Molon Labe
Member
The truth is even worse. They kill for "Allah"...
Just saw unedited Iraq helicopter video…
- Thread starter StrikeFire83
- Start date
- Status
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
"First, you're the only one who has brought up religious clensing."
l
l
\/
"As sickening as it is I think every adult American should see these videos and the beheading videos. It gives you a clear vision of what these thugs would like to do to all people who don't bow to their thinking. One of the beheading videos starts out with the groups symbol. Which Is an open book(the Koran) enveloping the earth. No doubt thats their desires if they could get away with it."
That's leading off topic though, best to let it slide.
Many people in the region are glad to see Saddam go, there are more 'Saddams' that they would like to see go as well. They complain about the manner of the fall, and they suspect the motivation, though. Also the world mourns the loss of the charade kept up for many years that agression could not be successfully used to permanently affect other countries - and they are a little scared that the precedent set could be abused by other countries in the future.
If Iraq is rebuilt nice and tidy, and the people develop the tools to keep it that way, then all will be made right, better than right, it will really have been a humanitarian task, history books might record it in a positive light. It will take a lot of finesse, but and Ireland situation might be successfully averted, with a Basque type situation the upside potential. Ireland shows us how a poorly-armed resistance can go on indefinately, with 'hearts and minds' kept in sway indefinately. It was unrealistic to have expected all Iraqis to welcome the coalition as liberators, with flowers and chamapgne, and current sufferings are merely the logical extension of a flawed policy.
l
l
\/
"As sickening as it is I think every adult American should see these videos and the beheading videos. It gives you a clear vision of what these thugs would like to do to all people who don't bow to their thinking. One of the beheading videos starts out with the groups symbol. Which Is an open book(the Koran) enveloping the earth. No doubt thats their desires if they could get away with it."
That's leading off topic though, best to let it slide.
Many people in the region are glad to see Saddam go, there are more 'Saddams' that they would like to see go as well. They complain about the manner of the fall, and they suspect the motivation, though. Also the world mourns the loss of the charade kept up for many years that agression could not be successfully used to permanently affect other countries - and they are a little scared that the precedent set could be abused by other countries in the future.
If Iraq is rebuilt nice and tidy, and the people develop the tools to keep it that way, then all will be made right, better than right, it will really have been a humanitarian task, history books might record it in a positive light. It will take a lot of finesse, but and Ireland situation might be successfully averted, with a Basque type situation the upside potential. Ireland shows us how a poorly-armed resistance can go on indefinately, with 'hearts and minds' kept in sway indefinately. It was unrealistic to have expected all Iraqis to welcome the coalition as liberators, with flowers and chamapgne, and current sufferings are merely the logical extension of a flawed policy.
XLMiguel
Member
On the pragmatic side, one can hope that someday when the dust settles, the video will be used to prosecute the evil ones and they get their justice. It reminds me, on a much grosser lever, of teh stupid kids who videotape themselves being badasses and get put away by their own evidence.
As the bumper sticker says, "Judgement is the Lord's. The Marines are here to arrange the introduction."
Inshallah.
As the bumper sticker says, "Judgement is the Lord's. The Marines are here to arrange the introduction."
Inshallah.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
My point was that the use of the word 'insurgent' does not fit our forces nor our actions in Iraq. You maintain that it does. So the US rebelled against Saddam, huh? I never knew he was in charge of our government. Jeez, the things you learn here.
You maintain that Saddam was a constituted authority, huh? Therefore, you believe you can become a constituted authority by shooting your political opponents. Sorry, SIOP, but if you truly believe in your position on this...please look into remedial education.Looks like they caught the murderers:
I hope they're shown as much mercy as they gave that pilot.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154403,00.html
I hope they're shown as much mercy as they gave that pilot.
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
+1
Telling him to run and then shooting him in the back is the worst.
Unfortunately I can't say what I really think should be done about it here. I guess I'll be relegated to watching the few terrorist sympathizers on here post their drivel without an appropriate response.
I.C.
Telling him to run and then shooting him in the back is the worst.
Unfortunately I can't say what I really think should be done about it here. I guess I'll be relegated to watching the few terrorist sympathizers on here post their drivel without an appropriate response. I.C.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Funny-sad about these pro- and anti-war deals.
Back in the 1960s/1970s, in arguments about Vietnam, I'd bring up our obligations under the SEATO. "Huh?" from those against our involvement; they'd never heard of it.
Same sorta thing about Iraq. I've been told, "Well, it shoulda been a UN deal!" I'd ask about enforcement of the 15 or 17 or whatever it was UN resolutions that Saddam ignored. "Huh? Whaddaya mean?"
Seems to me that just way too many people seem to have a knowledge of history that began after this morning's coffee...
, Art
Back in the 1960s/1970s, in arguments about Vietnam, I'd bring up our obligations under the SEATO. "Huh?" from those against our involvement; they'd never heard of it.
Same sorta thing about Iraq. I've been told, "Well, it shoulda been a UN deal!" I'd ask about enforcement of the 15 or 17 or whatever it was UN resolutions that Saddam ignored. "Huh? Whaddaya mean?"
Seems to me that just way too many people seem to have a knowledge of history that began after this morning's coffee...
, ArtByron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
SIOP:
No, sir, we did not. When an organisation has produced mass graves filled with 15,000 citizens which it murdered...it is not a legitimate government. We appointed a provisional government with a limited time span of authority and a process to provide democratic elections of a new government and a new constitution. Thus far we have held to what we pledged. I have no reason to doubt that we will horor the remainder of that pledge. There is a distinct difference betwee this and what you state.
By your logic, our defeating Nazi Germany was 'ousting the installed government.' And we did. But not as insurgents. Tell you what: since the definition of insurgent could not convey your misuse of the word...go back and look up the definiton of every word in the definition of insurgent. If you still are unclear after that then all I can suggest is remedial education...extensive remedial education...to attain an adequate grasp of the English language.
And no, we did not go into Iraq and shoot our political opponents who were not shooting at us. There is a legal difference in US law and international law between shooting an armed and resisiting person and shooting someone who is unarmed. We have done the first. Saddam has done the second, numerous times. Even to the point of killing people he distrusted with a pistol in his 'presidential' office. Under your logic, Saddam when found...they'd have just dropped a hand grenade down his hole. Instead he is in prison, awaiting for a government to reach a point in development where it will give him a fair and open trial. Which is more than any Iraqi ever got from him.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Relax, Byron. Calm down, boy.
Just remember that the reason there were matrilineal societies is that the people couldn't connect two events nine months apart.
Art
Just remember that the reason there were matrilineal societies is that the people couldn't connect two events nine months apart.
Art
SIOP:
Oh, it's all clear now. I must have just missed the part in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the U.S. to do that. I guess we'll be invading China next, right? And then VietNam. And then Cambodia. And then South Africa. And then............
Ditto above. Not our damn job.
Hitler would have never gotten as far as he did had the western allies not allowed him to. That being said, Germany did declare war on the U.S. and was a legitimate threat, unlike Iraq.
Perhaps next time you are taking a break from your mall cop job you could drop by a book store and find a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it. Also look for a copy of the Federalist Papers at the same time, as it may help you to understand what the Constitution means and what the framers' intent was.
You guys need to get the blinders off and quit confusing "terrorist sympathizers" with true conservatives that believe that the U.S. Constitution, as originally written, is the supreme law of the land and that it established rules that, had we followed over the years, would never have allowed this country to sink to the depths it has.
If you believe that the U.S. Constitution allowed us to attack Iraq, with or without a declaration of war, then you can have no argument with those that also wish to deprive you of your 2nd amendment rights. You can't use the Constitution a la carte.
Oh, it's all clear now. I must have just missed the part in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the U.S. to do that. I guess we'll be invading China next, right? And then VietNam. And then Cambodia. And then South Africa. And then............
Ditto above. Not our damn job.
Hitler would have never gotten as far as he did had the western allies not allowed him to. That being said, Germany did declare war on the U.S. and was a legitimate threat, unlike Iraq.
Perhaps next time you are taking a break from your mall cop job you could drop by a book store and find a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it. Also look for a copy of the Federalist Papers at the same time, as it may help you to understand what the Constitution means and what the framers' intent was.
You guys need to get the blinders off and quit confusing "terrorist sympathizers" with true conservatives that believe that the U.S. Constitution, as originally written, is the supreme law of the land and that it established rules that, had we followed over the years, would never have allowed this country to sink to the depths it has.
If you believe that the U.S. Constitution allowed us to attack Iraq, with or without a declaration of war, then you can have no argument with those that also wish to deprive you of your 2nd amendment rights. You can't use the Constitution a la carte.
horge
Member
SIOP,
Saddam's Iraq had excellent infrastructure at one time. It was a lendor nation to many East Asian countries. However, both economic mismanagement, and particularly a decade of deserved UN sanctions took their toll.
The sanctions proved ineffective as Saddam continued to support terrorist activity --- noted in the Philippines, where damning cellphone intercepts in 2003 between an Iraqi diplomat and the Davao city bombers (Jemaah Islamiyah) led to his expulsion; and earlier indicated when both instnces of foreign hostage-tking by the Abu Sayyaf were instantly followed by then Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz personally flying in to pay ransom money provided by Saddam and Libya's Muamar Khaddafy. Those ransom payouts were really long- planned financing for East Asian muslim terrorists. The kidnappings were a way to 'launder' terrorist funding. The US blocked the second attempt.
Keep in mind that the Philippines was in many ways the springboard for the attack on New York's World Trade Center. Our borders were porous, and it was easy for the likes of Al Qayyida's Ramzi Ahmed Yousef to get in and set up cells. Manila police uncovered a draft plan (Bojinka) to crash commercial airliners into strategic US buildings back in 1995(!!! --the documents were provided to your President Clinton, who did....nothing). Yousef drew his funding from five Islamic 'charitable foundations' in the Philippines --two of them set up by Usama bin Laden through his brother-in-law Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, and two of them set up by.... Saddam. The fifth was linked to the Saudi royal family. All five were shut down by the Philippines.
Indeed, this is just in the Philippines, where Saddam's funding of terrorism is responsible for a cumulative death toll exceeding 10,000. Saddam's financing trail extended in many other directions, to other countries, and although Usama bin Laden had little love for Saddam, he was definitely not averse to Saddam's financial support for al-Qayyida terror cells the world over.
Bottom line is that while sanctions had prevented Saddam's Iraq from waging conventional war, it left the door wide open to waging unconventional terrorism, and something had to be done. The US was ultimately enforcing not one, but several legitimate UNSCR's aimed at preventing the international aggression that Saddam had found a way to continue.
Yes, the coalition destroyed Iraqi infrastructure, and killed many Iraqis.
War is like that, and the reality that they were already dying under Saddam is little consolation to the victims and survivors. Innocent lives lost are lost forever, but the infrastructure CAN be repaired.
The conscientious rebuilding of Iraq is underway. This necessitates the hiring of private security agencies to guard reconstruction contractors' workers. They're not in there to kill Iraqis, but to guard the restoration of Iraqi infrastructure: to build, not to destroy.... and you want to call them invaders?
So, would you advocate having cut clean and having just left Iraq in ruins after toppling Saddam?
If the US had done that, saving thousands of US men and women from injury and death, then you and others might instead be complaining about how the US was NOT rebuilding.
US soldiers came in for winning the war.
Those security contractors went to allow winning the peace.
That soldiers and rebuilders are paid should not diminish them, nor their efforts to keep it safe for you and I to armchair this thing publicly.
.
Saddam's Iraq had excellent infrastructure at one time. It was a lendor nation to many East Asian countries. However, both economic mismanagement, and particularly a decade of deserved UN sanctions took their toll.
The sanctions proved ineffective as Saddam continued to support terrorist activity --- noted in the Philippines, where damning cellphone intercepts in 2003 between an Iraqi diplomat and the Davao city bombers (Jemaah Islamiyah) led to his expulsion; and earlier indicated when both instnces of foreign hostage-tking by the Abu Sayyaf were instantly followed by then Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz personally flying in to pay ransom money provided by Saddam and Libya's Muamar Khaddafy. Those ransom payouts were really long- planned financing for East Asian muslim terrorists. The kidnappings were a way to 'launder' terrorist funding. The US blocked the second attempt.
Keep in mind that the Philippines was in many ways the springboard for the attack on New York's World Trade Center. Our borders were porous, and it was easy for the likes of Al Qayyida's Ramzi Ahmed Yousef to get in and set up cells. Manila police uncovered a draft plan (Bojinka) to crash commercial airliners into strategic US buildings back in 1995(!!! --the documents were provided to your President Clinton, who did....nothing). Yousef drew his funding from five Islamic 'charitable foundations' in the Philippines --two of them set up by Usama bin Laden through his brother-in-law Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, and two of them set up by.... Saddam. The fifth was linked to the Saudi royal family. All five were shut down by the Philippines.
Indeed, this is just in the Philippines, where Saddam's funding of terrorism is responsible for a cumulative death toll exceeding 10,000. Saddam's financing trail extended in many other directions, to other countries, and although Usama bin Laden had little love for Saddam, he was definitely not averse to Saddam's financial support for al-Qayyida terror cells the world over.
Bottom line is that while sanctions had prevented Saddam's Iraq from waging conventional war, it left the door wide open to waging unconventional terrorism, and something had to be done. The US was ultimately enforcing not one, but several legitimate UNSCR's aimed at preventing the international aggression that Saddam had found a way to continue.
Yes, the coalition destroyed Iraqi infrastructure, and killed many Iraqis.
War is like that, and the reality that they were already dying under Saddam is little consolation to the victims and survivors. Innocent lives lost are lost forever, but the infrastructure CAN be repaired.
The conscientious rebuilding of Iraq is underway. This necessitates the hiring of private security agencies to guard reconstruction contractors' workers. They're not in there to kill Iraqis, but to guard the restoration of Iraqi infrastructure: to build, not to destroy.... and you want to call them invaders?
So, would you advocate having cut clean and having just left Iraq in ruins after toppling Saddam?
If the US had done that, saving thousands of US men and women from injury and death, then you and others might instead be complaining about how the US was NOT rebuilding.
US soldiers came in for winning the war.
Those security contractors went to allow winning the peace.
That soldiers and rebuilders are paid should not diminish them, nor their efforts to keep it safe for you and I to armchair this thing publicly.
.
Gung-Ho
member
OK....I'm going to go puke now. Manoman, that "Thin Blue Line" gets pretty thick around here sometimes.
Gung-Ho
member
Did the door hit you in the rear on the way out?
Warbow
Member
Not that I don't highly dislike Al-Jazeera, but that wasn't them filming. Lots of insurgents have their own camcorders for filming their killing to post on the internet and include in propaganda videos that are sold by street vendors.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
The erroneous belief that the Iraq war is grotesquely unconstitutional comes up from time to time.
With or without the 3 word talisman "Declaration of War", it is Congress who has the unlimited power to authorize the use of military force, for any or no reason whatsoever.
Nowhere does the Constitution place any limitation upon that Power, nor does it require Congress to justify it in any way.
In the case of Iraq, they did indeed authorize the use of military force, via Public Law No: 107-243, the text of which can be read here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
Although it lacks the 3 word talisman, it adheres entirely to the spirit, if not the letter.
texagun
Member
This morning's paper reports that the US Military captured 6 of the insurgents responsible for the shoot-down and took them into custody after receiving several tips from Iraqi civilians. I wonder what they will do with them....probably give them a trial....I'm sure it will be a long drawn-out legal process. Swift justice would be my preference.
American's go to work and are then compelled against their will to pay taxes. The gov't gives those taxes to the Iraqi's for free. Therefore, U.S. citizens are the forced slaves of the Iraqis.
It is treason to give the towelheads one cent of your or my money.
It is treason to give the towelheads one cent of your or my money.
Well, I wasn't going to post to this thread anymore, but I'll make this final comment: What this law did was delegate the war-making authority vested in the Congress to the President. He wasn't even required to tell Congress what he had done until after he had done it. This is what is clearly a constitutional violation. The Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority to delegate its responsibilities to anyone, including the President. This was clearly an attempt by Congress to wash its hands of the matter and pass the buck. The way it should have worked would have been that the President, after exhausting all diplomatic avenues, would then go to Congress and say we need to go to war. Then Congress would vote on it.
Again, if you believe that Congress, by passing a law, can circumvent the Constitution, then you can have absolutely no quarrel with gun control laws, abortion, foreign aid, welfare, etc. And when the U.N. enacts their global small arms eradication program ( http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/poa.html ), and they come to get your guns because, after all, the Constitution authorizes the President to make treaties, and we're a U.N. signatory, and treaties trump the Constitution, it's too late to way whoa.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
SIOP,
Even in the 17th century, war by committee was known not to be effective, and it has been long recognized that a single decision maker was needed to deal with rapidly evolving military situations. .
Delegating the implementation of military force to the constitutionally mandated commander-in-chief is entirely appropriate.
Circumscribing the conditions under which said force may be wielded is also appropriate, as is granting the CIC latitude in selecting the military means.
That's what commander-in-chiefs are for, and it takes a real distortion in thinking to view it as unconstitutional delegation.
I'm afraid that your apparent desire to declare the Iraq war unconsitutional, and somehow bind it to other constitutionally dubious issues just doesn't wash.
Whichever side of the just/unjust debate you fall on, it's pretty hard to argue that constitutional forms have not been followed, unless you want to obsess over the 3 word talisman "declaration of war".
If you really wanted to attack the constitutionality of the Iraq war, a better venue would be to attack whether the _congress_ was within it's powers in the first place to pass the legislation, in that any legislation passed must be "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...", as this clause ultimately limits congressional powers to constitutionally valid endeavors.
That's a pretty tough argument to stake, however, as it involves a lengthy and brittle chain of logic, and isn't likely to succeed.
The other erroneous notion you and many others labor under is the "treaties trump the constitution" fallacy, which has been dealt with in depth elsewhere.
Long story short: The primacy clause in Article VI provides that:
Constrains legislation and treaties 3 ways:
-They must be made in pursuance thereof, which means made in conformance with constitutionally granted enumerate powers which may not transgress reserved rights,
-They must be under the Authority of the powers granted, which is circumscribed
-judges are bound to the Constitution, in spite of the contents of any state, federal law, treaty, or subsequent amendment that say they aren't.
The bottom line is that treaties may not trump the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and any foriegn (or domestic) troopers running around under foreign authority and the pretext of a treaty confiscating arms can be pretty much shot on sight.
In fact, it's arguably true that having a militia duty, you'd be constitutionally required to do so
, but that is an amusing digression.
I think that's great advice. Reading the Constitution's a great idea, and a positive step towards UNDERSTANDING it.
Even in the 17th century, war by committee was known not to be effective, and it has been long recognized that a single decision maker was needed to deal with rapidly evolving military situations. .
Delegating the implementation of military force to the constitutionally mandated commander-in-chief is entirely appropriate.
Circumscribing the conditions under which said force may be wielded is also appropriate, as is granting the CIC latitude in selecting the military means.
That's what commander-in-chiefs are for, and it takes a real distortion in thinking to view it as unconstitutional delegation.
I'm afraid that your apparent desire to declare the Iraq war unconsitutional, and somehow bind it to other constitutionally dubious issues just doesn't wash.
Whichever side of the just/unjust debate you fall on, it's pretty hard to argue that constitutional forms have not been followed, unless you want to obsess over the 3 word talisman "declaration of war".
If you really wanted to attack the constitutionality of the Iraq war, a better venue would be to attack whether the _congress_ was within it's powers in the first place to pass the legislation, in that any legislation passed must be "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...", as this clause ultimately limits congressional powers to constitutionally valid endeavors.
That's a pretty tough argument to stake, however, as it involves a lengthy and brittle chain of logic, and isn't likely to succeed.
The other erroneous notion you and many others labor under is the "treaties trump the constitution" fallacy, which has been dealt with in depth elsewhere.
Long story short: The primacy clause in Article VI provides that:
Constrains legislation and treaties 3 ways:
-They must be made in pursuance thereof, which means made in conformance with constitutionally granted enumerate powers which may not transgress reserved rights,
-They must be under the Authority of the powers granted, which is circumscribed
-judges are bound to the Constitution, in spite of the contents of any state, federal law, treaty, or subsequent amendment that say they aren't.
The bottom line is that treaties may not trump the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and any foriegn (or domestic) troopers running around under foreign authority and the pretext of a treaty confiscating arms can be pretty much shot on sight.
In fact, it's arguably true that having a militia duty, you'd be constitutionally required to do so
, but that is an amusing digression.I think that's great advice. Reading the Constitution's a great idea, and a positive step towards UNDERSTANDING it.
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
i just added that video to my webpage. thanks for the link.
Time for Total Isolationsim?
Let's try to appease the current crop of anti-Bush, anti-war, leftists Americans (some of whom are posting in this thread), and just retreat from all of the foreign lands within our national interest. Let us build a mile-thick, mile-high solid steel wall around the USA, and just fend for ourselves with what we have. We should rely totally on our own oil, food, strategic materials, etc.
Let the rest of the world go on without us, and we'll go on without the rest of the world.
Of course, we will have to totally reject and ignore the words of the left's biggest icon, who said, "In the past few years - and, most violently, in the past few days - we have learned a terrible lesson. We must begin the great task that is before us by abandoning once and for all the illusion that we can ever again isolate ourselves from the rest of humanity." This great U.S. president then added, "We are going to win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 10Dec1941.
Out now! Out Now! Out Now!
Gag me with a roadside bomb!
Let's try to appease the current crop of anti-Bush, anti-war, leftists Americans (some of whom are posting in this thread), and just retreat from all of the foreign lands within our national interest. Let us build a mile-thick, mile-high solid steel wall around the USA, and just fend for ourselves with what we have. We should rely totally on our own oil, food, strategic materials, etc.
Let the rest of the world go on without us, and we'll go on without the rest of the world.
Of course, we will have to totally reject and ignore the words of the left's biggest icon, who said, "In the past few years - and, most violently, in the past few days - we have learned a terrible lesson. We must begin the great task that is before us by abandoning once and for all the illusion that we can ever again isolate ourselves from the rest of humanity." This great U.S. president then added, "We are going to win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 10Dec1941.
Out now! Out Now! Out Now!
Gag me with a roadside bomb!
- Status