One soldier speaks out - on Iraq

[Clearfire1]

A Young Marine Speaks Out





by Philip Martin (grimmythedog@netscape.net)
by Philip Martin


I'm sick and tired of this patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap. I stood through a memorial service today for a young Marine that was killed in Iraq back in April. During this memorial a number of people spoke about the guy and about his sacrifice for the country. How do you justify 'sacrificing' your life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man's power, and his ego. A recent Marine Corps intelligence report that was leaked said that the war in the al-Anbar province is unwinnable. It said that there was nothing we could do to win the hearts and minds, or the military operations in that area. So I wonder, why are we still there? Democracy is not forced upon people at gunpoint. It's the result of forward thinking individuals who take the initiative and risks to give their fellow countrymen a better way of life.

When I joined I took an oath. In that oath I swore to protect the Constitution of the United States. I didn't swear to build democracies in countries on the other side of the world under the guise of "national security." I didn't join the military to be part of an Orwellian ("1984") war machine that is in an obligatory war against whoever the state deems the enemy to be so that the populace can be controlled and riled up in a pro-nationalistic frenzy to support any new and oppressive law that will be the key to destroying the enemy. Example given – the Patriot Act. So aptly named, and totally against all that the constitution stands for. President Bush used the reactionary nature of our society to bring our country together and to infuse into the national psyche a need to give up their little-used rights in the hope to make our nation a little safer. The same scare tactics he used to win elections. He drones on and on about how America and the world would be a less safe place if we weren't killing Iraqis, and that we'd have to fight the terrorists at home if we weren't abroad. In our modern day emotive society this strategy (or strategery?) works, or had worked, up until last month's elections.

My point in this; to show that America was never nationalistic. If anything they were Statalistic (giving their allegiance to the state of their residence). This is shown in the fact that the founders created states with fully capable and independent governments and not provinces that were just a division of the federal government. These men believed that America was a place where imperialistic values would be non-existent. Where the people trying to make their lives better by working hard, thinking, inventing and using the free market would tie up so much of normal life that imperialistic colonization and the fighting of wars thousands of miles away for interests that are not our own would be avoided. They believed this expansion of power could be left to the European nations, the England, France and Spain of their time. However this recent, and current influx of nationalistic feeling has created an environment where giving up your rights, going to a foreign country to fight a people who did not ask for us to be there, nor did their leader do anything to warrant us being there, and dying would be considered honorable and heroic. I don't believe it anymore. I don't believe it's right for any American to go along with it anymore. Yes I know that we in the military are bound by the UCMJ and somehow don't fall under the Constitution (the very thing we're suppose to be defending) but sooner or later there is a decision that every American soldier, marine, airmen and seamen makes to allow themselves to be sent to a war that is against every fiber this country was founded on. I know that when April rolls around I will be thinking long and hard on that decision. Even though we in the military are just doing as we're told we still have the moral and ethical obligation to choose to do as we're told, or to say, "No, that isn't right." I believe that if more troopers like me and the professional military, the officers and commanders, start standing up and saying that they won't let themselves or their troops go to this illegal war people will start standing up and realizing what the heck is going on over there.

The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and occupied people. Personally I have a hard time believing that if I was an Iraqi that I wouldn't be doing everything in my power to kill and maim as many Americans as possible. I know that the vast majority of Americans would not be happy with the Canadian government, or any other foreign government, liberating us from the clutches of George W. Bush, even though a large number of us would like that, and forcing us to accept their system of government. Would not millions of Americans rise up and fight back? Would you not rise up to protect and defend your house and your neighborhood if someone invaded your country? But we send thousands of troops to a foreign country to do just that. How is it moral to fight a people who are just trying to defend their homes and families? I think next time I go to Iraq perhaps I should wear a bright red coat and carry a Brown Bess instead of my digitalized utilities and M16.

Notice I never once used the word homeland in any of this. I have a secondary point I want to bring up now. Never once was the term homeland ever used to describe the country of America until Mr. Bush began the department of homeland security after the 9/11 attacks. Taking a 20th century history class will teach us that the most notable countries in the last century that referred to their country in this way were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Hitler used the term fatherland to drum up support, nationalistic support, for his growing war machine. He used the nationalism he created in the minds of the Germans to justify the sacrifice of their livelihood to build the war machine to get back their power from the oppressive restrictions the English and French had put on them at Versailles. This is the same feeling that has been virulently infecting the American psyche in the last hundred years. This is the same feeling that consoles a mother after her son is killed in an attempt to prosecute an aggressor's war 10,000 miles away. It's also known as Patriotism these days, but I say, "No more." No more nationalistic inanity, no more passing it off as patriotism. Patriotism is learning, and educating oneself to understand what their country really stands for.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/martin.jpg


I heard a lot during the memorial service about how the dead Marine did so much good for others and how his helping others was like a little microcosm of America helping because we have the power to do so. Well if we have the power to help people why aren't we helping in Darfur where hundreds of thousands of people have died in the last 10 years. Saddam was convicted and sentenced to death for killing 143 Shiites who conspired to assassinate him. (I know all you "patriotic" Americans would be calling for the heads of anyone who conspired to assassinate supreme leader Bush). And yet we spend upwards of 1 trillion dollars and nearing 3,000 lives to help these Iraqis when they don't even want us there. Not to mention we don't have the legal justification to be there. I guess we should wait around for the omnipotent W Bush to decide who we should use our superpowerdom to help next. It's about time to throw him and the rest of the fascists out. Moreover it's about time to start educating Americans about their past and history, and letting them know that imperialistic leaders are not what the founders of this great country wanted.

December 8, 2006
Philip Martin [send him mail (grimmythedog@netscape.net)] has been a Marine for 2 years. He is in the infantry (a "grunt"), and spent 7 months in the al-Anbar province of Iraq. He went on more than 180 combat patrols in and outside of the city of Fallujah, where he was hit with 2 IEDs (luckily never injured) and was involved in a number of firefights. He is currently stationed in Twentynine Palms, CA, and due to return to Iraq for a second deployment in April 2007. He is 21-years-old.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/martin-p1.html
I stumbled across this. ( Literally I did - See the stumbleupon extension for the firefox browser, its pretty cool. http://www.stumbleupon.com/ )

Anyways I was surprised to see a soldier step up and say all this, I agree with him on the majority of the things he said.

Very good/interesting read I thought I'd share.

And if you disagree with him, thats fine just dont insult the guy and call him "crazy" or something similar. I can already see some lowbrow types coming in here and saying something like that.

[Axe&Hammer]

That guy is crazy and un-American..BOOOOOOO!!!


all jokes aside,I respect this guys opinion,even though I do not agree with him.

[JordanL]

How do you justify 'sacrificing' your life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man's power, and his ego.

*sigh*

What does it matter if liberal rhetoric comes from God himself? It's still Liberal rhetoric.

The war was not illegal... it was legal in every sense of the word.

We are not still there because of one mans ego, we are still there because if we leave the Middle East is screwed.

[Uncool]

One reason there is this divide among views is that for one, many people don't really understand what is actually going on there. More so the fact that many of the info we do know of what happened in Iraq was spoon fed to us by the media excluding some facts that the Middle East would be worst off as a Civil War would cross over to neighboring countries. Sometimes doing the right thing from one's own point of view is deemed questionable in the eyes of another. Always have been and always will be.

[Hussaro]

... prepare for more of that, Iran is next!

[Clearfire1]

The war was not illegal... it was legal in every sense of the word.



There certainly is alot of debate on the legality, it could go either way. If it is in fact legal, it shouldnt be.

The UN charter allows military action in self-defence and that can include a pre-emptive strike - but only if there is an imminent threat. Iraq posed no threat and there was hardly any evidence to show that they did.

And correct me if I am wrong here, but we never declared War on Iraq when we technically should have. Theres probably an assortment of other things to look at when determining the legality of the war, right down to the actions of the military.
(if they targeted civilian infrastructure or not, etc.)

Legal - Maybe
Fully justified - Never has been never will be


We are not still there because of one mans ego, we are still there because if we leave the Middle East is screwed.

Right... And their better off with us there. .

If you haven't noticed, 99.999% of planet earth wants the US out of Iraq and for good reason. (thats including the American and Iraqi people)

Though not 100% true, its pretty fair to say we are still there because of one mans ego.

[The_One]

I'm sure many more have spoken up before regarding the war in Iraq. The problem is, "Grunts" only follow orders, not knowing why.

Hell, even we don't know the full reason why America is sending American troops into Iraq. Is it to combat terror? Maybe. Is it due to one man's ego? I doubt it--George W. Bush is not that stupid. Ulterior motives? Perhaps.

The bottom line is, we don't know enough to make a sound judgment. What we know only comes from the media, and we all know how the media LOVES to spin things.

Education is highly heralded, why am I not seeing that in action?

The Bush administration has to squelch all doubters once and for all if the "war" is to succeed. It needs to let the general public know WHY their troops are in a foreign land, fighting a "foreign" war. To that end, the Bush administration has not been, and is not, successful.

[JordanL]

There certainly is alot of debate on the legality, it could go either way. If it is in fact legal, it shouldnt be.That's awfully presumtuous of you... The only debate is between those who understand law and those who don't.

The UN charter allows military action in self-defence and that can include a pre-emptive strike - but only if there is an imminent threat. Iraq posed no threat and there was hardly any evidence to show that they did.Actually, according to Article 1 Section 8 (link) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8) and Article 6 (link) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html) of the Constitution, the United States government cannot forfeit its legislative rights or sovereignty through the establishment of treaties. The UN Charter has no bearing on the legality of any action taken by the US military, as that is a power reserved explicitly to the Executive and Legislative branches in the US Constitution.

And correct me if I am wrong here, but we never declared War on Iraq when we technically should have. Theres probably an assortment of other things to look at when determining the legality of the war, right down to the actions of the military.
(if they targeted civilian infrastructure or not, etc.)Actually, we did. It's that little thing that Senators talk about all the time when they say "I voted against the Iraq war". The Congress authorized the President to pursue military action in the country of Iraq, thus legalizing the action in every sense of the word according to the US Constitution.

You don't seem to know much about law or government...

Right... And their better off with us there. .

If you haven't noticed, 99.999% of planet earth wants the US out of Iraq and for good reason. (thats including the American and Iraqi people)

Though not 100% true, its pretty fair to say we are still there because of one mans ego.This is something like a "I know you are but what am I" response... would you mind actually refuting what I said instead of pulling random numbersout of your ***, however false they are, and declaring the point moot?

[Fangrim]

The Congress authorized the President to pursue military action in the country of Iraq, thus legalizing the action in every sense of the word according to the US Constitution.

Isn't the problem that the Congress legalized the war on false statements given by the Bush government and the Intelligence agencies? I know that this subject is being brought up in my country every time the war effort is up for debate.

IMO the world is damned if we stay in Iraq (I'm Danish, and we're one of the few nations apart from the US and UK that joined the effort from day one), and damned if they don't... *sigh*

My brother's been in Iraq 3 times now, going for the 4th time soon (although Denmark officially stated they're pulling their soldiers out of Iraq, a small contingency still remains). In his opinion, it's good we're there. We can't change a Middle Eastern country in just a few years - this will take lots of time, blood, sweat, and tears.

[JordanL]

Isn't the problem that the Congress legalized the war on false statements given by the Bush government and the Intelligence agencies? I know that this subject is being brought up in my country every time the war effort is up for debate.

Marginally... the "debate" is more over how reliable the administration thought their data really was, and how much was the CIA's fault, and how much was accurate but Saddam was able to destroy/hide.

IMO the world is damned if we stay in Iraq (I'm Danish, and we're one of the few nations apart from the US and UK that joined the effort from day one), and damned if they don't... *sigh*


That is pretty much where we're at.

[Fangrim]

Yeah...

Well, no matter what, we're down there now - that's about the only fact we can truly rely on. And we'll have to stay there to finish the job!

We might not have taken the best route to begin with, and God knows we'll probably never get all the facts out on the table from the governments involved, but if we just pack our stuff and leave, it'll just go from bad to worse IMO.

[majinvegeta]

I respect that man, what a great person. This man knows what he is talking about.

Unlike many people, he is actually thinking, he is really trying to see is it truly a JUST war? or is this just bull****? and it truly is bull****.

I don't know why people are so ignorant about this.

Can't you people see that everyone hates you down there? can you not see them yelling at the camera men saying WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO US?!

Man I wish, truly wish some country would invade America. Then and only then would people of America learn their wrong doings, or the governments wrong doings at least.

This is not a justified war, this is a war that stupid ******* wanted to fight for his own reasons, for economical reasons, to threaten the Middle East.

What gives America the right to go to other nations and start forcefully spreading their so called Democratic system? It does not matter if the guy running the country is a tyrant or not, that is their problem, not the problem of the U.S.

Just leave us Muslims alone, let us be the way we are. Now some of you will lash out and say that you Muslims attacked our country.

Fact is, America attacked us first, they wanted to get into our Middle Eastern issues. I remember it just like yesterday, on the news where the lady was saying that America wants to get into Middle East politics. I asked myself, why?

I don't go into random peoples houses and tell them how to run their life. Some people beat their children to teach them, others use words, some sit down on the carpet / floor and eat, others eat on a table. Some allow having girl friends, others don't. Its the way life is, lets not force people to change to a democratic system.

We have different cultures, different way of living, different religions. And in Middle East, we are Muslims, if you don't like it. Don't deal with us, don't buy our oil, don't insult us, don't threaten us, let us do what we want.

People always complain, hey you know, I hate Iran for building nukes. What about America? they have more nukes than any other country in the world (except maybe Russia). What makes Pakistan, Russia, China, America, Israel or those other countries so special? what? their democratic and will always be righteous? don't they make mistakes? doesn't America get stuck with stupid governments? (like the current one).

In my opinion, if the countries want nukes, they all have the right to it, we can't decide who's stupid enough to use them. But honestly, why else would you build them? they have no other value other than killing innocent people. I am FOR the dismantling of nukes, but who should go first? AMERICA. Who has actually even used a nuke in the history? AMERICA, yet you people are stressed out about Russia or China or Pakistan using them? pfft.

I don't mean to flame, I am pointing out justifications here. Its fair that either everyone gets to build a nuke, or nobody, its fair that everyone gets to build a country the way they want it. Thats what makes a country a country, its different, its separate, they have different values, they have different culture, different religion. And if you don't like the way Middle East rules itself, then you don't need to go there. In the same way, if Muslims don't like American rule, they don't need to go there.

[JordanL]

I respect that man, what a great person. This man knows what he is talking about.

Unlike many people, he is actually thinking, he is really trying to see is it truly a JUST war? or is this just bull****? and it truly is bull****.

I don't know why people are so ignorant about this.

Can't you people see that everyone hates you down there? can you not see them yelling at the camera men saying WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO US?!

Man I wish, truly wish some country would invade America. Then and only then would people of America learn their wrong doings, or the governments wrong doings at least.

This is not a justified war, this is a war that stupid ******* wanted to fight for his own reasons, for economical reasons, to threaten the Middle East.

What gives America the right to go to other nations and start forcefully spreading their so called Democratic system? It does not matter if the guy running the country is a tyrant or not, that is their problem, not the problem of the U.S.

Just leave us Muslims alone, let us be the way we are. Now some of you will lash out and say that you Muslims attacked our country.

Fact is, America attacked us first, they wanted to get into our Middle Eastern issues. I remember it just like yesterday, on the news where the lady was saying that America wants to get into Middle East politics. I asked myself, why?

I don't go into random peoples houses and tell them how to run their life. Some people beat their children to teach them, others use words, some sit down on the carpet / floor and eat, others eat on a table. Some allow having girl friends, others don't. Its the way life is, lets not force people to change to a democratic system.

We have different cultures, different way of living, different religions. And in Middle East, we are Muslims, if you don't like it. Don't deal with us, don't buy our oil, don't insult us, don't threaten us, let us do what we want.

People always complain, hey you know, I hate Iran for building nukes. What about America? they have more nukes than any other country in the world (except maybe Russia). What makes Pakistan, Russia, China, America, Israel or those other countries so special? what? their democratic and will always be righteous? don't they make mistakes? doesn't America get stuck with stupid governments? (like the current one).

In my opinion, if the countries want nukes, they all have the right to it, we can't decide who's stupid enough to use them. But honestly, why else would you build them? they have no other value other than killing innocent people. I am FOR the dismantling of nukes, but who should go first? AMERICA. Who has actually even used a nuke in the history? AMERICA, yet you people are stressed out about Russia or China or Pakistan using them? pfft.

I don't mean to flame, I am pointing out justifications here. Its fair that either everyone gets to build a nuke, or nobody, its fair that everyone gets to build a country the way they want it. Thats what makes a country a country, its different, its separate, they have different values, they have different culture, different religion. And if you don't like the way Middle East rules itself, then you don't need to go there. In the same way, if Muslims don't like American rule, they don't need to go there.

Wow... do you need a napkin, because I think you're frothing at the mouth.

[Firefox]

Marginally... the "debate" is more over how reliable the administration thought their data really was, and how much was the CIA's fault, and how much was accurate but Saddam was able to destroy/hide.




That is pretty much where we're at.

JordanL, why don't you see the opinions of a person who really knows
what he is talking about unlike most people in this thread:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/

Its nothing to refute you, but just to give you the opinion of a British man who
really well knows what he is talking about.

Btw, if you don't believe this guy check out his credentials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

[JordanL]

JordanL, why don't you see the opinions of a person who really knows
what he is talking about unlike most people in this thread:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/

Its nothing to refute you, but just to give you a british man's opinion

Btw, if you don't believe this guy check out his credentials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

1. I've read Fisk before.
2. He brings nothing but more opinion to the table.
3. Never ever use Wikipedia to verify something, or any encyclopedia for the matter.

So, yes, quite interesting, but somewhat irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

[Firefox]

Yes, but I just thought that his opinion about the situation in Iraq and
many reports he has is something everybody can agree on. Instead of
arguing against each other I thought that you guys should instead
agree on common things.

Anyways, I think that we do need to withdraw but not abruptly, there
needs to be steps taken in order to make a stable shia and sunni
government. If we leave now there will be a massacre of the sunni's
which is really inevitable, so we need to balance power in my
opinion.

[JordanL]

Anyways, I think that we do need to withdraw but not abruptly, there
needs to be steps taken in order to make a stable shia and sunni
government. If we leave now there will be a massacre of the sunni's
which is really inevitable, so we need to balance power in my
opinion.

I completely agree with that.

[majinvegeta]

Wow... do you need a napkin, because I think you're frothing at the mouth.

Why don't you just read what I stated and retort to it in a proper manner, don't need to insult me...

Why? is my post crappy or something? not above or meeting your requirements? :/

[Firefox]

Why don't you just read what I stated and retort to it in a proper manner, don't need to insult me...

Why? is my post crappy or something? not above or meeting your requirements? :/

Calm down man I think he was joking :lol: Unless I am wrong. :neutral:

[Axe&Hammer]

3. Never ever use Wikipedia to verify something, or any encyclopedia for the matter.

Hey dont be hatin of wikipedia,we get our facts right every time;)

[Firefox]

Hey dont be hatin of wikipedia,we get our facts right every time;)

That's for sure, I don't think I have ever gotten wrong info from Wiki
(except for less popular topics that is).

[Axe&Hammer]

That's for sure, I don't think I have ever gotten wrong info from Wiki
(except for less popular topics that is).

But if you bring up wiki in an argument,use the sources wikipedia uses,not wikipedia it self.

[Firefox]

Great article about sectarian divisions:
A must Read for all!

Link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2323413.ece)

[majinvegeta]

Calm down man I think he was joking :lol: Unless I am wrong. :neutral:

lol ok :P

But honestly, if they want to end the war in Iraq, theres a few simple steps.

1. Apologize to the people of Iraq in a serious and proper manner, the government of U.S. should step up and apologize sincerely.
2. Talk to those groups who are fighting, we are social animals, not donkey's. Talking is how we prevent from getting into fights, so we need to communicate to end this suicide bombing.
3. come to a conclusion to create a government system that the Iraqi people want, a system in which all groups are involved, the so called terrorists, and the people.

Yea I know, terrorists? why involve them? well, they too play a role in the country. After all, they were brought up in that country, and they are fighting for the removal of American troops. If thats what they are fighting for, then I don't see anything wrong with it, considering American troops are not supposed to be there in the first place.


Once talks have been made, and a proper government is established, the fighting will go away. The reason the fighting is going on is because of power struggle, and that they want to remove American troops. Since America won't communicate with them, the only way they can push Americans out is by killing them :/. So thats why those regular people who have no idea what is REALLY going on tend to think these terrorists are just evil people. They aren't, they just have no other choice. Although I wouldn't agree with suicide attacks, they have no weaponry that could match American and is the reason they use it I guess...

But in the end, what matters is to end the bloodshed. Promise of rebuilding the country, and remove the troops immediately after the government is established.

[Axe&Hammer]

Iraq has a government,now is not the time to listen to other groups,its time to greatly increase the strength of the current government,then later when they are stable they can start getting democratic.

[Firefox]

Iraq has a government,now is not the time to listen to other groups,its time to greatly increase the strength of the current government,then later when they are stable they can start getting democratic.

I don't think they are even a fathom's lenght close to having a stable
government, to have a stable government you need to have unity
between the sunnis and shia.

This is sad really, because I have gone to many religious Islamic talks in
North America and all the scholars say that it is time to ignore if your
brother is Sunni or Shia and just look at each other as Muslims and
have universal brotherhood with everyone (even non-muslims)
what we believe is really close to Christianity's concept of Universal
Brotherhood too.

Fighting over an age old political difference is not going to help anyone in Iraq.

[majinvegeta]

I don't think they are even a fathom's lenght close to having a stable
government, to have a stable government you need to have unity
between the sunnis and shia.

This is sad really, because I have gone to many religious Islamic talks in
North America and all the scholars say that it is time to ignore if your
brother is Sunni or Shia and just look at each other as Muslims and
have universal brotherhood with everyone (even non-muslims)
what we believe is really close to Christianity's concept of Universal
Brotherhood too.

Fighting over an age old political difference is not going to help anyone in Iraq.

Thats how Islam has always been, anyone who started this bull about Sunni and Shia is an imbecile.

In Islam, the worst amongst you is he who separates you from one another. In the Quran it is clearly stated that God will judge who prays right or wrong, or who properly worships God, we are not to decide FOR him. We should look away from our differences, and respect one another as a brother.

And I agree with you, the current government is a complete joke. He has done nothing, there has been no effort whatsoever, rather the crime has risen, and it almost seems inevitable for a civil war to break lose.

Fact is, the American government HAS to apologize. And we have to stop with this ridiculous claim of we will not deal with terrorists. Yea, you guys make deals with bank robbers and criminals who have a gun pointed at a innocent women, but when its a Muslim, its no problem, let the man / women / child die, who cares, lets completely ignore the terrorists, its not like the American population is being harmed.

Those terrorists are human too, they after all live there, and have lived there before American occupation. And before American occupation, this was not happening, clearly showing that this occurred because of America occupancy and dismantling of the Iraqi government.

Currently they are pretty much in Anarchy, what needs to be done is to bring all of them together. And talk, the more you talk, the more you use words, the less people will use guns.

Trust me, if you could not talk to the man next to you, and he accidentally hit you with his bottle of coke, what would you do? you may try to use expression to resolve it, but it might not work...and what would happen? you would get into a fight that may end up killing you or the other guy. Yea sure you just got hit by a coke bottle, but I've seen people kill each other over even more ridiculous things.

Communication helps bring everyone together. What the media in the world is portraying is Muslims as being evil. Its like MUTING Muslims and censoring the good things Muslims do, and purely exaggerating and showing what negative things Muslims do. That puts a wrong perception of what Islam is about, and people tend to think their evil people.

In the same way, this fighting over terrorism and what not, can end, by communication. But IMO, the government does not want to communicate, why? because Bush knows he is wrong, he knows that the American governments have done wrong things in the past to Muslim nations, and it continues to go on.

[Clearfire1]

You don't seem to know much about law or government...


Thats a bit of an overstatement there.... Glad you could be polite about it.

I just didnt look much into this one issue. (legality of the war)

I certainly put forth much more effort then the majority of the people in America.

Our little argument on the legality of the war is frivolous anyways, the war remains a complete disaster.




Actually, we did. It's that little thing that Senators talk about all the time when they say "I voted against the Iraq war". The Congress authorized the President to pursue military action in the country of Iraq, thus legalizing the action in every sense of the word according to the US Constitution.
Yeah.... I know Congress voted on the war. I was saying we never formally declared war, its different I think.

Really you should strive to sound like your not an extremely pretentious person.

Wow... do you need a napkin, because I think you're frothing at the mouth.

Wow... I didnt know moderators could mock people for expressing their opinion.

[Firefox]

Thats how Islam has always been, anyone who started this bull about Sunni and Shia is an imbecile.

In Islam, the worst amongst you is he who separates you from one another. In the Quran it is clearly stated that God will judge who prays right or wrong, or who properly worships God, we are not to decide FOR him. We should look away from our differences, and respect one another as a brother.

And I agree with you, the current government is a complete joke. He has done nothing, there has been no effort whatsoever, rather the crime has risen, and it almost seems inevitable for a civil war to break lose.

Fact is, the American government HAS to apologize. And we have to stop with this ridiculous claim of we will not deal with terrorists. Yea, you guys make deals with bank robbers and criminals who have a gun pointed at a innocent women, but when its a Muslim, its no problem, let the man / women / child die, who cares, lets completely ignore the terrorists, its not like the American population is being harmed.

Those terrorists are human too, they after all live there, and have lived there before American occupation. And before American occupation, this was not happening, clearly showing that this occurred because of America occupancy and dismantling of the Iraqi government.

Currently they are pretty much in Anarchy, what needs to be done is to bring all of them together. And talk, the more you talk, the more you use words, the less people will use guns.

Trust me, if you could not talk to the man next to you, and he accidentally hit you with his bottle of coke, what would you do? you may try to use expression to resolve it, but it might not work...and what would happen? you would get into a fight that may end up killing you or the other guy. Yea sure you just got hit by a coke bottle, but I've seen people kill each other over even more ridiculous things.

Communication helps bring everyone together. What the media in the world is portraying is Muslims as being evil. Its like MUTING Muslims and censoring the good things Muslims do, and purely exaggerating and showing what negative things Muslims do. That puts a wrong perception of what Islam is about, and people tend to think their evil people.

In the same way, this fighting over terrorism and what not, can end, by communication. But IMO, the government does not want to communicate, why? because Bush knows he is wrong, he knows that the American governments have done wrong things in the past to Muslim nations, and it continues to go on.

I agree with your points, and yes the fact is that the most prominent Islamic scholars
who actually have a in-depth knowledge of Islam totally think that muslims should
be muslims and nothing else no sunni, no shia.

[Fangrim]

Problem is that there's more TV ratings and "sensation" in showing a bunch of radical muslims burning flags, or violently protesting against Mohammad Cartoons, than there is in showing the good side of Islam.

A big part of this "war against muslims" is, as stated before in this thread, done by the western media.

When I look at Danish news reports of something "mundane" like a bank robbery or violence, they never fail to mention if the people involved are of non-Danish heritage. I know more people with roots in Middle Eastern or African countries that are more Danish than Danes (I hope this makes sense).

It's true that we have a lot of young 2nd and 3rd-generation immigrants who doesn't feel welcome in Denmark, even though they've lived here all their lives, and the damn media plays a big part in this, along with general xenophobia amongst Danes (heavily spurred on by the media).

Judge people for what they stand for, how they act, and how how they react - don't judge them by race or heritage.

[jogara]

I can't say anything on this issue... i've already been warned. Just don't let clearfire1 get to you guys is guess. Anything that dosen't match what he's been told is a lie, and if you don't agree you are unamerican.

[JordanL]

Wow... I didnt know moderators could mock people for expressing their opinion.

I was not mocking. It was a figure of speech. There was no basis for the claims majin made, and he sounded somewhat hysterical.

Fact is, the American government HAS to apologize. And we have to stop with this ridiculous claim of we will not deal with terrorists. Yea, you guys make deals with bank robbers and criminals who have a gun pointed at a innocent women, but when its a Muslim, its no problem, let the man / women / child die, who cares, lets completely ignore the terrorists, its not like the American population is being harmed.

Because it's worked so well for Israel. [/sarcasm]

I'm sorry, but dealing with terrorists is the single stupidest thing that any government can do. Not muslims, terrorists.

Terrorists by their very radical nature are not comitted to compramise, but to radical change completely to their point of view. That is part of the definition of terrorist.

As such, dealing with them is a farce. When you make a deal with someone it is under the premise that both of you realize that you have to give in order to take. Terrorists are not willing to give, and that is why we don't deal with them.

Communication is hard when the other side communicates with an RPG.

Trust me, if you could not talk to the man next to you, and he accidentally hit you with his bottle of coke, what would you do?

That's a somewhat ridiculous comparison. Are you suggesting that the terrorists accidentally decapitate civilians in front of a video camera?

[Hempeater]

That's awfully presumtuous of you... The only debate is between those who understand law and those who don't.

Actually, according to Article 1 Section 8 (link) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8) and Article 6 (link) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html) of the Constitution, the United States government cannot forfeit its legislative rights or sovereignty through the establishment of treaties. The UN Charter has no bearing on the legality of any action taken by the US military, as that is a power reserved explicitly to the Executive and Legislative branches in the US Constitution.

Actually, we did. It's that little thing that Senators talk about all the time when they say "I voted against the Iraq war". The Congress authorized the President to pursue military action in the country of Iraq, thus legalizing the action in every sense of the word according to the US Constitution.

You don't seem to know much about law or government...

This is something like a "I know you are but what am I" response... would you mind actually refuting what I said instead of pulling random numbersout of your ***, however false they are, and declaring the point moot?




Now here's where it gets sketchy :

"(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

There's a great deal to suggest that the President didn't rely on "diplomatic or other peaceful means" to achieve a resolution. If we can agree that then there could be grounds for calling the war illegal. It is also widely known in Washington now that the majority of the information given to Congress by the President and the Vice President for war. Was hand picked, there was also a lot of pressure put on the CIA by the White House to achieve the results they wanted.

When the information they were getting wasn't what they wanted to hear. Donald Rumsfeld decided to create his own intelligence service inside the Pentagon. Which would give more ground to calling the war illegal; based on that the administration lied to Congress about the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States.

[momomike3]

Majin I truly hope you were not serious about having the US invaded by someone. Let us remember that WE are the only thing protecting Canada, and a large portion of the world.

That "young marine" is one of very few in the minority. I just got back from vacation and there was a large group of marines (100) in my hotel, and I discussed the war with probably every one... and NONE were against the war. That "young marine" is not the kind of person I want defending my country, because he doesn't have the belief and the true LOVE of his country. These men I met made you feel good inside for how much they loved defending our great country.

[JeffPara]

The media mis-construes the war in Afghansitan/Iraq, just like they did with Vietnam. The country is being over run by insurgents, terrorists, and is crumbling due to them, the Amercians/Brits/Canadians ect are trying to help the nation by ridding them of the force. Its fairly simple, yet the media and left wing reporters claim that the war is for the 'oil'. Iraq doesn't have as much oil as is said to be by many so called 'analitcal experts'. Oil might be an INCENTIVE, but not the sole reason. Also, when the americans went into Iraq in 1991, why didnt they take the oil they wanted then? Because it wasn't a huge concern. Anyone who doesnt aggree with aiding a country that needs assitance, fine, you can have your opinoion, but to disrespect the soldiers, who have blindly devoted their life and reputation to serve their country and government, well, thats just ignorance.

[OKlondon]

*sigh*

What does it matter if liberal rhetoric comes from God himself? It's still Liberal rhetoric.

The war was not illegal... it was legal in every sense of the word.

We are not still there because of one mans ego, we are still there because if we leave the Middle East is screwed.

:lol: I wonder why that is.

[coolguy]

if he is so aginast the war why would the hell u would join the army
or marines u know a war would break out...