Forsake the troops gets destroyed!

[SteveThaiBinh]

Both Fox and the BBC are part of the free press, and it's in the public interest that there be a variety of voices. However, it's also important that people learn to discriminate between sources of differing quality. The BBC is a public service broadcaster whose aim is to inform and educate. Fox News is a private company whose aims are to make money and to push the political agenda of its owner. In the UK, we're comfortable seeing that in a newspaper, but it's very strange to see a television channel behaving the same way.

 

This is a question that has bothered me. Fox News claims that it is 'fair and balanced', but it seems to be confused about how it is balanced. Either it wishes to be a conservative right-wing channel to balance perceived left-wing bias in other broadcast media, or it wishes to be balanced and impartial within itself. Yu can't have both.

[Lucius]

The war was very legal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A few Desert Storm era mortar shells with Sarin gas is not WMD's, sorry mate, the war was illegal.

[Volourn]

"few Desert Storm era mortar shells with Sarin gas is not WMD's, sorry mate, the war was illegal."

 

A. I'm not your mate. We have never 'mated'. I know you find me attractive; but no, keep your wet dreams to yourself.

 

 

B. But, allowing someone like Hussein to mass murder innocent Iraqis or STEALING UN dollars is a ok.

 

Nope, his constant lies and feet dragging over UN Resolutions is what made this war legal. Afterall, he broke UN Resolution after UN Resolution. I believe one UN Resolution promised 'dire consequences' if he continued along that path. he did, and wa ssuitbaly punished.

 

 

Was the war handled in the best way? No. But, it was mostc ertainly legal. Both in terms of Amerikan Law which is what ultimately matters, and even in the joke that is UN/World Law.

 

 

[11XHooah]

The war was very legal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A few Desert Storm era mortar shells with Sarin gas is not WMD's, sorry mate, the war was illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you seen what Sarin gas can do? And you are aware that he was testing this, as well as many other biological/chemical weapons on his own people, right?

 

Besides, according to Bush, it was bad intel. I don't really know if that is the truth, but the fact of the matter is that we ARE there. Worry about all that sh*t when the war is over. And really the objectives of the war have drastically changed. Now it is a mission to liberate Iraq and give them the freedoms that we enjoy everyday. And personally, I think that we needed to free these people from the tyranny and oppression of that piece of crap Saddam. IMO, we should have taken him down when we had the chance during Desert Storm, but we made the mistake of not doing it. If we had, I'm sure we would have found the WMD's that he was hiding. Just think; he had an ampel amount of time to export them out of the country or hide them. Not to mention when the UN held us up, he had even more of an opportunity to get rid of anything he had left.

[Commissar]

B. But, allowing someone like Hussein to mass murder innocent Iraqis or STEALING UN dollars is a ok.

 

Nope, his constant lies and feet dragging over UN Resolutions is what made this war legal. Afterall, he broke UN Resolution after UN Resolution. I believe one UN Resolution promised 'dire consequences'  if he continued along that path. he did, and wa ssuitbaly punished.

 

 

Was the war handled in the best way? No. But, it was mostc ertainly legal. Both in terms of Amerikan Law which is what ultimately matters, and even in the joke that is UN/World Law.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not the reason we went to war, however. We went to war because Iraq represented an immediate threat to the States, not because we wanted to help Iraqis; that's become the reason now that our initial justification has gone out the window.

 

If we're talking UNSC resolutions, however...by that logic, we ought to be in Israel, right now. Israel, after all, holds the world record on UNSC resolutions broken, most of them dealing with Geneva Convention violations and nuclear capability pursuit/disclosure.

[Cantousent]

The BBC treated information coming from the 'coalition' as suspect until verified, and this was criticised as being an anti-war stance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unfortunately, they treat information coming from outside the coalition as quite possible and, indeed, probably true. The BBC would have had you believe the coalition was losing the war. I'm not talking about the subsequent occupation of Iraq. They seemed to believe it would take months to take even the major cities.

 

That's just first of all.

 

I don't like Hannity, but he's not a reporter. He's a commentator. The show in which you saw that exchange is not a "news" show. It's a debate show where Hannity is a known Republican and Colmes is a known Democrat. They don't even pretend to give a regular newscast.

 

The BBC, however, does pretend to do so. The idea that neither organization is biased is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that the BBC is more accurate is equally bogus. Certainly, the BBC should be less biased than a debate show. That's a pretty high benchmark for an organization with the BBC's reputation. I'm sure management can take solace that they are less biased than Sean Hannity, who not only takes part in the debate show Hannity & Colmes, but is also a regular on conservative talk radio.

 

For the actual website itself, I'm happy that it be heard. I would be perfectly happy to see this odious fellow back on the internet. Fools with loud voices rarely serve the cause they champion.

[Commissar]

The war was very legal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A few Desert Storm era mortar shells with Sarin gas is not WMD's, sorry mate, the war was illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you seen what Sarin gas can do? And you are aware that he was testing this, as well as many other biological/chemical weapons on his own people, right?

 

Besides, according to Bush, it was bad intel. I don't really know if that is the truth, but the fact of the matter is that we ARE there. Worry about all that sh*t when the war is over. And really the objectives of the war have drastically changed. Now it is a mission to liberate Iraq and give them the freedoms that we enjoy everyday. And personally, I think that we needed to free these people from the tyranny and oppression of that piece of crap Saddam. IMO, we should have taken him down when we had the chance during Desert Storm, but we made the mistake of not doing it. If we had, I'm sure we would have found the WMD's that he was hiding. Just think; he had an ampel amount of time to export them out of the country or hide them. Not to mention when the UN held us up, he had even more of an opportunity to get rid of anything he had left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah...yeah. Look, every single report done on the matter states, clearly, that Iraq's WMD program was in a state of decline in the years leading up to invasion; they also unequivocally state that absolutely nothing was exported out of Iraq prior to us going in.

 

Actually, pardon me; every single report, except for good ol' Halliburton ****'s constant insistance that Iraq has a nuclear arsenal on par with our own.

 

And you're right, we should've gotten him in Desert Storm. Or we should've never sold him the weapons he used to kill his own people in the first place.

[Commissar]

For the actual website itself, I'm happy that it be heard.  I would be perfectly happy to see this odious fellow back on the internet.  Fools with loud voices rarely serve the cause they champion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. Or Hannity himself. These portly gents are the voices of the "Middle America" that won Dubya his latest election; I'd say they serve their causes pretty damn well.

[Lucius]

I know what Sarin gas is and what it can do, the fact of the matter is, however, that the amount found didn't make Saddam the kind of international threat we were told he was. (I remember Bush whining about Biological and chemical weapons in large amounts?)

It's convenient that the war was now 'always' about the freedom of Iraqis and not WMD's, according to some people in the American right.

 

However, If you really want to take on a dangerous nation oppressing its people and which actually possesses weapons of mass destruction (unlike Iraq), why don't you tour past North Korea next time? Or don't the poor people of NK deserve freedom as much as Iraqis?

[Cantousent]

For the actual website itself, I'm happy that it be heard.  I would be perfectly happy to see this odious fellow back on the internet.  Fools with loud voices rarely serve the cause they champion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. Or Hannity himself. These portly gents are the voices of the "Middle America" that won Dubya his latest election; I'd say they serve their causes pretty damn well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed, a fellow who manages to get his point across and win votes isn't a fool. Nothing argues like success.

 

However, Hannity is an obnoxious fellow and I don't like listening to his show. ...And I hate all talk radio. I'd rather listen to music.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Unfortunately, they treat information coming from outside the coalition as quite possible and, indeed, probably true.  The BBC would have had you believe the coalition was losing the war.  I'm not talking about the subsequent occupation of Iraq. They seemed to believe it would take months to take even the major cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The BBC reported the successes and the setbacks during the war. They didn't report that the coalition was losing the war, but they did (I think, it's a while ago now) report that there was doubt about how soon and how complete the coalition's occupation of Iraq would be. They were cautious, and they have been proved right in this. Despite the coalition's announcement that major combat has ceased, Iraq is now in a desperate state. Has the US won the war, or is the war continuing?

[Volourn]

There was always more than one reason given for the war. People seem to ignore them all; but one. Very convinent. The fact that Iraq broke multiple UN Resolutions, murdered its own people, and the possible threat of nuclear weapons were just three of the reasons.

 

 

"If we're talking UNSC resolutions, however...by that logic, we ought to be in Israel, right now. Israel, after all, holds the world record on UNSC resolutions broken, most of them dealing with Geneva Convention violations and nuclear capability pursuit/disclosure."

 

As above, breaking UN Resolutions is just one of the reasons why Iraq was invaded. Going by that alone then yes Isreal deserves to be invaded; but it isn't so they aren't.

 

 

"The BBC reported the successes and the setbacks during the war. They didn't report that the coalition was losing the war, but they did (I think, it's a while ago now) report that there was doubt about how soon and how complete the coalition's occupation of Iraq would be. They were cautious, and they have been proved right in this. Despite the coalition's announcement that major combat has ceased, Iraq is now in a desperate state. Has the US won the war, or is the war continuing?"

 

They reported multiple falsehoods about how Iraq was kicking the Coalition's butt. They didn't knwow aht theyw ere talking about like hwo they claim that they would never be able tot ake Baghdad or how deadly the Elite Iraqi soldiers would destroy the Amerikans. They amde the Iraqi Information Minsiter proud.

 

Iraq isn't nowhere near a 'desperate' state. It's on its way to recovery. people seem tof roget that it took years to get Germany and Japan back to 'normal' life. Besides, Iraqis are alreayd getting more quality water and more efficent electrical useage than they were getting priot to the war.

 

As above, many screw ups have occured on part of the Coaltion; but overall; they have done well. Surely better than the UN and their 'Oil For Food Program'.

[Commissar]

Indeed, a fellow who manages to get his point across and win votes isn't a fool.  Nothing argues like success.

 

However, Hannity is an obnoxious fellow and I don't like listening to his show.  ...And I hate all talk radio.  I'd rather listen to music.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What was it Churchill said? The best argument against democracy is spending five minutes with the average voter? People voted for Hitler, too, don't forget. Success in an election that found the middle American more concerned about "them darn gays" getting health insurance from their partners' job than education, the environment, the economy, or deficit reduction doesn't really argue your point for you.

 

You know, I used to try and argue the point whenever someone referred to me as one of those liberal intellectual elites. Now I just admit that I can indeed read and move on.

[Lucius]

There was always more than one reason given for the war. People seem to ignore them all; but one. Very convinent. The fact that Iraq broke multiple UN Resolutions, murdered its own people, and the possible threat of nuclear weapons were just three of the reasons.

 

 

"If we're talking UNSC resolutions, however...by that logic, we ought to be in Israel, right now. Israel, after all, holds the world record on UNSC resolutions broken, most of them dealing with Geneva Convention violations and nuclear capability pursuit/disclosure."

 

As above, breaking UN Resolutions is just one of the reasons why Iraq was invaded. Going by that alone then yes Isreal deserves to be invaded; but it isn't so they aren't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You may try to twist and spin it in whichever way you please, of course, but I know what I saw presented before the Security Council, it was the biggest laugh I had that day, truely amusing, not to mention feeble. I guess a lot of the people on the council thought so too. :D

[Volourn]

Are you saying that Bush and Co. never brought up Iraqis' Crimes against Humanity, the breaking of UN resolutions a,mongst other thinsgw hen making the case? or, you one of those who will pretend it was always 100% about WMDs. They played a big part of the reasoning; but it wasn't the only one.

[Commissar]

There was always more than one reason given for the war. People seem to ignore them all; but one. Very convinent. The fact that Iraq broke multiple UN Resolutions, murdered its own people, and the possible threat of nuclear weapons were just three of the reasons.

 

 

"If we're talking UNSC resolutions, however...by that logic, we ought to be in Israel, right now. Israel, after all, holds the world record on UNSC resolutions broken, most of them dealing with Geneva Convention violations and nuclear capability pursuit/disclosure."

 

As above, breaking UN Resolutions is just one of the reasons why Iraq was invaded. Going by that alone then yes Isreal deserves to be invaded; but it isn't so they aren't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What are the UNSC resolutions concerning Israel I mentioned concerning? Human rights violations (including murdering its own people), and the possible threat of nuclear weapons. You want more reasons? How 'bout the interesting little tidbit that Israel has started more wars in the region in the past 60 years than any other nation? Come to think of it, don't we prevent UN inspectors from getting a look at Israel's suspected nuclear facilities? Pretty sure the answer to that's yes.

 

I'm not saying we should roll into Tel Aviv with the 101st, I'm simply saying that maybe we're not as hard and fast with our rules as you might like to think.

[metadigital]

1. The war in Iraq -- the Second Gulf War -- was not "legal". The UNSCR 1441 stopped short of the wording used to precipitate the first Gulf War, which is the reason Tony Blair was trying so hard to get the second UNSC Resolution. The fact that international law is a shambles doesn't excuse illegal activity.

 

2. The premise for going to war was that Iraq posed a "real and present danger", with Inter-Continental Ballistic Weapons of Mass Destruction that could reach the UK in 45 minutes, based on a single, uncorroborated source who has since been discreditied as he was attempting to obtain political asylum.

 

3. The premise in the US for going to war was ludicrously linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qieda!

 

4. It is patently clear that no-one had planned for what to do after the invasion. Standing down the entire Iraqi armed forces and not shoring up the borders were two fatal mistakes, for which the poor soldiers (and Iraqi civilians) are paying for now.

 

All that said, I am pleased the war happened, as I don't have a Lawful Good alignment. It is mandatory that the coalition stay and complete the stated mission, because a rapid withdrawal would only duplicate the problems created where the dominant world power has left a power vacuum, before; e.g.: the UK in Afghanistan and Palestine!

 

I would be in favour of going after Mugabe and pattern-bombing North Korea, too. (Not that I'm a violent person. )

[11XHooah]

The war was very legal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A few Desert Storm era mortar shells with Sarin gas is not WMD's, sorry mate, the war was illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you seen what Sarin gas can do? And you are aware that he was testing this, as well as many other biological/chemical weapons on his own people, right?

 

Besides, according to Bush, it was bad intel. I don't really know if that is the truth, but the fact of the matter is that we ARE there. Worry about all that sh*t when the war is over. And really the objectives of the war have drastically changed. Now it is a mission to liberate Iraq and give them the freedoms that we enjoy everyday. And personally, I think that we needed to free these people from the tyranny and oppression of that piece of crap Saddam. IMO, we should have taken him down when we had the chance during Desert Storm, but we made the mistake of not doing it. If we had, I'm sure we would have found the WMD's that he was hiding. Just think; he had an ampel amount of time to export them out of the country or hide them. Not to mention when the UN held us up, he had even more of an opportunity to get rid of anything he had left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah...yeah. Look, every single report done on the matter states, clearly, that Iraq's WMD program was in a state of decline in the years leading up to invasion; they also unequivocally state that absolutely nothing was exported out of Iraq prior to us going in.

 

Actually, pardon me; every single report, except for good ol' Halliburton ****'s constant insistance that Iraq has a nuclear arsenal on par with our own.

 

And you're right, we should've gotten him in Desert Storm. Or we should've never sold him the weapons he used to kill his own people in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How do you know nothing was exported out of Iraq? We can't watch all of Iraq's borders at once. He could have easily slipped them into other countries where they could be sold or hidden. Not to mention that you miss the fact that he had a decade before Operation Iraqi Freedom to get them out of the country.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Iraq isn't nowhere near a 'desperate' state.  It's on its way to recovery. people seem tof roget that it took years to get Germany and Japan back to 'normal' life. Besides, Iraqis are alreayd getting more quality water and more efficent electrical useage than they were getting priot to the war.

 

As above, many screw ups have occured on part of the Coaltion; but overall; they have done well. Surely better than the UN and their 'Oil For Food Program'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many daily kidnappings, bombs and murders does it take before it's in a desperate state? Do you really think that the present situation in Iraq is comparable in terms of the level of violence with post-war Germany or Japan?

 

Who knows how much of Iraq's wealth has been lost/stolen by the occupiers? It will take a long time for the full story to come out (a very long time if we rely on Fox News :D )

[Walsingham]

For the record, I think the war is illegal, but that guy really isn't too bright for writing those things. However, Mr Stupid Fox News guy, whom I've seen before in an interview where he behaves almost as immature as this, is equally stupid. I mean, he believes the US soldiers in Iraq are fighting for the ability to have free speech and liberty? Does that include the Danish contingent down there as well? Because I'm fairly sure they don't know that, someone outta tell em!  :D 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Knowing Brits (RAF and Army) who have come back, i can say that is how they see it.

 

And the questionable legality can be best dealt with by a gander at the Attorney General's advice. Make sure you read the full version though. In it, it is clearly stated that war is legal where there are compelling reasons to believe that doing so would avert an humanitarian catastrophe. This is an established fact with Rwanda and the Balkans. With saddam hussein's bodycount at an average of 101 civilians dead per day I'd say there was a crisis...

 

But if you really want to hear whether it was a good move, don't take my word for it. Ask an Iraqi.

[Lucius]

Are you saying that Bush and Co. never brought up Iraqis' Crimes against Humanity, the breaking of UN resolutions a,mongst other thinsgw hen making the case? or, you one of those who will pretend it was always 100% about WMDs. They played a big part of the reasoning; but it wasn't the only one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure they did, but they would never have been allowed to launch an invasion based on "we're going in there to liberate them poor Iraqis" alone, they just needed an excuse, a really good one, the ultimate lie... hmm; "Threat to the international community in the forms of deadly biological and chemical warheads plus a possible nuclear program?" You got it! :D

[11XHooah]

I know what Sarin gas is and what it can do, the fact of the matter is, however, that the amount found didn't make Saddam the kind of international threat we were told he was. (I remember Bush whining about Biological and chemical weapons in large amounts?)

It's convenient that the war was now 'always' about the freedom of Iraqis and not WMD's, according to some people in the American right.

 

However, If you really want to take on a dangerous nation oppressing its people and which actually possesses weapons of mass destruction (unlike Iraq), why don't you tour past North Korea next time? Or don't the poor people of NK deserve freedom as much as Iraqis? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In regards to North Korea, they do pose a threat. And it is obvious that they have aspirations to start up their nuclear programs. Should we go to war with them? Not if we don't have to. We'll give them a chance just like we gave Saddam. Besides, we could not handle another war if we had to right now. Unless of course we reinstate Selective Service, which I highly doubt will happen.

[metadigital]

How many daily kidnappings, bombs and murders does it take before it's in a desperate state?  Do you really think that the present situation in Iraq is comparable in terms of the level of violence with post-war Germany or Japan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fact: Number of allied soldiers killed whilst occupying Germany after WW2: ZERO.

[Commissar]

How do you know nothing was exported out of Iraq?  We can't watch all of Iraq's borders at once. He could have easily slipped them into other countries where they could be sold or hidden. Not to mention that you miss the fact that he had a decade before Operation Iraqi Freedom to get them out of the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know; I'm taking the word of the panel appointed to investigate the appalling intelligence failures that led up to the invasion. They say nothing was moved out, and they also say he never built any in the first place. They also say that the claims he could've ramped up to production capacity in three months' time were absurd.

[Lucius]

In regards to North Korea, they do pose a threat. And it is obvious that they have aspirations to start up their nuclear programs. Should we go to war with them? Not if we don't have to. We'll give them a chance just like we gave Saddam. Besides, we could not handle another war if we had to right now. Unless of course we reinstate Selective Service, which I highly doubt will happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Not if we don't have to" - Oh but isn't all this about bringing our form of government, and our views of freedom to the rest of the world anymore? What determines if a country is fit for purification? Is it that Dubya & Co knows that North Korea actually possesses WMD's to use against possible invaders and Iraq didn't? :D