http://www.mintpressnews.com/guantanamo-hunger-strikers-dont-destroy-evidence-of-our-torture/190811/

Men on hunger strike in the Guantanamo Bay offshore prison have asked a U.S. court to intervene to stop the military from destroying evidence of atrocities committed in the course of force-feedings.

According to an emergency motion filed by the detainees on Tuesday, the Department of Defense acknowledged this week for the first time that it possesses videos depicting the force-feeding of inmates—a highly controversial process that has been condemned as torture and a violation of international law by the United Nations human rights office. From painful insertion of tubes to the pumping of food to the threat of stomach damage and asphyxiation, the practice of force-feeding has been compared to water-boarding.

The hunger strikers say the footage provides critical evidence of their abuse and torture, making it key to their legal challenge of this practice. In February, a federal appeals court ruled that judges can oversee Guantanamo Bay detainees’ complaints about their conditions—opening the door to challenges to force-feedings.

U.S goverment wants to destroy evidence to hide it's human rights violations

Well. Let's see.

Men on hunger strike in the Guantanamo Bay offshore prison have asked a U.S. court to intervene to stop the military from destroying evidence of atrocities committed in the course of force-feedings.


According to an emergency motion filed by the detainees on Tuesday, the Department of Defense acknowledged this week for the first time that it possesses videos depicting the force-feeding of inmates—a highly controversial process that has been condemned as torture and a violation of international law by the United Nations human rights office. From painful insertion of tubes to the pumping of food to the threat of stomach damage and asphyxiation, the practice of force-feeding has been compared to water-boarding.


The hunger strikers say the footage provides critical evidence of their abuse and torture, making it key to their legal challenge of this practice. In February, a federal appeals court ruled that judges can oversee Guantanamo Bay detainees’ complaints about their conditions—opening the door to challenges to force-feedings.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

WTF is mintpressnews?

 Seaward wrote:
WTF is mintpressnews?

The place where he gets his claims that the Taliban and Al Quaeda treat their prisoners well, as long as you ignore the beheading videos and eyewitness accounts of people being tortured to death.

Relapse wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
WTF is mintpressnews?

The place where he gets his claims that the Taliban and Al Quaeda treat their prisoners well, as long as you ignore the beheading videos and eyewitness accounts of people being tortured to death.

You lied about the ignore list, just like the U.S lied about its wars of occupation.

Once again, don't cross into another thread if you cannot form a cohesive rebuttal there.

I said quite clearly bergdahl and bergdahl alone. Enough of your plunger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Let's see.

Men on hunger strike in the Guantanamo Bay offshore prison have asked a U.S. court to intervene to stop the military from destroying evidence of atrocities committed in the course of force-feedings.


According to an emergency motion filed by the detainees on Tuesday, the Department of Defense acknowledged this week for the first time that it possesses videos depicting the force-feeding of inmates—a highly controversial process that has been condemned as torture and a violation of international law by the United Nations human rights office. From painful insertion of tubes to the pumping of food to the threat of stomach damage and asphyxiation, the practice of force-feeding has been compared to water-boarding.


The hunger strikers say the footage provides critical evidence of their abuse and torture, making it key to their legal challenge of this practice. In February, a federal appeals court ruled that judges can oversee Guantanamo Bay detainees’ complaints about their conditions—opening the door to challenges to force-feedings.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

Or liek they could totally like give the inmates the trials instead of indefinite defention? or even liek totally improve the conditions of the camp?

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

he May 2007 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq occurred when Iraqi insurgents attacked a military outpost in Qarghouli, Iraq, west of Yusufiyah and south of Baghdad, killing four U.S. Army soldiers and an Iraqi soldier before capturing Specialist Alex Ramon Jimenez, Private First Class Joseph John Anzack and Private Byron Wayne Fouty on May 12, 2007. A fourth soldier, Sergeant Anthony Jason Schober, was also thought to have been captured, but his remains were identified later.[3]

Actually I talk Relapse out of the ignore list Ronin being I'm debating you Just to show an incident on how they treat their "prisoners"

You brought up "prisoners" or those captured by either side. You strong armed the concept that Bergdahl was very well treated but no "proof" on his excellent treatment by the enemy.

 44Ronin wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
WTF is mintpressnews?

The place where he gets his claims that the Taliban and Al Quaeda treat their prisoners well, as long as you ignore the beheading videos and eyewitness accounts of people being tortured to death.

You lied about the ignore list, just like the U.S lied about its wars of occupation.

Once again, don't cross into another thread if you cannot form a cohesive rebuttal there.

I said quite clearly bergdahl and bergdahl alone. Enough of your plunger.

Nope didn't lie, but some of the answers you were giving must have been comedy gold, so I took you back off.

No, you are the one that is venturing into creative territory, since you tried to deny that terrorist prisoners(plural)were executed by this statement:

"If you can cite the executed POW's then we'll talk about it. Otherwise I suggest you apologise for your "troll" comment"

I cited, along with Cptn Jake and Jihadin, who reported what he witnessed over there, and you ignored our proof rather than talk about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

he May 2007 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq occurred when Iraqi insurgents attacked a military outpost in Qarghouli, Iraq, west of Yusufiyah and south of Baghdad, killing four U.S. Army soldiers and an Iraqi soldier before capturing Specialist Alex Ramon Jimenez, Private First Class Joseph John Anzack and Private Byron Wayne Fouty on May 12, 2007. A fourth soldier, Sergeant Anthony Jason Schober, was also thought to have been captured, but his remains were identified later.[3]

Actually I talk Relapse out of the ignore list Ronin being I'm debating you Just to show an incident on how they treat their "prisoners"

You brought up "prisoners" or those captured by either side. You strong armed the concept that Bergdahl was very well treated but no "proof" on his excellent treatment by the enemy.

Have an exalt, old sport.

Yes,

one guy posted a different faction of Taliban killing pakistani's

the other posted iraqi insurgents.

What are we talking about? it is not Iraq. That makes the second one irrelevant because it's not taliban. Not even the same country.

As for the first., these victims were targeted for apsotasy by TIT.

As you can see the Meshud just split from Tehrik-i-Taliban (TIT lol) from a difference in values.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/mehsud-group-parts-ways-with-pakistan-taliban/article1-1223644.aspx

You can see a clear fractionalisation within the taliban between ideology. They are not a homogenous group as you pretend.

There also seems to be more to the story than meets the eye. A sympathetic disposition perhaps?

 44Ronin wrote:
Yes,

one guy posted a different faction of Taliban killing pakistani's

the other posted iraqi insurgents.

What are we talking about? it is not Iraq. That makes the second one irrelevant because it's not taliban. Not even the same country.

As for the first., these victims were targeted for apsotasy by TIT.

As you can see the Meshud just split from Tehrik-i-Taliban (TIT lol) from a difference in values.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/mehsud-group-parts-ways-with-pakistan-taliban/article1-1223644.aspx

You can see a clear fractionalisation within the taliban between ideology. They are not a homogenous group as you pretend.

There also seems to be more to the story than meets the eye. A sympathetic disposition perhaps?

You made a blanket statement, so I answered with such. BTW, how many people in Gitmo were beheaded for "apostasy"? Your humanitarian claims for these jokers loses ground with every statement you make.

 44Ronin wrote:

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

Frankly, Terrorists don't and shouldn't deserve trials. Nor should habeas corpus apply. They don't even deserve the dignity of being classified as Prisoners of War, that would imply they have legitimacy as combatants.

Of course Terrorists don't fit neatly into any other classification. So we should make one for them. A category with zero rights whatsoever, as befits their crimes against humanity. Any rights they may have had as a citizen of any respective nation or as a human being should be revoked for the duration they are detained.

And anyone who willingly collaborates with a terrorist should also be classified as a terrorist.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

Frankly, Terrorists don't and shouldn't deserve trials. Nor should habeas corpus apply. They don't even deserve the dignity of being classified as Prisoners of War, that would imply they have legitimacy as combatants.

Of course Terrorists don't fit neatly into any other classification. So we should make one for them. A category with zero rights whatsoever, as befits their crimes against humanity. Any rights they may have had as a citizen of any respective nation or as a human being should be revoked for the duration they are detained.

And anyone who willingly collaborates with a terrorist should also be classified as a terrorist.

I can't tell if this is satire or not...

Edit: no, that has to be a joke. Nobody could honestly be that insane.

Relapse wrote:
Your humanitarian claims for these jokers loses ground with every statement you make.

There are and were plenty of innocent, wrongfully imprisoned people who ended up in gitmo. That is not conjecture, it is fact.

The Uyghurs are perfect examples. Falsely Imprisoned for being enemy combatants.

This is big brother, 1984 stuff bought by the ignorant masses who can't think two steps ahead of them.

 Peregrine wrote:
Edit: no, that has to be a joke. Nobody could honestly be that insane.

Sorry perigrine, retraction on my part.

The problem with the "if they are terrorists then..." statement is that they are only terrorists because somebody says so. There is no trial to determine that they are terrorists, there is no defense from it, there is just the word of somebody that decided that.

They don't get trials or rights because they are terrorists, but they don't get a trial to determine if they are terrorists either. What if they decide that captured US soldiers are terrorists and not POWs and that they don't deserve rights either?

I think that Guantanamo Bay was a huge mistake. I think that the way we are treating the people detained there is a huge mistake. I don't think that we gained any worthy intelligence out of it that we couldn't have gotten the traditional way, and I think that our soldiers have suffered because of it. I believe that we create more terrorists every day we keep it open and that in the end more lives are hurt or lost because of it than will ever be saved. It should never have existed and our American values of "truth, justice, liberty, freedom, blah blah blah" are forever damaged by it and we have zero right to ever pretend to be the moral voice for the rest of the world again.

But I'm also very pragmatic about it. I realize I'm just some civilian bitching about it. For all I know there could have been some valuable intelligence that was gained and it's just way to classified to be known to me. I would think that it would have been made public by now to defend the existence of it, but who knows. I also have zero clue about what we should do with the people we have there, many of which will probably turn to terrorism and try to kill US citizens for what happened to them.

I don't know how to give them a fair trial, I don't know how to rehabilitate them, I don't know where to put them, I don't have any answers of any kind there.

I'm not happy about it and I don't mind telling people that I am not happy about it. But I don't have any ideas about any solutions either. On one hand I'm pissed at the people that made the decisions, but I'm also very happy that I'm not the one that has to make them. I truly believe it's wrong, but I don't have any better proposals either at this point.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

Frankly, Terrorists don't and shouldn't deserve trials. Nor should habeas corpus apply. They don't even deserve the dignity of being classified as Prisoners of War, that would imply they have legitimacy as combatants.

Of course Terrorists don't fit neatly into any other classification. So we should make one for them. A category with zero rights whatsoever, as befits their crimes against humanity. Any rights they may have had as a citizen of any respective nation or as a human being should be revoked for the duration they are detained.

And anyone who willingly collaborates with a terrorist should also be classified as a terrorist.

I have no idea why they would not be classified as combatants. People have fought for causes in countries not of their birth for all of history , I don't know why this action makes you a terrorist. Is a big "T" Terrorist actually a term now? .

I'm finding it difficult to swallow that people arbitrarily given a title of TERRORIST (i think all caps looks better instead of just capitalising the first letter ) are then denied trials , and then regarded as though they have committed crimes against humanity. That act in itself seems like a crime against humanity.

44Ronin happens to be my new favourite poster. So arguments, much laughter , wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It should never have existed and our American values of "truth, justice, liberty, freedom, blah blah blah" are forever damaged by it and we have zero right to ever pretend to be the moral voice for the rest of the world again.

Quoted for mega truth. I also loved your jpeg you posted in another thread , the america/foreign country oil one, I laughed hard when I read that.

Because Terrorists target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear, killing innocents is their goal. They aren't soldiers, they aren't freedom fighters, they're animals.

Innocents will be inadvertently harmed in war, but deliberately targeting them is morally unacceptable. You have ceased to be a combatant and become a rabid dog who is only suited to be euthanized.


Fighting in another country doesn't make you a terrorist, attacking another country by bombing its citizens does, or bombing your own countries citizens, or beheading people because they aren't of your religion, or killing people for sending their children to school, etc...

Its also been a long standing rule of war that anyone who fights without a uniform is classed as a spy, can be shot on sight, and is not afforded the protection of any of the rules of war.

Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

US history was just made up by liberals.

Liberals and commies.

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

Care to give some specifics?

And I mean actual terrorism. Not something where civilians happened to be in the wrong place and were collateral damage.

Is 44Ronin trying to say that the Taliban are gracious hosts?

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Let's see.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

Or maybe we could listen to why their starving themselves, and give them due process?

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Let's see.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

Or maybe we could listen to why their starving themselves, and give them due process?

As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

 Grey Templar wrote:



Fighting in another country doesn't make you a terrorist, attacking another country by bombing its citizens does, or bombing your own countries citizens, or beheading people because they aren't of your religion, or killing people for sending their children to school, etc...

Its also been a long standing rule of war that anyone who fights without a uniform is classed as a spy, can be shot on sight, and is not afforded the protection of any of the rules of war.

By your own logic, America is a terrorist considering it not only firebombed, but nuclear bombed Japan.

Is that fair logic?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Let's see.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

Or maybe we could listen to why their starving themselves, and give them due process?

As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

Sure.

We need to give everyone equal rights to due process, for the sake of not undermining the basic concepts of our legal system.

I'm not saying we give them a blank check or set them free. I'm saying we have a little more transparency/oversight (when possible), and proper due process. Can anyone really say what's going on in there, when it's all so secretive and consequence-free? I personally believe some innocent people might be in Gitmo. And I know we've done some horrendous humans rights abuses there.

Anyway, with your logic we could overlook due process for all sorts of reasons. pedophiles don't deserve due process, they molested children! etc. etc. Terrible idea.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

Care to give some specifics?

And I mean actual terrorism. Not something where civilians happened to be in the wrong place and were collateral damage.

Look up the Reagan Doctrine and what sort of things were going on with the Contras in Nicaragua, or the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Not to mention more recent cases such as using Al Qaeda in Libya and the destabilisation of Syria into civil war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

Because as soon as rights are not universal you then allow for greater and greater exceptions.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:



Sure.

We need to give everyone equal rights to due process, for the sake of not undermining the basic concepts of our legal system.

I'm not saying we give them a blank check or set them free. I'm saying we have a little more transparency/oversight (when possible), and proper due process. Can anyone really say what's going on in there, when it's all so secretive and consequence-free? I personally believe some innocent people might be in Gitmo. And I know we've done some horrendous humans rights abuses there.

Anyway, with your logic we could overlook due process for all sorts of reasons. pedophiles don't deserve due process, they molested children! etc. etc. Terrible idea.

I don't know what's in your pants , but after that comment I sure like the cut of your jib!

Can't we get back to discussing relevant issues like, Duck attacks, Peking Duck and childrens' games involving Ducks.
I'm also liking this capitalisation of random words.
I think that the Duck that attacked Ahtman was a Terrorist. No trial for him, go directly to butchering and having some Chinese cook, breathe all his germs under the skin.That's a thought, I wonder if the breathing under the skin adds to the tenderness of the meat since it hangs for a while.

WD me, wrong post ion wrong thread, that will teach me to read 2 at the same time, anyways, Ducks....

I do not find force feeding inmates to be a crime. It's a regrettable medical necessity. Any physical damage that may occur through repeated applications is again borne of the doctrine that having an inmate die of starvation is less desirable than damaging their digestive systems.

A crime would be holding people in custody in an extrajudicial gulag for years without ever giving them the chance to challenge their detention or giving them a trial for their alleged crimes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

Wait, you actually are serious about this? You weren't just trolling when you made that first post?

"Terrorists" deserve the same legal rights because of this little thing called innocent until proven guilty. You don't just get to declare that someone is a "terrorist" and take away all of their rights, you provide a compelling case in court (and if they're as obviously guilty as you seem to think you should have no problems convincing a jury) and then you punish them appropriately. I really don't see how this is so hard to understand.

 Seaward wrote:
WTF is mintpressnews?

No idea at all. So some brief research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_Press_News

But it covers other things such as:
The government cutting off peoples water because they cannot pay bills
Black and hispanic students being treated worse than white students
What does it take to work for the NSA

A quick glance gives a anti-government view of it with a focus based heavily on human rights.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

Wait, you actually are serious about this? You weren't just trolling when you made that first post?

"Terrorists" deserve the same legal rights because of this little thing called innocent until proven guilty. You don't just get to declare that someone is a "terrorist" and take away all of their rights, you provide a compelling case in court (and if they're as obviously guilty as you seem to think you should have no problems convincing a jury) and then you punish them appropriately. I really don't see how this is so hard to understand.

I see your confusion here. You are arguing that the standards for defining a terrorist need to be stricter. That's OK.

I'm just saying what should be done once someone is confirmed to be a terrorist. You actually should have a problem with the ''conviction'' process, not the punishment.

Fine, have a trial to convict them of being a terrorist. After any present danger is passed. If they're innocent, set them free. If guilty, lock em up.

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

The British got quite good at it too

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

The British got quite good at it too

I agree (especially so in Northern Ireland), the UK is also unequivocally complicit in torture carried out by the US as well. I fail to see your point though, there isn't a Brit arguing that terrorists, and the sponsors of terrorists, should have all rights taken away and be held indefinitely without charge.

 dæl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

The British got quite good at it too

I agree (especially so in Northern Ireland), the UK is also unequivocally complicit in torture carried out by the US as well. I fail to see your point though, there isn't a Brit arguing that terrorists, and the sponsors of terrorists, should have all rights taken away and be held indefinitely without charge.

Just pointing out the irony of someone sitting in what was once a beautiful glass house, that is now little more than a metal frame because of stones being projected at velocity

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just pointing out the irony of someone sitting in what was once a beautiful glass house, that is now little more than a metal frame because of stones being projected at velocity

Which is exactly what I was trying to point out when someone claims that those who support terrorists deserve no legal rights, whilst being a US taxpayer meaning they support terrorists financially.

Also, I make no claims of living in a glass house, my nation's foreign policy is just as deplorable and were it up to me the International Criminal Court would have a lot more cases to hear from both sides of the pond.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

Frankly, Terrorists don't and shouldn't deserve trials. Nor should habeas corpus apply. They don't even deserve the dignity of being classified as Prisoners of War, that would imply they have legitimacy as combatants.

Of course Terrorists don't fit neatly into any other classification. So we should make one for them. A category with zero rights whatsoever, as befits their crimes against humanity. Any rights they may have had as a citizen of any respective nation or as a human being should be revoked for the duration they are detained.

And anyone who willingly collaborates with a terrorist should also be classified as a terrorist.

You serious?

Its fact

IED goes off in the bazaar..
We go after the Insurgents (Terrorists)
We go after those that fund the operation
We go after those that brought the material in
All lumped in together under "Terrorist"

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Terrorists target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear

So do Soldiers.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So do Soldiers.

Is it National Talk Out Of Your Ass Day or something?

I really hope he was making a specific reply to a certain soldier from Ft Lewis that did the killing spree and not label everyone in the US Military specifically targeted civilians

 Seaward wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So do Soldiers.

Is it National Talk Out Of Your Ass Day or something?

Soldiers have never bombed civilian targets?

I'm being rhetorical, of course they have.

 Jihadin wrote:
I really hope he was making a specific reply to a certain soldier from Ft Lewis that did the killing spree and not label everyone in the US Military specifically targeted civilians

Blames bergdahl for indirect consequences of his actions.
Denies U.S military for it's direct consequences of it's actions.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Soldiers have never bombed civilian targets?

I'm being rhetorical, of course they have.

And your contention is that soldiers do this to sow terror and rule through fear?

This'll be fun. Could you provide some examples?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Soldiers have never bombed civilian targets?

I'm being rhetorical, of course they have.

Yeah. And sometimes they did it intentionally. Difference is the war effort was never one focused on killing civilians to the exclusion of legitimate military targets, or ones where attacking legitimate military targets necessitated attacks against civilians (the allied Strategic bombing Campaign in WWII).

The US military has rarely attacked civilians for the hell of it. That's why they get so much attention when they do happen.

Jebus. Britain your very bad for bombing the civilian population during the night
Jebus. USA is bad for bombing the civilian population during the day
Jebus. Germany is bad for bombing the civilian population day and night

Edit

Ninja by Lord


Edit

I bet the van from Iraq going to get posted

 Seaward wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Soldiers have never bombed civilian targets?

I'm being rhetorical, of course they have.

And your contention is that soldiers do this to sow terror and rule through fear?

This'll be fun. Could you provide some examples?

My contention is that soldiers blow up civilian targets when it benefits them to do so- whether that goal is "to sow terror" or "to win a war" is arbitrary nonsense people tell themselves so the actions of their Country don't keep them up at night.

This will be fun indeed. Your retort?

@Lord: The ~7000 US casualties sustained during the War on Terror implies that the Insurgents certainly don't mind targeting enemy combatants.

For the life of me I cannot think of any time I've blown up civilian targets on purpose or my troops for that matter

 BlaxicanX wrote:


@Lord: The ~7000 US casualties sustained during the War on Terror implies that the Insurgents certainly don't mind targeting enemy combatants.

Twice as many civilians were killed by insurgents. 80-95% of people killed by the other side were civilians (EDIT: COrrection. This statistic is based on total civilians killed in Afghanistan, not the number of people killed by insurgents in Afghanistan). Turns out the US militaries ratio (while appalling for a war of its scale) is much more favorable towards killing people with guns and bombs.

They'll fight US troops when US troops come to fight them, and occasionally they shoot mortars into our bases, but they prefer blowing up public streets, markets, cars, and other places that are not likely to yield any military casualties.* I understand from your above post that you think the little nuance isn't important, but your refusal to recognize that has no bearing on the reality that it exists.

Of course they don't manfight US troops; they're scumbag terrorists with none of the advantages of a highly funded, well trained military like the one the US possesses.

However, your assertion was that soldiers targeting civilians is less silly than when terrorists do it because terrorists focus on civilian targets *to the exclusion* of military ones. That's not true; insurgents target military personnel when they think they have a chance of winning; not dissimilar to the United States bombing Japanese cities because they felt that invading Japan would be too costly in lives and effort, or the United States bombing Vietnamese cities and killing 70,000 civilians because they figured flooding the North with troops would be a bad idea.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
My contention is that soldiers blow up civilian targets when it benefits them to do so- whether that goal is "to sow terror" or "to win a war" is arbitrary nonsense people tell themselves so the actions of their Country don't keep them up at night.

This will be fun indeed. Your retort?

My retort's pretty simple:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Terrorists target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear

So do Soldiers.

You claimed that soldiers target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear. You've realized you can't actually back that statement up with modern examples, so you're trying to back away from it. Which is smart, but it would have been far smarter to actually think it through before you went all glib.

Because, of course, the US military doesn't target civilian populations. Civilians do tend to get killed in warzones, as has been the case since warzones came about, but we go out of our way to keep the number as low as possible. The other guys? They go out of their way to make that number as high as possible. You can take your apologist nonsense elsewhere.

 Seaward wrote:
You claimed that soldiers target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear. You've realized you can't actually back that statement up with modern examples, so you're trying to back away from it. Which is smart, but it would have been far smarter to actually think it through before you went all glib.

Okay, I was wrong to have not clipped off those last 6 words in my quote. Thanks for calling me out on that, bro. You really got me.

Because, of course, the US military doesn't target civilian populations. Civilians do tend to get killed in warzones, as has been the case since warzones came about, but we go out of our way to keep the number as low as possible.

Yeah, that's crap. When you deliberately target a civilian area you're targeting civilians. That it's "for the war effort" is arbitrary nonsense people tell themselves so the actions of their Country don't keep them awake at night.

Trying to paint me as an "apologist" is cute. I don't condone terrorism; I don't condone any sort of deliberate attack on civilians. I'm just objective enough to realize that if deliberately killing civilians is enough to put you in special hell, terrorists aren't going to be alone in it.

Good ratio of engagement happen in built areas right?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fine, have a trial to convict them of being a terrorist. After any present danger is passed. If they're innocent, set them free. If guilty, lock em up.

So if your "terrorist" is granted full legal rights before and during their trial, and then punished like any other criminal (complete with rights to appeal, etc, since those are inherent parts of "innocent until proven guilty") then what exactly is the difference between a "terrorist" and anyone else?

 Peregrine wrote:
So if your "terrorist" is granted full legal rights before and during their trial, and then punished like any other criminal (complete with rights to appeal, etc, since those are inherent parts of "innocent until proven guilty") then what exactly is the difference between a "terrorist" and anyone else?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
However, your assertion was that soldiers targeting civilians is less silly than when terrorists do it because terrorists focus on civilian targets *to the exclusion* of military ones.

I made no such claim that a soldier targeting civilians was less so than that of terrorists (if anything I find it more so). I made the claim that a distinct difference can be drawn between a military force that restricts its attacks against civilians and a terrorist whose primary course of action is to attack civilians.

Given that terrorists have killed far more civilians in the current conflict by orders of magnitude when compared to the US military, this distinction is rightly sound. Right sound before even mentioning the placement of explosives in locations where only civilians will be killed. Civilians whose deaths have no bearing on the conflict's outcome.

not dissimilar to the United States bombing Japanese cities because they felt that invading Japan would be too costly in lives and effort,

Ever heard of the concept of Total War? It's not really comparable to the war on terror.

or the United States bombing Vietnamese cities and killing 70,000 civilians because they figured flooding the North with troops would be a bad idea.

The deaths of civilians in Vietnam has long been criticized, and no one in this thread ever claims the US military never killed civilians or even that they were never targeted. Quite the opposite. EDIT: "You did bad stuff too" is a crap excuse for conducting ones self in a way that only results in 'bad stuff.'

I think you're right that there is indeed a distinction, but like I said, it's an arbitrary one. That the US military goes through great lengths to pick enemy soldiers as its preferred target over civilians does not change or excuse the fact that the US military has no compulsion with unleashing hell on civilian locations if it deems doing so as necessary, as history has shown. To that end,

if deliberately killing civilians is enough to put you in special hell, terrorists aren't going to be alone in it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Okay, I was wrong to have not clipped off those last 6 words in my quote. Thanks for calling me out on that, bro. You really got me.

I'll apologize if requesting that you say what you actually mean instead of demanding that we try to make some sense from your wild claims is asking too much.

Yeah, that's crap. When you deliberately target a civilian area you're targeting civilians. That it's "for the war effort" is arbitrary nonsense people tell themselves so the actions of their Country don't keep them awake at night.

Why do you keep capitalizing country, out of curiosity?

And no, there's actually a difference. I can tell you've spent far more time both studying and actually at war than I, so I'll do my best to make this quick: trying to minimize civilian casualties is different from trying to maximize civilian casualties. If one side is trying to minimize civilian casualties and one side is trying to maximize civilian casualties, it takes a really special sort of person to claim they're both actually trying to maximize civilian casualties.

Trying to paint me as an "apologist" is cute.

I think it's more unfortunate that I didn't have to try very hard.

I don't condone terrorism; I don't condone any sort of deliberate attack on civilians. I'm just objective enough to realize that if deliberately killing civilians is enough to put you in special hell, terrorists aren't going to be alone in it.

Well, rest easy, little buddy. We haven't deliberately gone after civilians for quite some time.

 dæl wrote:
Which is exactly what I was trying to point out when someone claims that those who support terrorists deserve no legal rights, whilst being a US taxpayer meaning they support terrorists financially.

Also, I make no claims of living in a glass house, my nation's foreign policy is just as deplorable and were it up to me the International Criminal Court would have a lot more cases to hear from both sides of the pond.

That's very even handed of you. Your initial "Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often." seemed to conceal your actual feelings on the topic (i.e. that a lot of countries use less than palatable methods to further their own interests)

 Seaward wrote:
Why do you keep capitalizing country, out of curiosity?

For the same reason I smell my socks before I put them on. Why do you look up before getting in the shower every morning?

And no, there's actually a difference.

I know there's a distinction. I've said as such multiple times in this discussion, in fact. That distinction is meaningless within the context of this discussion, however. Again, that the US military goes through great lengths to pick enemy soldiers as its preferred target over civilians does not change or excuse the fact that the US military has no compulsion with unleashing hell on civilian locations if it deems doing so as necessary, as history has shown. So holding some kind of special hatred for one group of people for targeting blowing up civilians is dumb. I'm glad you've fallen back from the hardline stance of "the US doesn't deliberately target civilians" to "the US doesn't deliberately target civilians often", though.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
For the same reason I smell my socks before I put them on. Why do you look up before getting in the shower every morning?

I don't do either of those things, and I'm getting a little concerned.

I know there's a distinction. I've said as such multiple times in this discussion, in fact. That distinction is meaningless within the context of this discussion, however. Again, that the US military goes through great lengths to pick enemy soldiers as its preferred target over civilians does not change or excuse the fact that the US military has no compulsion with unleashing hell on civilian locations if it deems doing so as necessary, as history has shown. So holding some kind of special hatred for one group of people for targeting blowing up civilians is dumb. I'm glad you've fallen back from the hardline stance of "the US doesn't deliberately target civilians" to "the US doesn't deliberately target civilians often", though.

No. The distinction is, "The US doesn't deliberately target civilians." Find me one example from the GWOT where it's been our policy to go, "Well, due to the lack of viable enemy targets, we're just going to hit some civilians." Or anything even approaching that. That civilians are sometimes killed in attacks on legitimate targets is unfortunate, but is a reality of war. The number of times we've opted not to "unleash hell" because civilian casualties would be too high in spite of having a valid target is large enough for us to have video of it on YouTube.

Here's what you need to understand: you're arguing that guys who deliberately target civilians are the same as guys who do not, and who not only do not, but who go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties. You're doing so from a standpoint of, apparently, a complete lack of knowledge about anything remotely relevant. Keep it up, though. LordofHats and I don't often end up on the same side of an argument. It's refreshing.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
For the same reason I smell my socks before I put them on.

This went to kind of a weird place.

 Seaward wrote:

I don't do either of those things

You don't? Jesus. I used to look up to you, man.

Here's what you need to understand: you're arguing that guys who deliberately target civilians are the same as guys who do not, and who not only do not, but who go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties.

No, what I'm arguing is that if you're of the belief that the people who walk into a school and detonate a bomb attached to their nuts are going to special hell, then the people who decide that a school next to a gun-factory getting blown up is acceptable collateral damage are also going to special hell. What you need to understand is that you're arguing that Bob always shooting a hostage held at gunpoint so that his bullet hits the hostage-taker is morally reprehensible compared to John who also shoots a hostage held at gunpoint so that his bullet hits the hostage-taker, but only on Fridays, and only because he wants to get home in time for the game and doesn't have time to dick around with talking the hostage taker down.

There is a difference between Bob and John, but it's an arbitrary distinction. Within the context of discussing "which one is a dirtbag", the answer is that they're both dirtbags.

 Seaward wrote:
LordofHats and I don't often end up on the same side of an argument. It's refreshing.

I live to bring people together.

Soldiers (or more specifically the military) targeting civilians to create terror or fear is a legitimate strategy that we have used in the past though. Isn't that the basic idea behind "total war"?

I don't think we have done it on that scale since WW2 though.

 d-usa wrote:
Soldiers (or more specifically the military) targeting civilians to create terror or fear is a legitimate strategy that we have used in the past though. Isn't that the basic idea behind "total war"?

I don't think we have done it on that scale since WW2 though.

Nah, hasn't really been a thing since precision bombing became a reality.

Regardless on your position on Guantanamo Bay, or the treatment of the people being held there, the main issue here is the destruction of information.

Isn't that the basic idea behind "total war"?

No. Terror inevitably becomes part of total war, but the terror isn't the point of total war. Total War is a state in which two sides aren't just engaged in a conflict between their armed forces but their entire nations, something that has historically only happened when participants in a war start bracing themselves for a war economy (note, this does not exclude nations that are engaged in a sort of quasi-war economy, like Nazi Germany early in WWII).

In such a state, the entire resources of a state are being brought to bare. The entire nation is the enemy because everyone in it is facilitating the fighting. In this sense, civilians can become a justifiable war target as they're labor and ability has become integral to the war effort. In this manner, the deaths of civilians become an acceptable damage, though generally the deliberate targeting of civilian populations just for the hell of it are still viewed as war crimes (The Dresden Fire Bombing, which served no real military purpose what so ever*, or the German Sondercommando massacres in the Ukraine). Winners tend to get to pick who gets punished for what of course.

LordofHats and I don't often end up on the same side of an argument. It's refreshing.

I like to mix it up every now and then.

I live to bring people together.

So, like Dakka's own John Kerry

*To expand on this. Yes. There were good reasons to target Dresden, one of Germany's few intact communication and transportation hubs by that stage of the war. However the allied bombing campaign went beyond the legitimacy of targeting Dresden's military value, and bombed the entire city indiscriminately, an act that served little military purpose. Even in a state of total war, it tends to be viewed as unjustifiable to just go after civilians. The atomic bombings for example can be justified as a war act, as the purpose of the bombings was to force Japan's surrender via a show of overwhelming power. Civilians were targeted for the purpose, but their deaths were not the ultimate point of what the bombing was meant to achieve, and both Hiroshima and Nagasaki did present viable military targets in their own right.

Okay. I was thinking "terror" because I was under the impression that part of Total War was the inclusion of civilian targets to destroy the morale of the civilian population and their support of the war.

 d-usa wrote:
Okay. I was thinking "terror" because I was under the impression that part of Total War was the inclusion of civilian targets to destroy the morale of the civilian population and their support of the war.

In WWII this would have been the accepted justification for something like the Dresden Bombings. In hindsight though, war theory has kind of circled this issue, deciding that in general, terror is inevitable in total war, but expressly sowing terror is not something that comes from legitimate war acts. One can intimidate, frighten, and demoralize an opposing population without resorting to terror tactics. It's a messy field of course, with mountains of gray. You'll never meet two theorists in complete agreement on every war act (Dresden again being an excellent example of a war act that no one can completely agree on).

This will varied slightly depending on what side of the 'morality of war' line you fall on (whether war can be moral or is always immoral).

Hmm, Grey Templar hasn't posted in a while... perhaps he's being held without trial as a terrorist in Guantanamo Bay.



One thing I'll agree with is that's a terrible idea for the government to have the authority to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone, anywhere, anytime just because they feel like it. Justifications are just words, this is the action I'm referring to.

 Ouze wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
For the same reason I smell my socks before I put them on.

This went to kind of a weird place.

This is the OT... it happens quite often.

As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

 whembly wrote:

As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

I doubt it. It just smells like the usual beauracratic CYA that happens down there.

 whembly wrote:
As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

Not sure I see the relation

I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

Does killing more civilians than enemies count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike

On November 7, 2008, Afghan officials said a joint investigation found that 37 civilians and 26 insurgents were killed in Wech Baghtu.[1] Wedding parties in Afghanistan are segregated by gender; of the civilians, 23 were children, 10 were women, and 4 were men. Another 27 persons were injured, including the bride.[7][8][9][6][10][11] The bombing destroyed the housing complex where women and children had gathered to celebrate.

What amuses me in these discussions is the implication that "terrorists" (that word is almost meaningless these days) are somehow not fighting fair by not lining up and fighting the US armed forces.

If you're on the wrong end of a power dynamic to the extent that they are, but you still believe your cause is just, you'll probably end up using whatever tactics will work. They will never win in a "fair fight", because this is not a "fair fight"- it's the world's uncontested military hyperpower vs. some guys with a shoestring budget.

I don't support their politics, I don't support their killing (or yours) but I do understand WHY they fight the way they do. It's that, do nothing, or oblivion.

The destruction of tapes is wrong.

Oh and FWIW: My country is full of mealy mouthed scumbags who preach neutrality when it suits them to do so, and allow american military planes to transport prisoners through their airports as well as refuel there. Their entire military strategy is hoping that Britain/the rest of the EU won't let them be taken by a hostile force, or that no one would ever bother their arse with us. So in reality, I respect either side in the conflict more than I respect my own country, but I feel like the argument is so slanted I have to point out what I did above.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

Not sure I see the relation

Obama has a stated goal to somehow shutdown Gitmo, at any cost (apparently). So, in order to do that, they may want to mitigate any reasons that would prevent shutting it down. Having something controversial on those tapes may force Gitmo to stay open until it's get resolved.

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

Not sure I see the relation

Obama has a stated goal to somehow shutdown Gitmo, at any cost (apparently). So, in order to do that, they may want to mitigate any reasons that would prevent shutting it down. Having something controversial on those tapes may force Gitmo to stay open until it's get resolved.

How honorable of him

The Afghan government accused the Taliban of seeking shelter near the wedding party

Forgot the first sentence?

Mind you wedding that happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, because we did one in Iraq when the men shot their AK's in the air near a Apache, are unannounce. You cannot tell if there is a wedding in progress. Wedding are not like the ones you are fimiliar with that when you go by one you know its a wedding.

I'm fimiliar with the one you posted though. What's left out was that some of the Taliban members were family members.

Though this does not make a US Military Operation targeting civilians. Cordon and Search is a US Military Operation targeting a civilian area. Figure I help clarify

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Which is exactly what I was trying to point out when someone claims that those who support terrorists deserve no legal rights, whilst being a US taxpayer meaning they support terrorists financially.

Also, I make no claims of living in a glass house, my nation's foreign policy is just as deplorable and were it up to me the International Criminal Court would have a lot more cases to hear from both sides of the pond.

That's very even handed of you. Your initial "Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often." seemed to conceal your actual feelings on the topic (i.e. that a lot of countries use less than palatable methods to further their own interests)

A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

Does killing more civilians than enemies count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike

On November 7, 2008, Afghan officials said a joint investigation found that 37 civilians and 26 insurgents were killed in Wech Baghtu.[1] Wedding parties in Afghanistan are segregated by gender; of the civilians, 23 were children, 10 were women, and 4 were men. Another 27 persons were injured, including the bride.[7][8][9][6][10][11] The bombing destroyed the housing complex where women and children had gathered to celebrate.

You said "women" and "children", but I wonder what percentage of the crowd heard "terrorist factories" and "pre-terrorists".

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

I'd say that the Russians could keep the pace

 Jihadin wrote:

The Afghan government accused the Taliban of seeking shelter near the wedding party

Forgot the first sentence?

I'm glad you'd be okay with bombing an apartment complex as long as they got a couple baddies inside.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

I'd say that the Russians could keep the pace

You may say that, although others would beg to differ. For example, specifically on that point, Daniel Goldhagen is quoted as saying...

"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

The Afghan government accused the Taliban of seeking shelter near the wedding party

Forgot the first sentence?

I'm glad you'd be okay with bombing an apartment complex as long as they got a couple baddies inside.

Wut... That isn't what he's saying...

Did we know there was a weding in progress? From what I remember from the share drive it was a bunch of men around building with some armed with weapons. Your not Arm Chairing Combat Knowledge are you eh?

I asked for a US Military Operation. I even gave you a clue. Though the weding air strike the same situation as to what happen to the Canadians at Bagram at East River Range.

 dæl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

I'd say that the Russians could keep the pace

You may say that, although others would beg to differ. For example, specifically on that point, Daniel Goldhagen is quoted as saying...

"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."

Wow, Chomsky not happy with the US. There's a surprise

 Jihadin wrote:
Did we know there was a weding in progress? From what I remember from the share drive it was a bunch of men around building with some armed with weapons. Your not Arm Chairing Combat Knowledge are you eh?

I asked for a US Military Operation. I even gave you a clue. Though the weding air strike the same situation as to what happen to the Canadians at Bagram at East River Range.

If it's the wedding party I read about, they were were mistaken as hostiles.


http://elitedaily.com/news/world/us-drone-accidentally-targeted-wedding-yemen-killing-injuring-guests/

The other was in Iraq when the groom buddies and male family members fired AK's into the air near a Apache. Think someone mention one of the AK's had tracer rounds

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

I'd say that the Russians could keep the pace

You may say that, although others would beg to differ. For example, specifically on that point, Daniel Goldhagen is quoted as saying...

"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."

Wow, Chomsky not happy with the US. There's a surprise

Fancy trying that again? And this time playing the ball rather than the man? Or is your actual argument that because Chomsky said something it can't be true, regardless of the fact he generally provides sources for his claims?

 Da Boss wrote:
What amuses me in these discussions is the implication that "terrorists" (that word is almost meaningless these days) are somehow not fighting fair by not lining up and fighting the US armed forces.

If you're on the wrong end of a power dynamic to the extent that they are, but you still believe your cause is just, you'll probably end up using whatever tactics will work. They will never win in a "fair fight", because this is not a "fair fight"- it's the world's uncontested military hyperpower vs. some guys with a shoestring budget.
.

I have no qualms about someone hiding behind whatever and shooting or blending in by day to fight by night since it worked for us in the Revolution. What ,to me, qualifies someone as a terrorist is when they deliberatly walk, drive, whatever into an area of non combatants with the full intention of causing as much death and mayhem as possible among these non combatants. Cutting someone's head off or leaving corpses of those who speak against them as examples to others are also qualifiers for the term.
I do not look at the men who deliberately planned and executed this school massacre as having any shred of honor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58381-2004Sep3.html

Neither would I call the people who carried out this raid as anything more than terrorist. They didn't go to fight soldiers but to massacre civilians and plunder:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/boko-haram-massacre-nigeria-gamboru-ngala

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

That's cute... please tell me more why the US military is so reprehensible.

Well, I think what we did there was reprehensible. But I separate "decisions made by administrations" from "soldiers doing what they have to do."

I think that treating our Vietnam guys like gak when they came back was terrible. And even though I think Iraq was a mistake I don't ever want to treat the OIF vets that way.

 d-usa wrote:


I think that treating our Vietnam guys like gak when they came back was terrible.

This is honestly something of a myth produced by Nam vets themselves. No evidence has ever been found that the treatment of vets returning from Vietnam was that different from those who returned from Iraq or the World Wars. I had an interesting conversation with an oral historian at AHEC a few years ago about the subject. He runs a project to collect oral histories from soldiers, and he hates having to deal with Nam vets (he's a vet himself) because in his words "talking to them is like collecting a bucket of tears and then having no idea if they need a hug or a slap of reality."

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


I think that treating our Vietnam guys like gak when they came back was terrible.

This is honestly something of a myth produced by Nam vets themselves. No evidence has ever been found that the treatment of vets returning from Vietnam was that different from those who returned from Iraq or the World Wars. I had an interesting conversation with an oral historian at AHEC a few years ago about the subject. He runs a project to collect oral histories from soldiers, and he hates having to deal with Nam vets (he's a vet himself) because in his words "talking to them is like collecting a bucket of tears and then having no idea if they need a hug or a slap of reality."

Interesting.

 whembly wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

That's cute... please tell me more why the US military is so reprehensible.

I will dignify your post with a response only if you treat the comment seriously.

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

Enlighten me. Who did you "interview" that gave you hard proof that we, as in the US and other Coalition forces there, invaded in under false pretense? The "Bush lied" bit not good enough being damn near all the Senate voted to go to war looking at the same info Bush did. What did not happen for the US to stay beyond the withdraw date? Same that is about to happen in Afghanistan.

 Jihadin wrote:

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

Enlighten me. Who did you "interview" that gave you hard proof that we, as in the US and other Coalition forces there, invaded in under false pretense? The "Bush lied" bit not good enough being damn near all the Senate voted to go to war looking at the same info Bush did. What did not happen for the US to stay beyond the withdraw date? Same that is about to happen in Afghanistan.

The false pretense was that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Pretty simple even a grunt should know.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact that the near whole senate voted for war shows the dunning-kruger effect at play.

Goes to show how stupid your senate was, doesn't it?.

That no one in the U.S could comprehend the potential problems of invading (under false pretenses).

No need to debate history, both campaigns are strategic failures.

Even the puppet installation failed

You make it to easy Ronin.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

I also remember the two chamber 155/158mm two chamber shells they used thinking they were HE shells that were used as IED's. Talk about when sucking day in 130 heat in MOPP4

Pretty simple as an Interviewer to know by looking. Now, who remembers the convoy's that Iraq had going in to Syria before we invaded

There were multiple reasons cited for the war in every resolution on it I've ever seen, and the absence of nukes doesn't mean an absence of WMDs. It's a pleasingly broad definition.

But yeah. Some people just aren't ready for democracy, I guess.

Very true Seaward.

Clue for Ronin. SOFA Agreement as to not why we stayed beyond the withdraw date. Same that's about to happen in Afghanistan

 Jihadin wrote:
You make it to easy Ronin.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

I also remember the two chamber 155/158mm two chamber shells they used thinking they were HE shells that were used as IED's. Talk about when sucking day in 130 heat in MOPP4

Pretty simple as an Interviewer to know by looking. Now, who remembers the convoy's that Iraq had going in to Syria before we invaded

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

Mustard gas..... hardly a WMD. You list thiodiglycol, which is simply a chemical used in mustard gas.

So..yeah 180km range missiles and some mustard gas....

 d-usa wrote:

I think that treating our Vietnam guys like gak when they came back was terrible. And even though I think Iraq was a mistake I don't ever want to treat the OIF vets that way.

In Australia, the treatment by government was very similar to the treatment of WW1 vets. I only found this out recently and was quite surprised. I think in general the treatment of vets in any country isn't particularly good.

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

There was never a claim they were a world threat because they could attack the world. There was a claim that Iraq posed a threat to the stability of the region, which was a world threat. Another war between Iran and Iraq would be a global disaster simply due to the damage to global oil prices.

At least debate the points actually cited if you're going to argue against something. We've heard all the made up talking points before, but they're still made up.

Here you go Ronin.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

 LordofHats wrote:

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

There was never a claim they were a world threat because they could attack the world. There was a claim that Iraq posed a threat to the stability of the region, which was a world threat.

So America invaded destabilising the region, therefore creating the problem it intended to prevent.

GENIUS.

Another war between Iran and Iraq would be a global disaster simply due to the damage to global oil prices.

Iraq did not have the ability to wage war,. in all purposes they were depleted

At least debate the points actually cited if you're going to argue against something. We've heard all the made up talking points before, but they're still made up.

The point is, the U.S did all of destabilsation. The "moral war" it is not.

USA Apologists can come up will 1001 excuses and rationalisations. The prextexts at the time were clear, don't try to change them.

 44Ronin wrote:


So America invaded destabilising the region, therefore creating the problem it intended to prevent.

I'm actually going to have to side with 44Ronin on this point. Invasions never aid stability.

 Jihadin wrote:
Here you go Ronin.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Mustard gas %2-3 fatality rate, hard to effectively deploy. Limited delivery system.

Doesn't really destroy stuff.

Bullockist wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


So America invaded destabilising the region, therefore creating the problem it intended to prevent.

I'm actually going to have to side with 44Ronin on this point. Invasions never aid stability.

Only if you look at things short term.

If you see the choice between Iraq causing a massive war in the region, leading to massive instability, and the US occupying Iraq for a few years and only causing some relatively minor instability you can see how it actually did add stability in the long run.

Frankly, the local disturbances from Iraq were relatively minor. You didn't have masses of refugees that any war Iraq would have launched would have caused. And an unstable dictator was removed from the picture.

Mustard gas was dispersed as an aerosol in a mixture with other chemicals, giving it a yellow-brown color and a distinctive odor. Mustard gas has also been dispersed in such munitions as aerial bombs, land mines, mortar rounds, artillery shells, and rockets.[1] Exposure to mustard gas was lethal in about one percent of cases. Its effectiveness was as an incapacitating agent. The early countermeasures against mustard gas were relatively ineffective, since a soldier wearing a gas mask was not protected against absorbing it through his skin and being blistered.

Its an irritant chemical. Chemical burns and what not. Get it into your lungs then your dead

WMD due to

Mustard agents are regulated under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Three classes of chemicals are monitored under this Convention, with sulfur and nitrogen mustard grouped in Schedule 1, as substances with no use other than in chemical warfare. Mustard agents could be deployed on the battlefield by means of artillery shells, aerial bombs, rockets, or by spraying from warplanes.

Chemical Weapons Convention is this:

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control treaty which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. The full name of the treaty is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction and it is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an intergovernmental organization based in The Hague, Netherlands. The treaty entered into force in 1997.

As an interviewer like you stated a bit back. Do a little research

 Grey Templar wrote:
and the US occupying Iraq for a few years and only causing some relatively minor instability you can see how it actually did add stability in the long run.

The fact that you call the instability in Iraq 'minor' is just plain ignorant.

800 civillians killed in one month (may)...minor to an American
U-RAH SEMPER FI

 44Ronin wrote:
So America invaded destabilising the region, therefore creating the problem it intended to prevent.

I never said it was a good claim. Just that it's the claim that was made. Further, there are degrees of instability. Internal instability in Iraq is better than regional instability, and after the war, most of Iraq was stable save certain areas.

GENIUS.

Iraq did not have the ability to wage war,. in all purposes they were depleted

They had the 4th largest army in the world. We could steam roll them sure (and we did) but Iran and Iraq had already fought a very bloody and prolonged war once. No one was really eager to see it happen again and Saddam liked to do a lot more than just rattle sabers.

The prextexts at the time were clear, don't try to change them.

They are clear. You simply refuse to accept them because you prefer a fictional narrative. I'm hardly an apologist for US foreign policy. I just prefer that people be up and arms over reality rather than fantasy.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
and the US occupying Iraq for a few years and only causing some relatively minor instability you can see how it actually did add stability in the long run.

The fact that you call the instability in Iraq 'minor' is just plain ignorant.

800 civillians killed in one month (may)...minor to an American
U-RAH SEMPER FI

Better than tens of thousands killed in a regional war(and hundreds of thousands displaced)

Let's not forget Hassan 10K to the families of those that wear the Almighty Bomb vest

The presence of WMDs or not is a moot point, the UN did not give the order to invade, therefore both Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under international law.

Didn't know the UN was in charge of all the countries.

 dæl wrote:
The presence of WMDs or not is a moot point, the UN did not give the order to invade, therefore both Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under international law.

The UN doesn't really get to stand around and do nothing when dictators and tribal leaders are committing genocide and then throw up the stop sigh when the US decides to play super hero of the world. I.E. The UN's opinion in these matters are about as meaningful to me as Hitler's opinion of racial equality (and Godwin)



The UN as a body has so many biased opinions, I've mostly chosen to completely ignore all their opinions. It's proven worthwhile 99% of the time.

The US ratified the UN Charter, so its one of the few international laws that does apply to you guys.

As for the UN standing around doing nothing, that is the fault of the veto system, which the US is by far and away the worst for using. And if we are Godwinning then perhaps I should draw your attention to what happened when nobody listened to the League of Nations...

 dæl wrote:
The US ratified the UN Charter, so its one of the few international laws that does apply to you guys.

And like most international treaties, there's no real punishment for ignoring it, which is the UN's problem. Lots of chatter. No teeth. It's a hippie on soap box. And of course, the US is on the security council with a permanent chair. It's like letting athletes referee themselves.

 dæl wrote:
The US ratified the UN Charter, so its one of the few international laws that does apply to you guys.

When we choose for it to, sure.

The ICC is supposed to be the punishment, but they don't seem interested in anything outside Africa atm, which is a shame.

And no Seaward, ratifying a treaty means it becomes US law, so you don't just get to pick and choose.

Kind of notice the US military kind of stopped putting themselves under UN control unless its US lead starting like mid 90's?

 dæl wrote:
The ICC is supposed to be the punishment, but they don't seem interested in anything outside Africa atm, which is a shame.

Might have something to do with the US not being an ICC member;

And no Seaward, ratifying a treaty means it becomes US law, so you don't just get to pick and choose.

No country in the world treats treaties this way.

 LordofHats wrote:

Might have something to do with the US not being an ICC member;

By ICC I meant the International Criminal Court, rather than the International Coordinating Committee on Human Rights, which no, the US wouldn't be part of, just as they refuse to ratify the Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child (just the US and Somalia refuse on that one, so you are in distinguished company).

And no Seaward, ratifying a treaty means it becomes US law, so you don't just get to pick and choose.

No country in the world treats treaties this way.

Hate to be a pedant, but the UK does with regards the European Convention on Human Rights, we (supposedly) aren't allowed to draft any law that might contravene it.

So if the UN means jack why is everybody always telling me about their Agenda 21?

 dæl wrote:

Hate to be a pedant, but the UK does with regards the European Convention on Human Rights, we (supposedly) aren't allowed to draft any law that might contravene it.

And there's no punishment for not doing what the ECHR says except that everyone else shakes their head at you. If you're the US, well everyone just says "stop being so aggressive America" and then gives you a thumbs up and a letter of good luck while we embark on our comic book-esque escapades, so we can pretty much do whatever we want and nothings ever going to happen.

 d-usa wrote:
So if the UN means jack why is everybody always telling me about their Agenda 21?

Because its the trooth

 d-usa wrote:
So if the UN means jack why is everybody always telling me about their Agenda 21?

Because they like to mock the UN as an ineffective body while talking about how they shouldn't be subject to its decisions when the UN is an ineffective body precisely because no one is subject to it's decisions (unless the US declares you part of the Axis of Terror and everyone else is annoyed enough by your behavior that they go along with it)

Mixing it up with drinking age? You do look a bit young.

So Agenda 21 is the Kony of NGOs? And only Facebook posts making us aware will stop it?

 d-usa wrote:
So Agenda 21 is the Kony of NGOs? And only Facebook posts making us aware will stop it?

A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion

Murica.

Damn I misunderstood, I thought Agenda 21 was that 'kill off half the world's population' thing that people rave about in the dark corners of the internet. I liked that thing. If it's an actual policy, it loses a lot of its shine.

That's the agenda controlled by the 12 richest men in the world and presided over by Jews (and/or freemasons)? Man, it don't get more truthful than that.

 LordofHats wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Hate to be a pedant, but the UK does with regards the European Convention on Human Rights, we (supposedly) aren't allowed to draft any law that might contravene it.

And there's no punishment for not doing what the ECHR says except that everyone else shakes their head at you.

You're joking right? The European Court has many times heard cases against the UK government, and has awarded damages, and forced a change of statute many times. Also, EU law has supremacy over UK law.

If you're the US, well everyone just says "stop being so aggressive America" and then gives you a thumbs up and a letter of good luck while we embark on our comic book-esque escapades, so we can pretty much do whatever we want and nothings ever going to happen.

I agree that is what happens, but I personally think you might be better off staying your hand once in a while and allowing multinational organisations to do their jobs. For one thing it might let you reduce your military spending to less silly levels, and it will make the world a safer place for everyone if might didn't automatically mean right.

 dæl wrote:

You're joking right?

And if the UK flipped the bird, said screw you, and walked out the door, not much would really happen. There'd be a big fuss, some talk about the UK not caring about human rights violations, but in the end everyone would just shrug and business would continue as usual. What's the EU going to do? Invade you?

Granted, the ECHR was signed in the 1950's, long before the EU existed. Now the UK is economically bound to the EU, and its much harder to walk away from economic ties than it is to walk away from a piece of paper you signed six decades ago. EDIT: I.E. you have reason to care because your economy is now tied to the EU and its bodies and laws. Not because you signed a piece of paper agreeing to some bullet points.

I agree that is what happens, but I personally think you might be better off staying your hand once in a while and allowing multinational organisations to do their jobs.

I view the majority of mulinational organizations to be ineffective. We're talking about the UN. The body that stands around and says "not our problem" when people are being genocided in Rwanda, and then tells the US to stop being so mean when it invades a Afghanistan for openly supporting terrorist organizations that have killed over thousands around the world throughout the later half of the 20th century.

They suck at their job. If they were effective at it, there'd be an argument to get the US to back off from playing international Batman.

 LordofHats wrote:

 dæl wrote:

You're joking right?

And if the UK flipped the bird, said screw you, and walked out the door, not much would really happen. There'd be a big fuss, some talk about the UK not caring about human rights violations, but in the end everyone would just shrug and business would continue as usual. What's the EU going to do? Invade you?

Granted, the ECHR was signed in the 1950's, long before the EU existed. Now the UK is economically bound to the EU, and its much harder to walk away from economic ties than it is to walk away from a piece of paper you signed six decades ago.

The European Court is nothing to do with the EU, leaving the EU won't absolve us of our responsibilities to the ECHR, neither would it repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 which enshrines the ECHR in English and Welsh Law (unsure on Scotland, they have their own law). But, for arguments sake, lets say we did walk away from the European Court and its Conventoin, that would led to economic ruin as we would not be allowed to stay in the EU and we would not be allowed a Norwegian or Swiss like trading union, and for the sake of what exactly? The ECHR is a perfectly reasonable convention, one that was primarily drafted by British lawyers, it has no detrimental effect on the lives of Brits to have a few, very reasonable, fundamental human rights.

I agree that is what happens, but I personally think you might be better off staying your hand once in a while and allowing multinational organisations to do their jobs.

I view the majority of mulinational organizations to be ineffective.

Agreed, however that need not always be the case.

If you are going to mention Rwanda then perhaps you need to look closer to home, the UNSC was prevented from acting because the Clinton administration's policy was "Let's withdraw altogether. Let's get out of Rwanda. Leave it to its fate." That is before you look at how the US wanting $6.5 to cover transport for peacekeeping forces delayed their deployment.

So by all means claim the UN is toothless, but first look at who keeps vetoing its actions more than anyone else.

 dæl wrote:
The European Court is nothing to do with the EU, leaving the EU won't absolve us of our responsibilities to the ECHR

But leaving the ECHR would make your position in the EU strenuous. Thus, your position in the EU gives a very practical reason to abide by the ECHR, as leaving it presents a danger to your economy and long term political station.

neither would it repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 which enshrines the ECHR in English and Welsh Law (unsure on Scotland, they have their own law).

That you needed to pass a law yourselves to say that you won't violate an international treaty would seem to suggest that the treaty itself wasn't that binding to you.

The ECHR is a perfectly reasonable convention, one that was primarily drafted by British lawyers, it has no detrimental effect on the lives of Brits to have a few, very reasonable, fundamental human rights.

I have nothing against the ECHR, I'm merely citing it as an example of international treaties. Signing a piece of paper is only as binding to a country as they feel the treaty benefits them. If a country feels they are more benefited by not abiding by their treaties, there's not much that stops them from ignoring them. What's the rest of the world going to do?

We're the most powerful economy in the world, and many UN councils have to go through the security council where we have a permanent seat. By the very structure of international politics, we're pretty much immune to everything more potent than a wag of the finger.

The only way a country can suffer for not playing by the rules is if it falls on the bad side of the world's power players, which isn't about the treaty. The treaty simply becomes a mechanism for countries to exert their will over another.

So by all means claim the UN is toothless, but first look at who keeps vetoing its actions more than anyone else.

That's my point. The UN's own structure makes it a toothless body. The fact that five countries have permanent seats on key bodies is but one of many structural problems. All the UN has ever really done is keep the world playing to the Tune of America, Britain, France, Russia, and China. So many decisions go through them, that it's not hard for these five to get what they want.

 LordofHats wrote:

That you needed to pass a law yourselves to say that you won't violate an international treaty would seem to suggest that the treaty itself wasn't that binding to you.

Before 98 people could apply to the European Court for redress, the HRA was passed to prevent laws being passed that would contravene it, this was done to reduce the number of claims there would be.

I have nothing against the ECHR, I'm merely citing it as an example of international treaties. Signing a piece of paper is only as binding to a country as they feel the treaty benefits them. If a country feels they are more benefited by not abiding by their treaties, there's not much that stops them from ignoring them. What's the rest of the world going to do?

Which leaves us with an international anarchy, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

We're the most powerful economy in the world, and many UN councils have to go through the security council where we have a permanent seat. By the very structure of international politics, we're pretty much immune to everything more potent than a wag of the finger.

The only way a country can suffer for not playing by the rules is if it falls on the bad side of the world's power players, which isn't about the treaty. The treaty simply becomes a mechanism for countries to exert their will over another.

But your immunity isn't permanent, international politics will not look the same in a couple of decades, especially if China manage to replace the dollar as the international reserve currency. The US's foreign policy isn't helping them, the constant messing around in Latin America has rather annoyed them, even without the invasions your stock in the Middle East wouldn't be that high due to the unending support of Israel. You can annoy every corner of the world when you are the only superpower, but if you aren't then things get a little more difficult.

The UN's own structure makes it a toothless body. The fact that five countries have permanent seats on key bodies is but one of many structural problems. All the UN has ever really done is keep the world playing to the Tune of America, Britain, France, Russia, and China. So many decisions go through them, that it's not hard for these five to get what they want.

I could not agree more, which is why countries should not be allowed to veto resolutions.

 dæl wrote:

Before 98 people could apply to the European Court for redress, the HRA was passed to prevent laws being passed that would contravene it, this was done to reduce the number of claims there would be.

Then it would seem that until then the ECHR was a treaty you agreed to follow but not law of the land until you decided to make it such.

Which leaves us with an international anarchy, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

International politics are always anarchy. Treaties might be inconvenient or annoying, but usually you follow them anyway to foster trust and to maintain your own credibility. Same thing with your or my personal friends. They might irk us time to time, and we might do things we don't want to, but we go along with it because they're friends and we want them to stay that way. The mutual interest in cooperation is all that really binds international law. Beyond that, it functions a lot like high school cliques (the US is with the jocks )

But your immunity isn't permanent, international politics will not look the same in a couple of decades,

Hence why I find playing batman annoying, especially when we're so very bad at it. Especially our intelligence bodies (which makes the Intelligence part of CIA very ironic). The CIA plays games in Korea and fails, Korean war. They play games in Vietnam and fail, Veitnam war. They play games in Afghanistan and sort of win, 9/11. Even when the win they manage to somehow fail. You'd think that with all the money and experience, we'd at least be marginally better at it than we are.

especially if China manage to replace the dollar as the international reserve currency.

Even if it does happen, in itself it doesn't mean much to the US's world power position.

You can annoy every corner of the world when you are the only superpower, but if you aren't then things get a little more difficult.

You can do it when there's more than one. We already did it with Russia for a few decades.

This attitude given by some Americans where they get to decide what treaties they'll follow at any given point in time is often described as peculiarly American, but really it's just the product of being the biggest fish in the sea right now. In that context its entirely understandable, because telling yourself that you're the biggest and most awesome and you get to do what you want is a nice thing to dream about, so much so it's tempting to pretend that it's actually true.

But the reality is that if the US doesn't accept treaties as binding, then no-one else does either. It might make you feel all manly and big dog to say you aren't going to follow some international law, but that also means no-one else is going to bother following international free trade treaties (or accept international court assigned penalties for breaches), and that means US exports get hammered, and US investments overseas no longer have any protection from nationalisation.

The fantasy falls down, and you quickly realise that despite being oh so super strong, you still have to act like adults. Which of course, the US government does, and in fact leads the world in establishing a solid, legal framework that businesses and individuals can rely on. Well, apart from the ocassional bit of grandstanding childishness from congress (which is the product of the population at large not understanding the above, and thinking they get to act like children).

 LordofHats wrote:
That's my point. The UN's own structure makes it a toothless body. The fact that five countries have permanent seats on key bodies is but one of many structural problems. All the UN has ever really done is keep the world playing to the Tune of America, Britain, France, Russia, and China. So many decisions go through them, that it's not hard for these five to get what they want.

It's worth noting the UN is not merely the General Assembly. There's millions of kids across the planet with access to vaccines who really couldn't give two gaks about what goes on in the General Assembly.

You can do it when there's more than one. We already did it with Russia for a few decades.

Interesting reference. Because note that the US won the Cold War. It was won in large part because trade, especially with other countries willingly entering in to trade negotiations, makes every one of those countries much richer and much more powerful. In contrast the Soviet system of enforcing obedience from a handful of vassal states without offering them anything of mutual benefit... well that system sucked ass, and was a large part of the Soviet system disappearing in to a hole of mutual misery.

Conflict and coercion is just plain not as effective for either party as co-operation.

 dæl wrote:
Fancy trying that again? And this time playing the ball rather than the man? Or is your actual argument that because Chomsky said something it can't be true, regardless of the fact he generally provides sources for his claims?

You mean that pointing out that someone has ideological blinkers is irrelevant? Oh, and I like your time frame for saying that the US and it's clients carried out more terrorism, shame it didn't look at Russia's conduct some decades prior, including the use of famine as a weapon, mass executions, etc.

All that ICC talk reminded me of my favorite piece of legislation in last thirty or so years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

All of the lulz.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Fancy trying that again? And this time playing the ball rather than the man? Or is your actual argument that because Chomsky said something it can't be true, regardless of the fact he generally provides sources for his claims?

You mean that pointing out that someone has ideological blinkers is irrelevant? Oh, and I like your time frame for saying that the US and it's clients carried out more terrorism, shame it didn't look at Russia's conduct some decades prior, including the use of famine as a weapon, mass executions, etc.

Unless you are actually going to back up those assertions then I think I will side with the respected academics I referenced earlier. While the USSR's client states committed some crimes against humanity(Ceausescu being a prime example) I think that the US's client states were worse, how many desaparecidos were there in Chile and Argentina and Guatemala while they were clients. Bear in mind we aren't talking about a governments actions against its own people we are talking about foreign policy being used to sow terror. If you want to look at a countries own citizens then lets, although you would probably refuse to see the indigenous population of your continent as your own citizens, letting you sidestep that genocide.

As for setting time frames, then surely that helps you rather than hinders you, the US has kept going with terrorist policies since the dismantling of the USSR, rendering people worldwide to Black sites with little regard to whether they are guilty of anything.

 sebster wrote:
This attitude given by some Americans where they get to decide what treaties they'll follow at any given point in time is often described as peculiarly American, but really it's just the product of being the biggest fish in the sea right now. In that context its entirely understandable, because telling yourself that you're the biggest and most awesome and you get to do what you want is a nice thing to dream about, so much so it's tempting to pretend that it's actually true.

But the reality is that if the US doesn't accept treaties as binding, then no-one else does either. It might make you feel all manly and big dog to say you aren't going to follow some international law, but that also means no-one else is going to bother following international free trade treaties (or accept international court assigned penalties for breaches), and that means US exports get hammered, and US investments overseas no longer have any protection from nationalisation.

The fantasy falls down, and you quickly realise that despite being oh so super strong, you still have to act like adults. Which of course, the US government does, and in fact leads the world in establishing a solid, legal framework that businesses and individuals can rely on. Well, apart from the ocassional bit of grandstanding childishness from congress (which is the product of the population at large not understanding the above, and thinking they get to act like children).

It's not so much that I advocate ignoring treaties as we please so much as recognize that a treaty is just a piece of paper. You can break it on a whim, and there are no immediate consequences unless your on the wrong side of someone with a lot more clout than you. The US' position is such that it can not only ignore treaties as it pleases, but is able to get other countries to back it ignoring treaties.

I'm not commenting on that being right, merely that it is what it is. That's how countries act when they're in a position to do it. Treaties don't get followed because anyone has to follow them, they're followed because it's generally beneficial to follow them rather than ignore them. The unbinding nature of the UN, imo, turns many of its bodies into a bunch of talking heads, which is basically just normal diplomacy conveniently located in a single building.

It's worth noting the UN is not merely the General Assembly. There's millions of kids across the planet with access to vaccines who really couldn't give two gaks about what goes on in the General Assembly.

The WHO is one of the few bodies attached to the UN that actually works (more or less) Compare it to the International Court of Justice, which basically just exists for a bunch of countries to gang up on another country over some issue while ignoring bigger ones. Or the Human Rights Council, a body that seemingly only exists to condemn a single nation (Israel) for human rights violations, while rarely taking any other incidents (including genocide) very seriously. It's very structure basically prevents any progress on any issue ever being made (unless your Israel, and occasionally, Sri Lanka but no one likes them anyway).

The credibility of the UN isn't that far off from the credibility of the Nobel Prize committees for me. Some of them are okay and mostly work, but as a body I find it mostly ineffective for anything other than grand standing. A problem unlikely to be resolved since the powers that be seem to prefer it that way.

 dæl wrote:
Unless you are actually going to back up those assertions then I think I will side with the respected academics I referenced earlier. While the USSR's client states committed some crimes against humanity(Ceausescu being a prime example) I think that the US's client states were worse, how many desaparecidos were there in Chile and Argentina and Guatemala while they were clients. Bear in mind we aren't talking about a governments actions against its own people we are talking about foreign policy being used to sow terror. If you want to look at a countries own citizens then lets, although you would probably refuse to see the indigenous population of your continent as your own citizens, letting you sidestep that genocide.

As for setting time frames, then surely that helps you rather than hinders you, the US has kept going with terrorist policies since the dismantling of the USSR, rendering people worldwide to Black sites with little regard to whether they are guilty of anything.

If you wish to believe that academics who write with a definitive bias are respected that is entirely your choice.
You seem to be shifting the goalposts somewhat. The conversation started with;

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

And now you seem to be focusing on the client states alone. And yes the time frame is relevant, unless you believe that the US has racked up a greater death toll than the Soviets ever did with their purges, gulags, pogroms against the Jews, war crimes against Germany (rape and murder), illegal annexations, forced deportations, destruction battalions, murders of civilians, rape as a weapon of war, their conduct in Afghanistan, the holdomor, and many examples besides. On death toll alone Russia is leagues ahead of the US. So yes, I object to your willful narrowing of the time frame to suit your argument.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
You make it to easy Ronin.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

I also remember the two chamber 155/158mm two chamber shells they used thinking they were HE shells that were used as IED's. Talk about when sucking day in 130 heat in MOPP4

Pretty simple as an Interviewer to know by looking. Now, who remembers the convoy's that Iraq had going in to Syria before we invaded

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

Mustard gas..... hardly a WMD. You list thiodiglycol, which is simply a chemical used in mustard gas.

So..yeah 180km range missiles and some mustard gas....

Hardly a WMD? feth you say...

https://www.google.com/search?q=effects+of+mustard+gas+kurds&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HiSPU7qwBNKNyAThkoKIDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1239&bih=747

Seems very WMD-y to me... o.O


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:
The ICC is supposed to be the punishment, but they don't seem interested in anything outside Africa atm, which is a shame.

And no Seaward, ratifying a treaty means it becomes US law, so you don't just get to pick and choose.

Actually... that's in dispute with the Supreme Court.

See here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bond-v-united-states-2/

We're funny like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So if the UN means jack why is everybody always telling me about their Agenda 21?

Wait... I thought it was the UN taking our gunz?

<--- I'm so confused. o.O

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

If you wish to believe that academics who write with a definitive bias are respected that is entirely your choice.

Can something be considered biased if it provides comprehensive references? Perhaps you might be better off actually reading things rather than writing them off as biased.

You seem to be shifting the goalposts somewhat. The conversation started with;

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that state sponsored terrorism, that is using 3rd party terrorist organisations in places where overt action has particular political ramifications, and US client states carrying out state terrorism, which is exactly what it says, that neither of these covered US domestic policy. The US are generally quite nice to their own population, that isn't the issue here.

And now you seem to be focusing on the client states alone. And yes the time frame is relevant, unless you believe that the US has racked up a greater death toll than the Soviets ever did with their purges, gulags, pogroms against the Jews, war crimes against Germany (rape and murder), illegal annexations, forced deportations, destruction battalions, murders of civilians, rape as a weapon of war, their conduct in Afghanistan, the holdomor, and many examples besides. On death toll alone Russia is leagues ahead of the US. So yes, I object to your willful narrowing of the time frame to suit your argument.

I'm not arguing that Stalin wasn't a genocidal maniac, but that was Soviet Russia, an oppressive regime. The US has consistently used terrorism as a means of foreign policy across numerous administrations whilst on the one hand claiming to be a shining light of morality and freedom, and on the other installing people like Pinochet.

 whembly wrote:


Hardly a WMD? feth you say...

https://www.google.com/search?q=effects+of+mustard+gas+kurds&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HiSPU7qwBNKNyAThkoKIDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1239&bih=747

Seems very WMD-y to me... o.O

Do we need this nonsense?

Sarin, Tabun, VX. They used nerve agents.

 dæl wrote:
Sorry I thought it was obvious that state sponsored terrorism, that is using 3rd party terrorist organisations in places where overt action has particular political ramifications, and US client states carrying out state terrorism, which is exactly what it says, that neither of these covered US domestic policy. The US are generally quite nice to their own population, that isn't the issue here.

 dæl wrote:
I'm not arguing that Stalin wasn't a genocidal maniac, but that was Soviet Russia, an oppressive regime. The US has consistently used terrorism as a means of foreign policy across numerous administrations whilst on the one hand claiming to be a shining light of morality and freedom, and on the other installing people like Pinochet.

I was taking the definition as including the use of terrorism by the state directly (and including elements of asymmetric warfare). So I can see why we arrived at different conclusion. I agree that US actions have not always matched their PR. At least the Russians have never given a crap, and have been brutally honest about it


Numerous edits owing to quote issues

By the way, the USA had no issues with Iraq gassing the Iranians, or the Kurds - then were even keeping the Iraqis in supply with agents and dual use technology up until the first gulf war well after 88'.

Shameful and duplicitous don't you think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

 44Ronin wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Hardly a WMD? feth you say...

https://www.google.com/search?q=effects+of+mustard+gas+kurds&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HiSPU7qwBNKNyAThkoKIDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1239&bih=747

Seems very WMD-y to me... o.O

Do we need this nonsense?

Sarin, Tabun, VX. They used nerve agents.

What nonsense? You're claiming the Mustard Gas isn't WMD.

Saddam Huessain is known for his use of it on the Kurds in the late 90's.

Besides...
WMD were found in Iraq. But, you don't hear about it because it didn't fit the whole narrative that Bush lied so that he can get his "cowboy" fix. To be fair, this won't ever get resolved until those classified documents are declassified in early 2020.... hopefully.

Wait? Saddam created Mustard Gas. Ronin denies or seems to think its not a WMD. Then Ronin show US helping Saddam crank up WMD production. Also Ronin named some nerve agents. Also Ronin didn't know "WMD" per say.

Mention Mustard Gas being WMD due to it being a Irritant Gas.
Did not mention though about persistent and non-persistent types
Might as well bring in another horror story of a chemical call "Blood Agents" which will eat through a pro-mask filter in like an hour
Let's not forget Anthrax. I hate the inoculation of that series but not really good protection against the "lets radiate the anthrax with this dose of rads and see what we get" type of spore
Have seen someone inject them self with atropine and commence a "kicking chicken"

Also another weapon of mass destruction which was use "recently" being a pressure cooker was the Boston Bomber.


morning all

http://www.mintpressnews.com/about-mint-press-news/

That site is totally legit

Tracy Lee and Katie Lentsch are a bit good looking

I'll just leave this here...

https://news.vice.com/article/guantanamo-prisoners-get-to-play-video-games-in-a-recliner-while-being-force-fed?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Oh the inhumanity!

Detainees can choose from hundreds of video games and movies, said Milton, the Guantanamo librarian who doesn't give out his last name. They can watch Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland or play Portal 2. But, say, Call of Duty: Ghosts isn't available — Milton said the library doesn't carry violent video games or movies.

I'm shocked. WTH.

Well to be fair, do terrorists want to play as US troops who are killing terrorists

Question though can they be good at the game? I hate having team mates who cannot play

Yeah, being allowed to play computer games in a comfy chair totally makes up for being held for years on end without trial. I dunno why anyone would complain.

 Jihadin wrote:
Question though can they be good at the game? I hate having team mates who cannot play

I think the greatest torture we could ever subject our detainees to is one many of us subject ourselves too willingly; MOBAs. Give them LoL accounts and watch them drown in their own tears.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, being allowed to play computer games in a comfy chair totally makes up for being held for years on end without trial. I dunno why anyone would complain.

You're deflecting*... this is the image that some believe Gitmo has:



*notwithstanding regarding indefinite detention.

Woah, I'm deflecting?
Jeez!

 Da Boss wrote:
Woah, I'm deflecting?
Jeez!

I hear you recently found the Mirror Shield in the Spirit Temple

That's after he got the Blessing from the Lady right?

How many of the detainee have countries willing to take them back I wonder..

 Jihadin wrote:
That's after he got the Blessing from the Lady right?

How many of the detainee have countries willing to take them back I wonder..

Who wouldn't want to take back someone who may pose a serious threat to national security, and who may turn on his own country if they are on good terms with the US?

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
You make it to easy Ronin.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

I also remember the two chamber 155/158mm two chamber shells they used thinking they were HE shells that were used as IED's. Talk about when sucking day in 130 heat in MOPP4

Pretty simple as an Interviewer to know by looking. Now, who remembers the convoy's that Iraq had going in to Syria before we invaded

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

Mustard gas..... hardly a WMD. You list thiodiglycol, which is simply a chemical used in mustard gas.

So..yeah 180km range missiles and some mustard gas....

Holy crap, who did you "interview" that said mustard gas wasn't a WMD?

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait? Saddam created Mustard Gas. Ronin denies or seems to think its not a WMD. Then Ronin show US helping Saddam crank up WMD production. Also Ronin named some nerve agents. Also Ronin didn't know "WMD" per say.

And all the found weapons were pre91 stock. Contrary to the pretext for war. As I said, it was a war of aggression with little justification.

Let's not forget Anthrax. I hate the inoculation of that series but not really good protection against the "lets radiate the anthrax with this dose of rads and see what we get" type of spore
Have seen someone inject them self with atropine and commence a "kicking chicken"

Anthrax, another scam:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/15/anthrax-iraq

We can see rums problem, reaction solution at play:

Even if our given pretext for invading Iraq was wrong, it was still the right thing to do.

If anything, complain that we didn't use any of the laundry list of "legitimate" reasons for invasion.

Relapse wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
You make it to easy Ronin.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

I also remember the two chamber 155/158mm two chamber shells they used thinking they were HE shells that were used as IED's. Talk about when sucking day in 130 heat in MOPP4

Pretty simple as an Interviewer to know by looking. Now, who remembers the convoy's that Iraq had going in to Syria before we invaded

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

Mustard gas..... hardly a WMD. You list thiodiglycol, which is simply a chemical used in mustard gas.

So..yeah 180km range missiles and some mustard gas....

Holy crap, who did you "interview" that said mustard gas wasn't a WMD?

Holy crap, order a dictionary look up the word hardly. Basic understanding of the language that we communicate is a good thing. If you can't understand english, let alone posts, stop trying to stawman.

As I said decaying pre 91 mustard stocks and a bunch of unfilled 180km missiles are hardly a world threat.

The 155mm shells? It's enough trouble flying them across the border without your neighbours responding in kind.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Question though can they be good at the game? I hate having team mates who cannot play

I think the greatest torture we could ever subject our detainees to is one many of us subject ourselves too willingly; MOBAs. Give them LoL accounts and watch them drown in their own tears.

Holy fething gak that's amazing.

Wow Ronin Does your fellow Aussie to not think Mustard Gas is not a WMD. You totally lack a understanding of tactical and strategic delivery? If you had interview whatshisname like you said you did. You know the one that had "George" standing in same room watching the guy getting interrogated. Oh wait. The AISO name "George" cannot be named due to security reasons. That you would at least delve into "WMD" and learn what it entails. Or did you lie about "interviewing"?

Does your fellow Aussie's also think the only thing qualify as a WMD is a nuclear bomb? What are they teaching over there

 Jihadin wrote:
Wow Ronin Does your fellow Aussie to not think Mustard Gas is not a WMD.

What are you trying to type here?

 Jihadin wrote:
If you had interview whatshisname like you said you did. You know the one that had "George" standing in same room watching the guy getting interrogated. Oh wait. The AISO name "George" cannot be named due to security reasons.

What are you trying to type here/what point are you trying to make?

 Jihadin wrote:
Does your fellow Aussie's also think the only thing qualify as a WMD is a nuclear bomb? What are they teaching over there

No, the definition of WMD is understood by and large down here, at least in the circles of people that I know.

Seriously Jihadin, your posts are about 50% actual sentences, 50% poor grammar and garbled English. I want to read what you write, but it's damn hard to.

Not a Grammar King

Ronin does not think Mustard Gas is a WMD, being its an irritant chemical. To him, since it has a small foot print of an area of effect and it does not kill out right like Sarin gas its not really a WMD

Ronin said he interview Habib but pulled a Baron Veigh on a few of us. He knows the subject overview but does not know material within the subject

 LordofHats wrote:
It's not so much that I advocate ignoring treaties as we please so much as recognize that a treaty is just a piece of paper. You can break it on a whim, and there are no immediate consequences unless your on the wrong side of someone with a lot more clout than you. The US' position is such that it can not only ignore treaties as it pleases, but is able to get other countries to back it ignoring treaties.

I'm not commenting on that being right, merely that it is what it is. That's how countries act when they're in a position to do it. Treaties don't get followed because anyone has to follow them, they're followed because it's generally beneficial to follow them rather than ignore them.

And I'm saying the ability of the US to ignore international obligations is way overstated. Being the biggest economy with the biggest military gives scope to rule lawyer your way of obligations and reduces the consequences of breaches, but it doesn't mean there's no consequence for doing so.

You are still dependent on international trade for much of your wealth, and on international law to protect your investments overseas. If you were to act as if international law meant nothing, you would destabilise international trade and remove protections from your overseas investments, and that would have serious economic consequences.

What I am saying is that to the extent that the US enforces and follows international law, it does so not because it is acting nice, but because international law is extremely important to US wealth and prosperity.

The unbinding nature of the UN, imo, turns many of its bodies into a bunch of talking heads, which is basically just normal diplomacy conveniently located in a single building.

Sort of. Talking purely about the General Assembly, the measure has always been how much countries will limit themselves to the UN resolutions, which in turn depends on how much the major countries (the permanent SC members plus Japan and Germany) will limit themselves purely to what they can get through the SC.

And that's ebbed and flowed, especially with regards to the US, based on how much the US can get its agenda through the UN, and also on the politics of the US at the time.

Right now it's at a bit of a low, in part due to US weirdness over Israel, but mostly because of that whole Iraq mess. But there's still a huge advantage to being able to say 'what we want to do is legal and authorised by the UN' so there's no reason to think the current low point will last forever.

The WHO is one of the few bodies attached to the UN that actually works (more or less) Compare it to the International Court of Justice, which basically just exists for a bunch of countries to gang up on another country over some issue while ignoring bigger ones. Or the Human Rights Council, a body that seemingly only exists to condemn a single nation (Israel) for human rights violations, while rarely taking any other incidents (including genocide) very seriously. It's very structure basically prevents any progress on any issue ever being made (unless your Israel, and occasionally, Sri Lanka but no one likes them anyway).

Actually there's a whole bunch of UN bodies that just go about doing the job of processing and organizing world affairs. It's just that we don't talk about those bodies, because who in the hell wants to talk about the body that sets universal standards for aircraft communication, or the standards for health and safety on deep ocean freight ships.

We, quite rightly, debate the more controversial elements, like the General Assembly and the ICJ. But in doing so, most people mistakenly think they make up most, or even all of the UN. Actually most of the UN is involved in lots of boring stuff, like setting up international standards and tracking global health and food trends.

The credibility of the UN isn't that far off from the credibility of the Nobel Prize committees for me. Some of them are okay and mostly work, but as a body I find it mostly ineffective for anything other than grand standing. A problem unlikely to be resolved since the powers that be seem to prefer it that way.

This is basically the same issue. No-one outside of physics hardly covers who won the prize, because it'll be about stuff most all of us can't even pretend to understand. Instead we focus on the prizes that are tied to politics, mostly the Peace Prize, but also to a small extent the Economics prize (and even there we confuse the politics of the economist with the technical merits of his work).

And so we end up thinking the Nobel prize is all political and bad, when it goes about awarding most of its prizes without any political involvement at all (well, there's politics, but it's university style people politics, not right wing left wing stuff).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
What nonsense? You're claiming the Mustard Gas isn't WMD.

You know, there was a time when WMS refers to weapons of actual mass destruction. You know, nuclear weapons. Weapons that could destroy cities.

The Bush administration expanded that definition to include chemical and biological weapons in order to justify its planned invasion of Iraq.

So scoffing at the presence of some mustard gas as a justification for the invasion is pretty much the only sensible conclusion.

WMD were found in Iraq. But, you don't hear about it because it didn't fit the whole narrative that Bush lied so that he can get his "cowboy" fix. To be fair, this won't ever get resolved until those classified documents are declassified in early 2020.... hopefully.

No, it was heard about, and laughed at because it was silly. The idea that a handful of chemical weapons would be enough to justify invasion of another country is quite ridiculous.

There isn't a country on Earth that doesn't hold 1,000 times the killing power simply in conventional high explosive. The idea that such pitiful amount of chemical weapons would be deemed a threat to justify invading a country just has no sensible basis at all.

There was a time a Claymore mine was consider a Anti Personnel mine but by today's standard its a WMD on how it is used

This is basically the same issue. No-one outside of physics hardly covers who won the prize, because it'll be about stuff most all of us can't even pretend to understand. Instead we focus on the prizes that are tied to politics, mostly the Peace Prize, but also to a small extent the Economics prize (and even there we confuse the politics of the economist with the technical merits of his work).

And so we end up thinking the Nobel prize is all political and bad, when it goes about awarding most of its prizes without any political involvement at all (well, there's politics, but it's university style people politics, not right wing left wing stuff).

The Literature and the Physics prize have both been criticized for several decades (especially the literature prize) for being awarded to people for reasons other than their work in their fields, the most famous example being the two committee members who gave themselves the Nobel Prize in Literature. Not ever prize winner is picked for political reasons, but the credibility of several of the prize committees is shotty because they're not even good at hiding it when they pick someone for other reasons (like when the picked a poorly known and mediocre author in China simply because he was a dissident against the Chinese government).

 Jihadin wrote:
There was a time a Claymore mine was consider a Anti Personnel mine but by today's standard its a WMD on how it is used

Maybe in unpatched Black Ops, but not real life.

I mean, the use of land mines has been compared to the use of WMDs, but that primarily focuses on the kind you bury and is an analogy rather than an assignment to the category; at least for the most part.

 Jihadin wrote:
Does your fellow Aussie's also think the only thing qualify as a WMD is a nuclear bomb? What are they teaching over there

The actual use of the term


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
There was a time a Claymore mine was consider a Anti Personnel mine but by today's standard its a WMD on how it is used

That wouldn't surprise me

The term WMD is fast becoming the new 'assault weapon'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The Literature and the Physics prize have both been criticized for several decades (especially the literature prize) for being awarded to people for reasons other than their work in their fields, the most famous example being the two committee members who gave themselves the Nobel Prize in Literature. Not ever prize winner is picked for political reasons, but the credibility of several of the prize committees is shotty because they're not even good at hiding it when they pick someone for other reasons (like when the picked a poorly known and mediocre author in China simply because he was a dissident against the Chinese government).

Fair point, the desire to send a political message flows in to other prizes as well. But then you could say the same about most any prize, the Booker has its favourites too (what's that, you're an Indian who's written a book about magical realism, please take all our Booker).

 sebster wrote:

Actually there's a whole bunch of UN bodies that just go about doing the job of processing and organizing world affairs. It's just that we don't talk about those bodies, because who in the hell wants to talk about the body that sets universal standards for aircraft communication, or the standards for health and safety on deep ocean freight ships.

Or any governing body that is competent.

Those are headlines reserved for media outlets like The Onion.

Well, chemical weapons are a little easier to deliver in a terrorist attack than large amounts of explosives.

Its easier to effect more people with chemicals than with high explosives. You can also make some very nasty things with very common household cleaning/pool chemicals.

A nuke is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, but ultimately its not easy to build one or sneak it in somewhere. Its easier to get some nasty, but much easier to acquire, chemicals/poisons and deliver those.

Thus a focus on weapons such as this is understandable.

Well. You can carry Anthrax powder in a metal pencil or pen. Disperse it in stores around Holidays and everyone think they have the onset of a cold after a couple days

 sebster wrote:


Fair point, the desire to send a political message flows in to other prizes as well. But then you could say the same about most any prize, the Booker has its favourites too (what's that, you're an Indian who's written a book about magical realism, please take all our Booker).

I say the same thing about how the only reason the Academy didn't give The Dark Knight film of the year is simply because it was based on a comic book, which apparently isn't artsy enough EDIT: And the only reason Hurt Locker won was because the Academy has a long standing grudge against James Cameron and just wanted to spite him

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, chemical weapons are a little easier to deliver in a terrorist attack than large amounts of explosives.

That's untrue.

Unless you're talking about a small amount of a chemical/biological agent aimed at a specific target you will need a fairly complex, and heavy, delivery mechanism; probably an explosive charge inside a large container of the compound you wish to distribute. And even then a ground detonation would severely limit the effects of a chemical agent like mustard gas.

 dogma wrote:
Or any governing body that is competent.

Those are headlines reserved for media outlets like The Onion.

Fair point. Parallels between the UN and governments are always a little problematic (much of the reason people get bothered about the General Assembly is that they think it is a government and expect it to act like one, when it isn't), but in this case the analogy is bang on.

 sebster wrote:


Fair point. Parallels between the UN and governments are always a little problematic (much of the reason people get bothered about the General Assembly is that they think it is a government and expect it to act like one, when it isn't), but in this case the analogy is bang on.

That's basically my point Earlier in the thread a poster spoke of the UN as though they existed in some special authority, when behaviorally and structurally they lack the capacity to be anything other than collective voice of opinion (and even then, its usually a heavily slanted opinion in favor of the US and its allies). What few decisions the UN actually has the power to make become sort of bunk in the grand scheme of things since it's few decision making bodies tend to just be mechanisms for bizarre decision making.

If anything I'd prefer the UN became more of a goverment-like body. But that's not going to happen.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, chemical weapons are a little easier to deliver in a terrorist attack than large amounts of explosives.

That's untrue.

Unless you're talking about a small amount of a chemical/biological agent aimed at a specific target you will need a fairly complex, and heavy, delivery mechanism; probably an explosive charge inside a large container of the compound you wish to distribute. And even then a ground detonation would severely limit the effects of a chemical agent like mustard gas.

I think I agree with GT. You don't need a lot of fatalities to get the desired effect, so you also don't need a lot of whatever agent you are using. The Tokyo subway sarin attacks used no explosives, spread tons of fear and only killed what, like a dozen people iirc?

 LordofHats wrote:
I say the same thing about how the only reason the Academy didn't give The Dark Knight film of the year is simply because it was based on a comic book, which apparently isn't artsy enough EDIT: And the only reason Hurt Locker won was because the Academy has a long standing grudge against James Cameron and just wanted to spite him

The snubbing of comic book movies is part of it, but mostly it comes down to the behind the scenes marketing and positioning by the studios. And that stuff is expensive, in both dollars and social capital, and I don't think Warner Bros really needed to chase that for The Dark Knight because it really wouldn't have impacted the box office.

The films that year that really needed statues were Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire, which really needed to appear artistically strong to draw a crowd. So their studios poured money in to delivering statues.

Oh and Milk, of course, that needed Penn to get a best actor gong to draw crowds.


The Hurt Locker and Avatar is a classic example. Because early on there was this push to drive a narrative of 'will it be the big budget spectable piece Avatar by the ex-husband, or the small budget Hurt Locker topical war movie by the ex-wife?', which cleverly made the question just about those two movies, and wiped all the actually good movies that were made that year. I knew the scam was in that year when they announced best screenplay and Hurt Locker somehow won out over Inglorious Basterds.


I mean, I'm overstating the case somewhat in claiming it is that deterministic, but it is certainly powerful. And of course The Dark Knight did win like 6 oscars, for Ledger's performance (which was absolutely deserved, and kind of inevitable after his death) and a bunch of technical things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
That's basically my point Earlier in the thread a poster spoke of the UN as though they existed in some special authority, when behaviorally and structurally they lack the capacity to be anything other than collective voice of opinion (and even then, its usually a heavily slanted opinion in favor of the US and its allies). What few decisions the UN actually has the power to make become sort of bunk in the grand scheme of things since it's few decision making bodies tend to just be mechanisms for bizarre decision making.

Well, it has a special authority in that it can authorise military activity in a non-defensive measure, and that is the only legal way of doing so. Whether that authority has any real meaning is a whole other thing, of course. And I get your point in that sense.

My point though, was really just about how the UN is actually a really big organisation, and does a whole lot more than what people commonly think of it as, just the General Assembly.

If anything I'd prefer the UN became more of a goverment-like body. But that's not going to happen.

In an ideal world I'd agree. But I think it's a bad idea for any kind of government organisation to assume a level of authority that people don't assume it ought to have. That is, as long as people don't really think of the UN as having some kind of higher authority, it would be a disaster to grant it that authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, chemical weapons are a little easier to deliver in a terrorist attack than large amounts of explosives.

Hence the move to worrying about them more in the wake of 9/11.

A nuke is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, but ultimately its not easy to build one or sneak it in somewhere.

That's why they were referred to as WMDs, and were thought of as a unique component of international relations. Because when a country got the bomb it really did change how you could interact with them, in a way that a stockpile of some chemical weapon just didn't.

Thus a focus on weapons such as this is understandable.

As a focus, sure. As a reason to go about invading other countries, it's completely insane. I mean, do you think chemical weapon stockpiles are more likely to go missing under a stable government, or in the midst of a war and a collapsing government?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I think I agree with GT. You don't need a lot of fatalities to get the desired effect, so you also don't need a lot of whatever agent you are using. The Tokyo subway sarin attacks used no explosives, spread tons of fear and only killed what, like a dozen people iirc?

Boston Marathon bombing?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even if our given pretext for invading Iraq was wrong, it was still the right thing to do.

If anything, complain that we didn't use any of the laundry list of "legitimate" reasons for invasion.

We did, though. The resolution authorizing force against Iraq didn't solely consist of the line, "They have WMDs."

There were, if memory serves, seven or eight separate reasons cited. Everyone - administration, opposition, media - shorthanded the entire thing down to WMDs, because it was the sexiest and the easiest to talk about.

 Seaward wrote:
The resolution authorizing force against Iraq

Humour me, what Resolution was that again?

 dæl wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
The resolution authorizing force against Iraq

Humour me, what Resolution was that again?

This one.

 Seaward wrote:
We did, though. The resolution authorizing force against Iraq didn't solely consist of the line, "They have WMDs."

There were, if memory serves, seven or eight separate reasons cited. Everyone - administration, opposition, media - shorthanded the entire thing down to WMDs, because it was the sexiest and the easiest to talk about.

Not so much the sexiest, as the one Colin Powell convinced the rest of the administration would be the best sell to the American people and the international community.

He was right on that as well, because talking about human rights violations was a complete nonsense when Mugabe was actively doing far worse at that time without anyone even hinting that the US and UK were going to try and overthrow him. The thing that actually differentiated Hussein from the rest was agreement to remove his stockpile of weapons, and his breach of that agreement. It was the only coherent cassus belli.

On the other hand, Powell was wrong because once you make it about WMDs, you actually have to find some once you've invaded. Whoopsie doopsie.

 Seaward wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
The resolution authorizing force against Iraq

Humour me, what Resolution was that again?

This one.

Cheers, was any evidence ever found linking al qaeda to Iraq? Or any of the terrorist groups mentioned? And what do Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have to do with anything? You surely can't use that as a justification for an invasion?

 dæl wrote:
Cheers, was any evidence ever found linking al qaeda to Iraq? Or any of the terrorist groups mentioned? And what do Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have to do with anything? You surely can't use that as a justification for an invasion?

You can use anything you want as a justification for invasion.

 Seaward wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Cheers, was any evidence ever found linking al qaeda to Iraq? Or any of the terrorist groups mentioned? And what do Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have to do with anything? You surely can't use that as a justification for an invasion?

You can use anything you want as a justification for invasion.

So would you admit that the justification was a series of baseless accusations about terrorism combined with some nod to chemical weapons given to Saddam by the US and human rights abuses, that were mostly carried out while Saddam had US backing?

 dæl wrote:
So would you admit that the justification was a series of baseless accusations about terrorism combined with some nod to chemical weapons given to Saddam by the US and human rights abuses, that were mostly carried out while Saddam had US backing?

No, but that's because I read my own link.

 Seaward wrote:

 dæl wrote:
So would you admit that the justification was a series of baseless accusations about terrorism combined with some nod to chemical weapons given to Saddam by the US and human rights abuses, that were mostly carried out while Saddam had US backing?

No, but that's because I read my own link.

As did I, hence my asking whether there was any base to the accusations regarding terrorism. I took your silence on the matter to mean there wasn't any, but if there was then please refer me to the evidence of such.

The chemical weapons that Iraq had were given to them by the US. Iraq used chemical weapons to "brutally oppress" its own people in the late 80s, when it had the support of the US. What does that leave? Some other countries didn't like them, and if that counts then that would give Iran justification to invade Israel. And then some nonsense about US policy on terrorism, which as you failed to provide any evidence of links to terrorism doesn't really cut the mustard.

Notice the money for families of suicide bombers dried up in Israel?

Congressional investigators say Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel.

Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan - where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program - to reward the families up to $25,000 each.

Documents prepared for a Wednesday hearing by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings about how Saddam funneled money to the Palestinian families.

Investigators examining the oil-for-food program felt it was "important for us to determine whether the profits from his corruption were put toward terrorist purposes," committee chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said of Saddam's well-known financial support of suicide bombers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/saddams-suicide-bomb-funds/