Three Idaho Soldiers Killed in Iraq

[spain]

Treaty obligations.

 

You mean like the treaty that Saddam signed and then violated after the 1st gulf war?

[Ursa Majoris]

You mean like the treaty that Saddam signed and then violated after the 1st gulf war?

 

No. Treaties made with allies providing mutual assistance in case of invasion, act of war, etc. Like when Britain and France declared war on Germany after Poland was invaded or like the NATO treaty, which obligates all members to come to the assistance of any of the others if they are attacked.

[spain]

No. Treaties made with allies providing mutual assistance in case of invasion, act of war, etc. Like when Britain and France declared war on Germany after Poland was invaded or like the NATO treaty, which obligates all members to come to the assistance of any of the others if they are attacked.

 

Oh, so some treaties are ok to ignore while others justify war? Gotcha!

[Ursa Majoris]

Oh, so some treaties are ok to ignore while others justify war? Gotcha!

 

:sigh:

 

One more try, just for the sake of it:

 

Alliance treaties specifically require the parties to commit to the defense of an attacked signatory. You will recall that NATO invoked it's charter to this effect after 9/11, something that had never been done before.

 

The peace treaty signed by Saddam was not an alliance treaty, so yes, of course it is different. You asked me what I thought justified war and I answered: Attack, certain threat of attack and treaty obligations.

 

Clearly I should have specified alliance treaty obligations for you, though I somehow get the feeling you're not as dense as you like to pretend.

 

It's certainly possible to go to war over a broken peace treaty but it depends on how it's broken. Your question asked me my opinion and that is what you got. The violations by Saddam did not, IMO, warrant the war. They warranted exactly what was happening - caging him in.

 

Jeez, I wish I had a buck for every time I've typed that.

[slovak]

I hope it was these three scumbags

 

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=6244

[Furd]

You mean like the treaty that Saddam signed and then violated after the 1st gulf war?

 

 

 

Alright spain. This is like your 3,000th reference to this "treaty."

 

What treaty?

 

Put up or shut up.

[spain]

Alright spain. This is like your 3,000th reference to this "treaty."

 

What treaty?

 

Put up or shut up.

 

So, you are saying that Saddam didnt agree to any conditions whatsoever in order for us to leave him in power after the 1st Gulf War? I can tell you that he did. The first of those was to allow unmittagated access and inspections by UN inspectors. He obviously never fully complied with this provision.

[TheGrunt]

However, when we attacked Afghanistan, we had the support of the world. Everyone understood that we were going after those responsible for 9/11. If we had amassed troops there, we might have had many other countries assist us. I will admit not knowing Afghanistan but it does not seem that it is likely that working toward installing a government there would deteriorate into a civil war (If I'm wrong about this, let me know).

 

To be honest, you are probably right. But before invading Iraq nobody could have called out what is actually unfolding. I doubt many of the nay-sayers of the war today were preaching how the Iraq war was going to push Iraq into a massive civil war that will last for years. In fact, that probably could also have been avoided if our government leaders thought the war through a little more before pushing the military into action. Although, who's to say if we did mass troops in Afghanistan instead of Iraq that everything would have turned out much better? There's no way to tell because we didn't do that.

[TheGrunt]

So, you are saying that Saddam didnt agree to any conditions whatsoever in order for us to leave him in power after the 1st Gulf War? I can tell you that he did. The first of those was to allow unmittagated access and inspections by UN inspectors. He obviously never fully complied with this provision.

 

I actually think you have a good point here. Saddam probably never 'agreed' to this "treaty", but typically when we dominate another country in a war we also put restrictions on them. Just like we did to Japan and Germany. We put restrictions on Saddam, and then he violated those restrictions by kicking out UN inspectors.

[Ursa Majoris]

To be honest, you are probably right. But before invading Iraq nobody could have called out what is actually unfolding. I doubt many of the nay-sayers of the war today were preaching how the Iraq war was going to push Iraq into a massive civil war that will last for years.

 

Oh, I dunno. Some people knew that going in to Iraq was going to be expensive in both time and casualties:

 

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

 

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

 

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Who said that?

Edited February 12, 2007 by Ursa Majoris

[skins]

That is why I like the premise of Starship Trooper so much; it is an excellent political commentary. The only way to be a citizen (and have the right to vote) is to have served in the military. The other interesting thing was that serving in the military meant completely giving up any sense of self. Everything was done for the good of the whole. If someone died in training, nobody sued and there were no political inquiries. If someone died in training, then the assumption was that a lesson was learned that will save multiple lives in combat. If you do not want to serve in the military, that is fine. You can still have all of the rights and privileges accorded citizens, you just can’t vote. Many very wealthy and prominent people were non-citizens. The whole thing was started by returning veterans of the last war started by politicians. They finally said, you know we are tired of fighting wars started by people who have not served, and do not let their children serve. We are happy to serve, and put ourselves in harms-way, we just want the people making the decisions to also have been in harms-way, and their children to be in harms-way. Is that too much to ask?

 

 

And yet, if I am not mistaken, you pulled the lever twice for Bush/Cheney. Hilarious.

 

To be honest, you are probably right. But before invading Iraq nobody could have called out what is actually unfolding. I doubt many of the nay-sayers of the war today were preaching how the Iraq war was going to push Iraq into a massive civil war that will last for years. In fact, that probably could also have been avoided if our government leaders thought the war through a little more before pushing the military into action. Although, who's to say if we did mass troops in Afghanistan instead of Iraq that everything would have turned out much better? There's no way to tell because we didn't do that.

 

 

Um, almost everyone except the neocons in the administration knew it was likely to head for insurgency and a decades long occupation. That is just common sense and an understanding of history.

 

You ever heard of Gen. Anthony Zinni? Jim Webb? Shoot, most of our normal allies around the world were telling us not to do it and now will have nothing to do with helping us out of the mess we created.

[Last Plane Out]

the solution to the biggest military blunder in U.S history is right here

[TheGrunt]

And yet, if I am not mistaken, you pulled the lever twice for Bush/Cheney. Hilarious.

Um, almost everyone except the neocons in the administration knew it was likely to head for insurgency and a decades long occupation. That is just common sense and an understanding of history.

 

You ever heard of Gen. Anthony Zinni? Jim Webb? Shoot, most of our normal allies around the world were telling us not to do it and now will have nothing to do with helping us out of the mess we created.

 

This is true. We are lucky to have such a strong ally with the British, and we can always trust that they'll support our decisions.

 

I read an article today about how Bush is finally planning on building more troops in Afghanistan, which is where we probably should have gone in the first place. The problem? Most of our allies are not so into the idea of helping send more troops into Afghanistan, and more than likely because of the situation in Iraq.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Which bodes the question: What does justify war?

 

bad cheese and budwiser

[Perchoutofwater]

I was just wondering? What is the total casualty numbers for this war, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Civil War? I'm just trying to see things in perspective. Does anyone know a quick place to find that information?

[Yukon Cornelius]

I was just wondering? What is the total casualty numbers for this war, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Civil War? I'm just trying to see things in perspective. Does anyone know a quick place to find that information?

 

national park web site may have for older wars... not sure for resent ones

[Furd]

What is the total casualty numbers for this war . . .

 

Shouldn't you have to be fighting an army to call it a war?

[TheGrunt]

Shouldn't you have to be fighting an army to call it a war?

 

Terrorists aren't an army?

 

Please say you're not referring to civilian deaths... that is not something any US Soldier or Marine likes to hear about... civilian deaths are an unfortunate and sad result of war, they are not a target.

[Furd]

Terrorists aren't an army?

 

Please say you're not referring to civilian deaths... that is not something any US Soldier or Marine likes to hear about... civilian deaths are an unfortunate and sad result of war, they are not a target.

 

 

 

No. I'm not referring to civilian deaths.

 

Perch wants to put the Iraq "war" "in perspective" with other wars. Well, in other wars, we were fighting armies. We were trying to take territory. You know, stuff that you do in a war.

 

In Iraq, we are a souped-up police force. Period. We are trying to keep Iraqis from killing each other, from preventing a civil war (or stopping the spread of an existing civil war, if you prefer.)

 

We are not in a war. So there is no comparison to whatever happened in WWII or Vietnam or the War of Northern Aggression.

[Furd]

And no "the terrorists" are not an army.

[Ursa Majoris]

I was just wondering? What is the total casualty numbers for this war, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Civil War? I'm just trying to see things in perspective. Does anyone know a quick place to find that information?

 

Why is this relevant? FYI, Vietnam was 58,000 - should we go to that level in Iraq and if not, why not? Is there some magic "lives" figure that justifies war? Shouldn't war be justified by it's intrinsic worth, not the number of casualties? Isn't it true that defeating Nazism and Japanese Imperialism would likely have been worth double the number of actual casualties?

[H8tank]

I cannot imagine under what rock you would have to live in to think iraq had anything to do with danger to America or supporting terrorism or WMD's. NOBODY THOUGHT THAT!

[spain]

Shouldn't you have to be fighting an army to call it a war?

 

 

 

And no "the terrorists" are not an army.

 

Come on Furd. You are being disengenuous at best here and downright obtuse at worst. Go tell our kids over there fighting we arent at war simply because the opposition are guerilla fighters. They deserve a heck of alot more credit than you are ascribing to them. Oh, let me guess, you support the troops...

[Furd]

Come on Furd. You are being disengenuous at best here and downright obtuse at worst. Go tell our kids over there fighting we arent at war simply because the opposition are guerilla fighters. They deserve a heck of alot more credit than you are ascribing to them. Oh, let me guess, you support the troops...

 

 

What are you talking about? I said that, given its nature, our fighting in Iraq cannot and should not be compared to our fighting in the various wars in which our country has fought.

 

What I tell or you tell "our kids" is irrelevant, as is who I support or don't support.

 

And do tell how I am being "disengenuous."

[TheGrunt]

I cannot imagine under what rock you would have to live in to think iraq had anything to do with danger to America or supporting terrorism or WMD's. NOBODY THOUGHT THAT!

 

H8tank, this is exactly the information I was looking to see.

 

It's much easier for political figures to back-out after the fact, and then blame Bush for making the decision to invade Iraq when things went wrong... mainly because they are not the ones involved in any of the current administrations decision making. President Bush has a duty to continue pushing forward, even if things didn't turn out like MOST people thought they would prior to invading Iraq.

 

This is good info.