E6Hotel

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 23 2003,20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry for butting in to your discussion with denoir.<span id='postcolor'> Now don't get snippy. Â We both know that if I hadn't specified, we'd have spent the next 10 posts arguing about who said what and when. Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 22 2003,06:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never said I would. Â However, the article does emphasise that not all Iraqi troops that surrendered, lived.<span id='postcolor'> And I never said that ALL of them did. Â However, it's accurate with respect to the specific article that we (i.e. the Swede and I) were discussing. The article you linked strongly suggests (to me, anyway) that the two incidents referenced (the Bradleys and the Iraqis running out of the building) were accidental or caused by negligence. Â Unless you think that the Bradley gunners intended to engage the Americans, too? Â Mr. Hersch does not even suggest that our ROE's prohibited giving quarter to surrendering Iraqi troops. Â I understand that maybe you weren't trying to prove that it did; however, that was the point of contention that we (again, denoir & I) were discussing. Â My summary applied specifically to the article denoir presented as support for his opinion on our ROE's, and taken in that context, my statement is correct. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 21 2003,20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's an opinion formed across an 8-year investigation by a journalist with at least 2 Pulitzers to rub together. Â I posted about this earlier. Â Perhaps you missed it.<span id='postcolor'> Show me in the article where the U.S. military was ordered to give no quarter to surrendering Iraqis. Good luck, 'cause you won't find it. Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I know it wasn't the national speech the author was refering to but to Bush's statement to the US military. I have another reference to it but unfortunately there is a rather large picture of the remains of a burned Iraqi soldier. Â <span id='postcolor'> Could you PM me the link, or quote the relevant passage? Â I think I just read the page you're referencing, and for the life of me I can't seem to find it again. Â (Yes, I know: Â Google OWNZ me) Â I've seen "A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956." cut-and-pasted word-for-word in three different "sources," but strangely I can't seem to find Bush's original statement. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I gave you a reference to a reprint of an San Francisco Chroncile (pretty main-stream) article. It refers to a different incident, but the principle holds. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Many Iraqis surrenderd during this phase of the attack and were taken prisoner. The division then assaulted the trenches containing other Iraqi soldiers. Once astride the trench lines, the division turned the plow blades of its tanks and combat earth movers along the Iraqi defense line. "In the process many more Iraqi soldiers surrendered; others died in the course of the attack and the destruction or bulldozing of their defensive positions."<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> So to summarize, the Iraqi troops that surrendered, lived. Â Those who didn't, didn't. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,07:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To find more articles, just search for iraq and denial of quarter. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> If anyone cares enough to verify some of the ramblings presented here as fact, here is a transcript of Bush's speech on February 27, 1991. Â Conspicuously absent is any mention of denial of quarter. Then again, since Ms. Joyce Chediac (the author of the steaming pile you're quoting) calls it a "racist mass murder of Arab people," I doubt that she's got two brain cells to rub together. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,03:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, this is the third time I am saying this. Read it slowly. The ROE did not allow accepting surrender.<span id='postcolor'> Until you provide a credible link showing that the U.S. military was ordered to not accept surrender, I call . Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 21 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite. Â I've tried to express that an invasion will not anger terrorists at all. Â On the contrary, an invasion would be of great benefit to Al-Qaida. Â I thought you agreed with this and, therefore, I asked "why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists (i.e. invade Iraq)?"<span id='postcolor'> Well, at least we're ironing this one out. Â I was referring to angry = provoke = attack. Â You realize, of course, that this is how wars start. Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 21 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Short question to FSPilot, Tex and E6Hotel - Which of you believe the prime reason for attacking Iraq is to prevent possible distribution of WMDs to terrorists, and which do not?<span id='postcolor'> Not. Â If we attack it should be due to Iraq's perpetual breaching of UN resolutions. As stated earlier, I personally think it's more immoral to permit Saddam's regime to continue, but that is an opinion and shouldn't be confused with a reason. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't look to the UN to resolve such disputes.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, I wouldn't expect them to resolve any disputes either. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok... now let's rewind the tape a bit... E6Hotel: Â Since we're so eager to discuss the repercussions of war on Iraq (heaven forbid we anger the terrorists )... Bernadotte: Â Anger the terrorists? Â You must be joking. Â Al-Qaida would rejoice. Â The USA would be proving to all the world's would-be radicals that America is indeed the Great Satan. Â Al-Quaida's numbers would skyrocket... E6Hotel: Â Glad you picked up on the sarcasm. Â It's ridiculous to assert that we shouldn't act because we might offend terrorists. Bernadotte: Â I agree. Â So why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists? E6Hotel: Â Err, what? Â Read my sentence again.<span id='postcolor'> What exactly is causing the confusion here? Â Perhaps paraphrasing might help: Me: Â To say that we should not act against Iraq "because it might offend terrorists" is not a very good reason. Â Insert "rolleyes" smiley to drive point home. You: Â I agree that the possibility of offending terrorists is not a valid reason to not take action against Iraq. Â So why should you take action against Iraq, because it might offend terrorists? Read it again. Â Third time's the charm. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't that the same as saying Iraq does not pose a relevant threat to the USA? Â (I did ask you not to beat around the bush, didn't I?)<span id='postcolor'> I don't know how to say it any clearer, so I repeat: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003 @ 04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, just because WE'RE not directly threatened doesn't mean that we shouldn't act.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please bear in mind that I did not ask your opinions about why the US should invade Iraq or what threat Iraq poses against the UN. Â However, since you offered your opinions anyway (so much for not beating around the bush), why did you avoid the following question: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please tell me why the UN hasn't already collapsed under the weight of alllllllllllllll those other resolutions (hundreds) that remain unenforced?<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> For all practical purposes it has collapsed. Â Don't think so? Â While we're on the topic of unanswered questions, what's your take on the UN's ability to resolve the North Korean situation? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's ridiculous to assert that we shouldn't act because we might offend terrorists.<span id='postcolor'> I agree. Â So why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists?<span id='postcolor'> Err, what? Â Read my sentence again. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm... Did we touch a nerve or do we just need to lighten' up a bit? Â <span id='postcolor'> That depends on whether you really believe that trash you posted or you were just taking a cheap shot against my integrity. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 20 2003,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the U.S. and U.K. was not currently pushing for war and massing troops near Iraq, the credibility of the U.N. would be much better off, also, massing the troops near Iraq is the biggest undermining of the U.N. in itself.<span id='postcolor'> Are you seriously suggesting that UN inspectors would have been re-admitted without the threat of action by the U.S. and UK? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is this just speculation or is there actual evidence of Iraq providing or seeking to provide WMDs to terrorists?<span id='postcolor'> For the third time now, I don't consider the terrorism angle as relevant to a war on Iraq. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Each of those two connections involve a single cause that has nothing to do with the US. Â Do you consider every nation that has ever had some connection to terrorism (not including the US itself) to be a threat to the US?<span id='postcolor'> For the fourth time now, I don't consider the terrorism angle as relevant to a war on Iraq. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And by the way, why do you put the word threat in quotation marks? Â Is it not a word you would use in this context?<span id='postcolor'> I used quotation marks because it's a hypothetical. Â For the fifth time now, I don't consider the terrorism angle as relevant to a war on Iraq. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the act is invasion of a sovereign nation then you should probably wait with acting until the threat moves beyond the realm of speculation.<span id='postcolor'> The threat to the U.S. is speculation. Â The threat to the UN is not. Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't expect you to agree with that given the career you've chosen.<span id='postcolor'> [Confederate General voice] You wound me, Suh. [/Confederate General voice] </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anger the terrorists? Â You must be joking. Â Al-Qaida would rejoice.<span id='postcolor'> Glad you picked up on the sarcasm. Â It's ridiculous to assert that we shouldn't act because we might offend terrorists. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oooooh... I understand where you are coming from now. Â <span id='postcolor'> Obviously you don't. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rather than beating around the bush, E6Hotel, could you please describe what you perceive to be the most relevant threat posed against the USA by Iraq?<span id='postcolor'> Here's a shocker for you: Â The only "threat" Iraq poses to the U.S. is the possibility that they might provide WMD's to terrorists. Â You can debate whether Iraq has ties to AQ or not; personally, I don't care WHICH terrorists Iraq deals with -- and as I stated in my "bush beating" post, Iraq DOES have past and present connections to terrorism, so it's a possibility. Â (Unless, of course, you'd like to debate either of the two connections I mentioned.) However, just because WE'RE not directly threatened doesn't mean that we shouldn't act. Simply put, the "threat" posed by Iraq is to UN credibility. Â If the UN doesn't care enough about its resolutions to ensure that they're enforced, it should stop passing them. Â Speaking as a member of the U.S. military, it's my opinion that we've shed too much blood for the UN to give up on it, but it's hell-bent on undermining itself more and more by the day. Since we're so eager to discuss the repercussions of war on Iraq (heaven forbid we anger the terrorists ), let's consider what the non-stance on Iraq means w/ respect to other current events: Imagine for a moment that the Security Council managed to find the guts to pass a resolution on North Korea. Â (Yeah, I know it'll never happen, because NK's pimp-daddy has one of the vetoes.) Â Even if a resolution passed, do you think for one second that NK would take it seriously, after having watched Iraq jerk the UN around for twelve years? Â Hell, even if NK took it seriously, would the UN? That's my opinion as a Marine. Â My personal opinion, as an undoubtedly misguided idealist (who has, at least, put his money where his mouth is), is that tolerating Saddam's evil (woohoo, I'm feelin' judgmental tonight) regime is far more immoral than a war that would put an end to it. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't stop terrorists by invading countries... A military defeat of a country doesn't change that.<span id='postcolor'> Granted it won't stop terrorism, but it will damned sure make it riskier for other countries to openly sponsor it. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Global police work is the answer, not military intervention.<span id='postcolor'> There's a time and a place for both. Â FBI agents were unable to make any progress in Yemen due to lack of cooperation. Â How far do you think they would have gotten in Afghanistan? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 19 2003,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And with everything I have ever seen, the assumption that Saddam is in league with terrorists is essentailly flawed.<span id='postcolor'> You may want to reconsider re-phrasing to the effect that "the assumption that Saddam is in league with Al-Qaeda is essentially flawed." 1) It's common knowledge that Saddam pays off the families of Palestinian "martyrs." 2) Remember Abu Nidal, the man who frickin' personified terrorism in the 80's? Â Guess where he lived and trained from '74 to '80. Â Oh yeah -- he "committed suicide" in Baghdad last year by shooting himself in the head four times. Â Sounds like someone in Iraq was doing a little housecleaning. IMHO, whether he has terrorist ties is irrelevant. Â The issue here is 687 and 1441. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (der bastler @ Feb. 18 2003,22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"How do you prove that you don't have WMDs?" Yes, that's impossible. Even mathematicians don't dare to prove non-existence -they simply negate the statement and prove that the answer is "false". That means the inspectors have to find WMDs in a certain period of time -otherwise the Iraq is expected not to be in possession of WMDs.<span id='postcolor'> Because this argument never gets old: Iraq is not required to prove that they don't have WMD's. Â They are required, by resolution 1441, to prove that they have destroyed the WMD's they were known to possess in 1998. EDIT: Â But don't take my word for it, ask Dr. Blix: "How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter -- and one of great significance -- is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were "unaccounted for." One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented. . . ." Washington Post Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 14 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With today's new anti-WMD decree, it seems that Iraq has been able to satisfy nearly all 3 of UNMOVIC's 3 main requests. Â The only remaining issue is that some Iraqi scientists still insist on bringing tape recorders to their "private" interviews.<span id='postcolor'> First, Iraq's legislation outlawing WMD's is ridiculous at face value. Â Whoever dreamed that one up ate too many paint chips as a child. Second, the agreement on U-2 overflights is, to put it mildly, conditioned: Administration officials cited a Feb. 10 letter to the U.N. inspectors from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's chief science adviser, Amir Saadi, agreeing to surveillance flights by American U-2s, French Mirages and Russian Antonovs. The letter stressed the need for inspectors to provide Iraq "with a timely notification of each flight, including the time and point of entry, speed and call signal that ensure communication with the pilot when necessary." Washington Post Do you not see slight problems with surveillance flights being revealed ahead of time, complete with entry points? Third, if you were an Iraqi scientist, would you really be willing to dime out Saddam Hussein if you did have any information? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 14 2003,09:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A US general will run the Iraq after the war. You know. It´s for iraq´s freedom and such...<span id='postcolor'> It worked pretty well in Japan. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 14 2003,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont worry, they will create a new boogie man, they always do.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah...just imagine how many wars could have been avoided in the last 60 years if we hadn't created Hitler and communism. Semper Fi

From an e-mail I received at work today: "For a limited time, the brand new Icelan Network Game Center, located at Pacific Plaza, is offering military units free use of their facility for unit team building events. Â At this state-of-the-art computer game center up to 40 Marines can compete at the same time in a wide variety of simulated combat scenarios, both as individuals or as teams. Â Pit one squad against another in a virtual urban environment or wage a war from the past by taking on the Axis army in historical battles such as The Battle of the Bulge and Omaha Beach!" So... anyone up for a game of VBS? Heh heh. Semper Fi

Could be, who knows. Â Then again, this facility is aboard Camp Pendleton, so it's not a typical out-in-town lan joint. Â EDIT: Â Should've mentioned that the Corps funds the place, too. Â I might check it out eventually. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 13 2003,2004)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What if for instance Iran decides to give itself the right to kill people that violate their religious laws abroad?<span id='postcolor'> They already have, in the case of Salman Rushdie. EDIT: Â Damned smiley-inducing post times! Semper Fi

A resolution, what else? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ Feb. 13 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that bin laden is still on CIA payrole.. I think that he hasnt got dick to do with Al Quieda or the Taliban, and is just played by the CIA to take on responsibilities in the name of Al Quieda to give USA a reason to go into Afghanistan and bomb the shite outta it.<span id='postcolor'> Such a well thought-out and credible theory deserves an equally well thought-out and credible counter-argument, so here goes: i liek pie! Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 12 2003,22:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The difference is very clear. We have strict laws on genetically altered food. These American vegetables have not gone through the testing required by the EU. That's why there are import restrictions. USA on the other hand is considering import restrictions as a punishment for a political disagreement. It's not because the French product are violating US law. This is a game that can be played by both sides and can get very dirty.<span id='postcolor'> Damn, I'm 0-2 against you today. Â [Vader]The Force is strong with this one.[/Vader] Semper Fi