Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
supercar

consequences of failure in Iraq

101 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Fluffybunny

Something you said to me...

Perhaps if you are so dead-set against the United States winning in Iraq,you'd like to head over to Iraq and join a militia or insurgent group. They might even teach you how to behead people.

Then you backpeddle:

I didn't suggest you should behead people. I was not implying that you would behead people. I was pointing out the barbaric nature of those we are fighting in Iraq. And they don't just behead the few Western hostages you see on videotape. They have beheaded hundreds of people

Oh please Supercar...that is just not true and you know it. You made that dig at me directly and it is very obvious to anyone who bothers to read it. Don't get me wrong, freedom of speech allows you to do so and you have fought for that freedom just as I did...even though I find it disgusting, offensive, and ironic it is something that you get to say in (as what you said) "fighting for what I believe right now by posting messages here".

The War on Terrorism is a war of ideas. You have to fight an idea with an idea. The fight against radical Islam will be fought through public discourse,i.e. internet message boards,just as much as with bullets.

If what you say is true, perhaps my goal of bringing my friends home and out of harms way could be mitigated if we were to issue each of them a computer and internet access so that they could battle through public discourse rather than be targets of IED's.

You mistakenly think that because I wish the soldiers to come home that I am wishing the US to lose the war in iraq. Bush and company already sealed the fate of the war with poor planning. The soldiers that are fighting now are doing the best they can, but it is impossible to fight against 2 religous sects attempting to gain power over each other in a fight that has gone on for far longer than we have been in the region. Regardless of how long we are in the country we cannot solve this problem with soldiers, and the period of time that we had to use diplomacy is gone. The failure in iraq rests firmly on the shoulders of people like bush, rummy, and cheney, not the soldiers fighting the war.

Your claim, that I turned my back on my fellow soldiers (Posted on: Jan 12 2007, 06:50 PM) "Why have you decided to turn your back on your fellow soldiers" is pure disgusting rubbish you know it; I have supported my fellow soldiers since the begining, but have continually pointed out that the invasion was poorly planned and a mistake.

The soldiers who are actually fighting this war, dying and being permenantly disabled for their country, are in a no win situation as the war is being fought now, and having actually been a soldier I am not willing to see my fellow soldiers die for such a cause; you may be willing to have them die for this war, but I am not.

As I said, the failure was assured by bush, not by the soldiers. It is too late for them to fix bushs' mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EmpressStarXVII
You mistakenly think that because I wish the soldiers to come home that I am wishing the US to lose the war in iraq.

Well, thanks to Bush's scare tactics and subliminal messages during speeches "this is what you are doing if you vote for democrats", a lot of people are lead to believe that. It's a sad thing really.

I had a quote in my signature the other day said by Ed Murrow "Never confuse dissent with disloyalty."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003
Well, thanks to Bush's scare tactics and subliminal messages during speeches "this is what you are doing if you vote for democrats", a lot of people are lead to believe that. It's a sad thing really.

I had a quote in my signature the other day said by Ed Murrow "Never confuse dissent with disloyalty."

Yeah but those people are way in the minority Empress. Only Radicals still support Bush.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
So supercar, what's the moral difference between beheading someone or spraying them with White Phosphorus or dropping bombs on them?

Please supercar........ Your President doesn't even support the Geneva conventions or the UN, and you want to talk about barbarism?

You really need help don't you. White Phosphorus is a incendiary, not a chemical weapon that you liberals claim. dropping bombs on enemy strong hold is legal. beheading people is against just about every agreement in the books. why do you consistantly post these far left halftruths around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stalker
You really need help don't you. White Phosphorus is a incendiary, not a chemical weapon that you liberals claim. dropping bombs on enemy strong hold is legal. beheading people is against just about every agreement in the books. why do you consistantly post these far left halftruths around.

It's all still death, isn't it?

Granted, sometimes war is necessary. Iraq was NOT a necessary war. That's why I'm against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
It's all still death, isn't it?

Granted, sometimes war is necessary. Iraq was NOT a necessary war. That's why I'm against it.

Well you are not alone and people have the right to believe or disbelieve in this war and I fully respect your views, however, I thinks its sad to say we used chemical weapons, targeted civilians and view beheadings as the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
Something you said to me...

Perhaps if you are so dead-set against the United States winning in Iraq,you'd like to head over to Iraq and join a militia or insurgent group. They might even teach you how to behead people

I said they might teach you to behead people. Note the word 'might'. Do you know what 'might' means? I said they 'might' teach you to behead someone. That is entirely different from saying you should behead someone. Do you understand the word 'teach'? I said they might 'teach' you to behead someone. Teaching someone to behead people is entirely different than saying you would behead someone.

Then you backpeddle

No that isn't backpeddling. It isn't backpeddling because I wasn't mocking. My remark about beheading is not mocking.

This is mocking:

Just keep fighting the good fight brother thumbsup.gif Make sure the baddies don't get you down with carpal tunnel syndrome. I'd hate to see you wounded in action. Paper cuts...power outages...DSL going down...all of those nightmare occurances that could take you out of the battle.

Drive On Soldier!

More mocking:

The freedom of speech only applies to the real soldiers of the war like you, the ones on the front line of the war (behind your keyboard)

Even more mocking:

One last thing folks; just remember that supercar has last call on the freedom of speach. Don't cross him, he has a keyboard and isn't afraid to use it.

And sir, if I may, keep fighting the good fight; make America proud

Then you continued the mocking on 4/15/2007:

That would never happen as Supercar does his patriotic work from behind his computer

You have established a pattern of mocking going back to January.

And why do you keep editing this message:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1632850

You have edited that at least three times. Are you trying to make it look like I'm not responding to one of your points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
Yeah but those people are way in the minority Empress. Only Radicals still support Bush.........

What? Two weeks ago you said less than one-third of Americans support the war:

I don't really think you can say it's us Empress. Less than one third of Americans think we should be there.

This is Bush's War. Not America's

The population of the United States is 300 million. That means that 99 million people still support the war. So you're saying there are 99 million radicals in the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serpentine

Its not a war its an occupation of a sovereign country.

By occupying a sovereign country the democracy of the USA makes its own people responsible for what is happening there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
Its not a war its an occupation of a sovereign country.

By occupying a sovereign country the democracy of the USA makes its own people responsible for what is happening there.

Iraq is not yet fully sovereign. It is more like a protectorate of the United States.

Here is the definition of protectorate from dictionary.com:

'a state or territory partly controlled by (but not a possession of) a stronger state but autonomous in internal affairs'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar

I think the U.S. is a guest to Iraq now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003
You really need help don't you. White Phosphorus is a incendiary, not a chemical weapon that you liberals claim. dropping bombs on enemy strong hold is legal. beheading people is against just about every agreement in the books. why do you consistantly post these far left halftruths around.

As I recall they used it as a weapon in Fallujah, which is a civilian area, and according to Protocol 3 of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), concluded at Geneva on October 10, 1980, it is illegal to do what they did in Fallujah.

But suprise suprise, the US is not signed on to Protocol 3

You should never again spout off about how bad Saddam was for using Chemical weapons....... That would be utter hypocrisy

Jeez O Weez, causes multiorgan failure if it gets on your skin....... Sounds like a chemical weapon to me. Duh! And they were shooting it at insurgents in Fallujah in a Civilian Area! Sorry Caesar, I am an American and I believe in decency. I don't think we should be using chemical weapons, I think we are better than that. I think it is inhumane and unmoral. But so is launching an unnecessary War.

Effects of exposure to WP weapons

Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure.[21] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone. In some cases, burns may be limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed. According to GlobalSecurity.org, quoted by "The Guardian", "White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries"[22] .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

Man, That sounds just as barbaric as beheading to me

=================

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’

===============

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle328703.ece

US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon'

===============

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_weapon

Within the US Army, there appear to be two somewhat conflicting advice on the use of WP against humans. According to the field manual on the Rule of Land Warfare, "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law."[32] However, the ST 100-3 Battle Book, a student text published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth states that "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."[33] At the same time, other field manuals discuss the use of white phosphorus against personnel[34].

Guidelines on WP use in other armies are not adequately disseminated

======================

Edited by Bob26003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
I was just thinking... How stupid were they to think that invading Iraq would work, especially given what happened in Ahfganistan with the Russians.

Also, Caesar...... That pharmacuetical factory that Clinton targeted that supposedly was making chemical gas with Iraq help..... Was making Ibuprofen and Pet medications.

And do you know that the Iraqis really lured the US Military to hit it so they can make a propaganda out of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003
And do you know that the Iraqis really lured the US Military to hit it so they can make a propaganda out of it?

Is that English? I don't quite understand. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Is that English? I don't quite understand. :P

It is English, just not the ones you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
As I recall they used it as a weapon in Fallujah, which is a civilian area, and according to Protocol 3 of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), concluded at Geneva on October 10, 1980, it is illegal to do what they did in Fallujah.

But suprise suprise, the US is not signed on to Protocol 3

Bob you really have no idea what you are talking about, if you served in the military you might have a clue. White Phosphorus is a incendiary weapon, used as an igniter for munitions, flairs and smoke screens. white phosphorus charges the explosion in high explosive 'HE' bombs. the U.S. military targeted enemy hot spots and not at civilian areas. as far as 'Protocol 3 of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)', This is an outrageous assumption because civilians may NEVER be the targeted in military operations EVER!

Here are the facts Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?

Did BBC ignore weapons claim?

White phosphorus (WP) is a fearsome military weapon

You should never again spout off about how bad Saddam was for using Chemical weapons....... That would be utter hypocrisy.

Jeez O Weez, causes multiorgan failure if it gets on your skin....... Sounds like a chemical weapon to me. Duh! And they were shooting it at insurgents in Fallujah in a Civilian Area! Sorry Caesar, I am an American and I believe in decency. I don't think we should be using chemical weapons, I think we are better than that. I think it is inhumane and unmoral. But so is launching an unnecessary War.

Is that a fact, how many people did the U.S. kill using these chemical weapons? the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is the international agency supervising the global destruction of chemical weapons. It flatly states that "napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be chemical weapons agents.

source

Effects of exposure to WP weapons

Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure.[21] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone. In some cases, burns may be limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed. According to GlobalSecurity.org, quoted by "The Guardian", "White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries"[22] .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

Man, That sounds just as barbaric as beheading to me

Yeah it would have to be dropped from a c130's to be effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003

"civilians may NEVER be the targeted in military operations EVER! "

================

This is utter fabrication Caesar.

==================

So I guess all the people that died from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just collateral damage......... Please, that is laughable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombin...ma_and_Nagasaki

Inherently immoral

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crime against humanity. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[58]

======================

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peac...s_Military.html

U.S. military policy has long been based on strategies and tactics that involve a heavy civilian toll. This has followed from a combination of factors, whose proportions and effects vary depending on circumstances. But this combination always yields a large, sometimes vast, civilian toll. However, as it is claimed by the war managers that these deaths and injuries are not deliberate, but are only "collateral" to another end, they are treated by the mainstream media, NGOs, new humanitarians, and others as a lesser evil than cases where civilians are openly targeted.

But this differential treatment is a fraud, even if we accept the sometimes disputable claim of inadvertence (occasionally even acknowledged by officials to be false, as described below). Even if not the explicit target, if collateral civilian deaths are highly probable and statistically predictable they are clearly acceptable and intentional. If in 500 raids on Afghan villages alleged to harbor al Qaeda cadres it is likely that civilians will die in 450 of them, those deaths are an integral component of the plan and the clear responsibility of the planners and executioners. As law professor Michael Tonry has said, "In the criminal law, purpose and knowledge are equally culpable states of mind."

Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions state that combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives" (Part IV, Chap. 1, Article 48). When Tony Blair claims that the West is doing "all

article continues.............

============

Perhaps you forget Reagan's War against the peasants of Nicarauga...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice that found that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States refused to abide by the Court's decision, on the basis that the court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case,[2] The court stated that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force".[3]

The ruling

On June 27, 1986, the Court found that:

* The United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the Contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.

* The United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on September 13 and October 14 1983, an attack on Corinto on October 10 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on January 4 and 5 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on March 7 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on March 28 and 30 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on April 9, 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to [above], which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State.

* The United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to [above], has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State.

* By laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce.

* The United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to [above], and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on May 1, 1985, has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on January 21, 1956.

* The United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas' ("Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare")[12], and disseminating it to Contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but [the Court] did not find a basis for concluding that any such acts that may have been committed were imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America.

* The United States of America had to pay reparations for the damage

================

Do I really have to go on Caesar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003

Don't forget Yugoslavia

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/088.shtml

The Grdelica Passenger Train Bombing

By Carl Savich

March 26, 2007

Introduction: NATO War Crime

On April 12, 1999, a NATO attack on a passenger train in Grdelica in southern Serbia killed at least 12 civilians. NATO purposely targeted civilians in this atrocity. NATO failed to suspend their attack even after it was known it was a civilian target. NATO then covered-up this war crime.

Was the Grdelica bombing a NATO war crime? The Geneva Convention of 1949, Protocol I Additional, the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict, which was adopted in 1977 and ratified by 150 countries, except the US, France, and Turkey, governs this case. The Principles of Distinction and Proportionality were violated in the Grdelica bombing. Article 48 of Protocol I requires that a distinction be made between civilian and military targets. Article 51 (4) of Protocol I prohibits “indiscriminate attacks” that endanger needlessly the lives of civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truthorder

I purposely have not read this thread, other than the title alone so as that my opinion would not be swayed by what I've read.

I state this simply because I've had a view on this for some time now.

The U.S. presence needs to remain in Iraq indefinitely. For those who read and believe the media reports that this entire episode

is about oil and nothing to do with WMD's, you're only half right.

It has NOTHING to do with oil. But it DOES have to do with WMD's.

Even though the U.S. maintained a constant presence in the southern middle east, they did not have the capability to put a damper

on arms transit between Iran and Lebanon.

And what happened? When that supply line was cut off by the U.S. and coalition invasion of Iraq, Hezbollah took what they had

stockpiled and threw nearly all of it at Israel. THAT is why the U.S. presence in Iraq needs to remain. Without it, there is a

continuous pipeline of weaponry between Iran and Hezbollah.

Don't fool yourselves. The U.S. could quite easily squelch the "civil war" that is happening in Iraq right now. But that's NOT the focus.

The focus is to interrupt the weapons trransfer to Hezbollah from Iran.

And that is something that I am in complete agreement with. The bombings that are happening, and that will continue to happen are an

effort to draw U.S. attention away from Iran/Iraq borders, and Iraq/Syrian borders.

The extremists against Israel are well beyond upset. THAT is what is causing the problem here.

And the United States isn't budging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003

http://www.counterpunch.org/dead.html

Who NATO Killed

Since the Nato airstrikes began on March 24 Serb officials say more than 2,000 civilians have been killed and more than 7,500 wounded. Nato has owned up to bombing raids and missile attacks that have killed 460 civilians, according to a tally by Agence France-Presse. By all accounts, the bombing was indiscriminate, killing farmers, suburbanites, city dwellers, factory workers, reporters, diplomats, people in cars, busses and trains, hospital patients, the elderly and children. Indeed, by our count, Nato bombing raids have killed more than 200 children. Hundreds more will almost certainly perish in the coming months, through environmental factors, such as poisoned water supplies and lack of electrical power to run vital hospital equipment. The following list of civilian casualties is far from comprehensive. We compiled it from daily reports by the Yugoslav Foreign Ministry and wire services, including Agence France Presse, Reuters and AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/nato.htm

On March 24, 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) launched an illegal and unprovoked War of aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. NATO did not have any authorization from the UN Security Council to carry out this aggression.

Not only did the aggression violate the UN Charter, but also many international covenants pertaining to the rules of war. NATO deliberately targeted civilians, not even hospitals were spared from NATO's criminal attacks. In fact, NATO managed to destroy more hospitals than Yugoslav Army tanks.

What follows is literally thousands of pages of graphic evidence of NATO war crimes against civilians in Yugoslavia:

WARNING: THESE FILES CONTAIN GRAPHIC IMAGES THAT YOU MAY FIND DISTURBING.

WHITE BOOK vol. I

Catalog of NATO attacks against civilians March 24 - April 24, 1999

WHITE BOOK vol. II

Catalog of NATO attacks against civilians April 25 - June 10, 1999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

230 killed in bombings in one day...I guess the surge is over?...it sure isnt working....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003
230 killed in bombings in one day...I guess the surge is over?...it sure isnt working....

Way more people were dying in Nam and we stayed there forever.. Dead bodies don't matter to these guys. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nietze

Caesar " I think the U.S. is a guest to Iraq now"

Please tell me you are joking ? , has the israeli controlled media in USA battered your poor american brain that much . That is what you believe these days ? . I feel sorry for americans in truth, they are not the brightest of people . First they are bred up on the gung ho patriotism, then are all ready and set for any lies their government wants to tell them , and then think they are fighting for truth honour and the 'american way of life' ..its sad really . People will look back on you the same way they did the population of germany leading up to and including the time of the nazi party in the 1930's and 40's . And wonder why you let it happen too .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

You are out of line with that post.

Sweeping generalizations like that just go to show how incredibly mislead that you are about Americans. You may think you know what "Americans" are like but you are wrong. They are like any other country; there are smart ones and dumb ones, patriotic ones and some that hate the country. To think that any one countries' citizens are all the same is simply ridiculous, and only goes to show your ignorance of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.