30-08-2005 15:56									#181
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I dont see a chastity belt

	30-08-2005 16:20									#182
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Patroklos - simple question - and you have partial credibility due to your service - and total, once you volunteer for a ground deployment in Iraq - do you support the US intervening in other countries in "our national self-interest" as defined by our political leadership? (versus "defense")

I spent two months off ABOT and KBOT with an M60 and a 9, I believe that counts. And yes, I have already volunteered for Iraq.

	30-08-2005 16:30									#183
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

God's speed

	30-08-2005 16:36									#184
	Inflate your Upload Space

OK - if you have volunteered for combat duty - I will grant that you have integrity, and you have my respect. I have a real hot button on that - when I had to go to my sister's husband's funeral (the tanker the sniper got) - on the exact same flight (day, time and even flight number was still the same) I took to their wedding two years previously, that really was hideous - I asked my neighbor to watch our house. He is a reserve Blackhawk crewman. He was gung-ho for the war, and then bragged about how he had avoided being deployed overseas, and was saying how happy he was to be going to another school that was letting him avoid that. I had a very difficult time keeping my temper.

So few of those who are so busy cheering on the war are willing to do what you are doing. As you well know, I have also stated we should be paying more taxes to help support you folks. Right now my own personal contribution is money for my sister, let's just say I am less than impressed with the - I was going to say military's, but that is not fair they don't make the laws - congress and the President's mediocre suport of the troops, and their survivors.

I am curious about one thing - and it is what bugs the sh*t out of me with many of those who support this administration, and their policies. The support for the families of KIA's and for vets should be a national scandal. I'm talking about things like when kids lose their parents, and not even letting them finish the school year in base housing and at the base school - or the deliberate attempt to prevent vets from learning about benefits - I can provide links and a story that happened locally, and that is purely and executive order (which reversed Clinton's policy BTW).

It seems our "strong leadership" includes f*ck the troops. That is another thing I find abominable, and for the life of me I cannot understand the excuses made for those policies. Remember, I wanted McCain, and that is part of the reason. And I DID vote in my Republican primary, even though that part of it was decided by the time it got to Kentucky.

	30-08-2005 16:44									#185
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I am curious about one thing - and it is what bugs the sh*t out of me with many of those who support this administration, and their policies. The support for the families of KIA's and for vets should be a national scandal. I'm talking about things like when kids lose their parents, and not even letting them finish the school year in base housing and at the base school - or the deliberate attempt to prevent vets from learning about benefits - I can provide links and a story that happened locally, and that is purely and executive order (which reversed Clinton's policy BTW).

Almost all of this is a result of the draw down of the force after the cold war. Entire support systems were simply eliminated. I do not blame the left for this, if you cut any entity in half you are going to lose alot, and alot of what was lost were things people took for granted before.

And things are hardly as bad as you make. Most of the 17 year old kids who serve with me live on the ship for free, have three sqare meals made for the a day, and have nothing better to spend their money on than a new car (which they forget to make payments on, and then I have to **** them).

The "death" benefits are really the only glaring problem I see.

	30-08-2005 23:13									#186
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Is this your position or are you merely quoting somebody else?

Do you actually have a point or are you merely trying to annoy me? If you do can you please just let it out and despense with the formalities? Perhaps by explaining what "moral authority" means, and why I should care? Sheehan's expierences tell us nothing about the merits or lack of them regarding the Iraq war, so why should her views on the subject be given special weight vs anyone else?

	30-08-2005 23:17									#187
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Who cares if Iraq attacked the US? Japan's the only country who ever has, but that doesn't mean that every other war we ever fought was wrong.

Yes it does.

	30-08-2005 23:51									#188
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes it does.

Sorry, I can't buy that. Admittedly, the Korean "Conflict" wasn't ever officially declared as a war, and it was a "Police Action", but I have a hard time thinking that it was wrong.

	31-08-2005 02:58									#189
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes it does.

Oh, I suppose you'd have sat by and watched the Kaiser beat poor hapless Belgium into a bloody pulp? Or allowed his Hunnish friends to feast on Serbian babies? Or allowed his Turkish allies to roast Armenian women over open fires? Or allowed his goosestepping Mexican allies to trample the sacred soil of Texas?

	31-08-2005 04:13									#190
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Or allowed his goosestepping Mexican allies to trample the sacred soil of Texas?

Sounds like a plan.

	31-08-2005 05:49									#191
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker There was actually an operation that was conducted over Iraq months before Desert Storm 2. In the operation, the Air Force basically targeted Iraq's air defenses and destroyed them. Preparation for an invasion? Or just a coincidence?

No kidding! Wait, wait, are you saying that the USAF, dating back to the Clinton adminstration got tired of Waiting to get shot at first and started targeting SAM and AA batteries whose Fire-control radars lit off?

Imagine!




Incidently, when four of the 5 Permenent members of the UNSC agree to enforce UNSCR 688 by way of Operation Southern Watch, then Id describe it as "legal enough".

	31-08-2005 06:42									#192
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed Sorry, I can't buy that. Admittedly, the Korean "Conflict" wasn't ever officially declared as a war, and it was a "Police Action", but I have a hard time thinking that it was wrong.

You think che wouldn't prefer to have Kim Jong Il control all of Korea right now?

	31-08-2005 08:26									#193
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I doubt he would be in control, the communist state he heads survives via subsidies provided by China, the US, and other countries. This was a result of the cold war... Remove those subsidies and really corrupt regimes fall fairly fast as conditions worsen until a revolt occurs.

quote: Incidently, when four of the 5 Permenent members of the UNSC agree to enforce UNSCR 688 by way of Operation Southern Watch, then Id describe it as "legal enough".

The UN does not over rule the US Constitution. A President lied to take us to war, if that doesn't qualify as a high crime or misdeamoner, bribery shouldn't qualify and a President can and should be impeached for that too according to the Constitution.

I agreed with the impeachment of Clinton because he lied to a jury over a bj in a sexual harassment case and I'm supposed to look the other way now that a President has lied us into a war? Cindy Sheehan wont let me, she calls to my conscience.

	31-08-2005 08:40									#194
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker So did he ever attack the US?

Attacking American military aircraft and personnel is an attack on the US. You saying otherwise is like saying the attacks on warships stationed at Pearl Harbor wasn't an attack on the US.

	31-08-2005 08:42									#195
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker The UN does not over rule the US Constitution. A President lied to take us to war, if that doesn't qualify as a high crime or misdeamoner, bribery shouldn't qualify and a President can and should be impeached for that too according to the Constitution.

I was refering to international law, vice domestic. Which is what I think some of the guys here have been.

quote: I agreed with the impeachment of Clinton because he lied to a jury over a bj in a sexual harassment case

I didn't.

	31-08-2005 08:45									#196
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Verto Attacking American military aircraft and personnel is an attack on the US. You saying otherwise is like saying the attacks on warships stationed at Pearl Harbor wasn't an attack on the US.

Except that every state is free to shoot at airplanes breaking their airspace.

The No-fly zones were simply NOT approved by the UN security Council and the Iraqis had every legal right to try to shoot down aircraft intruding upon thier airspace.

	31-08-2005 08:46									#197
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

You should have

	31-08-2005 08:51									#198
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GePap Except that every state is free to shoot at airplanes breaking their airspace. The No-fly zones were simply NOT approved by the UN security Council and the Iraqis had every legal right to try to shoot down aircraft intruding upon thier airspace.

The creation of said No-Fly Zones was part of the cease fire agreement signed between the US/Coalition and Iraq.

	31-08-2005 08:56									#199
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

No they weren't. The No-Fly Zones were unilaterally imposed by the U.S, U.K and France. Iraq never agreed to them. Kofi Annan even stated that Iraq was in the right to shoot at invading aircraft, since the no-fly zones were technically not legal.

http://www.time.com/time/world/arti...,391985,00.html

	31-08-2005 09:04									#200
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Well, you'd have to take off SOME of the armor. Wouldn't you?

No way.

It would be more interesting with the armor on.

	31-08-2005 09:09									#201
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Verto Attacking American military aircraft and personnel is an attack on the US. You saying otherwise is like saying the attacks on warships stationed at Pearl Harbor wasn't an attack on the US.

We used to do this with the Russians all the time, they did the same thing to us.

Should we have pressed the button? They did attack the US then...

Or maybe we should have attacked China when they brought down our spyplane.


Your theory holds the litmus test though, wait...

	31-08-2005 09:10									#202
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov No they weren't. The No-Fly Zones were unilaterally imposed by the U.S, U.K and France. Iraq never agreed to them. Kofi Annan even stated that Iraq was in the right to shoot at invading aircraft, since the no-fly zones were technically not legal. http://www.time.com/time/world/arti...,391985,00.html

I stand corrected on that; my source was globalsecurity, which had the Downing Report up IIRC, which made a statement to the effect that the cease fire had included said no-fly zones. Misread on my part or what not.

However, it still stands that Iraq had attacked the US by firing on American aircraft.

	31-08-2005 09:12									#203
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker We used to do this with the Russians all the time, they did the same thing to us. Should we have pressed the button? They did attack the US then... Or maybe we should have attacked China when they brought down our spyplane. Your theory holds the litmus test though, wait...

Is this supposed to be an answer? Regardless of whether or not our responses should or did differ to evolve with these individual events, they were all attacks against the US.

	31-08-2005 09:13									#204
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: The creation of said No-Fly Zones was part of the cease fire agreement signed between the US/Coalition and Iraq.

I think they were created after the cease fire when we saw Saddam use helicopters to put down the revolt.

	31-08-2005 09:14									#205
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Verto I stand corrected on that; my source was globalsecurity, which had the Downing Report up IIRC, which made a statement to the effect that the cease fire had included said no-fly zones. Misread on my part or what not. However, it still stands that Iraq had attacked the US by firing on American aircraft.

Actually in such a case, it'd be self-defense.

	31-08-2005 09:15									#206
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And, as the head of the U.N. pointed out, a sovereign nation like Iraq has every right to fire on invading aircraft, which is precisely what was happening. If the No-fly zones weren't legal, then we were violating Iraqi air space being there.

We also happened to be killing Iraqis while doing so.

	31-08-2005 09:18									#207
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar No kidding! Wait, wait, are you saying that the USAF, dating back to the Clinton adminstration got tired of Waiting to get shot at first and started targeting SAM and AA batteries whose Fire-control radars lit off? Imagine! Incidently, when four of the 5 Permenent members of the UNSC agree to enforce UNSCR 688 by way of Operation Southern Watch, then Id describe it as "legal enough".

I'm sure if they looked back and realized that the US was using it as a preparation for an imminent invasion, they would change their votes. But that's only speculation.

However, Southern Watch was different, and it just "happened" to occur before the invasion. Imagine!

quote: According to the London Times, US and British planes drop twice as many bombs on Iraq during the second half of 2002 as they did during the entire year of 2001. [London Times, 5/29/2005]

quote: As Timur Eads, a former US special operations officer, notes in January 2003: “We're bombing practically every day as we patrol the no-fly zones, taking out air defense batteries, and there are all kinds of CIA and Special Forces operations going on. I would call it the beginning of a war.” [Boston Globe, 1/6/2003]

Clearing the way:

quote: The repeater stations are bombed in order to disrupt the network of fiber-optic cables that transmit military communications between Baghdad and Basra and Baghdad and Nasiriya. "They wanted to neutralize the ability of the Iraqi government to command its forces; to establish control of the airspace over Iraq; to provide air support for Special Operations forces, as well as for the Army and Marine forces that would advance toward Baghdad; and to neutralize Iraq's force of surface-to-surface missiles and suspected caches of biological and chemical weapons,” the New York Times reports in July 2003. [New York Times, 7/20/2003]

Can't be Confirmed, but he's saying what we all know:

quote: Some time after the invasion, a US general reportedly says (see July 17, 2003) at a conference at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base “that he began taking out assets that could help in resisting an invasion at least six months before war was declared.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/19/2005 Sources: Charlie Clements]

This war was preconceived, and had absolutley nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush wanted to attack Iraq when he got into office.

"He tried to kill my father." -- President George Bush

	31-08-2005 09:20									#208
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Verto Is this supposed to be an answer? Regardless of whether or not our responses should or did differ to evolve with these individual events, they were all attacks against the US.

Okay, then why attack Iraq and not Russia or China?


Surely the response has been justified a justified one in response to planes being locked on and shot at? (In which none were ever shot down by the way).

	31-08-2005 09:33									#209
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc As - as I commented before, looking at how you, versus Berz and I are approaching this - you state that since the government has the law on it's side, that it has the right to determine a moral issue. It's an Oath for God's sake - literally. Berz and I see the individual's responsibility to this - I was simply obeying the law, or following orders is never an excuse. Think about it, I'm surprised you don't agree on that one!

According to historians, every soldier in Napoleoan's army carried a marshall's baton in his backback.

According to you, every soldier in America's army carries a Supreme Court Justice's robes in his.

	31-08-2005 09:35									#210
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: However, it still stands that Iraq had attacked the US by firing on American aircraft.

You mean the US aircraft attacking them? They were there to enforce a no fly zone, i.e., shootdown Iraqi planes. I agreed with the no-fly zones but it does appear we had no legal standing. The terms of the cease fire allowed the Iraqis the use of certain kinds of aircraft and he used them to put down the revolt. Schwarzkopf said "we were snookered" in the negotiations, I suspect we wanted Saddam to put down the revolt for the sake of stability. Public outcry resulted in the no fly zones...