Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dæl wrote:

The IBC project released a report detailing the deaths it recorded between March 2003 and March 2005[71] in which it recorded 24,865 civilian deaths. The report says the U.S. and its allies were responsible for the largest share (37%) of the 24,865 deaths. The remaining deaths were attributed to anti-occupations forces (9%), crime (36%) and unknown agents (11%). It also lists the primary sources used by the media — mortuaries, medics, Iraqi officials, eyewitnesses, police, relatives, U.S.-coalition, journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), friends/associates and other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

37+9+36+11=93

dæl wrote:
Yup. Bullying is the ability to make people do what you want them to do when they don't want to do it. Under threat of violence

Whoever isn't on the side of the United States doesn't have the military might to back up their opinions. No authority means your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Authority
The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience

Bullying

Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

You say six ; I say half dozen.

Frazzled wrote:
this is not something exectly new to GB. Under your standard Queen ELizabeth is a war criminal too. Don't think so!

Liz? no not really. She signed off on Blair's war, but was misled, and had no other place in policy making. Now Vicky, absolutely, masses of genocide done in her name, with her blessing. As I mentioned earlier the concentration camp was invented during her reign.

As for Gitmo, its wrong on one of these or the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

But then why would that bother anyone willing to use white phosphorous.

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:But Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria must follow their resolutions? It's funny how Israel doesn't bother either.

Yup. Bullying is the ability to make people do what you want them to do when they don't want to do it. Under threat of violence

Whoever isn't on the side of the United States doesn't have the military might to back up their opinions. No authority means your opinion is just that, an opinion.

How would Roosevelt feel about this?

Like AustonT, I don't see any distinction between bullying and authority.

Who cares about Roosevelt?

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:But Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria must follow their resolutions? It's funny how Israel doesn't bother either.

Yup. Bullying is the ability to make people do what you want them to do when they don't want to do it. Under threat of violence

Whoever isn't on the side of the United States doesn't have the military might to back up their opinions. No authority means your opinion is just that, an opinion.

How would Roosevelt feel about this?

Like AustonT, I don't see any distinction between bullying and authority.

Who cares about Roosevelt?

he'd be just fine with it. Roosevelt embargoed Japan from all oil products, thus setting in motion Pearl Harbor and that whole Singapore mess. he also inaugurated Lend Lease, and sent the US navy to go shoot up "pirates" sinking ships in the Atlantic, those pirates being German U boats.
He also ordered the opportunistic hit on Yammamoto but an Air Force (ok Air Corps at the time) squadron and had thousands of US citizens of Japanese, Germans, and Italian Americans interned in the states.

I'd so yea he'd be just fine with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
this is not something exectly new to GB. Under your standard Queen ELizabeth is a war criminal too. Don't think so!

Liz? no not really. She signed off on Blair's war, but was misled .

Ah see, she's using the Bush defense. Evidently that means nothing. off with her head! I'd suggest the White Tower for old times sake.

Frazzled wrote:Ah see, she's using the Bush defense. Evidently that means nothing. off with her head! I'd suggest the White Tower for old times sake.

I'll bet you say that about all the royalty.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Ah see, she's using the Bush defense. Evidently that means nothing. off with her head! I'd suggest the White Tower for old times sake.

I'll bet you say that about all the royalty.

Now that you mention it...

My allusion to Roosevelt is a reference to him setting up the UN in the first place. @AustonT, fair enough on the maths can't argue with dodgy figures, I doubt we will know for quite some time the exact figures. We didn't have figures for WW2 until 1970, so give it a few years.

As for the difference between authority and bullying, one is forcing people to act appropriately for the benefit of everyone, the other is pure self interest that breeds resentment.

As I said before. Is America more or less safe based on the actions of the past decade?
Britain is far less safe.

I'm all for becoming a republic, but tbf to her, she was lied to.

Roosevelt didn't set up the UN. He was pushing up daisies long before then.

No successful attacks so far. Bin Laden is dead, many Al Qaeda killed.

Whats interesting is that much of the reports about WMD's came from Britain...

dæl wrote:My allusion to Roosevelt is a reference to him setting up the UN in the first place. @AustonT, fair enough on the maths can't argue with dodgy figures, I doubt we will know for quite some time the exact figures. We didn't have figures for WW2 until 1970, so give it a few years.

As for the difference between authority and bullying, one is forcing people to act appropriately for the benefit of everyone, the other is pure self interest that breeds resentment.

As I said before. Is America more or less safe based on the actions of the past decade?
Britain is far less safe.

I'm all for becoming a republic, but tbf to her, she was lied to.

I'd say more safe honestly. We've built our intelligence agencies back up after what clinton did to them. We have better networks with other countries in that field. Plus we killed the hell out of a lot of muj.

Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.

AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.

I do hear some horror stories about other airports. But rest assured, at MSP at the very least, we handle balls with skill and aplomb.

Frazzled wrote:
Whats interesting is that much of the reports about WMD's came from Britain...

Yep, it was predominantly Blair and Alister Campbell who cooked them books. Highly recommend the film "In The Loop", its a great satire on the build up to the invasion.

It was Roosevelt's ideal of what needed to exist, he used the term years before the body actually existed, I think during WW2.

AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.

So you prefer to fondle but not be fondled?
I'm confused...

What can I say. I'm a giver.

AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.

If we cut up this statement... it becomes EXTRA funny

AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.

Agreed they are worthless. I hate the incompetence and theatrics of the TSA and absent business I'll never fly now. Even with business, I take great steps to avoid flying. NONE of the foiled recent attempts were because of the TSA. Of course now the TSA has seen fit to expand their penumbra to all manner of non flying things that I look forward to people challenging in court. Its becoming a sad mix of Gestapo and the Three Stooges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:

AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.

If we cut up this statement... it becomes EXTRA funny

You're good, you're real good. Creepy but good!

I feel like the density of government employees willing to fondle these walnuts is higher in Phoenix than Montana. You know from both a sexuality and government presense standpoint.

The more dael posts... Ungh.. Your like my nemesis!
Anti war liberal guardian reader type..

A republican as well!?

We must have a duel before this week is out!

mattyrm wrote:The more dael posts... Ungh.. Your like my nemesis!
Anti war liberal guardian reader type..

A republican as well!?

We must have a duel before this week is out!

I suggest umbrellas whilst wearing proper King George whigs, in the middle of the London Bridge. At dawn of course.

mattyrm wrote:
A republican as well!?

What doest thou have against Republicans?!
Arm yourself sir!

mattyrm wrote:The more dael posts... Ungh.. Your like my nemesis!
Anti war liberal guardian reader type..

A republican as well!?

We must have a duel before this week is out!

I prefer the indy, guardian is a little too lentils and sandals even for me. Although they do have Charlie Brooker as a writer.

And sir, I shall have satisfaction!

dæl wrote:

CptJake wrote:

dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.

Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.

Your number of dead civilians is a complete joke unless you are including civilians killed by insurgents (in which case your attributing the crime to the wrong side).

The rest is a joke as welll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, like I said....

CptJake wrote: You've already declared Pres Bush a war criminal. See, don't even need a trial or court, all we need are folks like you to take the initiative. feth evidence, or process, we have PhantomViper and a slew of other internet detective/prosecutor/judge/jurors.

Falsified evidence - testemony of a taxi driver, then "sexed up"
UN mandate - where was that then?
100,000 - conservative by some estimates which claim upwards of 150,000. I picked 100,000 because it will be at least that, maybe not all had the trigger pulled by a coalition soldier, but there is direct responsibility from Bush and Blair.
Gitmo was dicussed the other day, and its ambiguous regarding legality, but certainly not morality.

Again, your casualty numbers are a complete joke.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/

Use the filters for 'US-Led Coalition, no Iraqi State Forces'. FYI, this is NOT a pro-US military website either.

From that site:

Total deaths from coalition forces:
14,781 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition.

And the rest of your arguments are about as weak as this one...

AustonT wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
A republican as well!?

What doest thou have against Republicans?!
Arm yourself sir!

I meant British ones, not American ones.

Two nations divided by a common language eh?

I would have voted McCain over Obama if he didn't get a slow for a VP, so we went for an independent. I meant Republicans in Britain, as in, the horrible unwashed jealous peasants who loathe my glorious Queen and want to replace her with a fething president.. like we dont have enough lying politicians, lets get another one!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:

mattyrm wrote:The more dael posts... Ungh.. Your like my nemesis!
Anti war liberal guardian reader type..

A republican as well!?

We must have a duel before this week is out!

I prefer the indy, guardian is a little too lentils and sandals even for me. Although they do have Charlie Brooker as a writer.

And sir, I shall have satisfaction!

Haha.. well, im glad about the Guardian, but further proving my theory, I bloody hate Charlie Brooker as well!

CptJake wrote:

dæl wrote:
Falsified evidence - testemony of a taxi driver, then "sexed up"
UN mandate - where was that then?
100,000 - conservative by some estimates which claim upwards of 150,000. I picked 100,000 because it will be at least that, maybe not all had the trigger pulled by a coalition soldier, but there is direct responsibility from Bush and Blair.
Gitmo was dicussed the other day, and its ambiguous regarding legality, but certainly not morality.

Again, your casualty numbers are a complete joke.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/

Use the filters for 'US-Led Coalition, no Iraqi State Forces'. FYI, this is NOT a pro-US military website either.

From that site:

Total deaths from coalition forces:
14,781 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition.

And the rest of your arguments are about as weak as this one...

If presented will irrefutable evidence I will change my view, comes from an education in the sciences. But as I said maybe not all had the trigger pulled by a coalition soldier, but there is direct responsibility from Bush and Blair. And real figures will not emerge for years.

My other arguments are pretty strong really, would you like to argue that the evidence used to support the invasion was true. Or that the invasion was done with a UN mandate. Or that guantanamo is ethically and morally acceptable, and that it contravenes neither the Third nor Forth Geneva Convention.

mattyrm wrote:

AustonT wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
A republican as well!?

What doest thou have against Republicans?!
Arm yourself sir!

I meant British ones, not American ones.

Two nations divided by a common language eh?

I would have voted McCain over Obama if he didn't get a slow for a VP, so we went for an independent. I meant Republicans in Britain, as in, the horrible unwashed jealous peasants who loathe my glorious Queen and want to replace her with a fething president.. like we dont have enough lying politicians, lets get another one!

It's not even that common. You ask me for a pack of fags and I'm liable to send you to the nearest homosexual establishment, or of I'm cultured enough I might actually try to sell you a bundle of sticks.

I was under the impression it was my turn to take a piss. I wanted to add something about God smiting you down but lets face it I don't have that kind of clout.
I am familiar with Rebublicans in Austrailia and the UK from the news...I'd imagine the Canucks have them too but I've never met one. I don't see the point really all that would do is piss off the royals. And don't they own significant properties and contribute the rent and proceeds to the national budget? Or did I imagine that?

AustonT wrote:I don't see the point really all that would do is piss off the royals. And don't they own significant properties and contribute the rent and proceeds to the national budget? Or did I imagine that?

The crown paid £300 million in tax last year, money from their estates, tourism and such. I think they only cost about 40 million.

We pay about 1billion a year for the sneaky fething MPs though, and their sneaky toady kids. How many of them send their boys to Afghanistan?

Anyway, this will go OT if I rant about the monarchy and the Republicans rock up.. so lets leave it there.

As I said though, you and I seem similarly aligned politically, I'm certainly not anti Republican in US terms, I agree with them with regards to fiscal matters, wellfare and healthcare reform and such..I just cant stand that so many of them are crazy for the Jesus Juice.

They don't contribute rent on property, their contributions stem from tourism. And they cost quite a lot when you factor in Royal weddings and Jubilees and silly minor Royals who have no real claim on the public purse. There are many arguments for and against, the predominant one for being that 99.99% of our politicians on both sides are chinless idiots who are just as "born to lead" as any royalty. Of course we had a war (which killed a larger proportion of the population than any other war) to decide this and republicans won, but our Lord Protector Cromwell decided to bring back the Royals, albeit with pretty much no power.

edit:didnt have the figures on it matty, cheers for that. btw, I'm all for liz seeing out her time, but charlie i just can't stand.

dæl wrote:They don't contribute rent on property, their contributions stem from tourism. And they cost quite a lot when you factor in Royal weddings and Jubilees and silly minor Royals who have no real claim on the public purse. There are many arguments for and against, the predominant one for being that 99.99% of our politicians on both sides are chinless idiots who are just as "born to lead" as any royalty. Of course we had a war (which killed a larger proportion of the population than any other war) to decide this and republicans won, but our Lord Protector Cromwell decided to bring back the Royals, albeit with pretty much no power.

edit:didnt have the figures on it matty, cheers for that. btw, I'm all for liz seeing out her time, but charlie i just can't stand.

I believe you meant "His Highness" Lord Protector Cromwell. Real republican guy that he was; picked his son not the royals to lead in non-republican and rather dynastic fashion. He was dead before the restoration of the monarchy, which was an act of an elected parliament.
I think you meant to say you had a civil war in which a particularly brutal religious dictator won a war and committed genocidal atrocities against tue Scots and Irish and attempted to set up his own family as a dynastic monarchy that was somewhat unpopular with the people.

AustonT wrote:

dæl wrote:They don't contribute rent on property, their contributions stem from tourism. And they cost quite a lot when you factor in Royal weddings and Jubilees and silly minor Royals who have no real claim on the public purse. There are many arguments for and against, the predominant one for being that 99.99% of our politicians on both sides are chinless idiots who are just as "born to lead" as any royalty. Of course we had a war (which killed a larger proportion of the population than any other war) to decide this and republicans won, but our Lord Protector Cromwell decided to bring back the Royals, albeit with pretty much no power.

edit:didnt have the figures on it matty, cheers for that. btw, I'm all for liz seeing out her time, but charlie i just can't stand.

I believe you meant "His Highness" Lord Protector Cromwell. Real republican guy that he was; picked his son not the royals to lead in non-republican and rather dynastic fashion. He was dead before the restoration of the monarchy, which was an act of an elected parliament.
I think you meant to say you had a civil war in which a particularly brutal religious dictator won a war and committed genocidal atrocities against tue Scots and Irish and attempted to set up his own family as a dynastic monarchy that was somewhat unpopular with the people.

Yep, that sounds about right. Theres a reason people say Guido Fawkes was the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions.

Back OT. Will there ever be a trial elsewhere do people think? Surely people will continue to ask for one until it happens, so even if its a sham trial that validates Bush's actions it would then silence critics.

biccat wrote:
Leaving the rest aside, the UN has no authority over the United States. Their opinion is irrelevant.

No, their opinion is relevant. Much as the US opinion of global affairs is relevant. Whether or not some kind of legal authority exists is a secondary concern at best, and basically little more than tool for diplomatic and political maneuvering with regard to global public opinion.