Let's follow your logic:  You have to support dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  You have to agree that the people of Dresden, -who where were burned alive, women and children, young and old, - have no reason to complain.  

Artful Dodger: In one sense your extension of my logic is correct, in another sense incorrect.

First, yes, that Germany & Japan were aggressive powers, resulted justly in aggression being used against them. It's called the right of self-defense, and the Allied powers exerted this right.

Now, the issue we are speaking of here, is the targeting of civilians. Now let us assume that the Germans & Japanese also targeted civilians, and did so first. Then, you are correct, the peoples of Germany & Japan had strictly no cause to complain when they were targeted.

But this argument misses the broader perspective, which is that it is immoral to attack unarmed civilians. Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, it does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous act in itself.

Think of how God used Nebadchanezzar (sp) to punish Judah. Judah, for their injustices, deserved the punishment. However, God's weapon of punishing (Babylon) was not therefore righteous. Rather it was an unrighteous power utilized by God for the righteous punishment of Judah. Only God can pull this off, by the way.

So the issue of civilian casualties is more complex. But the principle stands, don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Artful Dodger: To make my point about Hiroshima & Dresden a little more clear, look at this way:

The Germans & Japanese deserved what they got. But the Allied powers, in targeting civilians, acted unrighteously nevertheless. Like Babylon, they were a punishing instrument in the hands of God (if you will), but the nature of these acts were evil & themselves merit divine retribution.

The Usurper:"Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by
Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, it
does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous
act in itself."

This is saying two different things.  So I'll respond to them individually, then it's off to bed.

"Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by
Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, ..."

Nonsense

"it
does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous
act in itself."

Of course this can't follow (so we agree) but in this case only because the first statement is nonsense.

The Usurper:"But the Allied powers, in targeting civilians, acted unrighteously nevertheless."

I agree with this opinion. 

Artful Dodger: Each night we discover grounds of agreement even in the midst of disagreements. We'll get there.

Peace & Nite.

Artful Dodger: "There's a difference between opinion and fact and it's pretty basic."

To examine the difference:

Let us say I demonstrate through mathematical proofs that 2+2=4. This then becomes recognized as a fact, through the demonstration. But the demonstration in itself does not bestow "facthood." 2+2=4 is true, or factual, regardless of any opinion to the contrary.

Now, suppose I have a different opinion, arising either from insufficient knowledge of mathematical principles or through purposeful disinformation by a pseudo-mathematician for reasons of his own. It can then be said that opinions differ, which is true. But FACTS don't differ! We can agree on this?

Turning now to the question at hand (i.e., was the U.S. invasion of Iraq unprovoked? and the corollary questions, Was it unjust? and, Was it illegal?), my point is simply this: just as 2+2=4, so it is proven by documentary evidence that the invasion of Iraq was, in fact, both unprovoked & pre-planned before 9/11. Secondly, such an unprovoked invasion of another country is illegal by definition, both by U.N. and U.S. law. And thirdly, such an unprovoked invasion is immoral, i.e., unjust on the face of it, if there be any rational standard of justice....which we all agree there is.

Now, you may have a contrary opinion, which is your right. However, if you do, then your opinion arises either from insufficient information or through purposeful disinformation by pseudo-intellectuals, for their own reasons. I suspect, in your case, the disinformation leads to a lack of information & also psychological immobolization, from which you ought to strive to free yourself (as we all must).

However, I will readily admit that this latter statement of mine (regarding how your mind in particular has been influenced & how it works) is an OPINION based on circumstantial evidence, not FACT based on incontrovertable evidence. But the facts referred to above are incontrovertable, no matter what opinion you or I may hold.

Czuch: Ok... what did these economists say, what was their belief based on, and what evidence do they have to back up such a statement.

And as for what are we doing now.... We've had to rescue a few banks from collapsing thanks to (as shown via info) from collapse. We are updating our bank regulation laws. We are changing the banking system in that big bosses will no longer get fat cat rewards especially if they mess up. We are thinking of possible criminal prosecution of certain bank leaders. Our BoE Interest rates have been cut to 0.5%. Certain help has been given in legislation to cut down on the number of repo's on houses.

And also our PM is facing possible hard questions due to that he was the man in charge of looking after the finances of this country before he took over from Tony Blair.

The people of this country want action taken so that such mess up's cannot take place as has happened here. EG RBS (one of the banks we had to rescue) bought as part of a consortium a foreign bank, they as reported by people who were involved with the matter at the time of the take over DID NOT HAVE FULL ACCOUNTS OFF THAT BANK. Because if they did, they wouldn't have bought it, someone remarked that realistically the foreign bank should have paid RBS and the others money to take it over, as it's accounts showed that most of it's 'assets' in the way of loans owed to it by people, were bad, going to be written off or sub prime loans waiting to go bad.

A fix to make sure it doesn't happen again is the people of this countries main concern. As it has effected many pensions and other supposed secure investments of the people of the UK.

The Usurper: It sure sounds like it. It looks like the only thing your politicians in who knows how many years have been interested in is lining their pockets.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, but like one or more banks over here... they won't do it on the blood of others. Their policy is not to invest in any scheme which involves others suffering as a result of greed. They also run shops who's policy is in their own brand products to have as much 'fairtrade' items, or items to contain as much 'fairtrade' raw materials as possible.

Artful Dodger: Neither have Israel, or the USA.

Artful Dodger: Yes he can say it is fact, by international law it was illegal. The only reason why we in the UK supported the USA in the Iraqi war was due to false information being presented to the Houses of Parliament and our MP's before they voted on this war. The information used has been shown beyond a shadow of doubt as being false.

And I think Tony Blair and his cabinet felt sorry for the USA, and wanted to protect you somewhat in your military not going in alone. And seeing as the UK military are more respected then your USA military, it was thought we'd be able calm things down after the invasion more quickly.

(V): yeah they looked real respectful getting captured by the Iranian boats

Charles Martel: Yep, but that is all for show. Likewise the USA using armed predators in a country that has not given permission for action to take place (which further talks would have probably resolved) is really respectful. *cough*

getting permission form Pakistan??? good luck with that they have no control and their secret service is in with the Taliban anyways, when they're not planning attacks on India .that place is soon to be the next Somalia. killing tailban and al qaeida with no permission,, good

Back to the British, they were humiliated by by the iranians, and in Basra and in Helmand province .looked good some years ago against Argentina though

Charles Martel:..... from what I've read and seen recently your government does not have control of the government as well as certain groups such as the CIA!!

Gee you guys have alot in common.

Charles Martel: It's just politics, when you have hot heads on all sides some sort of activity like this is expected. We got our people back safe and sound and that is all that matters. You guys must know that kinda thing from cold war incidents involving spying, embassy kick outs, etc.

As for Basra.. Our military chiefs have kicked some butt over some of the reasons why with the government... Openly in interviews. Ex army chiefs have confirmed and backed up what was said.

.. and btw.. we are leaving Basra quicker then you guys are leaving the rest of Iraq. set backs happen, but it's what you do after to correct that counts.

The Usurper: You don't support a free market (which is the definition of capitalism), but welfare to the rich. It is not intellectually honest to uphold the wonders of capitalism when combatting the socialist tendencies of the left, only to turn around and abandon or undermine capitalism while embracing the fascist tendencies of the right.

I havent said that I support corporate welfare, I have merely pointed out the hypocracy of liberals who complain so much about it, yet the lack of corporate welfare actually hurts the poorest people the most.

The Usurper: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;





That would include changing a capitalist country into a socialist one simply over a relatively transient economic downturn!!!!!

Czuch: TANSTAFL

There Ain't No Such Thing As Free Lunch.

You don't have a free market, there hasn't been a real free market for years in the western world. Certain countries as you well know have chosen in the past as well as now to 'control' some imports and exports.

The Usurper: Therefore, we started a war in the backyards of Iraqi citizens.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Usurper: The idea was to wage a war of attrition to break the spirit of the Iraqi resistance.

Yes, the so called Iraqi resistance were the left over Bathe(sp?) party and other saddam supporters.... indeed not the common Iraqi citizen.

The Usurper: Any American who has supported the unjust & unprovoked invasion of Iraq has therefore no cause for complaint if this unconscionable action comes back to bite them on their own soil.

I cant believe we are back here..... if I were as oppressed and hopeless as the common Iraqi was, I would not only welcome, but pray for what we did in Iraq to "come back to bite me" on my own soil!!!!!!!

Czuch: What about the governments put in power by support from the USA that oppress their people today. After all, Saddam was a tool for the USA at one point in regards to their war with Iran.

Is the USA gonna fix all it's mistakes regarding oppressive governments?

The Usurper: Turning now to the question at hand (i.e., was the U.S. invasion of Iraq unprovoked? and the corollary questions, Was it unjust? and, Was it illegal?), my point is simply this: just as 2+2=4, so it is proven by documentary evidence that the invasion of Iraq was, in fact, both unprovoked & pre-planned before 9/11.


My problem with this statement, is that using the word "invasion" improperly characterizes what really happened. The word invasion connotes some sort of take over, IE a Hitleresque type of action .....

We went there to liberate an oppressed people, to free them from the reigns of oppression, to help bring them a future of hope and prosperity, one that they were unable to bring for themselves without outside help... time will ultimately bear this out.

(V): I guess my point was that.... well over here we are trying to tax and spend and regulate our way out of this mess right now (although my personal opinion is that this was merly part of a cycle and a needed correction, now being made worse by the efforts to stop it) But my question is, what do you do when you are a country that already taxes some as much as 70%? What do you do if you are already a tax and spend country? And how does a country like this end up with any problems in the first place?

(V): The information used has been shown beyond a shadow of doubt as being false.

Something being proven as wrong in hind sight is a far cry from something known to be wrong and given anyway!!!

Saddam had every opportunity to show evidence that he had destroyed and stopped making the WMD that we know he had at one time, since he used them, he refused to give that evidence or proof, and we went on the best info we had at the time.... problem for him, he was used to the toothless UN, whoops!

(V): Is the USA gonna fix all it's mistakes regarding oppressive governments?

Give us the time and support, and we will....

Czuch: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience Friday "never waste a good crisis," and highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy-intensive way.


I think I am beginning to like these theories!!!

Czuch: I hate my schedule of not being on here at the right time of day anymore.....

So again, Usurper, with regards to the climate change crisis?????

Czuch: There is no income tax level of 70% in the UK. The maximum income tax rate is 40%. So where you get this 70% from is wrong.

No one is trying to stop it, it's already happened, just we are trying (most gov's) to make the bad period less bad.

Czuch: The UN is toothless!!! Have you missed the Yugoslav war that involved ethnic cleansing by some parties involved? 39,000 soldiers from many countries.

It was news in Europe, didn't it reach the states?

(V): Yes, The U.N. showed its teeth at Sbrenica!!

sadly though, their teeth were yellow

Charles Martel: Compared to what the USA did in Iraq with telling the people to revolt after GWI against Saddam and then leaving them helpless and without support, the Small Dutch force's teeth are like the Osmond's

If this is going to be a 'points' match.

The My Lai Massacre (My Lai.ogg pronunciation (help·info), approximately [mi.˧˩˥'lɐːj˧˧])[1] (Vietnamese: thảm sát Mỹ Lai) was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, entirely civilians and some of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on March 16, 1968. Some of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated.[2] The massacre took place in the hamlets of Mỹ Lai and My Khe of Sơn Mỹ village during the Vietnam War.[3][4] Of the 26 US soldiers initially charged with criminal offences for their actions at My Lai, only William Calley was convicted. He served three years of his life sentence.

(V): My point is, how can tax and spend be the best solution to our problems right now??? What if we had a situation where we tax at 100% and give all our earnings to the government for them to spread out for us... then what do you do when the economy collapses??? You cannot tax more than 100%?

So, here in the US, we have some wiggle room to increase taxes and try to spend our way out of things, but what about a country where they are already taxed up to 70%?

(V): war is hell... no real excuses here, except that the VC (north Vietnamese) were in the habit of using civilians (much like the Palestinian terrorists do now) and we were losing troops when we thought we were dealing with women and children, and then turn our backs on them only to be ambushed..... makes one more paranoid, and thats what lead to problems here.... soldiers thinking they were dealing with a VC trap, and not interested in taking any chances with their own life...

just stop trying to mis characterize things, makes it sound like these soldiers were out to get their jollies, had nothing better to do than massacre innocents on purpose!

You will have better luck talking about Pol Pot and his soldiers at the killing fields, tossing babies in the air and letting them land on their bayonets, just for fun, and to save bullets!

Czuch: Sometimes you have to inject money into a system or company for the short term to tide over a bad period.

And ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

You'll see income tax rates

Czuch: It was rather brutal, and these are the reported events.

And there are always some bad apples.

The bloody atrocity at No Gun Ri, a hamlet 100 miles south of Seoul, has been known in South Korea for decades, but a series of pro-US military dictatorships suppressed any public protest or investigation. The facts were kept secret in America as well, until several US veterans who witnessed the events gave interviews to the Associated Press this fall.

Six veterans of the 1st Cavalry Division of the US Army told AP they fired on the refugees at No Gun Ri and six others said they saw the shootings. Army units retreating through South Korea in the face of the North Korean offensive at the beginning of the war had been ordered to shoot civilians on the pretext that North Korean soldiers might be hiding among them. In the neighboring 25th Infantry Division, the commander told his troops that "all civilians seen in this area are to be considered as enemy and action taken accordingly." The Korean survivors say there were no North Korean troops within miles and the killings were not related to combat.

American soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division drove out the population from two villages near No Gun Ri, telling them North Koreans were coming. As the refugees neared No Gun Ri, US soldiers ordered them off the road and onto a parallel railroad track. US planes strafed the area, killing100. Americans then directed the refugees into the railroad bridge underpass and after dark opened fire on them. One veteran, Eugene Hesselman of Kentucky, recalled that Capt. Melbourne C. Chandler ordered machine gunners to open fire, with the statement, "Let's get rid of all of them."

Oakland Post
11-25-1998
U.S. Army Report Indicates Allegations of WWII Massacres Of African-American Troops

United States Representative Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) received a report from the United States Army November 13 in response to his request the Secretary to Defense, William Cohen, conduct an investigation of the recent allegations that African-American soldiers may have been massacred at an Army base in Mississippi during World War II.

The Slaughter: An American Atrocity recently published by Mr. Carroll Case raises the possibility that more than a thousand African-American soldiers in the 364th Infantry were massacred by the Army while stationed at Camp Van Dorn in Mississippi ...

It was revealed this week that South Korea’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is concluding the US military indiscriminately killed large groups of South Korean civilians during the Korean War in the early 1950s.

The commission has more than 200 cases on its docket, based on hundreds of citizens’ petitions recounting US bombing and strafing runs on South Korean refugee gatherings in 1950 and ’51. The citizens’ petitions have accumulated since 1999, when the Associated Press confirmed the 1950 refugee killings at No Gun Ri in 1950, where some 400 civilians, mostly women and children, were killed by US troops.

Concluding its first investigations, the commission is urging the South Korean government to seek US compensation for victims. South Korean legislators have also asked a US Senate committee to join them in investigating declassified evidence that American ground commanders had adopted a policy of deliberately targeting refugees.

In the early days of the Korean War, other American officers observed, photographed and confidentially reported on such wholesale executions by their South Korean ally, a secretive slaughter believed to have killed 100,000 or more leftists and supposed sympathizers, usually without charge or trial, in a few weeks in mid-1950.

Extensive archival research by The Associated Press has found no indication Far East commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur took action to stem the summary mass killing, knowledge of which reached top levels of the Pentagon and State Department in Washington, where it was classified "secret" and filed away.

Now, a half-century later, the South Korean government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission is investigating what happened in that summer of terror, a political bloodbath largely hidden from history, unlike the communist invaders' executions of southern rightists, which were widely publicized and denounced at the time.

We cannot provide here a complete overview of the Iran-Contra affair. We shall attempt, rather, to give an account of George Bush's decisive, central role in those events, which occurred during his vice-presidency and spilled over into his presidency. The principal elements of scandal in Iran-Contra may be reduced to the following points:

1) the secret arming of the Khomeini regime in Iran by the U.S. government, during an official U.S.-decreed arms embargo against Iran, while the U.S. publicly denounced the recipients of its secret deliveries as terrorists and kidnappers--a policy initiated under the Jimmy Carter presidency and accelerated by the Reagan-Bush administration;

2) the Reagan-Bush administration's secret arming of its `` Contras '' for war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, while such aid was explicitly prohibited under U.S. law;

3) the use of communist and terrorist enemies--often armed directly by the Anglo-Americans--to justify a police state and covert, oligarchical rule at home;

4) paying for and protecting the gun-running projects with drug- smuggling, embezzlement, theft by diversion from authorized U.S. programs, and the `` silencing '' of both opponents and knowledgeable participants in the schemes; and

5) the continual, routine perjury and deception of the public by government officials pretending to have no knowledge of these activities; and the routine acquiescence in that deception by Congressmen too frightened to oppose it.

Nicaragua (1979-90)
See also: Iran-Contra affair
Further information: Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare

Following the rise to power of the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Ronald Reagan administration ordered the CIA to organize and train the Contras, a right wing guerrilla group. On December 1, 1981, President Reagan signed an initial, one-paragraph "Finding" authorizing the CIA's paramilitary war against Nicaragua.[63]

The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America[64] was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice which found that the United States had violated international law by direct acts of U.S. personnel and by the supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The US was not imputable for possible human rights violations done by the Contras. The Court found that this was a conflict involving military and para-military forces and did not make a finding of state terrorism.

Florida State University professor, Frederick H. Gareau, has written that the Contras "attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages and non-combatants." U.S. agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage facilities." In 1984 the U.S. Congress ordered this intervention to be stopped, however it was later shown that the CIA illegally continued (See Iran-Contra affair). Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.[65]

In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan Contras in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War".[66]

The manual recommended “selective use of violence for propagandistic effects” and to “neutralize” government officials. Nicaraguan Contras were taught to lead:

...selective use of armed force for PSYOP psychological operations effect.... Carefully selected, planned targets — judges, police officials, tax collectors, etc. — may be removed for PSYOP effect in a UWOA unconventional warfare operations area, but extensive precautions must insure that the people “concur” in such an act by thorough explanatory canvassing among the affected populace before and after conduct of the mission.
—James Bovard, Freedom Daily[4]

Former State Department official William Blum, has written that "American pilots were flying diverse kinds of combat missions against Nicaraguan troops and carrying supplies to contras inside Nicaraguan territory. Several were shot down and killed. Some flew in civilian clothes, after having been told that they would be disavowed by the Pentagon if captured. Some contras told American congressmen that they were ordered to claim responsibility for a bombing raid organized by the CIA and flown by Agency mercenaries."[67] According to Blum the Pentagon considered U.S. policy in Nicaragua to be a "blueprint for successful U.S. intervention in the Third World" and it would go "right into the textbooks".[68]

Colombian writer and former diplomat Clara Nieto, in her book "Masters of War", describes the Reagan administration as "the paradigm of a terrorist state" remarking that this was "ironically, the very thing Reagan claimed to be fighting."

Czuch: I believe your lack of political insight & blindness to real American foreign & domestic policy can be summed up in this one sentence:

You believe in the myth of American exceptionalism.

This belief has tragic consequences for your fellow citizens and the rest of the world also. One day you will wake up to this.

The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World’s Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=046818

Economic Destruction of America Step One of A Global Banking Power Grab

"The economic meltdown is merely a means to an end. It is being done deliberately, they say, at the very highest levels to achieve a well-planned outcome. What outcome is that? Global rule over all banking, of course."

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=046816

World Trade Center 7 Demolition Acceleration

"NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) finally admits Freefall Speed."

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=046815