Off to War We Go...

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Justin.
11/9 had nothing to do with Iraq.
What are you on about?
. [/B][/QUOTE]

that's right. November 9th did have nothing to do with iraq...................................

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i]
[B]that's right. November 9th did have nothing to do with iraq................................... [/B][/QUOTE]

Lol, you little smartass :p

[Subversive]

I understand making typos, but wouldn't it come out like 91/1 or 19/1 or something?

[GinnyLyn]

I heard that Saddam has now been finding ways to blow his own people up (well, kill them, anyway, I forget the details), in order to blame it on us (the whole civilian casulties bit). Anyone confirm or deny this (I trust sensationalist reports about as far as I can throw them).

Anyways, I'm all for the war in order to remove Saddam from office, period. With as little life loss as possible (I've said that before already).

There's been this really sweet 20 year old Air Force kid coming in every day since last Friday. He's getting shipped out Sunday and...well, it put the whole thing into perspective for me. These are very real people fighting over there, out there. And I don't want people to die needlessly. Bush doesn't want that, either.

I still say that this whole mess was long overdue for a major cleanup. It's just sad that we have to do it this way.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn [/i]
[B]I heard that Saddam has now been finding ways to blow his own people up (well, kill them, anyway, I forget the details), in order to blame it on us (the whole civilian casulties bit). Anyone confirm or deny this (I trust sensationalist reports about as far as I can throw them).[/B][/QUOTE]

Apparently something blew up in a civilian popualted area. Blew up some shops and cars and killed some people. The US denied ever targeting that area and said it could have been anti-aircraft fire coming back to the ground, or an Iraqi missle coming to the ground as well, however the US didn't rule out the possiblity of a misfire of a missle. It is unknown who is responsible.

Saddam said earlier that this is war and with war anything goes. Anyway he can gain advantage over th enemy is fair and he will do it, whatever that includes. If the US were in the same position, we'd do the same.

[quote][b]I understand making typos, but wouldn't it come out like 91/1 or 19/1 or something?[/b][/quote]

In many countries, including ones in Europe and Asia, the numbers for dates are placed differently than that as Americans. in japan it's year, month, day... I've seen many times where it's day, month, year... I used to write essays where I had to put "day, month, year".... which to you would be seen as "11.9.01"... However, regardless, it's OBVIOUS to know what date was being refered to.

[Mitch]

[color=red] Justin, although this war [i]isn't[/i] about 9/11, underneath, it sure as hell is.

Just look--look how we mainly came to this war. It was, in essence, 9/11. And also, of course, the Gulf War, but that's besides my point. We did get to this war in essence from 9/11.[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I have to agree with Mitch. People ask why now? Why now?...we've known that Saddam has been a horrible, ferocious leader for years, why are we going after him now?

The first reason is obviously because he broke his treaty with the UN (yes, I know we can go around in circles debating the justifications for going to war for the UN even though the UN doesn't back the war...but I am sure that all of you agree by now that Saddam did breech the treaty).

The real reason is that the events that occured on 9/11 were so tragic and scared the American govermental infrastructure so horribly, that a crusade against terrorism was the governments only alternative. I believe that this war would have occured no matter who was in power, it was a logical step after the events of 9/11 (especially since funding for Al Queda has been traced to Iraqi's within Saddams regiem, although that is another moot point, because America has also funded Al Queda...).

I am not trying to confuse anyone with my post. I am pro war, and I do think the mission we have in Iraq is an important one. As I have said before, we should have gone into Iraq and overthrown Saddam's regime then...we did a half-assed job in Kuwait, and it is biting back years later.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Yes, in my country we record date dd/mm/yyyy. We also use this thing called the metric system... Weird people aren't we. :P

Justin I must say I don't agree with you. Bin Laden and Saddam are two extreme?s, you have to understand that even within the factions there are deep divides. The catholic religion shows these as well, they just don't go around killing people over it. (Well they've stoped in the last hundred years.) Just as a comparison.

As for this missile miss, I think America should just come out and say they screwed up, I know it would crucify them and give support to the anti-war people but you have to admit out of the thousands of missiles they have fired only a hand full of people have died. Even though those statistics are no excuse? I don't really care about it, they made a mistake. (Yes I know I would normally be annoyed and rant on about something like this. But hay its war.)

As for why America is at this war I say again and again that this is because of Paul Wolferwitz and several others in the white house. They wish to bring the Arab nations in to line as it were. 11/9 was the excuse to start this. Hmm I have a day off today might write up a post on it. :)

Eps ? Why are there no Iraqis in Star Trek? Because it?s the future!

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn [/i]
[B]
Air Force kid coming in every day since last Friday. He's getting shipped out Sunday and...well, it put the whole thing into perspective for me. These are very real people fighting over there, out there. And I don't want people to die needlessly. Bush doesn't want that, either.

. [/B][/QUOTE]

I understand that. A good friend of mine is actually getting shipped out soon. We whent to church together for a couple yrs, and he showed up at my Army JROTC Car wash, and we had a good 3 minute conversation. That was the last I saw of him. I hope it wont be the final time.

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]As for this missile miss, I think America should just come out and say they screwed up, I know it would crucify them and give support to the anti-war people but you have to admit out of the thousands of missiles they have fired only a hand full of people have died. Even though those statistics are no excuse? I don't really care about it, they made a mistake. (Yes I know I would normally be annoyed and rant on about something like this. But hay its war.)
[/B][/QUOTE]

I would have to disagree.

The U.S.A. already acknowledged a mess up that resulted in 2 missiles 30 miles off target landing in Iran...

So why would they deny one more screw up.

They would admit it if they knew they were responsible for this, and I honestly believe they are not.

... has anyone heard about this...?

The Iraqi's using American uniforms?

You can purchase the very same uniforms Americans use if you know the distributor...

Well a while back there were reports of Iraqi military personel getting ahold of American style BDU's.

Now just in the last 2 days, there are reports of Iraqis using these uniforms, getting other normal Iraqi infantry to surrender and then executing the surrendering soldiers.

These are still unconfirmed reports, but I just wondered if anyone heard about this also?

[Orien_Xel]

[color=blue]Life sucks...Anyway, I heard about a bus load of Syrians and Iraqis trying to flee the country were hit by a U.S. missile. Rather then admit that they were wrong, the U.S. claimed it was a group of Iraqis coming back to fight...I hate this stupid war.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Yes I had, it is being very widely reported.

Did those missiles hit civilians Gokents? (I was not aware of them.)
This is not only a war it's a political war as well. The Bush government has to keep the American public happy, they will not be happy when they realise that they are killing people.

I'm sorry but from all previous time America has "missed" and then denied it I don't believe what they are saying now one bit. But as I say this doesn?t bother me, people die in war, on both sides, if you don't like it don't vote for war.

As for being attacked. They are fighting a war; America left its self open to "surrender attacks". (As I coin it.) I saw this coming when they announced it, and I?m sure army command did too. But it is necessary to keep public opinion.

Gokents you don't need a secret supplier or any thing, all you need is your local army disposal and a mail order and postage costs to Iraq.

We new at the beginning that Saddam was going to use this type of war, why are you so shocked now that he is?

Eps ? Quick reply, too much work..

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Did those missiles hit civilians Gokents? [/B][/QUOTE]

No they didn't, which is why US officials easily just sad that it was a miss-fire. I suppose it's a bit different now that they hit civilian areas, whether or not it was US weaponry or Iraqi. It's still unknown.

As for Iraqis in American uniforms... again I state back to my previous post about Saddam saying that this is war and anyway he con confuse us or gain any type of advantage of us, it's perfectly fair. After all, we're the ones who invaded him. Thats what he says, then again, I suppose the same argument could be used against him if we were to say blow up some civilian places, ofcourse that would not be in our best interests, for political and public reasons.

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B] they will not be happy when they realise that they are killing people.

[/B][/QUOTE]


I just want to get this straight. So the people that are fighting the war are not real people? [sarcasm]Because obviously, the only people here are innocent bystandards. [/sarcasm]

[Guest cloricus]

Vegitto4, I was the one earlier in this thread to ask people to not talk about the army as nonexistent.

But in the context that I was talking in was the American public, who for some reason think the only ones that are important are the civilians; they don't care about the troops. So I did not feel the need to qualify my statement.

Eps - Meh...

[Vegitto4]

meh, ok then. I was just bein a smart ***. I knew what you meant. but anyway, Civilains die in war. it happens. america needs to realize that.

[Change]

No on e really cares about the Geneva convention anymore...We Ignore it, so does everyone else. We only wave it about when it suits our purposes, other than that we piss on it...like every other international law...

[Guest cloricus]

Excuse me?
My and many others countries are strong supporters of the Geneva Convention. Just because (excuse my words) America wishes to **** all over it does not mean the rest of the world cannot be civilised enough to follow it.

As for international law and agreements... These are the reasons that America has so many enemies. The reason that America didn't signup for the international court was because they believed that most of the people being tried in it would be American's.

Don't go around saying just because America doesn't support/abide by it that it is useless.

Eps - Pfft, Propaganda I `tells `ya!

[Change]

I didn't say that I agreed with the pollicy, I simply stated a fact about my country...

[liamc2]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
Australia lost over 1 million troops in WWII. We could have easily argued that Germany was nowhere near us...and therefore, we wouldn't have to be involved. But we [i]were[/i] involved because we saw the importance of defending Europe's freedom. And we wanted to express support for the United States and Britain in the strongest possible terms.

We made that decision, as a people, because we understood how important it was to defeat Hitler. And so, even though Hitler was not a threat to us, we took action. I might remind you also that 1 million was [i]one sixth[/i] of our population during the 1940's.

Also, after sending massive numbers of troops to Europe, we were attacked on our own doorstep -- both Darwin (our northern most major city) and Sydney (our most populated city) were both attacked by Japan directly. Thousands of our troops died in Papua New Guinea, defending that nation from Japan.

So, as far as Australia goes...we might be relatively small, but I don't think anyone can say that we don't back up our position on International issues.[/color][/QUOTE]

HAHA!

^_^

Just as I was about to bring up this topic, damn my lack of computer..

~~

Also at that time, Australia was eager to prove itself to the Commonwealth (Britain) so basically all of those soldiers were off-the-land-bronzed-aussie-farmers. Entire country towns, once bustling communities with thousands of inhabitants, just died out. It's rather sad driving out west and you see all these towns with only one or two people living in them because all those years ago their great-grandfather and grandfathers were killed in the war.

On another note, what we lack (Today) in manpower we make up in coldhearted, conscience free soldiers that have been under intense military training for half their lives.

o.O;;

I've got some seriously crazy tales to tell you too, about their training, but thanks to a burst of hindsight from the future I doubt it'd be wise that I blather about it all over the net.

And for those of you who feel I'm lying through my teeth, I told the story to Asphy over the phone last night...ask her o.O;

---

[Change]

Doubt they have anything on Massad, those Isralies are c-r-a-z-y! but yeah, don't you Aussies have 8 years of public service mandated by the state? Military/ Police/ Federal worker...

[Guest cloricus]

No, we don't Change.

[Dan L]

Just found an interesting article on SoulSurvivor.com it's uniquely 2-sided, which I like.

[quote][i]Found at [url]http://www.soulsurvivor.com/uk/IMAG/index.asp?CID=7[/url][/i]

[b]War with Iraq. Is it right?
March 2003
By Nathan Lambert and John Maiden.[/b]

At the time of publishing, troops are amassed in the Middle East in preparation for war with Iraq. What is the Christian response to these global affairs? We ask two young Christians to answer the question, "Is it right to go to war with Iraq?" Nathan Lambert answers Yes. John Maiden answers No.

[b]YES
By Nathan Lambert[/b]

Saddam Hussein has killed his opposition, imprisoned without trial, tortured, attacked his own people (the Kurds) using chemical weapons, gone to war twice in the last two decades (Iran and Kuwait) and been seen on Iraqi TV holding a nuclear-bomb trigger switch boasting that his country is getting nuclear weaponry.

The one million people in last month's peace march in London would be, I suspect, the same people to march in favour of civil liberties for people in Iraq.

The debate is not over, "Do we make life in Iraq better for its people?" but, "Is war the way to do it?" I believe strongly Yes.

After the Gulf War, in which Iraq invaded Kuwait, 12 Resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council, endorsed by a further 11 nations, to disarm Saddam, stabilise the region and protect the Iraqi people.

Saddam continues to break each of these resolutions. If the UN can't enforce them, we will. War is now the only option. Why? What is wrong with the alternatives?

ALTERNATIVES TO WAR

Sanctions
Sanctions were imposed after Saddam lost the Gulf War to ensure he destroyed his chemical, biological and nuclear capability.

12 years of sanctions later and Saddam continues to break the terms of the peace treaty, including killing his own people. By Iraq's own admittance, 360,000 children have died as a result of those sanctions.

To say we should continue the sanctions only prolongs the misery of the people of Iraq.

Do nothing
Many countries are waiting to see how the UN and other nations deal with a flagrant violation of 12 resolutions to disarm. To do nothing, gives the wrong signal to other potential rogue regimes.

More time for inspectors
UN Inspectors are in Iraq to witness the destruction of the weapons the global community accept exist, not to look for them in a game of hide and seek.

THREE REASONS FOR WAR

Stability in the region
If Saddam is allowed to develop extensive weapons of mass destruction, others in the region will want to also.

Iran is a long and bitter enemy and they would feel it an imperative to protect themselves with nuclear weapons, while Saudi Arabia will then ask for its allies (including the UK) for protection and armament. This would make any future Middle East conflict even worse.

Terrorism
Saddam has links to terrorism. It's a known fact that the regime has sponsored terrorists, specifically Hamas in Israel, made payments to suicide bombers families from Iraq's own funds, and the Turkish PPK have had training camps and HQ inside Iraq.

People fear this could make the UK more of a target for terrorists. But we are already a target. Fear of being attacked should not be a reason for not taking action.

Doing what is right
If you saw someone in the street being bullied would you help them? If that bully had a gun though, you'd think twice. Saddam is after chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to make him untouchable.

WHAT ABOUT THE UN?
Some argue that we should only go to war only if the UN agree to. However, the UN has a tragic history of ineptitude and passivity in face of crises. It is almost impossible to come to make a unanimous resolution.

While thousands were murdered in Rwanda, the UN debated. In Bosnia, it didn't have the stomach to do the job properly: Peace Keepers watched as thousands died. In Kosovo, indecision meant they did nothing and NATO went in.

A lack of UN sanction, therefore, doesn't mean this is not a just war.

WHAT THIS WAR IS NOT ABOUT?

A war on Islam
This isn't the Christian West fighting the Islamic East. It is containing a rogue regime.

Other countries in the region, for internal political reasons of their own, won't openly express their support for military action, but will once it starts. This happened during the Gulf conflict in 1991.

Oil
To say this war is about getting Iraq's oil is wrong. Colin Powell said last month that oil proceeds from the conflict will be placed in a trust fund for the people of Iraq and not for anyone else. They will choose how to spend the money after the events.

While Iraq has about 30% of the region's oil, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are the bigger players.

Oil within the whole region is, however, an important factor and does make maintaining stability in the region ever more crucial for the global economy and our own interests.

CONCLUSION
These are worrying and concerning times. The repercussions of war are unknown. Yet Saddam has flouted UN resolutions, is guilty of human rights atrocities and needs to be stopped both for regional stability and the prevention of mass destruction through his own weaponry and through permission inaction would give other potentially aggressive regimes.

As Christians, it is OK to stand with our Prime Minister and the oppressed people of Iraq and go to war.

War is ugly, it is the last resort. But now that we have arrived there, it takes courage and strength to say, "Enough is enough" and take action.

[b]NO
By John Maiden[/b]

Last month I joined over one million other people in a march past Parliament in protest against what now seems to be an inevitable war on Iraq. Although I am not a pacifist, my main motivation for being there was my Christian faith. Why?

One of the bible's main messages is God's desire to "loose the chains of injustice" (Isaiah 59:6) for the oppressed and to prevent the rich and powerful from "trampling on the poor" (Amos 5:11).

An important part of being a Christian disciple is to analyse world affairs with this in mind. So what should Christians think and do about war on Iraq?

With all the different arguments flying around and credible sources saying completely opposite things, the situation is obviously very complex.

However, despite my opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime, I think that the pro-war argument is unjust, immoral and overly aggressive.

A JUST WAR?
Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century monk, defined the concepts of just and un-just wars which Christians have adhered to ever since.

For a war to be justified it had to be a last resort when diplomacy and all other non-violent means had broken down. Aquinas recognised the cost of war in terms of innocent human lives.

Despite the media's fascination with the West's ultra-accurate missiles, approximately 70,000 Iraqi civilians died in the 1st Gulf War eleven years ago (1). Our own Government has estimated that at least 20,000 innocents might be killed in this war.

The Iraqi people have already suffered due to US and UK economic sanctions, and over 500,000 children are estimated to have died between 1991 and 2001 (2). Now we plan to bomb them. Six thousand people died at the World Trade Centre - do we value Iraqi lives as much as American and British lives?

The Iraqi military machine is now under the spotlight of the West and is one of the most ill-armed in the Middle East.

The British Government has actually recognised no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin. War is simply not necessary at the moment, the weapons inspectors should be given more time and efforts for a diplomatic solution should be increased.

A MORAL WAR?
Why is Iraq the target for War? Many countries could qualify for the title rogue state. Iran, Syria and North Korea are all attempting to gather weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, while Iraq does have an appalling Human Rights record, so do Egypt, Algeria, Turkey and Israel - yet these countries are all potentially part of the alliance for waging war on Iraq.

When Saddam was gassing his own people in the 1980s the US government was selling him Anthrax poison and financially supporting his regime (as they did Osama Bin Ladin when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan).

The lack of support for Bush and Blair in the United Nations, the European Union and the Middle East suggests that world opinion is against the war.

Turkey has only agreed to join the war effort if it is given $30 Billion in loans and grants by the US (3). The idea of a moral war on Iraq is infact moral hypocrisy.

There are various reasons why Bush may really want to go to war: perhaps to gain control of Iraq's oilfields (Iraqi controls 8% of the worlds oil supply) or even to compensate for his failure to capture Osama Bin Ladin. He cannot, however, take the moral high ground.

WESTERN AGGRESSION?
Post-1945 history is a constant witness to the great Western powers putting their own interests before the those of the poor and oppressed. We call this "Western Imperialism".

We have the final word on which states are allowed to exist and which are not.

We will support rulers like Saddam when he is useful to us and wage war on him when he is not. The West has supported various murderous dictators to maintain control of Latin America, the Middle East and the Far East.

Furthermore, the West has failed to respond to the Israeli governments refusal to recognise a Palestinian state, their violation of UN resolutions and their policy towards the Palestinian people. In 2001 alone, 650 Palestinians were killed, around 90% of whom were civilians (4).

The Iraq question needs to be seen as part of a far bigger issue. Western nations need to adopt fairer and more moral foreign policies. As Christians it is high time that we campaigned against these double standards.

Western Evangelical leaders have neglected to ask difficult questions, and in doing so have betrayed many of the world's poor.

Why does the West turn a blind eye to Russia's brutal war on the Chechnyans? Where are the sanctions against a Chinese Government that actively persecutes its own dissenters and the Tibetan people?

Why do we go to war on Iraq yet increase our economic and military support for Israel? Why are Western Arms manufacturers allowed to sell to many countries with horrific Human Rights records?

Above all, it's a question of justice.

[i](1) J. Pilger, The New Rulers of the World (London 2002) p. 127
(2) Unicef: Child and Maternal Mortality Survey, 1999
(3) The Guardian, 28 Febuary 2003
(4) The Union of Palestinian Relief Committees, June 2001[/i]

*
Nathan Lambert, 25, is on the Soul Survivor team, attends St Laurence Church in Reading. His BSc degree was in International Disaster Management from Coventry University. He is married to Kelly.

John Maiden, 24, is currently studying for his PhD at the University of Stirling, attends Soul Survivor Watford, plays bass in the worship teams at Soul Survivor the church and summer events, and is engaged to Robbyn.[/quote]

[Transtic Nerve]

Ugh, the Kurds are not Saddam's people... lol. You know nothing of history if you think the Kurds are Saddam's people. Yes they live in Iraq, they live elsewhere too, but NO ONE wants them. NO ONE, not just Iraq, NO ONE. They've been getting killed off for YEARS. It's not just a recent thing, this fued dates back to the 1700s.

Saddam does not consider the Kurds "his people" by any extent. he hates them, much like the rest of the Middles East. They pose a legitamate threat to take over his real people and that of every other middle eastern country.mIn order to keep this threat down, he must kill a significant amount of them. If he doesn't the Kurds wil gain high numbers and take over everything.

Much like how the US is taking out "legitamate threats" to our country now, Saddam was taking out a threat to his country. It's just Saddam was killing people, not a government (even though the US is killing people) because the Kurds have no real government. The idea that Saddam is killing his own people is kind of false in a sense. At least if you're referring to the Kurds. They just happen to be in Northern Iraq. They are in Iran too, and Iran has been killing them as well... but you knew that already right?

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]Ugh, the Kurds are not Saddam's people... lol. You know nothing of history if you think the Kurds are Saddam's people. Yes they live in Iraq, they live elsewhere too, but NO ONE wants them. NO ONE, not just Iraq, NO ONE. They've been getting killed off for YEARS. It's not just a recent thing, this fued dates back to the 1700s.

Saddam does not consider the Kurds "his people" by any extent. he hates them, much like the rest of the Middles East. They pose a legitamate threat to take over his real people and that of every other middle eastern country.mIn order to keep this threat down, he must kill a significant amount of them. If he doesn't the Kurds wil gain high numbers and take over everything.

Much like how the US is taking out "legitamate threats" to our country now, Saddam was taking out a threat to his country. It's just Saddam was killing people, not a government (even though the US is killing people) because the Kurds have no real government. The idea that Saddam is killing his own people is kind of false in a sense. At least if you're referring to the Kurds. They just happen to be in Northern Iraq. They are in Iran too, and Iran has been killing them as well... but you knew that already right? [/B][/QUOTE]

I would have to say this post is inflamitory in two ways...

1. the usa should not be compared to saddam. Him killing Kurds in mass genocide is a completely different issue than America dealing with the threats posed by the heads of rouge states.

Saddam is responsible for all sorts of horrible things that have been mentioned in this thread but one thing that is rarly mentioned is the greater possibility of peace between the general populations of Israel and Palestine once saddam is removed from power.

Saddam himself gives 25,000 dollars to the family of any suicide bomber in palestine... If that is not adding fuel to an already out of control fire, then I dont know what is.

That palestine issue is just one more example of why the world itself will be better off without saddam... however, comparing the U.S.A. in its quest to quill the worlds hostilities in certain regions to Saddam commiting genocide to "eliminate a threat to his government and people" is just bogus.

Im actually suprised that you would make such a comparison that lacks in the most obvious of logic... it almost sounds like your moving more to the side of anti-american, leftist views and not the usual, semi-leftist, pro American ideals view.

The second part of the post that was inflamitory was the issue of "saddams people."

This is a screwy concept in the first place being that saddam took over Iraq itself with hostilities and not any sort of democratic election.

So Saddam was never really the leader of the people.

He was more of a dictator that took the people he wanted for his own.

That in mind, the kurds are people of Iraq.

Just as there are kurds who are the people of Iran.

Unless the world gives in and provides the kurds with a state of kurdistan, we will always have to recognize these people as part of a state. (Iran, Iraq, where ever they made live)

The idea of the kurds not being legtimate Iraqi's is like people who supported al gore in the elections, not being legtimate Americans.

The comparison is valid because the kurds do not support saddam, yet are valid citizens of Iraq, just as the "gores" do not support bush, yet are valid citizens of America.

Another point that was inflamitory was the underlying tone that (most likely was unintended) it is ok to destroy the kurds because they were being killed of in Iran, and because the people of the middle east, no matter where, all hate the kurds.

Unfortunatly, you know just as well as I do that, one person doing something bad does not make it ok for another person to do the same thing.

That is the sort of additude that leads to riots and looting, not legtimate civil action.

The kurds are people, just as you and I, and although I may end up disliking them in 10 years when they turn on America, I will still stick up for them now during this era where no one is willing to defend them.