Militants alter tactics:

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Praxius Supporting your troops means to support them in whatever they are doing, but it also means to look after your troops and make sure your government doesn't send your boys off to be killed for nothing. There's a difference in supporting your troops and supporting your government.

Agreed.

It is absolutely and unequivocally impossible to support the troops while claiming they are taking part in an “illegal war”. By claiming their actions are in support of an illegal effort, you legitimize ANY action taken by ANYONE to stop them from their course.

[xyzer]

I read about the Brits problems those many years ago too Rick! I think it was in 1841 that the Brits found themselves in trouble in C(K)abul and were forced to leave the city..Some 5000 troops and 12000 camp followers were killed along the route. Plus many women and children were killed within the city...Only one, a Dr Briden lived to reach the fort at Jellalabad some hundred miles away! The next year the British withdrew all thewir forces from the country!

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Agreed. It is absolutely and unequivocally impossible to support the troops while claiming they are taking part in an “illegal war”. By claiming their actions are in support of an illegal effort, you legitimize ANY action taken by ANYONE to stop them from their course.

No, the way you "support the troops" is not to start unlawful wars in the first place.

Once you are in a war, you "support the troops" by sending them in sufficient numbers to do the job and with all necessary equipment and tools, a lesson Rummy and his accomplices never learned.

Another obvious lesson ignored by the Bush cabal is that if the majority of a populous supports an insurgency, you have already lost the guerilla war and had best withdraw. Also if you find yourself in the middle of a civil war that you clearly do not understand, your presence only makes things worse. One doesn't "support the troops" by making them targets for a popular insurgency and all sides in a sectarian conflict.

As of this morning 3,410 coalition soldiers have died in this war. I wonder how many more will die before the the Bush administration is forced to confront reality and begin a phased withdrawal.

[Jachin]

Quote by: Apeman81 Agreed. It is absolutely and unequivocally impossible to support the troops while claiming they are taking part in an “illegal war”. By claiming their actions are in support of an illegal effort, you legitimize ANY action taken by ANYONE to stop them from their course.

BS. That's a handy excuse for brow-beating those who differ on policy. A person can hate the sin without hating the sinner.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Jachin BS. That's a handy excuse for brow-beating those who differ on policy. A person can hate the sin without hating the sinner.

No one is talking about hate, we are talking about support. To claim the activity the soldiers are engaged in is illegal is to say that the soldiers are criminals by participating in the activity.

By calling the soldiers criminals, you not only attack their morale directly, but you confer upon them a status that no longer affords them the protections of soldiers in combat.

Please, BTW, define "Illegal war" and explain why the soldiers fighting it don't agree with you. Or do you believe the soldiers agree with you and are voluntarily participating in the crime of an illegal war?

While it is the right, if not the duty, of a citizen to raise the concerns they may have about the use of our military might, it is not only unnecessary to make inflammatory, unsubstantiated accusations, it is irresponsible.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Apeman81 No one is talking about hate, we are talking about support. To claim the activity the soldiers are engaged in is illegal is to say that the soldiers are criminals by participating in the activity. By calling the soldiers criminals, you not only attack their morale directly, but you confer upon them a status that no longer affords them the protections of soldiers in combat.

Wrong wrong wrong.


When we say that the soldiers participate in an illegal war, we contend that they do so out of ignorance, not complicity.


Democrats are complicit, soldiers are ignorant.

[Jachin]

Quote by: Apeman81 No one is talking about hate, we are talking about support. To claim the activity the soldiers are engaged in is illegal is to say that the soldiers are criminals by participating in the activity.

I was using it as a metaphor.

Quote by: Apeman81 By calling the soldiers criminals, you not only attack their morale directly, but you confer upon them a status that no longer affords them the protections of soldiers in combat.

Straw man. I never called them criminals.

Quote by: Apeman81 Please, BTW, define "Illegal war" and explain why the soldiers fighting it don't agree with you. Or do you believe the soldiers agree with you and are voluntarily participating in the crime of an illegal war?

Another straw man. I never said the war was illegal. I don't agree with the policy, which is much different than saying its illegal.

Quote by: Apeman81 While it is the right, if not the duty, of a citizen to raise the concerns they may have about the use of our military might, it is not only unnecessary to make inflammatory, unsubstantiated accusations, it is irresponsible.

You sure are beating the hell out of those straw men today, aren't you? :rolleyes:

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Wrong wrong wrong. When we say that the soldiers participate in an illegal war, we contend that they do so out of ignorance, not complicity. Democrats are complicit, soldiers are ignorant.

Ah! The Armed Forced of the United States, demonstrated to be better educated than the general populace, is ignorant.

Thank God we poor, ignorant soldiers have someone like you watching out for them. :rolleyes:

[RickSp]

Too few troops, too little armor, stop-loss orders, multiple tours of duty and on and on and on. Somebody needs to look after the interests of the troops and it sure isn't the Bush administration.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Apeman81 Ah! The Armed Forced of the United States, demonstrated to be better educated than the general populace, is ignorant. Thank God we poor, ignorant soldiers have someone like you watching out for them. :rolleyes:

This contention is directly related to the sworn oath of the soldier.


Allegience is to the law first, then the commanders.

[Apeman81]

Jachin;345313]I was using it as a metaphor."

One that did not readily apply.

"Straw man. I never called them criminals."

But you, at least from the implication of your response, support the idea of calling the war illegal. Ergo, since those who participate in an illegal act are, by definition, criminals, your implicit support for calling the war illegal equates to calling them criminals.

To promote accuracy, do you believe the war is illegal, or only support the ability of other to make such assertions?

“Another straw man. I never said the war was illegal. I don't agree with the policy, which is much different than saying its illegal.”

Indeed it is different. (see question above) I do not believe that every policy associated with the deposing of Saddam and the subsequent pacification of Iraq has been the best, but I do not require the erection of straw men to support my disagreements.

“You sure are beating the hell out of those straw men today, aren't you? :rolleyes:[/quote]”

No straw men, only logical conclusions to your statements. But while we’re on the issue of straw men, perhaps we can agree that the assertion of illegality of the war in Iraq should be discontinued as a perfect example of one.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This contention is directly related to the sworn oath of the soldier. Allegience is to the law first, then the commanders.

Of which contention do you speak?

You speak of law? Which law is that?

Do you propose, perhaps, to pinpoint a law by which you believe the war in Iraq may be titled "illiegal"?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Apeman81 Of which contention do you speak? You speak of law? Which law is that? Do you propose, perhaps, to pinpoint a law by which you believe the war in Iraq may be titled "illiegal"?

War is supposed to be declared by Congress, not by Executive Order of the President, well, at least according to the constitution.


I know that the bureaucrats have created wiggle room for themselves with their numerous proclamations, and committees, but at the end of the day, if they violate the constitution I still call it criminal, and illegal.


Just to be clear, we ( the US ) has not had a properly declared war since WW II. Since Executive Orders have become fashionable, the Congress seems all to happy to turn their authority over to the Executive. ( As with Vietnam, only after the war is seen as a failure do they express their non support by attempting to deny funding. )

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Milton Bradley War is supposed to be declared by Congress, not by Executive Order of the President, well, at least according to the constitution. I know that the bureaucrats have created wiggle room for themselves with their numerous proclamations, and committees, but at the end of the day, if they violate the constitution I still call it criminal, and illegal. Just to be clear, we ( the US ) has not had a properly declared war since WW II. Since Executive Orders have become fashionable, the Congress seems all to happy to turn their authority over to the Executive. ( As with Vietnam, only after the war is seen as a failure do they express their non support by attempting to deny funding. )

So you do not agree with the methodology with which the Legislative branch has chosen to allow the Executive branch to wage war.

And what court has declared that methodology to be illegal?

[RickSp]

The war in Iraq is an aggressive war in violation of the Nuremberg Principles , which were largely written by the United States following WWII, and the United Nations Charter.

The Courts Are Starting To Accept That the War against Iraq Is A Crime

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

Iraq and the Laws of War: US as Belligerent Occupant

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp The war in Iraq is an aggressive war in violation of the Nuremberg Principles , which were largely written by the United States following WWII, and the United Nations Charter. The Courts Are Starting To Accept That the War against Iraq Is A Crime Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor Iraq and the Laws of War: US as Belligerent Occupant

So, which court has ruled the war in Iraq illegal?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 So, which court has ruled the war in Iraq illegal?

That sort of thing usually happens only after the war is lost. Given the rate of collapse in Iraq that might not be so far away.

From a previously cited link:

A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars - Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq. "Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council. Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place. He said the atrocities of the Iraq war - from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs - were highly predictable at the start of the war. "Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder-that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."

Quote by: Apeman81 So, which court has ruled the war in Iraq illegal?

It's not necessary that a court rule the Iraq war illegal. The argument is specious. A criminal act remains a criminal act even in the absence of a court ruling. Moreover, the U.S. refuses to recognize international courts in order to protect officials at risk of being convicted of war crimes. And, the former U.N. Secretary General has stated that the Iraq war is illegal.

Regards
S.

[Jachin]

Quote by: Apeman81 But you, at least from the implication of your response, support the idea of calling the war illegal. Ergo, since those who participate in an illegal act are, by definition, criminals, your implicit support for calling the war illegal equates to calling them criminals.

Your implication is incorrect.

Quote by: Apeman81 To promote accuracy, do you believe the war is illegal, or only support the ability of other to make such assertions?

I believe the war is technically illegal in the sense that it was declared in violation of the process laid down in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. As I said earlier (on another thread, I think), that has pretty much become dead letter since Vietnam, so it's really a moot point. I don't generally refer to it or think of it as being an illegal war. And I wholeheartedly support the right of others to disagree with the conclusions I've drawn.

Quote by: Apeman81 Indeed it is different. (see question above) I do not believe that every policy associated with the deposing of Saddam and the subsequent pacification of Iraq has been the best, but I do not require the erection of straw men to support my disagreements.

Then don't erect them.

Quote by: Apeman81 No straw men, only logical conclusions to your statements. But while we’re on the issue of straw men, perhaps we can agree that the assertion of illegality of the war in Iraq should be discontinued as a perfect example of one.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: sdbest It's not necessary that a court rule the Iraq war illegal. The argument is specious. A criminal act remains a criminal act even in the absence of a court ruling. Moreover, the U.S. refuses to recognize international courts in order to protect officials at risk of being convicted of war crimes. And, the former U.N. Secretary General has stated that the Iraq war is illegal. Regards S.

In order for an act to be "criminal" their must first be a statute that proscribes said act. Show me which one applies to the war in Iraq.

As I recall, the Former UN Sec Gen does not have the power to adjudicate this action. So you must therefore be relating his opinion. Which, naturally, does not make it fact.