Enough said.

[Universe Prince]

Prince, am I right that you don't believe the Civil War was justified?

Lanya, I've got mixed responses to that. Most folks think the Civil War was about ending slavery. If you're asking if I don't believe ending slavery is justified, the answer is that I do believe ending slavery was justified and necessary. I do not, however, believe the Civil War preserved the Union. I believe it changed the nature of the Union in a fundamental way, and I don't mean just by resulting in the end of legal slavery.

At one time, the United States was merely these United States. The United States was a voluntary union of states and not a kingdom or an empire made by force (in theory anyway). States had the authority to remove themselves from the Union and this, in part, helped the states serve as a kind of check on the power of the federal government. You know, kinda like how a certain thirteen colonies once removed themselves from the Kingdom of Great Britain, only the states were not supposed to have to fight a war to do it. The Civil War basically changed all that. The union of the United States is no longer a voluntary union, and the power of the states to be a check on the power of the federal government is, at the very least, greatly reduced.

Some folks think that is as it should be. I'm not so sure.

[Henny]

At one time, the United States was merely these United States.

More to the point, they were "these united states of America." No capitalization on the first part, as the strength of each individual state was considered much more important than the fact that they were united.

[_JS]

At one time, the United States was merely these United States.

More to the point, they were "these united states of America." No capitalization on the first part, as the strength of each individual state was considered much more important than the fact that they were united.

But, you'd agree that there was a lesson learned from the Articles of Confederation?

[Universe Prince]

Excellent point, Henny, as usual.

[Henny]

At one time, the United States was merely these United States.

More to the point, they were "these united states of America." No capitalization on the first part, as the strength of each individual state was considered much more important than the fact that they were united.

Of course. I was mainly adding to Prince's point about the attitudes in the early U.S. ... and also a bit of trivia that many people are unaware of.

But, you'd agree that there was a lesson learned from the Articles of Confederation?

[sirs]

Could it be perhaps that we're not actually "attacking & killing Iraqis", that in fact we're actually attacking & killing muslim extremists & terrorists, who are either trying to kill Americans or trying to derail freedom for Iraqis??

Not according to the leader of Iraq, Sirs.

When they want to detain one person, they should not kill 10 others.

Targeted & "attacked" or tragic loss of life in a war zone?  Are the 10 others simple civilians or are they shooting back?  Context is everything, Js

[_JS]

Targeted & "attacked" or tragic loss of life in a war zone?  Are the 10 others simple civilians or are they shooting back?  Context is everything, Js

From Maliki's statement it certainly did not sound as if it were accidental.

"Concerning American raids on Shula (a northern Shiite neighborhood) and Sadr City (the Shiite slum enclave in east Baghdad). There were big mistakes committed in these operations. The terrorist himself should be targeted not his family.

"When they want to detain one person, they should not kill 10 others. These are mistakes which we have to deal with. We will not allow the detaining of innocent people. Only the criminals should be detained," the angry al-Maliki declared.

Link

[sirs]

.... These are mistakes which we have to deal with. We will not allow the detaining of innocent people. Only the criminals should be detained," ....

And he's absolutely right.  "Mistakes" that should not be occuring at this stage of the game.  And hardly the widespread inferrence of American forces wantingly attacking & killing Iraqis, which is what prompted this point of the thread

[_JS]

But not "accidental" as you claimed.

Maliki is saying that they are mistakes in terms of tactics. He does not appreciate the fallout that his government has to handle because of these mistakes.

It is not accidental, as you claimed. I never said it was widespread, or not. I don't have proof either way, but clearly there has been killing that was not necessary.

[sirs]

But not "accidental" as you claimed.  Maliki is saying that they are mistakes in terms of tactics. He does not appreciate the fallout that his government has to handle because of these mistakes.

Mistakes sure seem to imply non-intentional.  You don't think so??  And yes, mistakes in bad tactics, NOT in some wanton effort to attack and kill Iraqis, as Tee has claimed (I never claimed you implied widespread.  That was in regards to Tee's proclaimations, that you jumped into).  Is that your position as well?.....American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely?? 

[Plane]

   If there are ten people in a house with one terrorist , are they helping hide him?


   Al Maliki needs to get his own forces in gear and do all the detaining with Iriqui police and army forces under his own command , the less he depends on the strength of the US the better for him and us too.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"You said you wanted to handle Iran and Syria the way Kosovo was handled"

Yes in that Kosovo was an aerial campaign with almost zero ground troops.
It was "make peace or we'll bomb you".

"As a result of the bombings, as best I understand it, Kosovo was left impoverished and in economic chaos"

Kosovo was in "economic chaos" long before President Clinton launched a single bomb.
Before President Clinton's brilliant military strategy, Kosovo's poverty and unemployment reached catastrophic levels,
with about 80% of Kosovo's population becoming unemployed.

"So, why is there such a problem with saying you want Iran and Syria bombed into poverty?"

Because I usually have a problem with characterizations of my stances that are false.
It is a fact that I do not want Iran and Syria "bombed into poverty".
I do not want to bomb anyone
but I do not believe the Mullahs in Iran will stop their support of terror and attacks using proxies targeting US and Israel unless the cost becomes unbearable for them.
We have the ability to make that cost unbearable without using ground troops.

(i wish i had more time)

[Universe Prince]

I do not want to bomb anyone

Okay. You'll just have to forgive me for misunderstanding your advocating bombing Iran and Syria as wanting to bomb Iran and Syria.

[Plane]

I do not want to bomb anyone

Okay. You'll just have to forgive me for misunderstanding your advocating bombing Iran and Syria as wanting to bomb Iran and Syria.

A bombing campaign is war , a credable threat to start a bombing campaign is diplomacy.

[_JS]

Mistakes sure seem to imply non-intentional.  You don't think so??  And yes, mistakes in bad tactics, NOT in some wanton effort to attack and kill Iraqis, as Tee has claimed (I never claimed you implied widespread.  That was in regards to Tee's proclaimations, that you jumped into).  Is that your position as well?.....American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely?? 

That is what al-Maliki is implying in his statement.

You can call the Japanese internment camps of World War II a mistake. That doesn't mean they were not intentional (as they most certainly were). It would still be proper to call them a mistake in policy.

That is what Maliki means by mistakes for which he has to clean up the mess.