Political Motivation

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?
I mean,take the Dragon Skin body armor debate,as a prime example. The US Army already proved that it's inferior to Interceptor vests,yet the general public,most of whom know very little about these things,constantly cries "Dragon Skin is better,buy it". They seem to ignore the fact that the stuff was fraudulently advertised as being certified to a ballistic level it had not yet been.
Same can be said about the now-defunct XM8 weapon program. Army tests did,indeed,prove that it's better than the M4,but only a little better,which provides virtually ZERO incentive to replace every single M16 and M4 in the US arsenal,yet the general public continues to cry "XM8 is better,buy it".

Now I will admit I don't know everything about this kind of thing,but I do know more than the average civilian,so I do,in fact,know enough to comment.

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

Opinions?

Quote:

---

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

---

You get bad, or you get worse. That's the disadvantage of a two-party system.

With a multiple-party system...well...see Victonia Election sub-forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

With a multiple-party system...well...see Victonia Election sub-forum.

---

I would argue that a multi-party system is still far better than a two party system.

People didn't like Bush much in '04. They liked John Kerry even less. Boils down to that, pretty much. Pretty damn sad, really.

FWIW, Spartan, this is the first place I've ever heard of the Dragon Skin Armor, whatever that is. And I'm a bit of a news junkie, so it can't be very prominent in the media. And I haven't read any editorials or opinion pieces anywhere suggesting that we must equip our army with the XM8. So ... where are you finding these articles? Where are you hearing this stuff?

As for criticism of Bush, from what I've seen, the President has a cadre of very effective, very loyal defenders. That 28% isn't letting anything get by. When a criticism is baseless, or when it can be countered, it happens. The conservative machine is effective and alert.

So I'm not quite clear on where you assertion that all criticism of Bush is accepted as true without thought is coming from either ...

The Iraq war is stupid. Rebut that. Never mind about lies and counterlies - they're irrelevant. If the Iraq war is a good idea, then that justifies lies and deception. Just show that the Iraq war is a good idea, and you'll win the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?

---

Youtube.com is not an accurate representation of the general public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

I mean,take the Dragon Skin body armor debate,as a prime example. The US Army already proved that it's inferior to Interceptor vests,yet the general public,most of whom know very little about these things,constantly cries "Dragon Skin is better,buy it". They seem to ignore the fact that the stuff was fraudulently advertised as being certified to a ballistic level it had not yet been.

---

I think the argument has a lot more to do with the fact that the military-issue equipment is expensive and apparently not being issued by the military. Dragon skin is probably inferior, but apparently much more affordable and flexible than Interceptor Body Armor and certainly better than sack cloth when it comes to armor. I believe the military ordered that soldiers drop Dragon Skin or risk losing benefits, which is understandable. However, it becomes a problem when you have no way of getting the armor the army wants you to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Same can be said about the now-defunct XM8 weapon program. Army tests did,indeed,prove that it's better than the M4,but only a little better,which provides virtually ZERO incentive to replace every single M16 and M4 in the US arsenal,yet the general public continues to cry "XM8 is better,buy it".

---

This gun?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...al_Version.jpg

It's apparently still being worked on, but I have not heard of any major public movement to push its distribution. The military has a habit of delaying mass production of guns. This happened with the current M4 as well back in the Vietnam War Era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Now I will admit I don't know everything about this kind of thing,but I do know more than the average civilian,so I do,in fact,know enough to comment.

---

I find it hard to remain impartial most of the time. I would step back and take another look from a wider perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

---

Actually, it was about 50%, and Kerry probably knew that he lost long before the vote came in. A presidential victory in the US lies in the electoral college, not so much the people.

Also, Bush's approval rating is pretty low right now, so that says something.... I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Opinions?

---

Well, there are "nutjobs", as you call them, but they hardly comprise the majority. The majority is unhappy, that much is true. They are unsatisfied and they want change.

Oh look, presidential elections.

EDIT: I think it's time to find a different way to cite quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Youtube.com is not an accurate representation of the general public.

---

I was just using YouTube as a general example,one being the validity of this guy's statements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU
This guy,a deserter,puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions,yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming he's being truthful when I see ZERO actual proof,ether in his little video or elsewhere.
Approval ratings (however important) aside,everybody seems to rally around anti-Bush / anti-war statements like they're pulled straight from the freaking book of genesis or whatever,even when there is very little if any proof at all to validate it. That's kinda the point I'm trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I think the argument has a lot more to do with the fact that the military-issue equipment is expensive and apparently not being issued by the military. Dragon skin is probably inferior, but apparently much more affordable and flexible than Interceptor Body Armor and certainly better than sack cloth when it comes to armor. I believe the military ordered that soldiers drop Dragon Skin or risk losing benefits, which is understandable. However, it becomes a problem when you have no way of getting the armor the army wants you to have.

---

Interceptor is actually cheaper,despite what Pinnacle Armor may say. I've got friends in all branches of the armed services except the Air Force and Coast Guard,and from what they've told me,Interceptor is issued to all frontline troops. Plus,I'm in the process of joining the Marine Corps (currently I'm trying to find out whether or not some past medical issues will be any issue whatsoever) already with a lot of relevant modern military knowledge under my belt (there's just not much of anywhere here on the .Org to discuss that). So I do have a vested interest here (no pun intended).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

This gun?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...al_Version.jpg

It's apparently still being worked on, but I have not heard of any major public movement to push its distribution. The military has a habit of delaying mass production of guns. This happened with the current M4 as well back in the Vietnam War Era.

---

Yeah,that's the one. I know it's still being worked on independently by Heckler & Koch,but is it still being considered for US issue? If you know anyplace with some good info,please give me a link.
I'm all for US troops getting the best equipment available no matter the cost,but I don't agree with them being given experimental rifles or body armor just because some corporation claims they're better. If I were to go into combat tomorrow,I'd take a battle-proven M4 and Interceptor vest over a better XM8 and Dragon Skin vest without hesitation.
Just a little correction,though: It's the M16A1 you're thinking of in Vietnam. The M4 platform was adopted in '93,derived from the XM177 series carbines,which troops found effective in the field regardless of what the politicians claimed.
But you are correct. Mass-production of the M16 was delayed until the weapon had been perfected into the optimum (for the time) M16A1 form. And by the time that happened,the failures had stopped,the right powder was being used in ammunition,etc.,and the M16 series was a top-notch infantry rifle,now the longest serving in history.
Plus,a completely new weapons system seems completely redundant and a waste of taxpayer money when new H & K (M416) or Barret (M468,now called REC7) (both pictured below;416 above and 468 below) upper recievers can be bought at a fraction of the price and mated with existing M16 and M4 lowers with minimal internal changes or retraining of active troops.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. BG
(This one's from Photobucket -- Sorry about that,BG)
https://i294.photobucket.com/albums/...16poster14.jpg
https://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4804/dpp0002sw0.jpg

On top of that,the M416 itself has already been combat-proven by 1SOF-D Delta and Special Forces (Green Berets) operators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I find it hard to remain impartial most of the time. I would step back and take another look from a wider perspective.

---

I personally am politically impartial. I neither like Bush nor hate him. My only partiality is with the troops.
But,again,you are correct. Most people think that either you agree with them and are their friend,or disagree and are the enemy. I can't even describe the amount of heat I get for not rallying with the anti-Bush / anti-war crowd. In this kind of environment we have in the US today,it's very difficult to remain neutral. I'll defend it to the death,but sometimes Freedom of Speech can be a real *****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Actually, it was about 50%, and Kerry probably knew that he lost long before the vote came in. A presidential victory in the US lies in the electoral college, not so much the people.

---

Yeah,that's true. Conspiracy theories aside (I've never been one to pay too much attention to that crap),I wonder who really runs my country and if Hideo Kojima was right on the whole "Philosiphers / Patriots,La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo" thing featured so prominently in his MGS games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Also, Bush's approval rating is pretty low right now, so that says something.... I guess.

---

Yeah,you're most likely right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Well, there are "nutjobs", as you call them, but they hardly comprise the majority. The majority is unhappy, that much is true. They are unsatisfied and they want change.

---

Oh,definitely. Not everyone on the planet is signed into the .Org,TWcenter,or YouTube (which is quickly becoming an anti-America propaganda site). No disrespect to anyone's leaders in places like the UK,Russia,Canada,etc,but is there really anyone on earth with the right qualifications to run any country at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Oh look, presidential elections.

---

Well,Obama and Clinton don't exactly look to be the light at the end of the tunnel just yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLoper

EDIT: I think it's time to find a different way to cite quotes.

---

Like I said,I only used YouTube as a single example earlier. Believe me,if I took anything on YouTube seriously,would I have brought this discussion here where I can get intelligent responses from knowledgable people instead of childish,name-calling rants about how I'm "evil for not wanting to tear Bush's limbs off"?
Reminds me of a quote I read in the EB forums:

Quote:

---

The less you listen to YouTube comments,the more human you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

Opinions?

---

You're far from correct there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

FWIW, Spartan, this is the first place I've ever heard of the Dragon Skin Armor, whatever that is. And I'm a bit of a news junkie, so it can't be very prominent in the media. And I haven't read any editorials or opinion pieces anywhere suggesting that we must equip our army with the XM8. So ... where are you finding these articles? Where are you hearing this stuff?

---

Here's a good article on the XM8 and its variants that I've found to be accurate on the rifle itself,but has nothing "public-demand" related (the Wikipedia article on it is also seems accurate,too):
http://http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm
Dragon Skin body armor is a bit harder,because every article I find seems to be biased toward either Pinnacle Armor or the US Army. If I find something neutral,I'll post a link.

Edit: But here's a picture of a Dragon Skin vest.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i294.photobucket.com/albums/...body-armor.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

You're far from correct there.

---

No offense,but please don't tell me you're one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the Rockafellar Corporation or something runs the US,that the US govenment flew planes into the WTC,and that the moon landings were fake. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything,I'm just not interested in conspiracies.
Other than that,feel free to elaborate.
I knew what I was getting into when I started this thread.

Spartan, the problem you appear to be having is that you are not understanding this:

People can support the soldiers, but not the war.

Learn to seperate the two and all will be well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The Iraq war is stupid. Rebut that. Never mind about lies and counterlies - they're irrelevant. If the Iraq war is a good idea, then that justifies lies and deception. Just show that the Iraq war is a good idea, and you'll win the argument.

---

That's not the point I'm trying to make. War is terrible,and I'm not disputing that.
As far as WMDs go,we already know Saddam had the technological capability to make them. And when it comes to national security,having the ability to make a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different than having one currently in posession.
Would you rather let Saddam stay in power and murder innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis?
When was he next going to invade one of his neighbors like he did Kuwait in back in 1990?
Or would you rather have waited until he initiated a nuclear strike on Israel or Kuwait?

The world is a lot safer with him out of power. That's my justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Spartan, the problem you appear to be having is that you are not understanding this:

People can support the soldiers, but not the war.

Learn to seperate the two and all will be well.

---

Like I said,I'm neutral when it comes to Bush,but I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.
I'm not accusing anyone here,but if some people think I'm ignorant or stupid for believing that we've done good over there and can win this war,so be it. It doesn't hurt me,nor will it change my own view.
We both know that doesn't make me a bad person.

“This guy, a deserter, puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions, yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming”: Whaw, for somebody claiming to be neutral, that is a typical Moscow Trial vocabulary from the 1930’s Uncle Joe Stalin vocabulary… :laugh4:

“personally am politically impartial”: You’re having a :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“This guy, a deserter, puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions, yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming”: Who, for somebody claiming to be neutral, that is a typical Moscow Trial vocabulary from the 1930’s Uncle Joe Stalin vocabulary… :laugh4:

“personally am politically impartial”: You’re having a :laugh4:

---

I'm politically impartial,but pro-military. Politics have no place on the battlefield. When you're hunkered down in the dunes,taking heavy incoming fire,which are you gonna depend on more,Senator whatever-his-name-is back in the States or the M4 in your hands?

Being politically impartial is seperate from being militarily impartial.
Regardless of how many medals those idiots on YouTube wanna give the guy,he's still a coward who deserted his unit in the line of duty and should be put in prison,no matter how many lies he tries to justify it with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Like I said,I'm neutral when it comes to Bush,but I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman.

---

That did not become an issue until the WMDs were not found. At this point Bush realised that he needed to find another reason to be at war and "We love Democracy... let's fight for the extremely limited version we are giving to the Iraqis!" became convenient.

Quote:

---

Regardless of how many medals those idiots on YouTube wanna give the guy,he's still a coward who deserted his unit in the line of duty and should be put in prison,no matter how many lies he tries to justify it with.

---

Do you support Bush's impeachment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

That's not the point I'm trying to make. War is terrible,and I'm not disputing that.
As far as WMDs go,we already know Saddam had the technological capability to make them. And when it comes to national security,having the ability to make a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different than having one currently in posession.
Would you rather let Saddam stay in power and murder innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis?
When was he next going to invade one of his neighbors like he did Kuwait in back in 1990?
Or would you rather have waited until he initiated a nuclear strike on Israel or Kuwait?

The world is a lot safer with him out of power. That's my justification.

---

Point 1: Saddam had the tech capability to make WMDs.
So? Any reasonably technologically advanced country has the capability to produce them. Any country that can produce drugs for its own people will have the know how to make WMDs. Any advanced chemistry class in any university will have the capability to produce WMDs. How am I supposed to be especially alarmed by this?

Point 2: Having the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different from having one currently in possession.
Firstly, where's the evidence showing that Iraq had the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon? They're slightly different from chemical weapons, you know, and require rather more infrastructure. Secondly, having the ability to produce one and actually having one is definitely different. That's why Germany, Japan, and other advanced westernised countries aren't nuclear powers.

Point 3: Saddam should be stopped from murdering innocent Iraqi citizens on a daily basis.
Why should it be any business of mine? They're Iraqi citizens, not British citizens, and their welfare doesn't affect me.

Point 4: He's going to invade another of his neighbours.
Is there any evidence he was going to do that? Don't point to 1990, that's 18 years ago (13 before the start of OIF), show me how he was going to invade anyone now (or in 2003).

Answer the above points. Also, don't talk about nuclear strikes if you can't answer point 2.

Quote:

---

I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

---

I chose to oppose the war because Bush was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Do you support Bush's impeachment?

---

I believe every leader should have to account for his actions. Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Point 1: Saddam had the tech capability to make WMDs.
So? Any reasonably technologically advanced country has the capability to produce them. Any country that can produce drugs for its own people will have the know how to make WMDs. Any advanced chemistry class in any university will have the capability to produce WMDs. How am I supposed to be especially alarmed by this?

---

Exactly. All it takes is one nutcase with the knowledge to bring on a nuclear cataclysm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Point 2: Having the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different from having one currently in possession.
Firstly, where's the evidence showing that Iraq had the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon? They're slightly different from chemical weapons, you know, and require rather more infrastructure. Secondly, having the ability to produce one and actually having one is definitely different. That's why Germany, Japan, and other advanced westernised countries aren't nuclear powers.

---

Here's my answer.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/na...ty/disarm.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Point 3: Saddam should be stopped from murdering innocent Iraqi citizens on a daily basis.
Why should it be any business of mine? They're Iraqi citizens, not British citizens, and their welfare doesn't affect me.

---

Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Point 4: He's going to invade another of his neighbours.
Is there any evidence he was going to do that? Don't point to 1990, that's 18years ago (13 before the start of OIF), show me how he was going to invade anyone now (or in 2003).

---

We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? Okay,now apply that answer to the above question.
And in case you try to rebound back by saying "Saddam isn't Hitler",Saddam's Baath Party was actually modeled after the Third Reich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I chose to oppose the war because Bush was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

---

Nice rebound. Really well thought out. ~:rolleyes:
Remind me,when was the last time Bush ordered the wholesale killing of Americans with chemical weapons? Oh,right... NEVER.

Quote:

---

Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Though personally I wouldn't bother with the breaking the oath of office , violations of the constitution or any of that other little stuff , I would go straight for the treason angle , absolute despicable undeniable treason of the highest order :yes:

Quote:

---

Here's my answer.

---

ah that explains a lot , it answers my question...Where have you been for the last 5 years ?

Please keep up , that answer you linked to has long been established as bollox , even at the time it was given it was widely described as bollox .
Have you perhaps been living the life of a hermit ?
Shut off from the world in total isolation maybe ?
Can you tell what year it is ?

Quote:

---

We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we?

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
No of course not , thats why there was no worries about the Danzig problem and no countries said they would intervene in the event of a German invasion of Poland:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Remind me,when was the last time Bush ordered the wholesale killing of Americans with chemical weapons? Oh,right... NEVER.

---

Oh dear , another one who can line up behind Mars to read the treaties on war crimes :coffeenews:
Would you like to debate war crimes Spartan ?
Would you like to limit it to Americas involvement in Saddams War crimes or would you like to focus on Bush's war crimes ?

Quote:

---

Really well thought out.

---

Given the content of your posts so far in this topic I would say that you appear to be largely devoid of anything mildly relating to the thought process.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

I believe every leader should have to account for his actions. Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.

---

As always wiki provides the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Why is it that everyone assumes [...] everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?

---

Agree with most of your opinions, but this I must disagree with. Michael Moore is the most obvious case in point. I'm not sure who hates Michael Moore more, the 'right' he lambasts or the 'left' he's supposed to be representing. We have Bill O'Reilly and John Ashcroft on one end and Michael Moore on the other.

IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?

---

Why does everyone think that everyone else is on the Internet calling everyone else a liar?

Wait, make that everyone minus 1. :coffeenews:

Exactly. All it takes is one nutcase with the knowledge to bring on a nuclear cataclysm.
Erm, the WMDs I was talking about was chemical weapons, which any university chemistry lab can produce. Heck, people can download instructions from the internet and make their own using products available off the shelf. A nuclear weapon requires huge intellectual and physical infrastructure to produce, which Iraq lacked.


Here's my answer.
http://wnww.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ationalsecurity/disarm.html
Hang on. Isn't that the stuff that was discredited long ago?


Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.
It hurts me to have to pay for a war that we did not need. Perhaps you wish to bring your liberal dream to all the peoples of the world, but my first concern is the bottom line.


We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? Okay,now apply that answer to the above question.
And in case you try to rebound back by saying "Saddam isn't Hitler",Saddam's Baath Party was actually modeled after the Third Reich.
I don't really care what it's modelled on, I only care about its capabilities and known intentions. I don't really wish to make war on every two-bit neo-Nazi in the UK, because I know their capabilities are ridiculously low and they can be safely ignored. Show me how Iraq was a threat to anyone in 2003.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Though personally I wouldn't bother with the breaking the oath of office , violations of the constitution or any of that other little stuff , I would go straight for the treason angle , absolute despicable undeniable treason of the highest order :yes:

---

First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be. The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff. You wanna talk about treason,add the US Media to the list of offenders. I don't believe everything I hear from them right off the bat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

ah that explains a lot , it answers my question...Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Please keep up , that answer you linked to has long been established as bollox , even at the time it was given it was widely described as bollox .
Have you perhaps been living the life of a hermit ?
Shut off from the world in total isolation maybe ?
Can you tell what year it is ?

---

Same response as above applies to the hermit question. Yes,I know what year it is. You don't have to be so condescending about it.
And if documents like that from my government are rubbish,how can the Downing Street Memo (of which the authenticity is disputed) or the Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq Memo (which,if authentic,proves the UK was just as intent on invading as the US was and should implicate the UK Prime Minister,as well) not be considered the same thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No of course not , thats why there was no worries about the Danzig problem and no countries said they would intervene in the event of a German invasion of Poland:dizzy2:

---

Exactly right. Just means that those in power expected him to attack a neighbor in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

Agree with most of your opinions, but this I must disagree with. Michael Moore is the most obvious case in point. I'm not sure who hates Michael Moore more, the 'right' he lambasts or the 'left' he's supposed to be representing. We have Bill O'Reilly and John Ashcroft on one end and Michael Moore on the other.

IMO.

---

Michael Moore... I shudder at the mere mention of his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Michael Moore... I shudder at the mere mention of his name.

---

Love him or hate him, he defends the one essential quality of the American way of life. :unitedstates:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...tAmendment.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be. The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff. You wanna talk about treason,add the US Media to the list of offenders.

---

"What the media reports of the world disagrees with what I want to believe, so obviously the media is wrong and/or lying."
:dizzy2:
Hålla mig handen.

Quote:

---

don't really care what it's modelled on

---

Oh please care Pann , if only to care that is modelled on the social democratic party not the socialist workers party , now of course such little things shouldn't get in the way of ludicrous claims being made , but I do wonder how the Baath party can be modelled on the third reich when the third reich banned the party that it is modelled on :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be.

---

Xiahou has a new disciple :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
woud you like more cutesy fluffy bunny stories ?
Hey Spartan , perhaps if there was any good news about Iraq the media might be able to report it more...but you see they have been stung rather badly by repeatedly doing "good news " stories they were fed that turned out to be complete bollox .

Quote:

---

And if documents like that from my government are rubbish,how can the Downing Street Memo (of which the authenticity is disputed) or the Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq Memo (which,if authentic,proves the UK was just as intent on invading as the US was and should implicate the UK Prime Minister,as well) not be considered the same thing?

---

Sorry , that appears to make no sense ...can you explain it please ?
If the downing street memo is disputed then how can you explain that Blair does not dispute its authenticity ?

Quote:

---

Exactly right. Just means that those in power expected him to attack a neighbor in the near future.

---

Whereas Saddam had been neutered and they knew that he couldn't attack any of his neighbours any more .

It's certainly interesting to read a diehard neocon at a time when even the original diehard neocons had already abandoned their original stories as untenable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That did not become an issue until the WMDs were not found. At this point Bush realised that he needed to find another reason to be at war and "We love Democracy... let's fight for the extremely limited version we are giving to the Iraqis!" became convenient.

---

He'd been organizing mass murderings of innocent people years before even the first Gulf War. There's proof he did it during both Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Kuwait,as well. Maybe it hadn't been officially recognized,but he was still a war criminal nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Do you support Bush's impeachment?

---

I read over that entire article (I'll look into the main articles a little later on,because there's a lot to read),and I agree with everything but the following:
2003 Invasion & Justification for Invasion -If we hadn't have gone in in 2003,we'd have eventually done it anyway. Just because there might not have been concrete proof for the United Nations of nuclear weapons in Iraq wouldn't necessarily mean that Saddam didn't have them. If he didn't,why refuse entry to UN weapons inspectors? Seems kind of redundent to me. Besides,Saddam had built up a nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. In the 13 years (as of 2003) since his defeat in that conflict,he could easily have rebuilt said program. And if AKs,T-72s,MiGs,serin and mustard gas aren't weapons of mass destruction,what are they? Childrens' toys?
UN Charter - I don't believe my government needs UN permission to act in preemptive strike when there are possible foriegn or domestic threats to the US,our allies,and our interests.

The Constitutionality for Invasion is presently irrelevant because it's been dismissed by the Federal court,with said dismissal upheld in appeal. We'll see what happens with further appeals.

I'm undecided on the Unlawful Combatants issue because Al Qaeda aren't soldiers no matter what they claim,and so when captured are detainees,not prisoners of war,so the Geneva Convention doesn't legally apply to them. But I am against torture,to make that crystal clear,nor am I disputing torture and abuse cases because these horrific acts have occurred. Though I don't believe Guantanamo Bay should be closed,simply because these individuals are far too dangerous to keep on US soil.

So with a concensus of 5 agreements,3 disagreements,and 1 undecided (in addition to the 1 currently irrelevant) -- Yes,I do believe there is grounds for impeachment of President Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Love him or hate him, he defends the one essential quality of the American way of life. :unitedstates:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...tAmendment.png

---

I have to reluctantly agree with you on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Besides,Saddam had built up a nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. In the 13 years (as of 2003) since his defeat in that conflict,he could easily have rebuilt said program.

---

With what resources - material aid from the Martians ?

Quote:

---

And if AKs,T-72s,MiGs,serin and mustard gas aren't weapons of mass destruction,what are they? Childrens' toys?

---

Of the whole list only the two latter don't rank as conventional weapons, genius. Plus last I heard there was zero evidence of Saddam having had stores of chemical weapons that hadn't gone well past their "shelf life"...

Quote:

---

UN Charter - I don't believe my government needs UN permission to act in preemptive strike when there are possible foriegn or domestic threats to the US,our allies,and our interests.

---

Funny thing is, IIRC it tried to get it anyway...

Quote:

---

I'm undecided on the Unlawful Combatants issue because Al Qaeda aren't soldiers no matter what they claim,and so when captured are detainees,not prisoners of war,so the Geneva Convention doesn't legally apply to them.

---

An extremely dubious and tendentious interpretation AFAIK only recognised by the Bush adminstration and its apologists...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Just because there might not have been concrete proof for the United Nations of nuclear weapons in Iraq wouldn't necessarily mean that Saddam didn't have them. If he didn't,why refuse entry to UN weapons inspectors? Seems kind of redundent to me..

---

I don't know.... if a random security guy wanted to do an anal probe to you to check for dangerous objects in your rectum, would you acquecise just because you don't have dangerous objects in your rectum? Seems a flawed argument to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh please care Pann , if only to care that is modelled on the social democratic party not the socialist workers party , now of course such little things shouldn't get in the way of ludicrous claims being made , but I do wonder how the Baath party can be modelled on the third reich when the third reich banned the party that it is modelled on :inquisitive:

---

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

woud you like more cutesy fluffy bunny stories ?
Hey Spartan , perhaps if there was any good news about Iraq the media might be able to report it more...but you see they have been stung rather badly by repeatedly doing "good news " stories they were fed that turned out to be complete bollox .

---

You can take your bunnies,skin them,and eat them!
Take this as an example: The media is in love with IEDs. They go on and on about them... Soldier killed by IED today,over and over again seemingly every week. Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice? Or how 8 out of 10 IEDs are safely disarmed on a regular basis without injury to troops or civilians? Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sorry , that appears to make no sense ...can you explain it please ?
If the downing street memo is disputed then how can you explain that Blair does not dispute its authenticity ?

---

Well,since everyone seems to be throwing Wikipedia at me,this is taken from the article on the memo itself (I left the heading in so its easy to find in the article itself:

Quote:

---

Veracity of the memo
Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by reproducing all documents and returning the 'originals' back to the source. In some cases, a document was retyped from a photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed.[46] This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, and the LA Times

---

And this from the article on the Blair-Bush Memo:

Quote:

---

It has become controversial for its content, which shows Bush floating the idea of painting a U-2 spyplane in UN colors and letting it fly low over Iraq to provoke the then-leader Saddam Hussein to shoot it down, providing a pretext for America and Britain's subsequent invasion. It also shows the two making a secret deal to carry out said invasion regardless of whether weapons of mass destruction were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to Parliament afterwards that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Whereas Saddam had been neutered and they knew that he couldn't attack any of his neighbours any more .

---

Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.

Never mind. I was going to respond to the conflation of chemical, biological and nuclear WMDs, but I see others have addressed it, only to be dismissed by Spartan for reasons that passeth understanding. Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? :inquisitive:

---

Reading Comprehension 101 time... what part of "the party that it is modelled on" did you miss ? The Baath was (or rather is - there's another branch in Syria IIRC) one of the so-called "Arab Socialist" parties that sprung up in the Mideast like mushrooms after rain post WW2, if memory serves.

Quote:

---

Take this as an example: The media is in love with IEDs. They go on and on about them... Soldier killed by IED today,over and over again seemingly every week. Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice? Or how 8 out of 10 IEDs are safely disarmed on a regular basis without injury to troops or civilians?

---

The tingling of my Common Sense suggests you don't quite understand the whole IED issue. They're traps, pure and simple. One goes off, it can take out a whole damn tank if there's enough explosives. The survivors aren't alive "thanks to the [casualties'] sacrifice", but simply by sheer luck and/or the blast not having been powerful enough to kill the whole lot.

But above all the issue with the IEDs is that they're dirt cheap, easy to make and, hence, ubiquitous, whereas effective countermeasures are conversely complicated, expensive, difficult to employ in the field, and always playing catch-up with the ever more creative bomb-makers.

The point is, it matters very little to the insurgents even if 80% of their nasty little toys get found and safely disposed of; the rest still net quite enough results to keep the balance very much positive.

Quote:

---

Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

---

Because such shiny bits doesn't matter a **** compared to all the dead people and continuing violence, nevermind now all the funny PTSD issues with returning vets, Vietnam style ?

Quote:

---

Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.

---

You fail history class. Go read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Friend, you seem to be mixing your biological with your nuclear WMDs. Also, having the "ability to make" something is a tricky declaration to parse. I can download instructions for building a thermonuclear device on the internet. Does that mean I have the ability to make it?

---

I especially liked the one that noted the need to have a centrifugal device to concentrate the material to render it weapons grade, and suggested putting the uranium into a bucket, attaching the bucket to a rope, then swinging the bucket around in the garden really, really, fast.

Quote:

---

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party?

---

I see your trouble with thinking extends to trouble with reading too :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice?

---

Oh so you want the news to consist of lots of "soldier didn't die today" stories and ignore the ones that die .
Its funny isn't it , you throw aout a statistic about how many IEDs are safely dealt with , yet complain that the media doesn't cover it , but you can find that story repeated throughout the media .

Quote:

---

Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

---

Blimey you really walk into them don't ya ..can you enlighten me about how the media ran and ran with the brave selfless poster boy story and how he gave up a fortune to die bravely fighting the evil terrorists...until it emerged that it was crap , he was shot by his mates and the authorities knew it all the time they were pushing the hero nonsense to the media .

Quote:

---

Well,since everyone seems to be throwing Wikipedia at me,this is taken from the article on the memo itself

---

trouble reading again eh ...

Quote:

---

This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it,

---

..hmmm no official source has questioned it , so that leaves the conspiracy nuts who still question it , the conspiracy nuts who think everything they read that is negative about the Iraqi fiasco is invented by the media.

Quote:

---

And this from the article on the Blair-Bush Memo:

---

Woohoo :balloon2: well done you showed Blair to be a prick just like Bush , now all you have to do is find someone that doesn't think Blair is a prick and then you can argue with them :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Too funny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Friend, you seem to be mixing your biological with your nuclear WMDs. Also, having the "ability to make" something is a tricky declaration to parse. I can download instructions for building a thermonuclear device on the internet. Does that mean I have the ability to make it?

---

Valid point,but after 9/11 here in the US (I should really change my location as I'm not fooling anyone,am I?),even downloading the instructions can constitute a threat. Granted,that doesn't necessarily apply to Iraq,but Saddam did have an active nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. So there's no doubt that he had the capability to make nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Also, please note that WMDs need delivery systems. A two-ton nuclear warhead isn't much good to you if all you've got is a Datsun pickup truck. As far as delivering biological weapons goes, check out the long litany of failures from the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist cult. Boy oh boy did they try to get bio-weapons up and running. It's harder than most people think.

---

You do make good points. But even without a sky-borne delivery system,all that's needed to transport a warhead as such is a triple-axel truck with a covering. With the similarity in ethnicity (I'm not a racist calling all Middle Eastern people the same,it's just that there's been a lot of inbreeding among the various nationalities over the generations. Believe me,my father is racist and I grew up hating that about him. That's the honest truth.),it'd be easy for a small group of soldiers to truck it into a major Kuwaiti city and set it off. Look how easy the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen (I think) was.

But regardless of being chemical,biological,or nuclear,a WMD is still a WMD,you know?

Quote:

---

With the similarity in ethnicity (I'm not a racist calling all Middle Eastern people the same,it's just that there's been a lot of inbreeding among the various nationalities over the generations.

---

This just gets funnier and funnier , keep it up Spartan you are a real scream .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

But regardless of being chemical,biological,or nuclear,a WMD is still a WMD,you know?

---

And ? A lot of states have them. Saddam's, as it happens, were kind of past the "best before" date too.

And do I really even need to explain to you how dumb and surreal the whole "Iraqi suicide squad drives a ZOMG nuke into Kuwait!!1!!!!" is ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And ? A lot of states have them. Saddam's, as it happens, were kind of past the "best before" date too.

---

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat. Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas? Come on,police use that stuff specifically to take felons and offenders alive. But a lot of chemical and biological agents can still cause severe damage to the environment and life itself,even way past the expiration date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And do I really even need to explain to you how dumb and surreal the whole "Iraqi suicide squad drives a ZOMG nuke into Kuwait!!1!!!!" is ?

---

It does sound crazy,but it works nonetheless. Look again at the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the WTC back in '91 or '92,I think.
Siucide squad drives a bomb someplace in a truck or van and blows that someplace up.





I fear this is starting to become another pro-war/anti-war debate,which had nothing to do with my original motivation here. :shame:

Oooh, Google is nice.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat.

---

The interwar period AFAIK, unless you count irritants like tear gas (saw some use in 'Nam AFAIK) and "collateral damage" effects from, say Agent Orange.

You know why armies don't normally bother even trying that gunk against each other ? Because since WW1 every single properly equipped and trained one made sure its soldiers knew the basic countermeasures and had at least rudimentary protective equipement, which by itself already pretty much negates the purely military usefulness of biochemical weapons. Quite simply, the results are not worth the trouble and effort that goes into deploying the stuff in combat.

Quote:

---

Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas? Come on,police use that stuff specifically to take felons and offenders alive. But a lot of chemical and biological agents can still cause severe damage to the environment and life itself,even way past the expiration date.

---

Did you know, the spiral into the nightmarish gas warfare of WW1 actualy escalated from the use of tear gas against bunkers...?

Quote:

---

It does sound crazy,but it works nonetheless. Look again at the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the WTC back in '91 or '92,I think.
Siucide squad drives a bomb someplace in a truck or van and blows that someplace up.

---

Terrorist movements also have a lot easier time finding people to carry out such kamikaze attacks with than regular armies... Not to mention that it's *way* easier to put together enough conventional explosives "on scene" than drive them, nevermind now a damn nuke, over the bloody border - especially one as tense as that between Iraq and Kuwait.

The point of the exercise would also be very questionable anyway.

Quote:

---

I fear this is starting to become another pro-war/anti-war debate,which had nothing to do with my original motivation here. :shame:

---

:inquisitive: Given that your original topic was all about politics in general and those around the Iraq war in particular, I don't see where you get away trying to play martyr.
Don't tell me you're surprised the discussion soon veered this way, especially as IIRC you've been one of the main instigators of that.

Yes, as far as modern battlefield use goes chemical weapons are not much more than a temporary area denial weapon, like a mine field that the wind will blow away after a couple of days.

On which topic, land mines are a much nastier and more indiscriminate weapon. But the weapons on which the most attention should be focused are small arms, because they are the easiest to obtain and use and hence make the biggest contribution to conflicts, and are most extensively used to spread terror and cause dislocation (which is by far the biggest killer). Look at the biggest humanitarian disasters in Africa- Darfur, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, etc. Not caused by whizz bang jet fighters, or nuclear submarines, poison gas or any of the other stuff that tends to make headlines as far as arms proliferation goes.

Yeah, there's a reason the human-rights types tend to regard "small arms" as WMDs - and easily the most factually lethal ones around too.

Then again, something like 85% of the killing in the Rwandan genocide was done with weapons which were essentially Medieval - spiky clubs and machetes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

No offense,but please don't tell me you're one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the Rockafellar Corporation or something runs the US,that the US govenment flew planes into the WTC,and that the moon landings were fake. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything,I'm just not interested in conspiracies.
Other than that,feel free to elaborate.
I knew what I was getting into when I started this thread.

---

Conspiracy theories? What?

Bush got elected with 62,040,610 votes. With a population of 303,824,646, that means Bush got elected by just 20,4% of the population...

I take it you're in favour of extending suffrage to toddlers, HoreTore? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat.

---

Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas?

---

Is it ?
Yeah I suppose it is if all parties have signed and ratified the treaty and all the opt out clauses many states added don't apply then yes it would be illegal , if not they revert to the earlier treaty where it is not illegal .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times :dizzy2:

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times :dizzy2:

---

Haha, the funniest bit is that they're using WMD's(in the form of chemical weapons) in the current Iraq war... And here I was, thinking that they invaded to remove those weapons, not use them...

@Fenring: well, even if you exclude the underage people, you'd still be hard pressed to get the number above 25%....

Chemical weapons aren't necessarily WMD's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@Fenring: well, even if you exclude the underage people, you'd still be hard pressed to get the number above 25%....

---

0.607 (turnout) X 0.507 (votes) = 0.307749 of people elligable to vote.

What was your point, anyway :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

What was your point, anyway :shrug:

---

That GWB wasn't elected by the majority of the population.

So? That's not exactly unique.

We can't tell the political preference of those who stayed at home. A lot of them either don't favour one candidate above the other (i.e. they think both are crap), or simply don't care about politics in general. Unless the turnout is especially low (say, below 60%) I wouldn't take it to mean anything.

Besides, Jens Stoltenberg isn't elected at all :shrug:

You know, the last I heard a rather large segment of the voting-age population of the US was deprived said right due to an array of circumstances involving the law enforcement system...

And given that the last time I checked the US had per capita more people in prison alone than the next three or so states put together...

Moral outrage at the fact that inmates in the US can't vote? :inquisitive:

Slightly more than one in a hundred, or so I recall. Even if they were all democrats they wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And given that the last time I checked the US had per capita more people in prison alone than the next three or so states put together...

---

Between the absurdity of the War on Drugs, certainly one of the single largest US social disasters since slavery, and the reckless and mindless stupidities of Three Strikes Your Out, mandatory minimums, and for-profit incarceration, I'm surprised the entire adult population 18 to 35 isn't locked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Moral outrage at the fact that inmates in the US can't vote? :inquisitive:

Slightly more than one in a hundred, or so I recall. Even if they were all democrats they wouldn't have changed the outcome.

---

:shrug: Mainly just pointing out that's not exactly going to increase the ratio of folks at the urns there.

Quote:

---

Haha, the funniest bit is that they're using WMD's(in the form of chemical weapons) in the current Iraq war...

---

They are not chemical weapons , they are target markers , you set the people on fire so they are easy to identify and shoot .:idea2:

Anyhow strictly speaking it isn't a war in Iraq so none of those rules apply .
Just as it isn't an occupation so none of those rules apply either .
If however someone finally does confirm the obvious and calls it a civil war then the coilitions gets to stand on really dodgy ground (rather than just being stuck in a really dodgy situation up to their necks with no way out) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Anyhow strictly speaking it isn't a war in Iraq so none of those rules apply .
Just as it isn't an occupation so none of those rules apply either .
If however someone finally does confirm the obvious and calls it a civil war then the coilitions gets to stand on really dodgy ground (rather than just being stuck in a really dodgy situation up to their necks with no way out) .

---

I'm kind of reminded of The Onion's country-fact box on Iraq... "Primary cause of death: Victory"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh dear , another one who can line up behind Mars to read the treaties on war crimes :coffeenews:

---

Subtle, but unnecessary. You noticed by the end that I did read it, to your disadvantage.

Please excuse me, .ORGahs. Back to the debate. :bow:

Quote:

---

Subtle, but unnecessary. You noticed by the end that I did read it, to your disadvantage.

---

Not in the slightest , since as you shoud know by now (nasty as the events were) there is no way that they constituted a war crime under the legislation in effect at the time .
Like I said , if you want to call that method a war crime you will have to use a different example as Dresden doesn't fit the bill at all . Its all covered in the get out clauses .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not in the slightest , since as you shoud know by now (nasty as the events were) there is no way that they constituted a war crime under the legislation in effect at the time .
Like I said , if you want to call that method a war crime you will have to use a different example as Dresden doesn't fit the bill at all . Its all covered in the get out clauses .

---

Yes, I've heard that argument, and Panzer and myself have both been over it, and it's bullox.

Anyways, this is not the place.

Yoo hoo Mars , was Dresden a defended city ?
Was it garrisoned in divisional strength ?
Did the method differ from other raids ?
Was it full of legitimate military targets ?
Where the incendiary bombs designed to kill people or destroy buildings ?
Was the bomb mix loaded on the basis of the best combination to destroy buildings or people ?
Does the German declaration make all workers a legitimate military target ?
Was the aiming point chosen for its proximity to the two main train stations ?
Were those train stations allocated for priority military traffic ?

Yeah Panzer and yourself have both been over it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Oooh, Google is nice.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

---

When I click on that,it tells me I have to download some program to view it. Could you cut and paste whatever relevant info is there?

For all the nuclear weapons naysayers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../19/wirq19.xml
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

So? That's not exactly unique.

---

I never said it was, did I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Besides, Jens Stoltenberg isn't elected at all :shrug:

---

Huh? He most certainly is.

Our head of state isn't elected though, if it was him you were talking about. But then kings are rarely elected...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

"What the media reports of the world disagrees with what I want to believe, so obviously the media is wrong and/or lying."
:dizzy2:
Hålla mig handen.

---

It only proves they're just biased,when their job is to be neutral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

This just gets funnier and funnier , keep it up Spartan you are a real scream .

---

You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.

Quote:

---

For all the nuclear weapons naysayers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../19/wirq19.xml
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: I really must ask again , where the hell have you been for the past 5 years ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.

---

Hey Spartan I didn't call you stupid, I said
you appear to be largely devoid of anything mildly relating to the thought process.:yes:

Quote:

---

It only proves they're just biased,when their job is to be neutral.

---

Oh stop will you , for gods sake their job is to make money , plain and simple .:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

When I click on that,it tells me I have to download some program to view it.

---

Errrrrr...thats adobe , since you say you don't do media because it is clearly biased I wonder how you are getting your info since most lenghty government reports , documents from the UN about WMDs and a host of other really relevant material to what you are trying to talk about are presented in pdf. format .
Could it really be that you are attempting to make an arguement using years old inaccurate news articles and widely discredited claims by politicians without viewing any of the material that has long established them as being inaccurate and discredited .:jawdrop:
That really does put your statement into a new light

Quote:

---

You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.

---

You know , you wasn't thinking at all was you ~:doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

It only proves they're just biased,when their job is to be neutral.

---

You seem to have rather... interesting... standards for "proof" and "bias" you know.
...
...
...okay, to be honest, I think they're just blatantly tendentious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

For all the nuclear weapons naysayers:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp

---

Thank you, that one really cracked me up :laugh4:

But then, it is dated June 2003, so he might have come to his senses by now...

You're all talking nonsense, and this kind of scepticism will lead to problems in the future. Luckily the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld does not share your doubts, which is why the war has been a great success. We only need one more thing, the capture of Saddam Hussein (where is he anyway?), and we'll have achieved all our objectives. Just you guys wait.

Quote:

---

But then, it is dated June 2003, so he might have come to his senses by now...

---

Nope Kurtz still writes crap .
Apparently being wrong about the WMDS isn't important

Quote:

---

Not nearly as important as the deterrent effect of an America willing to brave 3,000 casualties for the sake of proving our willingness to take down rouge states.

---

Frigging moonbat isn't he . he swings month to month from OMG get the nukes , bring down rogue states and lets have democracy to .....support dictators that sell nukes , support terrorsts and bugger democracy because people vote the wrong way and governments don't do what he wants .

But anyway I think people should really thank Spartan for this topic and his "thoughts" . It does everyone good to have a really heartfelt laugh and Spartan has certainly supplied them aplenty :2thumbsup: