|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Marc Ravalomanana
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| I haven't read the ROE for this time and place. But yes from my limited understanding, people trying to assist wounded enemy would get shot, assuming that you think they are insurgents. |
False. The ROE require Soldiers to positively identify hostile intent before using deadly force through. Here are the relevant portions of the ROE:
| The ROE (p. 16) wrote: |
1. (S//REL) ESCALATION OF FORCE. When addressed with a potential threat that has not yet positively engaged in a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent, Soldiers will use escalation of force techniques to develop the situation. If a potentital threat fails to respond to escalation of force measures, Soldiers may use this failure as a factor in determining whether a potential threat is engaging in a hostile act or demonstrating hostile intent. Once a Soldier determines that a potentital threat is engaging in a hostile act or demonstrating hostile intent, the Soldier may engage the threat with deadly force without further escalation of force measures. Escalation of force mesaures include, but are not limited to:
(a) (U) Shout verbal warnings to halt;
(b) (U) Show your weapon and demonstrate intent to use it;
(c) (U) Physically restrain, block access, or detain;
(d) (U) Fire a non-lethal round, if available;
(e) (U) Fire a warning shot;
(f) (U) Shoot to disable the threat (only when threat is a vehicle);
(g) Shoot to eliminate the threat.
2. (S//REL) DEADLY FORCE. If individuals pose a threat to Coalition Forces by committing a hostile act or demonstrating hostile intent, US Forces may use force, up to and including deadly force, to eliminate the threat. Soldiers may, but are not required to, use EOF when responding to a positively identified hostile act or display of hostile intent that threaten them or other designated personnel with death or serious bodily injury. When a Soldier has PID of a hostile act or display of hostile intent that threatens death or serious bodily injury, the Soldier is permitted to use deadly force without proceeding through EOF. |
| The ROE (definitions; p. 21-22) wrote: |
9. (C) HOSTILE ACT: An attack or other use of force by any civilian, paramilitary, or military force or terrorist(s), with or without national designation, aganst Coalition Forces, Coalition Force nationals, their property, and/or other designated non-coalition Force nationals and their property. It is also force used directly to preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of US Forces, including the recovery of US personnel and vital US Government property.
10. (U) HOSTILE FORCE: A hostile force is defined as any civilian, paramilitary, or military force, or terrorist(s)m without or without national designation, that has committed a hostile act, exhibited hostile intent, or has been declared hostile by appropriate authority. Hostile force also includes hostile armaments, munitions, and equipment.
11. (S//REL) HOSTILE INTENT: The threat of imminent use of force against the United States, US Forces, and in certain circumstances, US Nationals, their property, US commercial assets, and/or other designated non-US Forces, foreign nationals, and their property. When hostile intent is present, the right exists to use proportional force, including armed force, in self-defense by all necessary means available to deter or neutralize the potentital attacker or, if necessary, destroy the threat. Determination of hostile intent must be based on convincing evidence that an attack is imminent prior to the use of proportional force in self-defense. Evidence necessary to determine hostile intent will vary depending on the state of international or regional political tension, military preparations, intelligence, and indication and warning information. Evidence of hostile intent is considered to exist when a foreign force or terrorist(s) is detected to maneuver into a weapon launch position; is preparing to fire, launch or release weapons against the US, US forces, and in certain circumstances, US nationals and their property, or US commercial assets; is preparing to lay mines in US territorial waters; or attempts to gain control of information systems critical to military employment or national infrastructure. (see] Refrence B). |
http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html
The soldiers were not following protocol when they lit up the van. They violated the ROE in their thirst to kill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
[q
| Quote: |
| Then perhaps we should pull out and let the insurgents take over. Except that after all that time, loss of life and money spent to remove Saddam...another Saddam takes over. |
Saddam did not just come out of nowhere. He was our puppet there for 27 years before we turned on him.
. |
"Our puppet".
So his attack on Kuwait was supported by the U.S?
So his gassing of the Kurds was supported by the U.S?
So his refusal to let U.N. inspectors in was supported by the U.S?
And I could cite dozens of more examples over the years.
Is it fun living in a world, where you don't have to consider any pesky facts? |
Glad the attack on Kuwait was mentioned.
The Kuwaiti oil company had moved slant drilling equipment right near the border with Iraq. They were stealing Iraqi oil. Saddam consulted with the Bush administration about an invasion over this and was given the green light in a set-up. That was then used as the pretext for the invasion now that he had outlived his usefulness for us.
One can chew on those facts for awhile. Or he can just keep making snide, stupid comments if his self-esteem is so low that he needs to feel good about himself that way. Having professionally practiced counseling, I know just how therapeutic that can be for some patients.
|
One could also provide PROOF that these are facts, methinks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
[q
| Quote: |
| Then perhaps we should pull out and let the insurgents take over. Except that after all that time, loss of life and money spent to remove Saddam...another Saddam takes over. |
Saddam did not just come out of nowhere. He was our puppet there for 27 years before we turned on him.
. |
"Our puppet".
So his attack on Kuwait was supported by the U.S?
So his gassing of the Kurds was supported by the U.S?
So his refusal to let U.N. inspectors in was supported by the U.S?
And I could cite dozens of more examples over the years.
Is it fun living in a world, where you don't have to consider any pesky facts? |
This is much more complicated then you think. I lived in Kuwait, and I have followed things from the time of the Iraq-Iran War, the bombing of the US embasssy in Kuwait. In short, the Ba'ath party was placed in power in '68 and Saddam rose through the ranks and took power. In 1979, the US encouraged Saddam to invade Iran during the revolution.
The war ended in 1988 with Iraq's victory. I remember hearing bombs hit Iraq. It was constant.
During the Iraq-Iran War, Kuwaiti tankers had American flags for protection, but in 1990 the US did not warn Saddam not to invade Kuwait.
I remember that year. I was in New York. I had left Kuwait for the summer. I was in Ithaca, New York at Cornell. I was with some Anglo-Indian neighbors who lived in Kuwait. They were worried about the 80,000 soldiers on the border, and so was I. People at Cornell knew how to call long distance for free. I used that only twice. I called Kuwait six hours before the invasion. I talked to a calm friend who said nothing would happen, and I argued with him that I wasn't assured, and I had a feeling something was going to happen. I also warned friends about Saddam in May of that year and said he was unstable and would "Do something you wouldn't like". I had also warned of what might possibly happen in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. I said that year, "When you think the war is over, that's when it will begin". I was ridiculed for saying that.
In 1990, the Soviet Union fell, Iran was exhausted. Saddam, like Noriega of Panama, was no longer useful. He hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. April Glaspie said it was not the U.S's concern and so did Margart Tutweiler. Saddam invades Kuwait, and there is no indication he was going to invade Saudi Arabia. Bush senior pressures Saudi to take troops.
Back home, in the US, there was still the legacy of the Vietnam War.
People were reluctant to go to war. We heard, "No blood for oil".
So, as Chomsy would say, "Consent had to be manufactured." But how?
Hill&Knowlton with connections to Bush senior got a Kuwaiti girl to testify that Iraqi soldiers tossed babies out of incubators. It wasn't true. The media didn't identify the girl as a member of the Sabah family, the royal family.
Look, the American people and the people of Iraq are victims of politics.
It's clear. I am not a truther. I am recounting my memories, my following of the papers, information that's readily out there for those who research. |
I suggest that your "memories" or "following of the papers" are not quite accurate. For example the war began in 1980 not 1979 as you claim. And it ended in a stalemate not an Iraqi victory.
And Glaspie has said different. She testified before the Senate that she had repeatedly warned Saddam against invading Kuwait and that he had lied to her and said he wasn't planning on invading Kuwait. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
[q
| Quote: |
| Then perhaps we should pull out and let the insurgents take over. Except that after all that time, loss of life and money spent to remove Saddam...another Saddam takes over. |
Saddam did not just come out of nowhere. He was our puppet there for 27 years before we turned on him.
. |
"Our puppet".
So his attack on Kuwait was supported by the U.S?
So his gassing of the Kurds was supported by the U.S?
So his refusal to let U.N. inspectors in was supported by the U.S?
And I could cite dozens of more examples over the years.
Is it fun living in a world, where you don't have to consider any pesky facts? |
Glad the attack on Kuwait was mentioned.
The Kuwaiti oil company had moved slant drilling equipment right near the border with Iraq. They were stealing Iraqi oil. Saddam consulted with the Bush administration about an invasion over this and was given the green light in a set-up. That was then used as the pretext for the invasion now that he had outlived his usefulness for us.
One can chew on those facts for awhile. Or he can just keep making snide, stupid comments if his self-esteem is so low that he needs to feel good about himself that way. Having professionally practiced counseling, I know just how therapeutic that can be for some patients.
|
One could also provide PROOF that these are facts, methinks. |
OK, so you provide NO proof for your assertions, but everyone else must do so. Yeah, right, of course, you are that special snowflake. I forgot. So here:
| David Klein, California State University, Northridge wrote: |
| The war with Iran left Iraq in ruins. When Saddam Hussein launched his eight year war against Iran, Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. But by the end of the war, his nation was $80 billion in debt. Iraq was pressed to repay the $80 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with interest. While Iraq was distracted by its war, Kuwait had accumulated 900 square miles of Iraqi territory by advancing its border with Iraq northward. This was presented to Iraq as a fait accompli and it gave Kuwait access to the Rumaila oil field. The Kuwaiti Sheik had purchased the Santa Fe Drilling Corporation of Alhambra, California, for $2.3 billion and proceeded to use its slant drilling equipment to gain access to the Iraqi oil field. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
[q
| Quote: |
| Then perhaps we should pull out and let the insurgents take over. Except that after all that time, loss of life and money spent to remove Saddam...another Saddam takes over. |
Saddam did not just come out of nowhere. He was our puppet there for 27 years before we turned on him.
. |
"Our puppet".
So his attack on Kuwait was supported by the U.S?
So his gassing of the Kurds was supported by the U.S?
So his refusal to let U.N. inspectors in was supported by the U.S?
And I could cite dozens of more examples over the years.
Is it fun living in a world, where you don't have to consider any pesky facts? |
Glad the attack on Kuwait was mentioned.
The Kuwaiti oil company had moved slant drilling equipment right near the border with Iraq. They were stealing Iraqi oil. Saddam consulted with the Bush administration about an invasion over this and was given the green light in a set-up. That was then used as the pretext for the invasion now that he had outlived his usefulness for us.
One can chew on those facts for awhile. Or he can just keep making snide, stupid comments if his self-esteem is so low that he needs to feel good about himself that way. Having professionally practiced counseling, I know just how therapeutic that can be for some patients.
|
One could also provide PROOF that these are facts, methinks. |
OK, so you provide NO proof for your assertions, but everyone else must do so. Yeah, right, of course, you are that special snowflake. I forgot. So here:
| David Klein, California State University, Northridge wrote: |
| The war with Iran left Iraq in ruins. When Saddam Hussein launched his eight year war against Iran, Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. But by the end of the war, his nation was $80 billion in debt. Iraq was pressed to repay the $80 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with interest. While Iraq was distracted by its war, Kuwait had accumulated 900 square miles of Iraqi territory by advancing its border with Iraq northward. This was presented to Iraq as a fait accompli and it gave Kuwait access to the Rumaila oil field. The Kuwaiti Sheik had purchased the Santa Fe Drilling Corporation of Alhambra, California, for $2.3 billion and proceeded to use its slant drilling equipment to gain access to the Iraqi oil field. |
|
As far as providing proof I didn't see you disputing those three FACTS I mentioned above, so why do I need to provide proof if you are not disagreeing that these occurred? 
On the other hand I was disputing that the Bush Administration gave the go-ahead to Saddam to invade Kuwait. I even bolded the sentence I was taking issue with so it would be clear. And yet I still see nothing in your reply that answers that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
[q
| Quote: |
| Then perhaps we should pull out and let the insurgents take over. Except that after all that time, loss of life and money spent to remove Saddam...another Saddam takes over. |
Saddam did not just come out of nowhere. He was our puppet there for 27 years before we turned on him.
. |
"Our puppet".
So his attack on Kuwait was supported by the U.S?
So his gassing of the Kurds was supported by the U.S?
So his refusal to let U.N. inspectors in was supported by the U.S?
And I could cite dozens of more examples over the years.
Is it fun living in a world, where you don't have to consider any pesky facts? |
This is much more complicated then you think. I lived in Kuwait, and I have followed things from the time of the Iraq-Iran War, the bombing of the US embasssy in Kuwait. In short, the Ba'ath party was placed in power in '68 and Saddam rose through the ranks and took power. In 1979, the US encouraged Saddam to invade Iran during the revolution.
The war ended in 1988 with Iraq's victory. I remember hearing bombs hit Iraq. It was constant.
During the Iraq-Iran War, Kuwaiti tankers had American flags for protection, but in 1990 the US did not warn Saddam not to invade Kuwait.
I remember that year. I was in New York. I had left Kuwait for the summer. I was in Ithaca, New York at Cornell. I was with some Anglo-Indian neighbors who lived in Kuwait. They were worried about the 80,000 soldiers on the border, and so was I. People at Cornell knew how to call long distance for free. I used that only twice. I called Kuwait six hours before the invasion. I talked to a calm friend who said nothing would happen, and I argued with him that I wasn't assured, and I had a feeling something was going to happen. I also warned friends about Saddam in May of that year and said he was unstable and would "Do something you wouldn't like". I had also warned of what might possibly happen in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. I said that year, "When you think the war is over, that's when it will begin". I was ridiculed for saying that.
In 1990, the Soviet Union fell, Iran was exhausted. Saddam, like Noriega of Panama, was no longer useful. He hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. April Glaspie said it was not the U.S's concern and so did Margart Tutweiler. Saddam invades Kuwait, and there is no indication he was going to invade Saudi Arabia. Bush senior pressures Saudi to take troops.
Back home, in the US, there was still the legacy of the Vietnam War.
People were reluctant to go to war. We heard, "No blood for oil".
So, as Chomsy would say, "Consent had to be manufactured." But how?
Hill&Knowlton with connections to Bush senior got a Kuwaiti girl to testify that Iraqi soldiers tossed babies out of incubators. It wasn't true. The media didn't identify the girl as a member of the Sabah family, the royal family.
Look, the American people and the people of Iraq are victims of politics.
It's clear. I am not a truther. I am recounting my memories, my following of the papers, information that's readily out there for those who research. |
I suggest that your "memories" or "following of the papers" are not quite accurate. For example the war began in 1980 not 1979 as you claim. And it ended in a stalemate not an Iraqi victory.
And Glaspie has said different. She testified before the Senate that she had repeatedly warned Saddam against invading Kuwait and that he had lied to her and said he wasn't planning on invading Kuwait. |
I didn't write that the war began in 1979, but I can understand you reading it that way. I said after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Saddam Hussein was encouraged to invade Iran. April Glaspie said she didn't expect Saddam to take all of Kuwait. I followed politics before the invasion happened. Look, if we were lied to about the baby incubator story, why should we believe the government regarding Iraq from 1990-2003?
She didn't give Saddam a clear warning:
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"What solution would be acceptable?"
President Saddam Hussein:
"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Iraq�s view, includes Kuwait), then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States� opinion on this?"
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
(Saddam smiles)
At a Washington press conference called the next day (July 26, 1990), US State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:
"Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?"
To which Tutweiler responded
"I�m entirely unaware of any such protest."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11376.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| As far as providing proof I didn't see you disputing those three FACTS I mentioned above, so why do I need to provide proof if you are not disagreeing that these occurred? |
OK, I dispute all your facts.
Now prove them.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| As far as providing proof I didn't see you disputing those three FACTS I mentioned above, so why do I need to provide proof if you are not disagreeing that these occurred? |
OK, I dispute all your facts.
Now prove them.
|
Ah, so you DO dispute facts. Just wanted to get that straight for everybody else.
Now to the proof.
For Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,971444,00.html
For Iraq's gassing of the Kurds.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972756,00.html
For Iraq's barring of the U.N inspectors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
Both TIME and the BBC are major mainstream sources...you know... like the kind I always ask you for. And just as always am sadly disappointed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
[q
| Quote: |
| Then perhaps we should pull out and let the insurgents take over. Except that after all that time, loss of life and money spent to remove Saddam...another Saddam takes over. |
Saddam did not just come out of nowhere. He was our puppet there for 27 years before we turned on him.
. |
"Our puppet".
So his attack on Kuwait was supported by the U.S?
So his gassing of the Kurds was supported by the U.S?
So his refusal to let U.N. inspectors in was supported by the U.S?
And I could cite dozens of more examples over the years.
Is it fun living in a world, where you don't have to consider any pesky facts? |
This is much more complicated then you think. I lived in Kuwait, and I have followed things from the time of the Iraq-Iran War, the bombing of the US embasssy in Kuwait. In short, the Ba'ath party was placed in power in '68 and Saddam rose through the ranks and took power. In 1979, the US encouraged Saddam to invade Iran during the revolution.
The war ended in 1988 with Iraq's victory. I remember hearing bombs hit Iraq. It was constant.
During the Iraq-Iran War, Kuwaiti tankers had American flags for protection, but in 1990 the US did not warn Saddam not to invade Kuwait.
I remember that year. I was in New York. I had left Kuwait for the summer. I was in Ithaca, New York at Cornell. I was with some Anglo-Indian neighbors who lived in Kuwait. They were worried about the 80,000 soldiers on the border, and so was I. People at Cornell knew how to call long distance for free. I used that only twice. I called Kuwait six hours before the invasion. I talked to a calm friend who said nothing would happen, and I argued with him that I wasn't assured, and I had a feeling something was going to happen. I also warned friends about Saddam in May of that year and said he was unstable and would "Do something you wouldn't like". I had also warned of what might possibly happen in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. I said that year, "When you think the war is over, that's when it will begin". I was ridiculed for saying that.
In 1990, the Soviet Union fell, Iran was exhausted. Saddam, like Noriega of Panama, was no longer useful. He hinted that he wanted to invade Kuwait. April Glaspie said it was not the U.S's concern and so did Margart Tutweiler. Saddam invades Kuwait, and there is no indication he was going to invade Saudi Arabia. Bush senior pressures Saudi to take troops.
Back home, in the US, there was still the legacy of the Vietnam War.
People were reluctant to go to war. We heard, "No blood for oil".
So, as Chomsy would say, "Consent had to be manufactured." But how?
Hill&Knowlton with connections to Bush senior got a Kuwaiti girl to testify that Iraqi soldiers tossed babies out of incubators. It wasn't true. The media didn't identify the girl as a member of the Sabah family, the royal family.
Look, the American people and the people of Iraq are victims of politics.
It's clear. I am not a truther. I am recounting my memories, my following of the papers, information that's readily out there for those who research. |
I suggest that your "memories" or "following of the papers" are not quite accurate. For example the war began in 1980 not 1979 as you claim. And it ended in a stalemate not an Iraqi victory.
And Glaspie has said different. She testified before the Senate that she had repeatedly warned Saddam against invading Kuwait and that he had lied to her and said he wasn't planning on invading Kuwait. |
I didn't write that the war began in 1979, but I can understand you reading it that way. I said after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Saddam Hussein was encouraged to invade Iran. April Glaspie said she didn't expect Saddam to take all of Kuwait. I followed politics before the invasion happened. Look, if we were lied to about the baby incubator story, why should we believe the government regarding Iraq from 1990-2003?
She didn't give Saddam a clear warning:
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"What solution would be acceptable?"
President Saddam Hussein:
"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Iraq�s view, includes Kuwait), then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States� opinion on this?"
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
(Saddam smiles)
At a Washington press conference called the next day (July 26, 1990), US State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:
"Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?"
To which Tutweiler responded
"I�m entirely unaware of any such protest."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11376.htm |
Because Tutweiler is UNAWARE of a protest, that does not follow that there wasn't one.
But semantics aside you state above "Look, if we were lied to about the baby incubator story, why should we believe the government regarding Iraq from 1990-2003?"
Fair enough, but then one is inclined to wonder why you take two government officials (Tutweiler and Glaspie) at their word then, since you apparently are citing them to back your claim? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wishmaster
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| War is not a sanitary business. I just don't understand this concept of everything in war being "pc." Damn...it is war. If you are going to go to war, you go full out. You destroy and dominate until you win. There are(or at least should not be) "rights" on the battlefield. Semper Fi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Because Tutweiler is UNAWARE of a protest, that does not follow that there wasn't one.
But semantics aside you state above "Look, if we were lied to about the baby incubator story, why should we believe the government regarding Iraq from 1990-2003?"
Fair enough, but then one is inclined to wonder why you take two government officials (Tutweiler and Glaspie) at their word then, since you apparently are citing them to back your claim? |
You make a good point. However, it doesn't mean one ignores all of someone's statements. Prosecutors look at statements of shady characters to determine character.
Why did I cite Glaspie and Tutweiler because leaders do listen to statements made by the US. If Iraq felt it was going to be attacked, would it want to take on the US? No. Saddam didn't realize what he got himself into, obviously. Isn't that relevant when discussing his invasion and the US's role in the region? I mean the US encouraged the attack against Iran. Thus, it encouraged a certain military action. Where did Uncle Sam clearly warn Saddam?
There is speculation that many thought he would only take the border area near and expand the Iraqi coast. I remember reading Glaspie saying that. Just because the US Government has deceived its citizens in the past with Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Iraq, the baby incubator story that we shoudn't look at the statements of the government or that of a horrible dictator like Saddam.
When it's all said in done we have had a huge loss in Iraq even if we win.
It's a pyrrhic victory due to the sunk costs. And it's not like people in the intelligence had no clue that if Iraq had WMD, it would not have been enough to beat either Iran or Syria. Iraq was weak. I don't think it's bad for Iraq that he's gone, but what has been gained and it's elementary that the dangers of Iraq were exaggerated. We do know that Saddam tried to stall with the inspectors as you would probably say, and I would agree with that, but the inspectors said they destroyed a lot of weapons. Iraq was not close to the power of 1990 and the CIA would have known that.
It was Saddam's own fault he got hung and invaded Kuwait, but, Kuwait, an ally could have been best served if Iraq received a clear warning, and why aren't we entitled to know as citizens if a girl claiming babies are killed is from the Sabah family? Again, I sympathize with the Kuwaitis who were occupied as someone who lived there, but I can't say the US did enough to prevent the invasion. Why would Tutweiler say what she did if the US protested? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wishmaster wrote: |
| War is not a sanitary business. I just don't understand this concept of everything in war being "pc." Damn...it is war. If you are going to go to war, you go full out. You destroy and dominate until you win. There are(or at least should not be) "rights" on the battlefield. Semper Fi |
The thing about Operation Iraqi Freedom is that the Commander in Chief at the time, George W. Bush himself, sold the invasion of Iraq as a liberation of the Iraqi people ordained by the Lord.
I'm certainly not surprised it's turned out the way it has. However, I can understand how decent well-meaning Americans who supported the invasion, ones who were duped into thinking it was going to be about doing good things for the people of Iraq, would be shocked and upset at what is happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wishmaster wrote: |
| War is not a sanitary business. I just don't understand this concept of everything in war being "pc." Damn...it is war. If you are going to go to war, you go full out. You destroy and dominate until you win. There are(or at least should not be) "rights" on the battlefield. Semper Fi |
If is the key word here. A lot of us don't think our military goals in this country -- goals that are incredibly vague -- are worth pursuing a policy of "full out" warfare. Whatever we're getting out of being in these countries, it's not worth the pointless deaths of innocents. We want the military out of these countries. If our government isn't going to listen to us and decided to stay anyway, then we're certainly going to at least insist they do their business in a civilian-casualty free fashion.
I don't know what you think we're getting out of military presence in this nation, but whatever it is, it isn't worth gunning down civilians for. It isn't worth torture, it isn't worth murder, it isn't worth breeding new generations of insurgents through our wanton slaughter, and so forth.
The idea that I should not condemn my government gunning down innocents (especially innocent American citizens) simply because they initiated two wars of discretion without my consent is silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Both TIME and the BBC are major mainstream sources...you know... like the kind I always ask you for. And just as always am sadly disappointed. |
OK, everybody. There it is for all of you to see. The guy actually thinks you can trust the MSM!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wishmaster wrote: |
| War is not a sanitary business. I just don't understand this concept of everything in war being "pc." Damn...it is war. If you are going to go to war, you go full out. You destroy and dominate until you win. There are(or at least should not be) "rights" on the battlefield. Semper Fi |
I agree (less the part about rights). This is exactly why war must be the last option. With Iraq and Afghanistan, war was the only option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
