It's A 'Time of War'

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    and time for the government to say so:

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/01/general_conway_.html#more

     
  2. Roopull
    Offline

    Roopull Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Near Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +18
    This is the result of attempting to wage a politically correct war... it ain't gonna happen. Exactly how to you kill someone in a politically correct way?

    Had we been waging a total war the way we did prior to the Korean War, there would probably be no need for a boost in enlistments because the REAL war we'd be waging would be enough of a rallying cry in and of itself.

    Plus, the war would be over, now.


    Instead, we are very much stuck in yet another police action... it's hard to get excited about that.
     
  3. José
    Online

    José Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,243
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Ratings:
    +360
  4. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    get out of their country and they will sell oil ,they cant eat oil ,they cant sustain a military ,purchase technology , medicines...we can get oil without killing and stealing it..its not about oil
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Actually this is part of the true errors GW personally did regarding the war. He wanted most people to think the US could wage war, without any involvement than their taxes. He would keep putting the troops in, as very few as necessary and only volunteers at that. He didn't seem to see the need for connections between sacrifices on both ends.
     
  6. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    It's not a matter of whether or not the ongoing occupation of Iraq is "politically correct". It was an unjust war launched on the basis sexed up, if not outright false, intel. It was a war of choice. The invasion of Iraq violated US treaty obligations and international law. That is why support for the war has dwindled to the point where its supporters are becoming an endangered species.

    Had we not lost our focus in Afghanistan and actually pursued Osama bin Laden to his capture or killing, I would still be a supporter of the war. But instead, for reasons known only to himself and his the chicken-hawks in his cabinet, Kommander Koo-Koo Krazypants decided to invade Iraq. And now, nearly four years after he so brazenly declared "Mission Accomplished!", we are still mired in Iraq, our troops caught up in the middle of a civil war, and this President ignores the voices of reason that assail him from all sides to stop pouring our blood and treasure into this fruitless endeavor and embark on a new course of regional diplomacy and strive for a political solution to a problem which has no military solution.
     
  7. Roopull
    Offline

    Roopull Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Near Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +18
    I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean a politically correct war... I meant waging war in a politically correct manner. Carpet bombing, firebombing & killing civillians isn't politically correct. So, we cripple ourselves by trying to appease the PC crowd. Meanwhile, our enemies over there have no such self crippling tendencies & wage war however they want... afterall, CNN certainly isn't going to hold "insurgents" responsible for anything.

    I wasn't just referring to the ongoing occupation, either. Both of our little wars with Iraq were waged in a politically correct fashion. Why did we stop attacking the retreating Republican Guard in the first war? Because we didn't want to seem mean & cruel:rolleyes: . How stupid is that?

    This time around, we waged war with the self imposed rule of not killing anyone who could be mistaken for a civillian. Uh... what do you call a Baathist Soldier when he takes off his uniform? A CIVILLIAN! What do you call him when he blows up a Hummer? An Insurgent. One in the same, no? It's an unwinnable situation & one "we" have put on ourselves.

    Here's a little cartoon that I think pretty well describes the situation, but from a different conflict with the same stupid rules of engagement:
    [​IMG]
     
  8. José
    Online

    José Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,243
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Ratings:
    +360
    Bully

    I think we must be honest here and recognise the fact that the US invasion freed the shia population from the autocratic, sectarian rule of Saddam (now the US is trying to impose a sectarian government on sunnis, but this is a different subject that is irrelevant to this discussion).

    But as far as international law is concerned, a country cannot wage war on another based on good intentions.

    It must present a valid, credible casus belli.

    International law is crystal clear regarding armed agressions on soveireign states:

    In the absence of any agression against the invading country, the Security Council has to give an explicit authorization prior to the invasion.

    Period.

    End of discussion.

    You cannot call Iraq a rogue state when it invades Kwait without an authorization from the S.C. and then come up with a million excuses when the US does the same thing regarding Iraq.

    This is how clowns think about international politics, not serious people.

    Any unbiased observer of the international scene will inevitably tell you that the casus belli against Afghanistan was so clear that was not even open for discussion.

    The same observer will tell that the casus belli against Iraq was nonexistent:

    A secular country, opposed to islamic fundamentalism (Bin Laden said many times that “socialists (referring to Saddam) are aposthates”. No connections with the group that hit the US.

    The only place where the casus belli against Iraq is anything more than a joke is inside the stinky swamp super patriotic american clowns carry on top of their necks.

    But it’s useless to point out all these facts to them, Bully.

    It’s useless because of the following statement, that is so true it should be elevated to the status of a fundamental law of science : )

    Super patriotic american clowns never met a single casus belli put forth by the US government they didn’t like.

    When they hear the US is about to present a casus belli against any country they agree with it first and listen to the presentation later.

    The name of the country and the reasons for war are just small details that simply do not justify the delay in their support : )
     
  9. José
    Online

    José Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,243
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Ratings:
    +360
    And another thing Bully, every now and then, someone creates a thread on the following subject:

    “What would you do if the US was invaded by a foreign country?”

    As you can imagine, all the messages posted on these kind of threads are little varitions of these two:

    Super patriotic american clown number 1:

    “Count me in.”

    Super patriotic american clown number 2:

    “Well, I’m a 70 year old lady, but if the US was invaded I would pick up my old rifle and join the granny’s platoon.”

    Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

    I never saw a single individual say things like this:

    “Well, I wouldn’t oppose the military occupation of the US if it was for the betterment of the country.”

    “I would accept the presence of foreign troops on US soil if the invading country presented a strong casus belli.”

    All these excuses to justify foreign military occupations are good only for Vietnam and the Anbar province in Iraq, they are never good enough to justify the invasion and occupation of America.

    So I would add a second fundamental law of nature to the first one presented above : )

    Super patriotic american clowns seem to have a kind of nazi mindset that sees the american people as having more rights to fight foreign aggressions than the other peoples of the Earth.

    It’s a clear case of nazi mentality because this view portrays the american people as a superior people surrounded by subhumans that are not justified in fighting back against unjust military aggressions like the one in Vietnam.
     
  10. José
    Online

    José Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,243
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Ratings:
    +360
    You know, Bully, people here like to label people like you who oppose the war in Iraq as leftists but let’s stop for a moment and think about it.

    Judging from your previous statements you are clearly able to recognise the instances where the US has a valid, unquestionable casus belli against other nation (Afghanistan).

    So its not you who is unable to recognise a valid casus belli presented by the US, it is most of the members of this message board who are unable to recognise an invalid one (Iraq).

    It’s not you who deny the right of the american people to fight any military invasion of their country, it’s them who deny this same right to any other people in the world who happen to oppose America’s geopolitical goals.

    So the issue here is not left vs. right, Bully.

    The issue here is that we are surrounded by a bunch of super patriotic american clowns, completely incoherent, contradictory, supporting blatant double standards favorable to the US, implicitly stating that the US has the right to wage war and devastate any country based on any casus belli presented by the US government, no matter how weak and pathetic it is, implicitly stating that the american people is the only people in the world who has a God given right to fight any military invasion and occupation of their country, etc, etc...

    I don’t even know why we waste our time "debating" with these clowns.
     

Share This Page