[Withnail]

Nice little bubble of nonsense you have wrapped yourself in, hope reality does not cause a serious shock to your system.

Wait a minute, that's wrong - you need a healthy dose of reality in your virtual reality.

Sorry for pointing out some cold hard facts.

The US troops who invaded Iraq are war criminals, I'm afraid. Following orders is no excuse.

Killing civilians resisting an illegal invastion is a further war crime. So is taking over the country and imposing a 'Coalition Provisional Authority'. So is appropriating Iraq's frozen assets and giving it to the American 'CPA' to spend as though it is the legitimate government of Iraq.

[KaiserJeep]

We don't believe anything you say. You and Brian Williams both have no credibility here. We caught you in a bold-faced lie, about an innocuous topic, a movie of all things. Yet you continue to spout nonsense.

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal, it was specifically authorized by UN resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with armed invasion if they continued to exclude arms inspectors and ignored 1441 as they had several earlier resolutions (resolution 660, resolution 661, resolution 678, resolution 686, resolution 687, resolution 688, resolution 707, resolution 715, resolution 986, and resolution 1284).

Had the Coalition troops in Iraq refused the legal orders of their civilian command authority or their own superior officers, they would have violated a legal code called the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). They did not.

Had the UN Security Council revoked resolution 1441, the invasion would have to have been halted - they did not.

The majority of opposition troops in Iraq were not Iraqi citizens, the call for Jihad attracted irregulars from multiple countries, all of whom were illegal combatants. The main in-country opposition to the Coalition was the Republican Guard, a regular Army unit. There was also a large contingent of Iraqi Kurds, fighting on the Coalition side.

Those are the truths, and you continue to lie about this topic. If you want any credibility here, you should apologize for what you have said, and then demonstrate your new attitude by sticking to the truth.

How about you start by returning to the actual thread topic, and explain to us why you lied about the movie American Sniper? You can start by telling us if you lied about seeing the movie, or really accessed a bootleg copy and lied about the actual movie content - because I saw the movie and it did not depict what you say was in it.

[Sixstrings]

Maybe we should be locked up as a menace to the PLANET. The US is an over-achieving over-consuming empire.

If we lay down pstarr, then what stands up to replace us is worse and not better.

China is the #1 polluter in the world now, anyway. Do you think we should lay down some more and let democracy and our 400 year history die out too? Should the world go the "directed democracy" route of China and Russia?

If Russians are so proud to be Russian, if Chinese are so proud to be Chinese, if Indians are so proud to be Indian -- then where will self hate get us, in that kind of hyper nationalist / rising power / competitive world?

Our ancestors -- the pilgrams, all the immigrants -- thought the place they came from was the problem, not them.

[Sixstrings]

Zinn cherry picks his examples to make America look as bad as possible. We are far from a perfect people, but if we were as bad as Zinn portrays us to be we should be locked up as a menace to the species.

I agree.

And just watch that video and the gloomy black and white comic cartoon and all the Americans are emaciated and thin and drooped shoulders and depressed -- and that monotone narration. It's so gloomy and depressing.

Here's the bottom line, I think: war is horrific. But in our 400 year history, we developed in a world that was all about empires and realpolitik and control and landgrabs. We didn't start those world wars: the Napoleonic wars, WWI, WWII, cold war. European powers started those. Along with Japan.

War is horrible, but it's also horrible when a police officer has to face down a criminal. Does the horror of violence mean there should be no self defense, of your land, your property, your values and way of life?

That just doesn't work, folks. It didn't work for native Americans either. The peaceful tribes got raided and torn up by the aggressive ones. I'm sorry but this is reality, and it looks like it's the kind of world we are returning to -- but not by our choice, it's others dragging the world away from Western globalist "new world order." It's so cool to hate on the New World Order, but here's the thing -- a world full of rising empires and landgrabs and it's the 19th century again, is worse.

If that's the world we find ourselves in, then we shall have to adapt too. If the world is going tribal, then we're like Apache and it won't help to have some propaganda that our own warriors are the bad guy. If we want our warriors to defend the tribe.

Our country's core value -- ever since Thomas Jefferson and the "empire of liberty" -- was to spread democracy in the world and then we'll be safe that way, since democracies do not fight each other.

About Zinn -- he lingers on the Teddy Roosevelt era age of imperialism too much. He ignores the historical reality that it was Britain and Europe that were on a new imperialist spree and Americans at the time just thought they had to adjust and do the same thing too.

But the historical fact is that it's not really us, we didn't go far with it, and it ended pretty soon. We didn't build any large empires of outright colonies as the Germans and French and Brits did.

And Zinn also talks about "corporate bullying" but says nothing of Chinese or Russian government bullying.

We're getting to a China / Russia vs. the West situation, we didn't choose this, they did. Christ we built China up to start with and gave them all our jobs, now the plan may fail and they may just want to eat our lunch and attack us in the future. ***They have the capitalism but they don't have the democracy, capitalism without democracy is dangerous***.

[Withnail]

We don't believe anything you say. You and Brian Williams both have no credibility here. We caught you in a bold-faced lie, about an innocuous topic, a movie of all things. Yet you continue to spout nonsense.

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal, it was specifically authorized by UN resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with armed invasion if they continued to exclude arms inspectors and ignored 1441 as they had several earlier resolutions (resolution 660, resolution 661, resolution 678, resolution 686, resolution 687, resolution 688, resolution 707, resolution 715, resolution 986, and resolution 1284).

Clearly it was illegal, because the UN secretary General said the following:

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.

Obviously Iraq was not excluding arms inspectors, since they were in Iraq and reporting to the UN immediately prior to the illegal invasion.

The majority of opposition troops in Iraq were not Iraqi citizens, the call for Jihad attracted irregulars from multiple countries, all of whom were illegal combatants. The main in-country opposition to the Coalition was the Republican Guard, a regular Army unit. There was also a large contingent of Iraqi Kurds, fighting on the Coalition side.

I understand the majority of resistance fighters were Iraqi.

Regardless, the US had no standing to declare anyone in Iraq resisting the occupation an illegal combatant, because their own invasion and occupation of Iraq were war crimes.

Had the Coalition troops in Iraq refused the legal orders of their civilian command authority or their own superior officers, they would have violated a legal code called the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). They did not.

Ah yes, the 'only following orders' defence.

[KaiserJeep]

Very weak arguments, not even worthy of rebuttal, and still off-topic for this thread.

If you want any credibility here, you will please explain why you chose to publish a bold-faced lie in this Forum, and then apologize for it.

If you want to discuss the movie (the movie American Sniper which I suspect you have not even seen) or any other movie (preferably one that is available via the NetFlix streaming service, which is the actual topic of this thread) then this thread is the place.

If you want to discuss the Iraq War between Coalition forces and Iraqis, then I suggest you start a thread on that topic in the Geopolitics sub-Forum. That would not be a bad idea, since you have displayed an abysmal ignorance of the facts. I suggest that you study the actual history without those anti-USA glasses on your head, or the aggressive anti-USA attitude, as well. Because if the truth be known, I suspect that the USA saved your bacon in whatever country you live in at least once. I also suspect that wherever you live, there is a net immigration from that place into the USA.

[Withnail]

Very weak arguments, not even worthy of rebuttal, and still off-topic for this thread.

If you want any credibility here, you will please explain why you chose to publish a bold-faced lie in this Forum, and then apologize for it.

If you want to discuss the movie (the movie American Sniper which I suspect you have not even seen) or any other movie (preferably one that is available via the NetFlix streaming service, which is the actual topic of this thread) then this thread is the place.

So in your view my 'lie' was that I described Americans in the film as killing innocent civilians, is that right?

I already explained to you that the civilians are innocent even if resisting American occupying war criminals with weapons.

A criminal who breaks into a home doesnt get to define a householder resisting him as 'illegal'.

(It's 'bald-faced lie' not 'bold faced lie' by the way).

If you want to discuss the movie (the movie American Sniper which I suspect you have not even seen) .

i saw about 3/4 of it, but found it too vile to continue watching.

I'll try and get through the rest of it.

Because if the truth be known, I suspect that the USA saved your bacon in whatever country you live in at least once. I also suspect that wherever you live, there is a net immigration from that place into the USA.

We foreigners are so ungrateful, aren't we?

[KaiserJeep]

Your arguments are entirely nonsense, because the Coalition forces (Americans, English, Australian, Polish, and the Iraqi Kurds from Peshmerga) are uniformed troops inside Iraq because of UN resolution 1441.

Arrayed against the Coalition are the forces of Saddam Hussein, a Ba'athist Iraqi dictator who has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, causing his country to first suffer numerous economic sanctions, and finally, reluctantly, an armed invasion specifically authorized by the UN (because the invasion happened in March 2003, and was authorized by UN Security Council vote on resolution 1441). That Kofi Annan expressed a retrospective dissenting opinion in September 2004 is meaningless, his opinion carries no legal authority, unlike the UN Security Council resolution, which has the authority of International Law.

During this period of 2003-2004 the opposition was the Iraqi Regular Army commanded by Saddam Hussein, and other branches of the Iraqi armed forces, the elite uniformed troops of the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam. After the Coalition kicked Hussein's butt, he went into hiding, later to be found, tried, and hanged.

Beginning in 2004, various Sunni and Shia clerics called for a Jihad against the Coalition, attracting tens of thousands of non-uniformed illegal combatants in a period following the invasion known as "The Insurgency". The insurgents are Arabs, Syrians, Yemeni, etc. etc. but are all "illegal combatants" from other countries, not Iraqis. During this period, the actual Iraqi population suffered greatly at the hands of the insurgents, including the incident portrayed in the movie American Sniper where an infamous Yemeni known as "The Butcher" would take Iraqi citizens into the public street, and interrogate and torture them and their family members with a portable electric drill in full view of their neighbors and family, as an object lesson not to provide intelligence information to the Coalition.

These insurgents had no legal right to be in Iraq, and they have no recognized status under international law, they are in fact "Illegal combatants". The Coalition occupying Iraq was governed by a series of International treaties known as "The Geneva Accords" and they had the responsibility to protect the occupied population, which was entitled to protection from the insurgents, and had specific rights accorded to people in an occupied country.

During the Insurgency, Iraq was first governed by appointed Governors acting under UN authority, and after democratic elections were held, by the new Iraqi government in November 2005. Massive unrest has since ensued, mainly Sunni vs. Shia, and principally in the form of suicide bombers, and over 12,000 Iraqis have been killed in civil unrest. During this period, The Coalition troops have decreased steadily and those that remain in-country do so at the explicit request of the Iraqi government.

===> Coalition forces bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for incidents since 2005, after Iraq was once again governed by elected Iraqis.

As you can see, your entire view is distorted history and your arguments are nonsense. Wherever you are getting your information, you need other and more accurate sources. My description above is a fair one, but admittedly you cannot due a complete job of describing two years of war and ten years of insurgency in a few paragraphs.

[Withnail]

Your arguments are entirely nonsense, because the Coalition forces (Americans, English, Australian, Polish, and the Iraqi Kurds from Peshmerga) are uniformed troops inside Iraq because of UN resolution 1441.

What?

How did the the US troops get to Iraq, exactly?

Did they go through immigration?

The UN Secretary General was very clear about the invasion of Iraq. He did not agree that Resolution 1441 in any way authorised invasion.

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.

So your claims of legality under the UN Charter are obviously false.

US troops in Iraq were war criminals.

The US does not get to define what is legal under the UN Charter. If it disagrees, it needs to leave the UN.

These insurgents had no legal right to be in Iraq, and they have no recognized status under international law, they are in fact "Illegal combatants".

Says who? The US war criminals occupying Iraq, or the UN?

[KaiserJeep]

I believe your hatred of Americans to be so great as to constitute a mental disease. It prevents you from accepting facts or thinking logically. I am sorry for your mental state, but I believe further discourse is pointless, as well as being off-topic for this thread.

[Withnail]

I believe your hatred of Americans to be so great as to constitute a mental disease. It prevents you from accepting facts or thinking logically. I am sorry for your mental state, but I believe further discourse is pointless, as well as being off-topic for this thread.

Again, I apologise for pointing out facts inconvenient for your world view.

Please recline your Laz-E-Boy and resume eating Cheez Doodlez.

===> Coalition forces bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for incidents since 2005, after Iraq was once again governed by elected Iraqis.

Of course they still bear responsibility for incidents where they have murdered, raped or tortured people, directly or indirectly.

[Withnail]

During the Insurgency, Iraq was first governed by appointed Governors acting under UN authority,

Just spotted this one.

No it wasn't. The US unilaterally imposed what it called the 'Coalition Provisonal Authority'.

Far from endorsing this, the UN described the US invasion as illegal.

[Quinny]

At the time many of the arms inspectors were against invasion. Various enquiries have IMO proved the WMD argument as nonsense and in fact even the supporters of the WMD argument changed the justification to be 'regime change'

The US and UK were clearly acting illegally. Anyone arguing differently is ignoring the facts.

According to an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands, UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions."

[Quinny]

Just watching 'Exposure' on ITV in UK. Think some of you flag waving Yanks need to watch for 'enlightenment'.

http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week7/exposure-kill-list

The pride in which these evil war criminals recount their stories is pretty shocking. In our name! Disgraceful!

This in-depth documentary reveals how the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) under General Stanley McChrystal took the targeting of insurgents to a new level by tracing them on a mass scale via cell phones before launching up to a dozen raids a night to capture or to kill them.

Testimony from soldiers who carried out the raids indicates that sometimes they targeted the wrong people.

While the raids were brutally effective, they fuelled opposition to coalition forces, probably made the Taliban stronger in Afghanistan, and contributed to the growth of ISIS in Iraq, say intelligence officers and counter insurgency experts who took part.

[Quinny]

It's left me feeling sick. Don't know if it's available in the US, if you can find it it's shocking, but well worth a watch if only to confirm what's right!

[Withnail]

I just pray America doesn't have cause to bring democracy to the UK in my lifetime.

[Sixstrings]

Iraq is off topic for this thread.

Current discussion is American history and world history in general further back than darn Iraq, and preferably further back than WWI.

Or parallels to today, and how Putin has restarted the 19th century.

[Quinny]

Like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre