WTF are you on about? They are “mercenary bodyguards” because they are mercenaries (paid non-army soldiers) who are currently paid to guard bodies (engineers, the Coalition high-ups, etc.).
They are “fighting in an armed conflict” because that’s the situation they happen to be guarding those bodies in, and also because they have developed a lovely “shoot anything remotely threatening-looking” policy that wouldn’t go down so well if they were guarding Tom Cruise or Witney Houston.
See, it can be both things at once, despite what you may think.
Quite the spittle off your keyboard – rate you’re going it’ll short in no time. Then again, I can’t imagine why that wouldn’t be a good thing.
Speaking of “Holocaust Deniers,” your remind more and more of a Good Little German with each passing post.
Are you saying they aren’t already? Here. fight your own ignorance – though I confess I don’t have much trust in your single working brain cell to do the job:
Your naiveté is, all at once, admirable, astounding and frightening.
Admirable becuase it shows a good heart with good intentions.
Astounding because it goes against almost every fact that has been on display since before the invasion.
And lastly, frightening, becuase it shows how easily people can be manipulated into supporting/believing just about anything their leaders want them too – especially with the massive propaganda resources at their disposal in this day and age.
There are quite a few good little Germans who are not Holocaust deniers nor nazis. Try not to imply that an entire nation or race of people are all nazis, okay?
Perhaps, but there will be a considerable amount of slaughter in deciding who gets to control what faction and what territory each faction gets to control. Perhaps this is inevitable, but if you actually care about the fate of Iraqis, why are you not insisting that the US at least try to clean up the mess in Iraq?
Most Iraqis do not care for the occupiers but most Iraqis (Shia and Kurds) do not want the coalition to leave until they feel they have a fighting chance at survival. When Sistani, the majority spiritual leader in Iraq, demands that the coalition leaves, then I will support a withdraw. But at the moment, you are demanding something that most Iraqis do not want.
If all that is required for legitimacy is the support of some of the population then the Coalition has far more.
And on another note, Redfury, it really is possible to put forth very valid arguements against Bush and Rumsfeld without resorting to shrill propaganda. As soon as you trot out the words “war crimes” even I, who really hates Bush and Rumsfeld, stop listening. Perhaps my aversion to such terms comes from past run in’s with the anti-war movement which has a tendency to call everything that the military ever does as a “war crime.” The term has been so badly misapplied it’s lost all meaning.
I agree with light strand. I have posted Bush decided to remove Saddam ‘on day one’ before. It is not meant to be a complementary article, What is interesting however is the quote from O’Neil: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go”.
You could argue that this conviction is Naive, Dangerous, … , but there it is. According to an insider their main impetus was that SH was a bad guy. Not oil or WMD’s.
My dear RedFury it would behoove you to read about the Project for the New American Century prior to deciding whom you choose to distain. Please note the dates, and people who are involved in this little “think tank”.
Could you please point out exactly where I told a lie? You saing it doesn’t make it so. I’ve explained what the words mean, if you can’t link them up, may I suggest a remedial reading class?
I already suggested something similar to you: that you saying a non-military armed bodyguard is a mercenary doesn’t make it so. I join with a few others in this thread in saying you have no credibility on this issue.
Since you’ve ask nicely, instead of calling names, I’ll elaborate.
The Project for the New American Century is an insidious little group led by, and with the deep involvement of, many, many members of the Bush Administration including, among others Rumsfeld, Wolfolwitz, and Bolton. They have been advocating the overthrow or Iraq since at least 1998. Here is a letter to Clinton from Jan 1998 stating
There is also a bunch of BS about WMD in that letter. Please note the signatures.
Then there is this letter from 2001 stating
The men involved in PNAC have had a hard-on for Hussein since their inception. They have a strange view of Foreign Policy which is basically “meddle with everyone until we get what we want, as long as they have something we want” Thus the reason they ignore Africa. They are extremely pro-Israel, and believe that if the Midlle East becomes democratic, then Israel will be safe.
Basically, they are creepy little men who had theories. They got their guy in power, and convinced him to implement their plans. This is when they learned that stuff on paper, doesn’t work so well in practice.
Thanks Light - I knew all that. Maybe I’m dense but I just don’t understand what debating point it addressed regarding Red Fury. Genuine question, no intention to be snarky.
Monty, if we can get past name calling can I refer you to my earlier posts on the mercenary issue which you don’t seem to have noticed. Specifically the BBC link. We can argue all we like about semantics and dictionary definitions but reality has to impinge somewhere.
I find it maddening that people are still only finding out about the PNAC. The cunts have had their game plan on the web for all to see for a very long time now and people still think it was a relativly new decision to go after SH and Iraq.
I did know that this has been a long term goal for Bush and co. For some reason though I’ve never actually seen the site - didn’t believe it was all quite as blatant.