Well, that was predictable.
You can save the stale rhetorical tricks. You won't get anywhere with the old "you are a terrorist sympathiser" gag.
I did not say that U.S. soldiers are "terrorists". I am trying to make the point that there is one standard of conduct that should be applied to all. If the wounded man had been an American and the shooter an Iraqi would you give him the benefit of the doubt?
More to the point, would you have given the journalist the benefit of the doubt if the footage had not been shown instantly? Or would you rant about how the evil MSM is trying to cover up an atrocity?
I'm sure that some of the embedded reporters are trying to find screw-ups. That's the price we pay for a free press. It is their duty to be skeptical of government claims and stories. You don't find malfeasance if you don't look for it. That's how Bill Clinton's numerous crimes came to light.
By the way, the notion that negative stories and editorials were never printed during WWII is revisionist baloney. Of course the govt censored whatever it could. But they didn't get a free ride either.
Ah, the famous Congressional resolution. That was quite unconstitutional. Congress is not permitted to "give" any of its delegated powers to the president.
The UN? Oh please. Since when did anybody here give a shit what the UN says? If we are going to sit here and pretend that the UN matters, what about other countries that have violated UN resolutions? Say, Israel?
Likewise, we're going to obliterate every country that gave money to ME terrorists that attacked Israel? So when are we hitting Saudi Arabia?
And please, stop with the WWII bullshit. This is not WWII. Iraq is not Germany. And your precious Dubya is not Churchill.
P.S. I hope your son returns home safe to you, whole in body and soul.
Landru:You should follow FBD's example and try honest debate. Your childish ranting impresses no-one.
Hi Alpowolf;
As for the validity of the UN; you made some good points, and I don't want to usurp any of our authority to them. However, the argument that Saddam wasn't a threat to us, and didn't attack us, is not true. He was a threat, and both the Dulfer report and David Kay's report say this.
His supported terrorists who killed Americans.
He did in fact orchestrate an assassination attempt on our former President.
We are going to have to deal with all of the Islamic-Facist states in one way or another. Doesn't mean we have to go to war with all of them, Libya is a prime example of that. We have to deal with each of them, individually, including Saudi Arabia, which is starting to hold local elections. Women can't vote, but it's a start.
We have to break the back of Islamic Fascism.
Now,let me address a couple of your comments:
"You won't get anywhere with the old "you are a terrorist sympathizer" gag.
- I didn't say that you were a terrorist sympathiser. I implied that you are an
appeasor. Big differance.
Sympathizers believe in the Islamo-Facsist cause. Plenty of them, and I'd say that most of them are semi-radical Muslims
Appeasers merely want to stick their head in the sand, and wish this Islamic-Fascsim would go away on its own. They want to pretend that if only we would leave the radical Muslims alone, they won't bother us.
Read the history of the Islamic "religion", my friend. It ain't *that way*.
.
And as for Bush and Churchill both having the foresight to see a "gathering threat"?
The comparison is totally appropriate. There were appeasers in WWII, and there are appeasers now, of the gathering threat of fascism.
No, Bush might not have the oratory skills of Churchill, but he does have the understanding of the threat, and realizes we have got to do something about it.
The only difference *now*, is that the Fascists are getting nukes. Of the three terrorist states in the "axis of evil", which one are we no longer worried about developing nukes? That's right: Iraq. Yes, we have to worry about the terrorists, just as we should have worried about them over twenty years ago, when they were establishing their worldwide networks via the PLO, via support from Islamic states, and yes, that includes Saudi Arabia. It also includes: Iraq.
As for comparisons of Saddam and Hitler?
Totally appropriate as well. Saddam was an admirer of Hitler, had his picture on the wall. Saddam's uncle was in a pro-Hitler army unit, during WWII. Saddam came to power with his own "night of the long knives". He used the same tactics and techniques.
"P.S. I hope your son returns home safe to you, whole in body and soul."
Thank you for your sentiments. My son (a Marine) is home, and he's out now. He said he would have done the same thing as this Marine did, in Fallujah. You hesitate, and you're dead.
My friend was in the Oregon National Guard unit that was ambushed in Iraq. (The B-52 engineers)
A couple guys in his unit were killed, he was hit in the head by an AK-47 round, has a dent in his head, where the bullet hit his helmet. He was awarded a Purple Heart.
He echoes the sentiments of Sen. Bob Kerry:
"If you hesitate in a situation like this, YOU can be the dead one" - Sen. Bob Kerry (interviewed on the Hannity & Colmes show 11/18)
Now, let's put yourself in this Marines situation:
He's just been wounded in the face the day before, and he's been in a firefight for the last half hour with terrorists that were in the mosque that the wounded terrorist was in; what would YOU do?
???
*BOOM*!
Guess what Alpowolf?
You hesitated...and YOU'RE DEAD.
NO, you don't think so? You think you have time to consider whether or not this man is dangerous?
OK, then read the rest of the story, that Kevin Sites did NOT report:
(This happened the day before the Marine shot the wounded terrorist.)
- A young Marine and his cover man cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with Ak-47's and RPG's.
There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor (doctor)!" He is badly wounded, lying in a pool of his own blood.
The Marine and his cover man slowly walk toward the injured man, scanning to make sure no enemies come from behind. In a split second, the pressure in the room greatly exceeds that of the outside, and the concussion seems to be felt before the blast is heard.
Marines outside rush to the room, and look in horror as the dust gradually settles. The result is a room filled with the barely recognizable remains of the deceased, caused by an insurgent setting off several pounds of explosives.
The Marines' remains are gathered by teary eyed comrades, brothers in arms, and shipped home in a box. The families can only mourn over a casket and a picture of their loved one, a life cut short by someone who hid behind a white flag. But no one hears these stories, except those who have lived to carry remains of a friend, and the families who loved the dead. No one hears this, so no one cares.
"I did not say that U.S. soldiers are "terrorists".""
No, but you made an analogy comparing the actions of this Marine, to the actions of "what if":
" If the wounded man had been an American and the shooter an Iraqi would you give him the benefit of the doubt?" These terrorist insurgents are shooting our wounded Marines. It does happen, and I'm not going to get into a mindless moral relativism discussion about it.
Our guys have bent over backwards so as not to inflict casualties on innocents, and you know as well as I do what the terrorists do with innocents, including using them as human shields.
I haven't seen any atrocities committed by our troops, and that includes Abu Graibe. That was abuse of prisoners, But that's a big difference from a live combat situation, where a Marine shoots an enemy combatant in a tense situation.
Regards