1
   

Soldiers in Iraq know they are fighting and dying for a lie

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:17 am
mans wrote:
oh, you Americans are so lucky! you can kick off Pres. Bush after three terms, whereas i'm stuck with Johnny for who knows how long. Sad


No, we can "kick him off" after two. And, who is Johnny?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:38 am
oralloy wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
You are saying that napalm is NOT banned?


Correct. Napalm is not banned.


Wrong.

Quote:
WASHINGTON, August 10 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - The United States admitted dropping the internationally-banned incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the "horrible" weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion.


Again, complete denial of the truth and attacking the messenger is the only recourse of the Bush Cultists.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:40 am
Well, Roxxx, if you look further into it, it becomes clear that the US never agreed to the sanctions of the UN, so internationally banned or not, our government had an 'out'.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:44 am
That is a distinction without a difference, napalm is banned, the question is NOT misleading and oralloy is in denial. As well, military spokespersons have stated that they haven't used napalm since the 70s and denied using it in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:50 am
BTW this is the new Bush Cultists' defense, a semantical play on EVERYTHING. Like breaching of the levees were not discussed in the briefiings becasue THAT EXACT TERM wasn't used. Or the fact that Bush NEVER said that we were in "imminent" danger of Saddam's WMD.

It
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 08:42 am
Hey, I'm in agreement with you - sheath the talons.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 08:45 am
snood wrote:
mans wrote:
oh, you Americans are so lucky! you can kick off Pres. Bush after three terms, whereas i'm stuck with Johnny for who knows how long. Sad


No, we can "kick him off" after two. And, who is Johnny?


See, mans, they don't even know who the little weasel is! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 08:49 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
That is a distinction without a difference, napalm is banned, the question is NOT misleading and oralloy is in denial. As well, military spokespersons have stated that they haven't used napalm since the 70s and denied using it in Iraq.
Oralloy also says depleted uranium is not the cause of gulf war sickness because "The government told me so".
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 10:03 am
When and if Big Brother does come, some will be licking his ass. But, hey, it's already happening.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 06:58 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
You are saying that napalm is NOT banned?


Correct. Napalm is not banned.


Wrong.


Liar.



Roxxxanne wrote:
Quote:
WASHINGTON, August 10 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - The United States admitted dropping the internationally-banned incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the "horrible" weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion.


So you quote a lie to support a lie. Dishonesty comes naturally to you.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:01 pm
snood wrote:
Well, Roxxx, if you look further into it, it becomes clear that the US never agreed to the sanctions of the UN, so internationally banned or not, our government had an 'out'.


Yes, we had an out.

But we complied with the protocol (which is not a ban in any sense of the word) despite our having that out.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:08 pm
Amigo wrote:
Oralloy also says depleted uranium is not the cause of gulf war sickness because "The government told me so".


No, I said that DU was only a minor hazard (and that the areas around destroyed tanks should be cleaned up).

The reason I said it is the fact that I actually comprehend what DU is and what it does.

I never said anything about the government saying anything (although I did link you to a UN body so you could inform yourself on the issue, which I see you've not yet done).
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:18 pm
I am curious. Does anyone have an actual link to the poll questions? Or is this claiming they are bad quetsions based on thin air?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:19 pm
oralloy wrote:
snood wrote:
Well, Roxxx, if you look further into it, it becomes clear that the US never agreed to the sanctions of the UN, so internationally banned or not, our government had an 'out'.



But we complied with the protocol (which is not a ban in any sense of the word) despite our having that out.


That is sheer nonsense. The Bush Cultists continur to amaze.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:28 pm
The UN 1980 convention can be found here..

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt

Quote:
Article 2

Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1.It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population
as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by
incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective
located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by
air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within
a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary
weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such
military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of
civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting
the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in
any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to
civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the
object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements
are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military
objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
Oralley is correct. The use of napalm was not banned completely. It was only illegal if the military targets were near civilians or civilian objects.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:41 pm
parados wrote:
I am curious. Does anyone have an actual link to the poll questions? Or is this claiming they are bad quetsions based on thin air?


No poll questions. But whatever they were, they were not set by Zogby. He was just hired to do the actual questioning.

I am basing it on this:

"Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:44 pm
parados wrote:
The use of napalm was not banned completely. It was only illegal if the military targets were near civilians or civilian objects.


I'd say that a rule against using it in certain circumstances is not a ban at all. They are still allowed to have it, and use it in other circumstances.

I think there are rules against soldiers deliberately firing machineguns at civilians. I wouldn't call that a machinegun ban.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:52 pm
Your assumptions re the questions are clearly based on no evidence at all.

Why not do your homework before making such statements?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:53 pm
The use of machine guns is not banned completely either then. It is illegal to use them in certain circumstances.


The poll questions WERE set by Zogby.

Quote:
Zogby developed the questions for the survey, following its time-honored principles of fairness and even-handedness, in order to produce the most accurate results possible. Once the survey instrument was completed, Le Moyne reviewed it and approved the script. Zogby maintained complete editorial control over the instrument at all times, under the direction of Pollster John Zogby himself.


http://www.zogby.com/iraqwarpoll.cfm
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:55 pm
Without the question, I can't tell whether the question included "internationally banned" in it. It could be an editorial comment in publishing the results.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 04:23:58