h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What is a Charles Kennedy?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5D7F956E-6B52-46D9-8D17-448856D01CDB.htm

This post has been removed.

<>
> Say what? Lentilla, aren't you being a bit one eyed here? Both Flipper and Ferrettbadger have resorted to a lot of name calling, especially Flipper, and I for one, am not inclined to make any excuses for him on account of where he is.

Naw, Della, I modified that post - actually I saw what I wrote but hit post before I could stop myself, so modified it and posted it again. All I was saying was that when Flipper is questioned about his beliefs, he'll actually respond rather than resorting to insults.

> In fact, the fact that he is in danger of bombs and guns, is the crux of this discussion! He chose to join the armed forces and take part in an illegal invasion. If he faces opposition for that - well, what does he expect?

That's an interesting question. I would say that Sargeant Flipper has no problem with conflict; after all, he is in the military. The reason he comes here - the reason we all come here - is that this is a good forum for discussion of an adult nature. When people start behaving childishly, for whatever reason, this isn't such a great place to be any more.

See, and I did it again -

> All I was saying was that when Flipper is questioned about his beliefs, he'll actually respond rather than resorting to insults.

What I meant was: All I was saying was that when Flipper is questioned about his beliefs, he'll actually respond to your question rather than resorting to insults. If you insult him, he'll insult you - he's not a saint!

"he'll actually respond to your question rather than resorting to insults."

Oh so I was imagining all his "butt darts" accusations of me then. He doesn't deserve any defence and I've yet to see a redeeming quality that wasn't just a put-on that he dropped as soon as he got mad.

wraith, I've seen the email address, and pictures. let me assure you that Sgt Flipper is, in fact, in the military, and stationed in Iraq.

Then why won't anyone give me the address? A free verification tool will give an answer in 10 minutes.

Because giving out an email address onsite is probably not the best place. I assure you, however, that it's a dot mil address.

So Wraith, you are telling us that Sarge tries to debate here but APPEARS to get mad some times and starts hurling insults asweel or instead of debating.

Now to me that description also fits pretty well me, you, Empty, your sweet mama, quite a few people actually whats your point?

You think Sarge might be making up thinks up about himself to sway us towards his arguments?

Well there's only one person I know who does that.

"Are you still banging away with that? We are NOT the same person. Before yesterday I've barely been online. Grow up and stop being a twit."
See, now that is exactly what I am talking about. In an effort to avoid yet another useless flame war I will avoid responding in kind. when I typed ES/Wraith it was meant as ES & Wraith as in both of you as you two seem to have been the only two engaged in open hostilities.

Also wraith, you accused me of making an assumption about only the press side being given. It is not an assumption. There is no statement from any US source. I have seen journalists often here. There is a really simple thing they could have done. Let the army know they were coming. We have had CNN, FOX, BBC, AP, Guardian, even Al Jezera reporters contact the command and give a heads up. I was securing a perimeter around an IED while EOD disarmed it. An Al Jezera reporter came by. He showed his badge, I called in. The advice I was given was to let him film what he wanted to. The only restriction was to stay outside the area we were keeping clear around the bomb.

I am not blindly defending the events outlined in the article. Nor do I condone calling for blood after reading the article. What I do think is the reasoned response is calling for a closer look. Did the soldiers intentionaly attack/detain reporters knowing who and what they were or did the reporters show up unexpectedly and get caught in a case of mistaken identity.

And yes, you never take a uniform at face value. When I enter any US compound, even when driving an M996 (humvee) carrying US weapons, wearing US uniforms and speaking English with a southern US accent I am asked for my ID card to back it up.

Della- "He chose to join the armed forces and take part in an illegal invasion. If he faces opposition for that - well, what does he expect?"

We've been down this road before. However, I will be glad to restate my position. Yes, I chose to join the army, I chose the infantry. I did this in 1996. I consider myself pretty smart, but not good enough to invision 9-11, Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I felt from the begining that the invasion was illadvised. However, at no point from my deployment orders until today have I felt that I have been given any order that could be considered illegal. Therefore according to my oath to

Protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies Foriegn and Domestic and to obey the orders of those officers appointed above me.

I was obligated legally and morally to do so. I will yet again ask for someone to show some proof (newspaper does not count) that there was something illegal about the conduct of this war. France and Germany were as unilateral in their opposition of this action as the US & UK were in their support. Eight other EU nations supported the war. I fought alongside Australian commandos during the major combat phase. We did not go alone. If the war was illegal than there are 37 guilty countries.

As far as my email address goes. Happy hunting. Dave and Red have both emailed me. Although I am sure you would not like to take their word on it. Trunt has been in the opposite corner from me and has also sent me mail. Frankly at this point after the amount of flamming that has happened I am a little cautious of posting it here. Too many childish pranks that could be played with it.

If I had the means Sgt. Flipper I would get out there to personally give you a "bear hug" (I'm avery tactile person) and a good lemon sucker of a kiss on each cheek to demonstrate my thanks to you and your colleagues.

If I was young enough I would get out there to do what I could to help your cause. The Allies saved us in WW2, and you continue to fight and die for us. Thank you.

It has occurred to me that beyond the slants of CNN, FOX, BBC, La Monde, Al Jazera, et. al. there must be an organization that could be considered reliable. I went to Amnesty International to see what they had to say. I looked up Iraq and read almost every word they had to say on the subject. I was assuming that Amnesty International would be against war, and for international co-operation. Maybe they would back up someone’s claim that the war was “illegal” here is what they had to say:

“Amnesty International fears that the war may result in a human rights and
humanitarian catastrophe, and is calling on all governments involved to adhere
strictly to their obligations under international human rights and humanitarian
law.

There are, in particular, grave concerns for the safety of Iraqi civilians,
including children. Civilians are in danger of being targeted by military
attacks, or becoming the innocent victims of the use of indiscriminate attacks
or prohibited weapons. The disruption of delivery of essential services and
supplies could also have severe humanitarian consequences”

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140302003

Ok so they are saying be careful. What about all the horrible things us US soldiers are doing to the Iraqi civilians:

“Amnesty International expressed concern today at the disturbing article and images portrayed in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet which show American soldiers escorting naked Iraqi men through a park in Baghdad. The pictures reveal that someone has written the words 'Ali Baba - Haram(i)' (which means Ali Baba - thief) in Arabic on the prisoners' chests.

The article quotes a US military officer as saying that this treatment is an effective method of deterring thieves from entering the park and is a method which will be used again; another US military officer is quoted as saying that US soldiers are not allowed to treat prisoners inhumanely.

"If these pictures are accurate, this is an appalling way to treat prisoners. Such degrading treatment is a clear violation of the responsibilities of the occupying powers," Amnesty International said today.”

Wow, that is pretty embarrassing. I would really feel silly if that happened to me. Although I would walk naked through central park with a sign written on me long before I would subject myself to having my hand chopped off like Saddam would have done.

What about all of the lies Bush told before he invaded. To be fair AI did say that there has been no “conclusive proof” of WMDs found, however:

“On 25 January 2003 'Adnan 'Abdul Karim Enad was seen on television screens
around the world being taken away by Iraqi security personnel after he had
forced his way into a United Nations (UN) weapons inspector's vehicle. He had
reportedly attempted to hand over documents to UN weapons inspectors, but there
is no information on what the documents contained. As he was led away, he
shouted "Please save me". He has not been seen since

The use of torture and ill-treatment in Iraq is systematic and has particularly
targeted political or suspected political opponents. They are held
incommunicado and at risk of being detained for months or years without access
to lawyers or relatives. Amnesty International remains particularly concerned
about the large number of people who have "disappeared" in Iraq. To date, the
fate and whereabouts of tens of thousands of people remain unknown.”

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140052003

Kinda makes you wonder what was in those papers that the Iraqis didn’t want them getting out so badly. Saddam was not complying with inspectors thus violating UN resolution 1441, which threatened “grave consequences” for non-compliance. Saddam agreed to these terms.

So I thought perhaps AI would have something nice to say about the Sovereign legitimate government that gets defended here on H2G2. This one was pretty long:

“10. Human rights in Iraq before the conflict

Human rights violations have been committed on a massive scale against all sectors of society in Iraq. Most of the victims have been suspected political opponents of the government, their relatives, and members of religious and ethnic groups.

AI has issued numerous reports over the years, documenting "disappearances"; extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, including mass killings of civilians using chemical weapons; imprisonment of prisoners of conscience; long-term detention without charge or trial; grossly unfair trials; systematic torture including the use of judicial punishments such as flogging, ear amputation and branding of the forehead; forcible expulsions; extensive use of the death penalty”

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-faq-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140042001

“Up to 50 women accused of being prostitutes and men accused of procurement have
reportedly been publicly beheaded. The executions were part of a campaign to
stamp out prostitution and ''immoral crimes''.

The executions were reportedly carried out by members of Fida'yi Saddam (Saddam
Fighters), a paramilitary group under the control of the Iraqi President's
eldest son, 'Uday Saddam Hussain. They took place in various areas of the
capital, Baghdad, and other Iraqi cities, and outside the victims' houses.
Members of the ruling Ba'th Party and the General Union of Iraqi Women are said
to have attended the executions. None of the victims are said to have been
charged in accordance with Iraqi law and brought to justice.

A woman doctor in Baghdad, Najat Mohammad Haidar, was also reportedly beheaded
on prostitution charges. No further details are available in her case.

Amnesty International is concerned that scores of women may be arrested and
executed as suspected prostitutes.”

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140152000
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140032001
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140972003

“In April the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution accusing the Iraqi government of "all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror".

The death penalty continued to be applied extensively. Scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed during the year.”

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/irq-summary-eng


Seems to me that outside of the naked guy in the park, AI mainly warns the CPA about the lack of security, the need to increase properly trained and equipped security personnel and the need for effective screening of Iraqi security forces to prevent former oppressors from regaining power. They also caution to maintain vigilance against human rights violations. No real mention of any already occurring and not one single solitary reference to the invasion being illegal. Look at the piling of violations that have occurred under Saddam. “Tens of thousands” missing, political dissenters beheaded in front of their own homes. Iraqis and foreign nationals are among the missing. I am always hesitant about using the word “evil” (it simplifies things too much) but if this is not evil than nothing on earth is.

Bush has his faults. He is fundamentalist, is gathering political capital off of the sacrifices of the US armed forces, and sees things as purely black and white. The economy is faltering again, the federal surplus is gone (of course if there is a surplus they must be taking more than they need from my pay check) Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft are strong-arming some downright scary legislation through congress. Yet, I cannot find anything in America that can compare with the above list.

It is very easy to go ahead and condemn the invasion from the comfort of your home in a nice democratic nation where you can feel reasonably secure that the government is not going to drag you out into the street and chop your head off in front of your family simply for disagreeing with it. I may not have agreed with the reasons we gave the world, but every morning when I lay down to sleep I feel pretty damn good that I helped to stop the systemic violence of the ba’th party. Every time I meet an Iraqi with missing body parts or dead family members because he pissed a Ba’th part member off, I don’t feel at all bad about having knocked them out of power. I might be a little pensive about the future of this nation (Iraq) but that has been my point for weeks. Look forward folks not backwards.

Well one things for sure Flip. The BBC will be a little more diligent in reporting affairs than of late. The Hutton report ensures that.

"Look forward folks not backwards."

Actually, it is looking forward that has been implicite in much of the comment on this thread.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/correspondents_murray020911.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0411-05.htm

In a nutshell, as the former Prime Minister asked before the war, "who's next?" If there is no system to prevent regime change at the whim of a head of state, no matter how repugnant the regime may be, then no nation can consider itself safe from such arbitrary action. All that is left is "Trust the government(of the U.S.)" which is a pretty unsatisfying world order for most of the world.

"Maybe they would back up someone’s claim that the war was “illegal” "

Look, Sarge, I posted the relevant sections of the UN Charter (to which the U.S. is a signatory) a while ago and you praised me for posting facts. Didn't you read what I posted? It's the violations of the UN Charter that are the "illegal" aspects of the invasion. Geneva code violations, if any occur, simply agravate the situation. I'm sorry people haven't been more clear in their postings but the truth is, a whole lot of people in the big world see the invasion as a violation of American responsabilities under the UN charter; in short, it is seen as an illegal act in violation of international law. Now I'm quite sure that George Bush doesn't see it that way. In fact, it seems pretty clear that George Bush does not believe there is any international standard to which the U.S. should be held. Apparently (since you read and praised my reference to the UN Charter) you don't feel that the Charter was breached by the invasion. I suppose that's just something that will have to be decided by the World Court -- oh yeah. The U.S. doesn't feel that World Court decisions are binding upon the U.S.

Do you see why so many people see the U.S. as a rogue state?

Yes Trunt I see why a lot of people share that view.

As I see it the world has no option but to keep the macropolitical forums we have, the UN, the WTO and NATO, as valid places to advocate a different viewpoint.

I believe the US will change because it will have too. As China becomes more dominant in economics it will force the US to accomodate change. Korea is the thorn here. And a nasty one too!

But honestly Trunt I can't see a better system for us in the west than a US led defence policy. I know the world is skewed to benefit us, here, in the west and north of the planet. I agree we need multilateral everything. But your asking an an awful lot from humanity.

Unless Europe can work together..some hope..we would not be able to defend ourselves. Europe cannot hack it alone. Japan and Aus would side with the USand, so would you in Canada. The Russian States, already torn by difference, could go either to China or to the west.

Not easy problems to solve. The Iraq situation is a side show, albeit an important one, to the bigger global shifts now in accelerating in transit. And by that I mean the growth of China in the east as a major producer and consumer in economic terms.

seargantFlipper wrote:

"I will yet again ask for someone to show some proof (newspaper does not count) that there was something illegal about the conduct of this war."

A1126333 - "Was the War on Iraq Legal?"

The above link is from a article to which I contributed 50%. In it I outlined the reasons why the Iraq war was illegal. Simply put, the war on Iraq broke international law, therefore it was illegal. Blatherskite contributed the other half arguing that it was legal. Very Fair & Balanced (TM) wouldn't you say?



Ste

Ste! Good morning, luv!

Isn't it interesting that the two countries that demand preemptive protection from terrorists (Israel and the US) are the two countries that ignore the UN unless, of course, it suits their purpose.

Sgt, I have to agree with trunt on this. The UN charter clearly states the ways in which signatories are required to conduct their relations with other countries. Honestly, the only way for the US to not be in violation of the UN Charter would be to withdraw from the UN. (Oh, that's a scary thought)

Oh, and I highly recommend Ste's article. It's quite good.

Currently watching the Senate hearing on the WMD. It's interesting, to say the least.