just a thought... but years ago, weren't we in a nuclear arms race? where is everything now... :confused:

We as the taxpayers sure got screwed on that deal, didn't we? What harm would there really be in donating one to the Iraqis to take care of their little insurgency? Maybe a Fission bomb so that we just have to go remove the corpses and don't really have to rebuild infrastructure.

I'm starting to think that the only think the Iraqis will understand are barbaric acts of torture and cruelty.

Lets not give these thugs the dignity of saying they are threatening a Marine with Execution! Only a legitimate government can "Execute" anybody. These guys are not legit, have no authority, and are just a bunch of murdering thugs. This Marine is threatened with cold blooded pre-meditated MURDER.
They just don't get it. If a Marine dies in war it is tragic, but tragic things happen in war. That Marine is an American Fighting Man who volunteered to be a Marine and accepted the risks attendant to his service. BUT, If they MURDER that Marine then its no longer a casualty of war scenario, now its PERSONAL.
I am not a big fan of capital punishment, but I do think that under certain circumstances there is a clear case for retribution. Can you spell VENDETTA? I trust the Marines can!

Just to digress, was the number actually millions during the crusades? I might believe the Spanish conquests but even that is difficult.

-Rudey

Most things I've seen actually have the numbers killed in the 6 digit range.

Not trying to be pessimistic, but it sucks knowing this Marine won't be alive by the end of the week. I still think we need to do what we did for Japan and Germany in WWII. Flatten the damn place and rebuild it. Those two countries seem to be pretty well off these days.

As I read in a Tom Clancy book once -- "Turn the place into a parking lot and then send in the Marines to paint the stripes."

Since we had no legit reason to start this illegal war these people are just defending their homes and families- so I think they have a clear case to attack and/or kill any and all of the occupying enemy.
Just think: if someone invaded where you are at, would you fight back or would you roll over?

Your post shows a serious misunderstanding of the facts here.

#1: You assert that these people are "Defending their homes and families".

-- This is simply NOT the case. They are in fact blowing up more Iraqi civilians (families of other Iraqis) than they are American soldiers. There are also MANY (maybe even the majority) insurgents that are not even from Iraq.

If that in your mind is your opinion on their justification for this behavior, your opinion is grossly misinformed.

As for illegal, Saddam under the last UN Resolution was supposed to make a final accounting for all of his missing WMD (and there are LOTS of WMD missing). He didn't -- the *UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED* Resolution promised serious consequences if this was not done. Therefore, the war is in fact legal.

What, do you think the WMD just vanished into thin air? They're being hidden somewhere. The fact that in one year they haven't surfaced in Iraq doesn't mean they don't exist. It's very likely that they are hidden in another country (probably Syria) which kind of complicates our being able to locate them.

I dont remember any resolution going through giving the US approval to invade Iraq- infact I remember that resolution failing.
Therefore: illegal invasion.

Best to hand Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice over to The Hague and the ICCJ to stand trial and the US save face than continue digging this hole as the world's big bully.

Who cares if you remember something or don't?

-Rudey
--I don't remember anyone letting you speak boy.

Wow, okay then.

Line 13 of UN Resolution 1441:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Here's the full text to help your memory.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Therefore: You have no clue what you're talking about.

As far as I know the war in Iraq never legally ended for it to restart.

-Rudey

That Resolution never said a member of the United Nations may invade the nation of Iraq. Under the Charter of the United Nations a seperate resolution calling for armed force to be used would need to be passed. America's invasion of Iraq was illegal.


UN Charter: Chapter 5: Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

UN Charter: Chapter 7:
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

It was not only implied, but according to Colin Powell, before 1441 was passed, he explicitly told the French ambassador that if they failed to comply (again,) there would be an invasion. The French ambassador acknowledged this.

When France voted for 1441, and subsequently attempted to block its enforcement, they undermined what little credibility that the UN had.

Vichy France lives.

So France undermined the resolution and the US violated the UN Charter.
Which seems like a greater mistake?