Why don't we call for the president to stop killing IRAQI babies?

[Soldier4Christ]

CrystalClear,

"Sorry friend but you really are a victim of propaganda."

Sorry friend but you really are a victim of propaganda.

I wasn't going to comment on this at first but after much prayer have decided it to be important enough to do so.

You portend to understand what is going on in Iraq saying that the battle there is very face to face. The enemy there is not face to face with us. They cannot easily be distinguished from the general populace. Our Troops are fighting an enemy that they cannot see.

I saw Fahrenheit 911 and while it certainly does have a very leftist leaning that doesn't invalidate the facts that are presented. You have to be appauled at some of those facts.

This proves how uninformed that you really are.

[Bronzesnake]

The following is by...
Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971), Professor, Department of Political Science, Purdue University, lectures and publishes widely on Israeli strategic matters. His work is well-known to Israel's military and academic communities. He is also the academic adviser at the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, a Houston-based research facility and political action group.


Twenty Years Later: Israel, Osiraq, and Anticipatory Self-Defense
7 June 2001


 Twenty years have now passed since Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor shortly before it was ready to go "on line." At the time, the general global community reaction was overwhelmingly hostile. Even the UN Security Council, in Resolution 487 of June 19, 1981, indicated that it "strongly condemns" the attack and that "Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered."
Israel's very controversial defensive action of June 7, 1981 now looks very different. We now know for certain that Saddam Hussein's plans to build a French-supplied reactor at his nuclear research center at Tuwaitha, about 20 kilometers from Baghdad, were designed to produce militarily significant amounts of plutonium. There was no other purpose. The Iraqi objective was "simply" to manufacture nuclear weapons that could provide Saddam with regional dominance and - if necessary - with the implements of atomic warfighting.

An Iraqi dictatorship with nuclear weapons would have had far-reaching global implications, affecting not only the "infidel" Jewish State, but also the security of those other states requiring Middle Eastern oil and/or those states that came to be engaged in the 1991 Gulf War. In this connection, protracted failure by the international community to prevent Saddam's post-Gulf War efforts to create nuclear weapons now allows Iraq to prepare for even vastly-greater levels of aggression. If only this international community had been willing to replicate Israel's heroic action of June 7, 1981, rather than foolishly to condemn it, our fragile world would not be faced presently with the threat of such aggression.

Israel did not act illegally at Osiraq. International law is not a suicide pact. Under the long-standing customary right known as anticipatory self-defense, every state is entitled to strike first when the danger posed is "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation." As noted above, this right is especially compelling today, when failing to preempt may bring about national annihilation. Israel did not commit aggression at Osiraq. Iraq has always insisted that a state of war exists with "the Zionist entity." It follows that since aggression cannot be committed against a state with which a country is already at war, Jerusalem could not possibly have been guilty of such a "crime against peace."

Israel did not violate the laws of war of international law at Osiraq. Fourteen Israeli aircraft took part in the raid--eight F-16 Falcons, each carrying two 1000-kilogram bombs, and six F-15 Eagles serving as escort planes. The reactor was completely destroyed, without civilian casualties and before any radiation danger existed. Unlike Iraq's thirty-nine SCUD attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, which were expressly designed to harm innocent civilians, Israel's raid on Osiraq was conceived for essential protection of civilians.

Ever since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Iraq has been conspiring to destroy it. Baghdad joined several other Arab states which attacked Israel on the day of its declared independence. But while Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria proceeded to sign armistice agreements with the Jewish State in 1949 (and Egypt and Jordan went on to sign actual peace treaties), Iraq has always steadfastly insisted upon a permanent state of hostilities.

All things considered, Israel's defensive strike against an outlaw enemy state preparing for extermination warfare was not only lawful, but distinctly law enforcing. In the absence of a centralized enforcement capability, international law relies upon the willingness of individual states to act on behalf of the entire global community. This is exactly what took place twenty years ago, when--with surgical precision--Israel's fighter-bombers precluded an Iraqi nuclear option. Today, when waiting to absorb a "first shot" could sentence a tiny state like Israel to obliteration, the legitimacy of anticipatory self-defense should be more widely acknowledged than ever before.

No less than Israel's citizens, both Jews and Arabs, American and other coalition soldiers who fought in the Gulf War owe their lives to Israel's courage, skill and foresight in June 1981. Had it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq, Saddam's forces would have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991. Ironically, the Saudis, too, are in Jerusalem's debt. Had it not been for Prime Minister Begin's resolve to protect his own people back in 1981, Saddam's SCUDs falling on Saudi Arabia might have spawned immense casualties and lethal irradiation.

With these facts in mind, one thing is certain. It is time for the world community generally, and the United Nations in particular, to acknowledge the obvious: Israeli preemptive action in 1981 was an heroic and indispensable act of international law enforcement. Regarding future essential resorts to anticipatory self-defense, whether by Israel or by any other state facing unconventional aggression, such an acknowledgment could provide an important incentive to do what is needed to save human lives within the authoritative bounds of international law.

These bounds, of course, are specified in certain and pertinent sources of international law. It is assuredly not permissible, for example, for a state to invoke "anticipatory self-defense" merely because it feels threatened. Rather, the danger posed must be imminent and substantial. In its original nineteenth-century expression, anticipatory self-defense required a situation that was actually "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation." Today, however, in a nuclear age, reasonableness absolutely dictates a loosening of this jurisprudential requirement in particular circumstances.

Even where there is "just cause" for defensive first-strikes, any country that resorts to anticipatory self-defense must also conform to the Law of Armed Conflict, sometimes referred to also as Humanitarian International Law. This means that the force used in such strikes must fall within the bounds of "discrimination," "proportionality" and "military necessity." Under Humanitarian International law, every use of force -including anticipatory self-defense - must be judged twice: once with regard to the justness of the preemption and once with regard to the justness of the means used in that preemption.

Presently, regional and world security are especially endangered by still-ongoing military commerce with Iraq and Iran - transfers of certain materials, unconventional weapons know-how and infrastructure that are rapidly advancing Baghdad's and Teheran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The time has arrived, therefore, for a strengthened commitment to self-defense rights in world affairs, legal rights designed to prevent aggression in an increasingly anarchic world and to assure national survival. Israel acted in support of these essential rights back in June 1981. Today, twenty years later, we must ask ourselves whether the lessons of Osiraq shall finally be taken seriously, and whether they shall be learned in time.


Bronzesnake
 

[Bronzesnake]

More on Saddam's nobel aspirations...

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_iraq_N_overview.html

 http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/iraq-nuclear-weapons.html

http://www.idds.org/acr2003/453e5MEN02.html

 Enjoy, Crystal my friend.

Bronzesnake

[CrystalClear]

author=Bronzesnake  

Crystal quote...
 

The action was condemed by the UN as an act of aggression since Iraq was a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

 Oh ya, that's a legitimate condemnation!
Gee, I wonder which U.N. member states would condemn an action taken by Israel? hmmm.

Bronzesnake

Your detail is Pro Israel propaganda. Mine is the non-partisan version.

I don't know which UN member states would condemn this action but you seem to have an idea so share it with us!  

[CrystalClear]

CrystalClear,

"Sorry friend but you really are a victim of propaganda."

Sorry friend but you really are a victim of propaganda.

I wasn't going to comment on this at first but after much prayer have decided it to be important enough to do so.

You portend to understand what is going on in Iraq saying that the battle there is very face to face. The enemy there is not face to face with us. They cannot easily be distinguished from the general populace. Our Troops are fighting an enemy that they cannot see.

Sir, face to face as in our troops are on the ground shooting at the enemy. Ground pounders, grunts, not in a control room somewhere firing rockets at a faceless enemy. Come now Pastor Roger, don't pretend to be ignorant of my meaning.

I saw Fahrenheit 911 and while it certainly does have a very leftist leaning that doesn't invalidate the facts that are presented. You have to be appauled at some of those facts.

This proves how uninformed that you really are.

That sir is your opinion and it's no better than anyone elses. How can you deny the very words of the President? I mean the movie is chuck full of ACTUAL PEOPLE doing and saying things and you deny those things? Strange...

[nChrist]

CrystalClear,

If you saw any facts in the twisted distortion of Michael Moore, I have some swamp land I'd like to tell you about.

It was a comedy, not a documentary.

 

Tom

[CrystalClear]

Bronzesnake, you mistake me for an Iraq sympathizer or something and your sarcasm about Iraqs "noble intentions" is unfounded. But lets be clear on what the discussion is about. Our invasion of Iraq was unjust and based on information that the Bush administration either conjured up out of thin air and or flatly lied about. They also used our very strong feelings of nationalism and patriotism after 9/11 to mislead us into a national security ferver.

The 9/11 commision found no link to the attack and Iraq and NONE of the reasons we went to war with Iraq proved true.

Was Saddam an evil dictator? Yup, but does that give us the right to invade? NO. In fact there are and have been as bad or worse rulers and we have not invaded them.

Stop trying to tell me how horrible Saddam was, he's been that way for a long time and we gave him support.
 

[CrystalClear]

Let me just throw this onto the fire...

US deserters flee to Canada to avoid service in Iraq

By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 09/01/2005)

American Army soldiers are deserting and fleeing to Canada rather than fight in Iraq, rekindling memories of the thousands of draft-dodgers who flooded north to avoid service in Vietnam.

An estimated 5,500 men and women have deserted since the invasion of Iraq, reflecting Washington's growing problems with troop morale.

Jeremy Hinzman, 26, from South Dakota, who deserted from the 82nd Airborne, is among those who - to the disgust of Pentagon officials - have applied for refugee status in Canada.

The United States Army treats deserters as common criminals, posting them on "wanted" lists with the FBI, state police forces and the Department of Home Security border patrols.

Hinzman said last week: "This is a criminal war and any act of violence in an unjustified conflict is an atrocity. I signed a contract for four years, and I was totally willing to fulfil it. Just not in combat arms jobs."

Hinzman, who served as a cook in Afghanistan, was due to join a fighting unit in Iraq after being refused status as a conscientious objector.

He realised that he had made the "wrong career choice" as he marched with his platoon of recruits all chanting, "Train to kill, kill we will".

He said: "At that point a light went off in my head. I was told in basic training that if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it. I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do.''

Pte Brandon Hughey, 19, who deserted from the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, said that he had volunteered because the army offered to pay his college fees. He began training soon after the invasion of Iraq but became disillusioned when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

"I had been willing to die to make America safe," he said. "I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destruction and the claim that they made about ties to al-Qaeda was coming up short. It made me angry. I felt our lives as soldiers were being thrown away."

When he was ordered to deploy to Iraq, Hughey searched the internet for an "underground railroad" operation, through which deserting troops are helped to escape to Canada.

He was put in touch with a Quaker pacifist couple who had helped Vietnam draft-dodgers and was driven from Texas to Ontario.

The Pentagon says that the level of desertion is no higher than usual and denies that it is having difficulty persuading troops to fight. The flight to Canada is, however, an embarrassment for the military, which is suffering from a recruiting shortfall for the National Guard and the Army Reserves.

The deaths of 18 American soldiers in a suicide bomb attack in Mosul, northern Iraq, last month, was a further blow to morale. Soon after, the number of American soldiers killed since President Bush declared that large-scale combat operations were at an end passed the 1,000 mark.

Lt Col Joe Richard, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the US government wanted the deserters to be returned from Canada. "If you don't want to fight, don't join," he said.

"The men in Canada have an obligation to fulfil their military contracts and do their duty. If and when they return to this country, they will be prosecuted."

The penalty for desertion in wartime can be death. Most deserters, however, serve up to five years in a military prison before receiving a dishonourable discharge.

In order to stay in Canada, deserters must convince an immigration board that they would face not just prosecution but also "persecution" if they returned to America. Hinzman's hearing has begun in Toronto and a decision is expected next month.

During the Vietnam war an estimated 55,000 deserters or draft-dodgers fled to Canada. There were amnesties for both groups in the late 1970s under President Jimmy Carter, but many stayed.

One who did so is Jeffrey House, a Toronto-based lawyer, who represents some of the deserters. He said that at least 25 had reached Canada in recent months with the help of "railroad" organisations, and believed that the immigration board would back his clients.

[nChrist]

UM?? - We need to get the prison time and penalties increased for desertion.

Tom

[ollie]

I donot see anything said here justifying an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. The internal affairs of Iraq should be Iraq's to work out with out outside interference.

There are worse dictatorships in the world than Saddam's that are not friendly to America and could be a threat to America, yet we do not attack them to occupy and set up "democracy".

Why? What is so different about Iraq, that we attack it and not the others?
Meanwhile the financier and perpetrator of 9/11 is still out there and the country of origin, of the ones that carried out 9/11, says they are our friend as does our government.

Satan is sure working in the world. Come out from it. Maintain yourself in the Lord and pray hard.

ollie

[Soldier4Christ]

Desertions during time of war or peace has happened all the way back before the Civil War.  During times of war the rates do increase. Many of these people try to use the excuse of,  "I don't believe in this war." or "I didn't realise that I would have to kill someone."  Desertion to Canada or some other country is not a new thing either nor was it new during Viet Nam.

Desertion during WWI and WWII was low in comparison for two reasons. 1. It was not socially accepted and  2. The firing squad was more readily used. During WWII the firing squad was terminated after the first soldier was caught and executed and the media raised a big stink over it.

After that they were sentenced to jail time and given a dishonorable discharge even though the laws still say they could be placed before a firing squad. Normally the jail time does not extend past their normal obligated time of service.

[musicllover]

To the person who started this thread,
SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

it sickens me that you think our soliders are killing iraqi babies. War ins't pretty its defiantly not a tea party, why don't you blaim Hussain for havig his army dress like civillian and hide among the towns people? Using his own people as humans shields? You think the USA is so bad move to Iraq, be an American Christian and try to keep your head.

I've never been to war, but MY BABY went to war, it was his job, he didn't plan on going to war. He thought the military would be a good way to get on his feet after high school....nieve on his part yes... BUt once you sign you do what your told. And he did. Do you believe for one minute that I believe my baby should have allowed someone to shoot him because war with iraq was wrong (it wasn't), and by the way you have ever right to your opinion my son defended your right, how ironic? Your thread is a major cut down to our military. Sure its not perfect, but a WHOLE lot better than Hussenian and his army who are the true baby killers, along with his sons who were saddistic rapist.

I'm ashamed of anyone who would call themselves a christian and call our military baby killers. Instead of condeming  our President, why do you try praying for him, our military and those in iraq too. You got him for another 4 years no matter what you like.

God called for the death of all first born .......so I guess he is a "baby killer" too?  

Get over it Bush won, THANK GOD,
musicllover

[Bronzesnake]

Bronzesnake, you mistake me for an Iraq sympathizer or something and your sarcasm about Iraqs "noble intentions" is unfounded. But lets be clear on what the discussion is about. Our invasion of Iraq was unjust and based on information that the Bush administration either conjured up out of thin air and or flatly lied about. They also used our very strong feelings of nationalism and patriotism after 9/11 to mislead us into a national security ferver.

The 9/11 commision found no link to the attack and Iraq and NONE of the reasons we went to war with Iraq proved true.

Was Saddam an evil dictator? Yup, but does that give us the right to invade? NO. In fact there are and have been as bad or worse rulers and we have not invaded them.

Stop trying to tell me how horrible Saddam was, he's been that way for a long time and we gave him support.
 

 Look my friend...I'm not attacking you personally, you make some good points, and we have different opinions on this one. I honestly believe that you haven't got a good grip on the situation the world is in at present.

 There was a time when the dictatorships of the world were mostly a regional menace. We could afford to ignore them for the most part, or even use them in order to keep a greater evil at bay. This might not sound pretty, but it's a tactic that is essential in this imperfect world. Things today have changed. These once basically harmless dictatorships are now a very real threat to the world. I don't believe I have to explain why that is my friend. We can not afford to wait until we look out our windows and see a mushroom cloud rising into the heavens. Our governments have a duty and responsibility to seek out and snuff out all and any potential threats. Saddam could not be negotiated with, he attacked Kuwait! what kind of an insane nut case does that and convinces not only himself, but his military leaders that the world would be OK with that??? a person who has that mind-set and who has access to oil money - who had and used W.M.D.s on his own people - had active nuclear weapons programs etc, etc, etc. This guy hated the U.S., he attempted to assassinate a U.S. president. What are the odss that this guy was providing weapons, technology and cash to terrorists who would kill your loved ones Crystal?

Twenty years ago we wouldn't have to really consider a pre-emptive strike - times and tactics have changed my friend. Don't believe anything you see on the news concerning the W.D.M. intelligence - whatever you pick up on the news is strategically placed there to confuse and divert attention from what's really going on - this is done for several reasons, two obvious reasons are to keep operatives and informants alive, and to keep the populations of the world reasonably ignorant of just how close to total annihilation we really are.

 Here's some facts to consider... The U.N. acknowledges Iraq had a nuclear weapons program going on - the U.N. acknowledges Iraq had other W.M.D. programs going on - the U.N. placed choking sanction on Iraq because Iraq refused to hand over the weapons materials, and refused to allow free and total access for inspectors. The world knows that Russia, France and Germany supplied Iraq with illegal arms and technology on a far greater scale than the U.S, ever did. The world knows that Russia, France and Germany along with Saddam, siphoned huge amounts of cash off of the oil for food and medicine program...the money hasn't been found...where do you suppose that money went to, and for what purpose? Don't be so gullable my friend, there's plenty of evidence on the edges to understand a portion of what is really going on. Russians were in Iraq just prior to opening salvos - they were at weapons depots - they left with a huge convoy of covered military trucks and were seen going out of Iraq and into Syria...do you honestly believe those who would tell us they were only there to take conventional weapons??? does that make sense to you? does that seem like a reasonable explanation to you?

 I understand your reservations in regard to the U.S. and allies apparently loosing their minds and invading an essentially "innocent" sovereign country. Ask yourself why they would do that. Please don't insult me by saying it was for oil.

 As far as the deserters here in Canada...We should have shipped them back the very same day they sniveled up here.

 These people only joined the military because they wanted a free education. Well excuse me, but you know full well what you're signing up for when you join the military. If you don't like war, or the possibility of fighting a war you don't understand, then don't join the military. It's a slap in the face to every veteran currently fighting, and to all our veterans who have given their lives throughout history.

Bronzesnake

[Soldier4Christ]

As far as the deserters here in Canada...We should have shipped them back the very same day they sniveled up here.

These people only joined the military because they wanted a free education. Well excuse me, but you know full well what you're signing up for when you join the military. If you don't like war, or the possibility of fighting a war you don't understand, then don't join the military. It's a slap in the face to every veteran currently fighting, and to all our veterans who have given their lives throughout history.

Amen to that!

[nChrist]

Bronzesnake & Pastor Roger,

My son was just home on leave from the Navy for 10 days. He recently spent 11 months in the Gulf, and I am so proud of him and his mates. He's on the Nimitz aircraft carrier, and most of the ship worked 20 hour days during this time, 7 days a week. They were very proud of what they were doing, and they wished that they could have done more.

I have no sympathy or respect at all for deserters. - ZERO

Further, I have zero respect for anyone who disrespects our young men and women of the Armed Services or says anything that hurts their morale. They are serving with courage and pride, much like the generations before them who have preserved our freedoms and way of life.

My son has a very simply thought that he says is shared by his mates:

Find the terrorists and fight them all over the world so we won't have to fight them at home.

That's a very simple and logical thought, one that is probably the reason why we haven't had another 9-11 or many 9-11's. If they have a wheelchair brigade and an extra rifle, I would love to go help them. Make no mistake, they believe in what they're doing, and they're proud to be able to serve. It makes me sick when someone throws mud on their service and disrespects them.

Freedom isn't free. Someone always pays for it in sweat, tears, and blood. We should be praying for our young men and women every day and thank them from the bottom of our heart with every chance we get. We don't live like Israel because of them. All of the freedoms we enjoy are because of them and the generations before them who served proudly with courage.

I dealt with homeland security before it was called homeland security, so I know something about this topic. There were piles of teletypes every day. Common sense tells one that if you engage them around the world before they come here, the homeland will be safer. The terrorists formally declared war on us in the early 90's and they swore they were coming to kill us. We didn't take them seriously, and they did exactly what they swore to do. We really have only two choices:  1- Find them and fight them on their own soil;  2- Wait until they come to get us and fight them on our own soil. DUH??? - Hard decision!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.