it's a mater of perspective , piont of view and knowing the subject - but all this has absolutely nothing to do w/ the first post of this thread.
The Iraqi/US war has nothing to do with the incident, it could happen (and happens) anywhere on the globe. The question is what's been done to prevent and punish the responsible. If such actions are performed under the safty net of the government ie S.Hussein, Nazis, Fashists, we have a problem. When such action are condemned by the society , then we could say that the moral values of this society are high.
Why is it, that the families of the victims have received 2500 $? Just because a few made "bad decisions"?
Why is it, that army officers denied the incident and lied, saying it was a bomb attack (which caused shooting holes in the heads of the victims)?
At what time acts of "a few" become something you feel responsible for? Only after the whole army is acting criminal? Abu Ghureib, Guantanamo, Haditha... tell me how many barbarian acts you need to call yourself a barbarian nation. Isn't it enough yet?
Why is it, that the families of the victims have received 2500 $? Just because a few made "bad decisions"?
Why is it, that army officers denied the incident and lied, saying it was a bomb attack (which caused shooting holes in the heads of the victims)?
At what time acts of "a few" become something you feel responsible for? Only after the whole army is acting criminal? Abu Ghureib, Guantanamo, Haditha... tell me how many barbarian acts you need to call yourself a barbarian nation. Isn't it enough yet?
OK.. by that same concept: Lybia sponsoring the deaths from the airplane they blew up?
9/11
the daily palistinian suicide bombings of buses and pizza parlors
The daily car bombings of civilian markets in Iraq.
The Russian School captured
The kidnappings and executions of aid workers
At what time acts of "a few" become something you feel responsible for?
Then the entire Middle East must be lumped up in the same fashion as you ascribe to the US...
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
They should simply not be there according to international law. They invaded a country that was no threat. Those 30.000 iraqians killed WERE HOME ALIVE.
Remember the gulf war ? Well since then 1990 the U.S. had been patrolling no fly zones and monitoring iraqs every move so they knew what they were up to all along.
Do you think americans make war for fun? Do we send our family members out to fight and die for no reason? There was a reason maybe it didnt all come out but you better believe we dont like war any more than anybody else. Out of all the iraqi people who is the majority the good ones or the bad ones? With the help of the U.S. military if they wanted to they could get rid of the majority of the bad ones and end this whole war but no they want to keep fighting and harboring terroist. They are the key to this whole situation. If the iraqis wanted the killing to stop they could help stop it. If they dont attack then they wont be attacked simple as that.
[quote]Why is it, that the families of the victims have received 2500 $?[/qoute]
I'm not familiar with this subject but if your are talking about compensations - this is just another proof of a moral standarts. I know a few govenment in the m.east who would pay the same to a family for their son or dauter to blow up in a restaurant or a bus [syrians , iraqi , iranian]
all the other statements are restatements of the first post in one variation or another, so i wouln;d repeat my previous post
[and btw - didn't know i'm an American now, where is my green card?
And speaking of just or injust wars. Do I think that this war should have developed differently? Yes, absolutely.
But I have no doubt that Saddam should have been overthrown , most definitely. Yes, apparently he had no WMD's now, but do you realky think that given the time and resources he wouldn't rebuild the nuclear reactor? if Israel wouln't act in the 80's and the americans in the 90's , where do you think we would be now? Where would your precious , comfortably numb Europe would be? Should I really remind the lessons of the past? should i really remind Chezcolsovakia?
The future of the Iraqies is in their hand, stp killing , stop bombing, sit , talk and deside what should be done next and as naive as t sounds this is the only way. There aremany who interested in instability in this region, but the iraqies live it. so they should take their fate into their own hands. Americans can't leave now, period. Why? because it would create a vacuum , and there is no constant vacuum in politics. This vacuum would be filled and i don;t think you would be happy to near by whom. [hint: the other nation, developing WMD's threatening to wipe other countries from the face of the Earth]
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
