http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1534832/20060622/index.jhtml?headlines=true

We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said. Reading from the report, Santorum added, "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Now we all know right wing MTV is now, don't we?
:rolleyes:

Wednesday night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were not the suspected WMDs sought in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and were, for the most part, not in useable condition.


Might want to read the entire article.

Actually Tale, did a lil research on the findings.

Take the material from one of the shells...crop dust it over say NY city and you have thousands dead.

The material might be old BUT you're still just as dead and this makes these weapons still viable.

A gun might be 20 years old, but if it kills you its still as lethal.

Now, that being said ...the Senator bringing this out is not on my most faithful to follow list.

Fandros

Report reveals discovery of degraded chemical weapons likely buried in 1980s.


The military announced in 2004 that several crates of the old shells containing a blister agent that was no longer active had been discovered, but the military, White House and CIA didn't consider the shells evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons

This was also reported on Fox news and even Fox debunked the report.

I'm not saying it's not a great find, and great that we found it so we can dispose of it. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the intelligence community is saying this isn't the WMD we were directed to Iraq in search of. I'm also not going to question the senator's motives at this point either. I'm just stating that in the same article(again coming from intelligence sources), it states that these aren't the particular caches of WMD we were searing for, nothing more nothing less.

Might want to read the entire article.

lol...or we could move the thread into the "Think before you speak category"

LOL, wow....
So since these aren't the WMDs we were searching for, that makes them less deadly?
Jeesh....

LOL, wow....
So since these aren't the WMDs we were searching for, that makes them less deadly?
Jeesh....

read:

blister agent that was no longer active

LOL, wow....
So since these aren't the WMDs we were searching for, that makes them less deadly?
Jeesh....

/sigh

He just insists on this ongoing demonstration of ignorance.:rolleyes:

read:

blister agent that was no longer active

Read: Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

Just because the blister agent was inactive, doesn't mean the sarin or mustard gas was.
You really can't be that stupid....

Take the material from one of the shells...crop dust it over say NY city and you have thousands dead.

So since these aren't the WMDs we were searching for, that makes them less deadly?

Hardly a clear and present danger to the USA.

"come on Hassim, spin the properller, we are going to fly to New York and drop this load of whatever this is"

...and Sixee, posting bad rep on me every time I do on you shows your true colors.

It was well known that Sadam used poison gas on both the Iranians and also on his own people. That fact is not nor was it ever in dispute.

The problem with what the Bush administration was selling in its reasoning for invading Iraq was this:

They claimed Sadam was on the verge of becoming nuclear capable, possessed biological (not musard gas type weapons) such as anthrax etc...

Remember the aluminum tube thing, the supposed mobile weapons labs, the yellow cake uranium? All of that was proven to be either poor information or just plain old cherry picking of intelligence. We did not nor were we ever told that the major threat from Iraq was artillery shells containing blister agents.

We were told that the aluminum tubes were there for uranium processing, even though many experienced people pointed out that the type of tubes couldn't possibly be for centrifuges and were more or less tubes designed to fire katyusha rockets the Bush administration still CHOSE to go with the nuclear theory...thats just one of the many things that were wrong with the reasoning for going into Iraq.

Now lets look at this seriously. If these weapons posed any type of REAL threat to the US, its citizens or interests the whitehouse would be jumping all over this, it would not be brought out by a senator running for reelection who is lagging behind his opponent by 15+ points.


and Sixee, posting bad rep on me every time I do on you shows your true colors

LOL...he gives me bad reps too.

How come this isn't rac... 06-22-2006 10:46 AM 2 computers FTW -Sixee

What i'm trying to understand is this. What does 2 computers have to do with what Graystone and I posted? Does it mean that because you are using 2 computers you actually spend less time posting than the times show so when its pointed out that you in fact are hypocritical in your statement that others need to get a life because they live here and post often, and you don't fit that mold, by having 2 computers that you post from proves that?

I'm obviously missing some point here.

Read: Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

Just because the blister agent was inactive, doesn't mean the sarin or mustard gas was.
You really can't be that stupid....

Did you read every word in that quote?

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He?s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq?s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don?t have any reason to believe they?re any more valid this time than they?ve been in the past.

- Dick Cheney


We do know that there have been shipments going into...Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tubes* that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.
- Condoleezza Rice


"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

- Condoleezza Rice


Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.

- George Bush


With respect to 9/11, of course, we?ve had the story that?s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don?t know.

- Dick Cheney

Oh wow.. Old Chemical Weapons..
When he used these in the mid 80s to stop Irans human wave attacks... we didnt care much and were pretty happy he did.
When he used these in 1987 on the Kurds we didnt care enough to support a UN resolution condeming it. (mostly as a gesture toward Turkey)

Want to impress me.. show me some Mobile Fucking Chemical Labs that we gave as our actual casus belli... not some degraded weapons.
Show us the active and clandestine weapons programs that posed a threat.

These shells are a joke.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:9Eb3LlSIEB4J:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html+dutch+chemical+shell+iraq&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Did you read every word in that quote?
Degraded does not mean harmless....
I means it's not as effective as it once was, but it will still kill you.
One of my duties when I was in was as an assistant NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) NCO (non comissioned officer)
I never learned about sarin, but mustard gas as a shelf life of 50 years.
Which means that it degrades (won't kill as many people, but is still deadly) in that amount of time. After 50 years it become harmless.
Blister agents have a shorter lifespan, if I remember correctly.
But now the posts will focus on the fact that the U.S. gave him these weapons.
*sigh*

Jeez, the partisanship is getting ridiculous.

While we were getting all hard over Iraq and their "WMDs" (The only people who point to these occasional finds of old bullshit weapons from the Gulf War era are the ideologues who follow him Bush no matter what, this coming from a Bush-voting Republican), North Korea was setting us up the bomb. Now it's too late and the right is stuck clawing for any decent sound clip to pull up the White House' abysmal ratings.

Bush needs a new pet project. The Social Security thing wasn't working out too well. Medicare, perhaps? With 40% approval ratings (And that's a recent boost) and the focal point of his policy making seeming to be banning gay marriage, you'd think he'd move forward instead of dragging everyone back to this shit, reminding everyone over and over again how badly we screwed that stuff up. Maybe he's just too busy wiping his hands clean of the entire Rove debacle (Innocent I tell you!).

There weren't harmless shells, to say such is to demonstrate complete ignorance and lack of training in the chemical weapon dangers. 25% degradation of said subject materials is still very deadly...

But, to me they weren't a clear and present danger to the lands of the United States of America.

I guess that the troops that have been in and around the area for the last 15 years are of lil concern eh? They were certainly a threat to us then, oh and he was supposed to have disposed of them....oh and the Inspectors didn't find them....oh hell folks, there are few things I feel strongly about anymore, but the blind eye some of you turn towards anything that might in some manner support the admin you blindly hate is incredible.

<--was one such troop and hell I was worried...

See, it's this type of subject I hate falling on the same side of Sixee....it's hard to wish to argue and demonstrate!~

Fandros

The stuff is probably harmful. So is most of the stuff under the sink in the kitchen. These are not the sorts of materials the administration used to justify going to war, and the administration has recognized that fact. Santorum is also a dingleberry, and soon to be ex-Senator.

Why didnt we care in 1985-88 when he actually USED AND MADE THESE WEAPONS?

I cared even back then L2, was on a real hard fence if you can imagine.

US hate for Iran , due to the hostage situation of '79, was almost as fierce as anything you've seen lately towards bin Laden and crew. Top that off with having just joined the military in 1985 myself and then hearing about Saddam's genocidal actions against his own countrymen and you have a young man that was torn.

We did care at that time, and as is historically the case in our young history , 210 years at that time, we chose the lesser of two evils.

Don't raise the flag now L2 and act as though we didn't care...we did and we fucked up...just like we fucked up after the first Tower bombing...

It's not the current admin, it's what we've done forever....until we grow a set and decide to fight aggressively and intelligently against those that would do us harm....we're screwed...

Sadly we're a country of extremes, and as such often tear ourselves apart at the seams all in the name of the next election cycle...

Nothing new to see here...move along folks...

Fandros

The point is that we cant say something we ignored in 1988 is the same thing that in 2003 gives us cause to launch a war. Its just logically flawed in ever sense of the word. It totally destroys the notion that this could not been handled through diplomatic means because the threat was too great.

These weapons do not give any justification for the War. They have nothing to do with why we went to war. Let us not play these ridiculous games that insult the intelligence of ANY intellectually honest person.

We are a representative democracy. We elect people into office who share our ideals and values. Re-elections are our form of accountability that these officer holders are staying true to us, their constituancy. This is the cornerstone of our entire system of government.
What I hate, what I fear, more than any 9/11 or any terrorist, Is that our amazing system is in the process of being subverted by shit like this war.

We KNOW the reasons we went to war. Any serious person who looks at the facts of this WAR OF CHOICE knows why we went, and it was more about geo-political leverage than any bullshit about WMDs or giving the gift of democracy to the Iraqi people, who up to 2003, we didnt give 2 shits about.
Why should a President ACTUALLY reflect the values of the people when it is possible to create the illusion of a war based in core american values. The Truth no longer matters, the only thing that seems to matter any more is what can they convince 51% of the electoral college of.
As methods of delivering information become wider, more availible and more pervavsive, so does a governments ability to convince people, to create this illusion till our wants and needs no longer matter as the facts can be manipulated by a cacophony of distraction, disinformation, denial and deceit. At that point, democracy becomes meaningless, and we no longer are a government whose actions are dictated by the collective will of its citzenry, but a realization of a dictatorship brought about by the ignorance and apathy of a marginalized nation.

Tell the people what they want to hear, do what you want.

Pass the soma please...... I think im feeling double plus ungood.

So, we should have just let the whole weapons inspectors' being kept from doing their jobs while he was firing rockets at our jets enforcing the no fly zone, all the while making gobs of cash with the corrupt oil for food program just slide?
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/11/16newsb.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/01/01/wirq01.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4131602.stm

What would have motivated you to action?
The weapons inspectors finding Uranium?
Him actually shooting one of our jets down?
Incidentally, Saddam put that money from the oil for food program to good use.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/12/wsaddam12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html

I would have tried, first and foremost, honesty with the American people.

That would have been a nice start. Instead we had manipulation of 9/11 fears, distrust of our ability to know what is in our best interest and a war being sold to us like it was a box of detergent "Now! With 30% more!!"

Saddam had to go. But not because of 15 year old WMDs. Because of the political realities of the region. Because he is an old man and hadnt many more years before the political reigns of the country would have been turned over to Uday or Qusay who would have promptly lost control of the country to Iranian influence, primarly because although they had their fathers ruthlessness, they had none of his political acumen.

That was the REAL fear.

But the American people werent trusted enough. I guess the people in office now know what is in our best interest and assume the american people arent able to make accurate judgements based on the facts. So Bush and Cheney had to capitalize on the emotions and fears of 9/11 to get the backing our country for this thing. As a result we had a rush job, based on lies.
A house whose foundation was build on quicksand, and we wonder why it is crumbling.

It's not the current admin, it's what we've done forever....until we grow a set and decide to fight aggressively and intelligently against those that would do us harm....we're screwed...

Sadly we're a country of extremes, and as such often tear ourselves apart at the seams all in the name of the next election cycle...

More to the point, I think our leadership (speaking generally here) often finds it more expedient to deal with entities that do not reflect the values upon which this nation was built. Pakistan is hardly a representative democracy, Egypt under Mubarak pretends to be, Saddam used to be an ally of sorts, and Turkey isn't very kind to their Kurds, either. I'm not sure whether we do this because we lack "a set" or because it's simply geo-political reality, but it's always made for uncomfortable bedfellowships.

I was motivated to action by falsehoods put forth by a dishonest regime. The only thing that truly motivates my to war is:

First and foremost - An identifable attack on the USA and/or it's close allies..(for example, 9/11 and the action in Afghanistan).

Secondly - A proven clear and present danger (I like TC) to the USA.

----------------

This debate has gotten my thinking about something...the division in this country...

Let's get a few things straight, and correct me if I am wrong. Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian.....Liberal or Conservative....Left, Right or Center we ALL want these things, correct?

1> We are against terrorism and want to win the "War on Terror".

2>We all love our country and want it to thrive in peace and properity, preserving our rights under the constitution, and projecting the values this country has always held dear.

3>We ALL support our troops and the job they are called to do.

4>We do not WANT this war in Iraq, though we may differ as to whether it was necessary.

5>We want our troops out of harms way at some point.

We may disagree about how to accomplish these things, but let's not forget we all want the same things for this country. I question whether this adminstration has these as their top priority, but believe most Americans want these things....am I wrong?


in proofing reading this, I apologize for sounding like sappy McSaphead. :)

Some good points - why we went in was obviously sold to the public as a lie, and nothing has come close to dispriving that.

Saddam was a real bastard, to be sure. Honestly, if GW had come on TV and told us he wanted to finish the mess his daddy left us (and GB Senior did leave Iraq behind after certain promises he made), as well as listing all of the reasons why Saddam needed to go, I'da probably gone along with it. Hell, Bush could have even said they drew Saddam's name out of a hat of world bad guys to invade, and at least we would have known what was going on. Saddam's refusal to work with inspectors, old stocks of weapons - what did they find, MiGs buried in the sand? - might have justified an invasion. But none of that was the reason we went in, we were looking for nukes and modern day biological and chemical nasties.

The report doesn't show anything, except that some good has been done. And while I'm certainly glad that's the case, it's a terrible justification for how we did it and what was told to the public. Shoot, if it had been for oil, just say that, although I suspect it goes way beyond oil.

It's absolutely a partisan debate, especially as someone else noted since it's all about convincing 51% to vote for one of two candidates.

Moreover, if the US could be honest about it's intentions, and the rest of the UN as well, then as a collective they could start dealing with some of the dangerous men around the world like Saddam. That, however, is a pipedream.

We may disagree about who to accomplish these things, but let's not forget we all want the same things for this country. I question whether this adminstration has these as their top priority, but believe most Americans want these things....am I wrong?Not wrong, but I strongly suspect that a lot of the people in power or with a public voice in the media are working simply for themselves, and really don't care about the above list. The Ann Coulters of the world aren't really interested in making this a happy place, after all.

I was motivated to action by falsehoods put forth by a dishonest regime. The only thing that truly motivates my to war is:

First and foremost - An identifable attack on the USA and/or it's close allies..(for example, 9/11 and the action in Afghanistan).

Secondly - A proven clear and present danger (I like TC) to the USA.

----------------

This debate has gotten my thinking about something...the division in this country...

Let's get a few things straight, and correct me if I am wrong. Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian.....Liberal or Conservative....Left, Right or Center we ALL want these things, correct?

1> We are against terrorism and want to win the "War on Terror".

2>We all love our country and want it to thrive in peace and properity, preserving our rights under the constitution, and projecting the values this country has always held dear.

3>We ALL support our troops and the job they are called to do.

4>We do not WANT this war in Iraq, though we may differ as to whether it was necessary.

5>We want our troops out of harms way at some point.

We may disagree about how to accomplish these things, but let's not forget we all want the same things for this country. I question whether this adminstration has these as their top priority, but believe most Americans want these things....am I wrong?


in proofing reading this, I apologize for sounding like sappy McSaphead. :)

Well some hardcore types on the left and right would disagree with you about the other side on #2, but I think you are pretty much on the money with everything else, Mr. McSaphead. :D

Been a long time since I was needing any knowledge of chemical weapons, but in scouring through this messy memory of mine, I seem to recall mustard gas being a blister agent.

If the shells containing the mustard gas are the same shells described as having an inactive blister agent, then they should not have been used to bolster any arguments.

But learning that he had shells containing Sarin is a bit more troubling, knowing the devastation that Sarin can cause when airborne.

Heres why we keep seeing crap like old drgraded artillery shells pulled up as an example of why we attacked Iraq.

Even with the lessons we supposedly learned in Vietnam about fighting insurgencies the US military and the MiC that drives it have continued to base our military strategy, equipment etc... to fight the so called "old fashioned" wars. Where tanks line up in battle along with mass concentrations of troops all going for the goal of taking over the enemy country.

In order to keep the MiC status quo as such, our government needs to present the war on terror as a war between nations, the nations that sponsor terrorism, the rogue states, the militant states, the Iraq's of the world. The way you fight this war we are told is by overwhelming military response. This tactic comes from the idea that we basically bomb them into submission and thereby taking away the motivation to be terrorists thereby they will submit to the ideals of freedom and democracy, hey if they do, they won't get bombed and they can eat at Pizza Huts.

Not one single military response we have done in Iraq has done anything to discourage terrorists or insurgents. Aircraft carriers won't stop them, B-52's wont stop them, Abrams Tanks wont stop them, Stryker battalions will not stop them. They increase their motivations and ranks with every death that we cause in Iraq.

The Iraq of 2006 is a very bleak place, we've replaced a secular westernized nation with a nation where it is no longer safe for children to go to school, where women are now beaten for wearing makeup, driving cars and not wearing the proper islamic dress, where sitting in a sidewalk cafe holds the same risk of death as sitting in the fast lane of a highway.

The problem with the strategy starts right about when the first guy straps a bomb to himself and detonates it in a crowd that is supposedly under the protection of the massive military response that we have shown them we are capable of. Staying the course is nothing more than denying the strategy is wrong. This is why we hear buzz phrases like "cut and run". Its not about cutting and running its about learning from ones mistakes and we have been very consistant in making huge mistakes in our war on terror.

We have seen this administration target the CIA over supposedly bad intelligence. The one agency in our government that we would have thought would be the most qualified to fight this war, the agency that should be on the front lines has been gutted and basically rendered powerless at a time when one would think that we would have poured resources and support into it.

Instead we have the new Department of Homeland Security, probably one of the worst run agencies on record.

This is not a partisan issue, I'm sure that once again I'll be lambasted as a bin laden loving al qaeda supporting unpatriotic liberal. I assure you I am far from that. I just find it hard to stand behind a failed strategy and the architects of it that refuse to change direction.

This is a declared war, but our leaders say we do not have to follow the Geneva Conventions, and the Fox talking heads have been all over this one saying terrorists don't get Geneva Convention status.

And yet, John "the ferret" Gibson was only yesterday whining that the captured (kidnapped) soldiers were not treated according to the Geneva Conventions. If they were captured, than it was by enemy combatants. If they were kidnapped, then it was by criminals, and of course there is no set of rules for criminals to go by.

Any way we can get the Fox folks, and Ann Coulters, off our frigging side?

This is Viet Nam all over again, in terms of the kind of war being fought. If we were fighting a conventional war we could just do a Dresden-ish bombing of each of the cities controlled by the insurgency, and keep destroying everything in the country until they give up, or there is no more country at which point we would move next door to the next one.

We cannot defeat an enemy we cannot identify. We cannot eliminate a way of thinking or believing. All we can do is try to get enough like-minded people over there to come over to our way of thinking and support a democratic government, and fight to make the country their own. Now, how the fuck long are we going to have to stay there to do that?



This "war" will still be going on when my grand children are having children.

Why didnt we care in 1985-88 when he actually USED AND MADE THESE WEAPONS?

Because at that point he was still doing what we told him.

Malse, you've incredible bounds for "aluminum hatmensship".

He didn't do what we told him, he fought against our greater evil at the time.

We didn't ask him to gas his own countrymen, tho your statement eludes to that of course.

He was fighting Iran, and at the time they were the poison we couldn't swallow.

Or perhaps you didn't know, didn't study, didn't care to see past your hatred of all things right wing....

Much akin to claiming our aircraft launched weapons were lil more than lawn darts...

Fandros

Been a long time since I was needing any knowledge of chemical weapons, but in scouring through this messy memory of mine, I seem to recall mustard gas being a blister agent.

If the shells containing the mustard gas are the same shells described as having an inactive blister agent, then they should not have been used to bolster any arguments.

But learning that he had shells containing Sarin is a bit more troubling, knowing the devastation that Sarin can cause when airborne.

Blister agents are sometimes known as "mustard agents". I did a quick Google search (thus setting off the illegal wiretaps that GW had set in place). This might be the reason for your confusion.
Mustard gas is a seperate item, because it tends to be more stable than blister/mustard agents.
The version that Iraq was making tended to be more stable than others (no times given) but as my memory serves me, mustard gas tends to be deadly for at least 50 years. Sarin has a shelf life similar to blister agents, so it breaks down rather quickly.
Regardless, Saddam was supposed to have gotten rid of these weapons. He didn't, and was in violation of the cease fire agreement he signed after the beginning of the first Gulf War.
I also agree, that the Bush Administration should have used this rationale to start the war, rather than the bogus nuclear allegations.

This is a declared war, but our leaders say we do not have to follow the Geneva Conventions..The terrorists don't, so why should we grant them Geneva Convention protection?
..and the Fox talking heads have been all over this one saying terrorists don't get Geneva Convention status.They don't get it because the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. It's up to the terrorists to earn it. They aren't doing that and never will... else they wouldn't be called terrorists would they?

Byl I respect the hell out of you, but damn man pull it together. If you and others don't understand the basic facts such as this, we're doomed in this war.

I heard this on my way in this morning and some things he said really hit me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5505313

(you can listen to the broadcast by clicking listen) I suggest listening to it.

Some points he made:

Most of the officers and commanders on the battlefield now don't have combat experience.

It doesn't matter that the current admin (civilian leaders) doesn't have battelfield experience. B/C the admin's military advisors are giving the suggestions and recommendations to Rumsfeld and Bush and if they aren't or give wrong advice....shame on the military advisors with the experience.

Some things I never thought of or considered.

The opening was interesting, the two pictures he keeps on his desk. I like this man's character.

NPR was doing coverage on leadership this week and many of those interviewed were current/former military. Pretty interesting stuff.

The following is irrespective of the current conflict.
The terrorists don't, so why should we grant them Geneva Convention protection?
If we as a people attest to certain principles (per our Constitution and DoI), and those principles are reflected in the Geneva Convention, then we should abide by its terms rather than lawyer our way through them.

The following is irrespective of the current conflict.

If we as a people attest to certain principles (per our Constitution and DoI), and those principles are reflected in the Geneva Convention, then we should abide by its terms rather than lawyer our way through them.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 4 ) http://images.about.com/all/bullets/dot_clea.gif:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:


(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;


(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

This basically says that in order for you to be treated like a prisoner of war, you have to meet the above requirements. If you don't then the Geneva Conventions do not apply to you.

The following is irrespective of the current conflict.

If we as a people attest to certain principles (per our Constitution and DoI), and those principles are reflected in the Geneva Convention, then we should abide by its terms rather than lawyer our way through them.

I think you miss the point Sixee.

If we as a people attest to certain principles

If we as a people attest to certain principles (per our Constitution and DoI), and those principles are reflected in the Geneva Convention, then we should abide by its terms rather than lawyer our way through them.Lawyering our way through them is exactly what I'm saying needs to stop happening.

The Geneva Conventions specifically address these terrorists as "Unlawful Enemy Combatants." The laws and conventions are clear. The unlawful are specifically excluded from them because of their very nature being unlawful. Treaties and international agreements through the UN and Geneva try to bring some form of humanity and civilized conduct to warfare. Which is exactly what the terrorists are fighting against.

It's very nice to stand on your moral high ground and say we're better than they are and demand we give them the same rights we do all our citizens. Well we are better than they are. Everytime one of the bastards wakes up in Gitmo he's had another blessing from President Bush that they never would have given one of ours.

Meanwhile, we'll continue to prosecute and jail anyone breaking our laws (abusing pow's ...) during war and the terrorists will continue to saw off heads in the name of jihad irregardless if we give them trials or not.

So we should torture them, akipt? Torture suspects? Detain suspects for years in questionable conditions? We don't get a free pass on being better than anyone. If the policies of the administration contradict the principles upon which the nation was founded, then the moral high ground vanishes.

Our enemies don't have to have the same rights as our citizens. But we should conduct ourselves with an eye toward upholding the values upon which those rights are based. The Founders didn't conjure them out of thin air.

So we should torture them, akipt? Torture suspects? Detain suspects for years in questionable conditions? We don't get a free pass on being better than anyone. If the policies of the administration contradict the principles upon which the nation was founded, then the moral high ground vanishes.

Our enemies don't have to have the same rights as our citizens. But we should conduct ourselves with an eye toward upholding the values upon which those rights are based. The Founders didn't conjure them out of thin air.

I guess reading comprehension fails if you get all hyperventilating before reading it all.

Meanwhile, we'll continue to prosecute and jail anyone breaking our laws (abusing pow's ...) I hear breathing into a paper bag works.

Apparently, you've kept your own paper bag bound over your head a tad too long. Rendition? Secret prisons abroad? These have nothing to do with the actions of soldiers in the field.

A few on this board have claimed Saddam/Iraq never had WMD at all. It's good to see that viewpoint finally shot down.

It's also apparent (1) Saddam was not completely truthful with respect to WMD, (2) weapon inspections were not 100%, and (3) although perhaps more circumstantial, that Saddam wanted to make new WMD and keep old WMD around (presumably for use at some point either selling them to other terrorists such as Hamas or using them on his own people).

The administration was under the impression that he was farther along in point 3 than was actually true (and in fact many of Saddam's own officials were deceived). If you know the intent and the desire is there and you have legal justification (clearly in violation of the cease-fire), do you wait until the capability catches up?

Should the FBI have waited until the conspirators in Florida were further along in their plans to attach the Sears Tower? "Gonzales said the terror suspects had the intent to carry out the attacks, but not necessarily the capability at the time of their arrest."

It would appear that you have to be like Steven Segal , Chuck Norris or Jack Bauer and stop them thar terrorists a millisecond before they push the button for it to be a good thing Furt. We're not allowed to stop the attacks at the inception stages nor are we allowed to hunt them down before the final moment.

Otherwise we're overstepping our bounds, blindly following bad data/procedure orrrrr just flat up in the night.

The dreamers should be glad there are those that serve to allow them to continue blissfully dreaming. Lord knows they themselves wouldn't serve to do more than dream.

Fandros

That Saddam used chemical weapons on Iraqis is well known; did anyone really claim he never had WMD?

Threatened with invasion, it's no surprise that Saddam was untruthful regarding his weapons capabilities. He might have even been deceived by his own sycophants; Saddam wasn't the sort that liked bad news. With long-time enemy Iran on his border and the US/Britain hovering, bluster isn't a surprising tactic, especially from the predictor of the "Mother of All Battles."

Weapons inspections lacked the time to be 100% (and Iraq was obviously no help), but they 100% didn't find WMDs. We've found very little since to contradict the UN. Scott Ritter referred to Iraq as a "WMD archaeological site," stating that if you dig long enough, you'll find some vestige of the nation's old programs (which we have). But Charles Duelfer and David Kay noted no programs in evidence and deteriorating capabilities. The sanctions were working (with respect to WMDs), and Saddam's desires were irrelevent.
The administration was under the impression that he was farther along in point 3 than was actually true...
They generated that impression and found any way they could to support it (e.g., the infamous aluminum tubes). Iran is getting the same treatment. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc wanted war. And so there was war.

The dreamers should be glad there are those that serve to allow them to continue blissfully dreaming. Lord knows they themselves wouldn't serve to do more than dream.
Besides being a completely inaccurate characterization, it's also demeaning and insulting to those "dreamers" who question the administration's actions and the tactics they employ, and who have served in a military or security capacity on behalf of the country.

The terrorists don't, so why should we grant them Geneva Convention protection?
They don't get it because the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. It's up to the terrorists to earn it. They aren't doing that and never will... else they wouldn't be called terrorists would they?

Byl I respect the hell out of you, but damn man pull it together. If you and others don't understand the basic facts such as this, we're doomed in this war.

Akipt, please read the article before posting quotes sentence by sentence.

I was making the point that John "the ferret" Gibson was whining about the "kidnappers" not following Geneva Conventions after he and his pals at Fox have supported Bush claiming they should not apply to these enemies.

If you can just learn to read a full post before responding to the first one or two sentences, you will look much more intelligent. Nowhere in that post did I say that anyone should be treated according to those Conventions; I was pointing out my disdain for the Fox folks and supporting it with yet another inconsistency using the Geneva Conventions issue.