Photos from Iraq

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

  Quote

My point is only that i can't accept uninvolved people hiding in their homes to be killed.

And just how do you know from looking at these pics that:

A: these people were uninvolved?
B: that the fighting aged men/boys in the pics were not firing from inside or from next to the homes of the wounded children?
C: these people were hiding in their homes?
D: the 5 year old girl wasn't loading magazines for her dad?

Please tell me how you know this? or are you assuming? Are you sadsue in disguise?

[damion75 0]

There are 300 troops from the Dominican republic actually - and given the size of their army, I would say that that is a significant committment - well done them!!

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[Kennedy 0]

  Quote

Don't shoot the cow!!!

Are you kidding me? Are you Hindu or something? If that cow is between my rifle and the asshat about to kiil my brothers, we'll be having steaks and hamburger once the bad guys are dead, or have run off with the rifles of the dead.

  Quote

And if the US don't want any more enemies in the region, they better apply strategies that avoid shelling of towns and mosques alltogether.

Any maybe YOU should read HERE.

  Quote

b. Obligations on the defender to distinguish military activities from civilian objects

There are extensive requirements that apply as much to defenders as to attackers, including the requirement not to locate military forces and equipment in civilian areas or in protected buildings such as hospitals or mosques. It appears that these legal requirements have been deliberately violated by adversaries in order to induce the US-led coalition into engaging in an attack that causes civilian casualties and destruction. In this reading of events, the law of war are being cynically misused in order to discredit the attacker by making the attacker’s actions appear indiscriminate and disproportionate. Some evidence from the 2003 Iraq War in particular suggests that this has been happening systematically. Such conduct, if it were proved to have the intention imputed here, would of course constitute a tribute of sorts to the practical importance of the principles of proportionality and discrimination

Sir Adam Roberts is Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, and a Fellow of Balliol College. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, and a Member of the Council, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London. His books include (ed. with Richard Guelff), Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd edn., Oxford University Press, 2000.

edited for format

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[damion75 0]

  Quote

It was issued by Bremer, if i'm not all mistaken

You are mistaken - it was issued by an Iraqi judge in an Iraqi court for the public murder of a fellow Iraqi cleric whose name escapes me.

But you are getting confused - SADR has nothing to do with Fallujah - different Muslim sect...

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

  Quote

Just wait, make sure he doesn't get away and once they get tired (maybe after a few weeks), just get him without much hassle.

Yeah, ignore the guy thats building forces and calling for attacks on american soldiers for a few weeks... he'll get tired, play nice, stop the attacks, and we can arrest him without much hassle.

ROFLMAO for a second there I thought you were serious. And when that works we can ask all the bad guys to give up their guns, and drug addicts to stop taking drugs... and they will all listen.

[Chrisky 0]

I do not know. But how do you?
Please tell me. Evidence would convince me.
Until you deliver that, i assume people to be innocent.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[Chrisky 0]

If you still think you can fight ideas with guns, good luck.

Right now, all US actions taken in Fallujah show but one thing: More insurgents than before, lots of civilian casualties and not an inch closer to the objective.

Kepp ROF, it might help changing your perspective..

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[Chrisky 0]

Thanks for setting that straight.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[Chrisky 0]

  Quote

Are you kidding me?

NOOOOO. Can i have fries with that?

  Quote

Any maybe YOU should read HERE

Indeed, makes for an interesting read (didn't read the whole thing yet, that'll have to wait for later).

The question arises how to counter a strategy like that. IMHO, having them sit and wait is an option. A better otion than to engage in bloody street fighting, at least. What can they do? they don't have armor, so they can't launch any large-scale miltary operations. Setup a perimeter around the city, and contain the problem. Maenwhile, get other places to work and show them the difference it makes.
You can dismiss that as blind idealism, but negotiating worked for the british, they don't have so many casualties (own and civilian).

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

  Quote

If you still think you can fight ideas with guns, good luck.

Actually, the only way to kill an idea is to kill the people that have the ideas. Saddam demonstrated that well with his control of the Shiites. The Chinese were also quite successfully at Tienamen Square. But I think they mostly just used tanks to run people over. If the fighting Iraqis would please be so honorable as to step out from behind the women, children and foreign hostages and stand in one area so we could just run over the bad guys with tanks, I'm sure we could spare the civilians too.

  Quote

Right now, all US actions taken in Fallujah show but one thing: More insurgents than before

and there would not have been more insurgents if we had not started fighting back? Remember, the attacks on troops were increasing, and the US CIVILIAN contractors that were ambushed?

  Quote

lots of civilian casualties and not an inch closer to the objective.

Which is closer than the 2 steps back we would have been if we would have done nothing

  Quote

Kepp ROF, it might help changing your perspective..

My perspective won't change. I was just laughing at you. Yes everything would be very nice if your suggestions were feasible. But history and human nature has already proven most wrong.... but most of all.

The biggest reason I know you are wrong.... I put myself in the Iraqi's shoes. Someone invaded the US... Trying to enforce their ideas on me. Where would I be? Shooting soldiers one at a time from cover and showing the French reporters the bodies of unarmed children (after I picked up their weapons of course.)

[Chrisky 0]

  Quote

Actually, the only way to kill an idea is to kill the people that have the ideas. Saddam demonstrated that well with his control of the Shiites. The Chinese were also quite successfully at Tienamen Square.

Yeah, right, the ideas aren't around anymore...

  Quote

and there would not have been more insurgents if we had not started fighting back? Remember, the attacks on troops were increasing, and the US CIVILIAN contractors that were ambushed?

Ah, since when are the contractors not armed anymore? So much for opportunist definition of civilian...
As for the numbers of insurgents, reports indicate that the way the US were fighting in the town, a lot of people joined their ranks due to that.

  Quote

Which is closer than the 2 steps back we would have been if we would have done nothing

Well, it set you back 40 soldiers as well. High price to arrest one man.

If you acted the same way if someone invaded the US, you would also hide behind women, have them shoot at the invaders and your kids reload your weapons? Yea, it really backs up your arguments...

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

Further, the reasons stated for going into this war were, by all accounts, false.

I agree -- your liberal democratic leaders are a bunch of misguided, lying bastards. Why did Bush listen to them?

---
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

"[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime.... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,030]

> They're fighting because their older brother or uncle or father or guardian has said "fight".

Or because that older brother or uncle or father has just become collateral damage, and they see themselves as fighting for their lives.

[quade 4]

Sigh . .

Yes, very cleaver. You found a bunch of quotes that had the phrase weapons of mass destruction in them. Big deal.

The point is that . . . well . . . let's just look at the first quote:

  Quote

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

You'll notice it doesn't say he -has- them, just that he has the capacity to develop them. It also doesn't mention that we should launch a preemptive invasion to oust Hussein.

The next point I'd like to make is that if you think GWB was taking advise from Clinton, then you have to also assume that he took the information that the Clinton Administration had on OBL.

I submit to you that he did neither. Not that he'll admit to in public and under oath anyway.

Lastly, just because I'm agaisnt GWB in the war on Iraq, do not assume I'm for all of the people you've quoted. That's just silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

  Quote

Yeah, right, the ideas aren't around anymore...

No they were no longer around in a way that could viably destabalize the people with power

  Quote

Ah, since when are the contractors not armed anymore?

When Iraqi civilians started killing them

*** a lot of people joined their ranks due to that.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Don't you just love to sit back an laugh at how the Libs run around wringing their hands and whining about how GWB should have known Al Qaeda would attack and he should have done something?

Then in almost the same breath, they whine about the Political Incorrectness of Racial Profiling and the Patriot Act?

Can you imagine how in the world GWB could have done anything to prevent the attacks and still remained PC? Imagine if he knew Arabs were going to attack. He would have had to have had to set up surveilance on equal numbers of Blacks, Asians, Whites, Native Americans etc. as so not to be accused of profiling.

Can you imagine searching people before they got on airplanes and carrying out most of the security measures put in place since Sept. 11, before Sept 11th? The Libs would have strung him up in front of the White House.

I must say, the sideshow of this Sept 11 Commission with Bob Kerry and Ben Veniste is worthy of breaking out my prized stash of Kettle Corn. What a crock of politically motivated trash.

[quade 4]

  Quote

What a crock of politically motivated trash.

Remind me again of who empowered the commission to begin with?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

  Quote

  Quote

What a crock of politically motivated trash.

Remind me again of who empowered the commission to begin with?

Gee, no comment about anything else I said? Doesn't surprise me.

I thought you libs wanted a non-partisan 9-11 commission? Isn't that what the libs claimed they wanted? Is this what you call non-partisan?
No? Now we understand why GWB didn't want Condi to testify. So the next time Reps. tell your political hacks NO, I don't want to hear any "we need a non-partisan (fill-in -blank). Libs are incapable of non-partisanship. It's all about gaining back power and political correctness and damn the security of this country.

Hey have you heard the latest from Andy Rooney? Doesn't he just make you proud to be a Dim?

[Michele 1]

  Quote

I hope pictures like this will spread around so that people will start thinking with their conscious instead of their greed.

~What greed, Rinard, do you think motivates this?
~Do you really think that these photos are not able to be viewed in the US?

  Quote

I also heard that the Americans administration is afraid of such pictures being spread around and anti-war resentiment might rise again.

~I think you've heard propaganda if that's what you really heard...
~I don't think it will help inflame anti war sentiments to see these.
~I think that instead, it demonstrated more effectively what our soldiers - and that of the coalition - face on a daily basis...ununiformed, masked, unidentifiable people dressed in cultural ways who have weapons that they use against them. I understand better what my countrymen face - and have more sympathy for them, as there is no clear enemy.
~Can you translate the arabic writing for me? I don't read it, and I am willing to bet that it's propagandized rather dramatically.

  Quote

I'm fully aware that many innocent Iraqi civilians are being injured and killed by US bombs, and that's horrific.

~Indeed, it is horrific. However, what would your solution be?
~If the enemy would cease using mosques and homes as cover for their attacks, perhaps then the innocents would not be dead. Or don't you realize that's what's happening?

I am interested in where you live, and why you thought this would be interesting to post here. You've posted some educational stuff in the past, and I know I've learned from it (irrespective of whether or not I agree...). I am therefore disappointed in you for stooping to propaganda such as this. I expected better from you.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,030]

>Don't you just love to sit back an laugh at how the Libs run around
> wringing their hands and whining about how GWB should have known
> Al Qaeda would attack and he should have done something?

>Then in almost the same breath, they whine about the Political
> Incorrectness of Racial Profiling and the Patriot Act?

Yeah, geez, next thing you know they'll be saying that we should have been better prepared for Pearl Harbor, but at the same time say that US concentration camps are wrong. Crazy liberals! They should know that you can't have freedom without concentration camps.

>Can you imagine how in the world GWB could have done anything to
> prevent the attacks and still remained PC?

He would have had to be un-PC. And I think it would be great if we had a leader who was willing to be un-PC to prevent an attack that cost 3000 US lives. Believe it or not, there are more important things than being popular.

[Chrisky 0]

Givig people better ideas is the only real way to do it (that's the way it seems to have worked with communism, although it took a while and there are still some around who don't seem to get it...).

  Quote

And doing ... could have ...

Well...

Lets just hope it turns out to be a somewhat stable coutry with a government that the whole population feels represented by and that is not comprised of clerics...

I'm at work right now (Note to self: Don't frequent speakers corner, takes too much time!)
Nice playin, night night.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[Gravitymaster 0]

  Quote

>Don't you just love to sit back an laugh at how the Libs run around
> wringing their hands and whining about how GWB should have known

  Quote

> Al Qaeda would attack and he should have done something?

>Then in almost the same breath, they whine about the Political
> Incorrectness of Racial Profiling and the Patriot Act?

  Quote

Yeah, geez, next thing you know they'll be saying that we should have been better prepared for Pearl Harbor, but at the same time say that US concentration camps are wrong. Crazy liberals! They should know that you can't have freedom without concentration camps.

You must have missed my post on another thread about Liberals always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they seldom can make a suggestion on current events. Hey, think you can get a muffler for a 66 Caddy next time you take a trip thru time? BTW who said concentration camps?


>Can you imagine how in the world GWB could have done anything to
> prevent the attacks and still remained PC?

  Quote

He would have had to be un-PC. And I think it would be great if we had a leader who was willing to be un-PC to prevent an attack that cost 3000 US lives. Believe it or not, there are more important things than being popular.

Yep, and look at how you libs are screaming about your civil right after Sept 11. What would any libs have wanted GWB to do before Sept 11 that wouldn't have involved "infringing" on your civil right and still protect us?

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quade 4]

BTW, I really like your current avatar, kind of appropriate given your name and position of defending the indefensible, but shouldn't Sysiphus be pushing the rock uphill?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,030]

>You must have missed my post on another thread about Liberals
>always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they
> seldom can make a suggestion on current events.

Sometimes it actually makes more sense to learn from history, rather than repeating it. But feel free to repeat the same mistakes if you must. I'd prefer to not have another 9/11 myself, but that's just me.


>Yep, and look at how you libs are screaming about your civil right
> after Sept 11.

I always expect the civil rights afforded me by our constitution. Expected em before 9/11, expect em now. For you conservatives, the constitution is another old historical document that we .iberals use since we live in the past so much. I know, who wants to heed an ancient document when we have so many shiny new ones we could use? Us liberals are funny that way.

>What would any libs have wanted GWB to do before Sept 11 that
> wouldn't have involved "infringing" on your civil right and still protect
> us?

Determine that the Al Qaeda terrorists mentioned in the PDR and the terrorists training to fly 757's that the FBI were watching were one and the same. Then arrest them. Believe it or not, we could arrest terrorists before 9/11 too, even if they committed no crimes in the US!

[Gravitymaster 0]

  Quote

BTW, I really like your current avatar, kind of appropriate given your name and position of defending the indefensible, but shouldn't Sysiphus be pushing the rock uphill?

No argument so you comment (attack) my avatar. Nuff said.