War in Iraq is unconstitutional and unjust

[Iriemon]

Now you and alphieb both need a link. :rofl

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate and decrease in percentage due to Bush tax cuts.

Lowest 20% 5.20% -1.50%
Second 20% 11.10% -2.10%
Middle 20% 14.60% -1.90%
Fourth 20% 18.50% -2.10%
Top 20% 23.80% -3.90%
* Top 5% 25.60% -5.20%
* Top 1% 26.70% -6.80%

Share of Federal Tax Burden

Lowest 20% 1.10% -0.10%
Second 20% 5.20% -0.20%
Middle 20% 10.50% 0.20%
Fourth 20% 19.50% 0.70%
Top 20% 63.50% -0.60%
* Top 5% 35.90% -1.50%
* Top 1% 20.10% -1.80%



http://www.factcheck.org/article280.html

 

[KCConservative]

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate and decrease in percentage due to Bush tax cuts.

Lowest 20% 5.20% -1.50%
Second 20% 11.10% -2.10%
Middle 20% 14.60% -1.90%
Fourth 20% 18.50% -2.10%
Top 20% 23.80% -3.90%
* Top 5% 25.60% -5.20%
* Top 1% 26.70% -6.80%

Share of Federal Tax Burden

Lowest 20% 1.10% -0.10%
Second 20% 5.20% -0.20%
Middle 20% 10.50% 0.20%
Fourth 20% 19.50% 0.70%
Top 20% 63.50% -0.60%
* Top 5% 35.90% -1.50%
* Top 1% 20.10% -1.80%



http://www.factcheck.org/article280.html

Hey, that's a great link. Let's see what else it says:

This ad is a good example of how facts that are literally true can be used selectively to create a misleading picture.

The ad says the "middle class" (which isn't defined) is paying "a bigger share of America's tax burden." Since nearly all Americans think of themselves as "middle class," that could easily be translated by most viewers as a statement that their tax burden has increased, when in fact it has decreased for all income groups.

The ad is careful to say the share of the burden has increased, and not the burden itself. But those who don't listen carefully could easily miss that

Kerry's ad relies on figures released by the Congressional Budget Office in August. The CBO calculated the effect of all federal taxes, including the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes as well as such things as federal gasoline and tobacco taxes. Even so, the CBO figures show the tax burden has decreased -- on average -- at all income levels from the lowest to the highest.

We have boiled down the CBO figures to show what has happened for this year as a result of the Bush cuts, and excluding the effects of rising incomes, which affect average tax rates and share of burden even when the law doesn't change.

The CBO splits the population into five basic "quintiles," each representing one-fifth, or 20%, of the total population. The top 1% and 5% are broken out of the top quintile for further study, since the most affluent figure so largely in the tax debate.

What these CBO numbers show quite clearly is that the total federal tax burden has decreased for all income groups, though it went down more for the most affluent than it did for others.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes, the war in Iraq is bogus and I do NOT support the troops that are in there. As the US death toll goes up, I will not be upset in the least. The Iraqis have every right to defend their country from unwelcomed invaders.

That's an interesting attitude...you blame the soldiers who are over there for the fact that they're there? What were they supposed to do, decide they didn't want to go and quit?

This is one of the more disturbing posts I've read on here recently, but judging from some of your others, it's just par for the course...

 

[alphieb]

Yes, the war in Iraq is bogus and I do NOT support the troops that are in there. As the US death toll goes up, I will not be upset in the least. The Iraqis have every right to defend their country from unwelcomed invaders.

That is horrible, although I don't agree with the war or support Bush. I have the utmost respect for those men over there. Where would we be without a military. These men are heroes. That is a very hateful thing to say...Unfair

 

[Iriemon]

Hey, that's a great link. Let's see what else it says:

What these CBO numbers show quite clearly is that the total federal tax burden has decreased for all income groups, though it went down more for the most affluent than it did for others.[/I]

And which groups received the greatest percentage cuts?

 

[KCConservative]

And which groups received the greatest percentage cuts?

That wasn't the initial complaint, was it?

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, the war in Iraq is bogus and I do NOT support the troops that are in there. As the US death toll goes up, I will not be upset in the least. The Iraqis have every right to defend their country from unwelcomed invaders.

Why do you blame the troops for the policy decisions of starting or maintaining the war? It wasn't their decision. They are just doing their jobs.

 

[Iriemon]

That wasn't the initial complaint, was it?

Fair enough

 

[Donkey1499]

Why do you blame the troops for the policy decisions of starting or maintaining the war? It wasn't their decision. They are just doing their jobs.

Unfair suffers from Dementia....

 

[G-Man]

The use of WP isnt illegal.

Hmm...I don't want to get dragged into an arguement on this point but :-

www.hizb.org.uk/pressnew/index.php?id=2676

When Saddam used WP against the Kurds it was regarded as a Chemical weapon by the Dept. of Defence. Would seem logical that its still a chemical weapon when used by us.

Also, If we had found tons of the stuff in Baghdad you can bet the Whitehouse would have been stating they had found large stockpiles of WMD.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We all know WP is a weapon, and that WP is a cehmical.

RDX is a chemical as well, as are all the other high explosives we use.

That something is a chemical and that said chemical is used as a weapon does not mean it is a chemical weapon in the same context as the term used to describe a class of WMD.

 

[Donkey1499]

And we use our WMDs on little terrorist bastards, not on innocent civilians like Saddaam did. And Saddaam did it on purpose too.

 

[stsburns]

This war in Iraq is unconstitutional. If any of you don't know what I am referring to, look it up.

Why the war is wrong and has nothing to do with 911:

1. Hussein is not a member of the Taliban. The Taliban was actually a threat to him.

2. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 911....not Hussein, but we have yet to capture him, even though we have Hussein.

3. The war on Iraq has produced many deaths....no comparison to other wars, but yet has still incurred unnecessary deaths.

4. Where are the WMD?????????? We had intelligence to investigate prior to invasion.

5. Socialist empire....bush is not a king. this war is a violation to our constitutional rights.

Actually my democrat friend is always proclaiming to be independent, but he promotes socialism? As for the constitution, I didn't see a single qoute of contraction from the constitution and your post?

 

[G-Man]

We all know WP is a weapon, and that WP is a cehmical.

RDX is a chemical as well, as are all the other high explosives we use.

That something is a chemical and that said chemical is used as a weapon does not mean it is a chemical weapon in the same context as the term used to describe a class of WMD.

Fair point M14 and the interpretation of WMD can be very wide depending upon which side of the fence you are sitting on.

However, you have still not addressed my point. The use of WP by Saddam was regarded as an attack using chemical weapons by our own dept. of defense. If we use the stuff ourselves (regardless of against whom) then this is also a chemical weapon attack.

The actions of the administration also cast doubt on their belief of the legality of this action. First they denied it was used at all, then they were forced to concede it had been used (but they stressed only as 'fog' cover when moving troops) then they finally bit the bullet and said they had indeed used this as a weapon against ground forces. If they thought it was ok why all the denial?

 

[G-Man]

And we use our WMDs on little terrorist bastards, not on innocent civilians like Saddaam did. And Saddaam did it on purpose too.

So all those killed in Fallujah were terrorists?

We have no idea of the numbers of terrorists/civilians killed by WP.

I also guess you don't find it slightly ironic (but more disturbing) that we invade Iraq (supposedly because of the existance of WMD) and then proceed to use our own WMD + Chemical weapons against the Iraqis. On purpose too.

I guess we can just add these to the ever bulging number of innocents killed by our actions in Iraq - which the govt. doesn't count of course.

Of course, perhaps the 300,000 odd residents of Fallujah were all terrorists.

 

[oldreliable67]

G-Man,

You appear to be such a sucker for this stuff! You really need to do a bit of research before making some of these statements! From the State Dept web site devoted to identifying misinformation, please consider...

"The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true."
...
"Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003."
...
"The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK’s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah."
...
"The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror’s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas.""
...
"Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."
...

And, lastly,

the 300,000 odd residents of Fallujah

At the time of the battle, various estimates place the remaining population of Fallujah at about 50% or less of its pre-battle population. Consider this description of the battle for Fallujah from the WP:

The battle plan was tailored to prevent significant destruction. It called for a slow squeeze, starting with precision strikes against identified targets, and followed by a careful assault directed at taking out the opposition and reoccupying the city, while minimizing civilian and friendly casualties. [emphasis added] We have superior mobility, with heavily armored vehicles; we have superior firepower, with the Bradley's 25mm cannon, M1A1 Abrams tanks, artillery and airstrikes; we have advantages in reconnaissance, with satellites, TV-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles and a whole array of electronic gear. But urban combat partially neutralizes these advantages. A weaker defender can inflict much punishment with only a meager force fighting from the rubble, provided they fight to the death. So this has not been a "cakewalk." This has been a tough battle, and the men and women fighting it deserve every Combat Infantryman's Badge, Bronze Star or Purple Heart they receive.

The US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. The next time you see or hear of al Jazeera broadcasting a video tape of some innocent civilian being beheaded, think about this: Don't we all wish the insurgents would do the same?

 

[G-Man]

G-Man,

You appear to be such a sucker for this stuff! You really need to do a bit of research before making some of these statements! From the State Dept web site devoted to identifying misinformation, please consider...

"The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true."
...
"Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003."
...
"The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK’s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah."
...
"The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror’s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas.""
...
"Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."
...

And, lastly,



At the time of the battle, various estimates place the remaining population of Fallujah at about 50% or less of its pre-battle population. Consider this description of the battle for Fallujah from the WP:



The US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. The next time you see or hear of al Jazeera broadcasting a video tape of some innocent civilian being beheaded, think about this: Don't we all wish the insurgents would do the same?

I never made any attempt to say WP is a legal weapon or not. You can debate this all you like. My point is simply that the dept. of defence regarded its use (by Saddam) as a chemical wepaon attack. We therefore are obviously guilty of launching a chemical weapon attack too. Please feel free to argue whether its use is permitted under international,or any other appropriate law, but it is undeniable that we have committed a chemical attack (according to the definitions used by the DOD).

You also argue we only used it to 'flush out' the enemy. Presumably we did this by firing it directly upon them and covering them in the stuff. This is exactly what I said so I'm glad we agree.

Re: only 50% of the population left in Fallujah. Its nice to see we only consider using chemical weapons in areas which have civilian concentrations of 150,000 or less. Just unfortunate for those that died there, I guess they should have move to a larger city like Baghdad.

Finally, the insurgents are the ones killing our troops whilst the terrorists are beheading people and carrying out suicide attacks. The insurgents have no desire to kill Iraqi's (except the police and army which they believe to be traitors and slaves to the US). You don't hear of many IED's targeting civilians. The terrorists are just fanatics and want to kill as many people and cause as much destruction as possible - you fail to make any distinction between the two. We should also remeber that there had been no terrorist attacks in Iraq prior to our invasion - all these killers/thugs/bastards call them what you will (and I'll agree!) are in Iraq as a direct result of our actions.

 

[oldreliable67]

The terrorists are just fanatics and want to kill as many people and cause as much destruction as possible - you fail to make any distinction between the two.

Not true. Please read post 109 on this thread just to be clear.

point is simply that the dept. of defence regarded its use (by Saddam) as a chemical wepaon attack

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did not Saddam target civilians with WP? And did we not target only folks that were shooting at us (i.e., not civilians)? And do not our Rules of Engagement (ROE) specifically permit us to, when threatened, return fire with any weapon in our arsenal? And does not the source cited specifiy that WP was used to 'flush out the enemy fighters so that they could be killed with HE rounds'?

it is undeniable that we have committed a chemical attack (according to the definitions used by the DOD).

Nope. You might want to research that again before continuing to make that assertion.

 

[alphieb]

When we withdrawal it will be a mess, because the Sunni's will make life hell for everyone else.

 

[Iriemon]

When we withdrawal it will be a mess, because the Sunni's will make life hell for everyone else.

Could be the opposite -- we are training and equipping Kurds and Shiites, whose leaders pretend to support the democratic process because we give them these things. As soon as we leave, the Kurds will declare independence and the slaughter of the Sunnis by the Shias will begin.

 

[alphieb]

Could be the opposite -- we are training and equipping Kurds and Shiites, whose leaders pretend to support the democratic process because we give them these things. As soon as we leave, the Kurds will declare independence and the slaughter of the Sunnis by the Shias will begin.

What is the percentage Sunnis to Shias? I'm not sure??????

 

[G-Man]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did not Saddam target civilians with WP? And did we not target only folks that were shooting at us (i.e., not civilians)? And do not our Rules of Engagement (ROE) specifically permit us to, when threatened, return fire with any weapon in our arsenal? And does not the source cited specifiy that WP was used to 'flush out the enemy fighters so that they could be killed with HE rounds'?
QUOTE]

Old you fail to addess my point. The DOD describes WP as a chemical weapon. It was used as a weapon in the Fallujah assault. This was by definition a chemical attack. You may wish to make a distinction between using WP against insurgents/terrorists/criminals and civilians (I certainly don't feel remorse for any terrorists caught up in this) but to argue it's not a chemical attack because of who the victims were is absurd. If we drop a tactical nuclear bomb on a highly concentrated group of terrorists I suppose that would not be a nuclear attack?

Going back to 'flushing out' - please explain to me how you flush these guys out without firing WP directly upon them? If you didn't do this why would they come out into the open??

When the police/military want to 'flush' someone out of a house or building they chuck in stun grenades and tear gas. Exactly the same has happened here, we chucked a whole heap of the stuff on them and they had no choice (other than to stay where they were and burn to death) but to come out in the open.

You constantly seem to argue that they were terrorists and got what was coming. That may well be true and I ain't arguing we shouldn't be taking out these people - Iraq is a lot better place without them.

My only point on this thread was that we launched a chemical weapon attack in Iraq and I stand by that. I also made no attempt to argue this action was legal or otherwise, I'm just stating the facts.

The DOD classifies the use of WP as a weapon as a chemical attack and I agree with them

I would however argue with your definition of the ROE. I don't think we could argue, under international law, that we can use ANY weapon in our arsenal when threatened. If we had nuked Fallujah I don't think that would have been acceptable. Going by your logic anytime a shot is fired or a missile is lauched against US forces we would be totally justified in wiping them off the face of the earth. Obviously that ain't so. The force/weapons that we use must only be in proportion to the dangers we face.

 

[oldreliable67]

Going by your logic anytime a shot is fired or a missile is lauched against US forces we would be totally justified in wiping them off the face of the earth. Obviously that ain't so. The force/weapons that we use must only be in proportion to the dangers we face.

Yep, you are right. My bad. By not being sufficiently specific, I left myself open for your extrapolation to the absurd.

 

[stsburns]

What is the percentage Sunnis to Shias? I'm not sure??????

I think I might have the information your looking for? :comp:

There are no precise figures, but the mainly-Arab Shias are thought to form a 60% majority and expect to dominate political life after the January election. Under Saddam Hussein, Sunni Arabs (about 20% of the population) dominated political and economic life. The Kurds, who are also Sunnis and represent about 17% of the population, mainly live in the north where they have enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy since 1991.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2005/01/iraq_religous_a_1.html

 

[stsburns]

Yep, you are right. My bad. By not being sufficiently specific, I left myself open for your extrapolation to the absurd.

And your open to?