I'll try and check this out, thanks :up:
Bollocks. Bring back the Avro Lancaster - four 27L Rolls-Royce V12 Merlins, eight .303 Brownings, leather helmets and a whole lot of jolly good banter. No contest.
"Please"?
Confuse "immoral" with "illegal"? Watergate - a half-baked break & enter, some sloppy espionage - more illegal than this invasion? Now who's confused? So, tell me: what if the war was simply immoral and against every decent impulse in your body - but legal in every sense of the word - would that make it ok?
Yeah, I know Bush was "hurrayed". I guess that makes it ok. My mistake. I guess that means everything he said was true. Yay for George.
"The Congress shall have Power ... To Declare War."
--- Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, The Constitution of the United States of America.
No formal declaration of war has been forthcoming, yet the US is at war (same with Korea, same with Vietnam). Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war. Without a declaration of war, both the actions in Afghanistan (which almost could be argued isn't an act of war) and the invasion & occupation of Iraq (an aggressive act of war by any definition) are simply in violation of the US Constitution.
As for your rather cute definition of "lie", thanks. But the first two parts (making a false statement, unknowingly) are sufficient to define the word. Ignorance, while being no excuse for lying, is a trademark of this president and we're all used to that. But add the third part of your definition (knowingly making a false statement) and the actual reason you're doing it (part four) swiftly becomes irrelevant - redundant, in fact. If you know that what you're about to say is false you already know (or hope) that people will be deceived by it. If there's a good reason for lying a nation into a war I've yet to hear it.
In the case of Tripoli, war was first declared on the United States by Tripoli, which prompted Thomas Jefferson to act quickly and without a formal declaration, sending frigates to the Mediterranean initially for defense of US interests only. Alexander Hamilton contended that a formal declaration of war was not necessary in this case - hostilities were initiated by Tripoli and, as such, a state of war already existed.
No such parallel can be drawn in the case of the Iraq invasion. In the absence of any threat from Iraq against the US or its interests and no formal declaration of hostilities from either side, a devastating aerial bombardment of both military & civilian infrastructure was nonetheless launched, which paved the way for a land assault, invasion & occupation. Even if you remove the Whitehouse's dishonesty in initiating this invasion, the fact remains it was done illegally.
--- Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, The Constitution of the United States of America.
No formal declaration of war has been forthcoming, yet the US is at war (same with Korea, same with Vietnam). Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war. Without a declaration of war, both the actions in Afghanistan (which almost could be argued isn't an act of war) and the invasion & occupation of Iraq (an aggressive act of war by any definition) are simply in violation of the US Constitution.
As for your rather cute definition of "lie", thanks. But the first two parts (making a false statement, unknowingly) are sufficient to define the word. Ignorance, while being no excuse for lying, is a trademark of this president and we're all used to that. But add the third part of your definition (knowingly making a false statement) and the actual reason you're doing it (part four) swiftly becomes irrelevant - redundant, in fact. If you know that what you're about to say is false you already know (or hope) that people will be deceived by it. If there's a good reason for lying a nation into a war I've yet to hear it.
In the case of Tripoli, war was first declared on the United States by Tripoli, which prompted Thomas Jefferson to act quickly and without a formal declaration, sending frigates to the Mediterranean initially for defense of US interests only. Alexander Hamilton contended that a formal declaration of war was not necessary in this case - hostilities were initiated by Tripoli and, as such, a state of war already existed.
No such parallel can be drawn in the case of the Iraq invasion. In the absence of any threat from Iraq against the US or its interests and no formal declaration of hostilities from either side, a devastating aerial bombardment of both military & civilian infrastructure was nonetheless launched, which paved the way for a land assault, invasion & occupation. Even if you remove the Whitehouse's dishonesty in initiating this invasion, the fact remains it was done illegally.
The methodology (which isn't as simplified as the above "Ali Baba" example :really
used to calculate current Iraqi deaths is the same used previous in many theatres of conflict including Kosovo, Somalia and other former & current hotspots and has been accepted as accurate in every case. Of course estimation has to come into it to some extent - not everyone who gets cluster-bombed in their backyard or taken out in a marketplace suicide-bombing is issued with an official death certificate right away. Noone's raised any objections to this method of data gathering before. The objecting nations in this case are, unsurprisingly, the ones responsible for the 1.1+ million estimate and have everything to gain by casting doubt on those numbers.
But even if the body count estimates are as much as 50% out, that's still half a million people who were killed with no justification whatsoever. Picking holes in the precision of the methodology used to estimate Iraqi deaths just shifts the focus from where it should be.
David, you can trot out all the theories & strawmen & foil-hat caricatures you want, but the facts remain: there were no WMD in Iraq, no links between Saddam & al-Qaeda or Osama and no connection to 9/11. They were the first bunch of justifications for this war and they have all been solidly debunked. At this point it's only academic to talk about oil or imperialism or corporate handjobs.
The point is, the war's in progress & people are getting killed every day. The war was started by choice, not by necessity, not in self-defence, and on entirely false premises. The real reasons are irrelevant - at least until the troops are home and politicians start to get asked some tough questions. Who cares if it's about oil or imperialism or racism or Halliburton? The fact remains it's NOT about 9/11, Osama, al-Qaeda, freedom, democracy or any of the other bullshit Fox News/Whitehouse talking points people over there seem to lap up like lolcats.
Bush and his team DID lie to you and the world. The war IS an illegal act of aggression under the Nuremberg Charter and the US Constitution (which disallows any military action abroad in the absence of a clear & present danger to the US - such a danger was demonstrably neither clear nor present). But if you're comfortable with nearly 4000 dead US troops, a million dead Iraqis with millions more maimed, displaced or homeless, your government taking your freedoms away one by one and over 500 billion dollars gone, all for a pack of lies and god knows what else, then I guess you'll always be able to justify it somehow.
used to calculate current Iraqi deaths is the same used previous in many theatres of conflict including Kosovo, Somalia and other former & current hotspots and has been accepted as accurate in every case. Of course estimation has to come into it to some extent - not everyone who gets cluster-bombed in their backyard or taken out in a marketplace suicide-bombing is issued with an official death certificate right away. Noone's raised any objections to this method of data gathering before. The objecting nations in this case are, unsurprisingly, the ones responsible for the 1.1+ million estimate and have everything to gain by casting doubt on those numbers.But even if the body count estimates are as much as 50% out, that's still half a million people who were killed with no justification whatsoever. Picking holes in the precision of the methodology used to estimate Iraqi deaths just shifts the focus from where it should be.
David, you can trot out all the theories & strawmen & foil-hat caricatures you want, but the facts remain: there were no WMD in Iraq, no links between Saddam & al-Qaeda or Osama and no connection to 9/11. They were the first bunch of justifications for this war and they have all been solidly debunked. At this point it's only academic to talk about oil or imperialism or corporate handjobs.
The point is, the war's in progress & people are getting killed every day. The war was started by choice, not by necessity, not in self-defence, and on entirely false premises. The real reasons are irrelevant - at least until the troops are home and politicians start to get asked some tough questions. Who cares if it's about oil or imperialism or racism or Halliburton? The fact remains it's NOT about 9/11, Osama, al-Qaeda, freedom, democracy or any of the other bullshit Fox News/Whitehouse talking points people over there seem to lap up like lolcats.
Bush and his team DID lie to you and the world. The war IS an illegal act of aggression under the Nuremberg Charter and the US Constitution (which disallows any military action abroad in the absence of a clear & present danger to the US - such a danger was demonstrably neither clear nor present). But if you're comfortable with nearly 4000 dead US troops, a million dead Iraqis with millions more maimed, displaced or homeless, your government taking your freedoms away one by one and over 500 billion dollars gone, all for a pack of lies and god knows what else, then I guess you'll always be able to justify it somehow.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
Pit-lane penalties have been suggested before but they're a good suggestion :up:
Since can already tell "legal" areas from "illegal" during hotlaps, it doesn't sound like it would too problematic to include.
Since can already tell "legal" areas from "illegal" during hotlaps, it doesn't sound like it would too problematic to include.
Never fear. Puppies aside, there are plenty of civilians being tortured and killed in the world to upset people like me. Over 1.1 million Iraqis dead at last count (yeah, and I bet every last one was a turrist) and hell knows how many being shocked, drowned and beaten at Camp X-Ray, Bagram or Abu Ghraib. I wonder how many others are just rotting away in secret jails in Turkey, Egypt or another torture-friendly ally after having been rendered there?
What a complete piece of guilt-mongering bullshit propaganda. Being opposed to war doesn't mean you hate soldiers or that you don't appreciate the hell they go through - that's a ridiculous, simplistic & childish canard (look it up) used by warhawks across the globe. My grandfather and two great-uncles served my country in WW2 and my uncle served in Vietnam. I marched with my grandfather on ANZAC Day in my teens when I was a RAAF cadet and I never felt prouder of him for the sacrifices he made as a young man.
The thing is - soldiers don't start wars, politicians do. It's the politicians who start wars I have a problem with. Sometimes there's no choice but to fight, as with WW2. Sometimes there is a choice, as with Vietnam and the current Iraq farce. In both those latter cases, people were lied to blatantly in order to start wars that didn't need to be started. I'll never blame a soldier for fighting for his country, especially if he is lied to by the powerful in order to make him do it. Soldiers trust their leaders to tell them the right things and leaders who take advantage of that trust to further shady ends are the worst kinds of traitors there are. You want to support the troops? Don't lie to them. Don't tell them Saddam has WMD. Don't tell them he colluded with Osama. Don't tell them you're getting revenge for 9/11 when you're doing nothing of the sort.
To many people, "support the troops" means "keep them the hell out of harm's way unless absolutely necessary". To halfwit right-wingers, "anti-war" means "pro-terrorist". Grow up.
By the way, I don't know where this PDF came from, but equating the average war opponent with those Westboro Baptist bastards (with the fluoro signs in that pdf) is about as offensive as you can get. These are the people who believe God is killing US soldiers as punishment for America's tolerance of gay people. These are the people who picket US soldiers' funerals and spew hatred and bile and bigotry with their every breath. They are the people who don't support the troops, NOT the people who want the troops safe at home, away from the IEDs, away from sectarian madness, away from the insurgents & new terrorists that their masters created, away from this quagmire of idiocy and death that the Whitehouse has inflicted on Iraq, the US & the world.
Think before you post in future, because that cute little pdf of yours is really ****ing offensive, both to war opponents and to members of the serving military from all countries who are still in Iraq, mine included.
FAIL.
Last edited by Hankstar, .
Any Scott Speed overtaking manouevre: And now there's debris everywhere!
David Coulthard's F1 career: second, second...fail, fail, fail.
US foreign policy following WW2: Dang commies. Win! Dang arabs.
David Coulthard's F1 career: second, second...fail, fail, fail.
US foreign policy following WW2: Dang commies. Win! Dang arabs.
Because the reality is that no other country in the world behaves like the USA. If Kazakhstan or Malta or New Zealand or freakin' Jamaica had similar foreign policies and sent their armed forces to invade & occupy other countries at the drop of a hint, while their politicians simultaneously acted like their nations were the very definitions of virtue & goodness, you can bet your arse they'd be copping it too
Demo racers unite!
... and chip in for a license for this tightwad
... and chip in for a license for this tightwad
Japanese scientists ought to know their time would be much better spent in top secret, city-sized subterannean bunkers designing massive, heavily-armed robots that will be piloted by plucky yet reluctant young adults/children in a last-ditch effort to save the planet/human race/galaxy from certain destruction.
^yup.
Basically, if you want to be fast in a race, don't drift. It's slower, it kills your tyres and if you start using the e-brake and hanging the rear out during an online race, people are going to want to kick you off the server very quickly.
Basically, if you want to be fast in a race, don't drift. It's slower, it kills your tyres and if you start using the e-brake and hanging the rear out during an online race, people are going to want to kick you off the server very quickly.
Just wolfed down a steak sandwich. Oh, baby :yummy:
Dammit! I had my money bet on "there aren't enough roads!" :irked:
Cosgrove ftw
Though I feel like I've heard that one before, with different names ...
Though I feel like I've heard that one before, with different names ...
I can't eat solid food this early. One espresso and one latte are all I need until lunch.
Pfft. Get your facts straight. They're not shrimp, they're bloody PRAWNS.
And bloody oath we shoot 'roos - they're a lot tastier than wombats.
Me no like public bridge thingy. Talk smut more or I smash head with big rock.
Ugh, emospace scenester phone photo. That is so 2003.
I didn't know emos drove. I thought they shuffled out of mum's SUV, shuffled onto the train then congregated in large, uniformed groups at Flinders St station, getting in everyone's goddam way just as rush hour started.
I didn't know emos drove. I thought they shuffled out of mum's SUV, shuffled onto the train then congregated in large, uniformed groups at Flinders St station, getting in everyone's goddam way just as rush hour started.
You just blew my mind.
Explain your thought process to me here. You think that, somehow, the Palestinians would've just degenerated into chaos & murder naturally if their land hadn't been carved up to form a new nation which then spent the next 50 goddam years carving it up even more, locking the people into tiny little chunks, cutting them off from resources, opportunities & each other & basically treating them like vermin in their own homeland? I know you're not that stupid.
"There's no such thing as free". Interesting. Palestinians would disagree with you, as that's all they want - to be free from a demonstrably illegal occupying force. Of course, if you meant "free" the other way around, as in getting stuff without earning it, you should apply that to the succession of Israeli governments who have stolen bits of Palestine and locked the indigenous inhabitants out of them.
"Life's a bitch and then you die." I'm sure the families of the 3000 9/11 victims and the relatives of 4000+ KIA soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan would agree with you. Or does that only apply to dark-skinned foreigners?
Sorry, but you've done absolutely nothing to dispel that old stereotype of the apathetic, ignorant American who couldn't give a shit about anything outside the 50 states. For all I know you don't fit the stereotype one bit, but that post of yours speaks pretty loudly.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG