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: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.

Judge, Jury, and executioner mentality I see. The NKVD would be proud.

This "trial" is just politically motivated BS. 10,000 Muslims in Syria have died in the last year and the Malaysia is mum about it and I guarantee you these kind of show-trials won't happen with Bashar al-Assad.

Harriticus 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.

Judge, Jury, and executioner mentality I see. The NKVD would be proud.

This "trial" is just politically motivated BS. 10,000 Muslims in Syria have died in the last year and the Malaysia is mum about it and I guarantee you these kind of show-trials won't happen with Bashar al-Assad.

There was me thinking the person who puts the case against was generally known as the prosecution.

Assad will be rightly tried in the Hague, whereas Mugabe? Oh, I forgot that Zimbabwe doesn't border Iran and is therefore of no tactical value.

dæl wrote: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.

Your other rguments are crap too.

You have no proof the intel used to go in was falsified. Many intel agencies across several countries thought it was good intel.

As for the UN, look up the Oil for Food scandal. There was NO WAY the UN was gonna dump their cash cow, and as has been pointed out, the UN does not decide when the US goes to war, and UN authorization is not what makes war legal.

The GITMO argument is silly as well. It is absolutey ethically and morally acceptable to detain illegal combatants, it would be morally wrong to not do so and allow them to continue thier activities. I seriously doubt any gov't would argue otherwise, though they may argue the definition of illegal combatants. In past wars these guys would have been capped vice detained. In fact, our current President has taken that road vice deal with capture and detention in many cases.

CptJake wrote: In past wars these guys would have been capped vice detained. In fact, our current President has taken that road vice deal with capture and detention in many cases.

In previous wars, they were legally detained because habeas corpus clearly has an exception for in cases of insurrection and invasion - Pearl Harbor would have adequately covered that. And, of course, those that were detained were prisoners of war and had legal status.

What is you opinion for how long we can detain "illegal combtanants"? You can't say until the end of hostilities, because our current 2 conflicts are undeclared wars and can never be ended, per se. So, 10 years? 20? 50? At what point do you think it's a bad idea for the United States to scoop up people who may or may not have done something, who may or may not even be the right people, and hold them forever without ever allowing them to challenge their detention, solely on the word of a single man, the POTUS. What, in your mind, is an acceptable timeline?

CptJake wrote:
You have no proof the intel used to go in was falsified. Many intel agencies across several countries thought it was good intel.

There's actually quite a bit of evidence that the intelligence supporting the Iraq invasion was falsified, or liberally interpreted. You've even got Colin Powell calling the briefing he gave to the GA "deliberately misleading", and Bush calling the matter an intelligence failure.

To claim the evidence was thought to be true is incredibly naive,
forged documents detailing proposed sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq,

I can confirm to you that we have received information from a number of member states regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Niger. However, we have learned nothing which would cause us to change the conclusion we reported to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003 with regards to the documents assessed to be forgeries and have not received any information that would appear to be based on anything other than those documents IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky

the september dossier claiming the imminent 45 minute chemical attack when Saddam's scuds barely reached Israel,

"Mr Gilligan accepted that he had made errors" about the 45 minute claim; specifically, his report that the government "probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable", and his report that intelligence officers were unhappy with the insertion of the claim in the dossier, or only inserted it at the insistence of the government, were erroneous.The Hutton Report

Information surfacing in late 2009 initially appeared to suggest that the source of the 45 minute claim was in fact a taxi driver "on the Iraqi-Jordanian border, who had remembered an overheard conversation in the back of his cab a full two years earlier"

the iraq dossier was made up to make the case for war, as was revealed to the Chilcot inquiry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/iraq-dossier-case-for-war

the suspicious and still inconclusive "suicide" of Dr David Kelly, and the attempts by Lord Hutton to keep the autopsy classified for 70 years, even now top physicians and pathologists assert that the officially stated cause of death was highly implausible.

The memo from Blair to Bush dated 31/1/03 detailing the beginning of bombing on 10/3/03, regardless of a second UN resolution.

The fact that a MI6 officer stated "toppling Saddam Hussein remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".

Now, UN mandate was required for Desert Storm, The Afghan Invasion, and the recent Libyan Conflict, but not Iraq? I read about the Oil-for-Food program, seems a corrupt system under the auspices of humanitarianism, much like what will be happening all over the world right now. The UN didn't refuse to make the resolution because they wanted a few extra dollars, they refused to make the resolution because the IAEA, weapons inspectors and middle eastern commentators knew the evidence was a pack of lies, and there were no WMDs.

If Gitmo was morally right it would either: a) Treat detainees as POWs under the Third Geneva Convention, and would not torture them. or b) Treat detainees as Civilian Persons under the Forth Geneva Convention and not torture them. To hide behind legalise and treat them as neither, to rendition whoever they choose, keep them for however long they wish, and torture them, is beyond immoral, it's abhorrent.

dæl wrote:Now, UN mandate was required for Desert Storm, The Afghan Invasion, and the recent Libyan Conflict, but not Iraq? I read about the Oil-for-Food program, seems a corrupt system under the auspices of humanitarianism, much like what will be happening all over the world right now. The UN didn't refuse to make the resolution because they wanted a few extra dollars, they refused to make the resolution because the IAEA, weapons inspectors and middle eastern commentators knew the evidence was a pack of lies, and there were no WMDs.

No not required just received.

AustonT wrote:

dæl wrote:Now, UN mandate was required for Desert Storm, The Afghan Invasion, and the recent Libyan Conflict, but not Iraq? I read about the Oil-for-Food program, seems a corrupt system under the auspices of humanitarianism, much like what will be happening all over the world right now. The UN didn't refuse to make the resolution because they wanted a few extra dollars, they refused to make the resolution because the IAEA, weapons inspectors and middle eastern commentators knew the evidence was a pack of lies, and there were no WMDs.

No not required just received.

Depends on whether you're looking at the requirements for a just war. And it depends on what your idea of a just war is.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the legality of a war based on UN resolutions. Do you see what I mean about the public being deliberately misled with falsified evidence in the run up to the invasion though?


P.S. cool eldar, new jetbike looks promising.

dæl wrote:I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the legality of a war based on UN resolutions. Do you see what I mean about the public being deliberately misled with falsified evidence in the run up to the invasion though?


P.S. cool eldar, new jetbike looks promising.

I'm ok with that. The legality of war is a foolish debate on both ends; in the end neither of us can unequivocally prove our point. Historically speaking the winners claim illegal warfare against the losers. Although a couple years ago a guy name Gaius got into an argument with a man named Cicero over the legality of his warfare. That was a doosey.

Ps. Thank you, the project has been shelved for awhile but I'm hoping to finish the army this summer. My workbench has remained literally untouched so I should've able to just pick up where I left off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Humbug the whole reason I started this response I forgot. UN General Assembly resolutions are worth the paper the are printed on. UNGARS are voted suggestions that are non-binding.

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.

Just a thought but how many of those civilians would have been killed by insurgents if the US and UK did not invade Iraq?

dæl wrote:

Harriticus 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.

Judge, Jury, and executioner mentality I see. The NKVD would be proud.

This "trial" is just politically motivated BS. 10,000 Muslims in Syria have died in the last year and the Malaysia is mum about it and I guarantee you these kind of show-trials won't happen with Bashar al-Assad.

There was me thinking the person who puts the case against was generally known as the prosecution.

Assad will be rightly tried in the Hague, whereas Mugabe? Oh, I forgot that Zimbabwe doesn't border Iran and is therefore of no tactical value.

Syria doesn't border Iran either. And Russia/China/far-leftists/Palestinian advocates globally are preventing any real justice against Assad. He will not be tried in the Hague. Assad, and Mugabe for that matter, are both quite popular amongst the same group of people who are having their own show-trial against Bush.

Anyway as to the above on Iraq, would have been a major upsurge in internal violence in Iraq as it is. The apartheid-esque system it operated where Sunni's were supreme over Shias/Kurds were unsustainable in the longrun. Saddam had already killed 300,000 or so people putting down uprisings in the late 80's/90's. In particular, I bet if Saddam were still in power by the Arab Spring things would have gotten very, very nasty in Iraq. Similar to what's going on in Syria right now, with the Sunni's, Kurds, and Druze rebelling against the Alawite apartheid government.

Not that I'm arguing that the sectarian violence caused by the 2003 war is okay because it would have eventually happened anyway. Yet on the same accord, to view Iraq as a melting pot free from violence before that is naive.

Harriticus wrote:

Syria doesn't border Iran either. And Russia/China/far-leftists/Palestinian advocates globally are preventing any real justice against Assad. He will not be tried in the Hague. Assad, and Mugabe for that matter, are both quite popular amongst the same group of people who are having their own show-trial against Bush.

Malaysia is part of the same cohesive group as China? They seem to knock heads on a couple of subjects, especially in the case of sea territory. Granted no one likes China when it comes to that point.

Harriticus wrote:

Syria doesn't border Iran either. And Russia/China/far-leftists/Palestinian advocates globally are preventing any real justice against Assad. He will not be tried in the Hague. Assad, and Mugabe for that matter, are both quite popular amongst the same group of people who are having their own show-trial against Bush.

Anyway as to the above on Iraq, would have been a major upsurge in internal violence in Iraq as it is. The apartheid-esque system it operated where Sunni's were supreme over Shias/Kurds were unsustainable in the longrun. Saddam had already killed 300,000 or so people putting down uprisings in the late 80's/90's. In particular, I bet if Saddam were still in power by the Arab Spring things would have gotten very, very nasty in Iraq. Similar to what's going on in Syria right now, with the Sunni's, Kurds, and Druze rebelling against the Alawite apartheid government.

Not that I'm arguing that the sectarian violence caused by the 2003 war is okay because it would have eventually happened anyway. Yet on the same accord, to view Iraq as a melting pot free from violence before that is naive.

Syria doesn't border Iran no, however they are one of Iran's last remaining supporters. And we all know the US's feelings on Iran, heres an image of military bases that border Iran. Seem totally peaceful in intent.


The situation was entirely unsustainable, however if we had waited for the Arab Spring, there would have, as with other places, been an viable opposition form. Unlike the untrusted puppet government that currently resides in Baghdad, they would not have needed us to hang around indefinitely to make sure things don't blow up in their faces. Civilians would have died under Saddam, but civilians are dying now in Syria, Zimbabwe, China and elsewhere, we don't do anything about that, and it wasn't the reason for invasion. I understand you would like to know how many would have died to reduce this from the overall total but thats impossible to ever know.

Lets compare Iraq with Syria shall we -
Life expectancy
Iraq - 58.2 Syria - 73.6
Infant Motality Rate
Iraq - 35 per 100 Syria - 15 per 100
Adult Literacy
Iraq - 74% Syria - 83%
% of pop living on less that $2 a day
Iraq - 25.31% Syria - 16.85%


Every thing we have done has been for the benefit of a few people and thousands have died on both sides, we have no exit strategy and never did have, and the rest of the world looks on disgust. Was it worth it? Are we safer from terrorism? if so only because we are more geared toward stopping it. Is oil cheaper? Not for the man on the street. Have we made Iraq a better place? In some ways yes, in many others no.

George Bush like a majority of our leaders today are incompetant and care little for the working class. I hope he faces prison or charges.

rockerbikie wrote:George Bush like a majority of our leaders today are incompetant and care little for the working class. I hope he faces prison or charges.

I don't see what makes that so wrong. The working class really only cares about itself.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the legality of a war based on UN resolutions.

The UN is a huge joke. I don't see why people take it seriously.

Mr Hyena wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:George Bush like a majority of our leaders today are incompetant and care little for the working class. I hope he faces prison or charges.

I don't see what makes that so wrong. The working class really only cares about itself.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the legality of a war based on UN resolutions.

The UN is a huge joke. I don't see why people take it seriously.

The working class is the back bone of the economy. To not care about them will lead the economy into disarray. To have such large class divisions is unacceptable.

dæl wrote:

Harriticus wrote:

Syria doesn't border Iran either. And Russia/China/far-leftists/Palestinian advocates globally are preventing any real justice against Assad. He will not be tried in the Hague. Assad, and Mugabe for that matter, are both quite popular amongst the same group of people who are having their own show-trial against Bush.

Anyway as to the above on Iraq, would have been a major upsurge in internal violence in Iraq as it is. The apartheid-esque system it operated where Sunni's were supreme over Shias/Kurds were unsustainable in the longrun. Saddam had already killed 300,000 or so people putting down uprisings in the late 80's/90's. In particular, I bet if Saddam were still in power by the Arab Spring things would have gotten very, very nasty in Iraq. Similar to what's going on in Syria right now, with the Sunni's, Kurds, and Druze rebelling against the Alawite apartheid government.

Not that I'm arguing that the sectarian violence caused by the 2003 war is okay because it would have eventually happened anyway. Yet on the same accord, to view Iraq as a melting pot free from violence before that is naive.

Syria doesn't border Iran no, however they are one of Iran's last remaining supporters. And we all know the US's feelings on Iran, heres an image of military bases that border Iran. Seem totally peaceful in intent.

Spoiler:

The situation was entirely unsustainable, however if we had waited for the Arab Spring, there would have, as with other places, been an viable opposition form. Unlike the untrusted puppet government that currently resides in Baghdad, they would not have needed us to hang around indefinitely to make sure things don't blow up in their faces. Civilians would have died under Saddam, but civilians are dying now in Syria, Zimbabwe, China and elsewhere, we don't do anything about that, and it wasn't the reason for invasion. I understand you would like to know how many would have died to reduce this from the overall total but thats impossible to ever know.

Lets compare Iraq with Syria shall we -
Life expectancy
Iraq - 58.2 Syria - 73.6
Infant Motality Rate
Iraq - 35 per 100 Syria - 15 per 100
Adult Literacy
Iraq - 74% Syria - 83%
% of pop living on less that $2 a day
Iraq - 25.31% Syria - 16.85%


Every thing we have done has been for the benefit of a few people and thousands have died on both sides, we have no exit strategy and never did have, and the rest of the world looks on disgust. Was it worth it? Are we safer from terrorism? if so only because we are more geared toward stopping it. Is oil cheaper? Not for the man on the street. Have we made Iraq a better place? In some ways yes, in many others no.

Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.

But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...

CptJake wrote:

Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.

But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...

At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.
If you notice I have provided numerous facts and statistics to this thread, that post contains a comparison between a country under occupation, and a country under tyranny.

If you cannot distinguish between a few of the actions of a nation and the nation itself you have my sympathies, being anti-austerity does not mean you hate Germany. Or are unjust, financially motivated wars synonymous with America for you?

dæl wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.

But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...

At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.

Then again, it is NOT accurate. Several of those shown are NOT US bases nor used by the US and in the case of the Saudi bases have not been for quite a while. Add in a few are specific logistic bases supporting ops in Astan (Manas for example but that is not the only one) and not actually near the Iranian border and again, your graphic is misleading. Scratch that, it is dishonest.

CptJake wrote:

dæl wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.

But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...

At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.

Then again, it is NOT accurate. Several of those shown are NOT US bases nor used by the US and in the case of the Saudi bases have not been for quite a while. Add in a few are specific logistic bases supporting ops in Astan (Manas for example but that is not the only one) and not actually near the Iranian border and again, your graphic is misleading. Scratch that, it is dishonest.

Then provide one which is accurate, I chose the graphic I found, if you can provide one refuting it then please do, prove me wrong and I will agree with you, I'm no zealot, I make my opinions on what I see, if I see something that refutes that, my opinions change. I have no 'blind faith' that the war was wrong, everything I have seen and learnt and taking into account the arguments for and against I believe it was wrong.

CptJake wrote:
But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...

You, of all people, probably don't want to harp on facts and accuracy.

rockerbikie wrote:George Bush like a majority of our leaders today are incompetant and care little for the working class. I hope he faces prison or charges.

Why should he care about the working class? There are tons of them, and they're all easy to replace.

dæl wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.

But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...

At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.
If you notice I have provided numerous facts and statistics to this thread, that post contains a comparison between a country under occupation, and a country under tyranny.

businessinsider.com wrote:This is the world Iran sees from inside its borders. This map from Democratic Underground puts a star on every U.S. military base in the region, and aside from the Caspian area to the North, American forces pretty much have Tehran surrounded

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-03/news/30583247_1_medium-range-missile-aircraft-carrier-tehran#ixzz1vKsZeoyT

Yes the graphic you posted is supposed to represent all US bases inside the picture, it is misrepresentation at it's highest. The graphic includes bases that have been closed for years bases closed as recently as the withdrawal from Iraq. It was posted January of this year on Business Insider and December on the Democratic Underground which makes it "current."
/failgraphic

dæl wrote:
At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.

Then provide one which is accurate

Which ones are closed? How many? Do you think Iran care that a couple are no longer active? Or do they care that most still are? And that they hacked a drone that was in their airspace?

Here.

Not perfect, but better.

This one is perfect...

He's not wearing a turban.

...I don't think I follow.

Secret Muslim plotting to overthrow our Good Christian Nation. Probably by dropping bombs on other Muslims.

dogma wrote:Here.

Not perfect, but better.

Thank you.
There still seems a disproportionate amount toward the East of Iraq, although those in Afghanistan are mainly toward the Pakistan border, for obvious reasons. There doesn't seem much difference between this and the previous map, Pakistan and Turkmenistan are missing, what else?