US Troops Kill Seven Women and Children at Checkpoint: EDIT 10 Killed Conflicting Accounts of Event

[Corn]

I don't recall anybody in our administration saying this. It's always "1441 this" or "1441 that", but has anyone (Powell, Rumsfield, Bush, etc) ever said anything about the violations of the terms of the ceasefire(not subsequent resolutions) giving us the right to go in.

Perhaps it would do you some good to actually read SCR 1441. As a summary 1441 states that material breaches of prior UN demands (SCR 687) have occured, there is no specific "penalty" per se, but implies that the cease fire agreement is no longer in place by the action of Iraq.

 

[Curley]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: flavio
Imagine how pissed you would be if some country invaded the US, set up a checkpoint, and used it as an excuse to blow away a minivan full of women and children in Indiana.

I imagine I would be pissed. Do you have an example of someone doing that.

The story this thread is about does not qualify in any way with the criteria in your post.

Actually it DOES, from the Iraqi Point-of-View.

Yes the militant muslims did invade our country. What do you think this is, a war just for oil. Remember Sept 11 when we were attacked and the enemy did not care about women and children. The enemy as defined from that day on is anyone who supports and harbors terrorists groups. Colateral damage is eminent in a war, but you cannot show me any country who even considers colateral damage as much as we do.

I feel bad that inocent people were killed but I will not have my grandchildren wear flak vests to ride the bus to school in Indiana because our way of life is threatened by radicals that are funded and supported by countries that we currently have a conflict with.

This is not my opinion but this is fact as reported by the White House, congress, and the United Nations which may I remind you voted in favor of this war after the evidence was presented. We did not decide to invade a country on a whim as Iraq did to Kuwait and killed thier own muslim neighbors.

Over and Out.

 

[Corn]

Holy cow, how the hell did I miss this bit of idiotic drivel:

Apoopin says:

.....but we have lost the stated purpose of our campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

Please provide a link that to back up that ascertation. The actual stated purpose of our "campaign" is to disarm Saddam and effect regime change--freeing the people of Iraq in the process.

The stated purpose you quote is a fairy tale derived from the fantastic delusions of an American hating liberal mind whose imagination gets the best of him on occasion.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Corn

I don't recall anybody in our administration saying this. It's always "1441 this" or "1441 that", but has anyone (Powell, Rumsfield, Bush, etc) ever said anything about the violations of the terms of the ceasefire(not subsequent resolutions) giving us the right to go in.

Perhaps it would do you some good to actually read SCR 1441. As a summary 1441 states that material breaches of prior UN demands (SCR 687) have occured, there is no specific "penalty" per se, but implies that the cease fire agreement is no longer in place by the action of Iraq.

Not sure you understand the question...or I'm not understanding the answer. Let's make this a little simpler than. 1441 was passed this past November, correct? Let me rephrase the question to this, Has anyone in our administration, before Nov 2002, ever said that the fact that the ceasefire terms had been broken (not....<----see that word corn? subsequent resolutions) gives us the justification to go in?

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...you thought it supported the views you seem to be espousing..."

Wrong! These people are animals for not only hiding behind civilians, but shooting them in the back! Not to mention forcing men to fight or have their families killed. They ARE animals. There is hopefully a special place in hell waiting for this scum. :|

Are you saying that we take the higher moral ground in this conflict to bail the unfortunate Iraqis from Saddam?

Why has your government & CIA taken responsible for its crimes against humanity that people such as Milosevic are on trial for?

How do explain the despicable act that the US government has carried out against the weak countries such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Guatamala, etc...

Your government has stoop as low or lower than Saddam so their friends & associates can make money from the poor blood, and to have uninformed lemmings defending their cause.

Get the fvck out of my face!

I said they ARE animals, and they ARE... period. You gonna defend them by crying about Vietnam et al? Damn, talk about lemmings coming from Saddam's useful idiot.

 

[cumhail]

Sticking with the site you linked to, I was thinking more along the lines of:
Some More Vietnam et al

But I'm quite sure that you'll disregard that and anything else I have to say. I'd be willing to bet real money, in fact, not only that you would Calley and the other soldiers involved in the My Lai massacre, but that you likely considered all Iraqis 'animals' that should be slaughtered well before this current conflict began.

cumhail

P.S. Nice quote in the sig, btw... what happened to the Pakistani, Egyptian, and Russian military units that we were going to arrive in force with?

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...you thought it supported the views you seem to be espousing..."
I said they ARE animals, and they ARE... period. You gonna defend them by crying about Vietnam et al? Damn, talk about lemmings coming from Saddam's useful idiot.

 

[Corn]

Let me rephrase the question to this, Has anyone in our administration, before Nov 2002, ever said that the fact that the ceasefire terms had been broken (not....<----see that word corn? subsequent resolutions) gives us the justification to go in?

Don't you think that was the reason that we had initiated SCR 1441 to begin with?

Prior to 9/11 it was not politically expedient to invade Iraq (you know, good times were a rollin', why muck it up with a war, etc), instead it was used as a diversion from time to time. That, however, didn't stop Clinton for proclaiming that a regime change in Iraq would be desirable.....empty threats, however, as he didn't have the resolve to actually effect that.

Just because we shirked our responsibility a decade, or 2 years ago, what does that have to do with our responsibility (or the "legality" of the resumption of hostilities in Iraq) today?

 

[Ornery]

Damn, you are thick! What became of Calley? What will become of these animals killing their own civilians? With help from their allies on our left, probably nothing! :disgust:

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Corn

Let me rephrase the question to this, Has anyone in our administration, before Nov 2002, ever said that the fact that the ceasefire terms had been broken (not....<----see that word corn? subsequent resolutions) gives us the justification to go in?

Don't you think that was the reason that we had initiated SCR 1441 to begin with?

Prior to 9/11 it was not politically expedient to invade Iraq (you know, good times were a rollin', why muck it up with a war, etc), instead it was used as a diversion from time to time. That, however, didn't stop Clinton for proclaiming that a regime change in Iraq would be desirable.....empty threats, however, as he didn't have the resolve to actually effect that.

Just because we shirked our responsibility a decade, or 2 years ago, that does that have to do with our responsibility today?

Responsibility shirked...Clinton...Politically expediant? Who cares? I'm just wondering why even though I see someone every day on these boards say that we are at war because Iraq broke the terms of the ceasefire I don't recall ever hearing it from the government. Sure, you always here about broken resolutions, but do you ever hear about the ceasefire itself being the reason to attack? I mean other than Anandtech, of course.

Do you ever think that it might be a good thing if the American public actually (and positively) knew the reason for this war? I mean, it is their country afterall, shouldn't they be certain as to why it's in a war? How many people still think that we are over there to avenge the lives lost on 9/11? People on Anandtech still think that.

We all know why we were involved in other wars, right? Luistania, Pearl Harbor, you get the idea. My kids 2 years old. Wouldn't it be a shame if, when he's in high school, the Iraq war of 2003 listed 9/11 as the reason for the war?

 

[cumhail]

Quickly resorting to ad hominem attacks, Ornery, really doesn't do much to strengthen your argument. But then neither does much of anything you've written; so you'd might as well go for consistency .

Ah well...

cumhail

 

[Ornery]

There is no fvcking "argument". These wretched pieces of dirt deserve what's coming to them. I only hope it's slow and painful.

 

[Corn]

Who cares?

What do you mean "who cares?" You asked the question, I simply answered it.

[edit]

Sure, you always here about broken resolutions.....

SCR 687 is the cease fire agreement.

People on Anandtech still think that.

It is not the governments responsibility to insure that every creature under the umbrella of the USA is not an imbecile.

Wouldn't it be a shame if, when he's in high school, the Iraq war of 2003 listed 9/11 as the reason for the war?

In a way, 9/11 is the reason we are at war. Because of the events of that day, our policy of appeasing our enemies has come to an end. This war is an end result of that policy shift.

Do some morons believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Sure, just like some other morons believe that stated purpose of this war is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.....

 

[Red Dawn]

I don't know if it's been posted oin this thread or not because I don't feel like wading through all the nonsensical flames but I just saw on the News where a Shiite Cleric stated that the Suicide Bomber and the Driver of the Van that was shot up were coerced by the Sodomized Fedayeen under the threat of death to their families.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Corn

Who cares?

What do you mean "who cares?" You asked the question, I simply answered it.

Your shirked responsibilities line had nothing to do with the question. Agree?

Sure, you always here about broken resolutions.....

SCR 687 is the cease fire agreement.

Doh!. So when people are saying "They broke the terms of 1441", they are really saying "They proved what 1441 said, that they broke 687." That's confusing, but is that what you're saying?

People on Anandtech still think that.

It is not the governments responsibility to insure that every creature under the umbrella of the USA is not an imbecile.

Not saying it is. But it'd be nice if we could all get a concrete reason, wouldn't it? I mean, look at the end of your post. You disagree with millions of citizens that think this is a liberation effort. Why the discrepancies(sp?)?

Wouldn't it be a shame if, when he's in high school, the Iraq war of 2003 listed 9/11 as the reason for the war?

In a way, 9/11 is the reason we are at war. Because of the events of that day, our policy of appeasing our enemies has come to an end. This war is an end result of that policy shift.

Do some morons believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Sure, just like some other morons believe that stated purpose of this war is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.....

So are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't occurred, that we wouldn't be over there? We wouldn't give a sh!t about liberating the Iraqis? We wouldn't be trying to oust Saddam? We wouldn't be trying to look for WMDs with our tanks and smart bombs?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SpideyCU

Originally posted by: apoppin
First of all, there are plenty of "raving lunatics" on the pro-war side in these forums - those who can't think clearly enough to present any argument but RIDUCULE - i.e. "you're clueless" as a pat response to everything. THERE IS PLENTY OF "abuse and sarcasm" FROM YOUR SIDE.

I'd like to point out that there is no "my side".

I know better . . . reading the rest of your thread PROVES you are PROwar As I stated earlier (selective reading?), I'm not pro-war, though I'm tempted to take up that side simply because of the attitudes of many people here. I'd prefer you not to label me as some sort of follower to either side. As I've admitted in another thread, I personally believe war is a bit too much, but whatever, if labelling me as a pro-war lunatic makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead. I won't take it personally.[/quote] Hey, YOU said it.

Additionally, I should've known that your programmed response would've been something along the lines of "But mommy, they're doing it too!!". I'm not going to get into a contest of counting which posts from which sides are more ludicrous, as WONDERFUL as that would be (yes, sarcasm for once), but if you'd look at the forums with an objective mind, you'd see how much more often the anti-war folks like to jump to conclusions on the spot. I know I won't convince you of this because from what I've been reading in various threads, you won't ever admit you were the slightest bit wrong and you'll twist anything to prove your point, rather than actually debate and consider the fact that your word might not be the end-all-do-all for once.[/u]I am glad to debate and will be VERY VERY HAPPY if the war goes well for the Coalition

The very fact that you can't see how heartless or unhinged some of your posts are makes me realize that you won't listen to anything anyone says unless they 100% agree with you, so I'd best stop while I'm ahead.

Agreed . . . with the stop part.

Your posts - Hello pot, meet kettle

When labelling others a raving lunatic, take a look at who's been yelling in ALL CAPS TRYING ADAMANTLY TO PROVE THAT HE'S CORRECT. If it walks like a duck...

Once again, just because you finish up your sentence with a smilie doesn't make your post less arrogant. You can keep trying though.

Of course, you're not arrogant. And the caps are for emphasis.

I'd say you should give up.
edited

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Corn
Holy cow, how the hell did I miss this bit of idiotic drivel:

Apoopin says:

.....but we have lost the stated purpose of our campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

Please provide a link that to back up that ascertation. The actual stated purpose of our "campaign" is to disarm Saddam and effect regime change--freeing the people of Iraq in the process.

The stated purpose you quote is a fairy tale derived from the fantastic delusions of an American hating liberal mind whose imagination gets the best of him on occasion.

CBS OK for you?

On The Scene: War For Hearts, Minds

For the Marines of the second light armored reconnaissance battalion, the fast-rolling war has slowed to a crawl. They strike out now not on combat missions but on a campaign to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi villagers. They bring food and medicine and get smiles in returns.

OBVIOUSLY the ULTIMATE goal of the coalition is to depose Saddam's rule and end the threat of WMD. Please don't nitpick every point I made . . . If you read my posts AS A WHOLE you will see I am VERY consistent.

Don't be Sad'Damn Corny!

 

[SpideyCU]

apoppin, every one of your "attacks" on me is drivel as usual, funny how many people have the same view as I do that your stances are far too arrogant to talk sense into. You're the only one that's said about that me. I guess since you said it, though, that makes it absolutely true.

As for the fact that I'm OBVIOUSLY pro-war, let's take a look at my thread that you were referring to. I said in response to wirelessenabled:

"Points taken. I've wondered if their reasons for going into Iraq meant that they knew something important enough that warranted it, but it wouldn't be safe to publicly disclose it for whatever reason. Of course, that's just wondering and nothing more - whether or not something like that is true, and whether or not the reasons are actually justifiable, I don't feel I'm in a position to comment on. From what we *actually* know, along the lines of what you said, it does indeed seem a bit much."

From the very part that you quoted from me, I wrote "As I've admitted in another thread, I personally believe war is a bit too much, but whatever, if labelling me as a pro-war lunatic makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead." You said, bull, I'm obviously pro-war, so what I said is exactly true - you'll paint me as pro-war just to make yourself feel better. Like I said, go ahead and do it. You say I won't ever change my mind, I'm not open for discussion...sorry, just like with many other things in this thread that you've stated, saying them over and over won't make them true. Enjoy wallowing in your delusion.

Power to the smilies!

 

[Corn]

So when people are saying "They broke the terms of 1441", they are really saying "They proved what 1441 said, that they broke 687." That's confusing, but is that what you're saying?

Pretty much, yep. The crafters of 1441 must have understood that the chances of authorizing another UN sponsored attack against Iraq was probably not going to happen. The resolution itself basically stated that 687 was no longer in force because of Iraq's non-compliance--however it was crafted so as to allude that further penalties might be assessed via another resolution at some point in the future if Iraq continued their non-compliant behavior. This satisfied the "doves" who did not want the UN to commit to a verbalized ultimatum specifically authorizing the use of force--but at the same time provided the legal basis for this invasion to take place under the guise that SCR 687 was no longer in effect.

Sneaky? Well, without a doubt the authors were somewhat crafty in their verbage--while France was naggling over a single word in 1441 at the last minute, they should have paid better attention to what 1441 was really saying.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SpideyCU
apoppin, . . . ...sorry, just like with many other things in this thread that you've stated, saying them over and over won't make them true. Enjoy wallowing in your delusion.

Power to the smilies!

You too! I guess that means we won't be posting to each other any more . . . *sob*

 

[Corn]

You disagree with millions of citizens that think this is a liberation effort. Why the discrepancies(sp?)?

The liberation of the Iraqi people is simply a by-product of the removal of the Hussein dictatorship. There is no real discrepancy noted--we aren't going into Iraq to "win their hearts", but in doing so some Iraqi people may feel that way, some may not. There is no discrepancy in this reality.

So are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't occurred, that we wouldn't be over there? We wouldn't give a sh!t about liberating the Iraqis? We wouldn't be trying to oust Saddam? We wouldn't be trying to look for WMDs with our tanks and smart bombs?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Even though Bush doesn't particularly care for Saddam, I doubt that in the absence of 9/11, the American people would not have had the resolve to deal with him in this way, thus his appeasment would have most likely continued.........

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Corn

You disagree with millions of citizens that think this is a liberation effort. Why the discrepancies(sp?)?

The liberation of the Iraqi people is simply a by-product of the removal of the Hussein dictatorship. There is no real discrepancy noted--we aren't going into Iraq to "win their hearts", but in doing so some Iraqi people may feel that way, some may not. There is no discrepancy in this reality.

So are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't occurred, that we wouldn't be over there? We wouldn't give a sh!t about liberating the Iraqis? We wouldn't be trying to oust Saddam? We wouldn't be trying to look for WMDs with our tanks and smart bombs?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Even though Bush doesn't particularly care for Saddam, I doubt that in the absence of 9/11, the American people would not have had the resolve to deal with him in this way, thus his appeasment would have most likely continued.........

Did you miss my link in the post answering yours - a few above this one?

There is an official campaign for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.



Edit- Cut and pasted . . .

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Corn
Holy cow, how the hell did I miss this bit of idiotic drivel:

Apoopin says:

.....but we have lost the stated purpose of our campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

Please provide a link that to back up that ascertation. The actual stated purpose of our "campaign" is to disarm Saddam and effect regime change--freeing the people of Iraq in the process.

The stated purpose you quote is a fairy tale derived from the fantastic delusions of an American hating liberal mind whose imagination gets the best of him on occasion.

CBS OK for you?

On The Scene: War For Hearts, Minds

For the Marines of the second light armored reconnaissance battalion, the fast-rolling war has slowed to a crawl. They strike out now not on combat missions but on a campaign to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi villagers. They bring food and medicine and get smiles in returns.

OBVIOUSLY the ULTIMATE goal of the coalition is to depose Saddam's rule and end the threat of WMD. Please don't nitpick every point I made . . . If you read my posts AS A WHOLE you will see I am VERY consistent.

Don't be Sad'Damn Corny!

 

[etech]

Why do people persist in thinking that a war can be for only one reason or only have one goal?

Learn to multi-task people.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Corn

Apparently you totally missed the point.

Your point? What point is that exactly....that your "example" as to how pissed "we" would be in your supposed scenerio? Of course I didn't miss your "point", evidently you missed my point: your analogy is a flawed and dishonest misrepresentation of events that happened and bears no relationship to your moronic scenerio of the reverse.

Your "baby-killer" crap was what was moronic and the idea that could twist my words however it suits you. Why don't you just stick to what I said.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Corn
Holy cow, how the hell did I miss this bit of idiotic drivel:

Apoopin says:

.....but we have lost the stated purpose of our campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

Please provide a link that to back up that ascertation. The actual stated purpose of our "campaign" is to disarm Saddam and effect regime change--freeing the people of Iraq in the process.

The stated purpose you quote is a fairy tale derived from the fantastic delusions of an American hating liberal mind whose imagination gets the best of him on occasion.

Maybe it's because they called the stupid thing "Iraqi Freedom".

 

[Corn]

Why do people persist in thinking that a war can be for only one reason or only have one goal?

Learn to multi-task people

Because it suits their political sensibilities. Apoopin links an article with the headline "winning the hearts and minds" and believes that is the sole reason for this conflict even though that article is about a continuing effort in Afghanistan.