As for the WMDs stories I guess some of us have different perspectives as to what WMD's are.

Personally I never thought of scuds & lobbed gas as WMD's

You don't think that poisonous gas is a WMD? Pretty much the whole world would disagree with you.

WMD= Weapons of Mass Destruction

What kind of massive numbers did this guy rack up with his gas?

As you know since you quoted me....I said..... I never thought of scuds & lobbed gas as WMD's

I guess it could be given a proper delivery systems.

But that is all a sidetrack...The issue was were there any WMD's as claimed by the policing force?

On 2nd thought...........Lets skip it. I know where you stand & like I said everyone is entitled.

Have any kids? Grandkids?

I was being sarcastic, which I thought was evident. And sorry, I don't believe that being illiterate gives someone a free pass to something which pretty much most cultures in the world would believe is wrong.

So it is OK to stone a woman to death in the Sudan because she was raped because in that culture, it is accepted? So it is OK to execute a man in the US who committed a murder when we was a minor because that state allows it? So it is OK in India to burn to death a Christian missionary and his on in their car because that is allowable under their culture? So it is OK in Singapore to kill a seven-year-old girl because your culture says you can kill a virgin in order to have a good business? So it is OK in the RSA to have a multitude of men rape a 2-year-old to death as they believe that only by having sex with a virgin will cure their HIV?

Sorry, I don't buy that. As a member of the human race, I have to think that there are some universal rights and wrongs. And nobody gets a free pass on that based on illiteracy or cultural imperatives.

I'm not condoning any of that. I am saying that some of these "crimes" (crimes in our eyes) are not crimes in the "perpetrator's", therefore they have not done a deliberate act of crime.

I'm not sure if there are any universal wrongs. There may be consensus. I reiterate: morals are ONLY opinions. Morals are not a law of nature.

If you think about it, it is the same with the insanity plea; he did not know what he was doing was bad.

An insanity plea is dealt with less harshly than a plea of a crim that knew what he was doing.

In effect, what you are saying is that the standards of the powerful are the standards that have to be applied, regardless.

Well, you are not sure there are any universal wrongs, I am sure that there are.  I choose to live a life where certain things are not accepted regardless.

And yes, that has been a pretty much a case throughout history: the powerful set the standards.  For right or wrong, that is pretty much the way it is.

WMD= Weapons of Mass Destruction

What kind of massive numbers did this guy rack up with his gas?

As you know since you quoted me....I said..... I never thought of scuds & lobbed gas as WMD's

I guess it could be given a proper delivery systems.

But that is all a sidetrack...The issue was were there any WMD's as claimed by the policing force?

Ah, so it is a numbers game.  I understand your rules now.  Well, Chemical Ali oversaw the killing of about 180,000 Kurds.  How many were "merely" shot or tortured to death and how many were the victims of chemical attacks, I don't know.  But at least 5,000 were killed in Halabja on that infamous gas attack.

And once again, the issue is not how many WMD's were found.  The issue was that the Saddam government refused to comply with its agreed upon conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/article...an_iraq_war.php

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/cont.../168/34701.html

These are some of the reasons those of us in Eastern Saudi Arabia before and during the first Gulf War had gas masks at our sides.

but beheading prisoners is against these people's religion according to their holy book, so Geneva Convention aside, they are even acting against their own professed morality.  

That is odd considering.....The occupiers....what holy book do they go by that condones their actions?

If it is that popular one they profess...does it not say something about not killing in general? I have not looked into it since I was a kid but I think it did eh?

Come on, you can't have it both ways.  When posters react to criticism to the coalition forces by mentioning atrocities committed by Iraqi or Taliban forces, they get slammed as what the "other" side does has no bearing on the issue.

There was post stating that the people who behead prisoners are acting as is morally allowed to them, and I pointed out that no, it is not.  Their religion, at least forbids it. And now you come back with what the "occupiers" most popular holy book teaches?

Either each side operates on its own without regard to what the other does, or each is justified by actions of the other side.  Pick one, but please don't vacilate back and forth to make it best fit your world view.

Either each side operates on its own without regard to what the other does, or each is justified by actions of the other side. Pick one, but please don't vacilate back and forth to make it best fit your world view.

How else can they win the argument?

This new game is interesting.....

Contract soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are usually paid between $500-$1,000 per day. By comparison, a U.S. Army corporal in Iraq doing the same job earns roughly $18,000 a year.

Soon it will be revealed who owns shares in this private army that operates outside all the rules of engagement & I would bet we will not be surprised

Blackwater trains mercenaries in Philippines

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:40:22 GMT

I think those figures are a tad misleading. Firstly, the regular enlisted corporal may have a base salary of $18 000, but will have numerous allowances such as battle or combat allowance and seperation from family compensation. These are tax free. which is an added bonus.

The other misleading info is the pay to mercenaries. I know that American and British get paid as you quoted, but Fijians get less than half of that.

Mercenaries don't get after-service benefits such as continuation of pay allowance or a pension, either.

No doubt, medical insurance is their own risk/cost also.

I realize your comments are related to the Blackwater training, etc. But, the facts are, of the 56,000 contractors going to Afghanistan, only a small percentage will carry a weapon at all, and even fewer in a position of responsibility to engage in offensive operations. Most of the 56K, will be involved in logistics, construction, etc. Also, I'm not sure how they are accounted for, but there are thousands of TCNs from India and other countries working in laundries, dining facilities, etc.

Anyway, I wasn't picking on your post in particular, but there does seem to be a general ignorance in this thread as to what is really going on over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/article...an_iraq_war.php

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/cont.../168/34701.html

These are some of the reasons those of us in Eastern Saudi Arabia before and during the first Gulf War had gas masks at our sides.

At that time my girlfriend's parents were living in Riyadh. Her dad was a retired USAF Colonel and fighter pilot (Vietnam era) working as a defense contractor for the Saudis. Her mom came to stay with us back in Florida while he stayed behind and watched for Scuds from the roof of their house. Must have been fun.

I was about 150 kilometers south of Iraq during the first war. Luckily the SCUDS were "To whom it man concern" type weapons, rather like the V-2s during WWII. I was in Riyadh during the second war, or as is technically correct, the continuation of the First Gulf War.

The Patriots managed to take out most of them but one did get through in Dhahran that killed some 30 US types. Another hit near Navy Headquarters in Riyadh killing some Saudis. More worrisome than anything else.

...there does seem to be a general ignorance in this thread as to what is really going on over here.

Only January 14th and we might already have a winner for 2010's Understatement of the Year.

I was being sarcastic, which I thought was evident. And sorry, I don't believe that being illiterate gives someone a free pass to something which pretty much most cultures in the world would believe is wrong.

So it is OK to stone a woman to death in the Sudan because she was raped because in that culture, it is accepted? So it is OK to execute a man in the US who committed a murder when we was a minor because that state allows it? So it is OK in India to burn to death a Christian missionary and his on in their car because that is allowable under their culture? So it is OK in Singapore to kill a seven-year-old girl because your culture says you can kill a virgin in order to have a good business? So it is OK in the RSA to have a multitude of men rape a 2-year-old to death as they believe that only by having sex with a virgin will cure their HIV?

Sorry, I don't buy that. As a member of the human race, I have to think that there are some universal rights and wrongs. And nobody gets a free pass on that based on illiteracy or cultural imperatives.

I'm not condoning any of that. I am saying that some of these "crimes" (crimes in our eyes) are not crimes in the "perpetrator's", therefore they have not done a deliberate act of crime.

I'm not sure if there are any universal wrongs. There may be consensus. I reiterate: morals are ONLY opinions. Morals are not a law of nature.

If you think about it, it is the same with the insanity plea; he did not know what he was doing was bad.

An insanity plea is dealt with less harshly than a plea of a crim that knew what he was doing.

In effect, what you are saying is that the standards of the powerful are the standards that have to be applied, regardless.

Well, you are not sure there are any universal wrongs, I am sure that there are. I choose to live a life where certain things are not accepted regardless.

And yes, that has been a pretty much a case throughout history: the powerful set the standards. For right or wrong, that is pretty much the way it is.

This is what this debate is about, essentially: Right or wrong.

"..pretty much the way it is..." is certainly the reality.

Just because it is the reality, doesn't make it right.

You talk about universal right and wrong. Consider whether current reality could be changed for the better by taking a different approach. If it could, that makes the "wrong" indefensible, because it is avoidable.

I'm not condoning any of that. I am saying that some of these "crimes" (crimes in our eyes) are not crimes in the "perpetrator's", therefore they have not done a deliberate act of crime.

I'm not sure if there are any universal wrongs. There may be consensus. I reiterate: morals are ONLY opinions. Morals are not a law of nature.

If you think about it, it is the same with the insanity plea; he did not know what he was doing was bad.

An insanity plea is dealt with less harshly than a plea of a crim that knew what he was doing.

In effect, what you are saying is that the standards of the powerful are the standards that have to be applied, regardless.

Well, you are not sure there are any universal wrongs, I am sure that there are. I choose to live a life where certain things are not accepted regardless.

And yes, that has been a pretty much a case throughout history: the powerful set the standards. For right or wrong, that is pretty much the way it is.

This is what this debate is about, essentially: Right or wrong.

"..pretty much the way it is..." is certainly the reality.

Just because it is the reality, doesn't make it right.

You talk about universal right and wrong. Consider whether current reality could be changed for the better by taking a different approach. If it could, that makes the "wrong" indefensible, because it is avoidable.

I thought there wasn't any right or wrong? It is what it is. So who can really say it's no right?

Come on, you can't have it both ways.  When posters react to criticism to the coalition forces by mentioning atrocities committed by Iraqi or Taliban forces, they get slammed as what the "other" side does has no bearing on the issue.

Well I use to just post but then the whole topic turned this direction.

But in this case my response to your claim that the combatants did not follow even their own holy book was quite appropriate I thought. Is it not you that is asking for a one way street? In every other post it is point & counter point?

Albeit this thread has pretty much gone hog wild off the original post....

Which was images of Afghanistan....

In fact the original pictures were done by someone who just posted new ones called December 09 Afghanistan....

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/a...ember_2009.html

Anyway, I wasn't picking on your post in particular, but there does seem to be a general ignorance in this thread as to what is really going on over here.

Equally quite a bit of ignorance as to what the literal cost back here in the US is for what is going on over there.

Then again most posters live in a Non-NATO country ......

Well, you are not sure there are any universal wrongs, I am sure that there are.  I choose to live a life where certain things are not accepted regardless.

And yes, that has been a pretty much a case throughout history: the powerful set the standards.  For right or wrong, that is pretty much the way it is.

These two statements are good but at seem at odds with each other.

Seems many choose to live a life where certain things are not accepted regardless. ( as in no matter how big the bully may be)

Which your second statement validates that right or wrong in the end the bully wins

I'm not condoning any of that. I am saying that some of these "crimes" (crimes in our eyes) are not crimes in the "perpetrator's", therefore they have not done a deliberate act of crime.

I'm not sure if there are any universal wrongs. There may be consensus. I reiterate: morals are ONLY opinions. Morals are not a law of nature.

If you think about it, it is the same with the insanity plea; he did not know what he was doing was bad.

An insanity plea is dealt with less harshly than a plea of a crim that knew what he was doing.

In effect, what you are saying is that the standards of the powerful are the standards that have to be applied, regardless.

Well, you are not sure there are any universal wrongs, I am sure that there are. I choose to live a life where certain things are not accepted regardless.

And yes, that has been a pretty much a case throughout history: the powerful set the standards. For right or wrong, that is pretty much the way it is.

This is what this debate is about, essentially: Right or wrong.

"..pretty much the way it is..." is certainly the reality.

Just because it is the reality, doesn't make it right.

You talk about universal right and wrong. Consider whether current reality could be changed for the better by taking a different approach. If it could, that makes the "wrong" indefensible, because it is avoidable.

I thought there wasn't any right or wrong? It is what it is. So who can really say it's no right?

I never implied that there is no right or wrong....it's all about your own standards, whether they be percieved universal standards or your own personal standards.

The link I am going to provide is for Iraq. If you don't want to look at it because this is the Afghanistan thread, so be it.

I find the theory interesting and have always wondered if the casualty figures in Iraq included everybody that has died or just the casualties of war.

http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm

What think you?

Well, you are not sure there are any universal wrongs, I am sure that there are.  I choose to live a life where certain things are not accepted regardless.

And yes, that has been a pretty much a case throughout history: the powerful set the standards.  For right or wrong, that is pretty much the way it is.

These two statements are good but at seem at odds with each other.

Seems many choose to live a life where certain things are not accepted regardless. ( as in no matter how big the bully may be)

Which your second statement validates that right or wrong in the end the bully wins

Yes, they are at odds with each other.  But there is the power issue.  For example, I am a US citizen, a California citizen.  I am also against capital punishment.  I have voted a couple of times based on my position, but California still has capital punishment.  

Now, I could go out and actively push my agenda, to walk the walk like PeaceBlondie has done for his convictions (and for which I admire him tremendously).  But I guess I don't have the same fortitude to give up my other aspirations in order to pursue changing what I see to be a wrong.  

I realize this as a character flaw, but one pretty common one.

Other than voting, I don't know how much I would do to stand up to the "bully," as you label it.  On the other hand, sometimes the bully is right.

As a Socialist with underpaid servants I can relate to that.

The link I am going to provide is for Iraq. If you don't want to look at it because this is the Afghanistan thread, so be it.

I find the theory interesting and have always wondered if the casualty figures in Iraq included everybody that has died or just the casualties of war.

http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm

What think you?

This may come as a surprise, but I agree with it.

...as do I.

I understand some of you have been involved in those wars so you need to find ways to justify them and repel arguments that do not.

I just wonder if those soldiers would be willing to fight just because of protecting "National Interest"

Ask yourself what they are.

I understand some of you have been involved in those wars so you need to find ways to justify them and repel arguments that do not.

I just wonder if those soldiers would be willing to fight just because of protecting "National Interest"

Ask yourself what they are.

In Vietnam, probably not many. But since the late 1970's in the USA we have an all-volunteer army and anyone who has joined up since late 2001 has known they were going off to fight. So pretty much everyone in the military 25 yrs old and under has known what they were in getting in to. It was only before 9/11 that you had some people joining for the benefits.

I understand some of you have been involved in those wars so you need to find ways to justify them and repel arguments that do not.

I just wonder if those soldiers would be willing to fight just because of protecting "National Interest"

Ask yourself what they are.

First, that is a little insulting to insinuate that anyone who has fought is somehow incapable of determining the "truth," whatever that is, and must find ways to justify their views and repel arguments which do not.

Second, history is resplendent with fighters who have come home and taken up activism against the conflict in which they fought.  So it is not fair to pigeonhole someone just because he or she served in a conflict.

We will most likely never know the real reasons for those invasions of which one has been declared (from the Dutch investigation) illegal.

I can imagine that for some the reason to join the army is that they join for economic reasons? The US army had no problems recruiting the past two years I believe. The soldiers that return home and change their mind after what they have experienced there and are against it (those wars) now, are they right or wrong or just not good in performing a job as a soldier?

We will most likely never know the real reasons for those invasions of which one has been declared (from the Dutch investigation) illegal.

I can imagine that for some the reason to join the army is that they join for economic reasons? The US army had no problems recruiting the past two years I believe. The soldiers that return home and change their mind after what they have experienced there and are against it (those wars) now, are they right or wrong or just not good in performing a job as a soldier?

They are merely exercizing their rights to free thought and speech, which they have helped guarantee by their previous actions.

Please read this article and convince me it never happened or they are wrong in their thinking.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3444835.ece

Why is it if you peacefully protest against those wars you are confronted with this?

Please read this article and convince me it never happened or they are wrong in their thinking.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3444835.ece

Why is it if you peacefully protest against those wars you are confronted with this?

Sorry, but the link did not work for me.

And why is it that the US recently showed a picture of how BL would look like using a picture of Gaspar Llamazares.

Please read this article and convince me it never happened or they are wrong in their thinking.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3444835.ece

Why is it if you peacefully protest against those wars you are confronted with this?

Where was that photo taken? I went to several anti-war protests in Washington DC before and after the war in 2003 and I never saw riot police. They should have been at the anti-globalization-anarchist-vandal protests. I stayed away from those.

We will most likely never know the real reasons for those invasions of which one has been declared (from the Dutch investigation) illegal.

I can imagine that for some the reason to join the army is that they join for economic reasons? The US army had no problems recruiting the past two years I believe. The soldiers that return home and change their mind after what they have experienced there and are against it (those wars) now, are they right or wrong or just not good in performing a job as a soldier?

Why would their performance in a conflict have a correlation to there opinions on that conflict after their return, or on their objection to the conflict in the first place?

There were several conscientious objectors during WWII who opposed the war, but received the Medal of Honor.  In Vietnam, there were untold numbers of people who completely opposed the conflict, but did fantastic jobs and received the high commendations.  Heck, not putting myself in the same shoes as most of them, but I objected to our invasion of Iraq, and I received a battlefield commendation myself, and I was asked to give testimony for Congress, the State Department, and the Marine Corps.  (Of course, I was also under the opinion that once we were there, we could not just pick up and leave, that we owed the Iraqi people a chance at permanent peace and economic viability, so maybe I am not the perfect example to refute the quoted statement.)

One last point, that the Dutch Parliament has declared the war illegal has really very little bearing on anything.  That does not make it a fait accompli.  The Dutch are certainly entitled to their opinion, as is anyone.  Quite a few governments stated that it was illegal.  But that is really irrelevant.