Here's an interesting slant on the whole thing, from a bunch of commie pinko liberal military-haters (it's from the US Army newspaper)
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2333360.php
"Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."
---------- Post added at 21:21 ---------- Previous post was at 21:11 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Now that I've answered yours, perhaps you'll go back and answer mine, though this time without denying what you've written please.
Now that I've answered yours, perhaps you'll go back and answer mine, though this time without denying what you've written please.
1. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide no action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator? So you think we should invade North Korea?
2. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide action should be taken, then should a nation with the backing of the UN oust the dictator?I believe in upholding international law
3. If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?
|
Thank you for pre-answering my questions - now see the real answers above.
[/quote]
Nice to see from your answers you don't recognise international law - "might is right!" - what's next "Arbeit macht frei".
A terrorist threat is a terrorist threat - funny, every military body thinks differently, which is why they have levels of alerts; still, I suppose you know best.
Unfortunately, people die - great statement; perhaps some of don't think they have to.
The majority agree that civil war has not broken out - except for the US army, who think the violence is at it's worst, and on it's way to civil war, as stated in a post above from the Army Times- by the way, nice twisting again - I said "descend into a bloodbath", not "civil war".