Campy

SHould I assume you're directing that at me and not SilverNRed? If so: 1. Sorry if I misspelled something. I'm probably not the world's greatest typist. Hopefully the gist of my argument was clear even if my spelling was not. 2. Thanks for serving, and welcome home. 3. I'm familiar with those words, which is why I thanked you for serving. I'm also familiar with the differences between terrorists and an army on the field in combat. But that does not mean that armies in the field can't be wrong. I don't think the use of torture or chemical weapons is an accurate reflection of the ideals of our country - or of the brave men and women who have, who do now, and who will in the future, serve it. All of those those brave men and women are better than that. And that's one of the things that I don't like. Using chemical weapons in combat is "fine" for Germany in WWI, or Saddam Hussein against the Kurds, but not for us. Our soldiers, past present, and future, don't deserve to be associated with them. Torture is "fine" for despotic regimes, but not for us, not for our military. Unfortunately, torturing detainees and using chemical weapons have occured. It's a blight on them, and it's a blight on us. But we can not ignore it. Nor can we justify it. Attempting to do so would make us no better than WWI Germans or Hussein himself. The citizens of this country and the men and women who have served/do serve/will serve deserve better IMO.

I hear you. I'd love it if no more of our guys (and gals) were hurt or killed over there. I'd have loved the mission to be as cut and dry as we were told it would be - liberators welcomed with flowers and all - but unfortunately, that's just not the reality we face, so we must deal with that reality. Understood. I, on the other hand, place a lot of value in the Constitution. And it's the Constitution that makes that international law US law. As I said above, the wisdom of the treaties is open for debate. But they've been agreed to, and I'm not anywhere close to wanting to trash the US Constitution because I may disagree with treaties that Congress has approved.

Whether they would or wouldn't have is moot (although I suspect you're right, "foreign entanglements" and all). They crafted the Constitution, and the Constitution requires that all treaties agreed to and approved by Congress become the law of the land. The wisdom of the US' participation in the UN is a topic for a different thread - a thread which you're welcome to start, I'd be interested to see where everyone stands on that. But we are signatories to the UN, and as such, we have a constitutional obligation to abide by the UN's edicts and rules. I never said that I liked that, only that it is the law.

So I gather you don't like that the Constitution requires that treaties and agreements must be entered into and agreed upon by Congress and not the military? I don't make the laws, nor do I sign the treaties. Your beef should be with the US Constitution, not me.

I guess the whole "nation not of men, but of laws" thingy is lost on you, eh? Hint: It's one of the things that make the United States' government the envy of the world.

Nice straw man you built there, it's just too bad that straw men don't hold up very well. IMO, they were underquipped by not having enough body armor or armored vehicles. As far as WP is concerned, it is hardly the "most effective" tool, a nuclear warhead would have been. And the use of either in that situation is a violation of federal and international law. Don't be pissy with me because you just learned that the US is guilty of committing war crimes.

I'd suggest just opening your eyes, but whatever it takes killer, whatever it takes.

Riiiiiight... Any other UN resolutions you want to bring up to justify the invasion, or is that the best you have to offer?

Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war. Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?

I read an article that claimed that it does, but I'll concede that point with no argument Dropping bombs and shooting people is consistent with accepted (and lawful) means of waging war. Using chemical weapons is a violation of international law. Sorry, but its use certainly is "criminal," ie, it violates the law, making it a crime.

As the post above yours cleary indicates, it's from Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman. Stupid reporter? Italian Communists? Thanks for playing.

Given the context in which it was used I obviously overestimated you. Sorry 'bout that, I'll choose my words more carefully next time so y'all can keep up.

Oh goodie, you brought up the UN. Funny how you all use the UN when it's convenient. If you recall, the very same UN also resolved that the US was not authorized to invade Iraq. As the UN's resolutions become federal law (read the US Constitution before you try to debate me on that), Bush violated not only international law (read the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter before you try to debate me on that), but US federal law as well by his invasion of Iraq. I guess the UN is only relavant when you think it helps your arguments. Thanks for the laugh.

You're smart enough to know I was being facetious, aren't you? Or have I been giving you too much credit?

AP article linky linky That right there is a war crime boys and girls.

I just think that the founding fathers would disagree. Remember, the whole reason they began the rebellion was because of "right or wrong," not "us or them." The whole point of the Constitution used to be to define right and wrong and to ensure that the US government was right more than wrong. Using torture and justifying it by the actions of the terrorists (the sawing the heads off comment above), the torturers themselves become something pretty darn close to being terrorists. There's not much of a difference between the two actions. I don't think that torturing somebody is any more humane than just lopping his head off.

Those might be valid reasons why this non-story fell to the back burner, don't you think? Or would you prefer we ignore real news and blast Hillary for attending a birthday party because you don't like her politics? Good God, our foreign policy has been a complete failure, Americans are being killed and maimed in a war to set up a puppet government that, just like its master, seems to consider torture and abuse as acceptable, and you think a fuggin' birthday party is news? Amazing.

Well the whole WMD thingy didn't really work out, did it? Better find a reason quick-like...

I basically said as much in an earlier post, but now learning that the parents wanted their kid to particiapate in the study/survery - or at least allow them to by signing consent forms - I'd say they suffered a lapse of judgment as large as, or larger than, that of the school's.

There is no "gentleman's code," nor did I ever claim there was. There is right or wrong, and torture is wrong. The minute you try to justify US actions by comparing them to those of terrorists, you lose.

I never tried to justify the bombing of downtown Tripoli. WP is awfully sanitary. Call it what it is, white phosphorus, the most dengerous form of phosphorus that exists. It burns the skin and damages the heart, liver, and kidney. According to an international treaty on the use of chemicals in combat, to which the US is a party, it's only to be used for illumination or cover. It's been used as a weapon, which is a violation of both international and US federal law. I don't know how you can claim that story is BS when the Pentagon acknowledgment its use against enemy fighters while trying to deny its use against civilians, but to each his own.

No, I'm not OK with the US breaking international law and numerous treaties because... Oh, I dunno. Maybe because the leader of another nation threatened harm upon another's dad once upon a time? But the thing that all of the Bushies keep failing to recognize is that there's a world of difference between passing a resolution for diplomatic posturing and ordering an invasion. The fact that they were under-manned and underequipped is just a case-in-point on the incompetence of the president and his cronies.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if the SS came knocking on your door. The WMDs were given to Iraq by Reagan and Rummy during the 80s. They have a shelf-ife of about 10 years.

I think the issue at hand isn't the actions of terrorists. It's the actions of the United States. Justifying torture, for any reason, is wrong. And as someone who is more familiar with what it's like to be locked and tortured than anyone else in country has said, it doesn't work. You tell them what you think they want to hear. McCain said that when he was asked the names of his squadmates, he refused to answer. He was harshly beaten, and only then started talking. He gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. Now imagine if his captors had free reign to start kicking in doors and taking Americans into custody because there name was similar to, or the same as, a football player's. That would be acceptable to you? That's essentially what's happening in Iraq, and sorry, but I'm not cool with that. It's not a right/left, lib/conservative, or Dem/GOP thing. It's a "doing the right thing" thing.