[leakingpen]

iraq was a non religious government.  interesting to note that 6 of the "playing cards" were christian.  equal oppurtunity employer saddam was.

saddam tried to assasinate bush senior for revenge for the double cross.  you know, the old "we take no position in arab-arab conflicts......  wait, you mean you invaded kuwait after we told you you could, and gave you some info on where they were weak?  no, no, we have to attack you now!"  he aimed at BUSH, not at america.

and my america has freedom of speech, if i choose not to capitalize, i can.

[Paco]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leadmagnet</i>
<br />Paco, please explain to me how committing genocide against a people is going to destroy their will to fight.  Would it destroy yours?  At that point, I figure they don't have any choice but to fight.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Genocide?  It's amazing that you can spin my words to something that I didn't say.  Genocide is the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.  How exactly was I advocating that?!  Are you saying that Truman commited genocide against the Japanese?!  Dropping two of the bombs on Japan sure destroyed their will to continue to fight, didn't it?

Moving on to leakingpens comments, you are the KING of random unsubstantiated "facts".  For the life of me, I can't understand where you get this info and try to pass it off as "fact" and "truth"!  It's like a poster coming on to an airsoft board and explaining how he upgraded his EG700 motor to an EG1000 motor, added metal bushings and now his GBB is firing at 400 FPS!  At least leadmagnet is using - for the most part - substantiated info and not pulling "facts" out of thin air.

As far as the assassination of a countries lead political figure not being an attack on that country itself, you may want to rethink your stance on that one...  unless World War I was just a "misunderstanding".  [rolleyes]

Saddam was an "equal opportunity" employer?  Again, huh?  How many Sunni's vs. Shiite's were in his leadership?

You're saying the U.S. TOLD Saddam he could invade Kuwait?!  

Where do you get this stuff?!  I'd love to see it!

[leadmagnet]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Paco</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gixser13</i>
<br />TIME TO DUST OFF THE NUKES, I DONT KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS BUT I AM SICK AND TIRED OF POLICING THE WORLD FOR BAD GUYS AND THE DEALING WITH THE NATIONS THAT harbor  THEM, WE NEED TO TAKE THE GLOVES OFF
 WE SEEM TO BE THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT ABIDS BY THE Geneva Convention(SORRY TOOK CAP LOCK OFF) the minute we screw up or break one of the genevas rules the rest of the world ****s on us. Everyone holds us to such a higher standard,
KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SHORT OUT THE DEAD. The children there are being trained to hate american already, Free them feed them and and train them. So we can fight them again in the future.....same story over and over We trained Osama and help him back in the 80s
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I hate to say it, but I agree.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Paco, something you didn't say?  Well, you agreed with Gixser.  Sounds a hell of a lot like genocide to me.  Check out U.S. Code, Title 18, Sec. 1091.

Genocide
1)   Basic Offense. - Whoever, whether in time of peace or in
time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific
intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial,
or religious group as such -
a)   kills members of that group;
b)   causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
c)   causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties
of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
d)   subjects the group to conditions of life that are
intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in
part;
e)   imposes measures intended to prevent births within the
group; or
f)   transfers by force children of the group to another
group; or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
2)   Punishment for Basic Offense. - The punishment for an
offense under subsection (a) is -
a)   in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1),,
[1] where death results, by death
or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both;
and [1] So in original
b)   a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
3)   Incitement
Offense. - Whoever in a circumstance described in subsection (d) directly and
publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than
$500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
4)   Required Circumstance for Offenses. - The circumstance
referred to in subsections (a) and (c) is that -
a)   the offense is committed within the United States; or
b)   the alleged offender is a national of the United States
(as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101)).
5)   Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations. - Notwithstanding
section 3282 of this title, in the
case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), an indictment may be found, or
information instituted, at any time without limitation.
6)   Amendment 1994 - Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103-322, which directed the
substitution of '', where death results, by death or imprisonment
for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both;'' for ''a
fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for life,'', was
executed by making the substitution in text which contained the
phrase ''and imprisonment for life;'' rather than ''or imprisonment
for life,'', to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

[leadmagnet]

Dang, that statute didn't post worth a poop.  Well, anyway.  You don't have to destroy the entire group for it to be considered genocide and in fact you don't even have to kill them.

[Paco]

Thanks for posting that.  (1) defines what "genocide" is and (a-f) are examples.  It shows that in order for something to be "genocide" the <u>intent</u> must be to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.  The intent I mentioned has nothing to do with the "national, ethnic, racial or religious" status - nothing.  Now, if I said to escort the christian Iraqi's out before we bombed, and/or to gather all the muslum Iraqi's into one specific area before bombing, then THAT would be genocide, no?  It has to do with ending this ASAP in order to save even MORE lives in the long run.  Now, I don't think we'd ever "nuke" them unless they do it to us first, and even then, if we continue to try to fight a "PC" war, we may not respond with equal force.  It's tough to know the adequate level of response for what's going on in Iraq.  I think the key would be to get the Iraqi civilians to rise up in support of freedom.  Either they are afraid to do it, or they don't really want it.

[leadmagnet]

Did you not agree with Gixzer that we kill them all?

And if nuking a city isn't a substantial part, what is?

I know a lot of things are coming off your fingertips that you don't really mean, but come on.

You know, I think people here are starting to get their feelings hurt in this discussion so I'm steppin away.  Sorry for contributing to it.

Best to all of ya.

Lead

[Paco]

I agreed with his "It's time to dust off the nukes".  I do not agree with the LITERAL meaning of the common saying "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" - no.

I suppose that this topic has (over)run it's course, so I am going to lock it.

*If by chance you think you need to add something for closure and it's *important*, PM me.

[Farslayer]

Man, they've really F'd up now:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An al Qaeda-linked Web site showed video Tuesday of a man who identified himself as an American and then was beheaded.
His captors said the United States refused to exchange him for prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison.
"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage for some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib, and they refused," a hooded man standing behind the American says in Arabic.
"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins, slaughtered in this way."
At the beginning of the tape, the victim describes himself as Nicholas Berg from Pennsylvania.
"My name is Nic Berg. My father's name is Michael. My mother's name is Suzanne. I have a brother and a sister -- David and Sarah," the man says.
"I live in West Chester, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia."
He is then shown sitting in front of five hooded men. After the statement is read by one of the men, the victim is pushed to the floor and, amid his screams, his throat is cut. One of the captors then holds up the man's severed head.
"This shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children."
Berg's family told The Associated Press that they knew he had been decapitated but weren't aware of the details.
"I knew he was decapitated before," his father, Michael Berg, told the AP. "That manner is preferable to a long and torturous death. But I didn't want it to become public."
Suzanne Berg said her son was in Iraq as an independent businessman with a desire to help rebuild communication antennas.
"He had this idea that he could help rebuild the infrastructure," she told the AP.
Earlier in the day, the State Department identified the body of an American found Monday in Baghdad as that of Nicholas Berg of Pennsylvania.
Berg was not a soldier or a civilian employee of the Pentagon, the State Department said.
A senior State Department official also said that the decapitated body of an American had been found, but he could not confirm it was Berg.
The Web site said the killing had been carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamist terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on coalition forces in Iraq.
The voice on the tape could not be verified as that of al-Zarqawi.
The video was discovered as a U.S. Senate committee heard testimony on the U.S. military investigation into abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. (Full story)
Earlier Tuesday, U.S. military officials said American soldiers have killed 13 Iraqi militia loyal to renegade Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and have detained 14 others in overnight fighting near Najaf.
Late Monday, members of al-Sadr's Mehdi Army attempted to ambush a U.S. convoy with small-arms fire. No American forces were injured in the incident.
The U.S. military began an offensive Sunday to retake control of parts of the city, reclaiming the governor's palace from al-Sadr's control.
Al-Sadr, who is wanted in connection with the killing of a rival cleric last year, launched an uprising against U.S. troops in April. Since then, coalition forces have cracked down on the cleric's strongholds while trying to avoid religious sites.
Al-Sadr is believed to be in Najaf, where his militia remains in control of much of the Shiite holy city. He travels to nearby Kufa to deliver weekly sermons Fridays.
Saddam handover may occur by June 30
Salem Chalabi, the man heading the Iraqi war crimes tribunal, said Tuesday the coalition is "considering" the possibility of handing over Saddam Hussein to Iraqis before the June 30 date for sovereignty.
But, he told CNN, he is not sure if it is ready to do that.
Earlier, Kuwaiti government sources told CNN they heard Chalabi say the United States would hand over Saddam to the Iraqis before they get sovereignty from the coalition. Wire services issued similar reports.
But Chalabi claimed he was misquoted and misunderstood. He said there is still a lot of work that defense attorneys for Saddam will have to do and it is likely he would not be the first of the suspects tried.
He said the tribunal would try to have his trial completed by the end of next year.




http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/ ... index.html

Time to get serious.....