Who's Marching Tomorrow?

tripp, the problem is that the definition is rather loose what truly constitutes WMD, as media never clarifies the term as well as the international institutions and individual countries have their own definitions.

Even different branches of our government have their own broad definitions of WMD's. The definitions don't differ much but many include CONVENTIONAL highly distractive weapons as WMD's.

FBI's definition: claims that any conventional weapon that passes certain threshold of casualties is consider as WMD.

'Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon'

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf

If one wants to get into the discussion about the specific types of WMD's and it's utilization from the historical perspective, then surly enough this debate could be valid.

Other than that, the list is rather long of dictators that have used weapons of mass distraction ever since the bombing of Guernica under the Franco's watch with help of Göring. Mussolini's horrible use of chemical weapons in Abyssinia. Putin's in Chechnya, the list can be quite long.


PS.

Great catch about FDR, he must have had Truman on his mind...

 

You know, I could deal with your ignorant know-it-all Ugly American attitude: You're the sad product of a decadent upper middle class, and it really isn't your fault. Your social class has a warped sense of entitlement *far* worse than the Welfare Class they always deride.

But with posts like this, I'm not sure if you're making fun of the troops or making fun of those of us who are fed up with the outright lies of a fascist NeoCon presidency. Kind of contradictory how in midstream the objective went from WMD’s to “Fighting Evil†without even batting an eye.

I think it's really cute how in other posts, you have openly mocked me for being in the Utah National Guard. How you openly have claimed to be "too smart" to respond to/recognize authority (Police, U.S. Air Force, etc). Or how you suddenly became an “expert†in Canadian law over the Holmolka case (“I read a few booksâ€),

IMHO you really get off over all those men and women who are "dumb" enough to sign up, ship out, and return missing appendages. Don’t you?? Or return in a box. You must *love* that. College classmates of mine have already returned maimed, fortunately nobody I know has died over there. Yet.

I really wonder why they bother? If they’re putting their lives on the line in a pointless war, that’s one thing, they have no choice but to be canon fodder for whatever nut is Commander In Chief.

But to put their lives on the line to supposedly “defend†the rights of ignorant spoiled upper-middle-class brats like you? Not worth it.

Oh, are you out their marching in SUPPORT of the war? How about volunteering at a VA? Nah, that would require you *give* something, you’re the kind of person who only thinks of himself, right? You only take, correct??

 

Yep, he did. Nothing but the finest equipment and training paid for by Ray-Gun and the CIA. IOW The American Taxpayer.

 

From Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, a 'bastion of the left' according to many neo-cons

..."We say enough hypocrisy, enough lies, our soldiers must come home now," Musfar said from a parked flatbed truck. Participants chanted, "Stop the U.S. war machine, from Iraq to Korea to the Philippines."

Many attendees emphasized that they support the troops. "I have friends in Iraq and I just want them to know that I may not be able to support them there, but I can here," said Jose Avila, 36...

Me again...While I could never speak for everyone in the nation, this is the overwhelming feeling of ALL people I am in contact with. We are not a war-mongering populace, but we have a pusillanimous war-mongering leadership/dictatorship. Clearly in my mind one can be against war, but supportive of troops.

 

Actually our words do affect how well they do, there is a lot of power in emotion, good or bad, like it or not, there have been many studies to prove this. Negative energy given off by bad feelings and attitudes greatly affects others.

 

Here is my take on the idea that you CANNOPT be for the troops and against the war at the same time. As the insurgents see how split we are in this country, they know (or feel) they just need to push a little harder to get us to quit. SO, all this infighting is making them try harder, therefore are troops are in MORE danger. PROVE me I'm wrong (impossible, by the way) just as I cannot PROVE I am right. It is a point of view.

 

Here are your exact words:

So are you referring to me personally? I joined the Guard at 18 for two reasons: a sense of duty, and to help pay for college. If your quote is addressed to me personally, and not to the other folks who "had no idea what to do with your life" then fine. If you feel smarter than the men and women in uniform because your spoiled upper middle class arrogant prick attitude allows you to, then I have a problem.

Bulls*** every arrogant little Tool I've seen has had the same problem: everything was handed to them, they didn't learn respect and responsibility, and turned out useless. And you still haven't explained exactly *what* you do for a living. I just might have a bit more respect for a person who appears to be a teenager. At least most folks who belong to myspacedotcom appear to be so: do you live in your parents basement and mooch off them?

Only at the thought of an entire society going down the tubes because of people like you. You know, folks who are "gimmie gimmie gimmie" and never contribute anything.

 

Try our damndest to wind down tensions. Sit everybody around the table and say "hey, we really f***** this up by plotting you folks against each other. We're sorry. Let's move on." Etc. In other words, be a Man. Only a whiny little spoiled brat will refuse to admit being wrong, will never apologise, etc.

I'm glad you brought that up. First of all, due to my experience and knowledge in the Utility sector, I'd probably help ... "ensure" ... frequent utility interruptions and damage. Do whatever it takes to overthrow a power hungry nut.

Or in the case of former PM Paul "Dithers" Martin, just join forces with other Canadians, push a Non Confidence Vote, and vote the prick out. Seems to have worked too.

The neat thing about a Minority Government is that *nobody* has absolute power. Can't happen, or the other parties gang up on them and call an immediate Non Confidence Vote.

Canada attacking the U.S.? It's far more likely that Dubya will order B2 bombers to cluster bomb Edmonton.

Anything is possible though. If your parents had told me 20 years ago that illegal wiretaps would be going on in the United States, and nothing would really be done about it, I'd have laughed. Can't happen ... oops it did happen.

I rather doubt I could cross the border as you say. The way things are going, in 20 years the border will resemble Checkpoint Charlie with barbed wire, machine guns, and mine fields.

 

Karl:

Yes, on the surface that sounds logical. However I'm unsure if that can be carried through as a blanket statement or as condemnation.

Let's examine the role of Canadian peacekeepers in Afghanistan. The whole world knows that due to public pressure – and some trade disputes – Canada stayed out of Iraq. One would expect Canadian soldiers to be at much greater risk in Afghanistan.

With the exception of an accidental airstrike due to Air Force pilots flying stoned on amphetamines, and a light armored vehicle rollover to avoid a car, the Canadian peacekeepers are so far – thankfully – experiencing a very low casualty rate.

And despite the public resistance to the Iraq war, the public is strongly in support of peacekeeping efforts and disaster relief efforts.

 

Please provide me a link to, or quote from, just one or two of these many studies (as they pertain specifically to military forces' performance in conjunction with increased or diminished "negative energy"). I'll be happy to stand corrected.

 

IMHO I could never see the point that not supporting the war, you are somehow not supporting the troups. As Jayman said Karl, what you've said makes sense on the surface. Let's look at it from a slightly different perspective, lets say you are on patrol and discover something like a large scale crack house, meth lab, or something else that need imediate attention. So now you contact your commander, tell him what's going on and ask for backup. But (God forbid) you have an incompetent commander who refuses backup.

Now this isn't the best analogy by any means, but it does paralell what many of us see going on. Our troups are being sent into combat without proper body amour, unamoured humvees, and most of all grossly inadequet numbers. and this doesn't even take into account if we should have even gone into Iraq, but IMO that is a different issue all together.
Then there are the matters facing the returning vets. VA funding is being cut to ribbons, troups suffering from brain injuries, post traumatic stress, etc etc. and no funding for possible resolutions. And for the lucky ones returning uninjuried, they are simply dropped off at their assigned base and left to find their own way home. Never before in history have our vets been treated so badly, even when returning from Vietnam, the troups were given transportation all the way home, it makes me sick every day at work to see some pour guy who just spent the last two years in Iraq scraping for enough money to buy the cheapest seats so he can go see his wife. But many of the holier-than-thou will have only the finest of yellow ribbons on their car, and could care less about the $9 billion that was simply lost in Iraq.

Well time to get off my soapbox, it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, unless someone can convince me otherwise...

 

Irrelevant response, what else is new other than your typical derailing attempt. You ask to debate if there was any dictator ever using WMD's other than Saddam, you get the answer to prove you wrong and then you proceed with this gibberish.


This is what you have asked:

Pathetic :blink:

 

Yeah, I stayed away from it. WMD is such a useless term to me. Frankly, NBC (Nuke, Bio, Chem) weapons are mainly a terror thing. Saddam could have easily just gunned down everyone in that Kurdish town instead of using mustard gas (I think, I don't think he used nerve agents) but the psychological effect wouldn't have been nearly as pronounced. There's a certain je ne sais croix about chemical weapons that's truely horrifying.

That said, I just chose some examples since MS asked.

I do what I can. B)

 

Even more pathetic :blink: