Let's keep this in Perspective: US only losing 16.2 KIA/month since May

[tnitsuj]

Nothing compared to the glory days of WWII where our greatest generation fought against evil around the world.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Any numbers of deaths, any amount of money is worth it for our President. We all owe him our lives. He the Second Coming.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Were you trying to make a point here? Other than that you think the war is bad of course.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Were you trying to make a point here? Other than that you think the war is bad of course.

Nope

 

[Miramonti]

Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked.

How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero.

That's equivalent to murder imo.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked.

How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero.

That's equivalent to murder imo.

So you are saying that our troops are murderers? Should we put them all on trial?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked. How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero. That's equivalent to murder imo.

So you are saying that our troops are murderers? Should we put them all on trial?

Start with the commander in chief who gave the order to begin firing.

If there's a such thing as war crimes for 'crimes against humanity' why would it not be a crime against humanity to start an unjust immoral unilateral war that's killed thousands? That is the most egregious war crime imo.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked. How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero. That's equivalent to murder imo.

So you are saying that our troops are murderers? Should we put them all on trial?

Start with the commander in chief who gave the order to begin firing.

If there's a such thing as war crimes for 'crimes against humanity' why would it not be a crime against humanity to start an unjust immoral unilateral war that's killed thousands? That is the most egregious war crime imo.

I guess we better find Saddam then so we can bring him to trial.

 

[Witling]

If we weren't the most powerful ape on the planet, we'd surely be tried as criminals. If Saddam had only preceded under the theory that we proceded under, in 1990 he would have said, "I feel threatened by my neighbor Kuwait. Abdul the lefty was seen there four years ago. I need to make a preemptive strike against Kuwait to protect myself from something that might happen." A wave of the wand and some truly cheap sh1t intelligence is produced to support the notion.

Not only is it our loss, we're killing Iraqis at a ten to one ration. Read the news reports. Family takes wrong turn and is blown out of the water. Not just once, but time after time after time. Give 100,000 19 year olds guns and you're bound to have unfortunate incidents. Remember the shelling of the 14th story of the hotel with the reporters. Our response is, we were fired upon. That's always our response, even a day or so ago when we shot up a bunch of farmers sleeping at their farmhouse before we called in the jets to bomb what was left. These farmers didn't even have a gun but, "We were fired upon." I tell you truly, it may not be murder but it stands right next to it. Frightened people with overwhelming firepower and an attitude in a strange land.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked. How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero. That's equivalent to murder imo.

So you are saying that our troops are murderers? Should we put them all on trial?

Start with the commander in chief who gave the order to begin firing. If there's a such thing as war crimes for 'crimes against humanity' why would it not be a crime against humanity to start an unjust immoral unilateral war that's killed thousands? That is the most egregious war crime imo.

I guess we better find Saddam then so we can bring him to trial.

Why, because its a crime to defend one's sovereignty when one's being bombed/fired upon?

 

[CubicZirconia]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked. How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero. That's equivalent to murder imo.

So you are saying that our troops are murderers? Should we put them all on trial?

Start with the commander in chief who gave the order to begin firing.

If there's a such thing as war crimes for 'crimes against humanity' why would it not be a crime against humanity to start an unjust immoral unilateral war that's killed thousands? That is the most egregious war crime imo.

Unjust and immoral are purely subjective terms. And even if the war was unilateral, which it wasn't, that wouldn't make it immoral. Just to clarify, do you want to put all our troops on trial, or not? You basically said they are murderers, so I'm just wondering.

Why, because its a crime to defend one's sovereignty when one's being bombed/fired upon?

Forgetting Something?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked. How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero. That's equivalent to murder imo.

So you are saying that our troops are murderers? Should we put them all on trial?

Start with the commander in chief who gave the order to begin firing. If there's a such thing as war crimes for 'crimes against humanity' why would it not be a crime against humanity to start an unjust immoral unilateral war that's killed thousands? That is the most egregious war crime imo.

Unjust and immoral are purely subjective terms. And even if the war was unilateral, which it wasn't, that wouldn't make it immoral. Just to clarify, do you want to put all our troops on trial, or not? You basically said they are murderers, so I'm just wondering.

Yes unjust and immoral are subjective, so lets allow the world body to decide. Scratch that, the bush administration doesn't believe in world courts for war crimes committed by americans.

No our soldiers should definitely not be tried, thats like putting all german soldiers on trial for what hitler did. however I'm not comparing bush to the magnitude of a hitler however he should be held responsible for his criminal actions.

But one must ask, is it always ok to take someone elses life just because their military authority commanded them to do so, morally speaking? The israeli fighter pilots don't believe so.

 

[CubicZirconia]

But one must ask, is it ok to take someone elses life just because their authority commanded them to do so, morally speaking?

That's an extremely difficult question to give a straightforward answer to. If we had every soldier questioning orders our military wouldn't accomplish anything. Then again, just becuse joe military commander says something is right doesn't make it so. I guess one has to believe in the overall goal of one's government and military and go from there.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: jjsole

No our soldiers should definitely not be tried, thats like putting all german soldiers on trial for what hitler did. however I'm not comparing bush to the magnitude of a hitler however he should be held responsible for his criminal actions.

As long as LBJ, McNamara, Nixon and Laird are held responsible for their criminal actions in a like manner, I'll buy it.

But one must ask, is it always ok to take someone elses life just because their military authority commanded them to do so, morally speaking? The israeli fighter pilots don't believe so.

The right of refusal, as applicable to the volunteer, is held prior to enlistment.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Everone keeps bringing up the "He killed his own people'" issue.
What's the difference with HIS per-emptive strikes against those who were attempting to overthrow him from within his country
and our pre-emptive strikes against ANY nation that dare not do as this Administration demands ? Irony ?

He killed his own people ? When Bush was Governor of Texas HE killed his own people.
No Governor of ANY state has a kill ratio that matches Bush's Death Row Execution List.
Are you sure that each and every one that was in there WAS in fact GUILTY ?
Seems that they keep digging up all these crooked cops & sheriffs that had falsly
testified and imprisoned innocent people, who's only crime was that they didn't have
enough money to hire a high dollar attorney who could get them off - after the State Prosecuters
threw the book at them. They had all the Government money and horsepower to intimidate them.

I'm not saying that Saddam by any means was a great guy, or someone that Rumsfeld always partied with,
but the way this Administration plays fast and loose with the facts - why would anyone believe anything that
this Administration and it's mouthpeices say any more ? They have proven that they cannot be trusted.

 

[GrGr]

The Nuremberg trials proved that the defense "I was just following orders" is not good enough.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked. How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero. That's equivalent to murder imo.

So you are saying that our troops are murderers? Should we put them all on trial?

Start with the commander in chief who gave the order to begin firing. If there's a such thing as war crimes for 'crimes against humanity' why would it not be a crime against humanity to start an unjust immoral unilateral war that's killed thousands? That is the most egregious war crime imo.

Unjust and immoral are purely subjective terms. And even if the war was unilateral, which it wasn't, that wouldn't make it immoral. Just to clarify, do you want to put all our troops on trial, or not? You basically said they are murderers, so I'm just wondering.

Why, because its a crime to defend one's sovereignty when one's being bombed/fired upon?

Forgetting Something?

That does not justify the thought that Bush should not be accountable for his own crimes, nor should it suggest he hasn't committed any.

 

[SuperTool]

We are losing Kia's? I knew those Korean cars were junk 😉

 

[CubicZirconia]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Originally posted by: jjsole Very true but no amount of deaths should be acceptable in an unjust immoral war that we provoked. How many of our troups deserved to die? zero. How many of their troups and innocent civilians did we have the right to kill? zero. That's equivalent to murder imo.

So you are saying that our troops are murderers? Should we put them all on trial?

Start with the commander in chief who gave the order to begin firing. If there's a such thing as war crimes for 'crimes against humanity' why would it not be a crime against humanity to start an unjust immoral unilateral war that's killed thousands? That is the most egregious war crime imo.

Unjust and immoral are purely subjective terms. And even if the war was unilateral, which it wasn't, that wouldn't make it immoral. Just to clarify, do you want to put all our troops on trial, or not? You basically said they are murderers, so I'm just wondering.

Why, because its a crime to defend one's sovereignty when one's being bombed/fired upon?

Forgetting Something?

That does not justify the thought that Bush should not be accountable for his own crimes, nor should it suggest he hasn't committed any.

It does, however, suggest that Saddam needed removing. He's gone, so our actions in Iraq can't be all bad.

 

[Witling]

Cubic, on what basis do you assert that our attack wasn't unilateral? About the only way that I could think of that the attack wasn't unilateral was that we had Britain help us with the unilateral attack. All kidding aside, on what basis do you make that assertion?

 

[her209]

lawlessness is always good.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Cubic, on what basis do you assert that our attack wasn't unilateral? About the only way that I could think of that the attack wasn't unilateral was that we had Britain help us with the unilateral attack. All kidding aside, on what basis do you make that assertion?

uh.... you just made the argument yourself there, chiefbo

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Whitling
If we weren't the most powerful ape on the planet, we'd surely be tried as criminals. If Saddam had only preceded under the theory that we proceded under, in 1990 he would have said, "I feel threatened by my neighbor Kuwait. Abdul the lefty was seen there four years ago. I need to make a preemptive strike against Kuwait to protect myself from something that might happen." A wave of the wand and some truly cheap sh1t intelligence is produced to support the notion.

Not only is it our loss, we're killing Iraqis at a ten to one ration. Read the news reports. Family takes wrong turn and is blown out of the water. Not just once, but time after time after time. Give 100,000 19 year olds guns and you're bound to have unfortunate incidents. Remember the shelling of the 14th story of the hotel with the reporters. Our response is, we were fired upon. That's always our response, even a day or so ago when we shot up a bunch of farmers sleeping at their farmhouse before we called in the jets to bomb what was left. These farmers didn't even have a gun but, "We were fired upon." I tell you truly, it may not be murder but it stands right next to it. Frightened people with overwhelming firepower and an attitude in a strange land.

Good post. That's pretty much how I feel. The US governemnt is out of control and does anything it can to protect it's own whether guilty or not. We used cluster bombs and incidaries which IMO is disproportoinate force as much as nukes would be and a crime against humanity. War is hell I know but then we should'nt have jumped into this since our lives were not in mortal danger or even threatned by Iraqis.

 

[Witling]

Hey, ElFenix, looks like you're the kind of guy for whom the phrase "Slow thinkers keep right" was coined. My dictionary, has, as the first definition of "unilateral," "of, occuring on, or affecting one side only." That's Webster's New Twentieth Century Dicaionary, Unabridged Second Edition. But that's a pretty standard definition of "unilateral." And that definition seems to fit what we did. If you know something to the contrary, rather than working your fingers to the bone typing "chiefbo" and 37903 other posts, let me know why the attack wasn't unilateral in the generally accepted sense of the word. By the way, I'll bet you can't tell me where Palau, one of the members of the coalition of the bought and paid for, is without looking it up.

 

[marqucha]

american soldiers cant be tried as war criminals.