Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Last Throes of Insurgency? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Last Throes of Insurgency?
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess this is what the Bush Administration meant when they forecasted the last throes of the insurgency:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ayL4YgTm_TMY&refer=top_world_news

quote:
Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Fourteen U.S. Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed and another Marine was wounded in an insurgent attack today west of Baghdad, the military said.

The Marines died when their amphibious assault vehicle hit a bomb, the military said in a statement e-mailed from the capital, Baghdad. The interpreter's nationality and other details weren't provided.

The incident occurred during combat 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) south of the city of Haditha, according to the statement. The Marines were assigned to Regimental Combat Team 2, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), the military said. Haditha is in al-Anbar province, where Iraqi and U.S. forces began operations against insurgents in late May.

Seven Marines from the same unit died in action two days ago. Today's casualties bring to 1,816 the number of U.S. military members who have died in Iraq since the 2003 invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, according to Defense Department figures.

U.S.-led troops and members of the Iraqi security forces are struggling to contain an insurgency that has killed more than 4,000 Iraqis, including 2,000 civilians, since the beginning of the year, Agence France-Presse cited the Interior Ministry as saying.

As many as 26,264 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the invasion and subsequent violence, according to a tally by Iraq Body Count, a London-based group that opposes the war and compiles its casualty toll from English-language media reports and official statements.

Reporter Killed

American reporter Steven Vincent was found dead in the southern city of Basra, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said today. The freelancer was abducted and shot dead yesterday, AFP reported.

Vincent, who reported for the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times, had been in Iraq for several months and was working on a book about the history of Basra, according to his Web site. He was kidnapped along with his female translator and shot dead by unknown gunmen, AFP said, citing Basra police. The translator suffered injuries, AFP said.

With this horrible attack, that means 34 American troops have killed by insurgents in less than 1 week.

Meanwhile, what has the Administration chosen to do about Iraq lately? All they have really done is bandy around some overly optimistic scenarios where they could cut and run from Iraq before the 2006 midterm elections. This is a serious time for the Iraq operation, and it is time for serious people to make serious decisions. Otherwise, we are going to see our position in Iraq deteriorate as brave young kids pay for the incompetence of our civilian leadership in the Administration and the Pentagon.

[ August 03, 2005, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems to me rather ghoulish to gleefully report the death of US military men as egg on the face of the Bush administration.

I have seen plenty of press critical of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, but I have yet to see anyone state a convincing plan which would improve things.

Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Badvok
Member
Member # 1085

 - posted      Profile for Badvok   Email Badvok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adjudicator:
It seems to me rather ghoulish to gleefully report the death of US military men as egg on the face of the Bush administration.

I didn't see any glee in that, to me the only emotion depicted was disgust at the situation.
Posts: 296 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I didn't see any glee in that, to me the only emotion depicted was disgust at the situation.
The glee comes from Mr. Ricardo. His topic title is "Last throes of insurgency" and then he cites an article which indicates that a number of US servicemen have been killed in recent days.

Ha! Take that, Cheney! Last throes indeed!

[ August 03, 2005, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Adjudicator ]

Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Georgie drove the car off the cliff. When criticized, as the car was sinking in the bay, he said "I don't hear you come up with a plan to fix the damage".

Q: Does Georgie deserve to be left at the wheel?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would not criticize the Administration if they were asking the country for more troops to solidify our occupation in Iraq. If the Administration would be frank with the country and ask for more sacrifice, more troops, and more hard work -- I would say bravo.

Instead, however, you have the Administration cheerleaders who wish to paint the occupation in Iraq as rainbows and sunshine even while brave young American men and women are dying in increasing numbers in Iraq.

That's what is ghoulish to me -- the cheerleading of the "success" of the war even as those who are brave enough to be actually fighting the war are suffering even more casualties in the midst of even more numerous insurgent attacks.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the aministration had gone into this war legaly, then they would have many more troops.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is why, once a decision is made to go into a country the military should make the decisions and politicians should be watching a TV screen. Senators should not be deciding when our troops come home, its not their territory.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since soldiers have such a great record at doing those sort of things. Imagine WWII if Patton, rather than FDR and Churchill, held that power. Clemenceau once said that war is too important to be left to the generals. On the other hand Col. Jack Ripper disagreed and gave the orders that would destroy the Earth, if Only in Dr Strangeglove: Or How I Learnt to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Senators should not be deciding when our troops come home, its not their territory.

*blink* Yes. Specifically, it is.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah I know technically it is in their power, but they should not be doing things for politically motivated reasons.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I disagree with that. If the war is being fought for political reasons (and I'd argue it largely is), then anything the senators do is for political reasons.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the aministration had gone into this war legaly, then they would have many more troops.
1.) Prove it.
2.) It's legal to intervene in any nondemocratic country. The power structure in the society of states is organized along the principles in the peace accords after the fall of the USSR, not the United Nations.

[ August 03, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I shall prove it. Firstly, you are wrong to assume that this was a legal war, for the U.S. a legal war means a war by the Nato powers that has been approved by the U.N. Such a war would have included troops from other Nato powers, therefore there would be more troops. Simple.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
for the U.S. a legal war means a war by the Nato powers that has been approved by the U.N.
That's just plain ignorant.

First of all, NATO's authority is nebulous. We can certainly go to war without NATO and do so perfectly legally. Secondly, nothing prevented some of our NATO allied troops from pulling out when their government decided to.
Third, what we have with the UN is a series of treaties that do not require them to approve of our actions. The UN is as powerful as it is, period.

You make the UN sound like it has a police department and a court system. It has neither as far as enforcing against the US. We do not subject ourselves to ICJ authority.
The UN has only the authority it can put teeth behind. It is international law, which is not really "law" by any normal meaning of the word.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only people saying the war is illegal are those who are convinced that the UN is the world government.
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Archer
Member
Member # 2546

 - posted      Profile for Archer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adjudicator:
quote:
I didn't see any glee in that, to me the only emotion depicted was disgust at the situation.
The glee comes from Mr. Ricardo. His topic title is "Last throes of insurgency" and then he cites an article which indicates that a number of US servicemen have been killed in recent days.

Ha! Take that, Cheney! Last throes indeed!

throes: a hard or painful struggle ; a sudden violent and temporary effort
Posts: 205 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
I think I disagree with that. If the war is being fought for political reasons (and I'd argue it largely is), then anything the senators do is for political reasons.

I think it is obvious we disagree on this. Well on second thought maybe we dont. While I do think the politicians see this as a political war, I see it, and many others see it as well as a chance to change a government that was corrupt and hurt its own people. Wether or not we are making progress is arguable, I like to think we are, many others think we arent. I support it because I believe it is the right thing to do, not because of a political agenda. This is why I said politicians should not be involved, because we need to let our soldiers do their jobs without politicians using our soldiers as political tools.

I hate the idea of these men and women who sacrifice themselves for what is right being used to purposefully further someones political agenda.

[ August 03, 2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Bradford ]

Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem is, when we originally declared war on Iraq... thats exactly what was happening. Furthering a political agenda. Check out PNAC sometime... the war in iraq is in furtherance of their political agenda.

Whether its a good political agenda or not, thats a different question. But there's no doubt in my mind that this war was waged, not to free people (Especially since that never came up in the lead up to war), nor even to prevent a terrorist attack on the united states, or the distribution of WMD... but because Bush's advisors believe that american hegemony over the middle east is good. ANd waging war to secure that is advancing a political agenda.

[ August 03, 2005, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I mean by "purposefully"(is that even a word because it sounds bizarre) is that if a politician supports the war because he believes in it then it is okay with me for him to get elected again, but if he is saying he agrees or disagrees simply to get elected that is not okay. I guess I want honesty from our politicians and that seems pretty unlikely.

Politicians need to stop siding with party lines simply because it is the republican/democratic party, they should be honest about what they think, not what the party thinks.

Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But there's no doubt in my mind that this war was waged, not to free people (Especially since that never came up in the lead up to war)
It'd be good to drop this idea that it was NEVER MENTIONED, before the war, that we would be helping the people of Iraq, to free them. Here's a speech by Bush, from October of 2002, before the war:

quote:
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Feel free to argue that it wasn't prominent enough for you to take notice, but please stop saying it was non-existent.

[ August 03, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still think it was the right thing to do, even if the original intent was hegemony over the middle east. Those were a couple motivating factors, I think many politicians at the time(and some still do) that the toppling of Saddams regime was the morally responsible thing to do. However I think some of those politicians may have waivered from the path of morality and have begun using this war as furthering their political carreer/agenda.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for posting that Javelin, I was actually searching for that speech the other day and I could not find it. I knew he had talked about helping the Iraqi people not just WMD production.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I still think it was the right thing to do,"

Which is fine. But don't pretend saying something is right to do, when its the government doing it, isn't pushing a political agenda.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
pickled shuttlecock, I have never said, nor do I believe, that the U.N. is the world government, yet I say that the war is illegal, therefore your statement is factually incorrect.

WarrsawPact, as I have demonstrated in the past, I get rather angry when people assume that I am ignorant. In this case, I am well informed. The very first sentence in the first chapter of the U.N. charter reads: “The Purposes of the United Nations are:To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”
Clearly an act of military aggression by a member-state violates the spirit of this. The “teeth” to which you refer are supplied by the member-states: if the U.S. wants more “teeth” then it should provide them, rather than deliberately ignoring the organization.

The North Atlantic treaty acknowledges that“This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

What has become increasingly apparent is that the United States is more concerned with what it can get away with than with the philosophical duties of a Nation-State.
P.S. you are partially wrong about the I.C.C., while the U.S. claims not to acknowledge it, it is still a signatory, which is viewed as binding.

Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard, I said "If the original intent was hegemony over the middle east." Key word being if, I also said that those were "A couple motivating factors" meaning not the only factors involved. You can want the U.S. to have influence over the middle east and a better life for Iraqi's the two are not mutually exclusive.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clearly an act of military aggression by a member-state violates the spirit of this.
To echo a posting style of another Ornerian:

Well.

No, it doesn't.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
P.S. you are partially wrong about the I.C.C., while the U.S. claims not to acknowledge it, it is still a signatory, which is viewed as binding.
Relevant info on this

quote:
**On 6 May 2002, the Secretary-General, in his capacity as treaty repository, received from the government of the United States America the following communication:

"...[I]n connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, [...] the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter , be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."


Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My point is that " I see it, and many others see it as well as a chance to change a government that was corrupt and hurt its own people," is still a political agenda. You thought going to war FOR WHATEVER REASON was the right thing to do. This makes it political. It changes from political to non-political when the motivation is changes from "the right thing to do," to "necessary for our survival as a nation."

War is political, in almost all circumstances. So its not surprising that politicians play politics with it. And not only is it not surprising, its right and proper. The administration sent over our troops, and those troops are dying, to advance the administrations idea of "the right thing to do." But not everyone agrees with it being the right thing to do. But since those of us who think it is the WRONG thing to do also elect senators and representatives, pay taxes, we expect those senators and representatives to voice their objections, and call for what they believe "the right thing to do" to happen.

Thats politics. And its proper. Asking politics to stop playing politics with the military once we send our soldiers over is a very short step to "you guys who oppose the war are traitors." Because its asking the minority not to play politics with the military, but letting the majority do it without being questioned.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
pickled shuttlecock, I have never said, nor do I believe, that the U.N. is the world government, yet I say that the war is illegal, therefore your statement is factually incorrect.

I'm sorry, but the only way to wriggle out of this is to be completely irrational. It doesn't matter what you said. Follow it logically:

The only way this war is illegal is if the UN holds some kind of veto power over our own Congress. If that's the case, the US necessarily submits to the UN as a higher power - a world government, in other words.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that. If you don't like the term "world government," you can argue against that, but world government is what it amounts to.

From a Constitutional standpoint, the war is completely legal. From our own declaration of sovereignty, that's all it takes.

Unless we submit to a higher authority.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My issue is not with people who oppose the military action in Iraq, it is with people who oppose it or support it simply for political gain.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
javelin, yes that is the government line. It doesn't mean that the U.S. is not legally bound by the treaty, rather that it does not consider itself to be. I can say that I am not bound by U.S. law, but I still am, and, unlike the U.S, I didn’t sign a treaty to that affect. Any way the motive behind attempting to back out was ridiculous, “Americans might be tried there, we can’t let that happen!” I am sure that they were afraid that other countries would care to revisit our Cold-War war-crimes.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
javelin, yes that is the government line. It doesn't mean that the U.S. is not legally bound by the treaty, rather that it does not consider itself to be. I can say that I am not bound by U.S. law, but I still am, and, unlike the U.S, I didn’t sign a treaty to that affect.

The following applies:

quote:
From a Constitutional standpoint, the war is completely legal. From our own declaration of sovereignty, that's all it takes.

Unless we submit to a higher authority.



[ August 03, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My issue is not with people who oppose the military action in Iraq, it is with people who oppose it or support it simply for political gain."

So, if a senator really objects to the war, you have no objections having him calling for the troops to come home? Because thats how this started... you said "This is why, once a decision is made to go into a country the military should make the decisions and politicians should be watching a TV screen. Senators should not be deciding when our troops come home, its not their territory."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
pickled shuttlecock, by signing the Charter, the U.S. recognized the right of the U.N. to mediate disputes and preserve peace. So yes, on some issues, notably War, countries are expected to go to the U.N. and ask approval. It should be noted that the First Gulf War was officially sanctioned by the U.N., as was the Korean War. The only other major war that the U.S. has been involved in since the creation of the U.N. that was not approved by the U.N. was the Viet Nam war, which was at least as illegal as this one.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bradford
Member
Member # 733

 - posted      Profile for Bradford   Email Bradford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They can call for the troops to come home all they want, but the military was sent there to do a job and the military should be allowed to do that job, whether they come home or not should not depend on when elections are happening in the U.S. The projected troop withdrawl conveniently coincides with elections. My issue here is with republicans and Bush who I suspect of calling the troops home so they can get re elected not with democrats who I usually oppose.

But I am off to work, so I will not be able to respond to anything that gets said for about 8 hours.

Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
javelin, it is time that we stop thinking of what is merely legal and think instead of what is right.
The U.S. defends its Constitution like an ancient tribe defending its gods.
Most countries change their constitution frequently.
It is time that the U.S. be brought into the 21st century, and if this means a new constitution, then so be it.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution is not a sacred text.

Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
javelin, it is time that we stop thinking of what is merely legal and think instead of what is right.

We've had this argument before - I often agree with you about what is RIGHT. But you ALWAYS seem to talk about what is right as if it was the LAW. If you want to talk about what is right, then stop saying that it's the law. Then, I'll either agree with you, or I'll tell you that I don't, and why - but I won't be saying "That's not the law."

Deal?

On the Constitution - it's a changeable document - if it needs to be changed, how about you start the process? It's outlined in the document, and provided for.

[ August 03, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TS Elliot
Member
Member # 736

 - posted      Profile for TS Elliot   Email TS Elliot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bradford:
I hate the idea of these men and women who sacrifice themselves for what is right being used to purposefully further someones political agenda. [/QB]

This is exactly why the Left and the French and the Belgians and the majority in EVERY country except the usa, was against the war: They saw correctly that this was about poor blacks and even more poor whites dying to fill the pockets of bush and cheney and the saudi's. As well as establish hegemony over the M-E. Only people who had an axe to grind because Clinton got a BJ in the White House defend this war morally with the poor WMD excuse and Freedom excuse. The Americans can't even establish a no fly zone in Darfur, which cost considerably less in Tomahawks dollars and results in more human lives saved.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TS Elliot
Member
Member # 736

 - posted      Profile for TS Elliot   Email TS Elliot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Legal or not, the law comes down to agreements. the us, or bush has proved itself not to be trustworthy. They're dealbreakers. They signed the UN treaty. so they should abide by it.
It all comes down to your view of human society: should it be: 'Might makes right' OR law-abiding?

the only thing I would ask, if its the former, and it all points towards that as far as cheney and co are concerned, is that they come right out and say so. Through its actions, the usa is saying: "i'm king of the world, and everybody else go f ... yourself". They just don't wanna come right out and say it in words.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1