Geeze, no offense lads:-4, but when I saw this thread I was going to post...
ANTS............. When you see one, you then know there's a billion hiding somewhere:wah:
What's in a Billion?
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
What's in a Billion?
Jester;758504 wrote: Nope.
Terror orgs lived and operated with impunity in Iraq wether Saddam had knowledge of it or not.
We went into kill them and we did and more were drawn in and we followed supply and communication lines and weve been killing them too. At the same time we liberated Iraq from the baathist and saddam was brought to trial.
Bryn the British SAS have been in Iraq since before the liberation, what are they doing there? Do you have any Idea how many of your own special forces are there? You want to know what they are doing? They are following terror orgs by the hundreds, every lead, ever name, every face that turns up in Iraq, every bombing is traced, ever weapon found is traced as far back as they can go to find and kill terrorists. As they discover links to countries that info is cataloged and sent to the various intel groups...They are not there twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing going after nobody. They are darn busy and needing more help toboot.
These terror orgs are akin to the mob, with mob bosses, and thug groups that operate to the mob bosses orders etc. And thats the nature of these groups. They are highly mobile, highly weaponized, and they move from country to country, sometimes they are linked to the government and sometimes they are not, but they exist and wether provable or not they were and do oprate in Iraq.
Its nice to get permission and if at all possible I would try to go that route because its the right thing to do but if Im after someone then I'm going to pursue them, even across someone else border, if that creates an international incident than that creates one. Its not the best way but its the way Im forced to operate to remove the threat.
So provide evidence that the terrorists were in Iraq before the invasion - the US government couldn't but you keep claiming it.
Are you proposing to invade every country that the terrorist move into in their highly mobile waltz from country to country?
It is not only nice to get permission - it is essential. Otherwise you are acting illegally
Terror orgs lived and operated with impunity in Iraq wether Saddam had knowledge of it or not.
We went into kill them and we did and more were drawn in and we followed supply and communication lines and weve been killing them too. At the same time we liberated Iraq from the baathist and saddam was brought to trial.
Bryn the British SAS have been in Iraq since before the liberation, what are they doing there? Do you have any Idea how many of your own special forces are there? You want to know what they are doing? They are following terror orgs by the hundreds, every lead, ever name, every face that turns up in Iraq, every bombing is traced, ever weapon found is traced as far back as they can go to find and kill terrorists. As they discover links to countries that info is cataloged and sent to the various intel groups...They are not there twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing going after nobody. They are darn busy and needing more help toboot.
These terror orgs are akin to the mob, with mob bosses, and thug groups that operate to the mob bosses orders etc. And thats the nature of these groups. They are highly mobile, highly weaponized, and they move from country to country, sometimes they are linked to the government and sometimes they are not, but they exist and wether provable or not they were and do oprate in Iraq.
Its nice to get permission and if at all possible I would try to go that route because its the right thing to do but if Im after someone then I'm going to pursue them, even across someone else border, if that creates an international incident than that creates one. Its not the best way but its the way Im forced to operate to remove the threat.
So provide evidence that the terrorists were in Iraq before the invasion - the US government couldn't but you keep claiming it.
Are you proposing to invade every country that the terrorist move into in their highly mobile waltz from country to country?
It is not only nice to get permission - it is essential. Otherwise you are acting illegally
What's in a Billion?
Jester;758507 wrote: [quote=Bryn Mawr;758498][quote=Jester;758488]
So bring us up on charges and let us justify it in court where we can bring in the documents needed to prove our stance. Your arguing with me and I dont have the documents nor am I privy to the classified information to make those full assessments. I know what I know is likely because of my previous job in the military.
If's are tough to answer Id have to look at the evidence at the time, And then judge.
You tell me which court the US will recognise and I'll arrange to bring the charges.
The US is riding roughshod over international law, refusing to recognise any court's right to hear a case against them, and defying the world to do anything about it. If it was any other nation then you'd be crying foul to all who would listen.
So bring us up on charges and let us justify it in court where we can bring in the documents needed to prove our stance. Your arguing with me and I dont have the documents nor am I privy to the classified information to make those full assessments. I know what I know is likely because of my previous job in the military.
If's are tough to answer Id have to look at the evidence at the time, And then judge.
You tell me which court the US will recognise and I'll arrange to bring the charges.
The US is riding roughshod over international law, refusing to recognise any court's right to hear a case against them, and defying the world to do anything about it. If it was any other nation then you'd be crying foul to all who would listen.
What's in a Billion?
Kathy Ellen;758513 wrote: Geeze, no offense lads:-4, but when I saw this thread I was going to post...
ANTS............. When you see one, you then know there's a billion hiding somewhere:wah:
I think it might have moved a little way off topic by now - sorry for that :wah:
ANTS............. When you see one, you then know there's a billion hiding somewhere:wah:
I think it might have moved a little way off topic by now - sorry for that :wah:
What's in a Billion?
Jester;758555 wrote: [quote=Bryn Mawr;758532][quote=Jester;758507]
Im not crying foul about anything. Its the right of any nation to repel borders, have at it.
In case you hadn't noticed I'm the one crying foul :wah:
I totally agree - it is the right of any nation to repel borders - within its borders. It is NOT the right of ANY nation to invade another nation.
Those "insurgents" you are complaining about? THEY are repelling borders - not the US.
Jester;758555 wrote:
Believe me if I had access to the info and was legally able to I woud lay it out.
Well its not up to me to do the invading, if it was then I'd excise any part of any threat the US has.
I'd get permission where I could otherwise it would be covert action if at all possible, if not I'd do what was necessary to make neutralize or eliminate the threat, international law or not.
I understand your issues, and I agree that as much as possible we need to follow international law, but where I feel the need to act to eliminate a threat I reserve that right to do so. It is sometimes subjective. Any other and every other country does similar things, it should be a last resort but sometimes it is necessary. As I said before, every country needs to do what they feel is right. But then thats the stuff wars are made of.
You have no access to the information yet you keep claiming your suppositions as truth. If you do not have the information then your claims are fresh air and worthless.
You cannot reserve a right you do not possess. Do what you feel is right but if that is against the law then you are wrong and should pay the penalty.
Im not crying foul about anything. Its the right of any nation to repel borders, have at it.
In case you hadn't noticed I'm the one crying foul :wah:
I totally agree - it is the right of any nation to repel borders - within its borders. It is NOT the right of ANY nation to invade another nation.
Those "insurgents" you are complaining about? THEY are repelling borders - not the US.
Jester;758555 wrote:
Believe me if I had access to the info and was legally able to I woud lay it out.
Well its not up to me to do the invading, if it was then I'd excise any part of any threat the US has.
I'd get permission where I could otherwise it would be covert action if at all possible, if not I'd do what was necessary to make neutralize or eliminate the threat, international law or not.
I understand your issues, and I agree that as much as possible we need to follow international law, but where I feel the need to act to eliminate a threat I reserve that right to do so. It is sometimes subjective. Any other and every other country does similar things, it should be a last resort but sometimes it is necessary. As I said before, every country needs to do what they feel is right. But then thats the stuff wars are made of.
You have no access to the information yet you keep claiming your suppositions as truth. If you do not have the information then your claims are fresh air and worthless.
You cannot reserve a right you do not possess. Do what you feel is right but if that is against the law then you are wrong and should pay the penalty.
What's in a Billion?
Jester;758573 wrote: [quote=Bryn Mawr;758564][quote=Jester;758555]
I usually keep my mouth shut, not sure why I opened it in the first place, because you are right, I cannot back up my assertions.
We will pay for what we did one way or another, if its right then we will reap the benifits if we are wrong then we will reap the benifits, either way, eventually we will get what we deserve.
You can sit back and wait and I will do so too. In the end, more terrorists will be dead and I will be happy for it, when it comes down to my own safety Im willing to defy any law to secure it, its called survival, and it has no international law.
Its a war, it comes down to who is the strongest or who has the will to fight on and thats all. We shall see who wins.
When, in war, when 650,000 civilians die, it is called abomination - that is what the "Coalition of the Willing" has to pay for.
Sitting back and waiting is not an option - it means more civilians dead.
I usually keep my mouth shut, not sure why I opened it in the first place, because you are right, I cannot back up my assertions.
We will pay for what we did one way or another, if its right then we will reap the benifits if we are wrong then we will reap the benifits, either way, eventually we will get what we deserve.
You can sit back and wait and I will do so too. In the end, more terrorists will be dead and I will be happy for it, when it comes down to my own safety Im willing to defy any law to secure it, its called survival, and it has no international law.
Its a war, it comes down to who is the strongest or who has the will to fight on and thats all. We shall see who wins.
When, in war, when 650,000 civilians die, it is called abomination - that is what the "Coalition of the Willing" has to pay for.
Sitting back and waiting is not an option - it means more civilians dead.