(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!

(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%?

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.

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.

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

sadly though, their teeth were yellow

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?

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: 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: 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!!!

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

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

(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): 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?

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.

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: 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!!!!!!!

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: 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.

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: 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!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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*

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

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.

Artful Dodger: Neither have Israel, or the USA.

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.

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.

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.

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

Peace & Nite.

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

I agree with this opinion. 

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.

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.

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.

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.  

The Usurper:I don't care about any of that.  It's an opnion that you hold, NOT a fact.  I teach this stuff in school and know what I'm talking about.  You are simply wrong to call it a fact.  It's no more a fact than saying Vanilla ice cream is the best tasting ice cream on earth. 

Furthermore, saying it was unjust is also an opinion NOT a fact.  I don't mind you holding the opinion, but if you call it a fact, that tells me you really don't know what you are talking about.

It's also an OPINION that it was unprovoked.  It's a disputable point and since there is a legal definition and an agent definition, you'd have to be more specific. 

It's also an opinion to say that the war was illegal.  Again, I don't mind you holding to this opinion, but you can't call it a fact.  If you do, you are simply wrong and you DON"T know what you are talking about.  There's a difference between opinion and fact and it's pretty basic. 

Artful Dodger: I'm extremely serious. 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. And to the extent that we are all Americans, responsible for the actions of our government, even those who did not support the invasion must nevertheless bear some responsibility for it. After all, their tax dollars helped to fund it. In a perfectly just world, we would pay at home for the lives we have taken abroad. And in the long run, this will indeed be the case. As for the Iraqi citizens, they have the right of reciprocity, just not the power to act upon it. If bringing the fight to American soil would secure their independence at home against a brutal tyrant, they have every moral right to so defend themselves. But naturally, America makes a point of attacking those countries which can't really defend themselves. They might successfully repel the monster after great & terrible loss, but to return the favor is beyond the scope of their ability.

Artful Dodger: What is not fact? That we invaded Iraq without provocation? No my friend, that is simple, proven fact. If your opinion is contrariwise, then it is based on something besides fact.

The Usurper: "On the contrary, it is simple demonstrable fact."

It's not FACT.  It's an opinion.  You do know the difference right?  If you do, in this case, it doesn't show.

Bernice: LOL I think I'm gonna make this website my homepage for awhile and spend some time checking it out.

Artful Dodger: "That's nonsense."

On the contrary, it is simple demonstrable fact. We invaded Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, which did not support al-qaeda, and which had not attacked us first. Therefore, we started a war in the backyards of Iraqi citizens.

I watched another speech today, by a U.S. Iraq War veteran. He was a morter-man (sp). He said that in Baghdad not one apartment complex is left unscathed by American morters & plane bombs. He described how he and others were given orders on the ground to murder civilians. The idea was to wage a war of attrition to break the spirit of the Iraqi resistance.

Do you think I make these things up? Do you think the soldier is lying? There are plenty of other soldiers who have spoken out. If I were an Iraqi citizen, I'd be fighting the U.S. occupation tooth-and-nail. And I'd sure as heck prefer to take the fight to American soil, or at least kick the Invader out. Did we "liberate" Iraq? What a joke. No, we brutally subjugated it.

Only willful blindness refuses to see the truth of this matter.

hahahaha.........

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Show-Graphic.htm?EdNo=001&InfoNo=046798

Bernice: I wish. :o)

The Usurper: sounds a bit like the BK Politics Forum

Today I watched a speech by a Libertarian, made at the 2007 9/11 Accountability Conference in Arizona. This speech was very inspiring and helped clarify my thinking.

This speaker has a website, called Freedom's Phoenix (Political News & Opinion), which is run on Libertarian principles. Non-censorship & open discussion is the rule. To give an example of the Libertarian principle at work, one is even free to post an argument there in FAVOR of censorship. In fact, one is free to post any argument at all, and to use any language. It is a free market-place of ideas. It is worth checking out:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

--The Declaration of Independence