Constitution continued.

[Guest Devil-Dog]

I think we can all agree we have it good as americans. We complain a lot but when it comes down to it..we all love this country. God bless.

[Guest Marky]

AMEN. and America bless and thank god

[Guest bjtardiff]

[quote='PFC.Zicker=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36336#post36336']I have the utmost respect for soldiers who "Strap on the gear and risk their lives," but why should they have to for something that is illegal and is wrong. The UN was created for a reason and they found nothing wrong with Iraq, yet we still invaded, and we are still there. Why should our soldiers die for something this stupid. [/QUOTE] sorry for quoting this from way back there and bring this back up. Have you read anything regarding how iraq was before we entered it in gulf war and after the gulf war? Saddam was commiting crimes violating so many differnt international and moral laws. The kurds were being massacred while saddam had power are you saying that saving human lives is not a good reason for entering that war or putting down a cruel and inhumane dictator? That alone should have been are reason for going into iraq. WE should stop fighting about goverment lets talk about how many lives were saved from saddam and his people immaging how bad it would be when the world's oil really does become critical and we have a dictator who destroyed entire villages and we need to beg him for OIL. Also our soldiers didnt die for lies they died to save lives. wether it was WMD or the iraqi people [QUOTE] SFC.Penfold=US= No, we all know soldiers have died. But plenty of us believe that they died in vain because, it's an unjust war. What right do WE, yes, WE, as in America and England as the two major participants have to go in, bomb "terrorists" (and lots of innocents in the process), just because we nominate ourselves the World's Sheriff? Okay... well, who then Polices US? No-one!... Because no-one else dares. The Police Force has an internal department for policing the Police, after all.[/QUOTE] are you saying that the saving lives is dieing in vain? 138240 people die everyday! you say 30 peopele in iraq die in a week nearly nine hundred thousand people a week world wide die yet we dont ever hear about them do we? No we hear about the soldiers who die trying to help people instead and people criticize the goverment for this. what about the 900000 people who die a week? did they die in vain? why are those 30 people more important then those 900000?

[Guest Zicker]

Lets talk about how we stopped the genocide in Darfur. O wait we didn't. I am tired of this hypocrisy. The reason we went into Iraq was not because of their humans rights violations. The United States does not invade because of human rights violations. The number 138240 is how many people die each day from all causes. Not from suicide bombers and IED's. Those 30 people may not be more important than those 900000, but they shouldn't have died, because they shouldn't be there.

[Guest bjtardiff]

[quote='PFC.Zicker=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36615#post36615']Lets talk about how we stopped the genocide in Darfur. O wait we didn't. I am tired of this hypocrisy. The reason we went into Iraq was not because of their humans rights violations. The United States does not invade because of human rights violations. The number 138240 is how many people die each day from all causes. Not from suicide bombers and IED's. Those 30 people may not be more important than those 900000, but they shouldn't have died, because they shouldn't be there.[/QUOTE] WE stopped and put to justice the man who did those acts if anything we should have moved in and stopped him I criticize the govermetn for not invading iraq sooner more than anything. WE also stopped any future actions of this nature. THe same thing as world war II genocide we didnt get there in time but we punished the people who did it. I dont care if the reason why they said it WE SHOULD HAVE GONE IN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IF ANYTHING. While the main cause was the WMD's are you saying we shouldn't have gone in for human rights. If anything WMD's were the last straw as i see it that we had with Saddam. Though the goverment said it was WMD's theses soldiers also fought for human rights the same way soldiers in WWII did though they both did not know it. Also where is the hypocrisy that you speak of from me? Also you talking about ied's and sucide bombers look at the civilian casualties i dont see you talking about them nothing about how they shouldn't have died if we didnt invade they would have ether lived a life of fear under sadamm or would have been killed by saddam some choice. At least because of the war there children will have a future.

[Guest Zicker]

I am saying we didn't and never do go in for human rights.

[Guest 1ggy]

The Darfur Genocide, in the Sudan, where the Sudanese government is overtly supporting the rape, torture, and murder of anyone who oppose them. 100000 people die there each year because of the war, yet we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons? No, we didn't. However, I agree, it was a good thing to go in and try and help save the Iraqi people even though that wasn't the original objective.

[Guest Marky]

[quote='SPC.1ggy=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36625#post36625']The Darfur Genocide, in the Sudan, where the Sudanese government is overtly supporting the rape, torture, and murder of anyone who oppose them. 100000 people die there each year because of the war, yet we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons? No, we didn't. However, I agree, it was a good thing to go in and try and help save the Iraqi people even though that wasn't the original objective.[/quote] hmm good point. unfortunately the UN is as impotent as the League of Nations was. (the League was the UNs predecessor, prior to WW2) because the League wasnt strong enuff to actually enforce international law, Hitler and the Axis rose up, and near the end of WW2 the UN was formed

[Guest bjtardiff]

[quote='SPC.1ggy=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36625#post36625']The Darfur Genocide, in the Sudan, where the Sudanese government is overtly supporting the rape, torture, and murder of anyone who oppose them. 100000 people die there each year because of the war, yet we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons? No, we didn't. However, I agree, it was a good thing to go in and try and help save the Iraqi people even though that wasn't the original objective.[/QUOTE] The country of sudan is currently in a state of civil war. that is not genocide and though human rights may be violated it is up to the people of that country to settle. The people of IRaq on the other hand were not in a civil war and genocide was being commited! There was no war in iraq when saddam was violating human rights. The american civil war had human rights violated look at sherman march to the sea was it right? no, but a civil war must be allowed to be ended by the people not by a foreign power or the country will be worse off then before. Look at the actions our own president gave out during the war you cannot measure a country or incident in a civil war like a country with no war in effect.

[Guest bjtardiff]

[quote='PFC.Zicker=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36624#post36624']I am saying we didn't and never do go in for human rights.[/QUOTE] YEs but your saying soldiers who are fighting for this though not directly are "dying in vain" even though the human rights violations have been stopped and we are stopping them indirectly. sorry double post btw

[Guest BuzzBoi315]

There is no war in Sudan. It's just the government keeping power through the torture and killing of it's citizens. It is exactly like Iraq, just no reason for another country to join the rebels and fight. If I am wrong, and there is a rebel faction going under another flag, sue me. What of Afghanistan, when we invaded to find and kill Osama Bin****head? I bet he's dead by now, and we still haven't found him. The governement was controlled by the Taliban, and we decided that they sucked, so we joined with the Rebels and fought. Why isn't that wrong? There was a clearly evident civil war going on and we joined the fight. And how is Afghanistan doing now? Personally, I have no idea, beacuse the news dropped those stories long ago.

[Guest bjtardiff]

[quote='PV2.BuzzBoi315=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36629#post36629']There is no war in Sudan. It's just the government keeping power through the torture and killing of it's citizens. It is exactly like Iraq, just no reason for another country to join the rebels and fight. If I am wrong, and there is a rebel faction going under another flag, sue me. What of Afghanistan, when we invaded to find and kill Osama Bin****head? I bet he's dead by now, and we still haven't found him. The governement was controlled by the Taliban, and we ecided that they sucked, so we joined with the Rebels and fought. Why isn't that wrong? There was a clearly evident civil war going on and we joined the fight. And how is Afghanistan doing now? Personally, I have no idea, beacuse thje news dropped those stories long ago.[/QUOTE] Sudan is considered a civil war as there is a fight for the control of the goverment. while in afghanistan we were attacked and responded "to overthrow the Taliban regime it believed was harboring al-Qaeda. Before the United States attacked, it offered Taliban leader Mullah Omar a chance to surrender bin Laden and his top associates. The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the United States would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks. U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over", and British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned the Taliban regime: "Surrender bin Laden, or surrender power". Soon thereafter the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan, and together with the Afghan Northern Alliance removed the Taliban government in the war in Afghanistan." So the invasion of afghanistan was sanctioned because of the 9/11 attacks. We sided with the rebels because the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the rebels had valuable intelligence that helped us overall. Sudan is still a civil war and in afghanistan the goverment admited that bin laden was in country and we were attacked so we invaded to defeat both bin laden and the taliban which supported al-qaeda. Sudan on the other hand is still in civil war and the current goverment has not defended anyone who has attacked america that i know off.

[Guest BuzzBoi315]

I did not say anything about the US invading Sudan for any reason at all. I mean, why would anyone want to invade a country, seize control, then have some rebel faction try to regain control? And they have absolutely no resources of value to any country that I know of. I still believe that it should also be considered genocide because the most of the people that the government kills cannot defend themselves. And of my understanding of the word 'genocide,' it means the mass murdering of people that cannot defend themselves. That is also what I believe massacre means, but that is besides the point. Why do you believe it cannot be classified as such just because there is a small group of rebels fighting for their own survival, while the citizens suffer for it. Now I sound like one of those human rights guys. And I think that they are cowards for not actually going into the countries that are at war, with themsleves or otherwise.

[Guest Zicker]

[quote='PV2.BuzzBoi315=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36637#post36637'] I mean, why would anyone want to invade a country, seize control, then have some rebel faction try to regain control? And they have absolutely no resources of value to any country that I know of. [/QUOTE] Barring the natural resources part, that line reminds me of Iraq..... And on the Afghanistan topic, the war there is actually going very badly, UN forces have basically no soldiers. I have read stories of commanders there knowing where the taliban is, but they can't attack because they don't have enough forces. All they can do is wait around and defend what little they can. If the Iraq war was to end I think we might be able to win in Afghanistan, but until Iraq is over I don't think we have a chance in Afghanistan.

[Guest BuzzBoi315]

Yeah. It does remind me of Iraq. How could we be so stupid? lol I can't wait til McCain decides we are done with iraq and pulls us out. I do believe I have my expectations way too high, so I might just move up to Canada as soon as I can, that way I only have to hear about the stupid stuff America is doing, and not suffer from it. I could go on and on about that, but ****, I had no idea it was that bad in Afghanistan. Of course every little tidbit of troops Bush can route into Iraq, he will.I doubt he'll ever pay any mind to the other enemy of ours.

[Guest gamerk2]

[quote='WO1.Marky=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36626#post36626']hmm good point. unfortunately the UN is as impotent as the League of Nations was. (the League was the UNs predecessor, prior to WW2) because the League wasnt strong enuff to actually enforce international law, Hitler and the Axis rose up, and near the end of WW2 the UN was formed[/QUOTE] Simple way to fix that: make it so the security council needs TWO votes to veto any action, so the US or China can't stop UN action by themselves. The problem with the UN is simple: The US and China can kill anything they want to kill, and the other nations aren't powerful enough to do anything about it.

[Guest Zicker]

dont forget Russia!

[Guest BuzzBoi315]

How could I? You know, I have an obsession about Russia. Pretty much anything Russian made, I will most likely know something about it. And that is my second choice if Canada doesn't work out for me. [quote='PFC.Devil Dog=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36349#post36349']Our government isn't perfect, but tell me..what country's is?[/QUOTE] Russia's.

[Guest 1ggy]

Bjtardiff, yes it's in a civil war, but that has no bearing on whether or not it's a human rights violation, when the government sponsored armies rape the women and kill the children. And the March to the Sea was nothing like this, Sherman didn't even destroy everything in his path. Basically he burned atlanta down and then told his officers "If you come to a town where there's resistance burn part or all down in retaliation"

[Guest bjtardiff]

[quote='SPC.1ggy=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36657#post36657']Bjtardiff, yes it's in a civil war, but that has no bearing on whether or not it's a human rights violation, when the government sponsored armies rape the women and kill the children. And the March to the Sea was nothing like this, Sherman didn't even destroy everything in his path. Basically he burned atlanta down and then told his officers "If you come to a town where there's resistance burn part or all down in retaliation"[/QUOTE] sherman allowed his soldiers to go in "forage" where they bassiacally ran and looted evey house killing men and women who tried to defend themseleves or there belongings. he used POWS to clear land mines from a road. He bassically did the same thing you just said rape kill children they pillaged the south. He confiscated mules and destroyed farms rail roads food supplies burned bridges. All civil wars begin and end in blood. Why dont you take a closer look on Sherman's march to the sea. Also btw this jsut appaeard on cnn [url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/13/darfur.welcome/index.html[/url] as i said the united states cannot take on the whole world we went to war with iraq because saddam had WMD's and supported terrorism. did we find any WMD's no but now you guys are saying they died in vain when you dont even look at what has devloped in front of you. When saddam was in charge people lived lives of fear and faced torture or worse on a daily base, he commited genocide and destroyed entire villages. Are people dying in iraq yes. But 30 people a week is a small pain to face compared to the amount of pain saddam caused and could still have caused if he was in power. Especially with the rising oil prices and Iraq's amount of oil would you really preferred him to be able to hold that over are heads in 10 years?

[Guest gamerk2]

[quote='bjtardiff','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36665#post36665']sherman allowed his soldiers to go in "forage" where they bassiacally ran and looted evey house killing men and women who tried to defend themseleves or there belongings. he used POWS to clear land mines from a road. He bassically did the same thing you just said rape kill children they pillaged the south. He confiscated mules and destroyed farms rail roads food supplies burned bridges. All civil wars begin and end in blood. Why dont you take a closer look on Sherman's march to the sea. Also btw this jsut appaeard on cnn [url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/13/darfur.welcome/index.html[/url] as i said the united states cannot take on the whole world we went to war with iraq because saddam had WMD's and supported terrorism. did we find any WMD's no but now you guys are saying they died in vain when you dont even look at what has devloped in front of you. When saddam was in charge people lived lives of fear and faced torture or worse on a daily base, he commited genocide and destroyed entire villages. Are people dying in iraq yes. But 30 people a week is a small pain to face compared to the amount of pain saddam caused and could still have caused if he was in power. Especially with the rising oil prices and Iraq's amount of oil would you really preferred him to be able to hold that over are heads in 10 years?[/QUOTE] People STILL live in fear, their economy (what little they had) has gone to hell, there's no power/water, and violence has broken out along secterian lines. Add on to that, the US implemented a government (Democracy) which has no hope to succeede whatsoever (If one group = 60% of the population, Democracy will never work. Get over it).

[Guest bjtardiff]

gamer do all democrats agrree on everrything what about republicans? While what you say is true about democracy. all the sunis may not agree or all the shiates may not agree or the shiates may agree with the sunnis about somethings. We have the same problem though most just ignore it as it seems to change according to what happens with the adminstrations. Yes people still live in fear but there ecnomoy is not gone to hell it is limited. there is still not power in all of africa ether. Yes violence has broken out and will continue as the country attempts to settle there issues. The first peacefull transition of power in the world was when George washinton turned over the presidental office. Iraq is attempting to go from a military dicator ship to a democracy. Look at how bad the eastern european countries are after the fall of the soviet union. Look at our own power transiton in the united states during the revoultuonary war and consitution.

[Guest RET.MAJ.Navy=US=]

I usually try to offer something to topics like these, but everyone here has such strong sentiments, why waste my time. I would like it if people could learn the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, so please check this link. [url]http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html[/url] Also, in some other venue, I am happy to explain the political breakdown in Iraq, and I promise you it is significantly more than just Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. The process for voting registration will begin in Iraq in two days, and there are currently more than 400 political parties registered, including several that are actually a hybrid mix among Sunnis and Kurds, Shia and Kurds, and yes, even Sunni and Shia. I am glad we can all make such declarative statements with all the research we have done here. I look forward to hearing more versions of what Fox News or MSNBC has tought you all, but would be nice if we at least knew what form of government existed in this country, (Representative Republic), and I am happy to explain it when I am on TS later this evening. Everyone should feel free to express your feelings, just take a bit of time and look into things before your fingers dance on the keyboards. And for the record, the current Government of Iraq is also a Republic, and not a democracy. They have a Council of Representatives (uni-cameral system), a Prime Minister and two Vice Presidents and a President which are collectively known as the Executive Council, and a High Juridical Council, our Supreme Court equivalent. There are several important laws they are trying to pass, but they are struggling to get a majority vote because there are divisions within the 5 (yes, .... I said 5 Shia parties who cannot agree with each other). Of note, during the last holy pilgramage, the holiest shrine in Najaf was protected by a Kurdish Batallion of Pesh Merga, another of predominantly Shia soldiers, headed by a Sunni General. Anyway, I am not going to waste time here, I'll sit back and watch all of this "truth" about Iraq come to light :+)

[Guest bjtardiff]

[quote='MAJ.Navy=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36679#post36679']I usually try to offer something to topics like these, but everyone here has such strong sentiments, why waste my time. I would like it if people could learn the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, so please check this link. [url]http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html[/url] Also, in some other venue, I am happy to explain the political breakdown in Iraq, and I promise you it is significantly more than just Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. The process for voting registration will begin in Iraq in two days, and there are currently more than 400 political parties registered, including several that are actually a hybrid mix among Sunnis and Kurds, Shia and Kurds, and yes, even Sunni and Shia. I am glad we can all make such declarative statements with all the research we have done here. I look forward to hearing more versions of what Fox News or MSNBC has tought you all, but would be nice if we at least knew what form of government existed in this country, (Representative Republic), and I am happy to explain it when I am on TS later this evening. Everyone should feel free to express your feelings, just take a bit of time and look into things before your fingers dance on the keyboards. And for the record, the current Government of Iraq is also a Republic, and not a democracy. They have a Council of Representatives (uni-cameral system), a Prime Minister and two Vice Presidents and a President which are collectively known as the Executive Council, and a High Juridical Council, our Supreme Court equivalent. There are several important laws they are trying to pass, but they are struggling to get a majority vote because there are divisions within the 5 (yes, .... I said 5 Shia parties who cannot agree with each other). Of note, during the last holy pilgramage, the holiest shrine in Najaf was protected by a Kurdish Batallion of Pesh Merga, another of predominantly Shia soldiers, headed by a Sunni General. Anyway, I am not going to waste time here, I'll sit back and watch all of this "truth" about Iraq come to light :+)[/QUOTE] the bottom part was what i was trying to point out though did not know specfics. Anyways i jsut debated that one line "soldiers dying in vain " Also we shouldnt have gone to war also the fact that it is apparently a "illegal war"

[Guest BuzzBoi315]

[quote='MAJ.Navy=US=','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36679#post36679']I usually try to offer something to topics like these, but everyone here has such strong sentiments, why waste my time. I would like it if people could learn the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, so please check this link. [url]http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html[/url] Also, in some other venue, I am happy to explain the political breakdown in Iraq, and I promise you it is significantly more than just Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. The process for voting registration will begin in Iraq in two days, and there are currently more than 400 political parties registered, including several that are actually a hybrid mix among Sunnis and Kurds, Shia and Kurds, and yes, even Sunni and Shia. I am glad we can all make such declarative statements with all the research we have done here. I look forward to hearing more versions of what Fox News or MSNBC has tought you all, but would be nice if we at least knew what form of government existed in this country, (Representative Republic), and I am happy to explain it when I am on TS later this evening. Everyone should feel free to express your feelings, just take a bit of time and look into things before your fingers dance on the keyboards. And for the record, the current Government of Iraq is also a Republic, and not a democracy. They have a Council of Representatives (uni-cameral system), a Prime Minister and two Vice Presidents and a President which are collectively known as the Executive Council, and a High Juridical Council, our Supreme Court equivalent. There are several important laws they are trying to pass, but they are struggling to get a majority vote because there are divisions within the 5 (yes, .... I said 5 Shia parties who cannot agree with each other). Of note, during the last holy pilgramage, the holiest shrine in Najaf was protected by a Kurdish Batallion of Pesh Merga, another of predominantly Shia soldiers, headed by a Sunni General. Anyway, I am not going to waste time here, I'll sit back and watch all of this "truth" about Iraq come to light :+)[/QUOTE] First of all, from what my history teacher had taught me, and from what the textbook confirmed, I have believed that this country was actually a Democratic Republic. I don't disagree with you on anything else, as I do not like to research things unless if I get totally into it, like Russia, and even then I don't research or keep up with most of their news. Except for what I hear on channel 8. [quote='bjtardiff','http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/hq/thread/?postID=36698#post36698']the bottom part was what i was trying to point out though did not know specfics. Anyways i jsut debated that one line "soldiers dying in vain " Also we shouldnt have gone to war also the fact that it is apparently a "illegal war"[/QUOTE] It isn't an illegal war, and never will be as long as the Senate, the UN and Iraq allows us to be in the country. They didn't die in vain, they died for this country, for these people, and for the President. What I believe is that Bush should never have been elected, as he will not pulls us out. I believe that this country's well being should be at the top of the president's list, and if it isn't he should never be president or even be a citizen of this country. If we don't pull out now, we will have a hard time trying to fix what he has done to this country. The only reason why I want Barack Obama to be President is because maybe he'll be able to undo what that dumb*** did. Otherwise, I wish I could vote McCain. Mainly because I believe that we should give the Republicans another chance. This situation is much like the John Adams presidency. The first and last federalist to ever hold office, as George Washington was of neither the Democratic-Republicans nor Federalists. Because of John Adams mistake with the Alien and Sedition acts, no Federalist was ever elected after him. I do not want the Republicans to have to suffer like the Federalists did. They should be given another chance.