posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 01:37 AM
First, let me take a moment to commend you on being one of the more reasonable and capable debators ive interacted with here on these boards. You
generally aviod emoting in favor of rational approaches. You neither seem to be a wacko nor an idiot.
Your sources have a credibillity issue, as myself and pothers point out.
Your anti-war stance is very evident....i doubght that you would support war for any reasons.
Debating the nuts and bolts of HOW war is waged (use of war tools) is somantics..war is war and its hell.
I looked at all of your posts supporting alledged illegality of napalm and cluster munitions (use the new correct designation MARK 77 munitions, slang
term is napalm),
....(This eliminates the "lie" from the pentagon...they were using SPECIFIC terminology to distinguish between actual old napalm and the new
((i can hear you now, "Its basically the same", yes it is, but its not the same weapon system, its derivative))
Your own posts back me up on the "controversial" weapons but dont support Illegal weapons..(One alledges this, but this is not proven and appears to
be the authors interpretations....and the others title uses term IRREGULAR weapons, not termed Illegal). The USA did not sign the treaty against its
use (napalm/mark 77's) and we recognize our SOVERIGN RIGHT to equip our millitary as we feel nessisary.
The USA policy for armed conflict is to always use the most effective means to end the conflict with THE MINIMUM DANGER TO US FORCES....To that end we
will use ANY weapon we see fit. We love our fathers, sons and daughters serving in the millitary and will do what it takes to keep them as safe as
possible during hostilities AND to end the conflict as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is a really basic millitary principal, and were not
the first or only ones to adopt this.
The goal of armed conflict is to DEFEAT YOUR ENEMY!
I want my enimies to understand that IF our millitary is going to need to act...MY ENEMY WILL DIE!
Our troops are WARRIORS, and our enimies NEED to fear them. Thats the point.
Of course the USA does not exist in a vacume, and we do attempt to address other nations concerns, and work with the UN....however
THE UN IS NOT IN CHARGE OF PROTECTING THE US!
THE US WILL PROTECT ITS INTERESTS.
Again i ask, where are countries withdrawing diplomats? moving twords sanctions, trade restrictions, or any of the other ways listed in the UN
charter? (or not in the UN)
2 reasons i can think of are.....A) the legal basis for such acts is not evident or workable to the UN or member nations, or B) because we're one of
the founders (OWNERS) of the UN, we would squash it with a veto, or worse yet for the UN pull our funding. (closing this little country club)
"The USA was very careful to ensure that those detained in GITMO met the definitions for, and are classified as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS under
We can do this and did. "
This is so far from the truth that it's astounding. They're fighting this in the Supreme Court RIGHT NOW, with hundreds of lawyers and human-rights
organizations signed on.
The supreme court is indeed examining the legality of the gitmo detainees, but that doesnt mean its illegal until they say it is...And they could just
as well uphold it too....Ohhh noo if that happens, then it WILL be legal....
(surrender isnt surrender until you tell your enemy your surrendering) (illegal isnt illegal until the court decides)
What will you do when/if the courts uphold those detained?
Besides, are you forgetting that the USA is one of the MOST littigous societies in the world, like our legal team isnt stocked with the best legal
eagles in the world.
Again you persist in citing one thing OUT OF CONTEXT, to point the bad guy finger at the USA....
It was WWII, Japan had NOT surrendered, many countries were engagued in wide spread fire bombing of cities, usually at night......Why? Both to
demoralize the population as well as to hit PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE that was keeping the enimies war effort going.
Indeed there was probable truely "innocent" people at both nuke attacks, but....
were there weapon production plants? food distrubution? Sea ports? rail points? Fuel depots? ect?
While the people working making planes, guns, ammo, packing and shipping food, medical, and supplies for their troops ect might not have been front
line soldiers, they worked every day making things or doing jobs to support the war efort.
Brutal weapon? no doubght...but in the context of that conflict...effective...resulting in unconditional surrender of our enemy a very short time
later. Is it wrong to have won the war?
It cant enforce its own rules on itself, what makes you think they can enforce anything on anyone?
Can you say food for oil rippoff? This swelling tale of greed and corruption is gonna reach the highest levels of the UN and France and Russia....Hmm
its no wonder they didnt want to upset their extortion thru the UN, and no doubght pissed as the USA has cut them off from their money laundering cash
cow. Im supposed to trust them with my families security? I think not.
"I can see millitary studies is not a big deal in Canada as the USA has been providing Canada with protection for a long time. Do you even have a
millitary? or just a coast guard? (why pay for one when your buddies to the south will protect you?)"
"No, our military is not big because we don't need it, it's strictly defensive and for UN peacekeeping.
And yeah, why should we bother when you guys spend trillions on your defense. We'll just piggyback and use it to our advantage"
Its no wonder there is a seperate thread about bashing Canada, WHAT ARROGANCE IN YOUR STATEMENT!
Your talk about "piggybacking and using" your neighbor and supposed ALLY is insulting!
No thank you for the decades of protection and tech youve gained from us?
You know both Japan (wwII) and the USSR (cold war) had plans to invade N America starting by comming across the kamchatka peninsula and RIGHT THRU
CANADA!!! Why? Because it would have been easier than comming to the USA directly as you wouldnt have lasted long at all. You were an apatizer for
their plans against the USA.
The fact that your ungrateful for our decades of support is one thing, but then you BITE THE HAND PROTECTING YOU by trying to make the US into a bad
guy in the world? That doesnt sound like a neighbor OR practically a BROTHER nation to us...Or are you only a fair weather friend of the USA?
We could use some support from our ally of Canada, even if its tough or your not 100% with the idea...instead of getting "put on trial" for not only
current actions, but past actions as well. (almost all of it subjective with no punative actions against the USA)
I know many Canadians, so I wont blame your nation...but what a poor representative youve been to your friends to the south. Youve added injury to
I think Ill boycot Labbatts and Moosehead until I feel more support from Canada.
You asked "why should you bother? (to pay for a millitary)
Hmm, mabey if you were paying for it or someone was threatening your soverignty, you might not need to ask...
In a moment of clarity i realized
Hmm, where did all of our draft dogging wimps flee to in the 60's? Oh yeah, CANADA!....Hmm what can I infer?
That the wimps there must be wimpier than the wimps here, as thats where all the wimps here fled to.
We hear your impassioned pleas for a peaceful resolution, and appreciate your humanitarian ideals, but we here in the USA are not in the mood to be
threatened, extorted, or physically assaulted by anyone, including supposed allies.
Here in the states, if i said to a neighbor, "i want to kill you and burn down your house", i would be arrested..(making terroristic threats)..
Saddam pretty much said the same as well have the terrorists...well, thats an actionable threat in my book.
Just saying those things is enough to go to jail here, even without matches and a can of gas (or WMD's).
If the police were looking for someone that had only made threats like in my example, and i had them in my house and didnt tell the police, id be
guilty of crimes as well....(harboring terrorists or providing them with aid)
Hell Iraq is guilty of both threats and harobring and aiding....good enough for me. Too bad for them.
In canada are you guilty before innocent? (like the French) or innocent before guilty?