U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq

[Orwell]

Big mistake, Orwell -- you posed the famous loaded question "Is it true you stopped beating your wife?"

Your post ...

I do not believe the US Marines as a bunch of goons ... whether you think of them on a par with Saddam or not ... hence my answer. But if you still need clarification, it was the US Marines and not Saddam.

I now await your answer ... as does Rob.

Up to it?

Did you see the subject of this thread? "U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq." These soldiers, for all kinds of reasons, have become goons. I don't see what else to call them. My "goon" question referred to them.

By the way, I've already answered Rob's stupid hypothetical question, and the answer was neither. I don't see why I should play along like a good doggie, and only accept his two possibilities.

But I know, it is confusing, I mean, you're probably very used to having only two choices, and it is hard to go beyond that...

 

[Orwell]

Dupe.

 

[Orwell]

Western, maybe ... but why don't you ask someone from Kuwait? Who do you think they might prefer?

You see ... not everyone is so blessed as you are to be out of Saddam's reach --- so the question does have real world relevance.

The first Gulf war was a multilateral military action approved by most of the world. Your government could have gotten rid of Hussein back then, with wide international support, but it didn't.

The present Iraqi occupation is a nearly unilateral action based on lies, a colonial adventure gone terribly wrong.

 

[Giz]

The first Gulf war was a multilateral military action approved by most of the world. Your government could have gotten rid of Hussein back then, with wide international support, but it didn't.

The present Iraqi occupation is a nearly unilateral action based on lies, a colonial adventure gone terribly wrong.

Bush Snr could have toppled Saddam, indeed with hindsight he should have toppled Saddam however he did not as he had no UN mandate to do so.

Are you now criticising the US twice over? Firstly for acting within a UN mandate, and then secondly, for exceeding a UN mandate?

Damned if you don't and damned if you do, huh?

 

[Orwell]

Bush Snr could have toppled Saddam, indeed with hindsight he should have toppled Saddam however he did not as he had no UN mandate to do so.

Are you now criticising the US twice over? Firstly for acting within a UN mandate, and then secondly, for exceeding a UN mandate?

Damned if you don't and damned if you do, huh?

In case you don't remember, there was a widespread rising against Hussein conducted by Iraqis right after the end of the first Gulf War. The US urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, but it did nothing to assist the rebellions beyond enforcing the "no fly zones".

 

[Giz]

In case you don't remember, there was a widespread rising against Hussein conducted by Iraqis right after the end of the first Gulf War.

I remember the UN authorising the liberation of Kuwait. I can't recall any mandate for regime change in Iraq, or taking sides in an Iraqi civil war.

The USA should have gone in and removed Saddam, no matter what wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of hair erupted from despots in the UN and moonbats in the West. I am glad you agree that US unilateralism can sometimes be for the best.

 

[Mason]

Did you see the subject of this thread? "U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq." These soldiers, for all kinds of reasons, have become goons.

Not to be too anal, but if it's not too much trouble, could you please stop speaking as if they've already been charged, tried, and found guilty? At this point, it seems progress has only made it to where they're about to be investigated.

I don't see what else to call them.

Call them "Marines". That's what they are, that's what they'd prefer to be called. If they are tried and found guilty, call them "Prisoners", which is what they'll be at that point. As an aside, they're Marines; "soldier" applies about as much as "airman" applies to a sailor.

My "goon" question referred to them.

The "goon" question...

What kind of goons do you think the Iraqis prefer? Domestic goons, or foreign ones?

It seems as if you've already made up your mind which type of goon the Iraquis would prefer. Maybe you'd like to simply answer your own question yourself and explain why that answer is correct? Would have saved the thread about a half a page of ******** had you simply done that in the first place.

 

[pipelineaudio]

. Your government could have gotten rid of Hussein back then, with wide international support, but it didn't.
.

The bold part is a bold lie

Thats the whole reason we broke our promise to the Iraqi people was that there was wide international condemnation of finishing the job

THAT is why we are back.

 

[davefoc]

I remember the UN authorising the liberation of Kuwait. I can't recall any mandate for regime change in Iraq, or taking sides in an Iraqi civil war.

The USA should have gone in and removed Saddam, no matter what wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of hair erupted from despots in the UN and moonbats in the West. I am glad you agree that US unilateralism can sometimes be for the best.

The great problem as far as I was concerned with the first gulf war was what to do with Iraq after the war was over. I thought it was unthinkable that the war could be fought and leave Hussein in power. If the war was to be fought Hussein needed to be removed. If Hussein was to be left in place the war should not have been fought.

So I am one who does criticize the US in both directions on this. Leaving Hussein in place looked like the same kind of thinking that led to WWII twenty years after WWI. But removing Hussein based on falsified evidence that he had WMD and falsified evidence of a Hussein/9-11 connection and with a fantasyland view of how easy it was going to be to stabilize a post Hussein Iraq looks to me to be one of the worst decisions in US history.

 

[Grammatron]

But removing Hussein based on falsified evidence that he had WMD and falsified evidence of a Hussein/9-11 connection

Good thing neither happened.

 

[davefoc]

Good thing neither happened.

I have been involved in several of these threads where the defenders of Bushco misrepresentations, exaggeration and downright, oldfashioned, lies attempt to parse and weasel the meaning of this stuff into innocent misunderstandings.

What a pile of crap. If you can not believe that Bushco presented falsified data with regard to the information about WMD and the 9-11 connection it is because you have decided that you don't want to believe it and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make you believe something you don't feel like believing.

 

[Grammatron]

I have been involved in several of these threads where the defenders of Bushco misrepresentations, exaggeration and downright, oldfashioned, lies attempt to parse and weasel the meaning of this stuff into innocent misunderstandings.

What a pile of crap. If you can not believe that Bushco presented falsified data with regard to the information about WMD and the 9-11 connection it is because you have decided that you don't want to believe it and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make you believe something you don't feel like believing.

Any evidence that they FALSIFIED any of what you just said would be great.

 

[Cylinder]

Come join the U.S. military as an enlisted person and report back in 2 years. I think you will change your opinion significantly.

Huh?

I did six. What's wrong, having trouble separating?

 

[Just thinking]

I don't see why I should play along like a good doggie, and only accept his two possibilities.

I do (and possibly some others as well).

It would (most likely) expose your hypocrisy of your comparison of Saddam's goons (and mass graves) as opposed to the present US occupation and accountability. Now, I have clearly and concisely answered your question (which, may I remind you, only gave me 2 choices) ... we still await yours.

BTW: Those were my two possibilities. (Post #28)

 

[Just thinking]

Bush Snr could have toppled Saddam, indeed with hindsight he should have toppled Saddam however he did not as he had no UN mandate to do so.

Are you now criticising the US twice over? Firstly for acting within a UN mandate, and then secondly, for exceeding a UN mandate?

Damned if you don't and damned if you do, huh?

It does seem to be Orwell's way ... hence his avoidance of my question. (See above.)

 

[davefoc]

Any evidence that they FALSIFIED any of what you just said would be great.

Grammatron, thank you for your temperate response to my intemperate post. My apologies.

This issue has been discussed in numerous threads and for me the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco engaged in an organized, intentional effort to deceive people about the strength of evidence that Hussein had WMD and that Hussein was involved with the 9-11 attacks.

A small example of what I am talking about was the presentation by Bushco of falsified information by the selective and inaccurate leaking of information from a national intelligence estimate.

I think they justified the lying in their own minds because:

1, They felt that Hussein probably did have WMD even if they didn't have strong evidence to that effect.

2. They felt that there were other strong reasons why the war was in American interests so that even if Hussein wasn't associated with 9-11 attacks and he didn't have WMD the war was still in the American interest.

3. They felt that once Hussein was unseated Iraq would transform quickly into a stable, peaceful state so that the period of American military involvement with Iraq would be short.

If you disagree significantly with any of the above I think we should agree to disagree on this one in this thread. This topic has been discussed several other places and I thiink that a long discussion of it here would be off topic for this thread.

 

[Grammatron]

Grammatron, thank you for your temperate response to my intemperate post. My apologies.

This issue has been discussed in numerous threads and for me the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco engaged in an organized, intentional effort to deceive people about the strength of evidence that Hussein had WMD and that Hussein was involved with the 9-11 attacks.

A small example of what I am talking about was the presentation by Bushco of falsified information by the selective and inaccurate leaking of information from a national intelligence estimate.

I think they justified the lying in their own minds because:

1, They felt that Hussein probably did have WMD even if they didn't have strong evidence to that effect.

2. They felt that there were other strong reasons why the war was in American interests so that even if Hussein wasn't associated with 9-11 attacks and he didn't have WMD the war was still in the American interest.

3. They felt that once Hussein was unseated Iraq would transform quickly into a stable, peaceful state so that the period of American military involvement with Iraq would be short.

If you disagree significantly with any of the above I think we should agree to disagree on this one in this thread. This topic has been discussed several other places and I thiink that a long discussion of it here would be off topic for this thread.

Cherry picking evidence(according to you), and emotionaly linking Sadam with 9/11 is not the same as falsifying evidence. That's what I take issue with.

 

[rocketdodger]

Huh?

I did six. What's wrong, having trouble separating?

You were in the U.S. military for six years and you didn't encounter anyone who joined up for shady reasons?

I had trouble separating, but I won in the end because I am smarter than those POS. Frankly I have a very low opinion of the U.S. military.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Did you see the subject of this thread? "U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq." These soldiers, for all kinds of reasons, have become goons. I don't see what else to call them.

You can call them young men that are trained to kill first and think about it later. They are trained this way because battlefield studies have shown that when they think first, they tend not to kill, and as a result are often killed themselves.

I'm surprised that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. When these soldiers are under constant threat of being killed, it's pretty unreasonable to expect them to turn their conditioning on and off at will.

 

[Orwell]

I do (and possibly some others as well).

It would (most likely) expose your hypocrisy of your comparison of Saddam's goons (and mass graves) as opposed to the present US occupation and accountability. Now, I have clearly and concisely answered your question (which, may I remind you, only gave me 2 choices) ... we still await yours.

BTW: Those were my two possibilities. (Post #28)

Do you know what "rhetorical question" means?

I'm not being hypocritical! See, I'm telling straight up that I think that the US occupation is as bad as Hussein's dictatorship. That's why I answered "neither" to Rob Lister's stupid question. Is that clear, or do you want me to make it simpler?