There's a few major differences. Troops out in the open desert were alot easier to overcome in the field. We didn't have to stop in cities. The troops we have met in the open have been defeated. We didn't bomb them for 43 days so their infastructure and numbers are higher. We weren't there to go into Bagdhad. We were there to kick him out of Kuwait. We should have but it wasn't our mission. All I'm saying is that there's always the unexpected etc. It's easy to armchair it. It also might help if we could have had the 4th Mech. already on ground. Thanks to Turkey we had to ship everything around the gulf and then deploy. They'll be on station in 5-7 days.
From what I hear they are today pounding any and all of the Rep Guard and other troops that are open and doing so fiercely today. They knew they were moving yesterday but were very limited due to the sandstorm. The weather is clearing today so it's go time for the boys in blue. It reminds me of when the Germans used bad weather to move troops in 44'. It worked well until the skies cleared ;).
Franks underestimated, and went in under-forced. Hell man, he just sent 1000 Paratroops into Northern Iraq, and he calls that a FRONT? They migh be talented and weapons-heavy, but that is NOT a front, that is an invitation to put our boys through HELL man, and if you were there, I would truly be worried for your safety, under such a disjointed plan of action, as I am for all those guys.
He very well might have underestimated. However The 1,000 troops were to merely secure the airfield so the rest of the lads can come in. I believe the entire 173'rd and some armor. It's a long runway that can handle all the big birds. There's more on the way as well. So the 1,000 were a secutiy force. Also in fact today it's confirmed that the 70,000 Kurds are being turned loose on Saddamns boys. They have some scores to settle with Saddams boys and are a little ticked at him, I hear they are fierce fighters. So with 70,000 plus the others we are bringing in it will help. 1 and possibly 2 divisions I belive.
The 4th Mech. will be there in port in a few days and I belive I heard 3 other divisions as well.
I don't know Bill, perhaps they did underestimate the resistance they'd meet. It's 2 schools of thought, one a large heavy force which is harder to move etc. vs. smaller forces that are quicker and can react sooner which is helpful with the tactics these assholes are using. I do think they should have had more security divisions for supply routes.
It's not an effort to agree or disagree with the tactics. Bush left the military aspect to his chiefs as he should have, His dad did the same thing. We learned our lesson in Nam I think as far as politicians running the war and leaving it to the generals. Are their things I'd do different ? Yes. Are there things they should have done different ? Yes. What we do as a fighting force best as you well know though is adapt and overcome and we will. It's a fluid battle and it calls for being flexible. All I'm saying is that considering the restrictions and challenges what they've done in 1 week is pretty amazing. Would more troops help ? Sure. I won't disagree there. Frankly the new troops will help and they'll be rested and good to go.
Also in my opinion I think we have a few tricks up our sleeve. I think their will be some surprises for Saddamn and co.
Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.
At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.
It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up.
A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us."
If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
The Corporate owned Pro-war propaganda machine has continually repeated that "most Americans will realize, once the bullets start flying, that they HAVE TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS."
Nonsense. This is an unlawful war on several grounds. First, it is unconstitutional for our troops to go to war without a declaration of war by Congress.
The Propaganda: Congress delegated the decision to Bush.
The Reality: The Congress can't delegate that authority. It's an enumerated power of the Congress according to the Constitution. Delegation of the war-making power is unconstitutional.
The Propaganda: We have gone to war before without a declaration of war.
The Reality: We have gone to war to enforce police actions sanctioned by the UN. The Korean War, for example, was not a declared war, but it was constitutional because the US is a treaty signatory to the United Nations Charter, and treaties have the same force of law as the Constitution.
BESIDES being a war conducted in defiance of the US Constitution, this war is NOT sanctioned by the UN, and so it is not legal in that case either.
The Propaganda: The President believes that the US already has authorization to go to war under existing UN Resolutions.
The Reality: NO, IN FACT HE DOES NOT HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY, no matter what he believes. Permanent Member States of the UN Security Council have made it clear that the President's beliefs do not reflect the will of the international community.
The Propaganda: The US can't allow other states to dictate whether or not the US can defend itself.
The Reality: There is not, and there was not, any threat to the US being posed by IRAQ. First, Bush claimed that he had definite proof that IRAQ was secretly conducting a nuclear weapons program. Inspections proved that allegation false. Next, Bush claimed that IRAQ had chemical and biological weapons. Inspections didn't turn up any such weapons. Next, Bush claimed that VX nerve gas and botulinum were unaccounted for. IRAQ volunteered to prove those weapons were destroyed. Last, Bush claimed that IRAQ was supporting terrorists and supplying them with WMD, but there is no proof of this. Then Bush decided to go to war against IRAQ, which has no means of threatening the US.
BUT let's suppose that the UN didn't exist. Bush claims that the war is justified to pre-empt any possibility that IRAQ would use WMD or terror against the US in the future. IS PRE-EMPTIVE WAR JUSTIFIED?
NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE NUREMBURG WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL. German Generals who launched a pre-emptive war against Norway during WWII (to deny the Allies a northern base from which to attack Germany) were judged guilty of violating international law.
PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. And for a good reason. Pre-emptive war by the German Empire was the reason for the start of World War I. After Russia mobilized troops in answer to the Austrian Empire's declared war against Serbia, Germany invaded Belgium and France, in order to "pre-empt" its military disadvantage in a "foreseen" conflict with Russia and France. And why did Russia mobilize troops against Germany, if it meant to go to war with Austria? Pre-emptive war, that's why. Perceiving a possible threat from Germany in case of a war with Austria, Russia deployed troops to deal with both possibilities.
ITS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE IS A SOUND REASON WHY PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
NO NAZI General was pardoned on account of "just following orders." Crimes against humanity can not be excused in this way, and that includes the crime of PRE-EMPTIVE WAR.
In conclusion: NO, I DON'T HAVE TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS. I don't support the commission of crimes. I don't excuse those who knowingly commit crimes by following the orders of a criminal president.
CNN/REUTERS: NEWS REPORTS HAVE FILTERED OUT EARLY THIS MORNING THAT USFORCES HAVE SWOOPED ON AN IRAQI PRIMARY SCHOOL AND DETAINED TEACHERMOHAMMED AL-HAZAR. SOURCES INDICATE THAT, WHEN ARRESTED, AL-HAZAR WAS INPOSSESSION OF A RULER, A PROTRACTOR, A SET SQUARE AND A CALCULATOR.
US PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH ARGUED THAT THIS WAS CLEAR AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT IRAQINDEED POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MATHS INSTRUCTION
The Corporate owned Pro-war propaganda machine has continually repeated that "most Americans will realize, once the bullets start flying, that they HAVE TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS."
And your proof of this statement is???
If you mean the newspapers, Take a look at this propaganda actually printed in the LA Times:
BAGHDAD -- It began with the bombing of state television and radio, passed into the midday missile strike on a street filled with restaurants, car-repair shops and apartments, and ended with the steady thump, thump, thump of explosions far in the distance.
It was the seventh day of war in Baghdad.
"Every day gets worse and worse," Sahar, a 23-year-old with a birdlike voice, said with a sigh Wednesday. "I can't imagine what will be next week."
Sahar, who did not give her last name, had been assigned by the Information Ministry to guide, translate and keep an eye on foreign journalists....
Imagine that, they are taking the word of someone assigned by Sadam to "keep an eye on them". Hardly makes me want "TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS".
Nonsense. This is an unlawful war on several grounds. First, it is unconstitutional for our troops to go to war without a declaration of war by Congress.
It was authorized by congress. The senate vote was 77-23 which was larger than the vote for the first war 52-47.
The Propaganda: Congress delegated the decision to Bush.
The Reality: The Congress can't delegate that authority. It's an enumerated power of the Congress according to the Constitution. Delegation of the war-making power is unconstitutional.
Spin it anyway you want, the truth is that this war was voted on.
The Propaganda: We have gone to war before without a declaration of war.
The Reality: We have gone to war to enforce police actions sanctioned by the UN. The Korean War, for example, was not a declared war, but it was constitutional because the US is a treaty signatory to the United Nations Charter, and treaties have the same force of law as the Constitution.
BESIDES being a war conducted in defiance of the US Constitution, this war is NOT sanctioned by the UN, and so it is not legal in that case either.
Have you ever read United Nation’s Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441?
The Propaganda: The President believes that the US already has authorization to go to war under existing UN Resolutions.
The Reality: NO, IN FACT HE DOES NOT HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY, no matter what he believes. Permanent Member States of the UN Security Council have made it clear that the President's beliefs do not reflect the will of the international community.
Again, have you ever read United Nation’s Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441?
Resolution 678 was passed shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. This resolution orders Saddam to withdraw his troops from Kuwait and to recognize the pre-established international border between Iraq and Kuwait. Resolution 678 also says that any member state can use military force to enforce the requirements of this resolution or any subsequent resolution dealing with Saddam.
Resolutions 687 and 1441 both deal with demands for Saddam’s disarmament. Both of these resolution make specific reference to and reaffirm Resolution 678. The United States and Great Britain, both being member states of the United Nations, are completely within their legal rights to use military force against Iraq and Saddam Hussein to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1441.
The Propaganda: The US can't allow other states to dictate whether or not the US can defend itself.
The Reality: There is not, and there was not, any threat to the US being posed by IRAQ. First, Bush claimed that he had definite proof that IRAQ was secretly conducting a nuclear weapons program. Inspections proved that allegation false. Next, Bush claimed that IRAQ had chemical and biological weapons. Inspections didn't turn up any such weapons. Next, Bush claimed that VX nerve gas and botulinum were unaccounted for. IRAQ volunteered to prove those weapons were destroyed. Last, Bush claimed that IRAQ was supporting terrorists and supplying them with WMD, but there is no proof of this. Then Bush decided to go to war against IRAQ, which has no means of threatening the US.
You have not been keeping up with the news lately have you? We have found possible chemical plants that are being investigated right now, thousands of chemical suits in that fake hospital, rockets that have been redesigned to carry chemicals, SCUDS are flying around, etc. and this is just the first week. Once things quiet down, there will be so much more that we have time to investigate and find.
BUT let's suppose that the UN didn't exist. Bush claims that the war is justified to pre-empt any possibility that IRAQ would use WMD or terror against the US in the future. IS PRE-EMPTIVE WAR JUSTIFIED?
NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE NUREMBURG WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL. German Generals who launched a pre-emptive war against Norway during WWII (to deny the Allies a northern base from which to attack Germany) were judged guilty of violating international law.
PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, blah, blah, blah.
You know, you are right. We should just back down from this thing. It's not like anyone would be stupid enough to hijack a plane and fly it into... oh, that's right, that has already happened.
While you are on the subject of WWII, did Germany attack us first? How about Milosovich?
In conclusion:
Thank God.
NO, I DON'T HAVE TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS. I don't support the commission of crimes. I don't excuse those who knowingly commit crimes by following the orders of a criminal president.
No, you would just rather sit safely at home calling those that are protecting your right to say all this rubish criminals. You would rather protect those that are forcing women to walk in front of them as they fire on those same heroes. You would rather be one of Sadam's spokespersons here and not even once ask for him to disarm and leave so as to save the good folks of Iraq from his torture.
A reading assignment for you (it is about half way down the page and not a headline from your "Corporate owned Pro-war propaganda machine")...
A group of American anti-war demonstratorswho came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality."
It goes on from there to talk about how Sadam's Regime uses torture "such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head".
You wouldn't happen to be one the people in this photo holding up the sign would you?
Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.
At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.
It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up.
A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us."
If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
The connection would give credibility to the argument that Tony Blair used to justify war against Saddam - a "nightmare scenario" in which he might eventually pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
On Wednesday Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said the coalition had solid evidence that senior al-Qaeda operatives have visited Baghdad in the past...
BRITISH troops have uncovered a bunker full of weapons of mass destruction in the southern Iraqi oilfields.
The Ministry of Defence released a dramatic video it said showed more than 100 chemical warfare protection suits and mounds of dozens of artillery rounds it said contained suspected "weapons of mass destruction".
It was not immediately clear if the weapons contained chemical or biological warheads. They were not believed to be nuclear.
The bunker had been recently deserted by fleeing Iraqi troops attacked by a unit from the Irish Guards, a spokesman said.
The film showed Guardsmen turning over chemical suits and standing beside piles of shells said to contain the deadly warheads.
For security reasons, the MoD would not locate the bunker beyond saying it was in the middle of an oilfield.
It added that British troops had managed to put out some of the fires started by the Iraqis as part of their "scorched oil" policy.
British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the find "proves categorically" that Iraq is ready to use weapons of mass destruction against allied forces.
The issue of protective gear to Iraqi troops in the south of the country had already indicated that Saddam Hussein may be considering the use of chemical or biological weapons, but fresh evidence uncovered over the past few days had proved it beyond doubt, Mr Hoon said.
He tried to contrast Saddam's readiness to use such weapons with the coalition's efforts to avoid civilian casualties, and repeated claims that missiles that killed at least 14 civilians in Baghdad yesterday may have been Iraqi rather than allied.
Reporters in Baghdad said the missile had almost certainly come from an allied aircraft.
The discovery of the weapons of mass destruction came at a time when British armour was preparing to fight what defence officials said was its biggest tank battle since World War II.
There has been a fear since the campaign started that elite Iraqi troops would be ordered to use chemical or biological weapons.
The well-built bunker shown in the film looked as if it had been occupied by well-equipped soldiers. However, they apparently fled without a fight.
TALLIL AIRFIELD, Southern Iraq - The first U.S. airplane landed Thursday at a key Iraqi airfield, which forces informally renamed "Bush International Airport."
The captured airfield is expected to be a major resupply base and transport hub for American forces...
1. I've heard the "Rally round and Support the Troops" line so many times I could vomit. If you haven't heard it you must have selective attention.
2. You do have selective attention: you edited the part of my argument that stated that Congress CAN'T delegate the war-making power because it is an enumerated power of Congress in the Constitution. The vote you cite was an unconstitutional act. Bottom line: the president has exceeded his constitutional authority in pursuing an imperial war of aggression.
3. The UN Resolutions that you cite DO NOT authorize a war against Iraq to enforce anything. This was the position of the majority of the UN Security Council, and it still is.
4. I have been keeping up with the news. The chemical plants were first reported to be "suspected chemical weapons plants." After repeating that propaganda over and over, they later said that those plants were confirmed NOT to have been chemical weapons plants. I heard that ONCE, and then the story was dropped. Similarly, the missiles that Iraq used in its defense were first widely reported to be Scuds. The next day, that was admitted to be an error. I've heard of the "chemical suits" in the hospital, and I'm waiting to see whether or not THAT will turn out to be propaganda. As for the "rockets" you mention: No, I hadn't heard of that. Source?
5. I never said that we should "just back down from this thing." I think that the war fanatics in this administration never even considered the possibility of being able to force Saddam from power without starting an illegal war of aggression. Clearly, it can be done. We forced that other war criminal, Milosevic from power, and we had the backing of the international community. We also did not have a big ground war. I want just once to hear Ted Koppel say the words "Exit Strategy." I guess he swallowed those words. He seems to have forgotten them now even though he chanted them like a mantra when Clinton was president.
6. Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan, following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
7. Our actions in Kosovo were a legal police action sanctioned by the UN, and we also had the backing of NATO. The defense of Europe from a continental war was at stake. As I mentioned, we were battling an indicted war criminal, a track that was considered and dismissed by Bush in the case of Hussein. Bush has no respect for international law because he disdains the "Law and Order" approach to international affairs. Instead, Bush wants to scrap the UN and our international treaties and bring back the system of competing empires, a system that brought us two world wars. He is following in the footsteps of Hitler.
8. I'm a decorated veteran, sir. I did my time protecting the rights and freedoms we have here. I'm not going to be quiet while some addle brained frat boy decides to play Hitler.
9. Saddam Hussein is a war criminal. That doesn't give Bush the right to play vigilante and destroy the foundations of international law. As I pointed out in my first post, there is a sound reason that pre-emptive war is an international war crime.
10. No, I'm not in the picture. But I think they have the right idea.
There's a lot of anger out there in the street in those demonstrations. Don't know if the mood was this hot during Vietnam, but there's a lot of hostility coming from somewhere now.
I'm not surprised to learn that Al-queda are crossing through Iran and joining the war against America. We all knew that they would when they started moving out of Afghanistan and Pakistan several months ago. It was reported in the print media. Just because they are joining in to fight against an imperial invasion now doesn't prove that they were connected to Hussein's regime all along. Unless you can prove that they would have gone there without the invasion occurring.
This "timed disclosure" by both the British and the US looks to me like more propaganda. Rumsfeld is most likely referring to the one individual who went to Iraq for medical treatment a year ago, the case that Bush and others tried to trump up as an Iraq-Al Queda conspiracy. Here's something that hasn't been addressed: why didn't they round up the Al-Queda terrorists when they were hiding in Western Pakistan? They knew where they were. I'll tell you why: A LONG WAR NEEDS AN ENEMY. If Rumsfeld had such "solid evidence" then why wasn't it presented when we were trying to gain support in the UN?
I never said that we should "just back down from this thing." I think that the war fanatics in this administration never even considered the possibility of being able to force Saddam from power without starting an illegal war of aggression. Clearly, it can be done. Â Â
You're right 12 years, what a rash judgement. Was Clinton in violation when he bombed them in 95' ?
We forced that other war criminal, Milosevic from power, and we had the backing of the international community. Â Â
And how was that done? With force, hello! Oh yea, did the U.N authorize that force ? Hmmmm.
Then you go on to say.
Our actions in Kosovo were a legal police action sanctioned by the UN, and we also had the backing of NATO. The defense of Europe from a continental war was at stake. As I mentioned, we were battling an indicted war criminal, a track that was considered and dismissed by Bush in the case of Hussein. Bush has no respect for international law
Hmmm, did the U.N authorize force in Kosovo ? Was it put to a vote in the U.N ?
And yet anohther contradiction.
We forced that other war criminal, Milosevic from power, and we had the backing of the international community.
Saddam Hussein is a war criminal. That doesn't give Bush the right to play vigilante and destroy the foundations of international law.
Ah so it's o.k only when the U.N says so ? Make up your mind, he is or isn't a war criminal or does it depend on who pulls the strings ? They didn't authorize force to remove Milosevic either.
You're right, yea, Bush is Hitler, yawn, is that all you got ?
10. No, I'm not in the picture. But I think they have the right idea.
I'm guilty myself sometimes of labeling all Liberals by the actions of a few extremists.
And God knows I hate all Conservatives being labeled by the actions of a few.
I guess I'm saying this isn't a "Left" or "Right" issue. Either you agree with the war in Iraq or not. It just seems those that don't, are on the left. You have to remember, a lot of the left does agree though. I think the poll #'s show that.
Just because they are joining in to fight against an imperial invasion now doesn't prove that they were connected to Hussein's regime all along.
NASIRIYA, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Marines searching Iraqi military headquarters in this southern city that was the site of intensive fighting came across a mural depicting a plane crashing into a building complex resembling New York's twin towers, a news agency photograph showed Wednesday.
A group of Vermont teen-agers threw rocks at a uniformed female Vermont National Guard sergeant last week, in the latest example of a service member facing hostility in the United States.
I think this war is not going to be an easy one. I say that because of the turmoil and unrest surrounding us going to war. Countries didn't want it. People didn't want it. While there is a coalition going into Iraq, there are so many people who don't want this war. Because of that, I think the propaganda machines are going to be hitting overdrive. The coalition forces are going to want to try and give justification for it as soon as they can to help build more support. Iraqi forces are going to want to try and portray the coalition forces as evil so they can diminish support for the coalition.
Having all sorts of reporters and news agencies over there is great in that it gives us a better sense of what is going on over there, they are limited in what they can report. They don't know what causes explosions, they can't report everything on who is doing what. They have to do some interpretation and hypothesizing on their own. There are going to be reports that prove false. I think you can flip through the American stations (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, etc) and see a variety of reporting and reaction. That doesn't even take into account the foreign reporting from the arab world, France, Australia, Asia, etc. These reporters and news agencies can take an event and portray it however they want. Even with all that we see from the different sources, we still can interpret how we want. Some are keeping an open mind. Some are just looking for the news and evidence which suits their tastes/needs.
So we've got all this stuff happening in the middle east, and all sorts of different interpretations/portrayals of it. We're the good guys, we're the bad guys. Saddam was injured or killed, Saddam wasn't injured or killed. Coalition forces are killing civilians, Iraqi forces are killing civilians. It will take a while to get everything sorted out. Then I hope that things can truly come to light. I hope that the truth, whatever it is, can come out without any spin or misportrayal. I guess I'm just afraid that in the end, while we may win the war and get rid of Saddam, we could lose a lot more.
i'd guess most people share the definition of a reasonable person as being someone with whom you can discuss an issue and disagree on it and yet they wouldn't call you childish names just because you happen to disagree on it. note that i'm not claiming to call myself reasonable under this definition, because i'm as guilty of it as certain other posters here who shall remain nameless.
Congressman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., is accusing U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq of killing civilian women and children - in a series of allegations that includes the charge that President Bush is not qualified to be commander in chief.
"I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce [the U.N. resolution on Iraq]," the Harlem Democrat told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" Thursday night.
When challenged on his claim that U.S. forces were killing Iraqi children, Rangel said sarcastically, "You're right. They're shooting themselves. They just don't know they're being liberated."
After accusing American GIs of what amounts to the commission of war crimes, Rangel then slammed President Bush as unqualified to lead the U.S. into war.
"With all due respect to the president, I don't think he has the experience for me to be listening to him on how the war's going or what we should be doing," the left-wing Democrat and Hillary Clinton ally complained. "It would be a tremendous stretch to say that I have an appreciation for the president's knowledge of international politics."
Perhaps you caught New York Democrat Charles Rangel on Hannity and Colmes last night. Rangel, you will recall, is one of only 11 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted “no” on a resolution to support our troops in Iraq. Last night Rangel said that the American military was over there to “bomb women and children.” Remember – if the Democrats had control of the House right now this buffoon would be the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the chief tax writing and policy arm of the congress. - Neal Boortz
i'd guess most people share the definition of a reasonable person as being someone with whom you can discuss an issue and disagree on it and yet they wouldn't call you childish names just because you happen to disagree on it.
So the definition of being reasonable is simply that one doesn't call names? So someone that believes space aliens control the world is a resaonable person so long as he doesn't call people names?
It takes much more than the self control in conversation to be a reasonable person. Do you believe that a person who believes that space aliens control the world is a reasonable person simply because they don't call you names if you disagree with them? For the purposes of this question I will assume that you don't believe space aliens control the world!
Bill,
There's a few major differences. Troops out in the open desert were alot easier to overcome in the field. We didn't have to stop in cities. The troops we have met in the open have been defeated. We didn't bomb them for 43 days so their infastructure and numbers are higher. We weren't there to go into Bagdhad. We were there to kick him out of Kuwait. We should have but it wasn't our mission. All I'm saying is that there's always the unexpected etc. It's easy to armchair it. It also might help if we could have had the 4th Mech. already on ground. Thanks to Turkey we had to ship everything around the gulf and then deploy. They'll be on station in 5-7 days.
I was going to say..... In the Gulf War, didn't we bomb the hell out of Iraq for over a month before our ground troops engaged?
Our troops are doing just fine and progressing quickly given the circumstances, which are much different than during the Gulf War.
Bill,
From what I hear they are today pounding any and all of the Rep Guard and other troops that are open and doing so fiercely today. They knew they were moving yesterday but were very limited due to the sandstorm. The weather is clearing today so it's go time for the boys in blue. It reminds me of when the Germans used bad weather to move troops in 44'. It worked well until the skies cleared ;).
He very well might have underestimated. However The 1,000 troops were to merely secure the airfield so the rest of the lads can come in. I believe the entire 173'rd and some armor. It's a long runway that can handle all the big birds. There's more on the way as well. So the 1,000 were a secutiy force. Also in fact today it's confirmed that the 70,000 Kurds are being turned loose on Saddamns boys. They have some scores to settle with Saddams boys and are a little ticked at him, I hear they are fierce fighters. So with 70,000 plus the others we are bringing in it will help. 1 and possibly 2 divisions I belive.
The 4th Mech. will be there in port in a few days and I belive I heard 3 other divisions as well.
I don't know Bill, perhaps they did underestimate the resistance they'd meet. It's 2 schools of thought, one a large heavy force which is harder to move etc. vs. smaller forces that are quicker and can react sooner which is helpful with the tactics these assholes are using. I do think they should have had more security divisions for supply routes.
It's not an effort to agree or disagree with the tactics. Bush left the military aspect to his chiefs as he should have, His dad did the same thing. We learned our lesson in Nam I think as far as politicians running the war and leaving it to the generals. Are their things I'd do different ? Yes. Are there things they should have done different ? Yes. What we do as a fighting force best as you well know though is adapt and overcome and we will. It's a fluid battle and it calls for being flexible. All I'm saying is that considering the restrictions and challenges what they've done in 1 week is pretty amazing. Would more troops help ? Sure. I won't disagree there. Frankly the new troops will help and they'll be rested and good to go.
Also in my opinion I think we have a few tricks up our sleeve. I think their will be some surprises for Saddamn and co.
Al-Qaeda fighting with Iraqis, British claim
March 28 2003, 9:41 AM
Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.
At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.
It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up.
A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us."
If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
Possible Al-Qaeda Connection?
I am trying to find confirmation of this.
Rick, Isn't a Bourdeaux a "French" wine? I'm boycotting that and liverwurst!
Maybe truffles and volkswagons too.
I'm boycotting anyplace that serves "liberty fries"
Boycotts: It's one of those times where you say "We don't want your money".
"Rick, Isn't a Bourdeaux a "French" wine?"
Can't get anything by you.
"I'm boycotting that"
Your loss
"...and liverwurst!"
Cardiologists loss.
The Corporate owned Pro-war propaganda machine has continually repeated that "most Americans will realize, once the bullets start flying, that they HAVE TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS."
Nonsense. This is an unlawful war on several grounds. First, it is unconstitutional for our troops to go to war without a declaration of war by Congress.
The Propaganda: Congress delegated the decision to Bush.
The Reality: The Congress can't delegate that authority. It's an enumerated power of the Congress according to the Constitution. Delegation of the war-making power is unconstitutional.
The Propaganda: We have gone to war before without a declaration of war.
The Reality: We have gone to war to enforce police actions sanctioned by the UN. The Korean War, for example, was not a declared war, but it was constitutional because the US is a treaty signatory to the United Nations Charter, and treaties have the same force of law as the Constitution.
BESIDES being a war conducted in defiance of the US Constitution, this war is NOT sanctioned by the UN, and so it is not legal in that case either.
The Propaganda: The President believes that the US already has authorization to go to war under existing UN Resolutions.
The Reality: NO, IN FACT HE DOES NOT HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY, no matter what he believes. Permanent Member States of the UN Security Council have made it clear that the President's beliefs do not reflect the will of the international community.
The Propaganda: The US can't allow other states to dictate whether or not the US can defend itself.
The Reality: There is not, and there was not, any threat to the US being posed by IRAQ. First, Bush claimed that he had definite proof that IRAQ was secretly conducting a nuclear weapons program. Inspections proved that allegation false. Next, Bush claimed that IRAQ had chemical and biological
weapons. Inspections didn't turn up any such weapons. Next, Bush claimed that VX nerve gas and botulinum were unaccounted for. IRAQ volunteered to prove those weapons were destroyed. Last, Bush claimed that IRAQ was supporting terrorists and supplying them with WMD, but there is no proof of this. Then Bush decided to go to war against IRAQ, which has no means of threatening the US.
BUT let's suppose that the UN didn't exist. Bush claims that the war is justified to pre-empt any possibility that IRAQ would use WMD or terror against the US in the future. IS PRE-EMPTIVE WAR
JUSTIFIED?
NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE NUREMBURG WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL. German Generals who launched a pre-emptive war against Norway during WWII (to deny the Allies a northern base from which to attack Germany) were judged guilty of violating international law.
PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. And for a good reason. Pre-emptive war by the German Empire was the reason for the start of World War I. After Russia mobilized troops in answer to the Austrian Empire's declared war against Serbia, Germany invaded Belgium and France, in order to "pre-empt" its military disadvantage in a "foreseen" conflict with Russia and France. And why did Russia mobilize troops against Germany, if it meant to go to war with Austria? Pre-emptive war, that's why. Perceiving a possible threat from Germany in case of a war with Austria, Russia deployed troops to deal with both possibilities.
ITS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE IS A SOUND REASON WHY PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS A VIOLATION
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
NO NAZI General was pardoned on account of "just following orders." Crimes against humanity can not be excused in this way, and that includes the crime of PRE-EMPTIVE WAR.
In conclusion: NO, I DON'T HAVE TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS. I don't support the commission of crimes. I don't excuse those who knowingly commit crimes by following the orders of a criminal president.
To each their own, I guess.
BREAKING NEWS!
CNN/REUTERS: NEWS REPORTS HAVE FILTERED OUT EARLY THIS MORNING THAT US FORCES HAVE SWOOPED ON AN IRAQI PRIMARY SCHOOL AND DETAINED TEACHER MOHAMMED AL-HAZAR. SOURCES INDICATE THAT, WHEN ARRESTED, AL-HAZAR WAS IN POSSESSION OF A RULER, A PROTRACTOR, A SET SQUARE AND A CALCULATOR.
US PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH ARGUED THAT THIS WAS CLEAR AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT IRAQ INDEED POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MATHS INSTRUCTION
The Corporate owned Pro-war propaganda machine has continually repeated that "most Americans will realize, once the bullets start flying, that they HAVE TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS."
And your proof of this statement is???
If you mean the newspapers, Take a look at this propaganda actually printed in the LA Times:
Imagine that, they are taking the word of someone assigned by Sadam to "keep an eye on them". Hardly makes me want "TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS".
Nonsense. This is an unlawful war on several grounds. First, it is unconstitutional for our troops to go to war without a declaration of war by Congress.
It was authorized by congress. The senate vote was 77-23 which was larger than the vote for the first war 52-47.
The Propaganda: Congress delegated the decision to Bush.
The Reality: The Congress can't delegate that authority. It's an enumerated power of the Congress according to the Constitution. Delegation of the war-making power is unconstitutional.
Spin it anyway you want, the truth is that this war was voted on.
The Propaganda: We have gone to war before without a declaration of war.
The Reality: We have gone to war to enforce police actions sanctioned by the UN. The Korean War, for example, was not a declared war, but it was constitutional because the US is a treaty signatory to the United Nations Charter, and treaties have the same force of law as the Constitution.
BESIDES being a war conducted in defiance of the US Constitution, this war is NOT sanctioned by the UN, and so it is not legal in that case either.
Have you ever read United Nation’s Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441?
The Propaganda: The President believes that the US already has authorization to go to war under existing UN Resolutions.
The Reality: NO, IN FACT HE DOES NOT HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY, no matter what he believes. Permanent Member States of the UN Security Council have made it clear that the President's beliefs do not reflect the will of the international community.
Again, have you ever read United Nation’s Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441?
Resolution 678 was passed shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. This resolution orders Saddam to withdraw his troops from Kuwait and to recognize the pre-established international border between Iraq and Kuwait. Resolution 678 also says that any member state can use military force to enforce the requirements of this resolution or any subsequent resolution dealing with Saddam.
Resolutions 687 and 1441 both deal with demands for Saddam’s disarmament. Both of these resolution make specific reference to and reaffirm Resolution 678. The United States and Great Britain, both being member states of the United Nations, are completely within their legal rights to use military force against Iraq and Saddam Hussein to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1441.
The Propaganda: The US can't allow other states to dictate whether or not the US can defend itself.
The Reality: There is not, and there was not, any threat to the US being posed by IRAQ. First, Bush claimed that he had definite proof that IRAQ was secretly conducting a nuclear weapons program. Inspections proved that allegation false. Next, Bush claimed that IRAQ had chemical and biological weapons. Inspections didn't turn up any such weapons. Next, Bush claimed that VX nerve gas and botulinum were unaccounted for. IRAQ volunteered to prove those weapons were destroyed. Last, Bush claimed that IRAQ was supporting terrorists and supplying them with WMD, but there is no proof of this. Then Bush decided to go to war against IRAQ, which has no means of threatening the US.
You have not been keeping up with the news lately have you? We have found possible chemical plants that are being investigated right now, thousands of chemical suits in that fake hospital, rockets that have been redesigned to carry chemicals, SCUDS are flying around, etc. and this is just the first week. Once things quiet down, there will be so much more that we have time to investigate and find.
BUT let's suppose that the UN didn't exist. Bush claims that the war is justified to pre-empt any possibility that IRAQ would use WMD or terror against the US in the future. IS PRE-EMPTIVE WAR JUSTIFIED?
NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE NUREMBURG WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL. German Generals who launched a pre-emptive war against Norway during WWII (to deny the Allies a northern base from which to attack Germany) were judged guilty of violating international law.
PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, blah, blah, blah.
You know, you are right. We should just back down from this thing. It's not like anyone would be stupid enough to hijack a plane and fly it into... oh, that's right, that has already happened.
While you are on the subject of WWII, did Germany attack us first? How about Milosovich?
In conclusion:
Thank God.
NO, I DON'T HAVE TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS. I don't support the commission of crimes. I don't excuse those who knowingly commit crimes by following the orders of a criminal president.
No, you would just rather sit safely at home calling those that are protecting your right to say all this rubish criminals. You would rather protect those that are forcing women to walk in front of them as they fire on those same heroes. You would rather be one of Sadam's spokespersons here and not even once ask for him to disarm and leave so as to save the good folks of Iraq from his torture.
A reading assignment for you (it is about half way down the page and not a headline from your "Corporate owned Pro-war propaganda machine")...
It goes on from there to talk about how Sadam's Regime uses torture "such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head".
You wouldn't happen to be one the people in this photo holding up the sign would you?
Good one THX LOL
How bout I shoot the trash holding that sign
Nah, PETA would be after you for hurting those animals.
it would be a lot of fun though. 308 holes make invisible souls
Still say that there is no link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda?
Al-Qaeda fighting with Iraqis, British claim
March 28 2003, 9:41 AM
Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.
At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.
It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up.
A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us."
If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
The connection would give credibility to the argument that Tony Blair used to justify war against Saddam - a "nightmare scenario" in which he might eventually pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
On Wednesday Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said the coalition had solid evidence that senior al-Qaeda operatives have visited Baghdad in the past...
Imagine that, I go to look at the news and I find still more proof for Taraka to ignore...
EVIL PROOF
By BRUCE WILSON in London
28mar03
BRITISH troops have uncovered a bunker full of weapons of mass destruction in the southern Iraqi oilfields.
The Ministry of Defence released a dramatic video it said showed more than 100 chemical warfare protection suits and mounds of dozens of artillery rounds it said contained suspected "weapons of mass destruction".
It was not immediately clear if the weapons contained chemical or biological warheads. They were not believed to be nuclear.
The bunker had been recently deserted by fleeing Iraqi troops attacked by a unit from the Irish Guards, a spokesman said.
The film showed Guardsmen turning over chemical suits and standing beside piles of shells said to contain the deadly warheads.
For security reasons, the MoD would not locate the bunker beyond saying it was in the middle of an oilfield.
It added that British troops had managed to put out some of the fires started by the Iraqis as part of their "scorched oil" policy.
British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the find "proves categorically" that Iraq is ready to use weapons of mass destruction against allied forces.
The issue of protective gear to Iraqi troops in the south of the country had already indicated that Saddam Hussein may be considering the use of chemical or biological weapons, but fresh evidence uncovered over the past few days had proved it beyond doubt, Mr Hoon said.
He tried to contrast Saddam's readiness to use such weapons with the coalition's efforts to avoid civilian casualties, and repeated claims that missiles that killed at least 14 civilians in Baghdad yesterday may have been Iraqi rather than allied.
Reporters in Baghdad said the missile had almost certainly come from an allied aircraft.
The discovery of the weapons of mass destruction came at a time when British armour was preparing to fight what defence officials said was its biggest tank battle since World War II.
There has been a fear since the campaign started that elite Iraqi troops would be ordered to use chemical or biological weapons.
The well-built bunker shown in the film looked as if it had been occupied by well-equipped soldiers. However, they apparently fled without a fight.
Gotta love the humor of our men in uniform...
U.S. Informally Renames Airport for Bush
Thu Mar 27,10:40 AM ET
By DENIS D. GRAY, Associated Press Writer
TALLIL AIRFIELD, Southern Iraq - The first U.S. airplane landed Thursday at a key Iraqi airfield, which forces informally renamed "Bush International Airport."
The captured airfield is expected to be a major resupply base and transport hub for American forces...
1. I've heard the "Rally round and Support the Troops" line so many times I could vomit. If you haven't heard it you must have selective attention.
2. You do have selective attention: you edited the part of my argument that stated that Congress CAN'T delegate the war-making power because it is an enumerated power of Congress in the Constitution. The vote you cite was an unconstitutional act. Bottom line: the president has exceeded his constitutional authority in pursuing an imperial war of aggression.
3. The UN Resolutions that you cite DO NOT authorize a war against Iraq to enforce anything. This was the position of the majority of the UN Security Council, and it still is.
4. I have been keeping up with the news. The chemical plants were first reported to be "suspected chemical weapons plants." After repeating that propaganda over and over, they later said that those plants were confirmed NOT to have been chemical weapons plants. I heard that ONCE, and then the story was dropped. Similarly, the missiles that Iraq used in its defense were first widely reported to be Scuds. The next day, that was admitted to be an error. I've heard of the "chemical suits" in the hospital, and I'm waiting to see whether or not THAT will turn out to be propaganda. As for the "rockets" you mention: No, I hadn't heard of that. Source?
5. I never said that we should "just back down from this thing." I think that the war fanatics in this administration never even considered the possibility of being able to force Saddam from power without starting an illegal war of aggression. Clearly, it can be done. We forced that other war criminal, Milosevic from power, and we had the backing of the international community. We also did not have a big ground war. I want just once to hear Ted Koppel say the words "Exit Strategy." I guess he swallowed those words. He seems to have forgotten them now even though he chanted them like a mantra when Clinton was president.
6. Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan, following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
7. Our actions in Kosovo were a legal police action sanctioned by the UN, and we also had the backing of NATO. The defense of Europe from a continental war was at stake. As I mentioned, we were battling an indicted war criminal, a track that was considered and dismissed by Bush in the case of Hussein. Bush has no respect for international law
because he disdains the "Law and Order" approach to international affairs. Instead, Bush wants to scrap the UN and our international treaties and bring back the system of competing empires, a system that brought us two world wars. He is following in the footsteps of Hitler.
8. I'm a decorated veteran, sir. I did my time protecting the rights and freedoms we have here. I'm not going to be quiet while some addle brained frat boy decides to play Hitler.
9. Saddam Hussein is a war criminal. That doesn't give Bush the right to play vigilante and destroy the foundations of international law. As I pointed out in my first post, there is a sound reason that pre-emptive war is an international war crime.
10. No, I'm not in the picture. But I think they have the right idea.
There's a lot of anger out there in the street in those demonstrations. Don't know if the mood was this hot during Vietnam, but there's a lot of hostility coming from somewhere now.
I'm not surprised to learn that Al-queda are crossing through Iran and joining the war against America. We all knew that they would when they started moving out of Afghanistan and Pakistan several months ago. It was reported in the print media. Just because they are joining in to fight against an imperial invasion now doesn't prove that they were connected to Hussein's regime all along. Unless you can prove that they would have gone there without the invasion occurring.
This "timed disclosure" by both the British and the US looks to me like more propaganda. Rumsfeld is most likely referring to the one individual who went to Iraq for medical treatment a year ago, the case that Bush and others tried to trump up as an Iraq-Al Queda conspiracy.
Here's something that hasn't been addressed: why didn't they round up the Al-Queda terrorists when they were hiding in Western Pakistan? They knew where they were. I'll tell you why: A LONG WAR NEEDS AN ENEMY.
If Rumsfeld had such "solid evidence" then why wasn't it presented when we were trying to gain support in the UN?
You wouldn't happen to be one the people in this photo holding up the sign would you?
Notice the little cowards wearing a mask over his face?
and prepare to vote GDubbya OUT of office next year.
HA! Watch the news lately, buddy?
What happened to those polls you were throwing around so much a month or so ago?
Taraka,
You're right 12 years, what a rash judgement. Was Clinton in violation when he bombed them in 95' ?
And how was that done? With force, hello! Oh yea, did the U.N authorize that force ? Hmmmm.
Then you go on to say.
Hmmm, did the U.N authorize force in Kosovo ? Was it put to a vote in the U.N ?
And yet anohther contradiction.
Ah so it's o.k only when the U.N says so ? Make up your mind, he is or isn't a war criminal or does it depend on who pulls the strings ? They didn't authorize force to remove Milosevic either.
You're right, yea, Bush is Hitler, yawn, is that all you got ?
Why are you an officer ?
The left is so mad cus they know they are losing votes every time they open there sewers they call mouth's
Here is a towel to cry in to lefty's.
Sorry but it's not all a "Left" or "Right" issue.
Rick and Bill are both "Left" and they're reasonable.
It's the left and right extremists that are the problem.
Thank Heaven there's thoughtful conservatives who can articulate their position without your venom, Digger.
If not, we'd be left with you.
Digger's a good guy too.
I'm guilty myself sometimes of labeling all Liberals by the actions of a few extremists.
And God knows I hate all Conservatives being labeled by the actions of a few.
I guess I'm saying this isn't a "Left" or "Right" issue. Either you agree with the war in Iraq or not. It just seems those that don't, are on the left. You have to remember, a lot of the left does agree though. I think the poll #'s show that.
Rick and Bill are both "Left" and they're reasonable.
and thx is "right" and he's reasonable.
Just because they are joining in to fight against an imperial invasion now doesn't prove that they were connected to Hussein's regime all along.
NASIRIYA, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Marines searching Iraqi military headquarters in this southern city that was the site of intensive fighting came across a mural depicting a plane crashing into a building complex resembling New York's twin towers, a news agency photograph showed Wednesday.
PROOF ENOUGH FOR ME.
War is wrong, but it's ok to throw rocks.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82395,00.html
A group of Vermont teen-agers threw rocks at a uniformed female Vermont National Guard sergeant last week, in the latest example of a service member facing hostility in the United States.
What the F**K?
so they preach peace but practice hatred, not surprising.
I think this war is not going to be an easy one. I say that because of the turmoil and unrest surrounding us going to war. Countries didn't want it. People didn't want it. While there is a coalition going into Iraq, there are so many people who don't want this war. Because of that, I think the propaganda machines are going to be hitting overdrive. The coalition forces are going to want to try and give justification for it as soon as they can to help build more support. Iraqi forces are going to want to try and portray the coalition forces as evil so they can diminish support for the coalition.
Having all sorts of reporters and news agencies over there is great in that it gives us a better sense of what is going on over there, they are limited in what they can report. They don't know what causes explosions, they can't report everything on who is doing what. They have to do some interpretation and hypothesizing on their own. There are going to be reports that prove false. I think you can flip through the American stations (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, etc) and see a variety of reporting and reaction. That doesn't even take into account the foreign reporting from the arab world, France, Australia, Asia, etc. These reporters and news agencies can take an event and portray it however they want. Even with all that we see from the different sources, we still can interpret how we want. Some are keeping an open mind. Some are just looking for the news and evidence which suits their tastes/needs.
So we've got all this stuff happening in the middle east, and all sorts of different interpretations/portrayals of it. We're the good guys, we're the bad guys. Saddam was injured or killed, Saddam wasn't injured or killed. Coalition forces are killing civilians, Iraqi forces are killing civilians. It will take a while to get everything sorted out. Then I hope that things can truly come to light. I hope that the truth, whatever it is, can come out without any spin or misportrayal. I guess I'm just afraid that in the end, while we may win the war and get rid of Saddam, we could lose a lot more.
Rick and Bill are both "Left" and they're reasonable.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "reasonable."
It's the left and right extremists that are the problem.
Does this mean I have to leave now?????
i'd guess most people share the definition of a reasonable person as being someone with whom you can discuss an issue and disagree on it and yet they wouldn't call you childish names just because you happen to disagree on it. note that i'm not claiming to call myself reasonable under this definition, because i'm as guilty of it as certain other posters here who shall remain nameless.
Ares, you dingdongdiddlyass. ;)
mom. kids called me a dildo.
Hey, you're the one that vibrates.
Congressman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., is accusing U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq of killing civilian women and children - in a series of allegations that includes the charge that President Bush is not qualified to be commander in chief.
"I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce [the U.N. resolution on Iraq]," the Harlem Democrat told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" Thursday night.
When challenged on his claim that U.S. forces were killing Iraqi children, Rangel said sarcastically, "You're right. They're shooting themselves. They just don't know they're being liberated."
After accusing American GIs of what amounts to the commission of war crimes, Rangel then slammed President Bush as unqualified to lead the U.S. into war.
"With all due respect to the president, I don't think he has the experience for me to be listening to him on how the war's going or what we should be doing," the left-wing Democrat and Hillary Clinton ally complained. "It would be a tremendous stretch to say that I have an appreciation for the president's knowledge of international politics."
You just gotta love them liberals.
Perhaps you caught New York Democrat Charles Rangel on Hannity and Colmes last night. Rangel, you will recall, is one of only 11 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted “no” on a resolution to support our troops in Iraq. Last night Rangel said that the American military was over there to “bomb women and children.” Remember – if the Democrats had control of the House right now this buffoon would be the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the chief tax writing and policy arm of the congress. - Neal Boortz
Yeah right. Like good U.S. soldiers would bomb women and children. If we want these women and children dead, why are we giving them humanitarian aid?
i'd guess most people share the definition of a reasonable person as being someone with whom you can discuss an issue and disagree on it and yet they wouldn't call you childish names just because you happen to disagree on it.
So the definition of being reasonable is simply that one doesn't call names? So someone that believes space aliens control the world is a resaonable person so long as he doesn't call people names?
i can see thatwent right over the top of your head.
can see that went right over the top of your head.
Maybe you need glasses.
anyone who knows me wanna field that one or shall i myself?
Maybe Jethro needs glasses. Or maybe he needs to look at Ares' avatar closer.
It takes much more than the self control in conversation to be a reasonable person. Do you believe that a person who believes that space aliens control the world is a reasonable person simply because they don't call you names if you disagree with them? For the purposes of this question I will assume that you don't believe space aliens control the world!