welsh
Junkmaster
All points thus far, however ignore one important thing-
Osama bin Laden is a prick.
Osama bin Laden is a prick.
Osama
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
I think the reason that there isn't much discussion on that point is that we are all in agreement on that point.
Show of hands, any dissent?
Show of hands, any dissent?
Kotario said:
Really now, the Iraqi army was never a threat... HA!
But no, they were RETREATING ffs. Saying they were regrouping would be stretching the truth.
As you might know, before the first Gulf war started, Bush Sr. called upon the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam. And, they were quite succesful in that. So, the Iraqi army had to retreat to take care of the rebels - after all, what is the use of conquering another country when you lose your own?
So basically, they had no right to bombard that army. They were no longer a threat to Q8.
The fact that Bush Sr. left the Iraqi rebels to die is another story, of course.
Kotario said:
So morals don't matter to you?
Azael said:
Whuuuuuuuut? Retreating = Surrendering.
So, link please...
Welsh said:
Now what would he have to do with the first Gulf war?
However, I concur.
Grizzly~Adams
It Wandered In From the Wastes
ExtremeRyno said:
Democrat and Republican Canidates aren't entitled to votes. You complain about Nader taking away the democrats votes, but you fail to realize the Millions of people in this country that don't even vote in the first place.
I like Nader, but Im not going to vote for him or anyone else in this coming election. Because just like George Carlin says, this country has been bought and sold over and over again. The shit that goes on every 4 years is just a gov't event that trys to convinvce us that we still live in a democracy.
I hate being cynical.
I'm quite the same as everyone else, it depends on the morals.
What I am saying is that it might have been the best choice for Powell to make. It was a war, inherently messy and confusing. He did not have time for reflection, nor all the information. From his viewpoint, with the information avalible to him, at the time, his decision could have been the best one.
Your logic is a bit convoluted on one point though. Bush the Elder called upon the Iraqi people to revolt, which some of them did, yet he shouldn't have helped them by reducing the army coming home to put down the revolution?
I don't support Bush the Elder's stopping the war. There was a rebellion on the inside, he should have had the push continued, and toppled Hussein then and there.
What I am saying is that it might have been the best choice for Powell to make. It was a war, inherently messy and confusing. He did not have time for reflection, nor all the information. From his viewpoint, with the information avalible to him, at the time, his decision could have been the best one.
Your logic is a bit convoluted on one point though. Bush the Elder called upon the Iraqi people to revolt, which some of them did, yet he shouldn't have helped them by reducing the army coming home to put down the revolution?
I don't support Bush the Elder's stopping the war. There was a rebellion on the inside, he should have had the push continued, and toppled Hussein then and there.
Jebus said:
Er, not it doesn't, at least not as far as conventions go, surrendering involves throwing down your weapons and giving yourself up to the enemy. Retreating means moving away from the battlefield, either to regroup and keep fighting or just to get the hell away from the battle. They are still combatants though. You might question the ethics about essentially shooting people in the back though.
Azael said:
'e's right
A retreating army is still, technically, taking active part in the hostilities, not having laid down their arms
Can't find a link to the first Geneva convention, but the second one basically says the same thing, but then for boats. Here ya go
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Sander said:
Actually, most of the attacks Al-Queda has made over the last year have been within two thousand miles of Mecca. He's an ultra conservative Wahhabi (which means that he hates Sunnis and Shi'ites as much as the Christians) shitdick that thinks that killing innocent Christians, Jews, Sufis and, now predominantly, Shi'ites and Sunnis is somehow going to make them another shitdick.
If he was smart-which he is'nt- he'd be attacking China- a place that has tens of millions of Muslims, Sunnis all, and trys everything they can to destroy them, Russia-for Circassia, Georgia for Abkhazia, and all European states within defined Dar-al-Islam. Instead he kills Muslims.
Note: Wahhabis are not your typical Muslims. They make the Jannisaries look like the Ba'hai, and I hope even our local Muslims will admit that. If the contents of this post can be considerd offensive (which I dont think they are, as Osama brand Wahhabis make the World Church of the Creator look like the Unitarians), feel free to delete it, and I will apologize.
Grizzly~Adams said:I hate being cynical.
But still you're right, in a way. Representative democracy is failing, and the US is a good example of that. Still, you shouldn't just give up. You should fight for everything you're worth...
Perhaps there is yet another party between the three mentioned above. (I wouldn't know, I'm not accustomed to the American political system) But if so, why not vote for him?
Sure, it might be considered a lost vote - but in real democracy, no vote should be a lost vote.
Kotario said:
I don't think that anyone should ever make a decision that could cost the lives of so many people when he isn't completely informed of the situation.
What you wrote above should not be an argument in a situtation like that...
Kotario said:
If he were to be planning to invade Iraq, that would indeed be the case. But since he didn't; it was illegal.
It didn't matter anyway.
@ Azael:
The Geneva Convention said:
Well, it depends on how you interpret 'to lay down your arms', I guess: literally or figurative...
Now come on, that is simply ridiculous, armies figuratively laying down their arms?
It is a bloody war (in both senses of the word), it is not organized. Commanders will never be completely informed, all will always have to make decisions based on too little information. Wars are not won while the commander waits to get a perfect understanding of the situation (sorting through all the misinformation, exaggeration, and useless information) before he acts.
By the way, Grizzly~Adams, you live in America, correct? People do elect a President, the parties may be entirely too similar, but at least people have a choice. The tides of public opinion are constantly swaying, the reason we have a currently Republican Congress is because of an anti-Democratic movement after they had decades of control. Be assured, our elections are nothing like how Mexico was only a decade ago. Thank god enough of the country was overlooked by honest people that in the last election the PRI party lost. Their "Democracy" was the sham.
It is a bloody war (in both senses of the word), it is not organized. Commanders will never be completely informed, all will always have to make decisions based on too little information. Wars are not won while the commander waits to get a perfect understanding of the situation (sorting through all the misinformation, exaggeration, and useless information) before he acts.
By the way, Grizzly~Adams, you live in America, correct? People do elect a President, the parties may be entirely too similar, but at least people have a choice. The tides of public opinion are constantly swaying, the reason we have a currently Republican Congress is because of an anti-Democratic movement after they had decades of control. Be assured, our elections are nothing like how Mexico was only a decade ago. Thank god enough of the country was overlooked by honest people that in the last election the PRI party lost. Their "Democracy" was the sham.
Jebus said:
Not really, a person who has laid down his arms is simply no longer carrying any kind of weaponry, loaded or unloaded, functioning or non-functioning. Retreating people or not this.
Grizzly~Adams
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Kotario said:
Yes, a choice between corperate whore #1 and corperate whore #2. Oh how decisive!
Pretty much, better than quite a few other countries though. Rather have China's ever-lasting Communist party in charge? Or Italy's we-couldn't-have-a-stable-government-to-save-our-lives game of musical chairs?
You could move to Canada, or any other country which catches your fancy. I'd like to live in Egypt myself, friendliest place I've ever lived, too bad there isn't really an industry there where I could work.
You could move to Canada, or any other country which catches your fancy. I'd like to live in Egypt myself, friendliest place I've ever lived, too bad there isn't really an industry there where I could work.
Jebus said:
Not much room for interpretation there (well, I'm no lawyer), someone retreating still carrying arms (or in armed vehicles) are technically combatants and thus valid targets. Historically speaking, it's not uncommon practice, one of the uses of fast moving troops like cavalry was to cut down routing enemies. Using gunships is just a lot more effective (and with virtually no risk to the attacker).
Well, I guess there's a language-problem here then. In Dutch, we have a saying - to lay down arms - which is generally used in a non-weapons-related manner... I guess that saying doesn't exist in English then, judging from your replies.
And about the rest of the discussion:
OSAMA IS A PRICK!
(since the rest of this discussion is probably going to be the two sides repeating their views, I'm backing out of this debate...)
And about the rest of the discussion:
OSAMA IS A PRICK!
(since the rest of this discussion is probably going to be the two sides repeating their views, I'm backing out of this debate...)
Kotario said:
Bush Jr. wasn’t elected by the American people, and still he sits in the Oval Office.
The biggest lie to Americans wasn’t the weapons of massive destruction thingy... it was the belief that GW won the elections…
True, Osama is a jerk, but I believe there are bigger jerks hiding under innocent smiles and mostly are CEOs of major companies…
A president for U.S.A? Michael Moore!
Karkow said:
Hahahaha! Yeah, 'cause he never lies! BWHAAHAHAHAHA!
Lying isn’t the problem. Hell, if politicians became honest all of a sudden people would freak out!
But Bush administration scares me… and I live in Portugal! GW scares me! To think that he’s the President of the most powerful (influent) nation on Earth? GOD! Even if he is a puppet in a puppet government…!
But Bush administration scares me… and I live in Portugal! GW scares me! To think that he’s the President of the most powerful (influent) nation on Earth? GOD! Even if he is a puppet in a puppet government…!
Grizzly~Adams
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Micheal Moore is the Liberal version of Ann Coulter. He can make alot of sence sometimes, but hes just a complete ass.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
People said that Reagen would destroy the world. Funny how often people are wrong about Republican presidents, eh?Karkow said:
I thought it was Oporto?