The bast way to avoid loosing wars are to avoid having enemies to fight them with. This tactic works well for most nations, why not for the US? It has worked fine for us for nearly 200 years now and we have no intentions to create enemies anytime soon.

__________________
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster.
Friedrich Nietzsche

We have no intention of creating enemies? Do you have any idea what the world thinks of us right now? We are making new enemies with each passing day.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Bush lied about reasons for invading Iraq.
Neo/cons planned war before Bush's inauguration.
1 YEAR & 141 DAYS ... AND STILL NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ.
963 DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS.
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DEAD IRAQIS.
WIDESPREAD TORTURE OF PRISONERS IN IRAQ & AFGANISTAN.
USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS WILL CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS AND CANCER IN IRAQ FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.
Of course Bush & Co. are guilty of war crimes under international law.
http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_wct-rc.htm
Below is the indictment written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

INDICTMENT

This Criminal Indictment Charges George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John D. Ashcroft, Tommy Franks, and his successors as Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, George J. Tenet, L. Paul Bremer, III, John Negroponte and others to be named with Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other criminal acts in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, the Constitution of the United States and Laws Made in Pursuance Thereof.

The Crimes Charged are:

1. Waging a War of Aggression against the sovereignty of Iraq and the rights of its people, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries among the people of Iraq, most civilians, from military violence and thousands of U.S. G.I's. War of aggression is defined as "the Supreme international crime" in the Nuremberg Judgment.

2. Authorizing, encouraging and condoning the use of excessive force, in terrorem, tactics called "Shock and Awe", targeting defenseless civilians and, civilians facilities and indiscriminate bombing and assaults.

3. Authorizing and ordering the use of illegal weapons including super bombs, cluster bombs, depleted uranium enhanced bombs, missiles, shells and bullets and threatening the use of nuclear weapons.

4. Authorizing, ordering, concealing and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murders, disappearances, kidnappings and torture. 5. Authorizing, financing, utilizing and condoning illegal violence, use of force and torture by highly paid paramilitary civilian forces operating anonymously and not accountable to U.S. supervisors for their acts, who kill, coerce, control and contain the Iraqi population.

6. Authorizing, ordering and condoning the systematic destruction of economic, social, cultural, medical, educational, governmental and diplomatic resources, properties and facilities throughout Iraq.

7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning acts designed to divide the Iraqi population to cause internal conflict and violence among major segments of the society, ethnic, religious, political and economic, in order to weaken and exhaust the population and bring all segments under the control of a new surrogate government submissive to U.S. command. .

8. Authorizing, imposing and maintaining a violent, criminal military occupation over Iraq which kills defenseless Iraqi's daily and fans the flames of anti-U.S. anger worldwide.

9. Defying and incapacitating the peace making capacity and role of the United Nations by unilateral actions to undermine its potential effectiveness while continuing to coerce and use the U.N. to pursue U.S. policies in Iraq and elsewhere, and coercing and enticing other nations to support U.S. policies and actions in violation of international law in the U.N. Security Council and against Iraq and other nations.

10. Engaging in systematic acts to undermine and destroy international laws and treaties designed to prevent and control war, weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction; limit participants in military service; protect the environment; prevent the economic exploitation of poor nations; and engaging systematic acts to obstruct justice by the evisceration of the International Criminal Court and manipulation or defiance of other international judicial and regulatory bodies that might seek to hold the U.S. accountable to international law and the will of the majority of the people of the international community. 11. Manifesting their continuing commitment to world domination by ordering, directing and condoning violent regime change in Haiti in March 2004 to replace the independent, elected democratic President Jean Bertrand Aristide with a U.S. selected and controlled neo Duvalierist surrogate causing growing violence, hundreds of deaths and further impoverishment of the Haitian people.

12. Threatening the sovereignty and independence of nations, and acting to change regimes that refuse to yield to U.S. demands for economic subservience and political control for U.S. corporate and government interests, including most prominently Cuba, Iran, a divided Korea, the Philippines, Syria, Sudan and Venezuela; and supporting Israel's illegal occupation, brutalization and expanding settlement of Palestine in defiance of the United Nations, international law and world opinion; all of which adds to international anger and violence against the United States and its citizens.

13. Destroying the sovereignty, right to self determination, cultural integrity and control of its own resources of Iraq and its peoples by imposing an interim government headed by a long time C.I.A. asset who directed violence against Iraqi civilians for the U.S. in the 1990's; and manipulating procedures for the imposition of a new Constitution drafted by and installation of a new government chosen through controlled electoral processes and subservient to the will and command of the U.S. government.

14. Usurping the war powers delegated in the constitution to the Congress to pursue wars of aggression and other unlawful military actions; and attempting to pack the federal courts with judges committed to ideologies in conflict with the Constitution of the United States to achieve judicial decisions supporting those ideologies. 15. Systematically weakening fundamental human rights globally and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution within the U.S. enabling U.S. forces to unlawfully seize individuals in 100 countries, including U.S. citizens and arrest thousands of aliens in the U.S. and hold them, transport them, torture many, deny all access to courts to determine the legality of such seizures, arrest and treatment.

16. Making Guantanamo [U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay?] a symbol of U.S. power to imprison and abuse persons on the soil of a foreign sovereign nation, Cuba, against its will and to publicize U.S. contempt for human rights by displaying its power to arbitrarily seize, confine and abuse persons without revealing who they are, any charges against them, or what their future may be, placing U.S. power above all laws, international and national, and beyond the reach of all courts, including those of the U.S.

17. Giving economic preferences to favored corporations and business interests to extract enormous profits in both war and peace sectors of the economy from impoverished Iraq and U.S. taxpayers. 18. Systematically utilizing, controlling, directing, manipulating, misinforming and restricting press and media coverage and deliberately presenting false and misleading reports to obtain support for U.S. military and political and actions; and to deprive the American people of knowledge essential to develop an informed opinion , which is essential to democratic processes and elections.

19. All for the purpose of dominating, controlling, and exploiting Iraq and other non compliant nations by military force and economic coercion. In addition to full accountability for the foregoing crimes and full reparation to victims, the offenses constitute "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States requiring the removal from office of all the participating civil Officers of the United States upon impeachment for and conviction for their acts.

Dated: August 5, 2004
Ramsey Clark

Since the dawn of man, there have always been those that are not satisfied with what they have. Then war is started to defend yourself. I think that there have been, and are, acts that are discernible from war, that are so egregious, that they are considered crimes during a war.

__________________
Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right.

EVERY intelligence agency in the WORLD believed, at the time, that Saddam possessed WMD. Is it not possible that he moved them before the war? Come on think outside the liberal, left wing box, for a moment.
The removal of Saddam was planned and agreed upon by both side of the aisle.
Released, conveniently, the same time as his book. Not a P.R. stunt I'm sure.
Check your own figure -- more leftist propaganda.
Uh, targeting KNOWN Saddam hide outs and meeting places.
Illegal weapons?.....those are called "smart bombs" so we don't have to "carpet bomb". But I guess it's ok for Saddam to use WMD on the Kurds in the late 1980's.

More on this later......

__________________
Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right.

There weren't ANY of those even available to the population as a whole. Because of Saddam's illegal possession of WMD, the U.N. imposed sanctions against Iraq. The only means that Iraq had for support of it's people was the "food for oil" program that was a complete disaster, because Saddam was selling the oil on the black market to the French, Germans, and Russians. He used those proceeds to build his ornate, gold covered, palaces. It wasn't until U.S. troops came in and built schools, hospitals, and started to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, to help the economy grow.
Oh, removing a genocidal, dictator from power, and helping to create a democracy, that will have free elections.
Keeping a military presence while the new Iraqi government body is formed, and defending those troops while being attacked daily, by Saddam supporters.

ok, I just can't go on it is becoming too ridiculous.....

__________________
Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right.

If you do really believe that war crimes are a "necessary evil" then you are really despicable. I suppose you also believe that torture is justified if we're the ones doing it. If your motto is "Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right", then I'd say you've leaned so far right you've fallen over and got your head stuck in your FauxNews hole.


[quote="Troper8";p="59048"]"EVERY intelligence agency in the WORLD believed, at the time, that Saddam possessed WMD. Is it not possible that he moved them before the war?"

In spite of the FauxNews propaganda you've been fed, the UN inspectors didn't think Iraq still had any weapons and a lot of our (former) European allies weren't so sure about it either and wanted to let the UN inspectors finish their work. Bush stopped the inspections and suckered the USA with phony evidence and lies into a war of unprovoked aggression. Iraq had not attacked us and had nothing to do with 9/11. It has been one year and 141 days and still no WMDs have been found. Why do you think we had to fight the war without any real allies except Briton? Because the other nations didn't believe Bush's BS. The evidence collected so far in Iraq indicates that there were NO active weapons programs to create WMDs. The inspections and sanctions had worked. Before the war, Iraq was under intense surveillance by planes and satellites and there were spies on the ground so, no, they didn't move any (non-existent) weapons.

"The removal of Saddam was planned and agreed upon by both side of the aisle."

Your reply is a non sequitur. It has been publicly documented that a number of key people in the Bush administration were urging and planning for an invasion of Iraq years before Bush fraudulently attained the Presidency. Congress was duped with fake intelligence about a non-existant immanent threat and still many opposed the rush to war without international consensus and support.

"Released, conveniently, the same time as his book. Not a P.R. stunt I'm sure."

You really think someone would bring Indictments for War Crimes before an International Tribunal as a PR stunt for a book release? I guess if you have no integrity, it must be hard to believe that anyone else does.

Check your own figure -- "more leftist propaganda."

Are you incapable of reading the newspapers.? These figures are reported daily. 963 dead American servicemen was the current figure several days ago. It is higher now. You really ought to pull your head out of your FauxNews hole.

"Illegal weapons?.....those are called "smart bombs" so we don't have to "carpet bomb". But I guess it's ok for Saddam to use WMD on the Kurds in the late 1980's."

Have you tried looking up depleted uranium on the net? Do you know how many cases of cancer, childhood leukemia, birth defects and still births are being linked to it in the places where it has been used before? Of course it's NOT ok for Saddam to use poison gas on the Kurds or the Iranians. The thing is, the US government sold him the chemicals to make the gas. Donald Rumsfield went over there to shake his hand after he used the gas.

The rest of your postings are too ill informed, stupid and incoherent to even bother replying to. You really ought to get out more and find out what's actually happening rather than just swallowing every pre-digested opinion that FauxNews hands you.

If you had bothered to read my post past the opening, you would have realized I am not condoning war crimes, I was stating that war is a necessary evil, always has been and always will. But typical of an extreme liberal leftist, you read want you want, and not the ENTIRE post. Do yourself a favor and re-read the ENTIRE post before you embarrass yourself again.
Leftist, Bush haters always hang their hat on this, is that all you got, come on this is and has easily been argued against, but I will humor you once again...Saddam used WMD on the Kurds, there is no denying, no refuting that fact, U.N. inspectors shortly after that destroyed more WMDs upon inspections. I guess in your happy little world it is inconceivable for a genocidal maniac who used WMDs in the past, to possibly have any.
I'd like to start this rebuttal with a quote from your very own precious John Kerry, and I quote, " I voted for the $87 Billion (for the Iraqi war), before I voted against it." So, using your logic I guess Saddam wasn't a threat? My God, how blind do you have to be. A threat doesn't necessarily mean a threat to the U.S. on our own soil, he was CLEARLY a threat to our economic interests, he was a threat on humans (see use of WMD on Kurds), he was a threat to his own people (see torturing and imprisoning children). He was a threat to our troops abroad (see attack on U.S.S. Cole). Shall I continue, do you need more? The information that was presented AT THE TIME, was produced by a intelligence agency rocked by cut backs from the Clinton administration, and working on shoe string budget. Like I stated before it has and was documented that both sides of the aisle were in favor of the war.
How old are you? You don't know me yet you can pass judgment on my integrity? I laugh at you. You really need to wake up and learn about politics before you TRY to debate them. You don't think that Ramsey who was relatively unknown to the general public, is capable of creating a sh*t storm to garner publicity for himself, come on smell the coffee.
Please read what you post, if you are going to post something. Ramsey's claim of "THOUSANDS" (plural, meaning more than one thousand), is completely false, see "check your own figure, 963 U.S. losses does not(thank God) equal "THOUSANDS", unfortunately it is close to one (1) thousand.
I simply read that as " I have no buttal, so I am going to be childish and call names." Well, so be childish, good luck in life.

__________________
Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right.

[quote="Troper8";p="59642"]This is BB's first reply post:

"It is a neccessary(sp) evil - Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:02 pm
Since the dawn of man, there have always been those that are not satisfied with what they have. Then war is started to defend yourself. I think that there have been, and are, acts that are discernible from war, that are so egregious, that they are considered crimes during a war.
__Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right."

I did read this entire post, billy bob, and it is hard to realize anything definite because it is so incoherent. But if you even just think that war itself is a "necessary evil" and "always has been and always will" and then use that as an excuse for waging a war of aggression against a much smaller country that had not attacked us then I still think you are a little sick in the head.

It may be "easily ... argued against" but you've yet to show that it can be intelligently or rationally argued against. So yes, in the late 1980's Iraq had chemical weapons(that our government sold them) and they used them on the Iranians(with US approval) and the Kurds. After the first Gulf War, sanctions and weapons inspections removed these weapons from their arsenal. In 2003 Bush claimed Iraq had "huge stockpiles" of chemical and biological weapons and was close to having an atomic bomb. This was proved after the invasion to be totally false. He lied to justify an illegal, immoral and unjust war and he should rightly be impeached for even just that crime(one of many).

So you get all your quotes out of context from right-wing talk radio. Not surprising. Just what you think this quote proves is rather obscure. Did you even read the last line in that part of my post that you're supposedly rebutting - Congress was duped with fake intelligence about a non-existant immanent threat and still many opposed the rush to war without international consensus and support.

That's right, bb, Saddam was not the immanent threat to the US that was used as a rationale for the war. He had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and no active nuclear weapons program. he had no connection with Al Quida or the attack on 9/11. That you believe otherwise is a real tribute to Bush's use of the "Big Lie" technique and the FauxNews propaganda mill.

So you think it is OK for America to launch an unprovoked war of aggression resulting in tens of thousands of deaths against any country that we think poses a threat to our ECONOMIC INTERESTS? Really, really despicable. Also, what a great precedent in international law for other countries who think the US is a threat to their economic interests.

Again, the US government sold him the chemicals and the equipment to turn those chemicals into weapons so he could use them on the Iranians. He did use them also on the Kurds but at the time that didn't diminish official US support for his regieme Then after the Gulf War, they used inspections and sanctions to force him to destroy those weapons. This process worked. Iraq had no WMDs when we invaded.

So what. So are dozens of past and current dictators around the world, many of whom the US has supported(including Saddam in the 80's) or does currently support. Is this a justifiable reason for invading a country that had not attacked us first. Could it be that those others countries don't have the world's largest oil reserves? A majority of people on Earth right now would say Bush is a threat to his own people and everyone else in the whole world.

There's that talk radio/FauxNews influence again. There is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the attack on the USS Cole. There's much evidence to the contrary.
Again - Congress was duped with fake, spun-up intelligence reports about a non-existant immanent threat and still many congressmen opposed Bush's rush to war without international consensus and support. Also, if you really think the CIA and the other intelligence agencies have ever worked on a "shoe string budget", then you are very sadly deluded. Can you cite any actual budget figures? Do you even have any idea how many tens of billions of dollars those guys get every year just in the public budget let alone the "black budget"?
Yes, I can judge your integrity and intelligence and from everything you've written I'd say you have very little of either. You actually seem to think that every criticism of Bush and his gang is only motivated by "hate" and has no connection to any of his real actions in the real world - like, for example, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in an unprovoked war of aggression.
You are the one who doesn't (or can't) read. This is what Mr. Clark actually said in the first article of indictment:
"1. Waging a War of Aggression against the sovereignty of Iraq and the rights of its people, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries among the people of Iraq, most civilians, from military violence and thousands of U.S. G.I's. War of aggression is defined as "THE SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CRIME" in the Nuremberg Judgment."
"deaths and injuries" is the phrase he used. The official figures on US causalities now stands at 975 dead servicemen and close to 7000 injured, crippled and maimed. Under the circumstances, any number would be too high.

"I have no buttal"? Speak for yourself, dude.

Again I ask your age in reference to the name calling....Billy Bob, come on grow up and get through the 5th grade already.....If you would like to continue to try to debate your stance, try doing as a mature adult.

I say that because it is realistic. You can live in your quite fluffy little world, and hug all the trees you want. Take a long realistic look at the world and it's history, better yet read up on the history of man. You will clearly see that it (war) has been prevalent from the start. How would you propose we defend ourselves if we are invaded, you could throw your little stuffed animals at them, as they take you from your house.
What does that have to do with anything. Does a country's size determine is ability to invade other countries?
Thank you for making my point. See I told you it was easy. I quote, "...proved AFTER the invasion..." if you have a crystal ball that can see into the future...
Here, I will help you.... the point I made was the fact that even Kerry was in favor of going to war. There is that better, need me to hold your hand anymore.
If this were true, and Saddam had not acquired any WMD, then why would he refuse the U.N. inspections? Why was he in material breech of U.N. resolutions for 13 years?
Illegal, Saddam was in material breech of U.N. resolutions. Immoral, the removing of a genocidal maniac is immoral? Unjust, freeing people from a sadistic dictator is unjust, enforcing U.N. resolutions is unjust, shall I continue?
It is true that the U.S. helped Saddam in his war against Iran, that was then. I am not about to claim that I know all the intricacies of the foreign policy of the administrations since Nixon. As we have seen over the years, alliances change.
Again, the evidence that was presented to Congress was collected LONG BEFORE Bush was even in office. Non-existant immanent threat, what do you consider "immanent" Iraqi soldiers landing at Ellis Island? What about the unprovoked attack on Saudi Arabia by Saddam? What about the fact that Saddam was trying to gain complete control of all the oil in the Middle East? Hitler had world domination dreams too.
I hope you are not refering to the U.N. The same corupt organization that ALLOWED Saddam to REMAIN in material breech of U.N. resolutions for 13 years? Or are you refering to the French and Germans that were buying Iraqi oil on the black market?
If you believe that the Iraqi war was in response to the attacks on September 11th, then you are very misinformed. The Iraq war is, just like Afganistain, a war against terrorist, period. Saddam was a terrorist, if you do not believe Saddam was a terrorist, then you truely need to think outside the box.
I will continue this later.....

__________________
Thinking like an Independent, while leaning to the right.