229 years ago, today

[canadiancutie]

Did 22 million Iraqis ever consider themselves under a tyranny? Some did (such as the Kurds), some didn't. For the most part, I believe the Iraqi people spent most of their days doing pretty much like what we do here. Going to work, going to mosque, raising a family, vacationing, etc. To believe that they live and act so differently from us is a falacy. They are people like the rest of us, doing what people do.



I haven't felt the direct effects of 9/11 and I'm glad for it, however, what about individuals like Mark Glick who's father died in the twin towers and later protested against the war in Afganistan? He was directly affected by the tragedy yet had the incredible courage to stand up for his convictions of peace. He refused to give into blind revenge despite his enourmous loss. What about him and others like him?

In my opinion, armed conflict is sometimes a neccesary and final resort to dangerous political and social conflicts. That said however, I do not believing in trading my security for the lives of innocent people, no matter what colour their skin or what religion they believe in.

This should not be taken as a criticism against the United States soley. As I said, there are a plethora of other nations that have also fought wars in the name of an alturistic concept. I don't believe can ever to bring myself to a point where I wish suffering and death upon innocent people for the sake of my own safety and security.

And this is why you're one of my absolute favourite-est people on this board.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

... I fail to see any distinction (other then the level of destruction) between a a group of hijackers flying planes into the World Trade Centre killing over 2,700 Americans, and a series of air, missile, and ground attacks which kill over 3,000 innocent Iraqis.

Ok, then let's try a comparison of numbers based on living in Iraq since the US crossed the border and the time Saddam held power. Here's your link.

(T)he AP survey of morgues in Baghdad and the provinces of Karbala, Kirkuk and Tikrit found 5,558 violent deaths recorded from May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, to April 30. Officials at morgues for three more of Iraq's 18 provinces either didn't have numbers or declined to release them.

That doesn't mean Iraq is a more dangerous place than during Saddam Hussein's regime. At least 300,000 people were murdered by security forces and buried in mass graves during the dictator's 23-year rule, U.S. officials say, and human rights workers put the number closer to 500,000.

For the sake of argument, let's round off that 5,558 to 6,000. i won't kick up a fuss that some of those deaths came as a result of "There is crime, revenge killings, so much violence." In other words, not all of those 6,000 can be attributed to actions by Coalition forces. i'll go with the lower number quoted by US officials for Saddam's rule rather than the higher claimed by human rights workers.

You get one of two choices. Living in occupied Iraq as a native/citizen with a violent death toll rate of 6,000 per year versus life under Saddam at 13,000 per year? i think i'll take my chances with the former and fight like hell to get rid of the hangers on of the old regime & the other "invasion force" no one ever seems to mention ... "freedom fighters" from other Arab nations not requested by the majority of Iraqi citizens.

Here's another link to digest. Would you have preferred we continue on the obvious failure route endorsed by the UN for 12 years and a few countries that wished to continue the status quo in case a miracle changed the leadership in Iraq?

They are both instances of terrorism, in my opinion, and I don't believe we can make people respect and work towards peace with us if we keep killing them.

Destroying a military target situated in the middle of an urban center is an act of war, not terrorism. Building that military target in the middle of an urban center smacks of stupidity if you simply believe your opponent naive. The words callous for the safety of your own citizens, and craven for hiding behind "human shields" (as the former regime regulary did and its remnants continue to do) provides a better description.

i'd say the Iraqi people that voted for their own government, continue joining the Iraqi military/police/security forces to defend against individuals/groups that refuse to let go of the former regime's way of life (or crossed a border to shoot "foreign invaders" without an invite), turn informant on the latter, and continue to stubbornly rebuild their country (regardless of the latter's equally stubborn desire to tear it down) would disagree with you.

 

[WriterDom]

Did 22 million Iraqis ever consider themselves under a tyranny? Some did (such as the Kurds), some didn't. For the most part, I believe the Iraqi people spent most of their days doing pretty much like what we do here. Going to work, going to mosque, raising a family, vacationing, etc. To believe that they live and act so differently from us is a falacy. They are people like the rest of us, doing what people do.


.

I've got no beef with the Iraqis. I'm sure many are fine people. But the reason you never heard them complain is because saying anything negative about Saddam, or Iraq, would get your tongue cut out of your mouth. And the elections, 100% for Saddam. No hanging chads there. Maybe a few beheaded Chads.

 

[O'Mac]

You get one of two choices. Living in occupied Iraq as a native/citizen with a violent death toll rate of 6,000 per year versus life under Saddam at 13,000 per year?

That is incredibly ironic becaase in 1998-1999 (a year noted for it's relatively high crime violent rate), about 12,000 people died of violent and fire-arm related deaths in the United States. Are you suggesting the United States be attacked for it's high rate of internal strife?

Destroying a military target situated in the middle of an urban center is an act of war, not terrorism.

I agree only if the military target itself is destroyed. It's hard to consider it anything other than terrorism if innocent people are killed. Saying that don't intend to harm civilians does very little for the families of those actually killed or injured by the act, does it?

i'd say the Iraqi people that voted for their own government, continue joining the Iraqi military/police/security forces to defend against individuals/groups that refuse to let go of the former regime's way of life (or crossed a border to shoot "foreign invaders" without an invite), turn informant on the latter, and continue to stubbornly rebuild their country (regardless of the latter's equally stubborn desire to tear it down) would disagree with you.

I'd say that many more would agree with my in the claim that the military intervention undertaken by the coalition forces has caused unneccesary destruction and devastation to their nation's infrastructure, as well as an intolerable loss of civilian life.

I hope and pray the Iraqis can sort themselves out and start rebuilding their country. I don't think the coalition nations deserve a pat on the back for doing it, however.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

That is incredibly ironic becaase in 1998-1999 (a year noted for it's relatively high crime violent rate), about 12,000 people died of violent and fire-arm related deaths in the United States. Are you suggesting the United States be attacked for it's high rate of internal strife?

Try comparing the population numbers of the countries involved first.

• US
• Iraq

Start with the basic fact that the Iraqi population is approximately 8% of that in the US. Are you suggesting a nation with a population more than ten times that of the one in question be attacked for 1/6th the violent/fire-arm death rate?

Never mind, the US already suffered attacks as have Spain, and Britain.

I agree only if the military target itself is destroyed. It's hard to consider it anything other than terrorism if innocent people are killed. Saying that don't intend to harm civilians does very little for the families of those actually killed or injured by the act, does it?

Nice attempt at comparing apples and oranges, but your argument resembles an upside down Frisbee full of water. Be careful you don't trip. Here's the banana peel in your path. Last i heard, the generally accepted Laws of Ground Warfare state the following: (Link)

Incidental Injury and Collateral Damage. Unavoidable and unplanned damage to civilian personnel and property incurred while attacking a military objective. Incidental (a/k/a collateral) damage is not a violation of international law. While no law of war treaty defines this concept, its inherent lawfulness is implicit in treaties referencing the concept. As stated above, GP I, Article 51(5) describes indiscriminate attacks as those causing “incidental loss of civilian life . . . excessive . . . to . . . the military advantage anticipated.” Id. Caution, however, the law of proportionality still applies.

The United States and Iraq are both signatories of the four Geneva Conventions; however, neither the U.S. nor Iraq ratified the two additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions incorporated on June 8, 1977. Although the U.S. is not a signatory of the two protocols, the U.S. Department of the Army has codified nearly all the language of the two protocols in the U.S. Army Field Manual, The Law of Land Warfare.

C. 1977 Geneva Protocols (ref. (7)). The U.S. has not ratified these treaties. Portions, however, do reflect state practice and legal obligations -- the key ingredients to customary international law.
1. Motivated by International Committee of the Red Cross’ belief that the four Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations insufficiently covered certain areas of warfare in the conflicts following WW II, specifically aerial bombardments, protection of civilians, and wars of national liberation.
2. As of October 1998:
a. 152 nations have become Parties to GP I.
b. 144 nations have become Parties to GP II
3. New or expanded areas of definition and protection contained in Protocols include provisions for: medical aircraft, wounded and sick, prisoners of war, protections of the natural environment, works and installations containing dangerous forces, journalists, protections of civilians from indiscriminate attack, and legal review of weapons.
4. U.S. views these GP I articles as either customary international law or acceptable practice though not legally binding: 5 (appointment of protecting powers); 10(equal protection of wounded, sick, and shipwrecked); 11
(guidelines for medical procedures); 12-34 (medical units, aircraft, ships, missing and dead persons); 35 (1)(2)(limiting methods and means of warfare); 37 (perfidy prohibitions); 38 (prohibition against improper use of protected emblems); 45 (prisoner of war presumption for those who participate in the hostilities); 51 (protection of the civilian population, except para. 6 -- reprisals); 52 (general protection of civilian objects); 54 (protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population); 57-60 (precautions in attack, undefended localities, and demilitarized zones); 62 (civil defense protection); 63 (civil defense in occupied territories); 70 (relief actions); 73-89 (treatment of persons in the power of a party to the conflict; women and children; and duties regarding implementation of GP I).
5. The U.S. specifically objects to articles 1(4) (GP I applicability to certain types of armed conflicts); 35(3) (environmental limitations on means and methods of warfare); 39(2) (use of enemy flags and insignia while engaging in attacks); 44 (combatants and prisoners of war (portions)); 47 (nonprotection of mercenaries); 55 (protection of the natural environment) and 56 (protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces). See Michael J. Matheson, The United States Position on the Relation of Customary International Law to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, 2 Am. U. J. Int’l & Pol’y 419, 420 (1987).

That said, take a real good stroll through this link. Then, relook your claim.

I'd say that many more would agree with my in the claim that the military intervention undertaken by the coalition forces has caused unneccesary destruction and devastation to their nation's infrastructure, as well as an intolerable loss of civilian life.

The people Coalition forces pursue have no concept, nor care for "Injury and Collateral Damage." We have 19 year old Marines on station with more common sense and a greater concept of deceny for human life than the inhumane individuals they pursue. i thought of using the word animal, save one major difference exists.

Animals can't read. They attack based on biological necessity using every tactical and natural advantage they possess. The inhumane, however, do read. The inhumane regularly use the sanctuary of protected buildings to store weapons, barrack personnel, and attack Coalition forces to the detriment of the population that hold such buildings culturally sacred. While the Laws of War above provide for the loss of protected status of such buildings/sites, Coalition forces rarely invoke that protocol. Why? Roll back time (pun intended) a few months to the Newsweek article concerning the flushing of Quran that sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. The futility of explaining to the outraged the reasoning behind flattening a mosque based on protocol and law signed by their own governments would increase by orders of magnitude beyond Newsweek's half-assed retraction.

 

[WriterDom]

TAre you suggesting the United States be attacked for it's high rate of internal strife?


.

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? A fucking Canadian? We have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Saddam and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Saddam's capture saved lives. And our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want us on that wall. You need us on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.
We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom we provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it! We'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, We suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, we don't give a damn what you think.

 

[Netzach]

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? A fucking Canadian? We have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Saddam and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Saddam's capture saved lives. And our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want us on that wall. You need us on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.
We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom we provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it! We'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, We suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, we don't give a damn what you think.

Germany had a wall guarded by guys with guns.

I saw only a beaver dam when I went up north.

The beaver didn't have a gun, to my knowledge.

I'd rather live here, too, but not because I feel protected perfectly. Life is risk. 9/11 happens, Oklahoma City happens. I'm more likely to be killed by other americans than I am by foreign terrorists, but life is risk. What I can't stomach are the things that are going on in the name of protecting. Protecting the civilians. Protecting the children. Protecting Marriage.

I grew up in NYC. I worked in the WTC. I was never safe a day in my life, just lucky.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Son ...

http://aaotracker.4players.de/Images/smilies/angel.gif

You ever talk to a client of mine without permission, I'll have you disbarred. Friends?

I had authorization.

From who?

Ginny Miller. Louden's aunt on his mother's side.

You got authorization from Aunt Ginny?

It's perfectly within my boundaries.

Does Aunt Ginny have a barn? Maybe we could hold the trial there. I'll sew the costumes and maybe Uncle Goober can be the judge.

You're Aunt Ginny?

Uh-huh.

I'm sorry, I was expecting someone older.

So was I.

Who is this?

Lieutenant Commander Galloway. She's very pleased to meet you.

If you haven't gotten a blowjob from a superior officer, you're just letting an opportunity pass you by.

You put him on the stand and you get it from him!

Oh! We get it from him! Yes! ... "Colonel isn't it true that you ordered the Code Red?"

Look, we all...

eeehhhhh! Sorry, your time's run out! What do we have for the losers, judge? Well, for our defendants, it's a life sentence at exotic Fort Leavenworth! And, for defense counsel, that's right, it's a court martial! Yes, Johnny! After falsely accusing a highly decorated officer of conspiracy and perjury, the Lieutenant will have a long and prosperous career teaching... typewriter maintenance at the Rocco Globbo School for Women! Thank you for playing "Should we or should we not follow the advice of the galactically stupid!"

But all kidding aside, the following gold nuggets stand alone.

What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong.

Yeah, we did. We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie.

Why do you like them so much?

Because they stand upon a wall and say, "Nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch."

 

[graceanne]

My sister in law is a Iraqi Kurd and I am a German Jew. Both the kurds and the jews make up a small amount of the population in those countries. Does that mean that it was ok to allow Hitler to kill the Jews? Cause the majority of them weren't Jewish? It wasn't ok for Hussein to kill the Kurds, either. And it wasn't ok for us, as the world, to ignore what he was doing in the name of 'justice'.

 

[Farblat_Ieem]

I think a lot of the world, especially Europeans, have penis envy when it comes to America. The only comparison that can be made is if you lump all those former imperialistic continental counties into one. And I wonder if they'll ever get along enough to do that. America isn't perfect, but the waiting list to get in is a lot bigger than the one to get out. I'm not leaving. And if you are European, and you don't speak German or Russian, you are welcome.

It's hard to believe even an American raised with nothing but the patriotic versions of events would actually be able to believe this line. Perhaps if the American way only hurt us foreigners you could argue a sort of greatness but having lived there, here and elsewhere I think the USA would be very low on my list of places I'd choose to live and work. I think it hurts the majority of Americans too.

If I were a citizen then I, like all of my American friends I've spoken to lately, would be frustrated and angry at where their republic is being taken. Give me a Dominion any day.

Jasonlf’s sentiment of the thread, that Americans should be proud and celebrate their founding - I totally agree and would show up to cheer too. America has many things to be proud of and just might have a proud future still. Basing that pride on dick-measuring and denial that the country now faces possibly devastating problems and is facing them poorly seems worse than childish. I hope to see thinking Americans, even if they are not the majority, step up and put the country back on it’s traditional, somewhat isolationist and deeply moral foundations. I doesn’t seem to be happening. 50 channels of up to the minute news agrees the people in charge know best.

I guess it's hard to listen to dissent when you have sand in your ears.

 

[WriterDom]

There isn't much violent crime around these parts. Most of the counties average around 1 murder a year, and 2 or 3 rapes. About every 10th house displays the 10 commandments in the front yard (no joke). When a funeral procession drives by, everyone on the road stops until the last of the funeral goes by. No booze sold on sunday. No Playboys sold between Atlanta and Greenville SC, 150 miles or so, and I'm not even sure if you can buy one in Greenville.

The bible belt. God Bless America.

 

[Netzach]

No booze sold on sunday. No Playboys sold between Atlanta and Greenville SC, 150 miles or so, and I'm not even sure if you can buy one in Greenville.

Exactly my point. There are prices I'm totally unwilling to pay for being safe.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

I think the USA would be very low on my list of places I'd choose to live and work.

Not a problem. Feel free to stay wherever you might currently reside. May your days be long and your nights warm.

Basing that pride on dick-measuring and denial that the country now faces possibly devastating problems and is facing them poorly seems worse than childish.

Sorry, but i don't believe the majority base our pride on dick-measuring. We've faced devastion repeatedly in our infancy (1777 & 1812), familial bickering (1861), college (1917), living in the parents' basement because we can't find a job (1929), break-in and rape (1941), neighborhood watch (1950, 1962 & 1965), while keeping up with the Jones' (1946-1991), obesity wake-up call (1973), early morning workouts (1983 & 1989), shaky corporate alliances (1991), and fly-by gang violence (2001). We may not get it right all the time, but we do try: kicking, screaming, squabbling, and fighting amongst ourselves the whole way.

I hope to see thinking Americans, even if they are not the majority, step up and put the country back on it’s traditional, somewhat isolationist and deeply moral foundations.

Won't happen, especially the isolationist dream. Every time the US has retreated within its borders, it gets slapped in the back of the head by world events. We've turned swords into plowshares more times in 229 years than most can find the applicable quote in the King James version.

Who pays the price when we have? Most often, the same folks we send back out in our defense, usually poorly trained and equipped. Click me* and look for US losses re Meuse-Argonne. The last time, however, 2700+(?) civilians and those that tried to rescue them paid under tons of stone and steel.

I guess it's hard to listen to dissent when you have sand in your ears.

i prefer sand in my ears while hitting the dirt getting rid of a dictator & his hangers-on, to another 12 years of shit from having my head stuck up my ass waiting for the UN to finish giving the same dictator yet another blowjob in appeasement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Based on other conversation in this thread, (and attempting to steer back to what happened 229 years ago) i offer this. Jefferson started writing on 11 June 1776, working in seclusion and through several drafts. After presenting his final draft to sub-committee, they continued mucking with it until the 28th of June. The full committee voted for independence on the 2nd July, spent the next two days refining the original declaration (leaving the door open for 1861), and released it to the public on the 4th of July.

It took five years of fighting to get the British to surrender at Yorktown, and two more years for all parties involved to sign the Treaty of Paris in September 1783 granting independence to the American colonies. We didn't attain this until 1791. It took just under four months to write in 1787 and another four years to ratify into law in 1791. The original articles and Bill of Rights fit on ~ 11 pages, with more than half of one comprised in signatures. There are 4543 words in the original, unamended Constitution, including the signatures. The Declaration has 1458 words.

If i'm not mistaken, that lobstrosity the EU thankfully didn't approve had more pages than the US DoI has words.

15 years of investment (in the formal process) for 229 years of what we are.

Sell short if you wish. i'm in it for the long haul.

*(By request, source of WWI timeline comes from Feldmeth, Greg D. "U.S. History Resources")

 

[Sir_Winston54]

As I see what is happening to and in this country (and others), I am often reminded of some of the words of Ben Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither - and lose both." It seems to me that too many people have forgotten him - and that statement of truth.

 

[WriterDom]

As I see what is happening to and in this country (and others), I am often reminded of some of the words of Ben Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither - and lose both." It seems to me that too many people have forgotten him - and that statement of truth.

Well yeah, but back then bad security meant an invasion of sailing ships and armies with muskets and cannons. Today it isn't inconceivable that a handful of Evil ones could kill millions of people. And would gladly do it if given the opportunity. It is only a matter of time.

 

[O'Mac]

Well yeah, but back then bad security meant an invasion of sailing ships and armies with muskets and cannons. Today it isn't inconceivable that a handful of Evil ones could kill millions of people. And would gladly do it if given the opportunity. It is only a matter of time.

It's sad to think of that scenario, but I believe you may be right.