all this talk about war "crimes"

[weyes]

how are suicide bombings less morally reprehensible than bombing civilians?

maybe not ideally, but practically speaking, all is fair in love and war.

[siceone]

Originally posted by weyes

how are suicide bombings less morally reprehensible than bombing civilians?

maybe not ideally, but practically speaking, all is fair in love and war.

Morality doesn't constitute crime, Crime is born from the breaking of laws. there is a law of war, and the current Laws of war that Both parties Signed, doesn't permit it.

now as far as morality goes well that all depends on your point of veiw

[magellanmax]

Originally posted by weyes

how are suicide bombings less morally reprehensible than bombing civilians?

maybe not ideally, but practically speaking, all is fair in love and war.

We hear ya babe............

And honestly, these so called laws about war are totally redundant when the first bullet gets fired. "Its Ok to kill your opponent, but you have to kill them in a noble way" What a joke. Our soldiers were duped that all the Iraqis wanted our troops in their country...now they are getting blown up. Thanks Bush, you are a winner. asshole

[siceone]

Originally posted by magellanmax

We hear ya babe............

And honestly, these so called laws about war are totally redundant when the first bullet gets fired. "Its Ok to kill your opponent, but you have to kill them in a noble way" What a joke. Our soldiers were duped that all the Iraqis wanted our troops in their country...now they are getting blown up. Thanks Bush, you are a winner. asshole

So do you think the we should cast the laws of war to the side and proscute it to the fullest exent of our might?

you think chemical weapons are ok to use too?

[magellanmax]

Originally posted by siceone

you think chemical weapons are ok to use too?

Who sold Iraq chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?

[siceone]

Originally posted by magellanmax

Who sold Iraq chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?

No one did.. TH US france and Germany Sold Iraq Dual use Chemicals... The French and germans supplied the equipment

[magellanmax]

Originally posted by siceone

No one did.. TH US france and Germany Sold Iraq Dual use Chemicals... The French and germans supplied the equipment

And you think that precludes the US from all the peoples wrath in Iran that got gassed? You are trying to rationalize the issue:nono:

Cant have your cake and eat it too.

[siceone]

Originally posted by magellanmax

And you think that precludes the US from all the peoples wrath in Iran that got gassed? You are trying to rationalize the issue:nono:

Cant have your cake and eat it too.

god forbid we do anything rationally....

of course Im rationalizing this issue because anything else would be irrational

[magellanmax]

whatever.

[vicman]

all is fait in love and war, and if that means breaking laws and fighting as dirty as your opponent you do that. the US govmnt has lots of expertise accumulated in that department, they arent the saints that you think they are.

[pumavisor808]

Well if we should just throw the laws of war to the side, then we should just drop a nuke over there and end it....we should torture every POW we capture and we should kill every civilian that we meet....

Or maybe we should try and follow the rules???

[pookie23]

Originally posted by vicman

all is fait in love and war, and if that means breaking laws and fighting as dirty as your opponent you do that. the US govmnt has lots of expertise accumulated in that department, they arent the saints that you think they are.

If that's the case - let's nuke Iraq and turn the place into a parking lot! Only thing that should be left there are roaches and earthworms.

[vicman]

Originally posted by spragga25

If that's the case - let's nuke Iraq and turn the place into a parking lot! Only thing that should be left there are roaches and earthworms.

true, true, but then next conflict US is in maybe they will be getting nuked first. those are things that they have to consider before doing that shit.

maybe if they nuke iraq, any chemical weapons that they have outside baghdad they would just use them all and wreck as much havoc as they can on the US troops and Israel as they could.

[Crackorn]

Why don't we just nuke the entire rest of the world ? Since America's goal is to take over the world, according to the peaceniks and those opposing the war. We have the capability so what's stopping us? If there were no laws of war we could have eradicated Iraq, Iran and N. Korea in 15 minutes. We're just not in the business of murdering non-combatants.

[cintron]

it's a fucking shame saddam never used chem/bio weapons against us during the Gulf War.

back then, our policy was we would retaliate with EVERYTHING in our arsenal, which INCLUDED nuclear weapons.

Now I have a feeling he WILL use chem/bio weapons as a last resort, because he knows we CANNOT retaliate with nuclear weapons or weapons of the same, because we are trying to "liberate" the population, not destroy it.

Saddam could create a massive catastrophe, kill thousands of coalition troops AND his own people, yet still the Arab world would support his move as a legitimite "defensive measure", and somehow accuse us of instigating this catastrophe.

It's a shame we can't fucking kill the bastard in broad daylight.

Why couldn't some sniper nail that fag when he was swimming and CNN had his ass on camera?

[weyes]

Originally posted by Crackorn

...We're just not in the business of murdering non-combatants.

hmm. i suppose you're not aware that we've been bombing the city of baghdad, where people live, for over ten days. there have been many civilian deaths, and just because we warned iraqis to leave their homes in advance of our destroying them doesn't make that right.

let's bomb people's homes to the ground. that's liberation, right?

cnn's been showing some interesting footage recently of our troops smacking some civilians around.

another topic, though; bush and his people keep talking about killing saddam hussein as though that's fair and no big whoop. if iraq had come at the white house, the gov't would've been screaming "outrage!!!!!!!!" all over the place. assassination used to be a big deal, i don't know why it isn't to this administration. i guess if you can slap a new name on it (or not mention one altogether), it's all good .

[cintron]

Originally posted by weyes

hmm. i suppose you're not aware that we've been bombing the city of baghdad, where people live, for over ten days. there have been many civilian deaths, and just because we warned iraqis to leave their homes in advance of our destroying them doesn't make that right.

let's bomb people's homes to the ground. that's liberation, right?

cnn's been showing some interesting footage recently of our troops smacking some civilians around.

...because Saddam is such a good guy to everyone and we're so evil. I guess we should fold up our tents and go home becuase oh dear, innocent non-combatants were killed in the middle of a war.

wake the fuck up and stop spewing bullshit liberal rhetoric.

If we stuck our heads in the sand everytime our actions didn't go according to your "Walt Disney" Perfect-World plan, we'd get incessantly fucked by people who don't give a shit about singing songs, holding hands or candlelight vigils.

Welcome to Third World Reality, where power still flows from the barrel of a gun.

You don't have to LIKE that truth, but you do have to accept it.

[vicman]

Originally posted by Crackorn

Why don't we just nuke the entire rest of the world ? Since America's goal is to take over the world, according to the peaceniks and those opposing the war. We have the capability so what's stopping us? If there were no laws of war we could have eradicated Iraq, Iran and N. Korea in 15 minutes. We're just not in the business of murdering non-combatants.

yeah then the chinese will use their nukes on crackornia, ny and everywhere else on the US an dthe SU will nuke China, and India would nuke China backing the US, then Pakistan would nuke India, then NATO would nuke China and Russia would nuke NATO and then hell breaks loose at the end 75% of the world population and land is left useless and were would be in the age of Thundar the Barbarian.

[vicman]

Originally posted by cintron

...because Saddam is such a good guy to everyone and we're so evil. I guess we should fold up our tents and go home becuase oh dear, innocent non-combatants were killed in the middle of a war.

wake the fuck up and stop spewing bullshit liberal rhetoric.

If we stuck our heads in the sand everytime our actions didn't go according to your "Walt Disney" Perfect-World plan, we'd get incessantly fucked by people who don't give a shit about singing songs, holding hands or candlelight vigils.

Welcome to Third World Reality, where power still flows from the barrel of a gun.

You don't have to LIKE that truth, but you do have to accept it.

no we dont have to accept it. if you accept something at face value then your a big moron. you have ideals and you pursue them. not all of us have the same ideals that you might have and we express them as we see fit.

stop spewing your Nazi-like rhetoric of American world dominance, because what goes around comes around. All empires eventually crumble through time. next time someone disagrees with you on anything, beat the shit out of that person, see how many enemies you end up with and you'll see the position the US is heading towards.

[ou812]

Originally posted by vicman

yeah then the chinese will use their nukes on crackornia, ny and everywhere else on the US an dthe SU will nuke China, and India would nuke China backing the US, then Pakistan would nuke India, then NATO would nuke China and Russia would nuke NATO and then hell breaks loose at the end 75% of the world population and land is left useless and were would be in the age of Thundar the Barbarian.

Woohoo................I'd look good in a loin cloth

[cintron]

Originally posted by vicman

no we dont have to accept it. if you accept something at face value then your a big moron. you have ideals and you pursue them. not all of us have the same ideals that you might have and we express them as we see fit.

stop spewing your Nazi-like rhetoric of American world dominance, because what goes around comes around. All empires eventually crumble through time. next time someone disagrees with you on anything, beat the shit out of that person, see how many enemies you end up with and you'll see the position the US is heading towards.

you're right, you don't have to accept it. You can be happily ignorant of the workings of the Third World from your comfy chair. You can sip your coffee, check your stock portfolio and prove your mental prowess by debating the cons of war until all comers have been proven to be intellectually inferior.

That doesn't mean that things don't work that way, simply because you refuse to acknowledge it.

In the Third World, power DOES flow from the barrel of a gun.

If you don't believe me, look at the history of conflict all the world over.

"civilized" nations agree to diplomacy and negotiation because in order to do so, someone has to be willing to back down first. They have to be willing to sheath their weapons and agree to dialogue.

In the Third World, most leaders are unwilling to talk. They want Victory, not Discussion. Israel and its conflicts with arab neighbors are a prime example of that.

You may think that putting forward my opinion of the use of force is Nazi-esque. fine. that's your opinon.

I do caution you that academics and pacificsts have NO place in the workings of third world politics. You can talk all you want, light candles, sing songs, go to protests and talk about goodwill and how "war isn't the answer."

But what is?

Given the circumstances, i'd like to see you provide a better alternative to armed conflict, KEEPING IN MIND the failed attempts at diplomacy and negotiation.

not everyone who takes things at face value is a moron, but people who make general statements like that very well could be.

[weyes]

out of curiosity, do you all vote?

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by magellanmax

Who sold Iraq chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?

The USA, who else???

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,438836,00.html

FIRST: MILITARY SUPPLIES

Who Sold What to Iraq?

The U.S. aims to hunt down companies that supplied Saddam.

FORTUNE

Sunday, March 30, 2003

By Nelson D. Schwartz

When the first wave of American soldiers swept out of the desert and headed north toward Baghdad, the Iraqis weren't the only ones who experienced shock and awe. In the thick of battle, U.S. commanders discovered that the Iraqi army was able to jam the global-positioning systems the military uses to pinpoint everything from cruise missile attacks to the location of troops on the ground. "It was a technological preemptive strike," says a senior military source.

It was also a prime example of how private companies violated the embargo that the U.S. and the United Nations imposed on Iraq more than a decade ago. Russian firms supplied the jammers to Iraq in the past few years--they didn't exist during the first Gulf war--prompting a personal protest from President Bush to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

The news about the GPS-blocking devices is just the beginning of what's likely to be a series of revelations detailing how companies--including American ones--helped supply Saddam Hussein's war machine during the past decade. That's because in addition to searching for weapons of mass destruction, U.S. forces are scouring Iraq for evidence of who sold what to Saddam. Military sources have told FORTUNE that special teams are already on the ground, sifting through files to determine where Iraq got everything from rocket parts to fiber-optic technology.

Despite both U.S. laws and UN sanctions that prohibited all but a handful of commercial dealings with Baghdad, there have been persistent reports that companies from Russia, France, and China, among others, were breaking the embargo. And when the evidence in Iraq is analyzed, says a top Washington official who deals with trade policy, it's likely that at least a few U.S. companies will face fines or perhaps even criminal prosecution. "The fact that American companies have broken the embargo with Iran suggests that there will be some leads in Iraq," adds the government official, who spoke with FORTUNE on condition of anonymity. "Those of us in law enforcement certainly contemplate that things will be found in Iraq."

Probing the byzantine web of deals that kept technology flowing to Iraq is a complex job. It's likely to involve teams from the Treasury, State, and Commerce departments, as well as the Pentagon and the CIA. For now the main task is locating the forbidden goods--and their paper trail. Sources say units made up of both military personnel and representatives of the CIA and other agencies have been trained to operate in volatile areas inside Iraq, taking inventory of contraband items and poring over records.

Similar task forces operated after the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and NATO's intervention in the Balkans in the mid-1990s, but this time the job is much bigger. Because of Iraq's oil riches, Saddam had a far easier time of evading the embargo than did former dictators like Manuel Noriega and Slobodan Milosevic. Fixing blame can be tough, however. Business transactions with embargoed nations are usually conducted through intermediaries, with China and the United Arab Emirates as common transshipment points.

To further complicate matters, U.S. companies might innocently sell something to a Chinese buyer, only to learn later that it ended up in Iraq. For example, says Kelly Motz of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, China's giant Huawei Technologies is believed to have supplied Saddam's army with sophisticated communications hardware even as it was doing business with the likes of IBM, Motorola, Hewlett Packard, and Qualcomm. "These companies might have thought they were just selling telecom equipment into an emerging Asian market," says Motz. "However, it's been known since early 2001 that Huawei has had dealings with Iraq. So any deals that might have been done since then are questionable."

If it turns out that companies intentionally evaded the ban, government officials say they are loaded for bear. "We won't tolerate the breaking of the embargo," says Richard Newcomb, director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. "If there's a knowing violation, we would prosecute to the full extent of the law." In 2001, the Commerce Department hit McDonnell Douglas, a unit of Boeing, with a $2.12 million fine for improperly selling machine tools to China. Fines for dealing with Iraq are likely to be larger. And if evidence turns up that a particular firm knowingly sold items like night-vision goggles or gas masks to Iraq, federal agencies might impose what they call the "death penalty"--a total ban on all exports by the guilty firm. Criminal charges for executives are also a distinct possibility.

It's going to take time to determine just who did business with Iraq. But the military, for one, seems eager to shine a light in some otherwise dark corners. "We will have everything at our disposal," says Maj. Max Blumenfeld, an officer with Army's V Corps in Kuwait. Documenting Iraq's deals, he says, "will justify this operation and show the world what we've been saying all along about Saddam Hussein and his efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." It could also cause a lot of companies to wish they'd never done business with Baghdad.

Maybe the US should hunt themselves down because the US government sold weapons to Saddam when he was fighting Iran.

When you do business with the enemy, you become the enemy.

Originally posted by weyes

out of curiosity, do you all vote?

Yes.