Killing People For Our Freedom

ferret · Feb 13, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Aznddongman, there are a few things that you should consider:

1. Bombs blow up. When they blow up, they give off a relatively large blast radius, sometimes killing people other than what/who was intended to be killed.

2. People, especially in modern times, stay in the population centers that are the modern battlefield. That's what guerillas, insuregents, and terrorists do: fight where the weapons of a superior force are minimized (tanks cannot be used effectively in a built-up area).

3. It's not "murder" IF it's made legal. Then, it's killing. Murder is always a crime. Killing, though a part of murder, is not always such. That is why a SWAT team can shoot a person that holds a gun to your head or a soldier can kill another man because that man is a threat to his country.

When soldiers deliberately kill innocents, then it IS murder, as seen in incidents in Iraq. As a policy, no sane government that wants to keep international recognition and not be tried for war crimes will not target innocents deliberately. What an individual soldier does of his own will is not under their control.

`Revolution · Feb 13, 2007 at 5:43 PM

I may be wrong but from what I understand, the Iraqians were never free, and what were trying to do is set them free, while neutralizing the threat that is against us. getting 2 jobs done at the same time.

Bam · Feb 13, 2007 at 5:48 PM

We are already free.

dr. acula · Feb 13, 2007 at 5:59 PM

if you're talking about killing people in Iraq, I could careless.

ferret · Feb 13, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Originally posted by Bam@Feb 13 2007, 04:48 PM
We are already free.

[snapback]3520061[/snapback]
Click to expand...

And, by invading Iraq, we got rid of a threat to that freedom which you say we have.

bluefalcon_ad · Feb 13, 2007 at 8:16 PM

War in Iraq = Most misunderstood war probably in the history of America.

People fail to realize anything, and everything that is on in the war. Let me clarify this war before I go on about th ekilling for our freedom:

First and most of important of all, I am not a big fan of Bush whatsoever. I do honestly feel that this country needs to work more on internal affairs before we head out to world affairs. Regardless:

http://www.house.gov/list/press/mt00_rehbe...aqStatment.html

Okay, first of all, Iraq has defied 17 UNSC Resolutions, inspections and all. Even Clinton stated that they've avoided inspections, and that they have weapons of mass destruction. The war is for the protection of our country and many other countries on top of that.

His war? Hahahahaha!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational....2C000_soldiers

Let's see

England: 7000 troops in Iraq
Korea: 2300 troops in Iraq
Australia: 1400 troops in Iraq
Poland: 900 troops
Romania: 815 troops
Denmark: 515 troops

Oh yeah, this is his war all right. This is all America. WRONG.

On top of all of that, if we leave at this point of time, with them barely knowing what the hell to do with their government, and more bombings everywhere, I say there is 0 chance to leave at this point of time. Of course there is no valid reason to send an extra 20,000 troops unless they need to clean up more. Regardless, this isn't a war for oil, this isn't a war cause "He tried to kill my daddy" this is a war because Saddam did something that was WRONG, and he was not supposed to defy those 17 UNSC resolutions. Get it straight. This war is not wrong, and Bush is the most misunderstood president this country has ever faced.

When all diplomacy fails, and everything else is gone, war is usually the last choice of action. The people who kill are to protect this country, and sometimes even to protect their own lives when another set of troops attacks them. You do no question when a soldier kills someone. This is not an immoral war, this is a very misunderstood war. Honestly get your facts straight. When war comes, and we're involves, yes our freedoms our on the line. Because if they win against us, and they gain control over us (though this will most likely not happen here in the current state of the War in Iraq), we will lose our freedoms, and go into any kind of tyrannic government. It'll be sad if that ever happens. I hope to God it never happens.

RIP Rafter · Feb 13, 2007 at 8:38 PM

I agree with bluefalcon. Everyone blames Bush for this, but this is not "his" war. He has better things to do than go picking fights with other countries. And he would not have been re-elected if it was just his war.

Blue_fire · Feb 13, 2007 at 8:40 PM

Were not fighting for Canadian or American freedom were fighting for Iraqi freedom. Its also about nuclear weapons and payback for what they did in New York. America will not withdraw it troops until they kill off most of the Al-Qaeda and have a sable system and government in Iraq.

ghettolt · Feb 13, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Yes it is true that we have freedom... But were trying to protect it. Sometimes protecting ourselves involves leaving our borders. This is because for example, someone is building a nuclear bomb. If we let them build it, the future of our nation and other countries would be in jeopardy. As for recruitment and building weapons ourselves, this is only to keep up with other countries size and strength... Everyone wants to be the most powerful nation.

SomeThingCreepy · Feb 13, 2007 at 9:11 PM

I think you should watch this first before you read the rest of my argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aP45bCCUHI&eurl=

That gets your case of bush out of the way.

I am less free than before the war. Here is a source.

Every American school child is taught that in the United States, people have “unalienable rights,” heralded by the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Supposedly, these liberties can’t be taken away, but they are now gone.

Today, Americans have rights only at George W. Bush’s forbearance. Under new legal theories – propounded by Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito and other right-wing jurists – Bush effectively holds all power over all Americans.

He can spy on anyone he wants without a court order; he can throw anyone into jail without due process; he can order torture or other degrading treatment regardless of a new law enacted a month ago; he can launch wars without congressional approval; he can assassinate people whom he deems to be the enemy even if he knows that innocent people, including children, will die, too.

Under the new theories, Bush can act both domestically and internationally. His powers know no bounds and no boundaries.

Bush has made this radical change in the American political system by combining what his legal advisers call the “plenary” – or unlimited – powers of the Commander in Chief with the concept of a “unitary executive” in control of all laws and regulations.

Yet, maybe because Bush’s assertion of power is so extraordinary, almost no one dares connect the dots. After a 230-year run, the “unalienable rights” – as enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the Founding Fathers – are history.

Legal Analysis

The Justice Department spelled out Bush’s latest rationale for his new powers on Jan. 19 in a 42-page legal analysis defending Bush’s right to wiretap Americans without a warrant.

Bush’s lawyers said the congressional authorization to use force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks “places the President at the zenith of his powers” and lets him use that authority domestically as well as overseas. [NYT, Jan. 20, 2006]

According to the analysis, the “zenith of his powers” allows Bush to override both the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against searches and seizures without court orders, and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created a special secret court to approve spying warrants inside the United States.

In its legal analysis, the Justice Department added, “The president has made clear that he will exercise all authority available to him, consistent with the Constitution, to protect the people of the United States.”

While the phrase “consistent with the Constitution” sounds reassuring to many Americans, what it means in this case is that Bush believes he has unlimited powers as Commander in Chief to do whatever he deems necessary in the War on Terror.

Since the War on Terror is a vague concept – unlike other wars the United States has fought – there also is no expectation that Bush’s usurpation of traditional American freedoms is just a short-term necessity. Instead it is a framework for future governance.

For a time, some Americans also may have thought that Bush’s commander-in-chief powers applied only to foreigners linked to al-Qaeda and to the occasional American who collaborated with the terrorist group. So they didn’t mind much when Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago and locked up without charge as an “enemy combatant.”

That indefinite detention might have violated the constitutional principle of habeas corpus – the requirement that every citizen has a right to due process and a fair trial – but many Americans were swayed when Bush called Padilla a “bad guy” who was getting what he deserved.

Now, Americans have learned that Bush considers his powers to extend to a much broader category of citizens. That is the significance of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program directed against hundreds of American targets at any one time.

In bypassing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Bush demonstrated his belief, too, that he has the power to ignore specific laws as well as broader constitutional principles.

Lies and Lies

Another factor complicating the ability of Americans to understand the emerging constitutional crisis is that Bush has shown a readiness to lie about the cases.

For instance, though he secretly approved the wiretap program in 2002, he kept telling the public that wiretaps could only be done with court warrants. In a speech in Buffalo, N.Y., on April 20, 2004, Bush went out of his way to state that he had not abrogated the rights of American citizens under the Fourth Amendment.

“By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order,” Bush said. “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

After the warrantless wiretaps became public in December 2005, Bush continued to misrepresent the program, calling it “limited” to “taking known al-Qaeda numbers – numbers from known al-Qaeda people – and just trying to find out why the phone calls are being made.”

In his folksy style, he told an audience in Louisville, Kentucky, on Jan. 11 that “it seems like to me that if somebody is talking to al-Qaeda, we want to know why.”

But Bush’s reassuring tale wasn’t true. The program that Bush described could easily be accomplished under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act using a provision that lets the government wiretap for 72 hours before going to the special court for a warrant.

The reality is that Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to scoop up a vast number of calls and e-mails. The operation is so large that it has generated thousands of tips each month, which are passed on to the FBI.

“But virtually all of [the tips], current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans,” the New York Times reported. “FBI officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. … Some FBI officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans’ privacy.” [NYT, Jan. 17, 2006]

Another example of Bush’s assertion of his supremacy over laws enacted by Congress came in December 2005 when he signed Sen. John McCain’s amendment barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

Bush then issued a so-called “signing statement” that reserved his right to ignore the law.

“The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power,” the signing statement read.

In other words, since Bush considers his commander-in-chief authority boundless, he can waive the torture ban whenever he wants, making it virtually meaningless.

The Bush/Laden Symbiosis

But just as public skepticism about Bush’s exercise of authority was approaching critical mass, Osama bin-Laden resurfaced on Jan. 19 in a new audiotape sent to al-Jazeera TV, ending more than a year of silence.

The voice on the tape – identified as that of bin-Laden both by al-Jazeera and the CIA – predicted America’s defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq while warning of new attacks inside the United States.

“Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished,” said bin-Laden, according to a transcript of the tape.

So, Bush can now cite this new threat from al-Qaeda as well as the bloody conflict in Iraq as justifications for continuing to consolidate his powers as the “unitary executive.”

The latest bin-Laden audiotape also continues a long – and curious – symbiotic relationship between the Bush family and the bin-Ladens, dating back to Bush’s days as a young businessman.

In 1979, Bush’s friend James Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin-Laden, scion of the wealthy Saudi bin-Laden family and Osama’s half-brother. While fronting for Salem bin-Laden, Bath helped bankroll Bush’s first company, Arbusto Energy, by investing $50,000 for a five percent stake.

In the 1980s, Osama bin-Laden established himself as an Islamic fighter by battling side-by-side with Afghan rebels whose guerrilla war against the Soviet Army and its surrogates was staunchly supported by George H.W. Bush, first as vice president and then as president.

By the late 1990s, bin-Laden had become recognized as a major terrorist threat against the United States. Still, when the CIA warned George W. Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, that bin-Laden was determined “to strike in U.S.,” Bush went fishing and continued a month-long vacation, failing to rally the government to examine available clues and tighten security.

A little more than a month later, on Sept. 11, 2001, when hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the senior George Bush and members of the bin-Laden family were participating in a Carlyle Group investment meeting in Washington.

In the days that followed, as George W. Bush’s Justice Department rounded up hundreds of Arab cab drivers and other Muslims on minor visa violations, the bin-Ladens were spirited out of the United States after only cursory questioning. [For details, see Craig Unger’s House of Bush, House of Saud.]

Ironically, too, Bush’s accumulation of power since the Sept. 11 attacks has gone hand-in-hand with his failures connected to Osama bin-Laden. For instance, if Bush had finished off al-Qaeda’s leaders in Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002, he would have a weaker foundation for his new authority now.

By letting bin-Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders escape when they apparently were cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, Bush kept alive a plausible scenario for additional al-Qaeda attacks inside the United States and thus the justification for his unrestrained powers as Commander in Chief.

The escape from the Americans in Afghanistan helped bin-Laden, too. He emerged as a folk hero to many Islamists.

By invading Iraq in 2003, Bush breathed more life into his presidential powers. But another winner was bin-Laden, who exploited Islamic resentment about the Iraq War to recruit new terrorist cadre and train them in direct conflict with American soldiers.

Just as Bush’s boasts about getting bin-Laden “dead or alive” boosted the Saudi’s standing with radical jihadists, bin-Laden’s public hostility to Bush has helped the president’s standing with the American people at key junctures.

In fall 2004, when Bush was locked in a tight race with Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, bin-Laden released a videotape that conservative pundits billed as Osama’s endorsement of Kerry, a development that predictably helped Bush gain ground in the campaign’s closing days.

Now, as Bush faces increased U.S. public skepticism about the Iraq War and his accretion of powers, bin-Laden shows up again with a statement that calls on the United States to admit defeat in Iraq and threatens new terror attacks on U.S. soil.

Not surprisingly, the reaction of many Americans to the bin-Laden tape is to harden their commitment to keep U.S. troops in Iraq – the outcome that both bin-Laden and Bush favor, albeit for different reasons.

Bin-Laden’s warning of a new terrorist assault also stokes the fears of Americans who are likely to react by giving Bush greater leeway in the War on Terror.

A day after bin-Laden’s audiotape was aired, Bush’s chief political adviser Karl Rove signaled that the Republicans would again try to ride the War on Terror to another round of victories in November 2006.

“Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview,” Rove told a Republican National Committee meeting on Jan. 20. “That doesn’t make them unpatriotic – not at all. But it does make them wrong – deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.” [Washington Post, Jan. 21, 2006]

Like the symbiotic relationship that exists when birds feed off ticks burrowed into the hides of rhinos, the Bush/Laden symbiosis may be entirely unspoken and even unintentional. But there can be little doubt that Bush has raised bin-Laden’s stature among radical Islamists while bin-Laden has helped Bush consolidate his authoritarian powers inside the United States.

Today’s Challenge

But the crucial question now is whether the American political system will acquiesce to Bush’s historic power grab – or resist it.

So far, the major U.S. news media and leading Democrats have closed their eyes to the totality of Bush’s claims to unprecedented Executive power. Senate Democrats have even shied away from threatening to filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, one of the legal architects of the Imperial Presidency.

One of the few political leaders who has sounded the alarm is former Vice President Al Gore, who addressed the issue in a speech on Jan. 16, the holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr.

“An Executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution – an all-powerful Executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free,” Gore said.

“As the Executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.”

Except for Gore, however, few national leaders or news commentators have dared to draw clear conclusions about Bush’s authoritarian tendencies.

No one, it seems, wants to give up on the most memorable passage of the Declaration of Independence, that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Today, however, these truths are no longer “self-evident,” nor are the rights “unalienable.” They depend on the beneficence and generosity of George W. Bush.

Despite his assertion of unlimited power, Bush surely will not interfere in the lives of most Americans; just the small number who somehow get in his way. Most Americans probably won’t even notice their altered status, from citizens to subjects.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/012406.html

Acid Gambit · Feb 13, 2007 at 9:32 PM

"No empire has never won a battle on multiple fronts" - Some guy who's name I don't remember. Althogh war is sometimes required this one is not, the only reason we are over there is for the oil.

Create Problem ( 9/11) Get Reaction (people dieing, mass panic) Create Solution ( send over troops to to capture crude oil under there pretense of freeing Iraq)

WE have no buiesness going over there. BUSH does, abtain oil. You should get the point.

Check the s p e c u l a t i o n section in a book store...

nuetronist · Feb 13, 2007 at 11:29 PM

I think that if we are being directly attacked, then it is right to. However, this war in Iraq, with all the "weapons of mass destruction"...THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! I mean, what the hell did Iraq do to make us think that our freedom was going to be compromised, or was going to be compromised by the Iraqi? I don't think anything.

Bam · Feb 13, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Originally posted by ferret+Feb 13 2007, 04:07 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Bam
Click to expand...

@Feb 13 2007, 04:48 PM
We are already free.

[snapback]3520061[/snapback]
Click to expand...

And, by invading Iraq, we got rid of a threat to that freedom which you say we have.

[snapback]3520118[/snapback]
[/b]
Click to expand...

By invading Iraq we threatened our freedom.

Blazeman · Feb 14, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Konekokaze@Nov 13 2006, 12:10 AM
by his immoral war yes indeed i am refering to the war in iraq. we've got him. there in a CIVIL war . its not our job to fight it for them

[snapback]3246018[/snapback]
Click to expand...

So your basically saying that my Battle Buddies who die in Iraq everyday is for nothing...

Wow I would love for you to go to Iraq and tell them that hey what your doing is not right or I don't believe it is.

When you see someone with that patch on their right arm and they say what we are fighting for over there is right than you know what hell yea I'm going to listen to him. If he has been there done that and got the T-Shirt...than he has to know WTF he is talking about.

I don't know what you guys hear about the War In Iraq most of it is all from the News Channels... If you base any knowledge of the War On Terrorism / War In Iraq...than honestly you don't know anything of whats going on over there. You think because some Anchor man says we are wrong that ....hell yea that guy has to be right he works for "Fox News" or "CNN"...because he is over there reporting...

Trust me I used to be the same way, but when you see what our Soldiers do over there everyday and the risk they take to help people. Not for just the money or the uniform, but because he his a proud American. You want to call yourself an American, but you wont support the people who will die for you so you can post on websites, go to school, and sleep in your bed at night peacefully.

Let me ask you something would you rather:

A) Have Saddam attack America with Terrorist attack

or

B) Take him out of Power to prevent anything happening to the Home Land?

And think about that ...and if your old enough think about Sept. 11 2001...if you were there and can remember i know you don't want that repeating.

I'm proud to say that i deploy to Iraq in Jan or Feb of 2008 and I hope to server America with helping Iraq becoming a better Country and becoming more accustom to the new Government.

"Support Our Troops"

-Blazeman

MFKR · Feb 14, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Our Army comes to my school but doesn't say ANY thing like that..and if your not in harm personally how is it for your freedom..the only freedom wars, were World War I and World War II..those were freedom wars...

Log in or Sign up

Killing People For Our Freedom

ferret Well-Known Member

`Revolution Well-Known Member

Bam Well-Known Member

dr. acula Well-Known Member

ferret Well-Known Member

bluefalcon_ad Well-Known Member

RIP Rafter Well-Known Member

Blue_fire Well-Known Member

ghettolt Well-Known Member

SomeThingCreepy Well-Known Member

Acid Gambit Well-Known Member

nuetronist Well-Known Member

Bam Well-Known Member

Blazeman Am I Evil?

MFKR Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Killing People For Our Freedom

ferret Well-Known Member

`Revolution Well-Known Member

Bam Well-Known Member

dr. acula Well-Known Member

ferret Well-Known Member

bluefalcon_ad Well-Known Member

RIP Rafter Well-Known Member

Blue_fire Well-Known Member

ghettolt Well-Known Member

SomeThingCreepy Well-Known Member

Acid Gambit Well-Known Member

nuetronist Well-Known Member

Bam Well-Known Member

Blazeman Am I Evil?

MFKR Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches