more iraq

[smokedamage]

US official admits that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Of course, this is the fault of the UN, and particularly France.

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against

Comments

[sableagle]

I never read the full speech, but the impression I recall from the bits I saw was that he didn't say they were equivalent but that they were in the same situation in terms of how the world viewed them. He didn't say "What US people are doing is as bad as what the Nazis did," but "The world sees G-Bay as a major bad thing, the same way they saw the Nazis' and Pol Pot's actions." The two are different statements

[journalsoup]

"Well do we know whether he entered on foot, crossing a fence, or whether he drove in

[smokedamage]

well, perhaps you can find out if it was an unmarked border. I mean i would expect a man hunting border jumpers would have a map and know the territory he was looking in. What if he wandered into a minefield or something?

Re: The accusation of a double standard.
You said:
That's a lot of investigation and NO actual proof of ANY misdeeds. When (or if) they're found guilty of any of that stuff, you may have a point. Until then they're innocent and should be free to spend their free time as they choose. In fact, the article even mentions that they have been looked at and found innocent.

yet it was not illegal, for the US to invade iraq even though, iraq had been cleared of possessing WMDs, which was the stated reason for the invasion.

my accusation of the double standard was : That if Simcox should be left alone to do as he will, since he was proven innocent, that iraq should have had the same treatment because they were declared innocent, and have since been proven innocent, because the place has been crawling with american troops

[yojimbot]

yet it was not illegal, for the US to invade iraq even though, iraq had been cleared of possessing WMDs, which was the stated reason for the invasion.Why do you INSIST on bringing up the invasion of Iraq as some sort of justification for your argument when no one in this discussion (even the person who keeps citing it as his defense!) condones the U.S. occupation of that country? "But, but.. Look at what America did! You guys must agree!" What's so hard about going, "Oh, that makes sense. I didn't think of it like that."..? Is it that preposterous to imagine that this dude didn't know where the imaginary line existed? If you were to travel from Australia to New Zealand, would you know the precise moment you left Australian waters or airspace? At this point, you're just trying to cling to any wrong-doing he might have done. Fine, the guy wandered into the National Park with a firearm and he's a bad man. He broke the law and should be punished! Off with his head! But getting a parking ticket is a pretty far cry from being a

[journalsoup]

Truth. Couldn't have said it better myself.

KeL

[smokedamage]

It is KeL's suggestion that it was an unmarked road. We don't know either way, he might have been driven in in the Bentley.

I would not be surprised if this moron with a gun, who hunts mexicans for fun, would not have a map, and wouldn't have a clue where he was, however i would think a sensible man might have 1) a map, and 2) a clue where he is going.

Fine, he's not guilty of... er, what did i accuse him of?

I bring up the invasion because it is an unlawful act, and to be honest i don't give a shit about Simcox, but i do care about the illegality of an invasion from one sovereign nation to the other, costing thousands of lives, for no reason. Why is this acceptable? Why hasn't more been done? Why wasn't it stopped? What is this inevitablilty that seems to be unstoppable?

What is to stop Bush staying on as president? The Supreme Court? He's already ignored them on a number of issues. The army? Isn't he the supreme commander? Really what's to stop him?

[journalsoup]

"I never read the full speech, but the impression I recall from the bits I saw was that he didn't say they were equivalent but that they were in the same situation in terms of how the world viewed them. He didn't say "What US people are doing is as bad as what the Nazis did," but "The world sees G-Bay as a major bad thing, the same way they saw the Nazis' and Pol Pot's actions." The two are different statements

[smokedamage]

He is directly equating the actions of american soldiers to that of nazis, soviets & Pol Pot. No two statements about it. He's pretty clear about it. Unfortunately.

"The US gov't says they've identified and punished the people responsible ... and that's that and noone else needs to come and see whether it's still going on or what's really going on or whether it's at all possible there just might be someone higher up who's also responsible but who hasn't been punished."

Ummmm....that's why they're there at the hearings. So they can come forward and show that a thorough investigation has been done and show that the responsible parties have been punished.

American soldiers compared to Nazi soldiers. What's the problem?
Both are a mix of volunteer and conscripts, have guns, mostly very well trained compared to other soldier, have family at home, invading foreign country, and following orders. What's the objection here?

and sableagle is right

[journalsoup]

"American soldiers compared to Nazi soldiers. What's the problem?
Both are a mix of volunteer and conscripts, have guns, mostly very well trained compared to other soldier, have family at home, invading foreign country, and following orders. What's the objection here?"

So.....basically most modern western (and even many non-western) militaries can be reasonably compared to nazis? That's what you're saying? Seriously, that is such a horrible analogy. That's like saying you can reasonable compare the flu to ebola. Well, they both make you sick, both cause fevers, dehydration, aching head and body What's the objection?

KeL

[smokedamage]

Well being compared to nazi soldiers is one thing, acting like nazis is another. then again, the american grasp of history seems to be so shaky that i can kind of understand the need to talk to lowest common denominator, which is why it's easy for the slightly brighter and articulate to poke holes.

[journalsoup]

"Well being compared to nazi soldiers is one thing, acting like nazis is another."

Just for clarity's sake, you're differentiating between nazis and their soldiers here?

"it's easy for the slightly brighter and articulate to poke holes."

That's why god invented the rational and sound (and correct!)argument. Then you don't have to worry about that.

KeL

[smokedamage]

yes. the same way i can look at the people on Jerry Springer and not believe that all americans are idiots. The same way that the US Army can say, "yes, we dealt with the bad eggs who were torturing these people, and they have been punished", and we can believe that it isn't ever soldier that is a prisoner torturing arse.

Rational arguement is difficult when 1) one side believes that the truth of the matter is a written in a two thousand year old book, that was cobbled together with the Romans, and 2) one side has very little understanding of world events, history and the simple action/consequence equation, which is something i am finding with many americans.

[journalsoup]

The other person's theological views or grasp of history is irrelevant to the construction of a sound, rational argument. If the argument stands on it's own, it doesn't matter what the other side knows or doesn't know. 1+1 equals 2 (not an actual argument, simply an example), no matter what you believe or know. No matter how the other side decries it, it is still truth. If the other side chooses to disbelieve that, it takes nothing away from the strength of the original argument.

KeL

[smokedamage]

Please tell that to the people who are trying to prevent Evolution being taught in schools.

[journalsoup]

That's their right in a democracy. They pay for those schools and thus have the right to air their concerns. Does it make their argument any truer or evolution any less true? No, it does not.

KeL

[smokedamage]

Is it a democracy here or not? I get told it's a Republic. Can you (KeL) go sort this out with sonofshadow please, and let me know the answer and why.

So a school that used taught the hatred of Jews would be ok, if people were paying for it? A school that taught that women had no rights, and are the property of men to be used as men see fit would be ok, so long as it was paid for by someone? Doesn't that run the risk of producing dysfunctional members of society? Won't that be a problem?

Why do you think that money makes it all right? It's just the same as the "might makes right" argument that the Military use. What makes you (KeL) think that this is right? Why is the stronger or richer more correct?