The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,09:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I love that second argument- I'm a sucker for outside-the-box thinking lol.<span id='postcolor'>

Yepp.

There are a lot of left wing nuts out there, but to my immense joy, I have discovered that there is a plethora of right wing nuts too. I really have a blast reading editorials from people like Rush Limbaugh. It's ten times better then the onion since these people really mean what they are saying

[Longinius 1]

"Actually, E6Hotel was correct about the incubator story being first told by the Kuwaiti housing minister."

Who first told it doesnt really matter much to me. The fact is someone hired a PR company to make it happen.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there is over 600 reporters going to IRAQ with the US units they will not have to have there stories censored they can publish everything they see this has been mandated be president BUSH <span id='postcolor'>

Yes we already see that freedom of press. The journalists who are already with the US forces are not allowed to film what they want. They are not allowed to talk with anyone they would like. They are not allowed to film what they would like. There are suggestions made by US authorities and these have to be followed. If the journalists don´t do, they will be not allowed to move along with US any more.

There are several independant journalists in Iraq that panicaly try to get their hands on old cameras wich work with usual film material, cause they are afraid that an EMP strike will disable their cams first, wich would make them useless.

The media precise war during GW1 was a betrayal and the GW2 media will be also abused. I cant see freedom of journalism here.

Ok now to Tex:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- choose the wrong time

When, pray tell, should we do it? Oh, I forgot- never.

<span id='postcolor'>

The inspectors were doing a great job right when stupid Bush decided that time was up. Have you forgotten the fact theat the inspectors destroyed multiple facilities of producing WMD´s . The US forces can´t claim that for them during / after GW1.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh for Christ's sake. What in our method is wrong? The going to the UN part? Or maybe the part where the threat of force achieved the only concessions of the entire UNMOVIC regime? I have to say, I do think it was a mistake on our part to not take the French up on their most recent offer of a 30-day deadline, but it has become more evident that that proposal was just another delaying tactic on the part of France. And if maybe I misunderstood you, and you meant something else by that comment: do you propose another way to dislodge a dictator with the full support of the military? Perhaps we should kill him with kindness. lol. Because we all know that red carpets cause cancer.<span id='postcolor'>

No I was referring to the UN as the deciding authority not your goatheaded president.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UN shot itself in the foot entirely on its own. And I'd like to point this out once again: if the UN proves itself inconsequential by refusing to enforce its own resolutions, then it does not matter if the US ignores it from that point on, because an organization that can't assert itself indeed does not matter. The UN has become an international chihuahua- loud, obnoxious, but ultimately insignificant. The Security Council has become a place where members like France use power conferred upon them to protect their fifth-column interests. I won't lie, I've never been a huge fan of the UN, but it has surpassed my wildest expectations over the past few months.

<span id='postcolor'>

In fact the UN was the only party who´s work showed success in Iraq. Not your bombs or faked intel reports.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The place is like a political manifestation of nitroglycerin, but we have no real choice but to go in and take care of a small problem before some genius in the UN tries to normalize Iraq's status, and it becomes a large problem (again). <span id='postcolor'>

Huhh ? It was the UN that disarmed Iraq lately. Not the US.

And you call an invasion a small problem ? Well we will see how small it will be even for your forces. Depends on how you define small. 10 000 victims ? 100.000 ? 10 million refugees ?`

As a reminder 10.000 is the average population of a small town. It that really a small problem or have you forgot the worth of life over all that warmongering ? All this to remove 1 person looks a bit like killing a hornet with a cruise missile. If you are so great why can´t you remove Saddam in a peaceful way ? Or at least a commando op ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell me, honestly- what would you do if your CO told you that the Bundeswher had the ability to save you and your comrades' lives, but wouldn't? Personally, I'd be spending some time in the brig if I was told that.<span id='postcolor'>

The problem is that Iraq did not attack you. Simple as it is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- will kill a lot of civilians. multiple times more than in GW1

You don't know that man.<span id='postcolor'>

I know that man. GW1 was fought in deserts -> not many people.

GW2 will be fought in cities -> a lot of people.

Now I can´t set up exact figures but I´ll like to add this. There are hardly no public shelters for Iraq´s population. The cities are quite crowded. You will hit cities hard this time.

This all makes a lot more civillians die this time. Don´t you agree ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">didnt set up the figures right as you included Iran-Iraq victims that were no problem when US was involved in that war

Does that make them a little less dead?<span id='postcolor'>

No but they are misslisted here. Or am I allowed to list US killings in WW2 against you ? I guess not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">didn´t tell us where the fucking prove for this war is

I'm sorry, but where in 1441 is the statement that the onus is on America? The entire point is that it was Iraq's responsibility to let us know why there shouldn't be a war. And look how well they did. <span id='postcolor'>

It was Iraq who was almost fully complying with UN and its inspectors lately. Missed that ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This one's pretty easy: the UN is not able to enforce itself or its resolutions, ergo the UN doesn't matter.

<span id='postcolor'>

The UN did pretty well lately. Where is your point ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> didn´t tell us that 48 percent of Iraqs population is under the age of 14.

What exactly does this have to do with the price of rice in China?<span id='postcolor'>

This means that almost 50 percent of the civillian casualties will be less than 14 years old. Man is it so hard to add 1 plus 1 ? I repeat 50 percent of the civillian casualties in Iraq will be babies to teenagers. Is this clear now or do I have to draw a picture ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> didn´t tell us anything about the refugees that will come up in huge numbers.

Refugees are a standard feature of war- everyone knows it. This is in no way a good reason to not go to war.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but you missed it again. In wich way will the allied forces help them ? We are talking about assumed 10 million refugees. Will you fly them to US and GB ? Or will just hope that they will find home in Europe ? You claim to free people so TAKE CARE OF THEM. I have not seen plans about that on US side. Or will you again drop bombs along with care packets ? worked great in Afghanistan

I´m still waiting for the answer on how Afghanistan was actually freed. Or do the US think Afghanistan is only 5km´s big ?

If you compare Afghanistan with it open spaces and no big towns at all and the death rate of at least 6000 civ´s you won´t tell me seriously in Iraq with it´s crowded cities you will have less civillian casualties ? Are you seriouse ?

[Longinius 1]

"This one's pretty easy: the UN is not able to enforce itself or its resolutions, ergo the UN doesn't matter."

The reason UN is unable to do anything most of the time is because of vetos. By god, its the most stupid thing ever. The vetos render the Security Council completely useless and make it a tool of those few powerful nations who have the right to veto.

[Schoeler 0]

Some of those nations with a veto aren't all that powerful. But they would certainly like to be, ergo all the political gamesmanship rendering the U.N. security council a joke.

[Guest]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 19 2003,115)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some of those nations with a veto aren't all that powerful.  But they would certainly like to be, ergo all the political gamesmanship rendering the U.N. security council a joke.<span id='postcolor'>

So you are saying that the introduction of resolution 1441 is a joke and all the previous resolutions? Was the first Gulf War a joke? Or is it a joke because world opinion is not on your side this time?

As for being poweful, Russia could turn USA into a parking lot. Both China and France have long-range nuclear missiles. I wouldn't be so cocky and claim that they "arn't all that powerful".

The EU which decided (and the Britons later ignored) that it would not support a war without a second UN resolution has a almost twice as large military as the US. Even without Britain. That's just the EU. If you would add upp those opposed to a war and those pro-war you'll easily see that the pro-war are outnumbered by at least a factor 10 in terms of military might.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,12:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for being poweful, Russia could turn USA into a parking lot. Both China and France have long-range nuclear missiles. I wouldn't be so cocky and claim that they "arn't all that powerful".<span id='postcolor'>

I think he means not being powerful in conventional military terms and the capability to strike abroad. In fact, in realistic offensive military capability terms they are not that powerful which is a fact.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The EU which decided (and the Britons later ignored) that it would not support a war without a second UN resolution has a almost twice as large military as the US. Even without Britain. That's just the EU. If you would add upp those opposed to a war and those pro-war you'll easily see that the pro-war are outnumbered by at least a factor 10 in terms of military might.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you can't really speak of EU defence forces. Each military is geared mainly for national defence, each with own national strategy and tactics. Even within EU's NATO-countries are far from united fighting force. Co-operation is severly limited by national differences and combining forces from each country would take months to integerate and even after that you would have severe operational problems. EU forces are far from united, effective fighting force. Equipment is different, language is different and training is different. They virtually lack the capability and logistics to fight abroad with large forces, let alone the ability defend EU's borders with united front. In terms of number of men and equipment you're right but the total effectiveness is far from the sum of all forces.

Modern conflicts have shown the need for big EU rapid reaction force which could operate with US/NATO framework.

Each EU country with 5-10 million people would be obliged to contribute at least a brigade of troops, bigger countries maybe couple of divisions. This way you could muster an army of about 300,000-500,000 men which would be reasonable force to fight abroad also in case of crisis or rapidly move to defend EU borders wherever needed. With proper training and heavy equioment along with logistics this kind of force would

be credible common defence force for EU.

[Guest]

On the second part I agree with you. On the first part, I don't. You don't need extensive logistics to make a ballistic nuclear first strike. Russia has over 20,000 long range nuclear missiles. With NORAD minimized USA would not know what hit them. While such an attack is extremely improbable, the Russians are indeed capable of it. If they wanted, they could level every city and every military base. (USA could of course do the same to Russia, but the question here was how 'powerful' those who oppose a war really are).

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EU forces are far from united, effective fighting force. <span id='postcolor'>

You might have missed it, but EU decided to set up combined EU forces last week. This is a major step towards a united military force that will be able to cope with international issues and counterweight the US forces as well. Certainly not tomorrow but 5 - 10 years will be a timespan we can talk about.

[foxer 0]

I´m still waiting for the answer on how Afghanistan was actually freed. Or do the US think Afghanistan is only 5km´s big ?

If you compare Afghanistan with it open spaces and no big towns at all and the death rate of at least 6000 civ´s you won´t tell me seriously in Iraq with it´s crowded cities you will have less civillian casualties ? Are you seriouse ?

Atleast give them more time before you judge.In the 1800's in america,their was a wild wild west at one time.

Maybe your country should send more men then ? If it's about helping people out,then send more.I doub't the US/nato would say no.If europe is soo for the people,they really truly should send more men.Ask the french.

denoir,There are a lot of left wing nuts out there, but to my immense joy, I have discovered that there is a plethora of right wing nuts too. I really have a blast reading editorials from people like Rush Limbaugh. It's ten times better then the onion since these people really mean what they are saying

I agree with your about this,heck there some on this board.Of course i won't say names.

Also here an question.

If the french don't want war,right ? Why did they say before the 48 hour left speech,That they want an resolution to give iraq 30 more days to disarm.

If the french know he's hiding something,What the hell they threating veto in the UN?

Another sad thing is though,even if america does have chemical weapons,The lefty people won't believe them.However if america soldiers get spray with chemical weapons,will they believe or say the US gov't did it.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 19 2003,12:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EU forces are far from united, effective fighting force. <span id='postcolor'>

You might have missed it, but EU decided to set up combined EU forces last week. This is a major step towards a united military force that will be able to cope with international issues and counterweight the US forces as well. Certainly not tomorrow but 5 - 10 years will be a timespan we can talk about.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah right .Maybe you forgot what the french did to turkey,a nato member.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe you forgot what the french did to turkey,a nato member. <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe you tell me. As turkey has not been attacked by Iraq the NATO defence automatism is not effective at the moment.

Turkey got Patriots, AWACS and personel. What else do they need ?

Oh I forgot. 12 billion or 15 billion US dollars to convince the government. Yeah that´s what democracy is made of.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Atleast give them more time before you judge.In the 1800's in america,their was a wild wild west at one time.

Maybe your country should send more men then ? If it's about helping people out,then send more.I doub't the US/nato would say no.If europe is soo for the people,they really truly should send more men.Ask the french.<span id='postcolor'>

I don´t see any point in your post. US started the war on Afghanistan, not we. You said to bring them democracy but there are no initiatives from the US side concerning this. Oh yes you established Kazai but what else ?

You also may have missed that germany in cooperation with the netherlands have taken over the command of Kabul´s peacekeepers and fought along with your forces in the mountains.

Your nation was the one to make proposals of freedom, democracy and such. If you propose things like that you should at least act like you were really interested and not move your guys out to pakistan when it comes to the work that needs to be done or let the Northern Alliance wich is in no way better than the talibans fight for you while you do pretty important press conferences. In the long term Afghanistan will fall back into old schemes. It does right now.

Mission failed.

But this doesnt mean much as you have a new enemy. Your governemnt seems to be pretty fast forgetting when it comes to responsibilities after a war they incinierated.

[foxer 0]

I don´t see any point in your post. US started the war on Afghanistan, not we. You said to bring them democracy but there are no initiatives from the US side concerning this. Oh yes you established Kazai but what else ?

You also may have missed that germany in cooperation with the netherlands have taken over the command of Kabul´s peacekeepers and fought along with your forces in the mountains.

Your nation was the one to make proposals of freedom, democracy and such. If you propose things like that you should at least act like you were really interested and not move your guys out to pakistan when it comes to the work that needs to be done or let the Northern Alliance wich is in no way better than the talibans fight for you while you do pretty important press conferences. In the long term Afghanistan will fall back into old schemes. It does right now.

Mission failed.

But this doesnt mean much as you have a new enemy. Your governemnt seems to be pretty fast forgetting when it comes to responsibilities after a war they incinierated.

My point is,in the 1800's in the us it was dangerous to leave a city.

Why don't you ask germany to send more soldiers to Afghanistan ? i mean why don't they send more peacekeepers? Where is the UN soldiers ?

Maybe you tell me. As turkey has not been attacked by Iraq the NATO defence automatism is not effective at the moment.

Turkey got Patriots, AWACS and personel. What else do they need ?

Oh I forgot. 12 billion or 15 billion US dollars to convince the government. Yeah that´s what democracy is made of.

French gov't sent something ? Turkey is going get attack.Well maybe.Atleast act like you care though.

[killagee 0]

It is important to remember that the Five nations with permenant seats on the security council make up 97% of all arms sales (New and Used). They are the ones that profit from conflicts all over the world. France, China and Russia are not opposing this war in an effort to save lives, they are simply trying to lure Oil producing countries to use the Euro as the default exchange currency. Remember up until 1999 the US had never said anything about removing Saddam from power, even after GW1. The state departments report on a new possible post GW1 Iraqi Government still had Saddam as the preferred leader. It wasnt until he switched from trading in $US to $euro in 1999 that they decided he had to go. He set a dangerous precedent. If everybody else started trading in euro's the US would go bankrupt. I refer to my earlier post with the long article in it...

I say there should be no permenant seat on the council. Any country acting aggressivly ( or supporting aggression or repression) without UN backing or with current human rights abuses should lose their seat. In the last 10 years that would then exclude many countries..

Maybe this would only serve to make the UN actually irrelevant...

I dunno...My head hurts...

[WhoCares 0]

Actually Germany has the strongest contingent in Afghanistan

btw: The US Propaganda machine did another job quiet efficient: it almost seems like France were the only one opposing the war. Like a post a few pages back stated are 45 countries supporting the war. So 45 supporters against France. Occassionally Russia or Germany are mentioned, but who cares that there are >200 countries worldwide?!

[Balschoiw 0]

The war has begun.

US forces moved into the demilitarized border zone between Kuwait and Iraq.

[brgnorway 0]

Well well, my guess would go in the direction of the most sentral participants of the "coalition of the willing" !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2864063.stm

[Guest]

Interview with Paul Wolfowitz

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 19 2003,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The war has begun.

US forces moved into the demilitarized border zone between Kuwait and Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

According to BBC and CSPAN there is a huge sand storm in the area which is creating big problems right now and it's possible that it will delay things.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well well, my guess would go in the direction of the most sentral participants of the "coalition of the willing" !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2864063.stm<span id='postcolor'>

Dagens Nyheter says that it was German and French officials that were bugged. What a surprise.

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interview with Paul Wolfowitz<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't this pervert how he even admits that they are 'guiding' public opinion to support their politics?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Q: But in all these countries it’s a really strong domestic tide.

Wolfowitz: But it’s fed by leadership. I mean, leadership matters. American opinion is different because our leadership is talking about it differently.<span id='postcolor'>So american opinion is pro war because their propaganda worked. Thank you - isn't it nice to live in a free society, where people are intelligent enough (and are entitled) to form their own opinion? This is such an outrageous approach to and understanding of democracy that it's turning my stomach to see someone like that in control of the only superpower left...

Edit: basically it translates to "We the leadership tell people what to believe and therefore they support us!". Land of the free... yeah, right.

 

[WhoCares 0]

Another one from the Wolfowitz' interview:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What keeps you up at night as you’re poised for this enterprise?

The thing that worries me the most is these chemical and biological weapons, because we’re quite sure he has them, and we know he’s used them, and we don’t think he’d have qualms about doing so [again]. <span id='postcolor'> Didn't somebody say they proofed that he has them?  

[Guest]

I've been watching CSPAN for some while and right now they have a segment where people can call in and say their view. There are obviously still very mixed feelings about the war and a considerable percentage of the people are still against it.

The most interesting trend however that I've seen is people who say "I was against the war, but now I am going to suspend my disbelief and support my president". There were plenty of people who basically said that those opposing a war should shut up now if they have nothing good to say about the war and that opposing a war in public was basically treason.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I think he hasnt realy done a long-term assessment of the situation yet. If the US CONQUERS>OCCUPIES>COLONISES. Iraq then the initial war-costs will only represent a tiny share of the total costs. Most of the funds will be required to secure peace and to rebuild the nation. But since this war is a purely unilateral action by the US there will NOT BE ANY OTHER COUNTRIES WILLING TO INVEST FUNDS TO REBUILD IRAQ.

What is he talking about? First we have to hear about all this "we can do it on our own you european whimps" and now we are expected to clean up what the american army destroys? Is he seriously saying this.

While during the first IRAQ war the US army provided the fire-power other countries provided the required funds. The US will not be able to fully finance the cashflow required to fullfill their great great plans for Iraq in the long run. During the next elections a slogan like "bring our soldiers home" will give a hurtful boost to the democrats and the Iraqis will be left alone in ruins...just as it was after Iraq war 1. Elections? IS he mad??? how can you make elections in a country that has no democratic tradition. THe main oppositions in power are all Mullahs that would kick IRaq right back to the stoneage.

Anyway, the internal economical crisis together with the high costs of protecting america against terorists has already caused one of the greatest decificts of the last decades.

No, dear war-lovers..that you gonna pay yourself..guns are an expensive hobby! Could have told you that before

But maybe you can finance it through merchandising. Like -patriotic-hero-movies about the war in Iraq. Dried fingers and ears of Iraqi soldiers as souvenirs. And in the end you could publish a book about "how we saved the world from a second Hitler".

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The most interesting trend however that I've seen is people who say "I was against the war, but now I am going to suspend my disbelief and support my president". There were plenty of people who basically said that those opposing a war should shut up now if they have nothing good to say about the war and that opposing a war in public was basically treason.<span id='postcolor'>

Been seeing quite a bit of that over in the UK too. People that were previously voicing their opposition to a war have essentially turned around and said "ah well, seeing as it's going to happen anyway I might as well support it". It seems amazing to me that people can just switch opinions so dramatically. Now there is pretty much no hope of stopping the war, they abandon everything they saw as being wrong with the concept. [of war in Iraq]

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The most interesting trend however that I've seen is people who say "I was against the war, but now I am going to suspend my disbelief and support my president". There were plenty of people who basically said that those opposing a war should shut up now if they have nothing good to say about the war and that opposing a war in public was basically treason.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it comes down to national pride, and bad memories of Vietnam. They might not support the war, but they don't want to see another defeat like Vietnam, and they remember how vocal the anti-war movement was then - in fact you could say the anti-war movement cost the US the war. So misguided as that argument is, I see what they mean when they call it treason. Pretty twisted logic though "yeah it's not right, but we can't back off now or be defeated at any cost"