Activists protest war outside post

[Kadaveri]

You are forgetting history; the United Nations was still at war with Iraq since 1991. It was Saddam Hussein the Dictator of Iraq that kicked out the UN inspectors he said he had WMD’s but even if he didn’t President Bush did not need anyone’s permission to attack because we were still at war.

The United Nations was not at war with Iraq, no such concept even exists as the UN cannot declare war. The most you could say is that Iraq was violating some Security Council resolutions but so do plenty of other countries and that’s not considered justification for a third party to launch a unilateral invasion against them. Israel is violation of multitudes more Security Council resolutions than Iraq ever was so does that mean Iran has the right to attack Israel to force it to comply? It’d be considered insane to advocate such a thing yet the justification is stronger than that for the US invading Iraq, using that reasoning.

How many times did President Bush tell him Saddam you and your two murderess sons get out and we will not attack—so blame those people for Iraq being attacked which BTW is one of the best things that happened to that country.

Iraq has much more freedom and liberty now than it had when only a select few of Saddam’s people had it.

I think it was a few times, beginning a couple of days before the bombing began. It’s a typical threat from terrorists do what we tell you to do or we’ll kill lots of people. There are plenty of other states headed by murderers in the world. Obama has probably killed more people than Bush had this far into his term, perhaps Russia should announce that it’s going to launch an attack on the US because of this, that if Obama and his associates leave then the attack will be called off but if they stay then they shall be held responsible for the US being attacked. Again, anyone advocating such a thing would be considered insane, because that would mean applying the same standard on the US as it employs towards the rest of the world (do as we say or we’ll unleash massive terror and atrocities on your country).

The US destroying Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, causing millions to flee as refugees and leaving the country in permanent instability and violence is of course the best thing that ever happened to it in the US’ eyes, because they did it. If the US did it then it must be great. What the Iraqis think about the US doing this to them doesn’t really matter because the US has the right to do whatever it wants and whatever the US does is good because the US did it.

 

[Kadaveri]

Did it ever occur to you that what the Chinese do wrong and immoral by any standards? They prohibit all religions; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, it doesn’t matter. The PRC sees religion as an enemy of their state and will execute religious people in cold blood. Mao Zedong was responsible for over 70 million deaths in peacetime, and God knows how many more have died in his name after that.

I don’t dispute any of this, I don’t see anything I said which would reasonably imply that I did.

Also, I find it very ungrateful for al-Qaeda to attack the US after we gave weapons to Afghanistan to fight the invading Soviets. We wanted muslims to not have to renounce their faith for the idol of communism. Communists don’t care about human rights. They constantly violate the Geneva Convention, they don’t have “rules of engagement”, or any of that UN pacifist ****.

Al-Qaeda (which is not an actual organisation but a franchise) had very little to do with the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion, and the people the US gave weapons to were Afghan militias that had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden so there’s nothing to be ungrateful about.

At the same time, an American soldier isn’t allowed to defend himself against an insurgent pointing a bazooka at him. He has to give the insurgent his “rights”. When the US soldier dies, he’s just a casualty of war. When a terrorist is killed, the American soldier is somehow a “murderer” for defending himself.

Why do you describe the American soldier as ‘defending himself’ against ‘a terrorist’ whereas you describe the Afghans as ‘fighting the invading Soviets’? You know the Soviets used the exact same language when they invaded Afghanistan? That they had merely sent their troops their after a request for assistance from the ‘Afghan government’ and that Soviet troops were being ‘attacked’ by ‘terrorists’? Again, there’s this unstated assumption that the US has the right to attack and invade countries whenever it wants, and that anyone who opposes this is a terrorist. American soldiers in Afghanistan (or any other country they’ve invaded) cannot defend themselves as their posture is not defensive, they are the invading army. Only the native population of the invaded country are in a position where they can defend themselves, with bazookas or whatever weaponry they have to fight back the invaders.

 

[Darryl1958]

Well my Muslim brethren:

Here is some American history:

People forget that the Gulf War the Iraqi Army was in battle formation pointed at the Saudi oilfields.

The Saudi government did not want the U.S. military in the Kingdom but when we showed a Saudi Prince, satellite photos in 1990 he flew back to the King and said we have to allow American Forces in the Kingdom. No way could the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces could go against the Iraqi army.
However Saudi Aramco is the state-owned national oil company of Saudi Arabia. It is the largest oil corporation in the world. Headquartered in Dhahran, It was known as just Aramco between the years of 1933-1988, an acronym for Arabian American Oil Company. I will say that during Desert Shield 1990 Aramco treated my troops very good every time they came upon one of their sites in the desert they gave them food, water, let them use their air conditioned trailers and had hot showers. I tell people the experiences I’ve had with the Saudi people is just outstanding. They did not have to do what they did and I was welcomed by them in their homes, Aramaco sites, and in Bedouins tents.
Below is an answer I posted to somebody who talked about American imperialism:

Now here is some real American history:

Views of American history, distort our present policies. Involvement in far-flung and unpopular conflicts doesn’t represent a recent innovation or the result of some conspiratorial takeover of U.S. foreign policy. American military involvement in remote corners of the globe characterized every stage of our emergence as a world power. The purpose of these conflicts and interventions has little connection to colonialism or conquest or empire building in the classical sense. More often the United States has done this for unselfish intentions. Regardless of the wisdom behind these frequent military or diplomatic initiatives, their overall, long-term impact most often benefited the peoples involved as well as the world at large.

Unlike other empires in human history, the powerful American sphere of influence has generally promoted the cause of both prosperity and liberty.

People forget the United States fought its first war against Islamic extremism more than two hundred years ago. This is where we get the first verse of the “Marines’ Hymn” “to the shores of Tripoli."

The first Barbary War (1801-5) lasted four years after President Thomas Jefferson sent the new Navy to the Mediterranean to protect American interests and honor. The semi-nations of Algeria, Tunisia, and Tripoli [today Libya] functioned like today’s State sponsors of terrorism backing ruthless pirates who devastated U.S. shipping until Washington paid lavish tribute to these local thugs.

The United States has a long-standing tradition of small wars or so-called low intensity conflicts. If you study U.S. military history it has a tradition of fighting small wars. Between 1800 and 1934, U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. The army and navy added a few small-scale engagements of their own. Some resulted in heavy casualties; others involved not fighting. Most of these campaigns were fought by a small number of professional soldiers. I can testify to this from some of the missions I was involved in though the 1970s -1990s.

I just want to scream when I hear not well educated on the subject or leftwing Hollywood stars, politicians and educated leftwing college professors totally distort the Bush administration Iraq policy saying this is the first time we have ever attacked a country without being attacked first. They are either ignorant of the facts or dishonest!

Playing the Devil’s advocate, even if the Gulf War I was at the behest of the Sauids, might it not be argued that Saddam Hussein as the strongman of the region, with effective control of Kuwait, Saudi oil, and Syria too, would have bee a better thing for the region than what is shaping up now.

Iraq was always the counterweight to Iranian hegemony after all.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

The United Nations was not at war with Iraq, no such concept even exists as the UN cannot declare war.

The US destroying Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis

So let me get this straight you are defending Saddam Hussein the monster Dictator of Iraq so you think it was better to have torture chambers and rape rooms back? They would slowly drop people into wood chippers.

What about all the mass graves that were found that this monster had tortured and murdered.

Ask the Kurds about this guy.

The UN can’t declare war! Tell that to the Koreans I don’t care what they name it if someone is shooting at you from across the road it’s a war baby.

I say again we were still at war with Iraq you said it a cease fire—and President Bush did not need anyone’s approval just like we are still at war with North Korea it’s a cease fire and we would not need the UN’s approval to resume combat operations.

That’s all he did was resume combat operations in Iraq yes he went to the UN to please some of our hippy democrat politicians.

The Iraqi people are far better off today that that monster is no longer in power.

As for the U.S. killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s that is just poppycock—where are you getting these numbers.

 

[JackVk]

As for the U.S. killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s that is just poppycock—where are you getting these numbers.

They aren’t killing “hundreds of thousands”. It’s all leftist lunacy. Thousands of US troops have been slaughtered, because they’re pretty much not allowed to fight the war.

 

[Darryl1958]

So let me get this straight you are defending Saddam Hussein the monster Dictator of Iraq so you think it was better to have torture chambers and rape rooms back? They would slowly drop people into wood chippers.

What about all the mass graves that were found that this monster had tortured and murdered.

Ask the Kurds about this guy.

The UN can’t declare war! Tell that to the Koreans I don’t care what they name it if someone is shooting at you from across the road it’s a war baby.

I say again we were still at war with Iraq you said it a cease fire—and President Bush did not need anyone’s approval just like we are still at war with North Korea it’s a cease fire and we would not need the UN’s approval to resume combat operations.

That’s all he did was resume combat operations in Iraq yes he went to the UN to please some of our hippy democrat politicians.

The Iraqi people are far better off today that that monster is no longer in power.

As for the U.S. killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s that is just poppycock—where are you getting these numbers.

For sure, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant of the highest order, but in terms of the alternatives, the Saudis, the Syrians, the Mubaraks, and the ayatollahs, is he really all that different?

And even if the Iraqis at the moment are better off at the moment, can a politically weak, democratic Iraq ever be able to hold the forces of Iran at bay like a brute like Saddam was able to?

Knowing what we know now of how the left in America has made fighting these kind of wars so bloody for American troops through their obfuscation, has it really been worth the effort to stop Hassan from doing away with the corrupt and hypocritical Saudi system of decadent kings and rigid mullahs?

 

[Darryl1958]

…
But,…, are the protests accurate or not?

Obama’s continued involvement, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Guatanamo and the like fully demonstrates that when it comes to rational governance rather than just leftist whining against the powers that be, the protests are pretty much irrelevant to the situation that is at hand.

the Obama administration has pretty much confirmed that the so called ‘Bush doctrine’ was the correct one to follow.

 

[Dale_M]

The United States has a long-standing tradition of small wars or so-called low intensity conflicts. If you study U.S. military history it has a tradition of fighting small wars. Between 1800 and 1934, U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. The army and navy added a few small-scale engagements of their own. Some resulted in heavy casualties; others involved not fighting. Most of these campaigns were fought by a small number of professional soldiers. I can testify to this from some of the missions I was involved in though the 1970s -1990s.

I just want to scream when I hear not well educated on the subject or leftwing Hollywood stars, politicians and educated leftwing college professors totally distort the Bush administration Iraq policy saying this is the first time we have ever attacked a country without being attacked first. They are either ignorant of the facts or dishonest!
What you say is true, but to be fair, their ignorance is shared by most Americans - including by those who see themselves as conservative and patriotic.

I can remember several times, in the years preceding 9/11 discussing US foreign policy and why the US government is disliked in so many places. I would mention the US history of military interventions, and almost always was met by disbelief. So, I’m not sure that we can really fault opponents of the Iraq invasion who were speaking from the near universal impression among Americans that the US is a White Knight to the world. Its a fault of our educational system, and our news media. To be sure, the US does an immense amount of good. But our national interest is also exercised, sometimes to the detriment of the citizens of other countries.

As far as the Austin protest… well, its Austin.

I don’t think less of former military for exercising their rights to protest against government policies, including wars in which they may have taken part. However, I do object to their lauding an active duty soldier who refused orders to deploy. There is no excuse for his behavior, and no excuse for celebrating his decision.

And it gets worse…
KDH News article:

Conference attendees and local activists protested at Fort Hood’s East Gate Thursday, chanting and displaying signs that said they support troops when they disobey their officers; calling for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and return of American troops; repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and Arizona’s immigration enforcement law; getting Israel out of Gaza; and supporting no war but the class war.

Wow. They actually called for soldiers to willfully disobey their superiors?? :nope:

And then they dilute their opposition to the wars with a bunch of irrelevant topics. That is a sure-fire way to lose the impact of any demonstration, although I suppose it might turn out more bodies to the protest.

But what is the point of protesting outside the gates of a military base. Did they actually think they would win over anyone to their side?

 

[Kadaveri]

So let me get this straight you are defending Saddam Hussein the monster Dictator of Iraq so you think it was better to have torture chambers and rape rooms back? They would slowly drop people into wood chippers.

I’m not defending Saddam Hussein; anyhow your question is based on a false assumption since getting rid of him had nothing to do with getting rid of torture chambers, in fact torture got worse after he was overthrown.

What about all the mass graves that were found that this monster had tortured and murdered.

Again, the situation of mass killings got far worse after Saddam was overthrown. Even the most minimalistic counting by Iraq Body Count reports about 100,000 confirmed civilian deaths (and they repeatedly stress this is certainly an underestimate and only includes those definitely not involved in any fighting). Studies by professional journals like Lancet come to estimates of between 500,000 and 1 million Iraqis killed in the war since March 2003. All these numbers are multitudes higher than the amount of Iraqis being killed by Saddam’s regime prior to the invasion. The vast majority of Saddam’s crimes happened in the 1980s, when he was a very close ally of the United States who supported him with billions of dollars for committing all sorts of massacres and atrocities.

Ask the Kurds about this guy.

For example his massacres of Kurds in the Iraq-Iran War, which you forgot to mention the United States supported, gave him technology to develop the chemical weapons he used against them. Even after the Halabja massacre when some 8,000 Kurds were killed by an Iraqi gas attack the US accused Iran of being responsible despite knowing full well it was Iraq and proceeded to block a UN Security Council resolution condemning Iraq for the massacre (the US got a resolution calling on ‘both sides’ to stop using chemical weapons despite there being only one side using them).

And speaking of Kurds at the same time the US was fully supporting and encourging the Turkish military in its own massacres of Kurds killing at least 40,000 from 1984-2001. The crimes culminated in 1997 when after a US backed military coup against the elected Turkish government the US then sent more weaponry to the Turkish military in that one year than during then entire Cold War period to reward them for their ‘leadership’ and supported them in massacring thousands of Kurds over the next few years (most of whom had nothing to do with the insurgency), destroyed some 3,500 Kurdish villages in south-eastern Turkey and left 3 million Kurds as refugees.

The US is in no position to take any moral high ground on Kurdish rights.

The UN can’t declare war! Tell that to the Koreans I don’t care what they name it if someone is shooting at you from across the road it’s a war baby.

I say again we were still at war with Iraq you said it a cease fire—and President Bush did not need anyone’s approval just like we are still at war with North Korea it’s a cease fire and we would not need the UN’s approval to resume combat operations.

You don’t seem to understand how the UN works. It doesn’t declare war, countries can go to the Security Council and request permission for the appropriate use of force. The US is not at war with North Korea and certainly cannot legally attack North Korea without authorisation from the Security Council.

Although it’s true the US would not need the UN’s approval, since it doesn’t care about the law and does whatever it wants because most of the world is too afraid of its military strength to do anything to stop it. But this is just gangsterism.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So let me get this straight you are defending Saddam Hussein the monster Dictator of Iraq so you think it was better to have torture chambers and rape rooms back? They would slowly drop people into wood chippers.

Saddam Hussein could have been the best asset we had in the region. He maintained a secular State, didn’t tolerate Wahabbism, infiltrated Al Qaeda, would have been a powerful ally against Iran, and was manageable. His methods were brutal but that brutality was the only thing keeping Iraq from devolving into what it is today; a hotbed of Islamic extremism and terrorism. People in that region respond to the threat of force; not pleas from an impotent democratic government.

What about all the mass graves that were found that this monster had tortured and murdered.

The remnants of two civil wars.

Ask the Kurds about this guy.

That would be like asking the Southerners during the American Civil War what they thought about Lincoln.

The Iraqi people are far better off today that that monster is no longer in power.

In what way?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

In what way?

To even ask that question is just ludicrous.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Who cares about the UN most to those countries hate the United States anyway the only reason we lobbied to have the UN in New York is so we can spy on other countries—I really don’t care about the UN.

This thread is getting off topic this not about defending terrorists as some of you want to do.

So get go to the Back Fence and start a thread defending, terrorists, I hate America thread.

This thread is about protesting the war by former/active duty troops and I said I would have some respect if they were drafted.

These people JOINED the military during a shooting war and they knew what they were getting into.

 

[gnjsdad]

That the US has a right to just attack countries it feels like attacking is very rarely questioned,

Not only is it very rarely questioned…it is downright celebrated here…as “defending freedom”, you see.