PDA

View Full Version : Saddam's Sons Killed?



XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 05:17 PM
Saddam Hussein's two sons may have been found in Iraq after a four-hour shoot-out took place in the Northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Apparently, members of the 101st Airborne and the Special Forces group dubbed "Task Force 20" killed four high-ranking Iraqis, which may have been Uday and Qusay Hussein, as well as one of their teenage sons and the former General Izzat Ibrahim Ad-Duri who was Vice chairman of the Baath Party in charge of Iraqi forces in Mosul.

The signals coming out of official US channels is sort of mixed, but most still lean towards the demise of Saddam's sons. For instance, Pentagon officials are claiming "there is an 80% chance Saddam's sons have been found and killed". However, a National Security Council member speaking anonymously stated, "Uday and Qusay have met their maker". Another report mentioned the bodies of the dead were so damaged from the shoot-out (which included aerial attacks from helicopters) that we may not even know the outcome until DNA tests are performed.

Anyway, all I can say is let's hope they did in fact capture or kill these individuals because getting rid of Uday and Qusay Hussein would be one of the most positive developments since we occupied Iraq in April. One thing is for sure, it would definitely serve as a large political triumph for the United States in terms of convincing average Iraqis that the former government will not be coming back. As far as its effect on the ongoing guerilla war in Iraq goes, I don't think it will impact that as much because the Baath Regime by nature is designed to operate in small cells independent of a central authority.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 05:17 PM
Saddam Hussein's two sons may have been found in Iraq after a four-hour shoot-out took place in the Northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Apparently, members of the 101st Airborne and the Special Forces group dubbed "Task Force 20" killed four high-ranking Iraqis, which may have been Uday and Qusay Hussein, as well as one of their teenage sons and the former General Izzat Ibrahim Ad-Duri who was Vice chairman of the Baath Party in charge of Iraqi forces in Mosul.

The signals coming out of official US channels is sort of mixed, but most still lean towards the demise of Saddam's sons. For instance, Pentagon officials are claiming "there is an 80% chance Saddam's sons have been found and killed". However, a National Security Council member speaking anonymously stated, "Uday and Qusay have met their maker". Another report mentioned the bodies of the dead were so damaged from the shoot-out (which included aerial attacks from helicopters) that we may not even know the outcome until DNA tests are performed.

Anyway, all I can say is let's hope they did in fact capture or kill these individuals because getting rid of Uday and Qusay Hussein would be one of the most positive developments since we occupied Iraq in April. One thing is for sure, it would definitely serve as a large political triumph for the United States in terms of convincing average Iraqis that the former government will not be coming back. As far as its effect on the ongoing guerilla war in Iraq goes, I don't think it will impact that as much because the Baath Regime by nature is designed to operate in small cells independent of a central authority.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:12 PM
V3-Dev wrote:

I don't think it will impact that as much
- because the Baath Regime by nature is designed to
- operate in small cells independent of a central
- authority.

those two I believe are part of that central authority...no?
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:30 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- V3-Dev wrote:
-
-- I don't think it will impact that as much
-- because the Baath Regime by nature is designed to
-- operate in small cells independent of a central
-- authority.
-
- those two I believe are part of that central
- authority...no?


Yes, they are part of the former central authority. Where did I say they weren't Hornet? My point was that the Baath regime structure going all the way back to its early days as a clandestine group who eventually overthrew the Iraqi monarchy has the ability to function as independent cells without specific orders coming from any sort of centralized command.

Therefore, this is why you have the current guerilla warfare situation that is occurring in Iraq today, and the killing or capture of Saddam' sons really won't impact this insurgency, especially considering these individuals conducting attacks on the US have nothing to lose and no future whatsoever in Iraqi society to begin with.

Overall, the biggest impact of their demise would be in the political sphere because like I said it would convince many Iraqis that the US is really being sincere when they say the former regime is dead and not coming back, as well as proving to them that they will in fact stay the course in Iraq.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:51 PM
whats weird is that Russian news sites had this news about 2 hours before (maybe more) it was posted on CNN.


_______________________________________

"Generals dont run; during peace this prompts laughter, during war this prompts panic."

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:55 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Hornet57 wrote:
--
-- V3-Dev wrote:
--
--- -
- Yes, they are part of the former central authority.
- Where did I say they weren't Hornet? My point was
- that the Baath regime structure going all the way
- back to its early days as a clandestine group who
- eventually overthrew the Iraqi monarchy has the
- ability to function as independent cells without
- specific orders coming from any sort of centralized
- command.

My point was that they are not part of the central structure anymore and the small cells need funding to operate. So the attacks will subside conciderably.
-
- Therefore, this is why you have the current guerilla
- warfare situation that is occurring in Iraq today,
- and the killing or capture of Saddam' sons really
- won't impact this insurgency, especially considering
- these individuals conducting attacks on the US have
- nothing to lose and no future whatsoever in Iraqi
- society to begin with.

Nobody is going to fight if they have no backup...face reality will you.
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 07:13 PM
This is bad news! Who's going to run the Iraqi national football team now? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 07:47 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- My point was that they are not part of the central
- structure anymore and the small cells need funding
- to operate. So the attacks will subside
- conciderably.

Saddam's sons not being part of the central authority in Iraq any longer (which I have already stated repeatedly above) simply proves my position that the Baath regime is capable of operating in a compartmentalized fashion without receiving orders from any senior-level commanders. As for the monetary issues, there are millions if not billions of US dollars and Iraqi dinars floating around the country. Therefore, it would be absurd to think that Saddam's sons were distributing it all from this single house they were allegedly held up in. It is more likely these funds have long been distributed throughout Iraq to lower-level Baath officials to nurture the ongoing guerilla activities which have become a daily occurrence.

- Nobody is going to fight if they have no
- backup...face reality will you.

Speaking of reality Hornet, before you start making anymore frivolous comments on aspects of guerilla warfare you obviously know nothing about, I suggest you run down to the nearest library and check out every book you can on topics like Vietnam. Then maybe you will have at least some familiarity as to how a true insurgency is really conducted. Furthermore, like I mentioned above, you would either have to be somewhat delusional or simply ignorant (leaning towards the latter) to think that all of a sudden the capture of Uday and Qusay Hussein is going to put an end to attacks on US soldiers by insurgents who appear to be getting more sophisticated and more bold as everyday passes.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 07:49 PM
Olegious wrote:
- whats weird is that Russian news sites had this news
- about 2 hours before (maybe more) it was posted on
- CNN.

Well, I am unaware of when CNN (I don't really watch them on TV or read them online) or Russian news agencies began reporting on this matter. However, I do know the Reuters newswire was releasing information on it early this morning around 9-10 AM EST as the battle was apparently taking place. I also believe Hornet's favorite news network Al-Jazeera was providing coverage on the incident very early on too.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 07:57 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- This is bad news! Who's going to run the Iraqi
- national football team now?

MNG, don't forget now he also held a seat in parliament, ran Iraq's most popular newspaper and headed the national Olympic committee.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 08:18 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- This is bad news! Who's going to run the Iraqi
-- national football team now?
-
- MNG, don't forget now he also held a seat in
- parliament, ran Iraq's most popular newspaper and
- headed the national Olympic committee.

Christ! *slaps head* Iraq is headed for disaster!




http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 08:22 PM
Well... I dunno. We killed his sons... great? Now daddy won't be able to have bonding time with them building warheads?

The whole war was a waste of deaths and money, no evidence of weapons were found, and neither was Saddam.

_________________________________________
----====Lung-Tung for life====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/Lung-Tung2.JPG

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 08:28 PM
durdd wrote:
- Well... I dunno. We killed his sons... great? Now
- daddy won't be able to have bonding time with them
- building warheads?
-
- The whole war was a waste of deaths and money, no
- evidence of weapons were found, and neither was
- Saddam.

I could not agree with you more Durdd.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 08:48 PM
Its confirmed...they're dead.

Ah well.

Kurtz

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 08:55 PM
good, now the rest of his family

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:44 PM
Yeah, I watched that press briefing given earlier by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez in Baghdad. It would appear his contention that, "we've used multiple sources to identify the individuals" probably had nothing to do with DNA forensic testing considering the speed in which official confirmation was given to the public.

Anyway, apparently Uday and Qusay were filmed by individuals on the ground exiting a car and racing into the house, and then that footage was quickly relayed to the American military, which identified the men and surrounded the area. Ultimately, assaulting the location after those inside began to open fire.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:12 PM
Couldn't happen to two nicer guys: Wonder how my ex son in law feels about this- and his whole corrupt family. they held him in quite high regard-Saddam that is- and admired the sons also.
It sickens me that that whole extended family is still allowed to reside here, considering they hold us and our country in such contempt and are not backward about expressing this. They also have frauded Citibank(and others) for many, many thousands of dollars in credit card theft. Thousands in calls to Jordan and Kuwait. Money laundering-they caught some of them trucking drugs up into Canada-unfortunately not the relatives that have made my daughter's life a living hell.

I'm about ready to call the authorities myself to get them off their collective arses and move on these people. (I already gave the info to an investigative reporter from the Chicago area , but he couldn't ferret out the needed info to nab them)
Ah well- I've vented enough for one day.

Leep Out:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 03:03 AM
well that's two down.




http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 07:28 AM
Brilliant news, isnt it, if only we could find their dad (if he's alive) and give him a .50 pill

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 07:32 AM
That would be fun. Right in the mouth to as he is eating.


Talk about force feeding.

http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 07:37 AM
http://www.geocities.com/leon_hostad/baghdadbob3.jpg

Its all an American lie, they did not bust a cap in their asses

Message Edited on 07/23/0308:46AM by bad_karma_2one

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 02:12 PM
So what do you think? Will this make the resistance less or more dangerous?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 05:18 PM
maybe after you lot have finished the macho bull about how good death is youll stop to consider that the americans also took the life of a 14 year old boy, along with saddamns sons.



http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 05:19 PM
oh and leep, bernard manning is well known for not liking his in laws, hehe cant blame you either.

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 05:59 PM
ukahugekebab wrote:
- maybe after you lot have finished the macho bull
- about how good death is youll stop to consider that
- the americans also took the life of a 14 year old
- boy, along with saddamns sons.


Were the boys unarmed, or were they firing on Coalition forces as well? Or are you passing judgement on posters in this thread without knowing those details?

Death is normally tragic, but in this case, it made the world a better place. Have you read up on these two butchers?

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:12 PM
ukahugekebab wrote:
- maybe after you lot have finished the macho bull
- about how good death is youll stop to consider that
- the americans also took the life of a 14 year old
- boy, along with saddamns sons.

Imagine if we took out Saddams two little darling teenage boys Uday and Qusay a long time ago, How many Iraqi people's life would have been different.



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:37 PM
What I find interesting is how four guys in a house held up 200 US infantrymen for four hours.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 07:05 PM
they probably put up that sig of yours on the front door.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif .....you asked..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>http://www.portents.com/marek/transformers/autobot.jpg

<center>http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/images/BannerA.gif </a>

<center>NSAagent's Respect List
<center>Beer
<center>Liquor
<center>Wine
<center><marquee loop="infinite" bgcolor="black" width=300> Why must I be surrounded by frickin' idiots? - dr. evil </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 07:07 PM
Pope wrote:
- Death is normally tragic, but in this case, it made
- the world a better place. Have you read up on these
- two butchers?

You're right Pope these men absolutely had to be killed.

They were smokers.

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/brothers.bmp



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:07 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- You're right Pope these men absolutely had to be
- killed.
-
- They were smokers.

Come on now MNG, aside from being smokers let's not forget that while adolescents they as well as a younger Saddam were also the proud owners of very hideous looking Speedo swim wear. I mean this alone in my view was enough to justify their termination yesterday.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030722/i/1058891614.3825254461.jpg

Message Edited on 07/23/0304:10PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 09:26 PM
Death comes to us all: Simple fact of life. Why then worry about how or when it comes to these two Butchers of men? As for the son of one of them- forget which- It is always sad when a young person dies before his time- perhaps this was his time. One could surmise that he too would have followed in his father's and uncle's footsteps. I am certain and confident, however,that if those two egomaniacs would have waved the white flag and offered to send out the young butcher in training-our forces would have been all too glad to allow this. The blame lies on the shoulders of the "Adults" in this case.


Leep Out:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 09:44 PM
Leep wrote:
- Death comes to us all: Simple fact of life. Why then
- worry about how or when it comes to these two
- Butchers of men? As for the son of one of them-
- forget which- It is always sad when a young person
- dies before his time- perhaps this was his time. One
- could surmise that he too would have followed in his
- father's and uncle's footsteps. I am certain and
- confident, however,that if those two egomaniacs
- would have waved the white flag and offered to send
- out the young butcher in training-our forces would
- have been all too glad to allow this. The blame lies
- on the shoulders of the "Adults" in this case.
-
-
- Leep Out:

Fascinating. So not all kids are precious? Might have followed in their footsteps so a little 'very late term DnC with explosives' action is okay with some kids?



http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 12:39 AM
NSAagent wrote:
- they probably put up that sig of yours on the front
- door


Maybe they should have sent in Rainbow Six? I taken many a room of Tangos without the need for missles and tanks...


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:22 AM
I know a little about these people and their culture. Almost from self defense: I am certain this young man was not a child. They mature a lot faster than we do here Gandalf and if you had been paying attention to world affairs (I know you have , just a little shot) you may remember that Israel has suffered from homicide bombers as young as 14 or 15.
Iraq breeds the same ilk.
In the future when i make reference to kids, you can rest assured i am talking about those "Slightly" younger, before they have been corrupted by centuries old hatreds.
This young man has been witness to the brutal behaviour displayed by his Father, Uncle, Grandpappa, and everyone else of that regime. How could he not view it as acceptable behaviour. Their "God" has decreed they have the divine power to assign punishment, whatever level they deem.
As a Historian, I know you are up to date as much or more than I. Even though I do spend an inordinate amount of time watching, reading what goes on today. But, i have the time to devote to this, and most have families to raise and jobs that take up much of their discretionary time.
hmm, perhaps I am more of an expert than I initially thought. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
No, truthfully, I do feel bad that the young man died as he did. If he had the opportunity to observe how others live and the time to experience other cultures, maybe then he might have turned out diferently.
I would hazard a guess, however, that he danced and partied as hard as the rest as he watched the trade centers crumbling around our world. They grow up quickly over there.
So- if your intention was to induce any feelings of regret over my mention of the young man, you have succeeded, a little.
I was being a little facetious: But, I have to admit-even to myself-that I won't lose a "whole" lot of sleep over his early demise.
Children are my concern: Where you draw the line as to who falls under that rather ambiguous ceiling, is a matter of personal choice, i guess.
Little point to all this, i suppose.
I confess to being a little heartless in respect to the young man, but there it is. i have to be what I am-not what someone decides i should be-to conform to their own ideas and ideals.
Every man has to answer to his conscience, and to his system of beliefs and honor.
I'll try to be as consistent as i possibly can, for my sake rather than someone elses. but, I suspect that is something we all do anyhow.

Take care:

Leep out:



http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:24 AM
One thing you can say about these guys... did they go down is a blaze of glory or what?

Four guys trying to fight 200 of the best equiped soldiers in the world. They went out like Scarface.

"Say allo to my lil..."


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 03:02 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- One thing you can say about these guys... did they
- go down is a blaze of glory or what?
-
- Four guys trying to fight 200 of the best equiped
- soldiers in the world. They went out like Scarface.
-
- "Say allo to my lil..."
-
MNG wipe your chin, you're salivating.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 03:14 AM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
-
- Fascinating. So not all kids are precious? Might
- have followed in their footsteps so a little 'very
- late term DnC with explosives' action is okay with
- some kids?

If Saddam's two very precious teens where taken out long time a go, many Iraqi people would have still had their loved ones with them right now.

It is still unfotunate that the son had to die, but lets not forget that his father put him in that situation. And the probability that he would have followed in his father's footsteps is very likely. Osama bin Ladin's son is another likely candidate at a later date. Since he is trainning to take over his loving father's position after Osama meets his virgins.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 04:39 AM
pope,

yes i have read up mate, thanks very much.

yeah saddamns sons were evil blah de blah but i dont like all this gloating when a 14 year old kid was killed in the fighting (dont think he was a shooter either), its in bad taste. i hate all these people who are always whooping and cheering at all this killing and death lately, yet would p*ss their pants if they got involved in even a minor punch up outside a bar.

lets face it, most of the guys in this forum probably havent even got in a scuffle, let alone been involved in warfare.

look, war is bloody terrible and i feel sorry for all these iraqi conscripts that have been slaughtered in this war and the last (road to basra, remember that) so im sick of all this cheering, seriously theres nothing to cheer about, its all bad.

pope have you ever seen what happens to a child when a high velocity round hits them? its not nice mate.

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 04:41 AM
Hornet57 wrote:

Imagine if we took out Saddams two little darling
- teenage boys Uday and Qusay a long time ago, How
- many Iraqi people's life would have been different


so by that rationale we shoulds kill all teenage boys, justify in case they become world dictators.

a 14 year old kid does not deserve to die. full stop. if you say otherwise then your an immature little boy, who i bet has never even been in a scrap and would poo his pants if involved in a gun fight.

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 04:43 AM
leep what crap are you talking? boys in ythe middle east mature at exactly the same rate as in the west. he was a boy and didnt deserve to die full stop.

i cant believe your justifying killing kids??

and stop saying leep out this is a forum not a radio transmission

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 04:45 AM
lol they should rename this forum kiddiekillas forum or something, youre all a bunch of infanticidal maniacs

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:26 AM
ukahugekebab wrote:
- pope,
-
- yes i have read up mate, thanks very much.
-
- yeah saddamns sons were evil blah de blah but i dont
- like all this gloating when a 14 year old kid was
- killed in the fighting (dont think he was a shooter
- either), its in bad taste. i hate all these people
- who are always whooping and cheering at all this
- killing and death lately, yet would p*ss their
- pants if they got involved in even a minor punch up
- outside a bar.
-
- lets face it, most of the guys in this forum
- probably havent even got in a scuffle, let alone
- been involved in warfare.
-
- look, war is bloody terrible and i feel sorry for
- all these iraqi conscripts that have been
- slaughtered in this war and the last (road to basra,
- remember that) so im sick of all this cheering,
- seriously theres nothing to cheer about, its all
- bad.
-
- pope have you ever seen what happens to a child when
- a high velocity round hits them? its not nice mate.


Don't think he was a shooter? You'd better be damn sure if you are putting up this much of a fuss.

The boy is suspected to be Qusay's son. Saddam started the brothers' Grimm's careers as murderers when they were preteens, according to some reports. You think Qusay didn't do the same? You are acting as if this kid was as good and pure as the light itself, when A) that is probably not the case, considering his company and B) you don't know either way.

Any even if he was an innocent bystander who just happened to be collateral damage: if Uday and Qusay had not been killed or captured, many more than just a single innocent would have died. That may be no justification to you, but when dealing with collateral damage you have to view it as risk vs. reward; risk being one death, reward being saving many lives.

Also consider this: Coalition forces didn't just go in shooting. They asked for surrender first. It was Uday and Qusay's call to not surrender, and I believe they are as responsible, if not more, for that kid's life.

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

Message Edited on 07/23/0309:27PM by Pope

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 06:37 AM
Kids do mature faster than ours here in America. They have no choice.They born into strife and see more death and killing by the time they reach their teens than almost any others-excepting those of the other countries adjacent to Iraq.

I stated earlier that if his Uncle and Father were really men, they would have sent the young man out when they were asked to come out. They are directly responsible for his death. i am confident he would not have come out unless he was ordered to by his Father.
I did not attempt to justify his killing, just to explain why it happened as it did.
As for saying Leep Out: Leep is a shortened version of my last name and I'm sure you can appreciate the small play on words. I am unsure why that should bother you-or why I am explaining it to you. I'm a fair guy and i guess i am trying to be fair in this attempt to supply you with an explanation.

I'm sure you are correct when you state that there are probably few here that have even been in a physical altercation. I am just as unsure why that should make a difference in how and why they share their opinions. Certainly there are many young people here.
I see you are cognizant of this fact. I would also think that you would take that into consideration and form your replies to attempt to reach them on their level, if you have a desire to import your ideas into their young minds. I assure you that the methods you are currently employing are doomed to failure.

I am certain that there are men of my generation, and probably of the younger generation that have had physical altercations in their lives. i am unsure also how that is relative to how they view what is going on today.

I have been hit in my time: I can say with confidence and surety that I also have never lost any physical altercation I was ever involved in as an adult.
I would like to quantify that remark by stating that I also have never been involved in a fight unless it was in the defence of another person.
I took martial arts for almost three years so I would not have to get in any fights. You would be amazed how the training and sparring gives you the confidence to walk away from the loudmouths and drunks who like to throw their weight around.
I have walked away inwardly smiling more times than I can remember from some fool who got jealous because his wife or girl had a little too much to drink and decided just because i was on stage and singing, I was somehow something special and better tham what they were with.
I could have told them of their mistake-i'm just a guy not any better or worse than what they came in with.

I don't know how my poor wife put up with it for all those years.
But, if i observed someone smacking around his wife or girlfriend, because he had too much to drink-or just because he got some sick kick out of it-then all bets were off. Or, picking on another guy who clearly could not handle it and didn't want any part of it and it was being forced on the poor guy, same thing goes.
So- I guess if you wade through all this a couple things will happen. You might get even more angry and belligerent -or you might realize that you might be over-reacting just a bit and need a time out. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hope there are no hard feelings because i hate to have anyone po-d at me for little or no reason.

And, If I may:


Leep Out:


http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 07:41 AM
According to the official blow-by-blow account (see link below) of the operation given yesterday by Lt. Gen. Sanchez it would appear that the teenager was armed and resisting the assault. After a failed second attempt at entering the structure, Uday, Qusay, and a bodyguard were the first ones killed as a result of "preparatory fires" in the form of ten TOW missiles. Then US troops entered the building for a third time, and upon reaching the home's second level they began receiving gunfire courtesy of Qusay's 14 year-old son. In response they return with their own barrage and subsequently kill him.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2003/n07232003_200307232.html

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 07:42 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
- According to the official blow-by-blow account (see
- link below) of the operation given yesterday by Lt.
- Gen. Sanchez it would appear that the teenager was
- armed and resisting the assault. After a failed
- second attempt at entering the structure, Uday,
- Qusay, and a bodyguard were the first ones killed as
- a result of "preparatory fires" in the form of ten
- TOW missiles. Then US troops entered the building
- for a third time, and upon reaching the home's
- second level they began receiving gunfire courtesy
- of Qusay's 14 year-old son. In response they return
- with their own barrage and subsequently kill him.


Hmmmm, color me not suprised...

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 07:47 AM
MNG a few reasons why the gunfight draged on for 4 hours is primarly because they where more intrested in capturing them then killing them.

Considering, dead men don't have a habbit of talking.


Another thing to remember is the room and building they where in was prepared earlier with bullet proof windows and renforced walls to help withstand some heavy caliber machine gun fire.

http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

VIVA LA REVOLUTION AGAINST UBI

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 08:00 AM
Sadly enough, the anticipated increase in attacks as a result of Uday and Qusay's deaths has already begun. In fact, the Reuters newswire just reported that three soldiers of the same 101st Airborne Division that was involved in the Mosul shootout have apparently been killed in an ambush, bringing the total number of US fatalities to five since the event on Tuesday.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 01:44 PM
ukahugekebab wrote:
-
- so by that rationale we shoulds kill all teenage
- boys, justify in case they become world dictators.

I am going to say this straight out. Either you are incredibly dumb or a very good actor. Who here said that ALL teenage boys should be killed?
On the other hand like Pope pointed out a report that Saddam raised his two little tyrants from preteen years, and you can bet your bank acccount that this boy was being raised in the same manner.
-
- a 14 year old kid does not deserve to die. full
- stop. if you say otherwise then your an immature
- little boy, who i bet has never even been in a scrap
- and would poo his pants if involved in a gun fight

Yield for a second. Who put that boy in that situation?
wether he had a weapon or not its not important. When our guys got there they asked to search the place. The fire came from the house. The reason it took so long is because they tried to take them alive (like someone pointed out to MNG) or one 2000lb. bomb would have done the job quite sooner and alot messier.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 01:52 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Sadly enough, the anticipated increase in attacks as
- a result of Uday and Qusay's deaths has already
- begun. In fact, the Reuters newswire just reported
- that three soldiers of the same 101st Airborne
- Division that was involved in the Mosul shootout
- have apparently been killed in an ambush, bringing
- the total number of US fatalities to five since the
- event on Tuesday.
-

Its not an increase in attacks. An increase in attacks would be 3-4 attacks per day.You know there would be revenge attacks and desperate attacks for the next few weeks, but the toll of the two brothers death will be realized soon.
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 01:59 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- MNG a few reasons why the gunfight draged on for 4
- hours is primarly because they where more intrested
- in capturing them then killing them.
-
- Considering, dead men don't have a habbit of
- talking.
-
-
- Another thing to remember is the room and building
- they where in was prepared earlier with bullet proof
- windows and renforced walls to help withstand some
- heavy caliber machine gun fire.

So you're saying Rainbow Six couldn't have done it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I actually I had more the impression that the reason it took so long was because they were more interested in taking them with their bodies more or less intact so that they could prove they were dead. Otherwise I think they would have just dropped a bomb on the house.

Question for Pope and the others: can we say we are any better than Saddam at this point? The Evil sons aside, lets look at our actions for a minute. We invade a country with no justification (like Saddam did), we assassinate our political rivals (like Saddam did) and we kill and impoverish innocent civilians (like Saddam did). So on what stable moral ground do we stand on to say these two demons deserve to die while our noble, truthful and benevolent leaders deserve to live?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:50 PM
Thats gonna be 1 happy Iraqi who turned them in. He/she gets 15 000 000 X 2 =$30,000,000.00 million for the info.




<Center>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif This is why I use AMD /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://www3.telus.net/robert/idiot2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:02 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Its not an increase in attacks. An increase in
- attacks would be 3-4 attacks per day.You know there
- would be revenge attacks and desperate attacks for
- the next few weeks, but the toll of the two brothers
- death will be realized soon.

Actually Hornet, US forces have already been suffering on average 10-15 attacks per day throughout Iraq, and the city of Mosul where the latest incidents occurred has been relatively peaceful to date. Furthermore, the fatality rate due to combat was much smaller at around almost one per day. Therefore, five deaths in two days would definitely indicate a spike in that rate. As far as the revenge attacks you mentioned are concerned, I believe I already touched on that when I clearly stated, "the anticipated increase in attacks".

Also, the immediate effects of their demise as I mentioned previously will probably be in the political and psychological realm, which is why Paul Bremer has just released the photos of their corpses in order to convince the Iraqi people that the Baath regime is in fact dead and not coming back. The success of the operation will also probably serve as a morale booster for many of our troops who have been deployed for extended periods of time. To them this is more or less the only real victory since the fall of Baghdad on April 9.

Ultimately Hornet, the deaths of Saddam's sons on Tuesday is a step in the right direction, but keep in mind it is just one piece of an extremely larger puzzle which needs to be completed in order for the Iraqi reconstruction to be achieved. You still have thousands of Baath loyalists roaming the country attacking US forces at will, loads of disconcerted Iraqis angered about the pace of rebuilding, and an infrastructure there that is still in extremely bad shape. Put simply, there is much work to be done, many years to go, and it won't be easy.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:19 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- Question for Pope and the others: can we say we are
- any better than Saddam at this point? The Evil sons
- aside, lets look at our actions for a minute. We
- invade a country with no justification (like Saddam
- did), we assassinate our political rivals (like
- Saddam did) and we kill and impoverish innocent
- civilians (like Saddam did). So on what stable
- moral ground do we stand on to say these two demons
- deserve to die while our noble, truthful and
- benevolent leaders deserve to live?


When we gas 200,000 Iraqis, then we can talk, MNG. Saddam has killed more than a million of his own people. When we approach those numbers, I'll conceed the point.

In the process of removing Saddam from power, we killed thousands of civilians. Because he is out of power, we saved hundreds of thousands of civilians. That is what it boils down to for me.

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:23 PM
V3-Dev wrote:

I guess you agree with President Bush then, he also said it wont be easy.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:32 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- I actually I had more the impression that the reason
- it took so long was because they were more
- interested in taking them with their bodies more or
- less intact so that they could prove they were dead.
- Otherwise I think they would have just dropped a
- bomb on the house.

No sugar shirlock.
-
-
- Question for Pope and the others: can we say we are
- any better than Saddam at this point?

We can say it, we can sing it, we can even anounce it through Huge Speakers in the center of Times Square.

The Evil sons
- aside, lets look at our actions for a minute. We
- invade a country with no justification (like Saddam
- did), we assassinate our political rivals (like
- Saddam did) and we kill and impoverish innocent
- civilians (like Saddam did). So on what stable
- moral ground do we stand on to say these two demons
- deserve to die while our noble, truthful and
- benevolent leaders deserve to live?

MNG you are hopeless /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif *shakes head* I am now convinced that there is nothing the Americans can do that is right by your book. Even WHEN the WMD will be found you would not be satisfied. The truth as in facts escapes your mind. You do have a creative way of turning things around though



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:57 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- V3-Dev wrote:
-
- I guess you agree with President Bush then, he also
- said it wont be easy.

On the contrary Hornet, I think he agrees with me and many other experts who have been saying this all along even before the war began. You see Mr. Bush only began to publicly acknowledge (come clean) this fact after his post-war reconstruction plan based on very poor assumptions backfired and went up in flames.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 06:42 PM
Well , it seems that this President Bush isn't doing a whole lot better, at least initially, than his dad did. I will concede the fact that he and his current administration severely underestimated what the aftermath of this war would be. I, along with I am sure millions of other Americans were and are not surprised by what has happened since the war started, and "ended"
it is difficult to lay this at the Presidents feet, however. he has advisers who are supposed to be experts at this. It seems they are not as expert as they would have us or him,believe.
I firmly believe that our presidents heart is in the right place and, after he spends some time examining this huge problem,he will insist that a cohesive plan is created and implemented as soon as possible. I would like to be a mouse in the corner when he lines up the fools that gave him this misinformation and verbally shoots them down. After all, the man is not an idiot and re-election is surely on his mind.
I, for one, even after expressing this, intend to stand by my President, for I believe he will ultimately do the right thing, and that he has been trying to do just that all along. he is, after all, only human.
This is quite a revelation for me, because I have been a Democrat all my life. that, however , has changed.
Whew, that wasn't so hard now was it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

We are living in dangerous times and I fear that the danger will only escalate. If they had left us alone and had not attacked us here on our own soil, I believe that the world would have chugged on as it has since we started all this. I wish they had left this sleeping dog alone. or, if you prefer, had not awakened the sleeping monster.
For now the fat's in the fire and hell has just started.

Noe we have to take whatever steps are necesary to make them leave us alone. And, I can assure you-that will not be easy or shortlived. It's tough to dissuade a people who really do not care if they live or die as long as they can take some of us with them. So, whatever we do will have to be strong enough to stop them. Wonder what form that will take? Time will tell. Man are we living in historic times.
Someone is going to make a killing the next generation selling history texts to the next generation of students.

Leep Out:



http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 07:17 PM
Pope wrote:

- When we gas 200,000 Iraqis, then we can talk, MNG.
- Saddam has killed more than a million of his own
- people. When we approach those numbers, I'll conceed
- the point.
-
- In the process of removing Saddam from power, we
- killed thousands of civilians. Because he is out of
- power, we saved hundreds of thousands of civilians.
- That is what it boils down to for me.

The problem I have with this Pope is two-fold. First overall, we have ourselves killed tens of thousands of civilians with our bombs and knowingly supplied Saddam with the ammunition and delivery capabilities to gas those Kurds. Further we are saving Iraqi civilians by restricting their freedom of speech and movement within their own country as well as daily gunning them down at rallies and check points.

Second, where do you draw the line? We're better only because we haven't murdered as many people as him? We're angels until we kill 200,000 Iraqis? Up until then we're fine?

Aren't we displaying a certain arrogance by deciding that ten thousand odd dead civilians (in this war) is a price we're willing to pay?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 07:41 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Hornet57 wrote:
--
-- V3-Dev wrote:
--
-- I guess you agree with President Bush then, he also
-- said it wont be easy.
-
- On the contrary Hornet, I think he agrees with me
- and many other experts who have been saying this all
- along even before the war began. You see Mr. Bush
- only began to publicly acknowledge (come clean) this
- fact after his post-war reconstruction plan based on
- very poor assumptions backfired and went up in
- flames.
-

On the contrary V3, I remember quite clearly when he said this is not going to be easy. And he wasn't talking about the War part because most people that where involoved in the military planning knew it would be pretty easy. So again you have fallen asleep.
-
-
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 09:04 PM
Hornet, if I have fallen asleep, you must surely be in a deep coma. There was not one single speech, press release, or briefing given by this administration prior to the war which even remotely indicated that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq would be enduring such hardships as it does today. They were obviously too preoccupied with selling the war, as opposed to formulating a successful post-conflict plan that wasn't based upon a series of failed presumptions. To put it very simply, somebody apparently lacked that common-sense you speak so regularly of and as a result we are now playing catch-up.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 12:33 AM
pope ill have whatever damn opinion i like mate especially when its knocking some sensre into you blood thirsty post pubescent geeks, who celebrate the life of a child being taken. whatever spin you want to put on it oh pope the wise moderator, he was a kid, and no one can ever be sure what happened cus they were all killed inside the building werent they pope?

because uday was a pyschopath doesnt equate that son was.

ffs have a little compassion.

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 12:42 AM
pope a 14 year old kid is not of the age of criminal responsibility especially in view of his situation. he had no choice but to fight and hes a braver 14 year old than you or me. good for him i hope he capped a few yanks, im getting sick of american arrogance and moral superiority regarding this issue. the bloody yanks put saddamn there, they have murdered much more people as a state than saddamn ever did. so dont even start to defend the moral superiority of america, the country prepared to take life as a matter of political principal cough dominoe theory cough. the democide committed by the us will overshadow all other states in the future. i wouldnt be suprised if you lot cause world war three.

i just hope blair (or whoevers pm) doesnt kiss yur arses when you do

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 12:59 AM
Ah, Pope, wasn't sure who was gonna' get nailed on this, you or I, or both of us. Sorry it's you, but I am confident you will handle the small stuff just fine.
Leep out:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 01:15 AM
Saddam's Sons...Killed by the very weapons aimed at them....



They should of captured them and made them go to a Mexican prison..why?



Let me tell you,

They be shoving all kinds of burritos up yo' ***

http://mirror.ati.com/support/images/poweredbyATI-sml.jpg

http://www.visiontek.com/COM_IMAGES_02/128MB.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 02:34 AM
ukahugekebab wrote:
- pope a 14 year old kid is not of the age of criminal
- responsibility especially in view of his situation.
- he had no choice but to fight and hes a braver 14
- year old than you or me. good for him i hope he
- capped a few yanks, im getting sick of american
- arrogance and moral superiority regarding this
- issue. the bloody yanks put saddamn there, they have
- murdered much more people as a state than saddamn
- ever did. so dont even start to defend the moral
- superiority of america, the country prepared to take
- life as a matter of political principal cough
- dominoe theory cough. the democide committed by the
- us will overshadow all other states in the future. i
- wouldnt be suprised if you lot cause world war
- three.
-
- i just hope blair (or whoevers pm) doesnt kiss yur
- arses when you do
-

better take care of that cough there partner. And I do hope someone bust a cap in your ***. And luckily they didnt get any Yanks. Sorry to disapoint you.........mate

Now go to hell...............and say hello to Uday Qussay and his son.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 03:59 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
-
- Now go to hell...............and say hello to Uday
- Qussay and his son.

He may not be able to say hello to the Sons of Saddam because we cannot be sure they will be on the same level of Hell. However that problem is easily solved:

http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 04:06 AM
muahahahahahahaha, im bored with this argument now.

i think ill change my mind completely.

saddamns sons are eveil and im glad they shot the face off a 14 year old boy, cus who knows he might have turned out evil in ten years, yes yes that makes sense, ill have that as my opinion.

america is great and has never ever been responsible for the deaths of millions (yes guys youve actually killed millions of people- kindof reminds me of a few other states in the past)

anyone who disagrees with me is invariably wrong-but what do i believe??

surreal.

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 05:38 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- The problem I have with this Pope is two-fold.
- First overall, we have ourselves killed tens of
- thousands of civilians with our bombs and knowingly
- supplied Saddam with the ammunition and delivery
- capabilities to gas those Kurds. Further we
- are saving Iraqi civilians by restricting their
- freedom of speech and movement within their
- own country as well as daily gunning them down at
- rallies and check points.

If I give you the keys to my car and you mow 10 people down with it, am I a murderer? If I (legally) sell you my legally owned firearm, and you go off and kill people with it, am I at fault? No, you are. Because we supplied Saddam with some of his weapons does not put us at fault for genocidal decisions he made concerning the use of those weapons. Yes, of course, we can look back now and say, "Man, that was a bad idea, we shouldn't have done business with with Saddam." Likewise, any gun shop owner that has sold a weapon to a spree-killer probably says the same thing. But I've yet to see one charged with murder. Or do you think it ethical to charge thse individuals as well?

I don't agree with restrictions upon free speech, and I will give you that. To say that people are gunned-down daily at rallies is a bit of a stretch, MNG - Coalition forces only act with deadly force when threatened with similar force. Nobody is wandering around the streets blowing people away, though from your pejorative wording it would seem so.


- Second, where do you draw the line? We're better
- only because we haven't murdered as many people as
- him? We're angels until we kill 200,000 Iraqis? Up
- until then we're fine?



You are correct, this does get gray here. But I think when it is tens of thousands vs. millions, it becomes an academic exercise. Or would you have rather had another million fall by Saddam's hand?

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 05:45 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
-
- Now go to hell...............and say hello to Uday
- Qussay and his son.
-

the US may have killed these two but... the other sons are still out there......

EBay, udontsay and Gday... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

----------------------

nah seriously....

I think the lesser evil people in the world... the better the world.

all I can say is.... If i am ever in a gun battle.... the last thing I'd be doing is to stop and check the age of the person firing at me.....




<center><font size=2 face=arial>
__________________________________________________ _________________________

Sangsta

Splinter Cell Forum Moderator
&
XIII Forum Moderator

----------</font>
<font face="Verdana">Click Here to see the Ubi.com Forum Guidelines (http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines)


Message Edited on 07/25/0302:46PM by Sangsta

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 05:49 AM
ukahugekebab wrote:
- pope a 14 year old kid is not of the age of criminal
- responsibility especially in view of his situation.
- he had no choice but to fight and hes a braver 14
- year old than you or me. good for him i hope he
- capped a few yanks, im getting sick of american
- arrogance and moral superiority regarding this
- issue. the bloody yanks put saddamn there, they have
- murdered much more people as a state than saddamn
- ever did. so dont even start to defend the moral
- superiority of america, the country prepared to take
- life as a matter of political principal cough
- dominoe theory cough. the democide committed by the
- us will overshadow all other states in the future. i
- wouldnt be suprised if you lot cause world war
- three.


Chill, bro. Yes, he did have a choice. Especially since it is believed that the brothers were killed when troops raided the building, and the 14 year old was the only one left. Still shooting his AK, by the way.

You hope he capped a few yanks? Don't ever lecture me on "bloodthirty"ness again, sir.

These are my opinions and mine alone. These are not the opinions of my state, and I very often disagree with American policy, foreign and domestic. I'll agree with you that our state has killed many innocents in its time. But I am speaking on this situation, not those. I also don't believe that our intentions in Iraq were solely "Iraqi Freedom." But because I believe our actions saved many lives, I will support that aspect of it, regardless of what other motives are there.

And kids 14 years of age are tried as adults in some states, so you won't get far with 14-year-olds being under the age of criminal responsibility. When you were 14, did you not understand the difference between right and wrong?

In the scope of this argument, he probably believed his actions were right, but regardless he put Coalition forces in danger, and they had no choice. He had the choice; he could have put the AK down and been alive today.

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 07:11 AM
Pope wrote:

- If I give you the keys to my car and you mow 10
- people down with it, am I a murderer? If I (legally)
- sell you my legally owned firearm, and you go off
- and kill people with it, am I at fault? No, you are.
- Because we supplied Saddam with some of his weapons
- does not put us at fault for genocidal decisions he
- made concerning the use of those weapons. Yes, of
- course, we can look back now and say, "Man, that was
- a bad idea, we shouldn't have done business with
- with Saddam." Likewise, any gun shop owner that has
- sold a weapon to a spree-killer probably says the
- same thing. But I've yet to see one charged with
- murder. Or do you think it ethical to charge thse
- individuals as well?

I understand the premise for your argument Pope. However, there is quite a vast difference between selling somebody a firearm and supplying a ruthless dictator with weapons designed for one thing and one thing only, the mass killing of humans.

Therefore, to give somebody like Saddam such means, and not expect him to use it in order to protect his rule is totally absurd. The US knew what they were doing in the 1980s when they were using Iraq as a proxy against the Iranians, and the first Bush administration raised no concerns whatsoever when Saddam gassed his own Kurdish citizens.

In fact, if the oil kept flowing and he never strayed from the US game plan by invading Kuwait to begin with, the probability of him being in power today would be very high, despite even all the atrocities he would probably be committing against Iraqis.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 10:03 AM
V3-Dev wrote:

- I understand the premise for your argument Pope.
- However, there is quite a vast difference between
- selling somebody a firearm and supplying a ruthless
- dictator with weapons designed for one thing and one
- thing only, the mass killing of humans.
-
- Therefore, to give somebody like Saddam such means,
- and not expect him to use it in order to protect his
- rule is totally absurd. The US knew what they were
- doing in the 1980s when they were using Iraq as a
- proxy against the Iranians, and the first Bush
- administration raised no concerns whatsoever when
- Saddam gassed his own Kurdish citizens.
-
- In fact, if the oil kept flowing and he never
- strayed from the US game plan by invading Kuwait to
- begin with, the probability of him being in power
- today would be very high, despite even all the
- atrocities he would probably be committing against
- Iraqis.


True, and I do recognize that it isn't as cut and dried as the hypotheticals I gave. Perhaps a better example would be someone tossing the keys to a friend who had thrown a few beers back, or selling a gun (albeit legally) to someone that was a few cards short of a full deck. However, to contend that it is entirely the US's fault for Saddam's attrocities is ludicrous. And it he hadn't gotten the weapons from us, he most likely would have obtained them through other means.

UbiSoft/RSE Forum Moderator
ICQ [15950501]
pope@theheap.net

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 03:37 PM
Pope wrote:
-
- If I give you the keys to my car and you mow 10
- people down with it, am I a murderer? If I (legally)
- sell you my legally owned firearm, and you go off
- and kill people with it, am I at fault? No, you are.
- Because we supplied Saddam with some of his weapons
- does not put us at fault for genocidal decisions he
- made concerning the use of those weapons.

Perhaps not but this was not my argument. What I mean to say that if we knowingly supply a genocidal dictator with the tools of his trade then we can hardly occupy the moral high ground to criticize him. Makes one think of a ***** questioning the morality of her "johns".

Likewise, any gun shop owner that has
- sold a weapon to a spree-killer probably says the
- same thing. But I've yet to see one charged with
- murder. Or do you think it ethical to charge thse
- individuals as well?

I do not but this has happened. I heard recently of a bar owner receiving jail time for continuing to serve an obviously drunk man who later hit and killed a pedestrian in his car.
-
- I don't agree with restrictions upon free speech,
- and I will give you that. To say that people are
- gunned-down daily at rallies is a bit of a stretch,
- MNG - Coalition forces only act with deadly force
- when threatened with similar force. Nobody is
- wandering around the streets blowing people away,
- though from your pejorative wording it would seem
- so.

The wording was bad. What I meant to say that troops are blowing away civilians daily whether it is at rallies or more frequently at checkpoints. Unfortunately coalitions forces are acting with deadly force when it is not necessary. This is to be expected when you have young, frightened troops confused as to who the enemy is.

- You are correct, this does get gray here. But I
- think when it is tens of thousands vs. millions, it
- becomes an academic exercise. Or would you have
- rather had another million fall by Saddam's hand?

What does it matter who kills you? If you are dead, you are dead.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 04:07 PM
Pope wrote:

- However, to contend that it is
- entirely the US's fault for Saddam's attrocities is
- ludicrous. And it he hadn't gotten the weapons from
- us, he most likely would have obtained them through
- other means.

I can agree with that Pope. It definitely takes two to Tango. Ultimately, I suppose one can liken the former Saddam-US alliance to making a deal with the devil. Now who the devil might be in that equation would up for some debate depending on your perspective. Nevertheless, one thing is for sure, it was a pact that didn't serve the interests of the Iraqi people or encourage stability in a region already ravaged by years of conflict.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 04:47 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- What I find interesting is how four guys in a house
- held up 200 US infantrymen for four hours.

That's an easy question to answer if you think about for a second (I realize you don't do that anymore). Saddam's sons are were definitely worth more to the US alive and trying to get someone alive generally takes a lot longer than putting a bullet in them.

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~yaz/gallery/Squirrels1997q1/sp97_010.jpg

P.S.

The latest statistics (June) I've seen put civilian casualty estimates right around 3 or 4 thousand (killed by BOTH sides).

Message Edited on 07/25/0311:56AM by Thoramir

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 06:00 PM
Sangsta wrote:

- the US may have killed these two but... the other
- sons are still out there......
-
- EBay, udontsay and Gday... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
Did'nt they have a sister Dday. She didnt have a mustache but she did have a little gote on her chin.

-
-

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 06:18 PM
Thoramir wrote:

- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- What I find interesting is how four guys in a house
-- held up 200 US infantrymen for four hours.
-
- That's an easy question to answer if you think about
- for a second (I realize you don't do that anymore).
- Saddam's sons are were definitely worth more to the
- US alive and trying to get someone alive generally
- takes a lot longer than putting a bullet in them.

Actually Thoramir, according to the official chronology of the raid it would appear your assessment is totally wrong. I say this because only thirty minutes or so after the first failed attempt by US forces to enter the structure and capture the two brothers it was apparent they were barricaded in heavily fortified positions and not going to surrender.

Therefore, very quickly US forces began utilizing AT4 Rockets, Mark-19 Grenade Launchers, .50 Caliber Machine guns, and OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters with their 2.75-inch rockets to kill those inside, subsequently reducing the house to rubble. Now after this heavy barrage hostile gunfire had stopped, so a second effort was made to secure the house.

However, much to their dismay those inside were still alive and firing upon them once again. At this point in time, the use of Apache helicopters and Air Force A-10's were considered, but in the end deemed too dangerous due to possible collateral damage, so they opted for the use of ten TOW missiles in order to penetrate the reinforced walls and eliminate the threat, ultimately killing the three adults.

As far as the teenage son was concerned, the only reason he probably survived such a powerful assault (until he was terminated on the third entry attempt) was because of his heavily fortified location to the rear of the home, which was shielded by other rooms such as the one his father and uncle were hold up in.

Ultimately, it is pretty clear that the commanders on the ground made the decision to forgo any capture of the two brothers after the first failed entry attempt that resulted in the wounding of four US soldiers. The ensuing battle was by all means a fierce fire-fight that lasted almost four hours due to those inside resisting fiercely from a fortified position, and US concerns over possible collateral damage.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 06:36 PM
Thoramir wrote:
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- What I find interesting is how four guys in a house
-- held up 200 US infantrymen for four hours.
-
- That's an easy question to answer if you think about
- for a second (I realize you don't do that anymore).
- Saddam's sons are were definitely worth more to the
- US alive and trying to get someone alive generally
- takes a lot longer than putting a bullet in them.

No need to get nasty, Thor. Your response carries a big assumption which has not been bourne out by any evidence. I think V3 has also well answered this question but also consider that no siege was made of the house. Rather there was an immediate assault which does not suggest that they cared whether the occupants were alive or dead as long as they got them.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 07:08 PM
I'm sure their initial goal was to secure the home and detain whoever was possibly in the structure. However, US forces have orders to locate, capture, or kill high-ranking members of the former Iraqi regime, and in this case they apparently chose the latter option once their first foray into the structure was met with heavy resistance.

I mean it would have been nice to apprehend Saddam's sons alive for intelligence purposes, and in order for them to stand trial somewhere for crimes against humanity. However, in the end I think it was pretty obvious these two individuals would've never permitted such an outcome, hence you had a fierce battle that lasted almost four hours.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 10:08 PM
Probably the powers that be exchanged a few words with those two butchers and upon such exchange readily realized that none ofthem possessed any intelligence and therefore made the decision to remove them from the planet, thereby creating a space that could hopefully be promptly occupied by someone with some intelligence-maybe-hey it could have happened that way. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Leep Out:

XyZspineZyX
07-26-2003, 01:02 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- No need to get nasty, Thor. Your response carries a
- big assumption which has not been bourne out by any
- evidence. I think V3 has also well answered this
- question but also consider that no siege was made of
- the house. Rather there was an immediate assault
- which does not suggest that they cared whether the
- occupants were alive or dead as long as they got
- them.
-
-
- assumptions? like that there are no WMD's MNG?

The gave them plenty of time to gather their belongings and give up if they wanted to. They (evil twins) decided to fight.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:11 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- The gave them plenty of time to gather their
- belongings and give up if they wanted to. They (evil
- twins) decided to fight.

Well Hornet there does seem to be a problem of law here. First of all, since it is quite clear that this war is illegitimate and these men had not been officially accused of any crime then this assault could be considered murder. Further I do not believe they were given any time at all. As far as I know the assault began almost immediately.

Sure I agree that these brothers were horrendous characters but neither they nor the other two with them had faced any kind of due process. From this perspective it might have been the proper thing to do to have apprehended them alive so that they could stand trial.

Now it had been said that the 14 year old was bound to grow into an evil monster himself but again he was a minor, had committed no crime and so it could be argued that he was simply defending himself against an attack on his person. Also, is it ethical to punish someone with death, without trial, because of future crimes he may commit in the future? I think this is why people are upset about his death.

Ask yourself how this would have played out if a group of gangsters had holed up in a house in the US. Would the military have demolished it?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 06:21 AM
this is the time when you need to shut up MNG.


The us soldiers entering the house where fired on as they walked up the stairs injuring 3. As the group of US soldiers made their way out of the house another was wounded.

Since this is a war, pounding a house with .50cals and TOWs is justified means of force to clear out personal from house that are firing on US forces.

Bush only said "major" military operations have ceased, not all.

The 14 year old kid fired on US forces as they entered the house again. He was killed because he decided to fire on them. The killing was therefore justified regardless of his age.





http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

VIVA LA REVOLUTION AGAINST UBI

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 06:36 AM
I will have to agree with Viper in this instance. It is difficult to understand the mindset of these people If you have not had any personal dealings with them. Mine was stateside, but my Daughter's was not. When she was in Saudi Arabia they all trotted out to watch the Friday, I believe it was, beheading and lopping off of hands, the latter for stealing, the former could be for insulting a woman, either selling booze, that will do it quick ,or other sundry offenses.

She found that Jordan was little better, and even went to Kuwait- a bit milder climate there but still far surpasses anything we have even see here in America, or jolly old England, I would guess.
Even the IRA at it's worst can not compare to anything they do over there. I wish i could dredge up a little more sympathy for them, but alas, I cannot.

Take care all:

Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 02:18 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- this is the time when you need to shut up MNG.
-
-
- The us soldiers entering the house where fired on as
- they walked up the stairs injuring 3. As the group
- of US soldiers made their way out of the house
- another was wounded.
-
- Since this is a war, pounding a house with .50cals
- and TOWs is justified means of force to clear out
- personal from house that are firing on US forces.
-
- Bush only said "major" military operations have
- ceased, not all.
-
- The 14 year old kid fired on US forces as they
- entered the house again. He was killed because he
- decided to fire on them. The killing was therefore
- justified regardless of his age.

OK now its your turn to shut up. This war was not sanctioned by the UN and barely passed Parliament. It only passed because Blair lied. This war was sanctioned by Congress to disarm Hussein. But Congress and everyone else was lied to by the Bush Administration. There was nothing to disarm. We know this. There are no WMD.

Therefore this is an unjust war. This means our presence in the country is unjust. This means every action we take in Iraq that harms property and person is unjust. Leading henceforth to the conclusion that the attack on this house was unjust.

I do not give a damn for the life of Hussein or his sons but I do give a damn about about the tradition of Western Civilization which is currently being ripped to shreads. One of the keystones of civilization is the Bill of Rights which is universal. A civilized man can separate his disgust of a criminal from his respect for the criminal's human rights. A savage cannot. Which are you?

You want someone to blame for the daily death and wounding of our troops in Iraq? Don't look at Saddam Hussein or his sons. Look at George W. Bush. Don't tell me to shut up. Tell George Bush to shut up. Because its after he speaks and lies that Americans die.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>



Message Edited on 07/28/0309:21AM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:00 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- OK now its your turn to shut up. This war was not
- sanctioned by the UN and barely passed Parliament.
- It only passed because Blair lied. This war was
- sanctioned by Congress to disarm Hussein. But
- Congress and everyone else was lied to by the Bush
- Administration. There was nothing to disarm. We
- know this. There are no WMD.

How do you positively know that MNG? and Because Saddam said so is not good enough. the UN obviously thought so or they wouldnt have send any inspectors.
-
- Therefore this is an unjust war. This means our
- presence in the country is unjust. This means every
- action we take in Iraq that harms property and
- person is unjust. Leading henceforth to the
- conclusion that the attack on this house was unjust.

So where all the tortures and Murders these two wacky Iraqis committed upon their own people were unjust.
-
- I do not give a damn for the life of Hussein or his
- sons but I do give a damn about about the tradition
- of Western Civilization which is currently being
- ripped to shreads. One of the keystones of
- civilization is the Bill of Rights which is
- universal. A civilized man can separate his disgust
- of a criminal from his respect for the criminal's
- human rights. A savage cannot. Which are you?

MNG stop confusing us with nonesense. Criminals like Uday and Qusay and Saddam and Osama should have only one right. And that is to die and horrible death. Period!
-
- You want someone to blame for the daily death and
- wounding of our troops in Iraq? Don't look at
- Saddam Hussein or his sons. Look at George W. Bush.
- Don't tell me to shut up. Tell George Bush to shut
- up. Because its after he speaks and lies that
- Americans die.

MNG that chip on your shoulder should be getting very heavy by now eh? flick it off before it weighs you down.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:37 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- So where all the tortures and Murders these two
- wacky Iraqis committed upon their own people were
- unjust.

I absolutely agree with you. And they should have been held to account to their crimes but not by us.
-
--
-- I do not give a damn for the life of Hussein or his
-- sons but I do give a damn about about the tradition
-- of Western Civilization which is currently being
-- ripped to shreads. One of the keystones of
-- civilization is the Bill of Rights which is
-- universal. A civilized man can separate his disgust
-- of a criminal from his respect for the criminal's
-- human rights. A savage cannot. Which are you?
-
- MNG stop confusing us with nonesense. Criminals like
- Uday and Qusay and Saddam and Osama should have only
- one right. And that is to die and horrible death.
- Period!

No. They have the right to a fair trial. Arbitrary law is the law of the savage Hornet. In order for civilized people like you and I to be protected from tyranny, unfortunately these murderous scoundrels must have the same rights.
--
-- You want someone to blame for the daily death and
-- wounding of our troops in Iraq? Don't look at
-- Saddam Hussein or his sons. Look at George W. Bush.
-- Don't tell me to shut up. Tell George Bush to shut
-- up. Because its after he speaks and lies that
-- Americans die.
-
- MNG that chip on your shoulder should be getting
- very heavy by now eh? flick it off before it weighs
- you down.

How about if I flick it down on your head? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:46 PM
Pope, this is what I am talking about. I apologize in advance to anyone offended by this article.

US troops turn botched Saddam raid into a massacre

By Robert Fisk in Baghdad

28 July 2003: (The Independent) Obsessed with capturing Saddam Hussein, American soldiers turned a botched raid on a house in the Mansur district of Baghdad yesterday into a bloodbath, opening fire on scores of Iraqi civilians in a crowded street and killing up to 11, including two children, their mother and crippled father. At least one civilian car caught fire, cremating its occupants.

The vehicle carrying the two children and their mother and father was riddled by bullets as it approached a razor-wired checkpoint outside the house.

Amid the fury generated among the largely middle-class residents of Mansur - by ghastly coincidence, the killings were scarcely 40 metres from the houses in which 16 civilians died when the Americans tried to kill Saddam towards the end of the war in April - whatever political advantages were gained by the killing of Saddam's sons have been squandered. A doctor at the Yarmouk hospital, which received four of the dead, turned on me angrily last night, shouting: "If an American came to my emergency room, maybe I would kill him."

Two civilians, both believed to have been driving with their families, were brought to the Yarmouk, one with abdominal wounds and the other with "his brain outside of his head", according to another doctor.

At the scene of the killings, there was pandemonium. While US troops were loading the bullet-shattered cars on trucks - and trying to stop cameramen filming the carnage - crowds screamed abuse at them. One American soldier a few feet from me climbed into the seat of his
Humvee, threw his helmet on the floor of the vehicle and shouted: "S___! S___!"

There was no doubt about the target: the home of Sheikh Rabia Mohamed Habib, a prominent tribal leader who had met Saddam but who was not even in his house when the Americans stormed it. One report says they killed a guard as they entered.

"The Americans searched the house completely, very roughly," Sheikh Habib said. "It seems they thought Saddam Hussein was inside." It appears the killings started as the troops were searching the
building and as motorists approached the barbed wire which the soldiers had placed without warning across the road. Witnesses said the first car contained at least two men. "The second contained two children about 10, their mother and their father who had been wounded in the Iran-Iraq war - he was a cripple," a local shopkeeper told me. "They all died. The man's legs were cut in half by the bullets," he added. A third car then approached the Americans, who opened fire again. One of the occupants
fled, but the other two remained in the vehicle and were killed.

When another car arrived US troops riddled it with more bullets and it burst into flames. It is believed that two people were inside and both were burnt to death. "The Americans didn't try to help the civilians they had shot, not once," a witness said. "They let the car burn and left the bodies where they lay, even the children. It was we who had to take them to the hospitals."

Yet again, false informers, ill-trained American soldiers who appeared to exercise no fire control and a lack of military planning has created a tragedy among the people the Americans claimed to be 'liberating' from Saddam Hussein only 15 weeks ago. Last night, there were reports from the southern city of Karbala that three men had been shot dead by American troops during a demonstration.

Copyright: The Independent. UK





http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 07:05 PM
It is incidents like this that could really end up turning many ordinary Iraqis against the occupying US coalition. I say this because it would appear that on this occasion, American commanders on the ground failed to take the necessary percussions in cordoning of the area as was done so superbly during last Tuesday's Mosul raid. You see at least two of the cars in question weren't even anywhere near the barbed wire (as was initially reported) placed on the main thoroughfare leading to the villa, but in fact entered the kill-zone due to the incompetence of US troops who failed to block off the side streets in an around the objective.

The sad thing is tragedies such as this one are bound to repeat themselves because of US urgency to act on fresh intel with little or no pre-op planning. Come to think of it, this is not the first time the civilian population of Baghdad's Mansur district has suffered due to poor US judgment. Back in April after receiving a faulty report that Saddam and his sons were in a nearby restaurant not far from where the latest tragedy happened, several homes were destroyed and scores of civilians killed after Rumsfeld gave the approval (despite the chance of high civilian casualties) for US warplanes to drop four bunker-busters bombs.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 10:57 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- -
- I absolutely agree with you. And they should have
- been held to account to their crimes but not by us.

by who then the UNwilling?

No. They have the right to a fair trial. Arbitrary
- law is the law of the savage Hornet. In order for
- civilized people like you and I to be protected from
- tyranny, unfortunately these murderous scoundrels
- must have the same rights.

MNG Our guys asked them to surrender. They said no thanks and started shooting. What would have been your next plan in taking them alive?
I would agree with you more if a sniper took them out in "cold blood" although I would'nt give a damn. They went after our soldiers setting mines and rpg's while hiding (and these where payed assasins)just like the cowards that flew those planes into the WTC. Lets face it, what the hell is a trial good for when everyone knows they are guilty. You do know they are guilty MNG, right?

--- You want someone to blame for the daily death and
--- wounding of our troops in Iraq? Don't look at
--- Saddam Hussein or his sons. Look at George W. Bush.
--- Don't tell me to shut up. Tell George Bush to shut
--- up. Because its after he speaks and lies that
--- Americans die.
--
-- MNG that chip on your shoulder should be getting
-- very heavy by now eh? flick it off before it weighs
-- you down.
-
- How about if I flick it down on your head? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
-
-
A little testy aren't we today MNG. but you would be wasting your time. Chips dont stick on me.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

where do you come off saying so conclusively that George Bush Lied about anything? Is there any postivive proof that Blair's intelligence report was false?



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

Message Edited on 07/28/03‚ 06:17PM by Hornet57

Message Edited on 07/28/0306:22PM by Hornet57

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:23 PM
No I do think this war is justified.


If you ask this is just another example of his stupidity getting him trouble.

He has a long history of political fiascos.

I blame him for the war. It's his stupidity and not bush's that fueled the flames for this war.


If Iraq really had no weapons of mass destruction why in the hell did he not cooperate with the UN?

They never accounted for the weapons of mass destruction that we KNOW he did have. Why they never cooperated with the UN and tell them exactly when and how they disposed of these weapons is anyone's guess.

And why after over a decade after the gulf war did they continually harass UN investigators. Just these two circumstances would lead anyone with half a brain to think something is wrong here.

I agree the war in iraq was largely based on circumstantial evidence and the US leadership rolled the dice and lost.

Why did they roll the dice? Because of 9/11 and the radical defense doctrine that came into place. It is a doctrine of preemption. Getting rid of "potential" threat so americans will never see another day where over 3,000 innocent civilians are killed.

But who's fault is this? Who really wants to have his country invaded and their sons killed? It makes no sense but that's how saddam has always played politics. With out a single shred of common sense.

Why anyone would start a war with iran or invade Kuwait and not think about the consequences of his actions is anyone's guess.

Saddam helped create another war that would be waged in his country through HIS stupidity. This is yet another example of the suffering he has brought on his people.

He should die, and his sons to.

http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

VIVA LA REVOLUTION AGAINST UBI

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:54 PM
You have to understand the mind set of these people. They are born into a warlike society. Ah-depending on what side you are born into Sadamm had the power, so he waged "War" against anyone and everyone who did not conform to his slightly jaundiced view of what is right and wrong.
They do not recognize the UN as having any authority over them. They are a power unto themselves and care not a whit what the rest of the world thinks of them.
Do they have weapons of mass D? I believe it is probable. Certainly they did not have the capability to utilize nuclear weapons. If you isolare nuclear weapons out of the working equation, i then believe there is some justification if you count biological weapons.
Oh, MNG-when i said i did agree with Viper - i certainly was not agreeing to the statement about the closing of the mouth. My mistake there.
I would rather use my favorite term for Saddam , instead of stupidity, I prefer "Arrogance" It is the most prevelant trait shown by men. Even God warns about just this thing. "Arrogance" Shows it's been around for awhile.

Now, this is just my personal opinion, but at least to me, it makes sense. I firmly believe that Pres. Bush chose Iraq as the entry level opponent. This was the easiest target for us, and it would , in turn serve as a warning to the rest of the Arab world what was in store for them if they persist in attacking us. Perhaps they did go in without thinking of an exit stratedgy, but war is an eternal learning experience, I trust our powers that be have learned from this, and---- will not make the same mistakes the next time. And, I assure you there will be a next time.
Forget Blockbuster, the heck with the driveins and multiplex theaters, the future will bring more into our living rooms than Arnold and Stallone ever did.
But, Leave Chuck Norris out of this or he and i might have to make an unannounced visit to your hometown, soon: /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 12:31 AM
Leep wrote:
- You have to understand the mind set of these people.
- They are born into a warlike society.

I understand what you mean (and let me try and answer three posts at once) and indeed even if we had tried it may not have been possible to have taken them alive but we didn't try very hard did we? Some commands over a loud speaker and then send in the boys.

Now Viper, Leep and Hornet, please don't get me wrong. I couldn't care less for the fate of Hussein's sons and I do not think either one is worth the life of an American soldier. I am more concerned with the rule of law and that is what I think is being violated over and over again, simply by the presence of US/UK troops on Iraqi soil.

Hornet, to your question on who should hold the Husseins to account - the Iraqi people themselves. It is their affair and our help, quite frankly, is not helping. They may not have gotten Saddam because (in direct contradiction to you Viper) he was far too clever. But once he died the regime would not have lasted. Uday was too reckless and Qusay too dumb.

Hornet, once again, if everyone knows they are quilty then having a trial would not be a problem. They would get their just desserts. But having a trial is a basic human right but would also serve to catalogue their crimes and allow for some restitution to the victims. It presents a true and fair record of the events and stands as tribute to our greater sense of civility. Further, as I said, the Writ of Habeas Corpus protects us all from arbitrary tyranny. To disallow their right to trial for an arbitrary reason (everyone knows they are guilty) means one day that decision can be used against you. I encourage you Hornet to look up Bakunin's trial.

BTW sorry about the "chip" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Hornet there is a lot of positive proof that Bush and Blair's intelligence reports were false. You must have seen it on tv. The Weapon's Inspectors disproved it as did the IAEA. Powell's report was plagarized and the report on mobile labs rubbished. Try a google search for more details.

Viper as Leep says, you have to understand the mind-set of these people. Saddam may have felt the need to present the impression that he had WMD to protect his position within his own country. But even if he was being misleading to suggest it is his fault that we made war on him is ludicrous. The intelligence did not support the case for war and neither did the findings on the ground before and after the invasion. Unlike George Bush at least you and I can take responsibility for our countries' actions.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:53 AM
You can't deny that a leading cause of this war was Saddam's blunder of providing misleading and circumstantial evidence that he did have weapons of mass destruction.
Till the very day of the invasion he showed almost no signs of cooperation in proven that he had no weapons of mass destruction.

Why he continued with business as usual and apparently overestimated american intentions on war is almost unimaginable.

He failed to see the shifting mindset of US policy makers after september 11 just as he failed to see the change in US Foreign policy when he decided to invade Kuwait.

A man that has such a tyrannical grip on his country and starts wars at the drop of a hat is defiantly a threat to any nation if he even has the slightest hint of possessing weapons of mass destruction.

Yes I do agree with you that the US based on the intelligence it possessed(at least from what I seen on tvhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)at the time was lacking in any hard evidence.

Iraq and the war that has started there is a clear example of the holes the preemption doctrim has. It is a preempted strike in that the nation has not struck first and given the very nature of time it is impossible to accurately gauge future events. Given the intelligence that the US had, which was almost completely circumstantial in nature, the US did act appropriately given it's current defense policy.

This is where Sadamm comes in to play. He is notoriously bad about playing the foreign affairs game, and I think they choose the most extreme example to apply this defense doctrim. Because given his past it's almost no surprise that something like this has happened. He bluffed, US called and now he is F#$%ed along with the United States.

The only reason why iraq and US are sitting down playing poker with hundred of thousands of lives at sake is from those 2 planes crashing into those two towers in new york.

As for oil being a reason, whole heartily disagree with the notion. I can't deny the fact it provides incentive, but the real reason is the threat Iraq represented. Over 3,000 lives gave incentive to the United States to make sure that didn't happen again, and it took their new policy to the extreme.


http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

VIVA LA REVOLUTION AGAINST UBI



Message Edited on 07/29/0301:54AM by ViperRaGe

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:45 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Now Viper, Leep and Hornet, please don't get me
- wrong. I couldn't care less for the fate of
- Hussein's sons and I do not think either one is
- worth the life of an American soldier. I am more
- concerned with the rule of law and that is what I
- think is being violated over and over again, simply
- by the presence of US/UK troops on Iraqi soil.

The US/UK troops are there for the good of Iraq. Saddam obviously had to go. The Iraqi people themselves could'nt have done it. The UN could'nt do it now or in the previous 12 years. The French German and Russians did'nt want to bother, so what do we do? Millions of Iraqi's where being tortured raped and killed, Saddam was very unstable and he possed a future danger, not only to the US and UK, but everyone around them. You think saddam would give a crap if he violated the rule of law if he was able to obtain nukes?
No proof? ok do you put it past him knowing his history?
-
- Hornet, to your question on who should hold the
- Husseins to account - the Iraqi people themselves.
- It is their affair and our help, quite frankly, is
- not helping.

Just because there are some problems dont mean that our help is not helping. Aside from the services water and electicity problems you dont think the Iraqi people are better off? I think when Saddam is reunited with his boys
and the hired assasins run out of funds Iraq will become safer ground. The New government would be a very critical step of course. The main focus should be getting the proper government in Iraq.
-
- Hornet, once again, if everyone knows they are
- quilty then having a trial would not be a problem.

No it would'nt be a problem just a waste of time. These 3 don't diserve the time.

- They would get their just desserts. But having a
- trial is a basic human right but would also serve to
- catalogue their crimes and allow for some
- restitution to the victims. It presents a true and
- fair record of the events and stands as tribute to
- our greater sense of civility. Further, as I said,
- the Writ of Habeas Corpus protects us all from
- arbitrary tyranny. To disallow their right to trial
- for an arbitrary reason (everyone knows they are
- guilty) means one day that decision can be used
- against you. I encourage you Hornet to look up
- Bakunin's trial.

I agree with you MNG, too bad that Uday and Qussay did'nt, and thought they could escape. BTW when the police go to a criminal's house and tries to arrest him/her and the criminal desides to play it like scarface, what choise does the police have?
-
- BTW sorry about the "chip" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

That's ok I hope it was chocolate /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:58 AM
ViperRaGe wrote:

- You can't deny that a leading cause of this war was
- Saddam's blunder of providing misleading and
- circumstantial evidence that he did have weapons of
- mass destruction.

Well, I find it hard to believe that Saddam's noncompliance was the sole cause (partial maybe) of the conflict. I say this because it really wouldn't have mattered what the outcome of Blix's inspection regime was. You see the US/UK were in fact already carrying out preparatory air strikes (see link below) on Iraq from the middle of 02' up until March of this year under the guise of patrolling the no-fly zones. Therefore, it seems pretty obvious to me that the current administration had the intention of going to war much prior to making their case in front of the U.N., and the official launch of the invasion in March simply fell right in line with the deployment timetable put forth by US military planners.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_ravenshield_ot&id=zxshq

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 08:12 AM
Even after receiving those four casualties, there really was no pressing need to go after four lightly armed men with such devastating firepower. Uday and Qusay would have been much more useful if they were alive, and when you really sit down and think about it all, one becomes really dumbfounded that it actually took a total of 200 heavily armed U.S. soldiers, backed by various missiles, APC's and attack helicopters to apprehend four individuals using only AK-47's.

After all, it has come to light that initial stories of elaborate defenses, like the utilization of bulletproofing material, were completely phony. Uday and Qusay had simply stuffed several mattresses and bed frames against the walls and doors. Some experts even have argued that your local SWAT team could've taken them alive. With such a lightly armed force, some tear gas would have done the job proficiently, and more then likely of led to the capture of those inside.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:13 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
--
- Well, I find it hard to believe that Saddam's
- noncompliance was the sole cause (partial maybe) of
- the conflict. I say this because it really wouldn't
- have mattered what the outcome of Blix's inspection
- regime was. You see the US/UK were in fact already
- carrying out preparatory air strikes (see link
- below) on Iraq from the middle of 02' up until March
- of this year under the guise of patrolling the
- no-fly zones. Therefore, it seems pretty obvious to
- me that the current administration had the intention
- of going to war much prior to making their case in
- front of the U.N., and the official launch of the
- invasion in March simply fell right in line with the
- deployment timetable put forth by US military
- planners.
-
- special forces where on Iraqi soil many months prior to the War, making contacts and trying to topple Iraq from within, hence avoiding war. We had the intention of going to war only because we know how Saddam is and the UN was simply in denial.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:25 PM
GD_Brown wrote:
- Even after receiving those four casualties, there
- really was no pressing need to go after four lightly
- armed men with such devastating firepower. Uday and
- Qusay would have been much more useful if they were
- alive, and when you really sit down and think about
- it all, one becomes really dumbfounded that it
- actually took a total of 200 heavily armed U.S.
- soldiers, backed by various missiles, APC's and
- attack helicopters to apprehend four individuals
- using only AK-47's.

You make it sound like there where 200 soldiers attacking the house simoultenously but I am sure most of them where there to make sure these two thugs didnt escape and then having to hear "They had them and they let them escape"
-
- After all, it has come to light that initial stories
- of elaborate defenses, like the utilization of
- bulletproofing material, were completely phony. Uday
- and Qusay had simply stuffed several mattresses and
- bed frames against the walls and doors. Some experts
- even have argued that your local SWAT team could've
- taken them alive. With such a lightly armed force,
- some tear gas would have done the job proficiently,
- and more then likely of led to the capture of those
- inside.

Buttom line is this. The military asked them to surrender and they desided to fight it out. We where not about to loose one more soldier in order to take two guys that should have been dead a long time ago.....on an abortion table.
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:07 PM
Viper you appear to have a most peculiar perspective on this war. Your argument reduces to blaming the victim - the war was Saddam's fault because he didn't "act right" in the same way that getting mugged is your fault because you walked through a bad area at night. Remember Saddam did not declare war on the US - it was the other way round. Lets not deal with second-guessing Saddam's thoughts and intentions. The material fact was that he was co-operating with the inspection team (which was systematically disproving the US/UK case for war). The case for war was not predicated on Saddam's "bluffing" but on disarming him. As the inspections wore on it became painfully obvious he had no WMD and that he was no threat.

Further I do not accept that he was bluffing but rather that he was protecting the sovereignty of Iraq. It is extremely humiliating to be subject to perpetual inspections - if this is hard for you to understand consider two things. 1) This is hauntingly similar to the reasons why Austria launched the First World War and 2) how would you feel if you knew you were innocent but the police continually came over to search through your house saying to you that the lack of evidence was merely proof that you were good at hiding it?



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:06 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- You make it sound like there where 200 soldiers
- attacking the house simoultenously but I am sure
- most of them where there to make sure these two
- thugs didnt escape and then having to hear "They had
- them and they let them escape"

No Hornet, I merely stated the actual number of soldiers that actively participated in the operation. Whether all or any actually fired upon the structure, or just helped in establishing the perimeter is beside the point. The US military has apprehended more heavily armed Taliban and Al Queda members from highly fortified locations in Afghanistan/Pakistan, so to sit here and claim that these four couldn't have been taken alive is absurd.

- Buttom line is this. The military asked them to
- surrender and they desided to fight it out. We where
- not about to loose one more soldier in order to take
- two guys that should have been dead a long time
- ago.....on an abortion table.


No the bottom line is the Pentagon from the outset wanted to prove to the Iraqi people Uday and Qusay weren't coming back to rule the country. The only way to do this was to terminate them, and as we already now release images of their corpses to provide proof of it. You see with their capture, an eventual trial would've simply ended up turning into a spectacle, fueling even more the guerilla resistance that is already prevalent throughout Iraq.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:24 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- special forces where on Iraqi soil many months prior to
- the War, making contacts and trying to topple Iraq from
- within, hence avoiding war. We had the intention of going
- to war only because we know how Saddam is and the UN was
- simply in denial.

Whether we utilized covert or overt military means to change the regime in Iraq is irrelevant. The US actively violated Iraq's sovereignty much prior to the war while at the same time pursuing a counterfeit diplomacy by means of the U.N. This clearly illustrates that they never intended a peaceful resolution to the problem from the outset. It is simply utter unilateralism courtesy of a hyper-power anyway one looks at it.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:39 PM
Hornet I would like to introduce you to the American version of the Bill of Rights. Note that in Iraq we appear to be violating the First thru Sixth Amendments. But this is OK since Iraqis are sub-human and therefore do not deserve the Rights of Englishmen.

Bear in mind I know this document refers specifically to the United States but the rights are based on a universal code of ethics established in England in 1215..

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


Message Edited on 07/29/03‚ 12:42PM by MisterNiceGuy

Message Edited on 07/29/0312:45PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 08:22 PM
Saddam was not around when they wrote the Bill of Rights.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 09:16 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- Saddam was not around when they wrote the Bill of
- Rights.

Neither were you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

It was actually written in 1215 in Runnymede, England (where me old dear works) and spruced up in abbreviated by form by Parliament (Edward Coke was the protagonist I believe) and then added to the US Constitution (with some modification) by the Founding Fathers.

My point in posting it Hornet, is to illustrate a tradition of rights that our forebears fought and died for (England had a civil war over it) to protect the rights of individuals (like you and I) against government run amok. In Iraq we are running amok, violating due process, habeas corpus, breaking and entering people's property, punishment without trials etc.

Sure we can say that in war such things occur but once you consider that this is an unjust war then ethically we are really in trouble. We have invaded another country and are systematically violating the civil rights of its population.




http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:18 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
-- Saddam was not around when they wrote the Bill of
-- Rights.
-
- Neither were you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
- My point was that if Saddam was around then the Bill of Rights would have been written differently.

--
- My point in posting it Hornet, is to illustrate a
- tradition of rights that our forebears fought and
- died for (England had a civil war over it) to
- protect the rights of individuals (like you and I)
- against government run amok. In Iraq we are running
- amok, violating due process, habeas corpus, breaking
- and entering people's property, punishment without
- trials etc.

No MNG Saddam (Iraqs government) was running amok and we went in to stop it before it spreads like cancer.
-
- Sure we can say that in war such things occur but
- once you consider that this is an unjust war then
- ethically we are really in trouble. We have invaded
- another country and are systematically violating the
- civil rights of its population.

We are helping the Iraqi people and you call it violating their civil rights? are those the same rights that Saddam took away from them?

unjust war? maybe for you. Why didnt the UN complain when we ejected Milosavic? and what made that a just war?


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:42 AM
Actually, the Serbian people ultimately overthrew Milosevic, and the NATO bombing campaign was simply one piece of a bigger puzzle which helped pave the way. Also, unlike today Hornet former administrations were actually much more adept at conducting diplomacy.

You see when an argument for military intervention actually has credibility, the U.N., US, and other European nations obviously have no problem reaching conformity, which was exactly the case when it came to putting a halt to ethnic cleansing occurring in Kosovo.

Anyway, to even compare that particular campaign with the Iraq conflict is sort of illogical to begin with considering the decision of NATO (a true multinational force) to strike the Milosevic regime was never about preemptive attacks or the occupation of an entire nation.

P.S. For the record, there were plenty of Republicans in Congress that criticized President Clinton at the time for leading NATO into battle against the former Yugoslavia.

Message Edited on 07/29/0309:45PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:01 AM
MNG the bill of rights are meant for americans only. You can't apply the bill of rights to another country's people. Those are rights given to americans as part of OUR law not Iraqis. If we applied those laws to anyone from any country we would be knee deep in scheisse apholding those laws.


And I think the war in iraq is justified. Saddamm did not comply to the UN in that he never accounted for the weapons of mass destruction we know he did have at one time. He also broke UN mandates.

In short he is a ******. If he would have complied with the UN his country would have not been invaded.

I don't think it's like blaming a guy for getting mugged because he walked down wrong street at night.

http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

VIVA LA REVOLUTION AGAINST UBI

http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

VIVA LA REVOLUTION AGAINST UBI

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 04:09 AM
ViperRaGe wrote:

- And I think the war in iraq is justified. Saddamm
- did not comply to the UN in that he never accounted
- for the weapons of mass destruction we know he did
- have at one time. He also broke UN mandates.

I suppose we should then invade Israel also. After all, they have been in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions for far much longer then Iraq ever was. Then again we can't do that because they are a staunch ally of the America, hence they are permitted to flout international decrees without suffering any consequences.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 04:22 AM
that's a completely different aurgment.

But yeah I'am all for kicking isreals *** for some of the things they done.

http://ffalpha.com/ff3/images/wmage.gif

http://www.el-mundo.es/larevista/num130/imagenes/umbral.jpg


"hook them while they're young"

VIVA LA REVOLUTION AGAINST UBI

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 02:25 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
-
- MNG the bill of rights are meant for americans only.
- You can't apply the bill of rights to another
- country's people. Those are rights given to
- americans as part of OUR law not Iraqis.

I was hoping someone would say that. You are telling me that Iraqis do not deserve the same civil rights as Americans? You should know that the Bill of Rights is not American but actually English as I already explained. And many of those same rights are encapsulated in the Geneva Conventions to which the US is a signatory.

Further, how do you expect other people to take seriously the US role as liberators when you do not consider Iraqis worthy of the same rights that you enjoy? You expect people to take seriously that you want democracy in Iraq when you violate your own laws there?

The Bill of Rights is also no longer part of US law: John Ashcroft is merely the latest in a long line of Benthamites to chip away at them. If it is decided arbitrarily that Iraqis do not deserve these simple age-old rights then you can no longer guarantee that Americans will have them either. The Bill of Rights is old news comrade.

-
- And I think the war in iraq is justified. Saddamm
- did not comply to the UN in that he never accounted
- for the weapons of mass destruction we know he did
- have at one time. He also broke UN mandates.

There was no UN mandate for war. Check the newspapers. And as I recall he did comply with the UN. Do you remember a chap named Hans Blix? It was a while back I know but you may recall Saddam letting him in the country.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:12 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Actually, the Serbian people ultimately overthrew
- Milosevic, and the NATO bombing campaign was simply
- one piece of a bigger puzzle which helped pave the
- way. Also, unlike today Hornet former
- administrations were actually much more adept at
- conducting diplomacy.

But we all had the nerve to attack a sovereign nation and all that............right?
-
- You see when an argument for military intervention
- actually has credibility, the U.N., US, and other
- European nations obviously have no problem reaching
- conformity, which was exactly the case when it came
- to putting a halt to ethnic cleansing occurring in
- Kosovo.

Why ws Kosovo any different V3, we where helping out the Muslims...no?
-
- Anyway, to even compare that particular campaign
- with the Iraq conflict is sort of illogical to begin
- with considering the decision of NATO (a true
- multinational force) to strike the Milosevic regime
- was never about preemptive attacks or the occupation
- of an entire nation.

Oh so the wording was different eh? just because it wasnt labled as a preemptive strike its ok?
-
- P.S. For the record, there were plenty of
- Republicans in Congress that criticized President
- Clinton at the time for leading NATO into battle
- against the former Yugoslavia.

I was one of them although I am not a member of Congress. Milosovic was a looser dictator and he had to go. Saddam on the other hand was and Evil dictator and he had to go.
Explain to me why Kosovo was ok and not Iraq......besides the fact that Nato was involved.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 07:15 PM
The Bill of Rights was written to apply to Democratic countries, not for countries that routinely murder their own people, keeping them in a permanent state pf poverty and fear.
All the countries surrounding Iraq were in existence and working well quite well, under their own peculair brand of government. Do what we say or we will 1-cut off your head-2 kill you and your whole village, but we will provide all the recipients with handcuffs, or perhaps just rope, maybe a blindfold , i you are good, and a mass burial so you and your town will not be saddled with any large burial,or funeral bills. Because we know how they can strap the old checkbook.
Sheesh, MNG sometimes I wonder what you are smoking when you post some of this stuff. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Oh and as for the Bill of Rights being written and put into effect by England, as far as that goes, it is indisputable, something that you Brits can take understandable pride in.Itseems I remember a little byte in history when these damn upstarts went to another country and started their own government. I bet they were sure that they would be fine. After all, the only problems they seemed to have was getting along with the Native Americans.
Then, on the horizon they saw an armada approaching, and suddenly they were being murdered in their own country, by the very people who had taken such pride in creating and constructing the original Bill Of Rights. Little wonder that after forceablyejecting said invaders, murderers of both women and children, that America, in it's infancy, decided to make a few modifications to the original. After they buried their dead.
Just a little refresher course in murder, invasions and the ignominy of people who did not follow their own tenets.
How does this apply to the war, invasion, occupation of Iraq? Damned if i know, just thought I'd give a refresher course on the Bill Of Rights and how they apply/do not apply to others, according to how they are viewed by the invading country of your choice.
Now- you cannot arbitrarily apply anthing, from the Bill Of Rights to the Constitution, to Religion- or Anything to another country just because- You feel, for some unknown reason, that they are deserving of it.

You do not have either that power or that right. So, we are dealing in, then opinions. In this case. yours. Now, it must be tempered with a little common sense. Which, in most matters you have in abundance. However, here, in this issue, I feel that you have lost your objectivity. And your ability to see the bigger picture-the better good for the most people.
You might argue that who are we to decide what that is. A good question perhaps. but, someone has to do it, and someone always does. Is it the right decision? Only time and history will tell. I think it is entirely too early to make these determinations. Too little time has passed, too little has happened. History will be the final judge, and history takes time. Give it some time.
History may well prove you right. Then you willhave the necessary facts, borne out by that same history to say, Nyahhh, you dumb Americans, see Iwas right. Or, just as likely-theremay be a whole country sticking it's tongue out at you, and that will not ba a pretty sight./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And, take heart, there are those of our own country residing here that seem to be only too happy to jump on your lightly loaded bandwagon, so you have at least some who feel as you do. But that has always been the case and , in some instances it may even be a healthy thing, provided it is not taken too far afield.
I too, have expressed some angst concerning the reasons given for this war- But i know of this man -both from history and by people who lived in Jordan, Kuwait, SaudiaArabia. It bothers me not one whit that they are "Removing" this regime and all that powered it. I would think that you too would rejoice with us that they will no longer be able to murder women, children, the young men. I believe that you do.
Now, having said all that-we can cheerfully sit back and watch the next Regime come into power. and, then we can also sit viewing with rapt attention as the world watches this new Regime murder the men, women and children that were around when they were being murdered.
I think that if they just took up arms and killed each other off, leaving the young boys and children and women, they would rebuild a new, better world, country.

Hey, it's been done before.

Take care; And in the future, please try to include the innocents in your thoughts that always pay the ultimate peice for the wars that are raged by all men.

Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 09:00 PM
Leep wrote:
- The Bill of Rights was written to apply to
- Democratic countries, not for countries that
- routinely murder their own people, keeping them in a
- permanent state pf poverty and fear.

Actually, it was specifically written to constrain the powers of Kings (where's Gandalf when you need him?).


- Sheesh, MNG sometimes I wonder what you are
- smoking when you post some of this stuff.

I believe I may inhaling some of your second-hand smoke /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- Oh and as for the Bill of Rights being written and
- put into effect by England, as far as that goes, it
- is indisputable, something that you Brits can take
- understandable pride in.

Yes but unfortunately now both Britain and America have forgotten the Bill of Rights and now pursue the Jeremy Bentham ideology of total government control of our lives. The idea is that the government always knows the right thing to do and has the right to sacrifice a few for the benefit of the many (sound familiar Witness and Pope?).


- How does this apply to the war, invasion,
- occupation of Iraq? Damned if i know, just thought
- I'd give a refresher course on the Bill Of Rights
- and how they apply/do not apply to others, according
- to how they are viewed by the invading country of
- your choice.
-
- Now- you cannot arbitrarily apply anthing,
- from the Bill Of Rights to the Constitution, to
- Religion- or Anything to another country just
- because- You feel, for some unknown reason, that
- they are deserving of it.
men.

Thats just the point. These basic civil rights are to protect you from arbitrary power. There is nothing arbitrary about allowing individuals to affect their own destiny provided they do not infringe upon the liberty of others. We are infringing upon the liberty of Iraqis by deciding what is best for them and sacrificing many of them in the process. That is arbitrary. The non-arbitrary way to deal with it is to leave them to it. Non-interventionalism was one of the principles this great country (America) was founded upon.

Also, remember that it is us who are kicking down their doors and whisking away the occupants without respecting due process. What would you say if the government was doing that to you? These people do not deserve basic civil rights Leep? They do not deserve not to be cut down by .50 rounds when all they want to do is post a letter?

Thank you once again for a challenging rebuttal Leep. Next round is yours /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>



Message Edited on 07/30/0304:05PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 11:11 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- But we all had the nerve to attack a sovereign
- nation and all that............right?

Yes, NATO attacked the former Yugoslavia with the consent of the international community. It was in no way a unilateral military intervention perpetrated by only a few nations as was the case in Iraq. There is quite a large difference between the two.

- Why ws Kosovo any different V3, we where helping out
- the Muslims...no?

Whether they were Muslims, Jews, or Christians is irrelevant. A distinct ethnic group was being decimated, and the international community as well as NATO deemed it necessary to prevent it from continuing. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, it was a joint decision and not a unilateral one.

- Oh so the wording was different eh? just because it
- wasnt labled as a preemptive strike its ok?

Hornet, most individuals don't have any trouble making a clear distinction between what lead to NATO's intervention in Kosovo and the current administration's basis for attacking Iraq. Nevertheless, to put it in simple terms just for you, what occurred in the Balkans wasn't labeled a preemptive strike because it was far from being one.

- Explain to me why Kosovo was ok and not Iraq.

1) The Kosovo conflict was already in progress, and it involved mass ethnic cleansing. Anything even remotely similar in scale had not occurred in Iraq for over a decade.

2) The Kosovo campaign was never intended to bring about total regime change and the occupation of an entire country, hence no need for an exit strategy or a policy to deal with any devastation following the use of military force.

3) Kosovo involved a united European front lead by the US, which also included NATO and the UN.

4) Unlike in Kosovo, the preemptive strike on Iraq sets a really bad precedent, especially since it was based on a perceived danger that was inaccurate or at the least exaggerated. In the end, such a flawed policy only increases the possibility of other countries (i.e. Iran & DPRK) mimicking the US.

P.S. I could go on, but I think I've clearly pointed out the major fundamental differences between Kosovo and Iraq in reference to military intervention.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 11:34 PM
That might make a little more sense, my friend, if these people had the ability to affect their own destiny. but, if that destiny does not include doing just exactly what you are told, and even then you may be killed simply because one of those murderers do not like the way you look. Or, at times, you were killed simply one of them was in a bad mood. They even killed their own friends and in-laws. Though the inlaw thing is understandable /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You keep insisting these people are due-due process. Perhaps the everyday citizens, but most of them aren't doing anything that would indicate they are in need of that. The other citizens that are killing our young men, hopefully will not live long enough to require that. So- I see no problem /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
There will certainly be mistakes made, on our side. There are simply not enough trained personnel over there to always be on site to advise our young people on the proper protocal when being sniped at or grenaded.So, they do the best they can. They are getting the experience they need, force fed to them. I feel for any innocent that gets caught in this quagmire.
Oh, we can thank the Clinton Administration for the dearth of trained soldiers.
Someone will have to design a Bill Of Rights that applies to Iraq and then good luck finding any regime that is even willing to consider such. That goes against everything they were ever taught. It just doesn't go well with the strict religious society they live under.
I can see the powers that be rolling in the carpeted aisles if anyone ever suggested such a thing, much less actually wrote one and sent it by carrier pidgeon to their palace(S).
I am curious MNG, as to what you would do If you chanced to stroll by an alley and observed a child, woman, any innocent being harmed, threatened with death, or serious bodily harm I would like to think that you would react as I hope that I would- run screaming down the
street /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif No- seriously, that either of us would do what was necessary to help that individual and stop the violence. That is what we are doing over there, except on a larger scale.
Oh, I don't smoke, anything. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Hmm-maybe I should-I heard it is good for pain. But I am not sure if it actually helps the pain or just makes you unaware of it's existence-or any other reality. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Take care and consider coming over to the "LIGHT SIDE"

MNG: Come away from the Dark Side /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:20 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
-- Why ws Kosovo any different V3, we where helping out
-- the Muslims...no?
-
- Whether they were Muslims, Jews, or Christians is
- irrelevant. A distinct ethnic group was being
- decimated, and the international community as well
- as NATO deemed it necessary to prevent it from
- continuing. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, it
- was a joint decision and not a unilateral one.
-

Saddam has killed millions of Arabs you dont think that is boardering on genocide?

- Hornet, most individuals don't have any trouble
- making a clear distinction between what lead to
- NATO's intervention in Kosovo and the current
- administration's basis for attacking Iraq.
- Nevertheless, to put it in simple terms just for
- you, what occurred in the Balkans wasn't labeled a
- preemptive strike because it was far from being one.

Let me tell you about simple terms. Both Dictators were scumbags and both diserved to be attacked. Is that simple enough? But for the confused Liberal it would be hard to understand that premtive strike are done to stop a dictatror from getting stronger and causing more problems.
-
- 1) The Kosovo conflict was already in progress, and
- it involved mass ethnic cleansing. Anything even
- remotely similar in scale had not occurred in
- Iraq for over a decade.

Oh yeah, we should have let saddam kill another few million before we can get the ok from the UN right?
Which for some reason we didnt need to get UN's blessing for that war. But I never heard any Liberal complain. Not even Barbara Streisand.




<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:26 AM
I could fit LungTung on that chick's nose...

_________________________________________
----====Lung-Tung for life====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/Lung-Tung2.JPG

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 03:37 AM
Leep wrote:
- That might make a little more sense, my friend, if
- these people had the ability to affect their own
- destiny. but, if that destiny does not include doing
- just exactly what you are told, and even then you
- may be killed simply because one of those murderers
- do not like the way you look. Or, at times, you were
- killed simply one of them was in a bad mood. They
- even killed their own friends and in-laws. Though
- the inlaw thing is understandable


All true but there is nothing we can do about it but make it worse. We can't force our civilization on them. They have to learn it for themselves. Thats why I support bringing the troops home. I figure as much as I hate my job theirs must really suck. Can you imagine going to work every day after sleeping on the concrete and having everyone there spit, throw rocks and shoot at you? Must be depressing.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 03:55 AM
Leep, here is a illustration of what I was talking about:

Translated from Libération (Paris), July 30, 2003:

Arrests And Abuse By American Troops On The Rise In Iraq

"They're treating us like cattle"

By Marc Semo

Libération: July 30, 2003: The curfew had just begun, at 11 p.m., as it has for the past three months in the Iraqi capital, and Nudir was late, but he was only a few hundred meters from his villa in the Zeyouna district when an American patrol blocked the BMW where he and two friends happened to be. Polite, but firm,
the GIs stretched them out on the hood. They searched the vehicle. In the glove compartment they had a revolver for self-defense, as many Iraqis do. The Americans handcuffed them at once. "They made us get into an armored troop transport, and there they began to beat us up," said the young engineer, who, after spending the night at a collection center stuffed into a wire-mesh cage with 350
other suspects, finally ended up at the airport prison, "Camp Cropper," which consists of tarps surrounded by barbed wire under a blistering sun. There he spent sixteen days. That was at the end of May. He was registered as "enemy prisoner of war" number 8,122.

NUMBER 16,481

As for Tony, he was arrested ten days later, on June 3, at his home in the Al-Mansour district. "Some thieves had started pillaging the house next door. Along with the other neighbors, we had started shooting in the air to make them go away, and the Americans arrived a few minutes later. They weren't interested in the thieves. They asked who had fired and where the guns were. I showed them the Kalashnikov I was keeping to protect my family. They confiscated it, and then they bound my hands and took me away," says the young Christian economist. It would be thirty-seven days before he came home again, after spending time in the prison camps that have been built in the southern part of the country, near Um Qasr. During his time in Camp Cropper, he received the number 16,481.

Statistics are lacking, but these registration numbers give an idea of the number of persons arrested in Baghdad during the round-ups and searches conducted by American troops. "An enormous numbers of detainees are coming and going, making any precise accounting impossible," says a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross. While acknowledging that he "now has access to all detention centers," he complains about "the major problems, namely the slowness of procedures and the absence of lawyers and judges."

The misadventures of Nudir and Tony are two stories among many others testifying to the daily repression enforced by American troops, who are feeling increasingly nervous. In his report to the Security Council, the UN representative in Baghdad, Sergio Viera De Mello, expressed his concerns about the status of human rights in Iraq. Amnesty International, in a [July 23] "Memorandum on concerns relating to law and order" ( http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141572003), denounced "reports of torture or ill treatment by Coalition Forces." There are also "abuses," more and more frequent, during violent operations, for the GIs are still behaving as if they were at war. Shots at civilian cars that have the misfortune to pass by at the wrong moment. Shots at occupants of a commandeered house who start to react defensively because they think they're being robbed. From a legal point of view, everything remains in a state of utter vagueness.

INHUMANE CONDITIONS

To all this must be added the poor hygiene, the heat, and the crowding in the detention centers improvised by the Americans, who, in addition to the tarpaulin camps, have put back into service the immense Abu Ghraib prison, the symbol of the thirty years of repression by the defunct regime. "It is shameful to see people detained in inhumane conditions without their families being informed, often for
weeks," said Mahmoud Ben Romdhane, the head of Amnesty's delegation to Iraq, indignantly.

There is certainly no comparison between the life of a detainee today and what that was during Saddam's time, but those who have been incarcerated by the Americans remain profoundly shocked, even if they acknowledge that in general the GI guards "behaved appropriately." General Ricardo
Sanchez, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq, explained the difficulties in publishing lists of prisoners to inform families "because of problems in spelling names, which are often imprecise."

ON THE GROUND

When he arrived at Camp Cropper, near the airport, Nudir broke down. "Under nothing but a tarp, there were 200 of us, and we didn't have the right to leave the barbed-wire enclosure that surrounded each tent. There were a dozen of them, and we couldn't talk back and forth, except by making distant gestures," said the engineer. In the neighboring tent, he saw some "VIPs" - former officials of the regime on the list of wanted persons, including the former president of Parliament, Sadoun Hammadi - who "was being treated like everybody else." "We slept on the ground, on newspapers or, for those who were lucky, on gunnysacks. The food was meager, army rations once a day, and water was even scarcer, scarcely three liters a day despite the extreme heat It was always hot, brought in metal containers. The latrines were just holes dug inside the enclosure giving off a pestilential stench," recalled Nudir, for whom the worst was going without cigarettes. Smoking was strictly prohibited. At the slightest infraction, the detainees were punished by making them stand for hours in the sun, arms and legs outstretched. "When a prisoner collapsed, they brought him to with a little water, and then he had to resume his standing position," said the ex-detainee, who also saw some of his companions punished for more serious misconduct by being thrown into the dirt on their stomach with their hands tied under the hot sun. "They didn't beat us, but they treated us like cattle," exclaimed Tony, who, after two days, was transferred to the south, to Um Qasr, to a prisoner-of-war camp, "where at least there was soap to wash with."

INDIGNATION

During his detention, Nudir was interrogated only once, for five minutes. "I didn't know how long I would be there. Then one day they called my number. I learned I was free," he said. His family had only been informed of his detention fourteen days later. "They thought I had been killed by robbers, and for days they made the rounds of police stations, the Red Crescent, the International Red Cross, the American authorities, all to no avail," the engineer complained.

When Tony was finally interrogated, after ten days in the Um Qasr camp, and was able to tell his story, the officer suddenly stood up. "I thought he was going to hit me, but he shook my hand, saying he was truly sorry for what had happened to me," said the economist, who nonetheless had to wait seventeen more days to be freed, after two other lengthy interrogations by intelligence officers who asked him if he belonged to the Baath Party, whether he knew any Baathists, what he had done during the Kuwait war, and why he didn't support the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, the Americans' protégé. He was able to prove his good faith. They walked him to the camp's gate, in the middle of the desert, 430 miles from Baghdad. They gave him $5 and it was up to him from there. He sighed: "I hold it against the Americans. Like a lot of other Iraqis, I blessed them for having freed us from Saddam Hussein. From now on, I have no more illusions."

http://www.libe.com/page.php?Article=127826



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 04:56 AM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Saddam has killed millions of Arabs you dont think
- that is boardering on genocide?

That would actually be Arabs, Kurds, and Persians that were killed, the majority of which I might add perished at the hands of Saddam while under American tutelage using the chemical weapons we provided him. Not to mention, there was no ongoing genocide in Iraq as there was in Kosovo, and even though I'm not condoning Saddam's past deeds, they weren't the justification for going to war with his regime.

In fact Hornet, if the rationale for our military intervention were based strictly on humanitarian reasons only (as you and every other Republican now are attempting to make it due to the discovery of no WMD), we might as well go on and invade several other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Korean peninsula (above the 38th parallel) while we're at it.

- Let me tell you about simple terms. Both Dictators
- were scumbags and both diserved to be attacked. Is
- that simple enough? But for the confused Liberal it
- would be hard to understand that premtive strike are
- done to stop a dictatror from getting stronger and
- causing more problems.

Like I have said numerous times Hornet, there are at least a dozen or so dictators throughout the world that are just as bad as Saddam if not worse. I mean do you foresee us attacking these "scumbags" also, or was Bush's Iraq campaign just a one time deal of "oppresso liber"?

- Oh yeah, we should have let saddam kill another
- few million before we can get the ok from the UN
- right?

No, we should of intervened to prevent ongoing atrocities being committed by Saddam when it mattered. Not 10-15 years later after the fact he was kicked out of the "Oil Buddy Club". Providing some credible evidence to the world community and our allies as to the nature of the imminent threat allegedly posed by Iraq to us here at home would have been nice also.

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 05:47 AM
Ah, Gay Paris: I would have to take anything that they put out with a grain, nay, a boatload of salt.

Hmm: We see by their own estimates that they had at least 16,841 prisoners, give or take a few. I would submit the even if there were many more like them that had been gathered up and placed there by accident, the percentage is very small. i can live with that, especially in view that there situation was made right as quickly as possible given the conditions. And, If France had more examples like this, they would trumpet it to the heavens. "Cept they are mostly heathens over there and I guess they would have to trumpet it somewhere else.
The misadventures of Nudir and Tony, ah those French, they certainly have a way with words. To the unitiated, it would seem to ba another French gay sitcom. Where are the subtitles when you need them?

And you say there are no lawyers over there to represent these unfortunate gentlemen? Please let me be the first to volunteer a few thousand of our own to send over , Pro Bono , of course. I also suggest we out fit them with white sheets, to keep them cool of course, and maybe a few AK47'S so they can protect themselves./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
And, if they are truly concerned about the members who make up the Bath Party, secretive as they are, why I suggest that they hang out in all the Bath houses and simply arrest all and any who they catch sneaking inand out with towels and cakes of Ivory. That would settle that problem./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Perhaps you have , with your great powers of discernment, have ah- discerned that I do not place much emphasis on anything that the French print about us. Where it concerns us, they would lie when the truth fit better. So, until you come up with a more reliable source, I must respond as i just have.

Like a lot of other Iraqis,he blessed us for freeing them from Saddam? News flash, they haven't been freed form Saddam until the world if freed of Saddam

Hey Mark Twain: Why don't you mind your own business, who the hell is he anyway? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 05:49 PM
Come now Leep, you act as if the French are all one person and as if the fact that someone is French is a basis to criticize them. Take issue with the author (who happens to be French) but not his nationality. Its not like you can help being a Yank!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

The problem is not the amount of people apprehended but the systematic method of denying them basic rights. Remember this is being done, not to benefit the Iraqis but to benefit us. Also consider that Saddam also only a small "detained" percentage of people. Does that mean he is forgiven?

This is oppression and we have turned the former Police State of Saddam into... a Police State of Bush minus the electricity and clean water.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 07:03 PM
Mostly I am disgusted ith the french Govt. and their deceit. They give us all the grief in the world about the war,all the while they have these huge lucrative contracts with Iraq, along with Russia. I also have to view with a jaundiced eye anything that the french press puts out. remember that tourism is off about 80% from the last numbers I saw. this is verified by the French business community, although the French Govt. avowsthat it is only around 20%. Is ther a Govt. Anywhere that knows how to tell the truth?
The Iraqi Govt does not have a basic rights agreement with anyone on earth, including their own people. I think we are doing a remarkable job under very difficult circumstances.
One point that should be very apparent: This has been endemic since we became a nation: Old men in Washington have always sent their young out to be killed and to kill for reasons they have deemed relevant.
it is up to us as a nation and the world in general and history to decide on the authenticity of such decisions.
Vietnam is the blackest mark on our history. Those old men sent our young to die for their own selfish reasons.
And the ones who are left are still paying the price and our govt. has abandoned them. So, you can rest assured that i will not give my Govt. a pass on this. The Govt. refuses to admit there agent orange even exists. Even while the Vietnam govt.has released a report a couple years ago comfirming that many, many of their people have all the symptoms of this disease. Cancer: And their children are showing the same signs. The Vietnam govt. has affirmed that this is directly caused by our govts. use of this defoiliant during the war. Of course our Govt. dismisses this out of hand. We have a President that says he cares about our troops, Lets see if he gives them the money and care they deserve. I say he will not, it simply opens the door for HUGE settlements and it is simply easier to just wait till they all die. Cheaper that way, you know. I have first hand knowledge of one particular case and have followed it for years. My drummer for 12 years has agent orange and the VA. told him first that he wasn't even in Vietnam, then when he showed documentation they then said, well you were there but you weren't involved with agent orange. Little did they know that he had saved Every document hehad ever been issued. They even went so far as to cut off his pension, because he was making some serious waves, then told him his papers had been lost in a fire in St. Louis. I drove the whole way from Butte, Mt to Cheyenne, Wyoming to Make Rich go to the capitol building and grab the first Sen, Rep. he saw and plead his case.
He did that: The Sne. first read what the VA. had prepared and looked up at Rich with anger in his voice and said, "What is this mister, why are you wasting my time with this nonsense?" "You have no claim, it says here that you didn't even see any action." Rich laid his briefcase on the table and said , 'Sir, please take a look at this." The Senator sighed and said, "I'm a busy man, Mr. Leyo, this had better be good." After a few minutes, the Senator sat up and looked over his glasses at Rich and said, "Sir I want a copy of all this?" Rich said , "Please"
The Senator had his secretary copy every single document and he then told Rich, "I assure you that I will get to the bottom of this, this is a disgrace."
He shot off a letter to the VA and told them to reinstate his pension immediately and they had 30 days to come up with his records or there was going to be a thorough investigation.
Rich got his pension ok, but not a penny of the back money they owed him for denying his pension for over two years. here was one of our veterans, who still carries shrapnel from a mortar attack in his back. And an independent doctor in Denver wrote a report stating that the lumps on his lungs were consistent with people exposed to agent orange. The Govt. drs. of course disagreed and said it was due to smoking. The denver Dr, said that is ridiculous. Two weeks later Rich and his advisor went to the Va. and his advisor made him wait outside, because Rich has an extremely short fuse when dealing with thes people. The Dr walked in and said "do you have Mr Leyo' records?" "Right here, Doc." "I thought you said they were lost in a fire?" This paper pusher smiled and said, "Whoops."
Oh, and get this: When the tobacco companies were paying out the huge settlements our soldiers were given the opportunity to apply for this as our govt supplied our troops with cigarettes and got many of them hooked. A friend of Rich's told him, "Man you have to apply for this, we are getting an average of 40,000 $ on this settlement." Rich said, "I never heard of it>" His friend said, "No kidding, they aren't exactly advertising this."
Rich went right down to the VA and got the forms and found he still had 30 days to get the forms in. He turned them in the next day and told his family that he would have money soon to help his kids with college and maybe his wife wouldn't have top work herself half to death waitressing.
Time went by and he heard nothing. He went back to the VA and , to the jerk that hated Rich because he tended to fly off on them and call them some less than nice names, turned around and pulled out a paper and said with a mean smile, "Aw gee, Mr Leyo, you missed the deadline by three days, sorry."

So, you can see that I certainly am not one who gives our Govt. a rubber stamp.
Having said that, I am firmly behind this effort to get rid of Saddam's regime and ,as far as that goes, we can go in and root out all the terrorists, no matter what country they may be hiding in.

If you have read all this, you have to come to the conclusion that I am not a blind follower of my Govt. I am extremely suspicious of the fools that ran/run it, to their own advantage(s) and the hell with our brave "Kids" that went over to Nam and died and those that came back crippled both in body, and mind.
So, for someone like myself to stand so strongly for this current war and the removal of all those that would cause us harm, must be viewed in a different light.

take care:

Leep Out:



http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 07:55 PM
Huh... too much text for my 0.4 IQ. I would be inclined to read your positions and opinions, but make it short and sweet.

_________________________________________
----====Lung-Tung for life====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/Lung-Tung2.JPG

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 12:58 AM
Leep wrote:
- Mostly I am disgusted ith the french Govt. and their
- deceit. They give us all the grief in the world
- about the war,all the while they have these huge
- lucrative contracts with Iraq, along with Russia. I
- also have to view with a jaundiced eye anything that
- the french press puts out. remember that tourism is
- off about 80% from the last numbers I saw. this is
- verified by the French business community, although
- the French Govt. avowsthat it is only around 20%. Is
- ther a Govt. Anywhere that knows how to tell the
- truth?
-

Do you think that the US and UK gov'ts were also deceitful?

How did France deceive us? They did not hide their contracts. We all knew about them.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 02:17 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Leep wrote:
-- Mostly I am disgusted ith the french Govt. and their
-- deceit. They give us all the grief in the world
-- about the war,all the while they have these huge
-- lucrative contracts with Iraq, along with Russia.

Let's not forget China too now. They also had very profitable petroleum contracts with the Iraqi regime in addition to being the recipients of an annual US presidential waiver (despite their gross human rights record) to maintain NTR status and remain our number one trading partner. A partnership I might add which is very similar to the one struck between the US and Saddam back in the 70's and 80's.

Anyway, the oil deals struck with Russia and France were in total accordance with U.N. sponsored oil for food program, so as bad as it appeared it was not like the US government was unaware of it. Oddly enough, 90% of the almost two million barrels per day that was flowing out of Iraq under the program was actually sucked up by U.S. Gulf coast refineries.

You see these U.S. refiners were mainly obtaining this crude via Russian firms, or middlemen functioning through these groups because the majority of the U.N. sanctioned oil sales went to them as a reward for Moscow's pro-Iraqi stance at the U.N. Security Council. On numerous occasions the US tried in vain to revise sanctions against Iraq in order to benefit their interests, but ultimately had to deal with the hand they were dealt up until this past March.

At the end of the day, there were plenty of US firms and even some of our staunchest allies (Turkey & Jordan) who benefited one way or another from Iraqi crude. I mean Halliburton under **** Cheney repaired (after helping in its initial destruction) Iraq's oil industry after the first Gulf War, eventually becoming their chief supplier of equipment and services. Matter of fact, just months before he quit his firm in 2000 to join the GOP ticket he was lobbying to end U.N. sanctions against Iraq.

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 02:22 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

MNG I see that signature of yours so many times I'm beggening to get a mental picture that you look like that in real life/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 02:53 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
- -
- That would actually be Arabs, Kurds, and Persians
- that were killed, the majority of which I might add
- perished at the hands of Saddam while under American
- tutelage using the chemical weapons we provided him.
- Not to mention, there was no ongoing genocide in
- Iraq as there was in Kosovo, and even though I'm not
- condoning Saddam's past deeds, they weren't the
- justification for going to war with his regime.

Here we go with the "Americans gave him those chemicals" line again. Don't you ever get tired of the same ol line.
If you sell your car to someone and he desides to run over few hundred people in a demonstration, are you responsible?
Or do you think the US sold those weapons knowing what kind of Tyrant Saddam was? Your transparent hatred for the US is evident V3.
-
- In fact Hornet, if the rationale for our military
- intervention were based strictly on humanitarian
- reasons only (as you and every other Republican now
- are attempting to make it due to the discovery of no
- WMD), we might as well go on and invade several
- other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Korean
- peninsula (above the 38th parallel) while we're at
- it.

First of all neither I or other Republicans including the Bush Administration believed that it was strictly a humanitarian reasons only. Just that now it is more important to focus on rebuilding Iraq which in turn will help us find the WMD's quicker and easier.

....and second, explain how can you DISCOVER that there are no WMD? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As far as the other countries unless our national security is threatened we will go in when nessasary. There are other "caring" countries out there. Besides the UN is not conserned. why should we. We are busy at the moment as you can see.
-
- Like I have said numerous times Hornet, there are at
- least a dozen or so dictators throughout the world
- that are just as bad as Saddam if not worse. I mean
- do you foresee us attacking these "scumbags" also,
- or was Bush's Iraq campaign just a one time deal of
- "oppresso liber"?

Have you been listening to Bush and Blair? I believe they are saying that we have to deal with the scum of the world now. We can win if we can Unite but some European countries have other agendas.
-
-No, we should of intervened to prevent ongoing
- atrocities being committed by Saddam when it
- mattered. Not 10-15 years later after the fact he
- was kicked out of the "Oil Buddy Club". Providing
- some credible evidence to the world community and
- our allies as to the nature of the imminent threat
- allegedly posed by Iraq to us here at home would
- have been nice also.
-
What does Georg W Bush have to do with 10-15 years ago?
He is the President now and he is doing something about it.
I remember before Gulf War I that Democrats didnt want to go after Saddam then.
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 05:08 AM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Here we go with the "Americans gave him those
- chemicals" line again. Don't you ever get tired of
- the same ol line.

Just about as tired as hearing you and your conservative friends say, "it is going to take time" in reference to suspected WMD in Iraq. Sure enough, these same conservatives have also said similar things about "Osama Bin Forgotten".

- If you sell your car to someone and he desides to
- run over few hundred people in a demonstration, are
- you responsible?

Like I have told somebody before Hornet. There is a huge difference between selling somebody a car and supplying a dictatorial regime with weapons designed strictly for mass killing.

- Or do you think the US sold those weapons knowing
- what kind of Tyrant Saddam was?

I hate to inform you Hornet, but it has already been well documented that the US was the chief sponsor behind Saddam's (as well as the Baath Party's) bloody rise to power in Iraq. Therefore, America was very aware of what type of person he was when they supplied him with biological/chemical weapons throughout the 80's for use against the Iranians and whoever else (i.e. Kurds) might threaten the status quo in Iraq.

- Your transparent hatred for the US is evident V3.

No, the only thing that is transparent is your ignorance, and such defamatory attacks do nothing whatsoever to enhance your argument. Furthermore, stressing awareness and accountability when it comes to my government is my right as a US citizen, and it is far from being anything close to hatred.

- First of all neither I or other Republicans
- including the Bush Administration believed that it
- was strictly a humanitarian reasons only.

Thank you for making my point. The justification for the war was an imminent threat facing us here at home. Now that the threat was obviously exaggerated and they are unable to find WMD, all this administration can talk about when it comes to Iraq is the humanitarian situation there prior to and after the war.

- Just that now it is more important to focus on rebuilding
- Iraq which in turn will help us find the WMD's quicker
- and easier.

Yeah, post-conflict reconstruction is important. However, the manner in which this administration now downplays the importance of finding suspected WMD in Iraq (because they can't find any) is very disconcerting.

- What does Georg W Bush have to do with 10-15 years
- ago? He is the President now and he is doing something
- about it.

I never said he had anything to do with what happened in Iraq 10-15 years ago. I was merely pointing out how backwards past and present US policies have been when it comes to Iraq.

- I remember before Gulf War I that Democrats didnt want to
- go after Saddam then.

That is utter nonsense. Democrats as well as Republicans gave the former President Bush full backing in removing Saddam from Kuwait as stipulated by the U.N. mandate. Furthermore, neither Republicans nor Democrats (including the President himself) favored going all the way to Baghdad in order to topple Saddam's regime. The liberation of Kuwait was simply the only thing ever on the table.

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 08:23 AM
V3: yeah I know we knew about it: The UN, now there is an organization that inspires confidence throughout the land;
it just busts my-er- that the UN , along with the French and Russia, knew that Iraq wasn't using the money for what it was intended for. Saddam amassed over 7 billion dollars for his own war chest out of that money and the kids kept dying: Of disease, no medicine. hunger, little food.
Kids, that's what makes me so damn mad. The kids. How anyone, regardless of how brutal and inhuman they are could stand by-hell not stand by, but orchestrate this foulness. And, the kids pay the price. I believe that there is a special place in hell for those that harm children. And Sadamm should have a whole cavern named after him there.

Halliburton: Ah, the old "Love Of Money" one. For some people enough is never enough. But, we should not be surprised by any of this. It is endemic all over the world.

Give me family anytime: Enough to pay the bills and a little left over. And, just a little more in case someone else is in need. You can only drive one car at a time and live in one house at a time. How many shoes does one man or woman need. It happens in all walks of life, in every country and every culture.

Take God out of the equation, and this is what you get.
IMO. For what it's worth.
Funny how the world's problems can be reduced to just a few things. Money, Power, they go hand in hand, and a willingness to put your own selfish desires ahead of everyone's elses.
That pretty much sums it up as far as i am concerned.
And, I believe that God cannot exist, or does not desire to be a part of any of that.
So either we take him out of the equation, or he distances himself from it.
I just wanted to present another take on how and why All this happens as it does. This is just my personal belief and in no way reflects the opinions of anyone else here or this station: /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Leep Out:


http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 02:05 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- Just about as tired as hearing you and your
- conservative friends say, "it is going to take time"
- in reference to suspected WMD in Iraq. Sure enough,
- these same conservatives have also said similar
- things about "Osama Bin Forgotten".

Only difference is I am right and you are wrong. And who told you Osama has been forgotten? You think the government will tell you what they are doing concearning Osama?
Use your brain and think some will you? The only time you will hear about Osama is when he is dead or caught preferable dead.
-
-
- Like I have told somebody before Hornet. There is a
- huge difference between selling somebody a car and
- supplying a dictatorial regime with weapons designed
- strictly for mass killing.
-
-- Or do you think the US sold those weapons knowing
-- what kind of Tyrant Saddam was?
-
- I hate to inform you Hornet, but it has already been
- well documented that the US was the chief sponsor
- behind Saddam's (as well as the Baath Party's)
- bloody rise to power in Iraq. Therefore, America was
- very aware of what type of person he was when they
- supplied him with biological/chemical weapons
- throughout the 80's for use against the Iranians and
- whoever else (i.e. Kurds) might threaten the status
- quo in Iraq.

Ok, so if it was well known I am sure the rest of the world knew also, especially France & Russia. What did they and the UN do about stopping us from putting Saddam into power and supplying him with chemical and biological weapons?
If what you say its true the US was wrong but so was the UN who didnt do a thing to stop us like they did when we tried to get rid of him.
Never the less, that was a very long time ago, Bush just came into the picture and he is trying to right the wrong, you seem very eager to stop him. Why if its a well know fact that Saddam is a brutal dictator.
-
-- Your transparent hatred for the US is evident V3.
-
- No, the only thing that is transparent is your
- ignorance, and such defamatory attacks do nothing
- whatsoever to enhance your argument. Furthermore,
- stressing awareness and accountability when it comes
- to my government is my right as a US citizen, and it
- is far from being anything close to hatred.

You have not once say anything good about the US or their actions but you are the first to bring out old history to put down the US. That is hatred for your country. You can disagree all you want but when you go out of you way to bring up events that happen when this president was a young man, you are picking at straws just to get your point across. Again what does Bush have to do with Saddams sale of these weapons?
Your kind of thinking is what is killing our guys there. Liberal thinking is bringing this country down in more ways then one. Because Liberals think only to benefit there agendas. Besides why not pack it up and get the hell out of this country if its so evil?
-
-- First of all neither I or other Republicans
-- including the Bush Administration believed that it
-- was strictly a humanitarian reasons only.
-
- Thank you for making my point. The justification for
- the war was an imminent threat facing us here at
- home. Now that the threat was obviously exaggerated
- and they are unable to find WMD, all this
- administration can talk about when it comes to Iraq
- is the humanitarian situation there prior to and
- after the war.

You know what I beggening to get dizzy from going around in circles with you. Once again, how the Hell do you know that there are no WMD's found when the search is not over.
-
-- Just that now it is more important to focus on rebuilding
-- Iraq which in turn will help us find the WMD's quicker
-- and easier.
-
- Yeah, post-conflict reconstruction is important.
- However, the manner in which this administration now
- downplays the importance of finding suspected WMD in
- Iraq (because they can't find any) is very
- disconcerting.

Liberal BS
-
-- What does Georg W Bush have to do with 10-15 years
-- ago? He is the President now and he is doing something
-- about it.
-
- I never said he had anything to do with what
- happened in Iraq 10-15 years ago. I was merely
- pointing out how backwards past and present US
- policies have been when it comes to Iraq.

All I see is a President with the Balls to stop the nonsense.
-
-- I remember before Gulf War I that Democrats didnt want to
-- go after Saddam then.
-
- That is utter nonsense. Democrats as well as
- Republicans gave the former President Bush full
- backing in removing Saddam from Kuwait as stipulated
- by the U.N. mandate. Furthermore, neither
- Republicans nor Democrats (including the President
- himself) favored going all the way to Baghdad in
- order to topple Saddam's regime. The liberation of
- Kuwait was simply the only thing ever on the table.

Are you dreaming or what the majority of the Democrats like that prominant democrat drunk loser Kennedy didnt want to go to war let alone continue to baghdad. You think the UN would have gone for it then?



Bottom line is this. You country is going to prevail over this mess and you will have your WMD's in a few months.
So I suggest you huddle with MNG and try to come up with a reason why the war was unjustified, even when we found the WMD's and Saddam is taking a dirt nap.
-
-
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 04:16 PM
Leep wrote:
- V3: yeah I know we knew about it: The UN, now there
- is an organization that inspires confidence
- throughout the land;
- it just busts my-er- that the UN , along with the
- French and Russia, knew that Iraq wasn't using the
- money for what it was intended for. Saddam amassed
- over 7 billion dollars for his own war chest out of
- that money and the kids kept dying: Of disease, no
- medicine. hunger, little food.

Can you substantiate that? I do not believe that it was possible that Saddam could have made money out of the Food for Oil program. The reason being that the proceeds from the program went into a UN administrated escrow account in New York. The funds in this account could not spent directly by Iraq but rather the Iraqis would specify what foodstuffs and medicines they wished to purchase and the UN would then credit the escrow account. No money flowed back to Iraq from the Oil for Food program.

A major reason why crucial medicines were not available in Iraq was because many of these medicines were categorized as duel-purpose: meaning that the drug used to cure little Ali of tuberculosis or diarrhea could also be used to create a devastating arsenal of biological and chemical weapons that would ravage the world.

Ah V3 I see that Hornet has initiated you into the ranks of the Anti-Americans. Welcome brother.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 05:46 PM
im glad they are gone, but would of preferred to take them prisoner of course.

they were terrible and they screwed up firing at us.

me personally, woman or child...if you are intending to end my life then prepare to have yours ended first.



----------------------------------
42nd Infantry Division
113th Infantry Regiment (Mortars)
New Jersey Guard

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 05:51 PM
http://www.protestwarrior.com/

hehe great....just great....check out the answer infiltrated vid/transcript....wow

i think i saw MNG theere /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

never underestimate the logical power of sarcasm

I am 49 years old and havent lived a day...i am living from now on: Iraqi Citizen after fall of Bagdad

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 06:13 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Only difference is I am right and you are wrong.

Yes, extreme right-wing zealotry is always right.

- And who told you Osama has been forgotten? You think the
- government will tell you what they are doing
- concearning Osama?

It has been almost two years since 9/11, so it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that we're not any closer to apprehending him.

- Use your brain and think some will you? The only
- time you will hear about Osama is when he is dead or
- caught preferable dead.

The only people that should be using their brains right now are at the Whitehouse. After all, they were the idiots that diverted important resources from Afghanistan to Iraq in order to topple Saddam, when in fact the real threat to this country still continues to roam freely near Pakistan.

- Ok, so if it was well known I am sure the rest of
- the world knew also, especially France & Russia.
- What did they and the UN do about stopping us from
- putting Saddam into power and supplying him with
- chemical and biological weapons?

It was the Cold War Hornet. Overthrowing governments was commonplace, and Russia obviously failed to prevent the US from installing a US-backed puppet regime in Iraq.

- If what you say its true the US was wrong but so was
- the UN who didnt do a thing to stop us like they did
- when we tried to get rid of him.

How would you expect the U.N. to stop the US from doing anything considering the Security Council was divided along Cold War lines at the time?

- Never the less, that was a very long time ago, Bush
- just came into the picture and he is trying to right
- the wrong, you seem very eager to stop him. Why if
- its a well know fact that Saddam is a brutal
- dictator.

You are always so eager to label individuals "Bush-hater" simply because we raise concerns about his policies. I mean didn't they teach you when you immigrated to this country that freedom of speech and the questioning of our government is basically the cornerstone of our democracy?

- You have not once say anything good about the US
- or their actions but you are the first to bring out
- old history to put down the US. That is hatred for your
- country.

Hornet, making people aware of the past flawed policies perpetrated by our government isn't hatred it is called history. You know the thing that helps us to learn from our mistakes.

- You can disagree all you want but when you go out of you
- way to bring up events that happen when this president
- was a young man, you are picking at straws just to get
- your point across.

It is common for somebody to structure an argument around a historical reference, especially when it comes to political discussion. If you did anything other then trying to pass on your own personal views as facts, this would already be known to you.

- Again what does Bush have to do with Saddams sale of
- these weapons?

Again, I never said he was directly involved with supplying Saddam with WMD in the 70's and 80's (Rumsfeld is another story however). I was merely trying to convey to you how we went from one flawed foreign policy in Iraq to another.

- Your kind of thinking is what is killing our guys
- there.

No, bullets being fired from those Iraqis opposed to a US occupation are killing our guys over there.

- Liberal thinking is bringing this country down in more
- ways then one. Because Liberals think only to benefit
- there agendas.

Yeah, and conservatives don't have any agendas right?

- Besides why not pack it up and get the hell out of this
- country if its so evil?

Nobody said this current administration was "evil", let alone this country. Therefore, stop attempting to make this discussion something it isn't, and while your at it keep your travel suggestions to yourself.

- You know what I beggening to get dizzy from going
- around in circles with you. Once again, how the Hell
- do you know that there are no WMD's found when the
- search is not over.

Hornet, even before declaring war against Iraq, the president had dispatched special forces into the country to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom. None were found.

Throughout the military campaign's infiltration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMD continued searching every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and the Iraqi capital. None were found.

As US and British forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special investigative teams were sent to look for WMD. None were found.

During the past few months, military teams have visited well over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found.

Simply put, if there was a WMD program in Iraq anywhere near the magnitude claimed by this administration, something would of been bound to found by now. Mass tonnage of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent (and the facilities required to make them) is not something one can just stuff in their back pocket.

In the end Hornet, the fact is this President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements concerning WMD in Iraq, yet be so unable to back them up with supporting evidence. The lack of any explanation for the gap between statements and reality only increases the sense that the president's misstatements were either exaggerated or just plain lies.

- Are you dreaming or what the majority of the
- Democrats like that prominant democrat drunk loser
- Kennedy didnt want to go to war let alone continue
- to baghdad.

You are totally delusional my friend. During Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm (both of which weren't intended for the occupation of Iraq), George Bush Sr. had full backing from Republicans and Democrats (including Ted Kennedy) in Congress, and to think otherwise would be re-writing history.

- You think the UN would have gone for it
- then?

Like I have said before, occupying Iraq and entering Baghdad was never on the table when it came to the first Gulf War. Yes, there are rumors that General Schwarzkopf desired to topple the whole regime. However, the first Bush administration, US Congress, and the U.N. were totally against it, as were all our allies in Europe and the Middle East. Simply put, such an action went well beyond the mission's objective of evicting Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

- Bottom line is this. You country is going to prevail
- over this mess and you will have your WMD's in a few
- months.

Just keep on speculating Hornet. After all, you are getting quite good at it. Anyway, I will believe it all when I see it, and until that time I will continue to enjoy watching you gasp for air.

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 06:15 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- MNG I see that signature of yours so many times I'm
- beggening to get a mental picture that you look
- like that in real life

Hornet, let me see those ears... grabs Hornet by the scruff of the neck gnash! gnash!


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 06:23 PM
Sorry, I'm too lazy to read that. Maybe... we should stop talking about it... 'cuz this whole talk about Iraq is pointless. Really, it's our president that put his foot down and said to go to war, we the people didn't have much say in it.

_________________________________________
----====Lung-Tung for life====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/Lung-Tung2.JPG

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 06:28 PM
I watched several interviews, news briefs on both CNN and Fox that discussed this issue. The main complaint they had about the food for oil program was that the UN got millions of dollars and Iraq got to spend the rest of the money, supposedly for food and medicine,but Saddam spent most of it to build 23 more palaces since the last Gulf War ended. If it comes up again,I will pay closer attention to it and get more relevant facts. I do remember that O'Reilly was livid that the UN, which in his opinion, is powerless, and i tend to agree, let Iraq slide since the last war.
I honestly did not make any notes because virtually every one who discussed the problem agreed that this did indeed happen. Perhaps someone who was more diligent that I may remember this is more detail than I. Any one shed more light on this?

Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 06:41 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- Ah V3 I see that Hornet has initiated you into the
- ranks of the Anti-Americans. Welcome brother.

Yeah, I've noticed that MNG. The funny thing is if Hornet actually had a clue as to what being anti-American really meant, he wouldn't be applying the term so loosely in all our discussions.

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 09:21 PM
Leep wrote:

I personally wouldn't pay any attention to what 'O Reilly or anyone on Fox News says. They really don't know what they are talking about. But for information on how the Oil for Food program works, see here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/fact-sheet.html

It is sanctions that caused Iraq to slide not the UN per se. No country could survive long under the punitive sanctions regime Iraq was under.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 10:56 PM
One thing you and everyone else has to start recognizing.

Regardless of who is reporting the news, CNN, FOX or any of the big three:If they are reporting verifiable facts and not just engaging in commentary, they all have to be given some weight. Just as some of you get upset when you are lumped into the Anti- American catagory-regardless of how accurate it is, I get a little confused as to how any one can just dismiss out of hand what one news agency reports on simply because of where they are affiliated.
You simply cannot do that. All the news agencies, regardless of their rather obvious political leanings, have broken some Big stories in the past. It would behoove everyone here to put their personal likes and dislikes behind them and watch all the news sources they can, Because you will find something in all of them that you can use. Remember, the biggest lie ever told had at least a grain of truth in it, or No One would have believed it.
We like to think that we are all reasonably intelligent people with insight and discernment. To automatically dismiss out of hand something because we do not care for the venue that is used to pass it along, is disingenuous at best.

Any thoughts on this?

Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 11:17 PM
Leep wrote:
- One thing you and everyone else has to start
- recognizing.
-
- Regardless of who is reporting the news, CNN, FOX
- or any of the big three:If they are reporting
- verifiable facts and not just engaging in
- commentary, they all have to be given some weight.
- Just as some of you get upset when you are lumped
- into the Anti- American catagory-regardless of how
- accurate it is, I get a little confused as to how
- any one can just dismiss out of hand what one news
- agency reports on simply because of where they are
- affiliated.
-
- You simply cannot do that. All the news agencies,
- regardless of their rather obvious political
- leanings, have broken some Big stories in the past.
- It would behoove everyone here to put their personal
- likes and dislikes behind them and watch all the
- news sources they can, Because you will find
- something in all of them that you can use. Remember,
- the biggest lie ever told had at least a grain of
- truth in it, or No One would have believed it.
-
- We like to think that we are all reasonably
- intelligent people with insight and discernment. To
- automatically dismiss out of hand something because
- we do not care for the venue that is used to pass it
- along, is disingenuous at best.
-
-
- Any thoughts on this?

I agree with that on every station besides Fox News. They are quite literally a bunch of slavering morons without a bird's brain between the lot of them. Its fine to have a political bias - everyone has one - but their gross lack of professionalism and objectivity is shameful. 'O Reilly is reasonable but the rest of them (especially that morning trio) are insulting, ill-informed and trite.

OK rant over. And now back to your regularly scheduled forum.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 12:48 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- I agree with that on every station besides Fox News.
- They are quite literally a bunch of slavering
- morons without a bird's brain between the lot of
- them. Its fine to have a political bias - everyone
- has one - but their gross lack of professionalism
- and objectivity is shameful. 'O Reilly is
- reasonable but the rest of them (especially that
- morning trio) are insulting, ill-informed and trite.
-
I wonder why they are the number one network out there MNG. Well maybe because people are tired of the Liberal BS they were being fed in the past and ofcourse continue to this day.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 01:17 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- Just keep on speculating Hornet. After all, you are
- getting quite good at it. Anyway, I will believe it
- all when I see it, and until that time I will
- continue to enjoy watching you gasp for air.

Gasping for air? The Democrats are the only ones that are gasping for air my friend. But you still haven't answer as to where the chemicals WE sold them are at this time?
And where is the proof of their distruction. Clinton (God to you Liberals) said we know he had them when I was in office but we dont know what he did with the chemicals and weapons he had. He said we destroyed some.......but not ALL.
I dont know what you think but I think he just contradicted you side that there are no chemicals or weapons to be found.
So just keep putting your finger up in the air to see which way the wind blows like all liberals do.

Good bye..............I am going on a cruise. Hopefully on my return this would all be a dream and you and MNG will have a reality check.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 04:53 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- I wonder why they are the number one network out
- there MNG.

Actually, CNN still has a much higher viewership, and it's also available in more homes and hotels throughout the US then Fox News at the moment.

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 05:22 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Gasping for air? The Democrats are the only ones
- that are gasping for air my friend.

That is why members of this administration are getting grilled everyday by Democrats as well as Republicans on Capital Hill in reference to Iraq.

- But you still haven't answer as to where the chemicals WE
- sold them are at this time?

Hornet, after thoroughly explaining to you how futile our search has been for WMD in Iraq, I thought you would've been able to use that common sense of yours to figure it all out. I guess I overestimated your ability to put two and two together.

- And where is the proof of their distruction. Clinton
- (God to you Liberals) said we know he had them when
- I was in office but we dont know what he did with
- the chemicals and weapons he had. He said we
- destroyed some.......but not ALL.

He also stated, "We might have gotten it all" too, which to be honest makes no real difference when it comes down to it. The facts speak for themselves. We have searched all suspected sites throughout Iraq, interviewed all of Saddam's top scientists/generals, and there is still no WMD to be found in Iraq.

Besides, this administration has now done an about face and is searching for evidence of a weapons program as opposed to the weapons themselves. You know why they did this Hornet? Because they have come to the realization that Saddam did not posses any of the huge stockpiles of biological and chemical nerve agents President Bush swore up and down that he had.

- Good bye..............I am going on a cruise.
- Hopefully on my return this would all be a dream and
- you and MNG will have a reality check.

Going on a cruise is a great idea Hornet. In fact, breathing some of that fresh ocean air may be just the thing you needed in order to bring you to your senses.

Message Edited on 08/03/0311:12AM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
08-03-2003, 04:28 PM
V3-Dev wrote:

- That is why members of this administration are
- getting grilled everyday by Democrats as well as
- Republicans on Capital Hill in reference to Iraq.

The democratic party is like a drowning victim trying to stay a float and grabbing at the guy that can swim(swimming ability being the Truth and ability to get things done).
As for the Republicans on Capital Hill........Not all republicans can swim.

-- But you still haven't answer as to where the chemicals WE
-- sold them are at this time?
-
- Hornet, after thoroughly explaining to you how
- futile our search has been for WMD in Iraq, I
- thought you would've been able to use that common
- sense of yours to figure it all out. I guess I
- overestimated your ability to put two and two
- together.

How can you tell me about common sense when you dont have any V3.....Common sense tells me that Iraq is big and the weapons can be anywhere...only time would tell. Not your guessing.
-
-- And where is the proof of their distruction. Clinton
-- (God to you Liberals) said we know he had them when
-- I was in office but we dont know what he did with
-- the chemicals and weapons he had. He said we
-- destroyed some.......but not ALL.
-
- He also stated, "We might have gotten it all" too,
- which to be honest makes no real difference when it
- comes down to it. The facts speak for themselves. We
- have searched all suspected sites throughout Iraq,
- interviewed all of Saddam's top scientists/generals,
- and there is still no WMD to be found in Iraq.

Are you joking with me V3? You think Saddam would have hidden those weapons in the usual places?
News report of about 30 new Jet Fighter planes where found burried near an Iraqi military base. Does that fact show you that Saddam and his people are good in hiding things?
Oh I forgot you dont have any common sense. Saddam was an evil scumbag, but he was a very smart guy. He is a Master at deception

- Besides, this administration has now down an about
- face and is searching for evidence of a weapons
- program as opposed to the weapons themselves. You
- know why they did this Hornet?

They have'nt done an about face V3 they always said he had a
weapons program. There are plenty of evidence that he had a weapons program, and by searching you will eventually find something to satisfy people like yourself. And by that I mean people with no patience.

Because they have
- come to the realization that Saddam did not posses
- any of the huge stockpiles of biological and
- chemical nerve agents President Bush swore up and
- down that he had.

And you know that as a fact.....right?
-
-- Good bye..............I am going on a cruise.
-- Hopefully on my return this would all be a dream and
-- you and MNG will have a reality check.
-
- Going on a cruise is a great idea Hornet. In fact,
- breathing some of that fresh ocean air may be just
- the thing you needed in order to bring you to your
- senses.

No but the fresh air will clear up my nostrils from all the BS that I am smelling coming from your direction. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-03-2003, 04:35 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Hornet57 wrote:
-
-- I wonder why they are the number one network out
-- there MNG.
-
- Actually, CNN still has a much higher viewership,
- and it's also available in more homes and hotels
- throughout the US then Fox News at the moment.


Actually every hotel that i have visited had Fox News available. And it is going world wide. But why is Fox News considered the #1 News Station? why Is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanitty, and a host of conservetive hosts so succesful?
Let's see if I can spell this correctly for you

C O M M O N S E N S E , if not correct sorry, but you get my meaning.
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-03-2003, 04:45 PM
Hornet, we could sit here all day and argue which news network is superior. However, the fact is I really don't make it a habit to watch Fox News, let alone CNN or MSNBC. Ultimately, I believe it's really just a matter of opinion as to which one somebody chooses to watch.

Message Edited on 08/03/0311:47AM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
08-03-2003, 05:49 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- The democratic party is like a drowning victim
- trying to stay a float and grabbing at the guy that
- can swim(swimming ability being the Truth and
- ability to get things done).

Last time I checked the President was the only one dodging questions on Iraq during press conferences.

- As for the Republicans on Capital Hill........Not
- all republicans can swim.

Yeah, but they obviously know when the occupant of the Whitehouse isn't living up to expectations when it comes to Iraq.

- How can you tell me about common sense when you
- dont have any V3.....Common sense tells me that Iraq
- is big and the weapons can be anywhere...only time
- would tell. Not your guessing.

If my recollection is correct, time is all U.N. weapons inspectors wanted, and considering that the imminent threat posed by Saddam was obviously exaggerated by this administration, for you to sit here now and keep on asking for patience is very hypocritical if not pathetic.

- Are you joking with me V3? You think Saddam would
- have hidden those weapons in the usual places?

What happened to all that highly accurate intelligence we supposedly had leading up to the war Hornet? Yes, Iraq is not a small nation, but I thought we knew where every thing was, and that we were a 100% positive he was hiding WMD?

- News report of about 30 new Jet Fighter planes where
- found burried near an Iraqi military base.

Last time I checked a jet fighter doesn't constitute WMD or a WMD program.

- Does that fact show you that Saddam and his people are
- good in hiding things?

No, it demonstrates they are not good at hiding things, and that in a futile effort to protect what little remained of their air force, they buried some planes intact with minimal effort to protect them from the sand.

- Oh I forgot you dont have any common sense. Saddam
- was an evil scumbag, but he was a very smart guy. He
- is a Master at deception.

So smart that he was dumb enough to take on the world's only superpower. Then again I could be wrong, and the US occupation of Iraq is simply just one big deception perpetrated by Saddam the master of deceit.

- They have'nt done an about face V3 they always said
- he had a weapons program. There are plenty of evidence
- that he had a weapons program, and by searching you will
- eventually find something to satisfy people like
- yourself. And by that I mean people with no
- patience.

As usual you fail to recognize the importance of such a policy shift Hornet. Nevertheless, I will try to make this as clear as possible for you. Yes, they always claimed he had a weapons program, but a weapons program that was actively making biological/chemical agents, and the weaponizing of such agents.

Now that they can't find any actual weapons or the facilities to manufacture them, all of a sudden the search has become a hunt for evidence (documents) that would possibly indicate the Iraqi regime's desire to restart its WMD program in the future once all the "heat" dissipated.

To put it all very simply, the hypothesis (which has still yet to be proven) now being put forth by this administration that Saddam may have wanted to reconstitute a WMD program ten years down the line does not in any way represent the dire imminent threat used to justify this war.

- And you know that as a fact.....right?

Yes, administration officials have now openly admitted that the stockpiles they suspected Saddam of having were either destroyed or simply kept in much smaller supply then previously thought. In other words, not even remotely the enormous amounts mentioned leading up to the war, hence not nearly the imminent threat as well.

- No but the fresh air will clear up my nostrils
- from all the BS that I am smelling coming from your
- direction.

The only odors emanating around here Hornet are coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Message Edited on 08/03/0302:51PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 03:29 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- If my recollection is correct, time is all U.N.
- weapons inspectors wanted, and considering that the
- imminent threat posed by Saddam was obviously
- exaggerated by this administration, for you to sit
- here now and keep on asking for patience is very
- hypocritical if not pathetic.

All the UN inspectors where doing is playing hide and go seek with Saddam.
-
- What happened to all that highly accurate
- intelligence we supposedly had leading up to the war
- Hornet? Yes, Iraq is not a small nation, but I
- thought we knew where every thing was, and that we
- were a 100% positive he was hiding WMD?

Come on V3 you really believed that the Administration said they knew exactly where these WMD's are hidden? The Intelliegence is something that can change when you are up against a Master of diseption. Besides I dont believe the intelligence reports the exact location of these Weapons or chemicals. And I am sure you dont believe that either.
-
-
- No, it demonstrates they are not good at hiding
- things,

One of Saddam's scientists told us where those Jets where burried. That pretty much cancels your idea that Saddam was not good at hidding things. And that is how we will find the smoking guns also if not by accident.

and that in a futile effort to protect what
- little remained of their air force, they buried some
- planes intact with minimal effort to protect them
- from the sand.

YOu dont burry 30 new jet fighters with out sealing them properly to protect them from the sand. They were burried to be protected from our Bombs btw not the sand. But I dont realy care why they burried them the point is if they can burry 30 planes what is so hard about burrying chemicals and other systems also? We know Saddam is very good at burrying things like many murdered people for instance.

- So smart that he was dumb enough to take on the
- world's only superpower.

Ah but he thought he was smart enough to pull it off because he knew he had the UN eating off his hands and believing everything he told them. He also counted on his friends France, Russia and Germany to help. But he didnt count on one thing. George W. Bush.


Then again I could be wrong

Finally, Something we can agree on /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-
- To put it all very simply, the hypothesis (which has
- still yet to be proven) now being put forth by this
- administration that Saddam may have wanted to
- reconstitute a WMD program ten years down the line
- does not in any way represent the dire imminent
- threat used to justify this war.

Ok I am sorry V3 you are right. Actually saddam was thinking of turning a new leaf and changing his ways.
He wanted to be a good guy but the evil US would not get off his back. He probably collected all those chemicals that we sold him and flushed them down one of his golden toilets in one of his palaces but he forgot which one.
-
- Yes, administration officials have now openly
- admitted that the stockpiles they suspected Saddam
- of having were either destroyed or simply kept in
- much smaller supply then previously thought. In
- other words, not even remotely the enormous amounts
- mentioned leading up to the war, hence not nearly
- the imminent threat as well.

Oh yeah that makes a whole lot of difference now....he only has half of the weapons he once had or maybe a quater of them left. What are we worrying about?
Tell me something V3, if the police suspect a drug dealer of having 300 lbs of cocaine somewhere in his house and after raiding it they ONLY found 100 lbs. did the police messed up? should they not arrest the guy?
-
-- No but the fresh air will clear up my nostrils
-- from all the BS that I am smelling coming from your
-- direction.
-
- The only odors emanating around here Hornet are
- coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

No it cant be the stench must have cleared out since January 2000 after the old tenant vacated the premisses.
Although we are getting some of it here in New York now.
I wonder what could it be.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 06:30 AM
Hornet57 wrote:

- All the UN inspectors where doing is playing hide
- and go seek with Saddam.

Yeah, and this administration is playing "weapons of mass deception" with the American people.

- Come on V3 you really believed that the
- Administration said they knew exactly where these
- WMD's are hidden?

No I don't really believe anything this administration says about Iraq's alleged possession of WMD, but judging from your responses here at this forum you are quite the opposite.

- The Intelliegence is something
- that can change when you are up against a Master of
- diseption. Besides I dont believe the intelligence
- reports the exact location of these Weapons or
- chemicals. And I am sure you dont believe that
- either.

Yes, while on the run for the past four months, the "Master of Deception" is still actively moving and concealing the location of the alleged WMD.

- One of Saddam's scientists told us where those Jets
- where burried.

No, while an American team was searching for Iraq's alleged WMD at an airbase near Baghdad, one of the US personnel happened to stumble upon the jet when he saw part of the twin tail fins of a Cold War-era MiG-25 poking out of the sand. Furthermore, the majority of the planes unearthed were not new jets, but mainly Cold War period aircraft left over from the first Gulf War.

- YOu dont burry 30 new jet fighters with out
- sealing them properly to protect them from the sand.

It has already been publicly stated that minimal efforts were taken to protect them from the sand, and US officials as of right now have differing opinions on whether they will actually be flyable again.

- They were burried to be protected from our Bombs btw not
- the sand.

Man you really need to work on your grammar pal. I never said they buried the jets in order to protect them from the sand. I said they buried them in order to protect (from us) what little remained of their already dilapidated Air Force, and when doing so they didn't take the necessary precautions to keep the sand from causing damage.

- Ok I am sorry V3 you are right. Actually saddam was
- thinking of turning a new leaf and changing his
- ways. He wanted to be a good guy but the evil US would
- not get off his back. He probably collected all those
- chemicals that we sold him and flushed them down one
- of his golden toilets in one of his palaces but he
- forgot which one.

Finally, you are starting to come to your senses.

- Oh yeah that makes a whole lot of difference
- now....he only has half of the weapons he once had
- or maybe a quater of them left. What are we worrying
- about?
- Tell me something V3, if the police suspect a drug
- dealer of having 300 lbs of cocaine somewhere in his
- house and after raiding it they ONLY found 100 lbs.
- did the police messed up? should they not arrest the
- guy?

Great, let's compare the invasion and occupation of an entire nation based on false intelligence and an imminent threat that never existed to busting a drug trafficker. What will you come up with next I wonder?

- Although we are getting some of it here in New York
- now.

You could always move right? After all, New York is a bastion of liberalism, surely the last place somebody as right-wing as you should be.

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 02:42 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
--
- No I don't really believe anything this
- administration says about Iraq's alleged possession
- of WMD, but judging from your responses here at this
- forum you are quite the opposite.

If you dont believe anything this administration says about Iraq weapons you obviously believe Saddam. I guess you just proved that once a fool always a fool.
-
- Yes, while on the run for the past four months, the
- "Master of Deception" is still actively moving and
- concealing the location of the alleged WMD.

Don't say never when you dont know how he transprots these weapons.
-
- No, while an American team was searching for Iraq's
- alleged WMD at an airbase near Baghdad, one of the
- US personnel happened to stumble upon the jet when
- he saw part of the twin tail fins of a Cold War-era
- MiG-25 poking out of the sand. Furthermore, the
- majority of the planes unearthed were not new jets,
- but mainly Cold War period aircraft left over from
- the first Gulf War.

Yes but how did they get to that area? by luck? I dont think so. The scientist told them where to go look.
-
-- YOu dont burry 30 new jet fighters with out
-- sealing them properly to protect them from the sand.
-
- It has already been publicly stated that minimal
- efforts were taken to protect them from the sand,
- and US officials as of right now have differing
- opinions on whether they will actually be flyable
- again.

I dont give a flying crap if the jets are flyable again or not, the main point is Saddam burries his arsenal to hide them...........and the seach is still on. When the US says the search is over then you can come here and tell me he don't have any.
-
-- They were burried to be protected from our Bombs btw not
-- the sand.
-
- Man you really need to work on your grammar pal. I
- never said they buried the jets in order to protect
- them from the sand. I said they buried them in order
- to protect (from us) what little remained of their
- already dilapidated Air Force, and when doing so
- they didn't take the necessary precautions to keep
- the sand from causing damage.

Let me get this straight. He burried the jets to protect them from us but didnt take the necessary precautions to protect them from the sand? That makes sense to you? yeah it probably does.
-
- Great, let's compare the invasion and occupation of
- an entire nation based on false intelligence and an
- imminent threat that never existed to busting a drug
- trafficker. What will you come up with next I
- wonder?

No I am comparing an evil scumbag leader which everyone (except you) know as a matter of fact. The comparison was made to make a point about intelligence, and just because the amount may not be acurate the damage that could be done with what he still has is considerable.

-
- You could always move right? After all, New York is
- a bastion of liberalism, surely the last place
- somebody as right-wing as you should be.

No way I have to be here and be part of keeping the smelly Liberals out of office. Anyone with a couple of dollars in the bank account is in danger of loosing it to these thieves. It pays more to be Homeless then well off here that is for sure. But wait a minute, they havent done anything for the Homeless either in the 8 loooooooooooong years they where in office, hmm and I thought they really gave a crap about those people.

You remind me of the scarecrow in the wizzard of oz V3.
He neede a brain too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif J/K you just need to open your eyes to reality.

I will continue the Homeline defence when I return /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 04:58 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- If you dont believe anything this administration
- says about Iraq weapons you obviously believe
- Saddam. I guess you just proved that once a fool
- always a fool.

No, it simply proves that unlike you I can think for myself, hence I don't believe in an administration that constantly presents fiction as fact.

- Don't say never when you dont know how he transprots
- these weapons.

According to their faulty/hyped up intelligence Bush and Co. doesn't know either.

- Yes but how did they get to that area? by luck? I
- dont think so. The scientist told them where to go
- look.

First off, I don't know where in the world you are getting this "scientist" thing from. There are simply no reports of any Iraqi informant being involved in this latest discovery.

Furthermore, US officials have already publicly stated that they found the planes while doing a search on an Iraqi air base, a place that would be an obvious choice to look for any munitions, WMD based or not.

- I dont give a flying crap if the jets are flyable
- again or not, the main point is Saddam burries his
- arsenal to hide them...........and the seach is
- still on. When the US says the search is over then
- you can come here and tell me he don't have any.

Thirty planes are not an arsenal Hornet, but over 500 tonnes of WMD this administration accused Saddam of having is. Oddly enough, they can't find it now, but you keep sounding like a broken record with your "give me more time" excuse.

- Let me get this straight. He burried the jets to
- protect them from us but didnt take the necessary
- precautions to protect them from the sand? That
- makes sense to you? yeah it probably does.

It does not have to make sense. This is what happened according to US officials on the ground, so if you have problems with their assessment take it up with them.

- No I am comparing an evil scumbag leader which
- everyone (except you) know as a matter of fact. The
- comparison was made to make a point about
- intelligence, and just because the amount may not be
- acurate the damage that could be done with what he
- still has is considerable.

First off, neither I nor anybody else at this forum has ever claimed that Saddam was not an evil dictator. Nevertheless, the only imminent threat he posed was to his own people, not America or its allies. The fact that he did not utilize any of the alleged WMD he was supposed to have in order to repel US forces and protect his rule is a clear indicator if any that he did not posses such weapons, let alone have them deployable in 45 minutes as the British government would have one believe.

- No way I have to be here and be part of keeping the
- smelly Liberals out of office. Anyone with a couple
- of dollars in the bank account is in danger of
- loosing it to these thieves. It pays more to be
- Homeless then well off here that is for sure. But
- wait a minute, they havent done anything for the
- Homeless either in the 8 loooooooooooong years they
- where in office, hmm and I thought they really gave
- a crap about those people.

Although, the state of New York has two democratic senators, the governorship (since 1992) as well as the mayorship of New York City (since 1992) have both been held by republicans, and it is these two key positions more then any other that directly influence how that state is run. Therefore, if you have issues with the homeless or protecting any money you have in the bank, I suggest you give Governor Pataki's or Mayor Bloomberg's office a call.

By the way, I have lived in Manhattan (Tribeca) all my life, and although I am not a Republican, I think Mayor Giuliani did a very fine job (extra-marital affairs aside) while in office, especially during the 9/11 tragedy when my neighborhood was affected more then any other after the collapse of the WTC.

Despite this however, I still take issue with the Federal government, and the manner in which they made funds available to the victims of the incident, many of which are in fact still waiting to receive adequate compensation from insurance companies and other federally sponsored funds.

- You remind me of the scarecrow in the wizzard of oz
- V3. He neede a brain too.

Well, you remind me of the lion in the Wizard of Oz. You know the character that was searching for courage. In your case this would be the courage to think for yourself and hold your government accountable instead of fool heartedly believing every falsehood they feed you.

- I will continue the Homeline defence when I return

That is "Homeland Defense" Hornet, and God help us all if we ever actually have to rely on the likes of you for our protection.

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 05:33 PM
V3 I think Hornet is playing a cruel joke on us. He doesn't really believe all these fantasies.

BTW Hornet this scientist says that Saddam destroyed all of his weapons in '94. Do you know the scientist I mean?



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 05:55 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- V3 I think Hornet is playing a cruel joke on us. He
- doesn't really believe all these fantasies.

Something tells me this would be wishful thinking on our behalves. I say this because I fear we've lost Hornet to the dreadful "Bush Syndrome" quite some time ago and the illness being at such an advanced stage as it is has surely diminished any and all hopes in saving the poor lad.

Message Edited on 08/04/0301:21PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 08:23 PM
I wonder, dear Hornet, what you think of this?

By Kenneth Davidson:

[But what would the occupying forces and their families make of Bush's executive order 13303, promulgated without fanfare in May, which gives sweeping powers to US oil companies operating in Iraq while granting immunity to them for the consequences of any of their actions in exploiting the oil.

In a report last month for the US Democratic legal think tank Government Accountability Project (GAP), the legal director, Tom Devine, said that in terms of legal liability, 13303 "cancels the concept of corporate accountability and abandons the rule of law . . . (It) is a blank cheque for corporate anarchy. Its sweeping, unqualified language places the industry above domestic and international law for anything related to commerce in Iraqi oil."

The immunity is unconstrained. The opening sentence decrees that "any judicial process" is "null and void". Section 1 (b) shields the value "of any nature whatsoever" if it is "related to" the "sale or marketing of . . . all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products" or "interests".

According to Devine: "That means all corporate activities with roots or any connection to Iraqi oil. It covers everything from extraction through transportation, advertising, manufacture, customer service, corporate records and payment of taxes. It covers compliance with contractual obligations involving Iraq that industry enters into with the US Government in postwar Iraq. The scope can be further expanded to virtually all oil-related commerce, by blending Iraqi oil with domestic supplies for any commercial transaction."

The executive order applies to US "persons" (including corporations or other organisations) who "come into possession or control" of anything relevant to Iraqi oil or oil products. Devine comments: "Translated from the legalese, this is a licence for corporations to loot Iraq and its citizens."

The order is built on UN Security Council resolution 1483, which ended sanctions against Iraq and led to the establishment of the Development Fund for Iraq - into which the $1.7 billion of Iraqi money from the UN Oil-for-Food program and all proceeds from future sales of Iraqi oil and gas will be placed.

The development fund is controlled by Paul Bremer, who is in charge of the US occupation of Iraq, and it will be overseen by a board that includes representatives of the UN, the World Bank and the IMF.]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4342.htm



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 09:12 PM
Dearest MNG,

I am happy to read that you are still a liberal tool. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I find it ironic that you use as support for your earlier argument "you must have seen in on TV" but then go on to attack FOX, a network which typically does not feed you your facts with a donkey-shaped spoon. It seems you didn't really mean that TV can be trusted as a source of information, but rather only a TV broadcast that agrees with your views? Uh huh.. I see... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Also, seeing how you are the expert on the Bill of Rights (nomenclature that harkens specific to the USA), please tell me, in your best estimation (let's just forego the fact that the BoR are only guaranteed to American citizens):

What ammendments where violated under Saddam?

If you were Iraqi, would you want the future that you would have been guaranteed under Saddam, or the future you could now help shape in this time of transition?

Do you believe you can stop violence in Iraq without violence?

Also, I can't help but chuckle at your contention that Iraq was fully cooperating with weapons inspectors. Tell me - do you really want to go there, or were you just hoping to let that slide by?

As for Saddam not delcaring war on the US - you have to be kidding, right? You remember that little country called Kuwait over there, right? Yeah, that's it, the one that Iraq invaded. Then we stopped short of taking Saddam down in part because he agreed to inspections only to ban inspectors for a period of... I forget... how many years? Please tell me because I just can't remember.

PS missed ya' /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2003, 10:59 PM
MNG, I recall a link to that specific executive order being contained in an article Gandalf posted a couple months back, and when I actually read it I too was astonished at the broad sweeping powers it gives the current administration as well as US Corporations over Iraq's petroleum industry.

Not surprisingly, when it was issued there was never really any mention of it from the major news networks in the US, all of whom at the time happened to be a in a patriotic fervor as a result of the war, steering clear of any story that may result in a backlash from viewers as well as the Bush Whitehouse.

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 05:22 PM
Ah Iraq-nid me old mucker /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I must admit your first paragraph has me a little confused at to your precise criticism but let me just say this: there are various sources for learning about current events on television but I regard Fox News as being simply the worst place to start. I watch them all from time to time but Fox News is long on rhetoric and short on facts. They continually promote the most absurd fallacies, interview dubious "experts" on both sides of the debate and too frequently toe the party line with little or no critical reasoning. It is grown-up's MTV.

They are great for sports though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As for the Bill of Rights (guaranteed to no one anymore/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif ), my point in bringing this up is that here in the West we like to boast and brag about how "free" we are and how we should bring that glorious freedom to others. However, when we go into these other countries we instantly start violating the very rights and liberties we are claiming to bring them. Makes us look like hypocrites does it not?

I quoted the Bill of Rights because it is a convenient expression of the ethics of natural law which I hold is universal everywhere in time and space (I guess that makes me a conservative Rachy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). Indeed Saddam violated a whole bunch of these rights. However when you are committing a crime it doesn't do to point at someone else and say, "well he did it too!"

To be honest I don't think Iraqis are happy under either the US occupation or Saddam but that isn't the point. What goes on in Iraq is not our problem - it is their responsibility to deal with and eventually they would have done. Saddam will not live forever.

I must say I think it is something of an Orwellian newspeak to imply we can go to war to bring peace. Violence is violence never peace. The only way to peace is to respect individual liberty and it is up to the individuals in Iraq to obtain that for themselves. We can never do that.

I was confused by your last paragraph. Saddam Hussein never declared war on the United States. Even if at a massive stretch you considered his invasion of Kuwait an indirect declaration of war on the US (unlike his invasion of Iran, which was perfectly OK), that war ended in 1991.

There was no time limit on inspections and there was no implicit attachment of "regime change" if Saddam did not comply. The last time inspectors found weapons in Iraq was in 1991, later intelligence tells us that Iraq unilaterally destroyed the remainder in 1994. Saddam did not ban weapons inspectors from Iraq rather the US ordered them out in preparation for their 4-Day War in 1998. In 2002 Iraq agreed to let inspectors back in but the US blocked them until they could coerce the UN into passing a resolution that implicitly allowed for war in the event that Saddam did not co-operate. Iraq grudgingly co-operated (considering this is a massive violation of their nation's sovereignty) and continued to do so until the US again ordered the inspectors out of Iraq so they could begin a third war with Iraq (which was started early, ironically violating their own ultimatum).

According to international law this war and subsequent occupation is illegal and in violation of UN Resolutions (ironically just like Iraq's invasion and subsequent occupation of Kuwait). Responsibilities required under the Geneva Conventions have been overtly and covertly violated, as have the basic civil liberties we claim to bring to Iraq.

Now you have a good day. Glad to have you back! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Whoops I just posted a whole bunch of my own thoughts! Dayglow will be furious! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


Message Edited on 08/05/0312:43PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 05:52 PM
Why didn't they just charge Saddam with war crimes, and haul his sorry *** over to the tribunal? I'm sure that would have gotten a lot more support than bombing the crap out of everything just to get a handful of thugs.

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 07:12 PM
Aha- Fox is long on rhetoric and short on facts. And you know this, how? If you are in possesion of facts that none of the news organizations are cognizant of, then by all means unburden yourself and share them with us. Promote the most absurd fallicies. Hmm_ I am glad you are there, old friend to point this out to the rest of the civilized world. And, again, you came by this information, how? Information that only you possess. Indeed./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
You see, your assertion that we are committing a crime, is just that, an assertion, that you make, based on your own personal beliefs. Not necessarily steeped in fact, but viewed from an emotional viewpoint. Not necessarily a bad thing, I tend to get emotional myself at times. However, try not to let it become the driving force behind your thoughts, your ideals,the way that you view the world. As much as we may differ with another view or set of actions,it behooves us to try to do such in a dispassionate manner.
"Sadamm will not live forever"- I take it you mean if we had not intervened with his plan to bring love and lightness and happiness to the Iraqi people? But, His sons would have lived and loved on and their sons and so on- each succeeding generation having absorbed the wickedness of their grandfather, fathers, and then added their own unique twists to their own brand of horror. Must move forward and grow, you know?
Violence is violence, never peace. I can assure you that If we had not stopped Hitler, we all may well be speaking German today, including England. And I can envision no horror greater that to be forced to listen to German spoken with an English accent. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Now that would be inhuman.
MNG: A man of wit and rare intelligence. But, sadly, a man that can not, will not see and understand that at times, throughout our history, man has been forced, for whatever reason(s), to take up arms to protect those that cannot protect themselves, from monsters, not those that live under the bed, or go bump in the night, but real monsters, those that would kill millions, simply because they did not conform to their peculiar, particular ideas on what is right and who should rule the world.

I hope that you are never put into the position where you have to take decisive action to protect, either yourself or your loved ones. I say this not to insult you, I have a few good friends who are pacifists, and good people they are. But, I would not want them beside me or have to depend on them for support if i were faced with those that would harm or kill me or my family. Usually in that case I, or we that share my sentiments, would then be faced with the problem of trying to provide protection to the pacifist along with our loved ones. And, in rare cases, the pacifist has actually been instrumental in hindering the efforts of the one providing the protection, In some misguided effort believing even then that cooler heads can prevail, usually they do not. There are some people, many actually today, especially in this climate, who would laugh in your face at your efforts while cheerfully ending your life.
Happens all the time, in every culture.
Those of us that heve been protected and shielded from any violence, except that they have seen on the TV simply cannot fathom the depth and degree of violence that exists and those that are capable of administering it.
Sometimes the only option to violence and evil is simply to remove it. And don't ask who are we to determine what constitutes violence and why it is our job to administer justice. It is every man's duty to protect the innocent, the weak. Someday, i hope you can put your emotions aside and view this dispassionately. it is, indeed difficult, but also a necessity.
Take care: And you know none of this is personal. I apologize ahead of time If what I have written has offended you in any way. That was not my intention.
"The views of this fool Leep do not reflect those of the management." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leep Out:




http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 07:31 PM
MNG - you are losing your touch. Ethics of Natural Law? There is no such thing. There are no ethical absolutes. I am not exactly a relativist, but I do not believe in moral imperatives. Your case would be made stronger if you used relativism, but instead you choose to use absolutism. That makes no sense. If there were such a thing as the ethics of natural law, that would mean that we would not need UN suport to do what we did as long as we believed it was the moral thing to do according to our morals - taking for granted that the Iraqi people (and all of humanity for that matter) share the same ethical views. That is not the reason we went in, but according to your argument I could say that and you could not defend yourself.

As for FOX, it is a legitimate news source - period. You would have to provide me evidence that their coverage or experts have somehow been impeached at a more frequent rate than any other network to change my mind. Otherwise I will continue to maintain that you are just regurgitating more liberal banter that you no doubt ingested at the last "Save Gray Davis" rally.

I am not making the case that "Saddam was bad so we can be just as bad." Do not oversimplify the argument. You stated that "when we go into these other countries we instantly start violating the very rights and liberties we are claiming to bring them." We started violating their rights? No, we have begun the progess to restore their rights. I am not sure what shade of rose your glasses are today, but changing from a dictatorial regime to a democracy means a total stripping down of governmental structure as it existed and a slow process of education about democracy leading up to its full implementation and out departure. The stripping of the existing government happens all on its own because those in power quickly disappear out of fear of retribution for their transgressions. The country is left in near anarchy. You argue as if we should have it all up and working in full order by now. That would be perfect if we were starting a moon colony, but we are talking about a lot of history and oppression to overcome with an existing culture and the shadow of a former government. These things do not happen overnight. Also, if memory serves... weren't the first reports of looting and murders in the streets of Iraq after Saddam's statue fell met with pleading that the US forces do something to get it under control?

Perhaps the most troubling statement you made is this: "What goes on in Iraq is not our problem it is their responsibility to deal with and eventually they would have done. Saddam will not live forever." I am going to make a very emotionally charged comparison here, but Hilter and Saddam have more similarities in the way they manage their population that dissimilarities. Genocide is bad. Agreed? Saddam systematically killed thousands of Iraqi citizens if not by hand, by order. He had cruel sons who were murderers and rapists waiting in the wings to take over, and behind them was the next generation. Iraq would have been in perpetual control of a genocidal, murdering, raping family. To say that the Iraqis would have taken care of it themselves is not much different from saying that the Jews should have overthrown Hitler. You sound less like a liberal and more like an isolationist.

Furthermore, your oxymoronic argument that Iraqis deserve the same rights as us, but we should sit idle and maybe someday they will figure out how to achieve those rights on their own is demonstrative of your weak stomach for commitment. If you do believe in moral absolutes, and that the Bill of Rights is a documented representation of those rights, then you need to be committed to assuring that ALL human beings are afforded those rights. Sometimes being commited to a cause, especially one of high moral purpose, means being willing to sacrifice something. It sounds like you are not. You talk a good game from the sideline, basically, while your team gets pummeled. Well, the Iraqi people did not have time for anymore liberal armchair quaterbacks.


Regretably, you stray further from reason by stating that Saddam did not interfere with weapons inspectors. I cite a 1997 UN resolution (1115):

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


1. Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991) and 1060 (1996);



2. Demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions; and that the Government of Iraq allow the Special Commission inspection teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect in accordance with the mandate of the Special Commission;



3. Demands further that the Government of Iraq give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to officials and other persons under the authority of the Iraqi Government whom the Special Commission wishes to interview, so that the Special Commission may fully discharge its mandate;


In fact, there were two more such resloutions condemning Iraq's lack of compliance with UN Security council resolutions that year. You go on to say that Iraq began complying again in 2002. If Iraq never stopped complying, as you maintain, then how could they start again? We'll chalk that one up as you being a little drunk at the time you posted. And, weapons inspections were a violation of Iraq's sovereignty? Not quite. The weapons inspections were a condition of the seize-fire which let Saddam stay in power. He agreed to the inspections to keep his throne after attacking Kuwait unprovoked and then getting his arse handed to him on the battlefield. He invaded, the UN repelled, he and the UN agreed to a seize-fire, the conditions of which he violated repeatedly. I love revisionist historians like yourself, MNG. You are quite entertaining.

Just like you state that all weapons were destroyed in 1994. That is quite puzzling. Why then did Hans Bliz sit before the UN Security Council on January 27, 2003 and state:

"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. I 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." ?????????????

I am easily confused. So, please explain.



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 08:10 PM
typos typos typos. Sorry folks. It's kind of my call-sign.



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 09:19 PM
Arachnid I will get to your edifying comments in short order but first I must dispose of Leep. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leep, you talk as if the continued rule of the Hussein family was as inevitable as the march of time itself. If this were true we would all still be living under monarchy. The Baath regime had only last twenty years before its first major revolution when Saddam took control and then ten more years before a second uprising in which it nearly fell. Saddam Hussein was a unique historical figure: his sons lacked either the heart or the discipline to do what he did. IMHO the regime would have collapsed shortly after his death. Whether it would be paradise on earth or not is another matter.

Please do not make the mistake of comparing Hitler to Saddam; in particular your invalid analogy of "stopping" Hitler. Hitler occupied nearly every country in Europe and had the most feared army of all time. He was "doing" something that needed to be "stopped". Saddam could barely handle Iran. Precisely what were we "stopping" him from doing? Nothing that threatened us.

You accuse me of being emotional yet this is pure logic. You also accuse me of being a pacifist. Not guilty! I simply maintain this is an unjust war and that Saddam presented no threat to us, as has been born out by the facts.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


Message Edited on 08/05/03‚ 09:27PM by MisterNiceGuy

Message Edited on 08/05/0309:29PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 09:19 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 08/05/0309:26PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 09:26 PM
One can quote as many past U.N. resolutions as they desire, but there remains only two legal justifications for attacking another country and they are: self-defense, or if the Security Council authorizes you to do so. It is perfectly clear that none of the United Nations Security Council resolutions involving Iraq ever authorized an armed military intervention.

Furthermore, the US/UK legal rationalization, which is based on Security Council resolutions dating all the way back to 1990-91, is stretching it to say the least. When you look very closely at all the edicts and the routine practices of the Security Council, it's apparent that the majority of members on the Security Council believed that further authorization would be needed in order to use military force against Iraq.

However, as we all know now there was never any UN Security Council authorization, let alone an impending humanitarian catastrophe or imminent threat posed by Iraq. Basically, it was unlawful from the start, and the ongoing absence of WMD in Iraq makes it difficult for many to think otherwise. The earlier Security Council resolutions were simply related to the occupation of Kuwait, and that situation has completely changed, and it is totally false to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorizes the use of force.

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 10:00 PM
V3-

The UN resolutions you speak of (early 1990's) were a conditional seize-fire, which Saddam negated. Therefore, since he violated the conditions of the seize-fire, the US was empowered to strike in accordance with the original UN resolution authorizing force.

If we acted against the UN's law, then why has there been no repercussions? No resolutions condemning us, no military action to protect Iraq, ... nothing. Why not?

And, you are right, there was no impending humanitarian catastrophe. The was an ONGOING one. I guess you don't deem thousands of dead citizens, a starving population, mamed and dead contrarians, or raped women a catastrophe. What exactly do you need? You want every last man, woman, or child lined up in fron of Saddam and shot?

Look, if war is distasteful to you, say so. You don't like death, you don't like how much it costs, you don't think camoflauge is particularly flattering, whatever your hangup is - fine. But don't pretend like Iraq was this oasis in the desert. It was a hell on earth for most people there. I have a gentleman under my employ who lived there, his father still lives there and runs a business, and I can tell you what his opinion is of Saddam Hussein and his practices - pure hatred.

Argue facts. Don't play ostrich.



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>



Message Edited on 08/05/0302:03PM by Arachnid

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 11:45 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 08/05/0306:58PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 12:07 AM
Arachnid wrote:

- The UN resolutions you speak of (early 1990's) were
- a conditional seize-fire, which Saddam negated.
- Therefore, since he violated the conditions of the
- seize-fire, the US was empowered to strike in
- accordance with the original UN resolution
- authorizing force.

That is totally false. The 1991 Persian Gulf Resolution authorized the use of military force as defined in U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which was directed at ensuring the departure of Iraq from Kuwait. This all came to an end in April of that same year when Iraq formalized a cease-fire with the U.N. based coalition and notified the Security Council.

Later the US claimed that Iraq was in violation of Security Council Resolution 687, which requires full cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. However, this issue involved the Iraqi government and the United Nations only. The Security Council did not specify any enforcement mechanisms in that or subsequent resolutions.

The Security Council was only authorized to take further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution. Despite the Security Council warning Iraq with Resolution 1154, stating that the "severest consequences" would result if it continued its negation to comply; only the Council had the right to insure implementation of the resolution. Not the US or any other country.

- If we acted against the UN's law, then why has there
- been no repercussions? No resolutions condemning
- us, no military action to protect Iraq, ... nothing.
- Why not?

How would you suggest that the U.N. Security Council pass a resolution condemning America, when as permanent member of that body the United States would simply utilize their vetoing power? Furthermore, what nation or group of nations in their right mind would take on the US armed forces?

- And, you are right, there was no impending
- humanitarian catastrophe. The was an ONGOING one.
- I guess you don't deem thousands of dead citizens, a
- starving population, mamed and dead contrarians, or
- raped women a catastrophe. What exactly do you
- need? You want every last man, woman, or child
- lined up in fron of Saddam and shot?

The overwhelming majority of atrocities committed by Saddam against his citizens took place in 1988 (gassing of the Kurds) and just after the first Gulf War (Shia Uprising). Murder on such a scale was not occurring prior to the most recent conflict, and the recent uncovering of mass graves and subsequent identification of the bodies has indicated that the majority are in fact the remains of those killed in the incidents mentioned above.

Also, while conditions after the first Gulf War were wretched under Hussein's rule (mainly due to the longest running sanctions ever placed on a single nation), today the social fabric in Iraq is far worse due to the US invasion. In simple terms, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has brought the worst form of freedom: anarchy. Contrary to popular belief, prior to the war a vast amount of Iraqis did have general security, operational medical facilities, potable water, dependable electricity, telephone service and even jobs.

All of these things have more or less been destroyed as a result of the recent invasion and "urgency" has not been in the CPA's vocabulary when it comes to restoring these things. Iraq with no law and order, no employment and no life-sustaining infrastructure is a mess. The humanitarian situation prior to the war wasn't even remotely as bad then as it is right now, and as far as the raping of women goes, the numbers of reported cases has more then sky rocketed since the US toppled Saddam.

- Look, if war is distasteful to you, say so. You
- don't like death, you don't like how much it costs,
- you don't think camoflauge is particularly
- flattering, whatever your hangup is - fine.

Mankind has fought wars since the beginning of time, and if such behavior is justified then so be it. However, in the case of Iraq, I as many others simply don't believe this current US administration proved to the American people and the world at large that Saddam posed an imminent threat to us or our allies.

- But don't pretend like Iraq was this oasis in the
- desert. It was a hell on earth for most people
- there. I have a gentleman under my employ who lived
- there, his father still lives there and runs a
- business, and I can tell you what his opinion is of
- Saddam Hussein and his practices - pure hatred.

I have stated previously that if this war was simply about freeing the Iraqis, I not only would of been all for it, but I could have named at least a dozen or so other countries in the world that could use liberating where people are being oppressed just as bad by their respective regimes if not worse then what Saddam has perpetrated against his citizens.

However, when it comes down to it the military intervention in Iraq was never about liberating anybody. Yes, it was a subsequent by-product (a good thing), but the rationale was always to preemptively attack Saddam before he attacks us with alleged weapons that are not only nowhere to be found, but maybe never existed to begin with.

- Argue facts. Don't play ostrich.

Speak for yourself. I'm not the one selectively quoting parital excerpts from past U.N. resolutions and then taking them out of context.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 12:09 AM
Arachnid,

You appear to consider morals and ethics to be the same thing. I do not. Morals are derived from religion, ethics are derived from logic. Logic is absolutist by definition. I am surprised that you consider that a respect for natural law to be "losing my touch". This is the ethical framework upon which the United States was founded and without it there would be no capitalism. This perspective looks at law as something to be discovered (through logic) as opposed to created (by legislature). This is different to the now popular Benthamite method of governance which is distinguished by the arbitrary nature of its law.

True Fox is legitimate but whether it is a quality source is another thing entirely. I personally consider it a disgrace.

Arachnid if you do not consider dropping a bomb on someone's house or kicking down the door to search their premises a violation of their rights I really do not know where to start with you.

I would disagree that changing from a dictatorship to a democracy necessitates stripping down the entire government infrastructure. This was not the process that was followed in Germany or Japan where key elements of the government were kept in place during the transition. Dissolving the government is pure folly and rather suggests a take-over and not"liberation". But if your motivation is total control of the country's strategic resources then replacing the incumbent government with one of your own makes perfect sense.

Now I do not think any one could accuse me of posing as a liberal. I am not (at least not in the current popular sense) and it would make more sense to call me a non-interventionalist rather than an isolationist. An isolationist would likely cut off all trade and communication. I am simply opposed to any intervention into the internal affairs of another sovereign state. Such intervention is unethical and impoverishes both the host nation and (to continue the analogy) the parasite nation that feeds upon it. Liberation will be brought far quicker, with less bloodshed and greater wealth creation on both sides through trade.

Your philosophy clearly derives from the Benthamite ethics that it is the responsibility of government (and hence the taxpayer) to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. However you arrogate to yourself to decide what this greatest good is. Having determined this good you wave away reports of the deaths of thousands of Iraqis since in your estimation the greater number of Iraqis will live in peace and prosperity. The dead merely had to be sacrificed to make this possible. And such was the philosophy of Stalin.

What is truly troubling is that here we are witnessing the final conclusion of Bentham's philosophy (the path upon which both the US and the UK are traveling) and the average American simply shrugs his shoulders and continues watching the game. Perhaps when those final consequences return back to our shores and others are not alone in paying the price we will change our minds.

It is not the task of the individual to force either his morals or ethics down other people's throats but merely to petition for his own rights. This laissez-faire approach is the only practical and ethical approach. It is not up to you to instruct me as to what my responsibilities or commitments are. My commitment is create wealth for myself and my family through any means necessary provided I do not harm anyone else. Can it be said that the US is harming no one else in its current moral crusade?

I did not say that Saddam did not interfere with weapons inspectors. I simply said that at the time of the invasion he was complying. What occurred prior to that is irrelevant. But if you want to get on the subject of compliance with international law then by your own logic the US should be invaded since they are in open violation of international law with their continued occupation of Iraq.

At the end of the day the argument for war reduces to the claim that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be removed. This is a juvenile argument underscored by the fact that the original case for war as been revealed to be a complete lie.

"Revisionist historian"? Sounds like something George Bush would say /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Arachnid thank you for your reasoned and detail reply. Now I'm off to get really drunk so that I can compete with you better /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 02:35 AM
Arachnid wrote:

-
- And, you are right, there was no impending
- humanitarian catastrophe. The was an ONGOING one.
- I guess you don't deem thousands of dead citizens, a
- starving population, mamed and dead contrarians, or
- raped women a catastrophe. What exactly do you
- need?

Ironically, that sounds like the result of the US invasion.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 06:04 AM
Was the continued rule inevitable? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But while it existed, and you have no qualifying information, other than speculation, that it would not survive for eons, it was a horrible thing to live under. Although, if you were not close to the family, and even then you could be killed at a whim by any of them, life was grim indeed.

You say Saddam's sons lacked the heart or discipline to carry on the murders that dear old daddy did? What version of the movie are you watching. You have absolutely no information that could give that statement even any value at all. It is pure speculation.

Hitler occupied many European countries, it is true. But, he didn't occupy them all at once. And some were just handed to him on a Polish platter.

Just who, outside or the European community feared the army of Hitler so desperately? I don't remember my dad and his twq brothers and first cousin, who joined up the same day, and got their picture in many of the current newspapers, ever showing anything but contempt for the house painter and his jolly band of fools. I believe that emotion was universally held, at least throughout our country and , ahem, yours also. Don't make me come over there, young man. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And, what does Mark Twain know anyway? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I regretfully have to stand by my assertion that you are indeed an individual that is swayed by emotion. I believe i have seen that reflected in many of your responses. That is not necessarily a bad thing, it just tends to colour your views somewhat.

I have never been of the opinion, shared by many of my countrymen, that Saddam was an imminent threat to us. I have stated in the past that he had learned a very valuable lesson in Kuwait. But, having said that, I Firmly believe that if they had possessed nuclear capabilities, they would cheerfully have gone to hell whistling Dixie if they could have taken a few hundred million os us with them. I simply do not care that they have been removed. The world will be a safer, better place without them here, removing innocent human beings simply because they can. To hell with them and all that practice this.

Is it unjust to remove murderers? Is it unjust to keep innocent people from being killed, for no good reason?
Every man they murdered produced a widow and children without fathers, or a means with which to provide the most basic things needed for life-food, water, shelter.?

People get all wrapped up in the mundane, that which is barely germain to the big picture. because of what we have undertaken, innocent people now have the sceptre of death removed from above their heads. No longer will people be ripped from their beds and their homes, in front of terrified mothers and children, never to be seen again.
I, for one, can live with what has transpired up to now, and am prepared to accept a lot more if it means that this will not happen again. If you would like to apply the scarlet letter E to me. denoting emotion, I will wear it proudly.

Take care: Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 04:52 PM
I have said this a million times and I will say it again, I have no problem with the new freedom that has been bestowed upon the Iraqis by US and British forces. In fact, I wish they could somehow emancipate the millions of other people throughout the world that are suffering the same fate as those that were under Saddam's rule. My only grievance with the whole ordeal is I simply feel that Saddam wasn't an imminent threat to the US or its allies; hence military intervention in Iraq was far from being of precedence when it comes to our national security.

First off, there was never any concrete evidence linking Saddam to international terrorism. Secondly, as we all know the intelligence on Iraq's WMD being weaponized and ready for deployment in less than 45 minutes has now been refuted. A reconstituted nuclear program definitely did not exist. Everything that has come to light since the conclusion of the war clearly points to the notion that these items no longer exist. Simply put, the possibility of Iraq resuming any type of WMD program years down the line doesn't call for such an imperative military response.

I mean when you look around the globe and you see the "real" threats facing our nation, one becomes dumbfounded by this administration's priorities. You have the country of North Korea (DPRK) who is actively enriching uranium for nuclear arms development, and who has publicly stated it will not think twice about proliferating these weapons to whomever desires to purchase them. As of right now, they apparently have up to two bombs, and will eventually be able to manufacture up to 50-55 such bombs per year. When one adds up the things mentioned above with the fact that the DPRK not only has ballistic missiles that can reach the Western US, but the largest slave labor and execution camps in existence today, I think it is safe to say there were bigger fish to fry then Saddam.

Furthermore, with countries like Iran (5-Star sponsor of terrorism) pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program that directly challenges the international community as well as the global non-proliferation establishment, I must seriously question the degree of security obtained for the US by invading Iraq while its neighbor directly next door may shortly have the worst type of WMD there can be. North Korea and Iran being in talks for the better part of a year to develop long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear payloads only exacerbates the dilemma. We are talking about a country in Iran that has openly declared it has no qualms whatsoever with dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel, a country I might add that has always deemed Iran a much greater threat to their existence and the region's stability then Iraq ever was.

Lastly, let's not forget Al Queda, the longest ongoing direct threat to America and our allies since the attacks of September 11th. The same Al Queda that has killed close to four-hundred people (maiming hundreds more) over the past year with attacks on a synagogue, nightclub, and various other places like hotels as was seen yesterday in Jakarta. Osama Bin Laden and his top cohorts remain on the lame, Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse with no real foreign aid or security, and the Taliban/Al Queda are waiting on the door step prepared to move right back into their old haunts. To think that all this is going on while the US diverts key resources world-wide (including Afghanistan) to topple a regime it perceives as possibly being a threat, when in fact Al Queda and the war on terror is a known threat really leaves one absolutely confounded.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 06:09 PM
Leep wrote:
- Was the continued rule inevitable? Perhaps yes,
- perhaps no. But while it existed, and you have no
- - qualifying information,


Leep, I can make the same criticism of you (vis-√ -vis speculation). And where does that get us? A moot conversation. Even if somehow, amazingly, in a manner that flies the face of history, recent and otherwise, Saddam's immortal rule continued after his death, so what? He is still no threat to us.
-
- You say Saddam's sons lacked the heart or
- discipline to carry on the murders that dear old
- daddy did? What version of the movie are you
- watching. You have absolutely no information that
- could give that statement even any value at all. It
- is pure speculation.

Actually I do. I have read biographies of Saddam and his sons. Furthermore you are twisting my words. I did not say his son's lacked the heart or discipline to carry out murders. I am saying they lacked the fundamental ability to run that regime the way Saddam did. Poor Saddam did not know which son to name as his successor; one was a loose cannon, the other too soft (in a vicious Iraqi political sort of way).

- I regretfully have to stand by my assertion
- that you are indeed an individual that is swayed by
- emotion. I believe i have seen that reflected in
- many of your responses. That is not necessarily a
- bad thing, it just tends to colour your views
- somewhat.

Care to substantiate that? Am I any more swayed by emotion that you? Is it not clear I work from facts and logic rather than emotion? You do not know me so well. My girlfriend says I am like a robot I betray so little emotion /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You must know me better than she does.


- simply do not care that they have been removed. The
- world will be a safer, better place without them
- here, removing innocent human beings simply because
- they can. To hell with them and all that practice
- this.
-
-
- Is it unjust to remove murderers? Is it unjust
- to keep innocent people from being killed, for no
- good reason?

Is Iraq now safer? Are no innocents dying as a result of our invasion? Are we not perhaps as responsible for as many deaths in Iraq as Saddam? Is it just to kill the hostage to save him?



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 06:54 PM
I know you are swayed by your emotions, I know it, I know it, I know it- (Kicks heels and pounds on the floor in frustration) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif No man is immune to his emotions. And, at times, whether you realize it or not, and we sometimes have trouble seeing ourselves as others do, you reflect this is your responses. That is only human, uh, you are human, aren't you? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
There are many people who are now very dead who would take issuse with you regarding whether his brats were capable of carrying on in the fine tradition of Saddam.
I am confident that by the time the old boy was ready to retire to the Riviera, or Aspen, hmm, maybe jolly old England, that the offspring would be properly versed in not only death and destruction 101, but would have graduated with honors and served with fine distinction.
I doubt that you are swayed any more than I by emotion,it is a integral part of the makeup of every human, unless you are a sociopath, then you are uaually really, really angry at the people you murder. but, hey, at least that is emotion.
You should tell your lady to come on here and read some of the banter we throw back and forth. She will see right through that steely facade, my friend,and realize finally that she loves a man who feels deeply and wears his heart on his sleeve. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Which, by the way, is unsightly and really gets your heart all dirty.

Kill the hostage to save him? All right, put the Micky Spillane novel down and move away from the book, sir. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
MNG: You are a good man, in my opinion: For the life of me I cannot understand, forget the reasons we are there, that you cannot see that we are all better off that this evil is gone from Iraq, and soon,I hope , from the earth.
You mentioned your catholic background, though I suspect that you are not currently practicing your faith- perhaps i am wrong in this assumption, if so forgive my presumptions. So, I am confident that you remember we are instructed to fight and resist evil when we meet it, and to protect the innocent from those that would cause them harm.
My concern is children. This would be a drab, dull, lifeless place without their laughter ringing out in the yards and streets as they play. Innocence, pure and total innocence, before they have been corrupted by the world.
Iraq and other strict Muslim countries have ripped that innocence and joy from their young bodies and minds years too soon.
You can now see where my emotions lie, children. And, the children in Iraq have suffered both directly and indirectly by human monsters such as these for centuries. It has to stop and I don't care what it takes. Someday I, and I firmly believe all of us, will stand in front of our maker and have to give an accounting for the decisions we made in our lives. I hope that i can stand in front of him and say I have always championed the causes of the young and the weak and the old. No, I know I will be able to say that.
No one can argue that the young and the old and the helpless need protection and I could not look at myself in the mirror If I knew that I not only did I not support the efforts to help them, but actively opposed said efforts.
The rights of those people supercede any and all rights of the rest. If they are so inhuman that they put their own selfish desires ahead of the kids, why the hell with them. And, since hell is only about half full, why they will have the opportunity to get some of the best seats. before the rush, you know. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am confident that I will hear from you soon. Take care and reflect on what I have written. I take what you put forward seriously. For to dismiss out of hand the words and true feelings of any man, is to limit yourself, and to constrict your own learning. I have learned much in my time here from a multitude of people, young and ah,er hmm not so young. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Oh, and V3: You did not say that a million times, it was 996, 998, 247 times. You see, I have been paying attention.
Now, I am off to Quake Lake outside of West Yellowstone to try and entice those HUGE Rainbows to inhale my grasshopper pattern. Yes, I realize that this is the true reason I am hated by millions, er, thousands, uh, hundreds? Hmm, there was this one guy that really hated me, but I shanghied him and stole all his money and put him on a freighter to Iraq. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That'll Learn Him:


Leep Out:


http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 07:04 PM
Very well old boy. The wicked witch of the middle-east is dead (almost). Now see the little gift I've left for you on the board front.

And no more pythonesque humour from you either.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 08:49 PM
Arachnid and others:

I think this article well supports my view that completely dissolving the Baath Party was a bad idea.


Iraqis ready to turn on U.S. troops -UN official

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PARIS, Aug 13 (Reuters) - Leading Iraqis who despised Saddam Hussein will take up arms against U.S. forces if life under occupation does not quickly improve, a senior U.N. official said in outspoken criticism of Washington's postwar policy in Iraq.

Ghassan Salameh, adviser to the special U.N. representative to Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello, told the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur in an interview published on Wednesday that the United States had bungled its victory since toppling Saddam.

"Many influential Iraqis who initially felt liberated from a despised regime have assured me that they will take up arms if the Coalition troops do not arrive at a result. Time is short," the magazine quoted Salameh as saying. He did not spell out which prominent Iraqis had warned of an uprising against the U.S. and British-led Coalition. The U.N. mission, he said, made a point of meeting senior figures and took credit for pushing the U.S. administrator to give executive powers to the appointees on Iraq's new Governing Council.

He said protests over energy shortages in the southern city of Basra showed that Washington's British allies, who have generally been see as more active in bringing Iraqis into administering their region, were also in difficulty.

Southern Iraq, dominated by the long oppressed Shi'ite Muslim majority, had hitherto been fairly calm. But prominent Shi'ite clerics have made clear they are impatient to be left alone, at long last, to run their own affairs.

Salameh warned that ordinary people, tired by the lack of basic services four months after the fall of Saddam, could rally behind ideological opponents of the occupying forces.

"In reality, the population is very surprised. They don't understand how such a level of efficiency during the war could be followed by such a lack of efficiency in 'peace'," he said.

Salameh accused the U.S. government of promoting an ideological agenda and of making "errors of judgment".

This included a purge of members of the dissolved Baath party, which affected thousands of qualified professionals with little or no ideological attachment to Saddam. These were now being replaced by "proteges of local factions", he said.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 09:08 PM
Guess what MNG, they already started attacking the US but if they want to make it official we could end up taking out the rest of the rats in that damn country...........and BTW own the oil. Ha ha ha but seriously how effective would they be going head on with the US?

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 09:58 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- Guess what MNG, they already started attacking the
- US but if they want to make it official we could end
- up taking out the rest of the rats in that damn
- country...........and BTW own the oil. Ha ha ha but
- seriously how effective would they be going head on
- with the US?
-

They won't go head on they will just intensify the guerrilla campaign.

My point is though, is that completely dissolving the Baath party was a bad idea. It would have been better to have removed the leadership (they all ran away anyway) but keep the actual structure in place and allowed them to run the country under guidance from an international committee.

Instead the US replaced them with the CPA and unilaterally began giving oil drilling and construction contracts to American companies. Sound like a take-over to you?

This couldn't have come at a better time for Halliburton & Co. Poor financial performance over the last few years and accusations of impropriety - nothing like a fat oil contract in Iraq with no competition, other than from those pesky Iraqis.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:22 AM
The Baath Party, The Baath Party, I'm sick of the lot of it. I watched the tellie unceasingly and they all looked like they had never seen a Baath tub, the dirty. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Leep out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg