PDA

View Full Version : Troop morale in Iraq hits 'rock bottom'



XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:34 PM
Troop morale in Iraq hits 'rock bottom'

Soldiers stress is a key concern as the Army ponders whether to send more forces.

By Ann Scott Tyson | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - US troops facing extended deployments amid the danger, heat, and uncertainty of an Iraq occupation are suffering from low morale that has in some cases hit "rock bottom."
Even as President Bush speaks of a "massive and long-term" undertaking in rebuilding Iraq, that effort, as well as the high tempo of US military operations around the globe, is taking its toll on individual troops.



Some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to representatives in Congress to request their units be repatriated. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," said one recent Congressional letter written by an Army soldier now based in Iraq. The soldier requested anonymity.

In some units, there has been an increase in letters from the Red Cross stating soldiers are needed at home, as well as daily instances of female troops being sent home due to pregnancy.

"Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom," said another soldier, an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq.

Such open grumbling among troops comes as US commanders reevaluate the size and composition of the US-led coalition force needed to occupy Iraq. US Central Command, which is leading the occupation, is expected by mid-July to send a proposal to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on how many and what kind of troops are required, as well as on the rotation of forces there.

For soldiers, a life on the road

The rethink about troop levels comes as senior military leaders voice concern that multiple deployments around the world are already taxing the endurance of US forces, the Army in particular. Some 370,000 soldiers are now deployed overseas from an Army active-duty, guard, and reserve force of just over 1 million people, according to Army figures.

Experts warn that long, frequent deployments could lead to a rash of departures from the military. "Hordes of active-duty troops and reservists may soon leave the service rather than subject themselves to a life continually on the road," writes Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution here.

A major Army study is now under way to examine the impact of this high pace of operations on the mental health of soldiers and families. "The cumulative effect of these work hours and deployment and training are big issues, and soldiers are concerned about it," says Col. Charles Hoge, who is leading the survey of 5,000 to 10,000 soldiers for the Walter Reed Institute of Army Research.

Concern over stressed troops is not new. In the late 1990s, a shrinking of military manpower combined with a rise in overseas missions prompted Congress to call for sharp pay increases for troops deployed over a certain number of days.

"But then came September 11 and the operational tempo went off the charts" and the Congressional plan was suspended, according to Ed Bruner, an expert on ground forces at the Congressional Research Service here.

Adding manpower to the region

Despite Pentagon statements before the war that the goal of US forces was to "liberate, not occupy" Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld warned last week that the war against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere "will not be over any time soon."

Currently, there are some 230,000 US troops serving in and around Iraq, including nearly 150,000 US troops inside Iraq and 12,000 from Britain and other countries. According to the Pentagon, the number of foreign troops is expected to rise to 20,000 by September. Fresh foreign troops began flowing into Iraq this month, part of two multinational forces led by Poland and Britain. A third multinational force is also under consideration.

A crucial factor in determining troop levels are the daily attacks that have killed more than 30 US and British servicemen in Iraq since Mr. Bush declared on May 1 that major combat operations had ended.

The unexpected degree of resistance led the Pentagon to increase US ground troops in Iraq to mount a series of ongoing raids aimed at confiscating weapons and capturing opposition forces.

A tour of duty with no end in sight

As new US troops flowed into Iraq, others already in the region for several months, such as the 20,000-strong 3rd Infantry Division were retained in Iraq.

"Faced with continued resistance, Department of Defense now plans to keep a larger force in Iraq than anticipated for a period of time," Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, explained in a statement to families a month ago. "I appreciate the turmoil and stress that a continued deployment has caused," he added.

The open-ended deployments in Iraq are lowering morale among some ground troops, who say constantly shifting time tables are reducing confidence in their leadership. "The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all," a soldier in Iraq wrote in a letter to Congress.

Security threats, heat, harsh living conditions, and, for some soldiers, waiting and boredom have gradually eroded spirits. An estimated 9,000 troops from the 3rd Infantry Division - most deployed for at least six months and some for more than a year - have been waiting for several weeks, without a mission, to return to the United States, officers say.

In one Army unit, an officer described the mentality of troops. "They vent to anyone who will listen. They write letters, they cry, they yell. Many of them walk around looking visibly tired and depressed.... We feel like pawns in a game that we have no voice [in]."


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


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:34 PM
Troop morale in Iraq hits 'rock bottom'

Soldiers stress is a key concern as the Army ponders whether to send more forces.

By Ann Scott Tyson | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - US troops facing extended deployments amid the danger, heat, and uncertainty of an Iraq occupation are suffering from low morale that has in some cases hit "rock bottom."
Even as President Bush speaks of a "massive and long-term" undertaking in rebuilding Iraq, that effort, as well as the high tempo of US military operations around the globe, is taking its toll on individual troops.



Some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to representatives in Congress to request their units be repatriated. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," said one recent Congressional letter written by an Army soldier now based in Iraq. The soldier requested anonymity.

In some units, there has been an increase in letters from the Red Cross stating soldiers are needed at home, as well as daily instances of female troops being sent home due to pregnancy.

"Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom," said another soldier, an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq.

Such open grumbling among troops comes as US commanders reevaluate the size and composition of the US-led coalition force needed to occupy Iraq. US Central Command, which is leading the occupation, is expected by mid-July to send a proposal to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on how many and what kind of troops are required, as well as on the rotation of forces there.

For soldiers, a life on the road

The rethink about troop levels comes as senior military leaders voice concern that multiple deployments around the world are already taxing the endurance of US forces, the Army in particular. Some 370,000 soldiers are now deployed overseas from an Army active-duty, guard, and reserve force of just over 1 million people, according to Army figures.

Experts warn that long, frequent deployments could lead to a rash of departures from the military. "Hordes of active-duty troops and reservists may soon leave the service rather than subject themselves to a life continually on the road," writes Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution here.

A major Army study is now under way to examine the impact of this high pace of operations on the mental health of soldiers and families. "The cumulative effect of these work hours and deployment and training are big issues, and soldiers are concerned about it," says Col. Charles Hoge, who is leading the survey of 5,000 to 10,000 soldiers for the Walter Reed Institute of Army Research.

Concern over stressed troops is not new. In the late 1990s, a shrinking of military manpower combined with a rise in overseas missions prompted Congress to call for sharp pay increases for troops deployed over a certain number of days.

"But then came September 11 and the operational tempo went off the charts" and the Congressional plan was suspended, according to Ed Bruner, an expert on ground forces at the Congressional Research Service here.

Adding manpower to the region

Despite Pentagon statements before the war that the goal of US forces was to "liberate, not occupy" Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld warned last week that the war against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere "will not be over any time soon."

Currently, there are some 230,000 US troops serving in and around Iraq, including nearly 150,000 US troops inside Iraq and 12,000 from Britain and other countries. According to the Pentagon, the number of foreign troops is expected to rise to 20,000 by September. Fresh foreign troops began flowing into Iraq this month, part of two multinational forces led by Poland and Britain. A third multinational force is also under consideration.

A crucial factor in determining troop levels are the daily attacks that have killed more than 30 US and British servicemen in Iraq since Mr. Bush declared on May 1 that major combat operations had ended.

The unexpected degree of resistance led the Pentagon to increase US ground troops in Iraq to mount a series of ongoing raids aimed at confiscating weapons and capturing opposition forces.

A tour of duty with no end in sight

As new US troops flowed into Iraq, others already in the region for several months, such as the 20,000-strong 3rd Infantry Division were retained in Iraq.

"Faced with continued resistance, Department of Defense now plans to keep a larger force in Iraq than anticipated for a period of time," Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, explained in a statement to families a month ago. "I appreciate the turmoil and stress that a continued deployment has caused," he added.

The open-ended deployments in Iraq are lowering morale among some ground troops, who say constantly shifting time tables are reducing confidence in their leadership. "The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all," a soldier in Iraq wrote in a letter to Congress.

Security threats, heat, harsh living conditions, and, for some soldiers, waiting and boredom have gradually eroded spirits. An estimated 9,000 troops from the 3rd Infantry Division - most deployed for at least six months and some for more than a year - have been waiting for several weeks, without a mission, to return to the United States, officers say.

In one Army unit, an officer described the mentality of troops. "They vent to anyone who will listen. They write letters, they cry, they yell. Many of them walk around looking visibly tired and depressed.... We feel like pawns in a game that we have no voice [in]."


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


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 09:51 AM
I'am sorry but, do you have some sort of vendetta against the US?

Every single post you make seems to have some sort of biasness directed towards the US.


This is a rather pointless also. This isn't anything new since the dawn of time. You place 300,000 people in another country in rudimentary living conditions when they are accustomed to a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world and you get a few complaints. Which is the reason the military rotates units.


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

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:59 AM
"You place 300,000 people in another country in rudimentary living conditions when they are accustomed to a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world and you get a few complaints."

They are soldiers, they are not supposed to be living in luxury, nor do I think they do when they are back home.

As for "accustomed to a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world", are you implying that America has the highest living standard in the world, or are you just chosing to refer to those with lesser living standard as "the world" and disregarding them with equal or higher standards?

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 12:51 PM
You will almost never run into a soldier that doesn't beach about his current situation. What I said before is the reason why most of them beach. Case in point the letters sent to congress to send them home.


And no I'am not implying the us has the highest standard.

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


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

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:31 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- I'am sorry but, do you have some sort of vendetta
- against the US?

Yes. My cunning plan is to bring down the US and the capitalist system by posting the occasional article on Internet message boards that suggest that the war on Iraq may have been a bad idea.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:08 PM
So you like hate the US?


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

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:55 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
-
-
- So you like hate the US?

Hell yeh,

Those Capitalist Pigs were evil enough to start a show called FRIENDS.
That threat must be stopped.

http://union.ic.ac.uk/scc/icsf/library/tragic/tragic_cards/monty%20python%20video.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:14 PM
o yeah that some great logic for going to war....


We should just forget about going to war with iraq because of WMD.... get the truth out. Desert Storm 2 was only another attempt to creat a new reality tv show.

I mean what could be better for american views? A full blown war on there TV! That's the real reason we went to war. o yeah.

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


Message Edited on 07/15/0310:26PM by ViperRaGe

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:13 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- o yeah that some great logic for going to war....
-
-
- We should just forget about going to war with iraq
- because of WMD.... get the truth out. Desert Storm 2
- was only another attempt to creat a new reality.
-
- I mean what could be better for american views? A
- full blown war on there TV! That's the real reason
- we went to war. o yeah.


I thought its because we ran out of *sses to kick in Afghanistan

http://alexdodge.net/pictures/GWB_AllYourBase.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:18 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- o yeah that some great logic for going to war....
-
-
- We should just forget about going to war with iraq
- because of WMD.... get the truth out. Desert Storm 2
- was only another attempt to creat a new reality.
-
- I mean what could be better for american views? A
- full blown war on there TV! That's the real reason
- we went to war. o yeah.

By Jove I think he's got it!

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 09:53 PM
honest I think this Iraq story is a total disaster
a blamage as it couldnt be bigger.
Afganistan was a lost already... rushed in with declared goal to get that single man... nothing yet.

Iraq invaded an innocent country, (due to the declared legitimation WoMD) again like in all other incidents NO concept behind the action to solve the situations.
WW2, Korea, Vietnam, whenever... Never looked deep enough into it to understand backgrounds. The reason why all these actions failed. I wonder why americans are shallowbrained, but they are.
However, till now there are now almost same amount of killed soldiers after the war then during the "war". if it goes on like that thext year will be already over 500 be dead.
This just because there is no concept... mistakes over mistakes... anyway
I expect the americans next year fleeing out of Iraq. latest in 1.5 years. And the public will demand their "sons" back home..

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://www.thegamingunion.co.uk/users/amcclan/Random/embed1.htm" height="170" width="350" noborder noscroll></iframe>
</center>

<marquee><font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana">Now in the news.....................BUSH a LIAR.....................Ari Fleischer admited the polemic Comments from Mr. Bush about the potential of WoMD during his speach to the congress in January where simply a lie (http://news.focus.msn.de/G/GN/gn.htm?snr=122051).....................The Bush administration fooled the US with their lies about a threat towards the USA, a threat which obvioulsy does not exist at all and never did.....................There where no, there are no and there will not be WoMD in Iraq................This and only this where the legitimation of the Bush administration to attack the sovereign Country Iraq against all human rights and UN legitimation. So since now there where no WoMD, it remains as a fact that Iraq was innocent, means the USA attacked and invaded an innocent state.....................</marquee>


The F-word is appreciated (http://www.thegamingunion.co.uk/users/amcclan/Random/f-word.html)

Message Edited on 07/16/0312:21PM by AMC_Pace

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:25 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- I'am sorry but, do you have some sort of vendetta
- against the US?


Something like that. He's an Anti-USA forum troll.



<font face="verdana" size="1">.Wit</font>
<font face="verdana" size="1" color="#8A93B0">Ubi Soft/RSE Forum Moderator</font>
&lt;embed src="http://www.tacticaladvantage.com/sigs/blue_sig2.swf" height="90" width="276" autostart="true">
<font face="verdana" size="1" color="#dddddd">ICQ: 11353520 :: 59154659</font>
<select name="menu" onChange="window.location = this.options[this.selectedIndex].value" style="background-color: rgb[138,147,176); height: 10px; width: 165px; font-family: verdana; font-size: 10; font-color: #dddddd">
<option>Links</option>
<option>----------------</option>
<option value="mailto:witness@tacticaladvantage.com">Email Me</option>
<option value="http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm" target="_blank">Terms of Use</option>
<option value="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_ravenshield_ts&id=zzfuu" target="blank">RvS Tech FAQ 2.0</option>
<option value="http://www.tacticaladvantage.com/" target="blank">Tactical Advantage</option>
<option value="http://www.thecombatzone.net" target="blank">The Combat Zone</option>
</select>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:31 PM
As much I hate to admit it- there is a lot of truth to the post MNG has just put up for our inspection. I don't believe that our friend has any vendetta against us-i do believe he is incereasingly frustrated by our seeming inability to show any consistency-at least there in Iraq.
In Afghanastan i tend to agree thet we have done a rather good job there-though there is much to do yet.

I can emphathize with some of the troops as they strive to understand just what the hell they are doing in Iraq. They are being picked off one by one without a plan or the wherewithal to go after the guilty ones and remove them and the other- behind the scenes culprits- who are planning and executing this type of guerilla warfare. I don't believe our troops are ready for this -i know they are not- i also believe that our administration went into this war poorly prepared for the aftermath.

Now- before I get flamed for this- read some of my other posts. I am decicedly pro America, and stand behind my govt. as dumb as them seem , at times. I can only hope that cooler heads prevail and Someoen gets their act together and uses what force is necessary to protect our youn men and women over there , who are ill prepared and ill trained for this type of action.

I have talked about the "Sin" of arrogance many times before. I fervently believe that this particular "Emotion" has caused more trouble in the past than any other- both on a personal level and a global. History has shown that to be true, time and time again-since the dawn of civilazation. The Garden Of Eden comes to mind. Perhaps Hitler might fall under that umbrella- yeah-
I will support and defend my country as best i can- but there are times -if something is wrong-we have to stand up and face and admit it. This is one of those times.
I fear that we have gone into something that is going to cause us-our country and our brave soldiers- a world of hurt- physically- economically- spiritualy (Guess you knew that was coming) And we will find ourselves rueing the day we went into this so poorly prepared. I still have faith they-The powers that be_can and will turn this around. But- they need to begin a program- decicely proactive-soon.

Leep Out:

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

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:34 PM
I just don't like that he is rather one sided in his critisim. But it's a LOT better then having everyone running around with american flags screaming "USA".

As far as our soldiers being "picked off" as you desicribe it. Think for a minute or two. Over 100,000 troops are sitting in a country and over 30 have been killed since the war was decared over. 30! Come on it's not like the entire effort to rebuild iraq is going to fail over 30 or so inncendits where some bob jo gets his AK out and walks over to a soldier standing at his post and guns him down.


30 out of 100,000 in a few months. Try following 100,000 americans during everyday life here. Accidents and homicides happen here in the US.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:53 PM
Witness wrote:
-
- ViperRaGe wrote:
-- I'am sorry but, do you have some sort of vendetta
-- against the US?
-
-
- Something like that. He's an Anti-USA forum troll.
-

Why Witness... how unlike you to flame someone merely because you disagree with them.

Although if you think I am Anti-USA you must really not understand anything I have written or posted.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 12:52 AM
if you are dealing in numbers only-perhaps your analogy might carry more weight Viper. Not that it isn't accurate-perhaps -if you insist on dealing merely in statistics-but these are peoples sons and daughters and wives and husbands-being killed because the State Dapt can't get off it's damn butt and make the necessary decisions that will make this type of behaviour extremely perilous to those cowards that are doing this.
They aren't rebuilding much of anything due to enforced inactivity. Too many people who will not delegate the necessary authority to get the job done.
No one seems to be able to make any decisions-they are just treading water. They are so far behind projecttion now that it is almost ludicrous.
I was a young man once- it saddens me greatly to see these young people getting killed and they never even see it coming.
I guess we all know what needs to be done there- it is ludicrous that the wheels are turning so very slowly here that needless young deaths are occuring on almost a daily basis.
It may be a little selfish, but I am glad my son isn't over there.
There is a lot of back and forth here -that is a good thing- I go round and round myself. i just feel that I would rather see 100 of them die or 1000 before i would see even one of our own young people dying and not getting the backup they deserve.
I guess there are no easy answers:

Leep Out;

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

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 02:17 AM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- I just don't like that he is rather one sided in his
- critisim. But it's a LOT better then having everyone
- running around with american flags screaming "USA".
-
-
- 30 out of 100,000 in a few months. Try following
- 100,000 americans during everyday life here.
- Accidents and homicides happen here in the US.

In military terms it is not significant you are right. But to each and every one of their families this is a life that need not have been wasted.

BTW that is appoximately 30 deaths due to hostile fire. There has been an additional 50 odd deaths due to "other incidents". - Just to split hairs with you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 03:41 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Witness wrote:
--
-- ViperRaGe wrote:
--- I'am sorry but, do you have some sort of vendetta
--- against the US?
--
--
-- Something like that. He's an Anti-USA forum troll.
--
-
- Why Witness... how unlike you to flame someone
- merely because you disagree with them.
-
- Although if you think I am Anti-USA you must really
- not understand anything I have written or posted.


Flame? Nah... Fact. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Carry on bashing the US some more, tho MNG. You're really endearing yourself to all the clear thinkers here and it's sorta cute!

*pinches MNG's rosy cheeks*

Isn't he just precious? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



<font face="verdana" size="1">.Wit</font>
<font face="verdana" size="1" color="#8A93B0">Ubi Soft/RSE Forum Moderator</font>
&lt;embed src="http://www.tacticaladvantage.com/sigs/blue_sig2.swf" height="90" width="276" autostart="true">
<font face="verdana" size="1" color="#dddddd">ICQ: 11353520 :: 59154659</font>
<select name="menu" onChange="window.location = this.options[this.selectedIndex].value" style="background-color: rgb[138,147,176); height: 10px; width: 165px; font-family: verdana; font-size: 10; font-color: #dddddd">
<option>Links</option>
<option>----------------</option>
<option value="mailto:witness@tacticaladvantage.com">Email Me</option>
<option value="http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm" target="_blank">Terms of Use</option>
<option value="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_ravenshield_ts&id=zzfuu" target="blank">RvS Tech FAQ 2.0</option>
<option value="http://www.tacticaladvantage.com/" target="blank">Tactical Advantage</option>
<option value="http://www.thecombatzone.net" target="blank">The Combat Zone</option>
</select>

Message Edited on 07/15/0310:55PM by Witness

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 05:04 AM
i think MNG is sitting in Al Gores Basement.

cut and pasting articals to forums, taking bogus Zogby polls, and calling talk radio stations.

I guess i am the evil conservitive that wants to starve poor, orphaned homeless handicapped,gay,transgender, Minority, children. And then kick puppies and burn them on stakes made from protected redwoods.

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
07-16-2003, 03:27 PM
Witness wrote:


-
- Flame? Nah... Fact. Carry on bashing the US some
- more, tho MNG. You're really endearing yourself to
- all the clear thinkers here and it's sorta cute!
-
- *pinches MNG's rosy cheeks*

Clear thinkers? You mean like yourself?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Perhaps you would do us all an honour and share some of that clear thinking rather than using the Karl Marx strategy of vacuous ridicule.



<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 04:11 PM
Thanks for the argument invitation, but I firmly believe that trolls shouldn't be fed. But it is fun to point and laugh once in a while... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



<font face="verdana" size="1">.Wit</font>
<font face="verdana" size="1" color="#8A93B0">Ubi Soft/RSE Forum Moderator</font>
&lt;embed src="http://www.tacticaladvantage.com/sigs/blue_sig2.swf" height="90" width="276" autostart="true">
<font face="verdana" size="1" color="#dddddd">ICQ: 11353520 :: 59154659</font>
<select name="menu" onChange="window.location = this.options[this.selectedIndex].value" style="background-color: rgb[138,147,176); height: 10px; width: 165px; font-family: verdana; font-size: 10; font-color: #dddddd">
<option>Links</option>
<option>----------------</option>
<option value="mailto:witness@tacticaladvantage.com">Email Me</option>
<option value="http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm" target="_blank">Terms of Use</option>
<option value="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_ravenshield_ts&id=zzfuu" target="blank">RvS Tech FAQ 2.0</option>
<option value="http://www.tacticaladvantage.com/" target="blank">Tactical Advantage</option>
<option value="http://www.thecombatzone.net" target="blank">The Combat Zone</option>
</select>

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 04:28 PM
Witness wrote:

- ...all the clear thinkers here...


Hmm...guess they must be like those WMD huh? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 04:55 PM
You know stalin once said "A single death is a tradegy, a million deaths is a statistic"

This is inherently true when it comes to military operations.


Your aurgments have been based on the fact that a single death is a tradegy and we need our soldiers home. But in military operations people die. Either it be 1 million, 1 thousand, or just 1 they die.

So 30 or 50 or even 1,000 isn't a signifant number to disrupt the american military operations in Iraq.

The people behind these attacks know this. Their only hope is only to kill a few soldiers compared to the thousands that are there to sway public opinion against the war.



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


Message Edited on 07/16/0303:55PM by ViperRaGe

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 05:13 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- The people behind these attacks know this. Their
- only hope is only to kill a few soldiers compared to
- the thousands that are there to sway public opinion
- against the war.


I think you are quite right. Indeed that is the only way a guerilla force can win. By raising the costs of the occupation the guerilla army hopes to force the occupiers to give up and leave.

Interestingly, Napoleon claimed it was his occupation of Spain that destroyed him in the end. It wasn't the amount of troops that he lost but the terrible demoralizing effect it had on his men. I think the article I posted illustrates that quite well.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>"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<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 05:47 PM
I don't' think your article comes anywhere near to representing a major problem in the United States plans to base over 100,000 troops in Iraq.

I say this because all it says is that soldiers are complaining. All soldiers complain.

And there has been some units that have been deployed for close to a year!

If I was away from home in places like Iraq for a year I would be asking for a pistol or a letter to congress to.

The military understands this and is why they rotate units when they can. In that a dip in moral after a long deployment is expected. It's not foreshadowment that a war will be lost. Which is what this article seems to suggest.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 05:49 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- I don't' think your article comes anywhere near to
- representing a major problem in the United States
- plans to base over 100,000 troops in Iraq

I did not say that, please do not put words in my mouth. I said my article illustrates the demoralizing effect that occupation of a hostile land has on troops.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<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
07-16-2003, 05:54 PM
Witness wrote:
-
- ViperRaGe wrote:
-- I'am sorry but, do you have some sort of vendetta
-- against the US?
-
-
- Something like that. He's an Anti-USA forum troll.
-
-
-
Wit,

don't insult the trolls.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif j/k MNG

<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
07-16-2003, 05:59 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
-
- Witness wrote:
-
-- ...all the clear thinkers here...
-
-
- Hmm...guess they must be like those WMD huh? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-
Joe,

How does it feel to be in a fog?


<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
07-16-2003, 06:04 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

-
- Interestingly, Napoleon claimed it was his
- occupation of Spain that destroyed him in the end.
- It wasn't the amount of troops that he lost but the
- terrible demoralizing effect it had on his men. I
- think the article I posted illustrates that quite
- well.

Napoleon......hmmm he was French........right?



<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
07-16-2003, 06:14 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- Witness wrote:
--
-- ViperRaGe wrote:
--- I'am sorry but, do you have some sort of vendetta
--- against the US?
--
--
-- Something like that. He's an Anti-USA forum troll.
--
--
--
- Wit,
-
-
- don't insult the trolls

Laugh it up Hornet and I'm going to have my pet dog Tyson come to your house and knock your laugh to the other side of your head /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<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
07-16-2003, 06:24 PM
Ok fine.



I have a big grudge against the article in that for me it seems to be a rather biased one.


It only seems to quotes commanders from the 3rd infantry division. A division ,as mentioned in the article, has been deployed 6 months - 1 year. The rest they don't even bother to mention. So there is no idea in what unit the complaint came from.

It seems to take one divisions situation and make it seem like the entire american army in iraq is suffering from the same problem.

The overall picture it presents of bleak and despair with no sign of hope and no counter-criticism of this view that one would get from reading this article.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 06:33 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- ViperRaGe wrote:
-- I don't' think your article comes anywhere near to
-- representing a major problem in the United States
-- plans to base over 100,000 troops in Iraq
-
- I did not say that, please do not put words in my
- mouth. I said my article illustrates the
- demoralizing effect that occupation of a hostile
- land has on troops.
-
-

MNG you have no shame.....Every article that you post magically has only to do with the negetives (your hopes) that come with the reconstruction of a country that has been under Tyrany for so many years. Proof? take at look at the graves with 10,000 dead bodies. The article you so prooudly posted for our bennefit does two things, give's added worries to the families back home and give's hope to the terrorists that their guerilla attacks can work., and it's being over-dramatized with statements from soldiers that ofcourse would be anxious to get home. Everyone would complain under those surcumstances.

Even heard the boss say...I need you to work overtime?

In any case anyone having chosen to serve in a Military has to follow orders and stick it out as long as it takes. I know very well what is like being away from your loved ones
although I dont know how it is to work in a hostile environment, I can only imagine the need to get home quicker.




<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
07-16-2003, 06:36 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Laugh it up Hornet and I'm going to have my pet dog
- Tyson come to your house and knock your laugh to the
- other side of your head /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
-
- I'll bring the doggie buscuits /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
07-16-2003, 06:41 PM
"MNG you have no shame.....Every article that you post magically has only to do with the negetives (your hopes) that come with the reconstruction of a country that has been under Tyrany for so many years. Proof? take at look at the graves with 10,000 dead bodies. The article you so prooudly posted for our bennefit does two things, give's added worries to the families back home and give's hope to the terrorists that their guerilla attacks can work.,"


Post like these make me like people like MNG.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 06:49 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- "MNG you have no shame.....Every article that you
- post magically has only to do with the negetives
- (your hopes) that come with the reconstruction of a
- country that has been under Tyrany for so many
- years. Proof? take at look at the graves with 10,000
- dead bodies. The article you so prooudly posted for
- our bennefit does two things, give's added worries
- to the families back home and give's hope to the
- terrorists that their guerilla attacks can work.,"
-
-
- Post like these make me like people like MNG.
-
Now ask me if I give a Turd /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.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
07-16-2003, 07:49 PM
ViperRaGe wrote:
- Ok fine.
-
-
-
- I have a big grudge against the article in that for
- me it seems to be a rather biased one.
-
- The overall picture it presents of bleak and despair
- with no sign of hope and no counter-criticism of
- this view that one would get from reading this
- article.

Well it is all over the news. ABC was interviewing soldiers last night in Iraq who were quite upset. They were mostly frustrated about two things. One was the fact that they feel utterly despised by the people they were supposed to save. Second they felt betrayed by the DoD for constantly shifting the date they get to go home.

You are right there is no counter-criticism contained within this article but I have rarely known an author to criticize himself. But you seem to be doing a fine job of pointing out the problems with it yourself. That is why I post these articles - for discussion.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<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>


<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<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
07-16-2003, 08:15 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- MNG you have no shame.....Every article that you
- post magically has only to do with the negetives
- (your hopes) that come with the reconstruction of a
- country that has been under Tyrany for so many
- years. Proof? take at look at the graves with 10,000
- dead bodies. The article you so prooudly posted for
- our bennefit does two things, give's added worries
- to the families back home and give's hope to the
- terrorists that their guerilla attacks can work.,
- and it's being over-dramatized with statements from
- soldiers that ofcourse would be anxious to get
- home. Everyone would complain under those
- surcumstances.

Well Hornet, they say Rome was not built in a day, but in defense of MNG, at this time other then the removal of Saddam and the occasional protest (prohibited during the Baath reign) against Bremer's interim authority, there really is no good news to report coming out of Iraq (yesterday's installation of a puppet council/government in my opinion is not a positive thing).

Matter of fact, American forces are so preoccupied with establishing security within Iraq (due to the fact that two divisions of Saddam's Republican Guards, which dominated the Baghdad region, simply melted away, and are now killing U.S. soldiers), that our troops are not only more vulnerable (sitting ducks) to Baath loyalists but to the average Iraqi alike.

I say this because the reconstruction is moving at such a snail's pace, that every day normal Iraqi citizens go without electricity, food/water, and other basic services, more and more of them will lose faith in the US (many experts claim this has already been lost) and in turn undermine the momentum we earned back in April with Saddam's initial toppling.

Anyway, I think the death of US soldiers over the past few months (and more in the future) were to be expected. However, I think the current President did a very poor job preparing the American people for this reality, which is pretty evident considering the recent drop in his approval rating.

Furthermore, I still believe this administration was so preoccupied with selling the war to the citizens of the US that they forget to warn us about the costs of such an endeavor, and in the process actually became way too optimistic thinking Iraqi society would just spring back to life after Saddam's removal.

The fact is, the majority of our fine soldiers are trained as a conventional fighting force, not as peacekeepers in a nation building capacity like our long-time European allies we conveniently brushed off leading up to the war. Being engaged in low-intensity guerilla warfare that they are ill-prepared for will only make our efforts in Iraq more difficult, and as a result eat away at the troop morale brought to light in the article MNG posted.

On a personal level, I never believed Saddam was a serious threat to us or our allies (more a threat to his own people), and I honestly thought the intelligence concerning the matter was heavily politicized to custom fit the ideologues within the current administration. Nevertheless, I am a realist, and other then the sad fact US credibility is probably damaged and will come into question when a real threat does arise in the future, we went to war in Iraq and we are now occupying that country.

Therefore, hyping of the WMD issue aside, hopefully Mr. Bush can keep his eyes on the prize, and by rebuilding Iraq into a multiethnic, multi-religious Arab state that can rule itself in a free and democratic manner, go down as the US President that made that country a more hospitable and safer place for its citizens. However, if he is unsuccessful in doing so, he will not only go down as a failed president, but the one who made that country even more perilous for its people.

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 10:49 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- Well Hornet, they say Rome was not built in a day,
- but in defense of MNG, at this time other then the
- removal of Saddam and the occasional protest
- (prohibited during the Baath reign) against Bremer's
- interim authority, there really is no good news to
- report coming out of Iraq (yesterday's installation
- of a puppet council/government in my opinion is not
- a positive thing).

Why is not a positive thing V3. We have to try and do something now. What would you sugest we do?
-
- Matter of fact, American forces are so preoccupied
- with establishing security within Iraq (due to the
- fact that two divisions of Saddam's Republican
- Guards, which dominated the Baghdad region, simply
- melted away, and are now killing U.S. soldiers),
- that our troops are not only more vulnerable
- (sitting ducks) to Baath loyalists but to the
- average Iraqi alike.

It seems to me that you guys are quick to judge our actions and failures, but i dont hear anything from any other country like France, Germany, Russia, China about helping out, even after they seen what the Saddam Regiem has done to the Iraqi people. I am convinced that these countries are just sitting out this conflict with hopes of a US failure.....but the US dont believe in failures so the blood shed goes on. That my friends is why eveyone thinks of the US as a Super Power.
-
- I say this because the reconstruction is moving at
- such a snail's pace, that every day normal Iraqi
- citizens go without electricity, food/water, and
- other basic services, more and more of them will
- lose faith in the US (many experts claim this has
- already been lost) and in turn undermine the
- momentum we earned back in April with Saddam's
- initial toppling.

We didnt count on the rest of the world not to give a crap about the Iraqi people even after we show them proof of the Previous regiem.
-
- - Furthermore, I still believe this administration was
- so preoccupied with selling the war to the citizens
- of the US that they forget to warn us about the
- costs of such an endeavor, and in the process
- actually became way too optimistic thinking Iraqi
- society would just spring back to life after
- Saddam's removal.

The Administration was always optomistic about winning the war, but said it will not be an easy job to reconstruct Iraq.
-
- The fact is, the majority of our fine soldiers are
- trained as a conventional fighting force, not as
- peacekeepers in a nation building capacity like our
- long-time European allies we conveniently brushed
- off leading up to the war.

convinently brushed aside? you must be kidding me.
The reason we held back for so long was to wait until France, Russia and Germany came to their senses.

Being engaged in
- low-intensity guerilla warfare that they are
- ill-prepared for will only make our efforts in Iraq
- more difficult, and as a result eat away at the
- troop morale brought to light in the article MNG
- posted.

Soon you will hear about the US discovering and killing terrorists/Guerillas, and then the news will start comming in from BBC. US kills inocent civilians....eh you can never win...but we will. Because we have a President that wants to see good results.
-
- On a personal level, I never believed Saddam was a
- serious threat to us or our allies

On a personal level, I always though if Saddam was left alone he would have been a serious threat to the World.



<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
07-17-2003, 01:52 AM
No Text

Message Edited on 07/16/0308:54PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 01:56 AM
Message Edited on 07/16/0309:01PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 02:03 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
- V3-Dev wrote:
--
-- Well Hornet, they say Rome was not built in a day,
-- but in defense of MNG, at this time other then the
-- removal of Saddam and the occasional protest
-- (prohibited during the Baath reign) against Bremer's
-- interim authority, there really is no good news to
-- report coming out of Iraq (yesterday's installation
-- of a puppet council/government in my opinion is not
-- a positive thing).
-
- Why is not a positive thing V3. We have to try and
- do something now.

The new council might look good on paper, but its US appointed council members live under constant threat and do not have the authority, the monetary resources, or the international and local support to guarantee its legitimacy. Only free elections can supply all these things my friend, and until they take place the Iraqi council will simply serve as a scapegoat in the eyes of the population, and will carry all responsibility for future mistakes and difficulties.

More or less this new council will serve as a shock absorber for all the anger aimed at coalition forces who have not yet managed to secure basic services or guarantee the safety of the Iraqi population. In addition, ultimate control over the country will still be in the hands of U.S. civil administrator Paul Bremer, who has veto power over the council's decisions, hence the reason for my description of the body as a puppet government.

- What would you sugest we do?

Please refer to the third paragraph of my reply to your next comment right below.

-- Matter of fact, American forces are so preoccupied
-- with establishing security within Iraq (due to the
-- fact that two divisions of Saddam's Republican
-- Guards, which dominated the Baghdad region, simply
-- melted away, and are now killing U.S. soldiers),
-- that our troops are not only more vulnerable
-- (sitting ducks) to Baath loyalists but to the
-- average Iraqi alike.
-
- It seems to me that you guys are quick to judge our
- actions and failures, but i dont hear anything from
- any other country like France, Germany, Russia,
- China about helping out, even after they seen what
- the Saddam Regiem has done to the Iraqi people. I am
- convinced that these countries are just sitting out
- this conflict with hopes of a US failure.....but the
- US dont believe in failures so the blood shed goes
- on. That my friends is why eveyone thinks of the US
- as a Super Power.

Like I said before, other then the removal of Saddam and the freedom for Iraqis to protest here and there (often at the US effort), good news is hard to come by these days when it comes to the situation in Iraq. Furthermore, I can't really speak for the Russians, Chinese, Germans, and French, but considering the US found them irrelevant when it came to their plans on invading Iraq, one should not be surprised at all that these nations are refusing to send troops to Iraq without approval from the United Nations.

Basically, it would appear US unilateralism has come back to haunt them. Instead of sponsoring a new U.N. resolution to create a much needed international peacekeeping force, they have been attempting to reach one-on-one agreements with various nations with little success to speak of (i.e. India).

If they would simply swallow their pride and reach out to the U.N. and NATO through official channels, I think the security situation in Iraq would improve vastly which would eventually result in free elections. In the end, most countries are going to refuse placing their military personnel under a US command without the operation being mandated by the international organizations mentioned above.

-- I say this because the reconstruction is moving at
-- such a snail's pace, that every day normal Iraqi
-- citizens go without electricity, food/water, and
-- other basic services, more and more of them will
-- lose faith in the US (many experts claim this has
-- already been lost) and in turn undermine the
-- momentum we earned back in April with Saddam's
-- initial toppling.
-
- We didnt count on the rest of the world not to give
- a crap about the Iraqi people even after we show
- them proof of the Previous regiem.

I don't really know what proof you are speaking of, but I assume you are making a reference to human rights abuses because the existence of WMD in Iraq has not been proven. I mean, you and our conservative administration are sounding more and more like liberals everyday. Remember now, we went to war because Iraq allegedly posed an imminent threat to us here at home, not because Iraqi citizens were suffering. However, now that WMD has not turned up you and your like keep stressing the importance of the human suffering endured by the Iraqis under Saddam.

Anyhow, if we went to war to simply free the Iraqis we might as well of invaded several sub-Saharan countries in Africa whose people have suffered more if not worse then those in Iraq. Oddly enough, if this administration had stated we are invading Iraq to free the Iraqi people instead of hyping up the WMD threat, I would have been all for it, but we all know Bush and Co. would of never bolstered enough support here at home for such a cause.

-- - Furthermore, I still believe this administration was
-- so preoccupied with selling the war to the citizens
-- of the US that they forget to warn us about the
-- costs of such an endeavor, and in the process
-- actually became way too optimistic thinking Iraqi
-- society would just spring back to life after
-- Saddam's removal.
-
- The Administration was always optomistic about
- winning the war, but said it will not be an easy job
- to reconstruct Iraq.

I agree Hornet. I don't think anybody in their right mind actually thought we would lose the war, WMD or not. However, despite the President declaring the war over on the deck of an aircraft carrier months ago, this administration did not start publicly saying the reconstruction phase would be difficult until US military personnel began dying on a daily basis in Iraq.

Therefore, they were simply oblivious to what lye ahead in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, or they thought by informing the American public what rebuilding a nation really meant they would loose backing for the war. Either way, the situation on the ground is not going according to plan.

-- The fact is, the majority of our fine soldiers are
-- trained as a conventional fighting force, not as
-- peacekeepers in a nation building capacity like our
-- long-time European allies we conveniently brushed
-- off leading up to the war.
-
- convinently brushed aside? you must be kidding me.
- The reason we held back for so long was to wait
- until France, Russia and Germany came to their
- senses.

US forces began deploying to the Middle East in large numbers right after President Bush's speech at the U.N. last September, and they continued to do so throughout the inspection regime. Even with Turkey's refusal to allow American troops to launch a northern front from their territory, the US military was still not fully deployed to the region to begin an attack on Iraq until sometime in March when the inspections were to finally be concluded and Blix's last briefing was to be given to the Security Council.

Therefore, despite all the diplomatic wrangling, everything went according to the US military timetable. In other words, the administration knew all along what it wanted to do and they did it, hence the reason why I stated our European allies were brushed aside. At any rate, the fact remains they are better at operating in a peacekeeping capacity then US troops, and if this coalition of the willing truly existed there would be others countries on the ground in Iraq other then Poland, Britain, Australia, and the US.

- Being engaged in
-- low-intensity guerilla warfare that they are
-- ill-prepared for will only make our efforts in Iraq
-- more difficult, and as a result eat away at the
-- troop morale brought to light in the article MNG
-- posted.
-
- Soon you will hear about the US discovering and
- killing terrorists/Guerillas, and then the news will
- start comming in from BBC. US kills inocent
- civilians....eh you can never win...but we will.
- Because we have a President that wants to see good
- results.

What the BBC reports is irrelevant Hornet. The fact is, in a guerilla type conflict, civilians are bound to die, especially considering that the current operations US troops are involved with are taking place in densely populated urban areas.

-- On a personal level, I never believed Saddam was a
-- serious threat to us or our allies
-
- On a personal level, I always though if Saddam was
- left alone he would have been a serious threat to
- the World.

Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion mate, but keep in mind well over 75% of the world's nations (including many of America's staunchest allies) disagreed with your threat level assessment concerning Saddam's regime.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 09:11 AM
"It seems to me that you guys are quick to judge our actions and failures, but i dont hear anything from any other country like France, Germany, Russia, China about helping out, even after they seen what the Saddam Regiem has done to the Iraqi people."

They had seen it before the war, as had the US, for years and years. And did nothing. Why then would they act after the war, after the split that occured between them and the US? The US made clear that they didnt need them to wage the war and save Iraq since they went ahead and invaded anyway. So, why would they go in? Besides, doing so would require a UN decision first, and some politicians probably fear that sending in UN troops would legitimize Bush's actions.

"I am convinced that these countries are just sitting out this conflict with hopes of a US failure.....but the US dont believe in failures so the blood shed goes on. That my friends is why eveyone thinks of the US as a Super Power."

That might be true. But the US, like every other nation, has failed in the past. And they might very well fail again.

"We didnt count on the rest of the world not to give a crap about the Iraqi people even after we show them proof of the Previous regiem."

What proof do you refer to? The Powell powerpoint presentation with the nice Paint picture?

"convinently brushed aside? you must be kidding me.
The reason we held back for so long was to wait until France, Russia and Germany came to their senses."

They were at their senses. It wasnt they that started a war, it was the US. The argument works both ways, see.

"Soon you will hear about the US discovering and killing terrorists/Guerillas, and then the news will start comming in from BBC. US kills inocent civilians....eh you can never win...but we will. Because we have a President that wants to see good results."

You cant win against almost a whole nation that wants you gone. Havent you learned anything from Vietnam?

"On a personal level, I always though if Saddam was left alone he would have been a serious threat to the World."

Strange that most of the world leaders didnt see that clear and present danger you refer to. Despite being privy to the evidence TBA offered them.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 01:48 PM
I have to say I am also opposed to the UN moving in until the US moves out. I agree that the UN sending peace-keepers in would appear to validate the US invasion.

Unfortunately the US made its bed and must lie in it.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<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
07-17-2003, 02:58 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- I have to say I am also opposed to the UN moving in
- until the US moves out.

come now MNG you didnt really have to say that did you?
Under the UN watch saddam was a very bad boy. I dont think the US is about to leave and let the UN take over.

I agree that the UN sending
- peace-keepers in would appear to validate the US
- invasion.

oh and we dont want to do that now do we. After all we only found the graves, ceterfuge, mobile chemical weapon labs so far.
-
- Unfortunately the US made its bed and must lie in
- it.

Ok as long as the UN dont want to sleep on the bed we made after its nice and fluffy again. That's Fair dont you think?
-
-

<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
07-17-2003, 03:26 PM
"come now MNG you didnt really have to say that did you?
Under the UN watch saddam was a very bad boy. I dont think the US is about to leave and let the UN take over."

The US is actually a part of the UN. So, it was under the UNs watch he was a bad boy, a UN of which the US is a member. And its fine if the US dont want to leave. They can stay and get their troops killed if they want. Eventually, the public will tire and the troops will be recalled. And nothing much will have been achieved.

"oh and we dont want to do that now do we. After all we only found the graves, ceterfuge, mobile chemical weapon labs so far."

The graves were no secret. People knew they existed. As for the mobile chemical weapon labs, when did they find them? They found mobile labs, yes, but no traces of WMD's.

"Ok as long as the UN dont want to sleep on the bed we made after its nice and fluffy again. That's Fair dont you think?"

Totally fair. Only, the US will never succeed in making Iraq a fluffy and nice bed until they leave.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 03:42 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- The new council might look good on paper, but its US
- appointed council members live under constant threat
- and do not have the authority, the monetary
- resources, or the international and local support to
- guarantee its legitimacy. Only free elections can
- supply all these things my friend, and until they
- take place the Iraqi council will simply serve as a
- scapegoat in the eyes of the population, and will
- carry all responsibility for future mistakes and
- difficulties.

The Iraqi people (not the Saddam Loyalists) are the ones that are going to deside who will run their country once the US is out. You can call the council any name you want.
When these few Saddam loyalists that no longer have a future in Iraq get caught or eliminated, things will fall into place.
-
-
--- Matter of fact, American forces are so preoccupied
--- with establishing security within Iraq (due to the
--- fact that two divisions of Saddam's Republican
--- Guards, which dominated the Baghdad region, simply
--- melted away, and are now killing U.S. soldiers),
--- that our troops are not only more vulnerable
--- (sitting ducks) to Baath loyalists but to the
--- average Iraqi alike.

Patience my friend,patiance. I think the Bush Administration will have a big surprise for you.

-
- Like I said before, other then the removal of Saddam
- and the freedom for Iraqis to protest here and there
- (often at the US effort), good news is hard to come
- by these days when it comes to the situation in
- Iraq. Furthermore, I can't really speak for the
- Russians, Chinese, Germans, and French, but
- considering the US found them irrelevant when it
- came to their plans on invading Iraq, one should not
- be surprised at all that these nations are refusing
- to send troops to Iraq without approval from the
- United Nations.

First of all the US never said these countries or the UN was irrelavent, we waited for them to come to their senses but they refused. We said that if we have to we go at it alone and as promised we did with a few willing allies that understand the danger that Saddam's regiem possed.
Second: the UN made it self irrelevent by not doing their job with the authority that was needed. But lets not foget the money the UN made from Saddam.
-
- Basically, it would appear US unilateralism has come
- back to haunt them. Instead of sponsoring a new U.N.
- resolution to create a much needed international
- peacekeeping force, they have been attempting to
- reach one-on-one agreements with various nations
- with little success to speak of (i.e. India).

The UN is basically interested in taking over after we did the dirty work.
-
- If they would simply swallow their pride and reach
- out to the U.N. and NATO through official channels,
- I think the security situation in Iraq would improve
- vastly which would eventually result in free
- elections. In the end, most countries are going to
- refuse placing their military personnel under a US
- command without the operation being mandated by the
- international organizations mentioned above.

I know, most countries just want to depend on the US when they are in need.
-
--- I say this because the reconstruction is moving at
--- such a snail's pace, that every day normal Iraqi
--- citizens go without electricity, food/water, and
--- other basic services, more and more of them will
--- lose faith in the US (many experts claim this has
--- already been lost) and in turn undermine the
--- momentum we earned back in April with Saddam's
--- initial toppling.

I dont think the average Iraqi citizen is as naive as you.They know who is causing all this trouble, but they don't want to be killed by these thugs. 30 years under such Regiem will instill fear on anyone.
-
- I don't really know what proof you are speaking of,
- but I assume you are making a reference to human
- rights abuses because the existence of WMD in Iraq
- has not been proven. I mean, you and our
- conservative administration are sounding more and
- more like liberals everyday. Remember now, we went
- to war because Iraq allegedly posed an imminent
- threat to us here at home, not because Iraqi
- citizens were suffering. However, now that WMD has
- not turned up you and your like keep stressing the
- importance of the human suffering endured by the
- Iraqis under Saddam.

What are you talking about my man. The Mobile chemical lab, the centerfuge to enrich Uranium dont count? Why did he have them for? make electricity?
-
- Anyhow, if we went to war to simply free the Iraqis
- we might as well of invaded several sub-Saharan
- countries in Africa whose people have suffered more
- if not worse then those in Iraq. Oddly enough, if
- this administration had stated we are invading Iraq
- to free the Iraqi people instead of hyping up the
- WMD threat, I would have been all for it, but we all
- know Bush and Co. would of never bolstered enough
- support here at home for such a cause.

We didnt go in just to free the Iraqi people and you still would not be for it because if you really would be for it then why not now. Its like if you go looking for gold and you found cold hard cash you would not take it? stop lying to yourself.
-
--- - Furthermore, I still believe this administration was
--- so preoccupied with selling the war to the citizens
--- of the US that they forget to warn us about the
--- costs of such an endeavor, and in the process
--- actually became way too optimistic thinking Iraqi
--- society would just spring back to life after
--- Saddam's removal.

I know what the Bush administration said over and over again. But people like you heard something completely different like what ever fits your agenda better.

- I agree Hornet. I don't think anybody in their right
- mind actually thought we would lose the war, WMD or
- not. However, despite the President declaring the
- war over on the deck of an aircraft carrier months
- ago, this administration did not start publicly
- saying the reconstruction phase would be difficult
- until US military personnel began dying on a daily
- basis in Iraq.

The war is over, but you got to be pretty naive to believe that Iraq would suddenly become free of terrorists and everyone would be happy. I am sure there were many people that loved saddam because they were not effected by him, or probably lived pretty good under Saddams regiem, which is why now they are causing all this trouble. I didnt need the President to tell me that the reconstruction would be easy or hard. That is a no brainer.
-
- Therefore, they were simply oblivious to what lye
- ahead in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, or they
- thought by informing the American public what
- rebuilding a nation really meant they would loose
- backing for the war. Either way, the situation on
- the ground is not going according to plan.

Most of the time in life things dont go according to plans.
Welcome to real life.

- US forces began deploying to the Middle East in
- large numbers right after President Bush's speech at
- the U.N. last September, and they continued to do so
- throughout the inspection regime. Even with Turkey's
- refusal to allow American troops to launch a
- northern front from their territory, the US military
- was still not fully deployed to the region to begin
- an attack on Iraq until sometime in March when the
- inspections were to finally be concluded and Blix's
- last briefing was to be given to the Security
- Council.

How far into Iraq would the UN inspectors have made it if the US was not deploying into the Middle East? Not too far I would say.
-
- Therefore, despite all the diplomatic wrangling,
- everything went according to the US military
- timetable. In other words, the administration knew
- all along what it wanted to do and they did it,
- hence the reason why I stated our European allies
- were brushed aside. At any rate, the fact remains
- they are better at operating in a peacekeeping
- capacity then US troops, and if this coalition of
- the willing truly existed there would be others
- countries on the ground in Iraq other then Poland,
- Britain, Australia, and the US.

No they chosen not to believe the US reasons for the attack and instead believe Saddam when frankly everyone with a brain knows what Saddam was about.
-
-
- What the BBC reports is irrelevant Hornet.
Irreleven no. Biased you bet.

The fact
- is, in a guerilla type conflict, civilians are bound
- to die, especially considering that the current
- operations US troops are involved with are taking
- place in densely populated urban areas.

That would be unfortunate but US soldiers that are there to protect the people are being killed but some of those people.Maybe if they get some balls and help out with their situation like point out Bathist loyalists. Watch our back while we watch theirs. If they chose not to they have to expect accidental deaths.
-
-
- Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion
- mate, but keep in mind well over 75% of the world's
- nations (including many of America's staunchest
- allies) disagreed with your threat level assessment
- concerning Saddam's regime.

France Germany Russia and China where in Saddam's pockets doing business with them what did you expect.

Therfore I would use the term Staunchest allies with caution.
-
-



<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
07-17-2003, 03:55 PM
longinius wrote:
-
- The US is actually a part of the UN. So, it was
- under the UNs watch he was a bad boy, a UN of which
- the US is a member.

But when the US brought it up with the UN the UN said no way Saddam is a good guy (just misunderstood)


And its fine if the US dont want
- to leave. They can stay and get their troops killed
- if they want. Eventually, the public will tire and
- the troops will be recalled. And nothing much will
- have been achieved.

I love your optimism.
-
- -
- The graves were no secret. People knew they existed.
- As for the mobile chemical weapon labs, when did
- they find them? They found mobile labs, yes, but no
- traces of WMD's.

People knew that graves with as much as 10,000 bodies existed and they didnt think of it as anything?

What difference does it make as to when they find them? are you serious?
but no traces of WMD's. What exactly is a WMD to you? isn't biochemical warfare WMD? if yes then

...a mobile biochemical trailer, a centerfuse to enrich Uraniam sounds like traces of possible WMD development to me. And since Saddam was in control I'd say very possible.
-
-
- Totally fair. Only, the US will never succeed in
- making Iraq a fluffy and nice bed until they leave.

You got it wrong. When we leave Iraq we will have a nice fluffy bed for us to come visit.
-
-



<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
07-17-2003, 05:42 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

Don't get it twisted /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Many of the people in those mass graves were soldiers who died during the Iran-Iraq Gulf War and others died in the Bush I inspired rebellion after the second Gulf War. Saddam did not just go around the country randomly murdering the population.

Second, during the time Saddam was putting soldiers in mass graves and gassing Kurds he was a staunch US ally. As one US official put it, he was "our type of guy". So people who live in glass houses...

BTW Those mobile labs? According to the British company that constructed and sold them to Iraq, they are used for inflating artillery balloons.

Terrifying.

Hornet, you need to get out more /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<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
07-17-2003, 05:45 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

When we leave Iraq we will have a
- nice fluffy bed for us to come visit.


... and then I opened the door to the room holding the optimist, and there he was, jumping around excitedly in a room full of horse crap, skipping, jumping, throwing it in the air, laughing.
So I asked him, "why are you so happily skipping around and playing in a room full of horse crap?"
And the optimist giddily replied, "well, with all this horsecrap there has to be a pony in here somewhere!"

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MNG, you beat me to the punchline.


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

Message Edited on 07/17/0312:50PM by Gandalf_is_dead

Message Edited on 07/17/0312:52PM by Gandalf_is_dead

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:05 PM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
-
- When we leave Iraq we will have a
-- nice fluffy bed for us to come visit.
-
-
- ... and then I opened the door to the room holding
- the optimist, and there he was, jumping around
- excitedly in a room full of horse crap, skipping,
- jumping, throwing it in the air, laughing.
- So I asked him, "why are you so happily skipping
- around and playing in a room full of horse crap?"
- And the optimist giddily replied, "well, with all
- this horsecrap there has to be a pony in here
- somewhere!"
-

LMAO!!! Brilliant! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<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
07-17-2003, 07:38 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- V3-Dev wrote:
--
-- The new council might look good on paper, but its US
-- appointed council members live under constant threat
-- and do not have the authority, the monetary
-- resources, or the international and local support to
-- guarantee its legitimacy. Only free elections can
-- supply all these things my friend, and until they
-- take place the Iraqi council will simply serve as a
-- scapegoat in the eyes of the population, and will
-- carry all responsibility for future mistakes and
-- difficulties.
-
- The Iraqi people (not the Saddam Loyalists) are the
- ones that are going to deside who will run their
- country once the US is out. You can call the council
- any name you want.
- When these few Saddam loyalists that no longer have
- a future in Iraq get caught or eliminated, things
- will fall into place.

You sound almost as optimistic as the administration did prior to the war. Nevertheless, come back to us when and if these things actually occur because as of right now they don't seem attainable.

---- Matter of fact, American forces are so preoccupied
---- with establishing security within Iraq (due to the
---- fact that two divisions of Saddam's Republican
---- Guards, which dominated the Baghdad region, simply
---- melted away, and are now killing U.S. soldiers),
---- that our troops are not only more vulnerable
---- (sitting ducks) to Baath loyalists but to the
---- average Iraqi alike.
-
- Patience my friend,patiance. I think the Bush
- Administration will have a big surprise for you.

Patience is something I have a lot of Hornet. The Iraqi people on the other hand don't. Also, I seriously doubt there is anything the current administration could conjure up that would surprise me, especially after the massive misinformation campaign they ran to convince the public that Saddam posed an imminent threat to us, which obviously never existed I might add.

-- Like I said before, other then the removal of Saddam
-- and the freedom for Iraqis to protest here and there
-- (often at the US effort), good news is hard to come
-- by these days when it comes to the situation in
-- Iraq. Furthermore, I can't really speak for the
-- Russians, Chinese, Germans, and French, but
-- considering the US found them irrelevant when it
-- came to their plans on invading Iraq, one should not
-- be surprised at all that these nations are refusing
-- to send troops to Iraq without approval from the
-- United Nations.
-
- First of all the US never said these countries or
- the UN was irrelavent, we waited for them to come to
- their senses but they refused. We said that if we
- have to we go at it alone and as promised we did
- with a few willing allies that understand the danger
- that Saddam's regiem possed.

If unilaterally attacking Iraq with a few countries isn't saying the U.N. is irrelevant I don't know what is. Like I have said repeatedly before, the overwhelming majority of the world community, including a good amount of people here in America did not support US military intervention in Iraq, but you seem to find it difficult to realize this fact.

- But lets not foget the money the UN made from Saddam.

This is an allegation that has resonated from pro-war advocates repeatedly, yet to this date I have not heard of or seen any evidence supporting this claim. When and if you actually find something of substance on it please feel free to share it with all of us.

-- Basically, it would appear US unilateralism has come
-- back to haunt them. Instead of sponsoring a new U.N.
-- resolution to create a much needed international
-- peacekeeping force, they have been attempting to
-- reach one-on-one agreements with various nations
-- with little success to speak of (i.e. India).
-
- The UN is basically interested in taking over after
- we did the dirty work.

Think what you may of the U.N., but the fact is US forces are spread way too thin and could use help anywhere they can obtain it. After all, you are the one that has the faulty impression that certain nations want to see the US fail in Iraq. If this were the case, why in the world are they willing to send forces to Iraq under U.N. or NATO mandates? Why is America so afraid to invite peacekeepers under the U.N. or NATO flags to assist a dire situation?

I mean, regardless of whether or not such international forces would legitimize the American invasion/occupation, these groups have swallowed their pride and reached out to the US. It is now time for the Bush administration to do the same for the sake of the Iraqi people.

-- If they would simply swallow their pride and reach
-- out to the U.N. and NATO through official channels,
-- I think the security situation in Iraq would improve
-- vastly which would eventually result in free
-- elections. In the end, most countries are going to
-- refuse placing their military personnel under a US
-- command without the operation being mandated by the
-- international organizations mentioned above.
-
- I know, most countries just want to depend on the US
- when they are in need.

Actually, the paragraph you replied to above implies the US is in need of help, not the other way around. Furthermore, if you really cared about the Iraqi people as much as you claim Hornet, you too would want organizations like NATO and U.N. to contribute personnel to Iraq. Without them the US mission will only take longer, and in the process Iraqis will be the ones that suffer.

---- I say this because the reconstruction is moving at
---- such a snail's pace, that every day normal Iraqi
---- citizens go without electricity, food/water, and
---- other basic services, more and more of them will
---- lose faith in the US (many experts claim this has
---- already been lost) and in turn undermine the
---- momentum we earned back in April with Saddam's
---- initial toppling.
-
- I dont think the average Iraqi citizen is as naive
- as you.They know who is causing all this trouble,
- but they don't want to be killed by these thugs. 30
- years under such Regiem will instill fear on anyone.

Naive I am not, however I am guilty of simply describing the situation on the ground in Iraq as I know it. Yes, I agree there are plenty of people that are terrified of Baath loyalists. However, this is occurring in mostly Sunni areas of Iraq, and despite all this there are still many Iraqis in these areas that are blaming the US.

Not to mention, there are many Iraqis going without security, food, water, and basic services throughout other areas of the country south of Baghdad where Baath loyalists are not a factor, and these people are also blaming the US and British for their current state of affairs.

-- I don't really know what proof you are speaking of,
-- but I assume you are making a reference to human
-- rights abuses because the existence of WMD in Iraq
-- has not been proven. I mean, you and our
-- conservative administration are sounding more and
-- more like liberals everyday. Remember now, we went
-- to war because Iraq allegedly posed an imminent
-- threat to us here at home, not because Iraqi
-- citizens were suffering. However, now that WMD has
-- not turned up you and your like keep stressing the
-- importance of the human suffering endured by the
-- Iraqis under Saddam.
-
- What are you talking about my man. The Mobile
- chemical lab, the centerfuge to enrich Uranium dont
- count? Why did he have them for? make electricity?

I think MNG has addressed the mobile lab issue numerous times on these boards. Besides, there is no trace of biological/chemical agents anywhere near the vehicles in question, so I am inclined to think as are many others, that they don't represent a WMD program.

As far as the old machine parts and documents that were buried in somebody's backyard over ten years ago, last time I checked buried objects neither represent a reconstituted nuclear weapons program (as was claimed repeatedly by Bush and Co. prior to the war) or the intent to start one in the future. They were simply buried items, and considering the CIA has refused to call the discovery the "smoking gun" the Bush administration is looking for only proves my point.

-- Anyhow, if we went to war to simply free the Iraqis
-- we might as well of invaded several sub-Saharan
-- countries in Africa whose people have suffered more
-- if not worse then those in Iraq. Oddly enough, if
-- this administration had stated we are invading Iraq
-- to free the Iraqi people instead of hyping up the
-- WMD threat, I would have been all for it, but we all
-- know Bush and Co. would of never bolstered enough
-- support here at home for such a cause.
-
- We didnt go in just to free the Iraqi people and you
- still would not be for it because if you really
- would be for it then why not now. Its like if you go
- looking for gold and you found cold hard cash you
- would not take it? stop lying to yourself.

Hornet, you either have a short-term memory, or you simply don't read my threads in their entirety. At any rate, allow me refresh your memory. I have said that I am realist. Although, I never believed Saddam was a threat to us here at home, we have invaded Iraq and are now occupying it. Therefore, I hope the Bush administration does the right thing and rebuilds Iraq into a modern, multicultural, and democratic state.

Furthermore, if I take issue in the manner in which he goes about it that is my right to do so. This in no way implies that I wish for him to not succeed in Iraq. In my opinion, this matter is much bigger then the current administration simply failing or not. This is about the people of Iraq first and foremost because when Bush is done serving as President one day these people will have to live on with reality started by our military intervention, not the other way around.

-- Furthermore, I still believe this administration was
-- so preoccupied with selling the war to the citizens
-- of the US that they forget to warn us about the
-- costs of such an endeavor, and in the process
-- actually became way too optimistic thinking Iraqi
-- society would just spring back to life after
-- Saddam's removal.
-
- I know what the Bush administration said over and
- over again. But people like you heard something
- completely different like what ever fits your agenda
- better.

Last time I checked you are a very small percentage of the US population, and there are far more people then just I that heard something totally different from this administration.

Also, I have told you time and time again that I did not support the war, but now that it is a done deal I hope Bush succeeds in bringing stability and prosperity to Iraq.

However, this does not mean I will simply sit idly by when they make mistakes and not have a say about it. I would do the same for any President, and to me accountability is more important then any party affiliation or personal agenda.

-- I agree Hornet. I don't think anybody in their right
-- mind actually thought we would lose the war, WMD or
-- not. However, despite the President declaring the
-- war over on the deck of an aircraft carrier months
-- ago, this administration did not start publicly
-- saying the reconstruction phase would be difficult
-- until US military personnel began dying on a daily
-- basis in Iraq.
-
- The war is over, but you got to be pretty naive to
- believe that Iraq would suddenly become free of
- terrorists and everyone would be happy.

I am not the one that is naive my friend. This current administration however is a different story, especially considering the situation within Iraq at the moment. As for your terrorist reference, I have yet to see or here of any concrete/conclusive evidence to date that would indicate such individuals were actually in Iraq under Saddam's command prior to or after the war.

- I am sure there were many people that loved saddam
- because they were not effected by him, or probably lived
- pretty good under Saddams regiem, which is why now
- they are causing all this trouble.

Yeah, like I said before it is a textbook guerilla insurgency.

- I didnt need the President to tell me that the
- reconstruction would be easy or hard. That is a no
- brainer.

Yes Hornet, we all know you are of a much higher intellect then the average board member or US citizen. However, almost 50% of Americans now seem to have doubts about the current administration's effort in Iraq, so it would appear there are a good amount of people here in the United States that doesn't agree with your "no brainer" reference.

-- Therefore, they were simply oblivious to what lye
-- ahead in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, or they
-- thought by informing the American public what
-- rebuilding a nation really meant they would loose
-- backing for the war. Either way, the situation on
-- the ground is not going according to plan.
-
- Most of the time in life things dont go according to
- plans.
- Welcome to real life.

Easy for you to say, but try telling that to the average Iraqi who has no security, electric, food, or water.

-- Therefore, despite all the diplomatic wrangling,
-- everything went according to the US military
-- timetable. In other words, the administration knew
-- all along what it wanted to do and they did it,
-- hence the reason why I stated our European allies
-- were brushed aside. At any rate, the fact remains
-- they are better at operating in a peacekeeping
-- capacity then US troops, and if this coalition of
-- the willing truly existed there would be others
-- countries on the ground in Iraq other then Poland,
-- Britain, Australia, and the US.
-
- No they chosen not to believe the US reasons for the
- attack and instead believe Saddam when frankly
- everyone with a brain knows what Saddam was about.

Yeah, but before you claimed they did not support US military intervention in Iraq because of their economic dealings with Saddam. Now you are claiming they simply did not agree with the current administration's threat assessment of Iraq's Baath regime. Which one is it Hornet?

-- What the BBC reports is irrelevant Hornet.
- Irreleven no. Biased you bet.

Biased like every other news source, including your favorite Fox News, but like I said your point is irrelevant because civilians in Iraq will still die due to the ongoing battle between insurgents and US forces regardless of what the media reports.

-- The fact is, in a guerilla type conflict, civilians are
-- bound to die, especially considering that the current
-- operations US troops are involved with are taking
-- place in densely populated urban areas.
-
- That would be unfortunate but US soldiers that are
- there to protect the people are being killed but
- some of those people.Maybe if they get some balls
- and help out with their situation like point out
- Bathist loyalists. Watch our back while we watch
- theirs. If they chose not to they have to expect
- accidental deaths.

Previously you claimed, "They know who is causing all this trouble, but they don't want to be killed by these thugs. 30 years under such Regiem will instill fear on anyone." However Hornet, now you are saying, "Maybe if they get some balls and help out with their situation like point out Bathist loyalists." Well, if they are frightened to death how do you expect them to get these "balls" you speak of? Please explain this to me?

-- Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion
-- mate, but keep in mind well over 75% of the world's
-- nations (including many of America's staunchest
-- allies) disagreed with your threat level assessment
-- concerning Saddam's regime.
-
- France Germany Russia and China where in Saddam's
- pockets doing business with them what did you
- expect.

Again Hornet which one is it? Economic betrayal or simply a differing opinion on how much of a threat Saddam posed to the US and its allies? Please make up your mind.

At any rate Bush's so called "coalition of the willing" was comprised of roughly thirty countries. That leaves 150 some odd United Nations members that did not support military intervention in Iraq. Surely they all did not have economic relations with Saddam.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 08:32 PM
I dont think MNG is in anyway trolling nor bashing US, he simply enlights people that are blind followers of the Bush Administration Propaganga

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://www.thegamingunion.co.uk/users/amcclan/Random/embed1.htm" height="150" width="350" noborder noscroll></iframe>
</center>

<marquee><font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana">Now in the news.....................BUSH a LIAR.....................Ari Fleischer admited the polemic Comments from Mr. Bush about the potential of WoMD during his speach to the congress in January where simply a lie (http://news.focus.msn.de/G/GN/gn.htm?snr=122051).....................The Bush administration fooled the US with their lies about a threat towards the USA, a threat which obvioulsy does not exist at all and never did.....................There where no, there are no and there will not be WoMD in Iraq................This and only this where the legitimation of the Bush administration to attack the sovereign Country Iraq against all human rights and UN legitimation. So since now there where no WoMD, it remains as a fact that Iraq was innocent, means the USA attacked and invaded an innocent state.....................</marquee>


The F-word is appreciated (http://www.thegamingunion.co.uk/users/amcclan/Random/f-word.html)

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 09:10 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
--
-- Hornet57 wrote:
--
-- When we leave Iraq we will have a
--- nice fluffy bed for us to come visit.
--
--
-- ... and then I opened the door to the room holding
-- the optimist, and there he was, jumping around
-- excitedly in a room full of horse crap, skipping,
-- jumping, throwing it in the air, laughing.
-- So I asked him, "why are you so happily skipping
-- around and playing in a room full of horse crap?"
-- And the optimist giddily replied, "well, with all
-- this horsecrap there has to be a pony in here
-- somewhere!"
--
-
- LMAO!!! Brilliant! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I agree MNG. That was pretty hilarious Gandalf.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 09:16 PM
OMG! Great joke grey pilgrim!

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 10:04 PM
AMC_Pace wrote:
- I dont think MNG is in anyway trolling nor bashing
- US, he simply enlights people that are blind
- followers of the Bush Administration Propaganga


Thank you AMC. Glad to see there is another "clear thinker" in the room. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<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
07-17-2003, 10:31 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
-
- Don't get it twisted /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
I did? I dont think I wrote that....but it sounds fitting

- Many of the people in those mass graves were
- soldiers who died during the Iran-Iraq Gulf War and
- others died in the Bush I inspired rebellion after
- the second Gulf War. Saddam did not just go around
- the country randomly murdering the population.

Really? all those people looking for loved ones actually lied when they said their sons, husbands, wives daughters etc,. where not taken away by saddam's men because of their resistance or what ever interogated tortured and killed?
Bush I inspired the rebelion? how exactly did he do that? by kicking Saddam out of his neighbor's land?
-
- Second, during the time Saddam was putting soldiers
- in mass graves and gassing Kurds he was a staunch US
- ally. As one US official put it, he was "our type
- of guy". So people who live in glass houses...

He was an allie....ok so what, now its time for him to go. We Made a mistake and we are trying to correct it. Did anyone else disagree at the time when the "US official"made that statement?Since obviously everyone else knew better as to What type of subhuman person Saddam really was? I dont think so. I dont support Monday morning quaterbacking.
-
- BTW Those mobile labs? According to the British
- company that constructed and sold them to Iraq, they
- are used for inflating artillery balloons.

Or so they were told /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- Terrifying.

Only to the population with common sense...

..but don't worry you are not included /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- Hornet, you need to get out more /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- If I get out any more I wouldnt need my house....I love my house. /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
07-17-2003, 10:38 PM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:

- ... and then I opened the door to the room holding
- the optimist, and there he was, jumping around
- excitedly in a room full of horse crap, skipping,
- jumping, throwing it in the air, laughing.
- So I asked him, "why are you so happily skipping
- around and playing in a room full of horse crap?"
- And the optimist giddily replied, "well, with all
- this horsecrap there has to be a pony in here
- somewhere!"

Hmmm the room full of horse crap sounds like this thread except it is not Horse crap.....just alot of delusional Liberal Bull Crap. Horse crap smells better by the way I know I own a horse.


Got to admit though Gandalf, it was pretty funny./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-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
07-18-2003, 01:22 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- You sound almost as optimistic as the administration
- did prior to the war. Nevertheless, come back to us
- when and if these things actually occur because as
- of right now they don't seem attainable.

Come back I am not going anywhere. It will take time since we have to fight the terrorists in the world and the clueless at home and in Europe.

- Patience is something I have a lot of Hornet. The
- Iraqi people on the other hand don't. Also, I
- seriously doubt there is anything the current
- administration could conjure up that would surprise
- me, especially after the massive misinformation
- campaign they ran to convince the public that Saddam
- posed an imminent threat to us, which obviously
- never existed I might add.

Like I said before people like you and MNG and a host of others will never believe anything other then what you want to believe. Not because your dumb I am sure your not dumb. but because there is a certain despise for the US politicaly or otherwise, and nothing will change your mind even if we not only find the smoking gun but the smoker himself.


-
- If unilaterally attacking Iraq with a few countries
- isn't saying the U.N. is irrelevant I don't know
- what is. Like I have said repeatedly before, the
- overwhelming majority of the world community,
- including a good amount of people here in America
- did not support US military intervention in Iraq,
- but you seem to find it difficult to realize this
- fact.

First, the UN made it self Irrelevant by not taking a more tougher stance with Saddam.
The overwhelming majority of the world community COULD be wrong. Do you disagree?
After all what proof do you have that we are absolutly wrong...and dont tell me we have'nt found any WMD, that is getting old by now.

-
- This is an allegation that has resonated from
- pro-war advocates repeatedly, yet to this date I
- have not heard of or seen any evidence supporting
- this claim. When and if you actually find something
- of substance on it please feel free to share it with
- all of us.

Why share it, you probably wont believe it anyway.
-
- I mean, regardless of whether or not such
- international forces would legitimize the American
- invasion/occupation, these groups have swallowed
- their pride and reached out to the US. It is now
- time for the Bush administration to do the same for
- the sake of the Iraqi people.

I agree with that. The US should allow any help they can get, but under their control as it should be.
.
-
- Actually, the paragraph you replied to above implies
- the US is in need of help, not the other way around.

No the Iraqi people need the help. Not the Americans or the British.
- Furthermore, if you really cared about the Iraqi
- people as much as you claim Hornet, you too would
- want organizations like NATO and U.N. to contribute
- personnel to Iraq. Without them the US mission will
- only take longer, and in the process Iraqis will be
- the ones that suffer.

I always said that the only way to combat terrorism is to join together like Mr. Blair so elequently put it in his recent speach in the joint session of gongress. But there has to be one leader the US at the helm, because if there is no support of the leadership in a fight against terrorism we just fight against each other. Ever heard of the term "too many chiefs not enough Indians"
-
- Naive I am not, however I am guilty of simply
- describing the situation on the ground in Iraq as I
- know it. Yes, I agree there are plenty of people
- that are terrified of Baath loyalists. However, this
- is occurring in mostly Sunni areas of Iraq, and
- despite all this there are still many Iraqis in
- these areas that are blaming the US.

If I was a Baath loyalist I would go to Sunni areas to start trouble as to confuse people as to who is doing it.
Makes sense dont you think?
As far as the many Iraqi's that are blaming the US how do you know they are not baath party loyalists? Do you get my point? like how do you know who to trust right now?
Besides that being afraid can make you say things you dont believe in. By the way what are they blaming the US for? water, electricity, services?
-
- Not to mention, there are many Iraqis going without
- security, food, water, and basic services throughout
- other areas of the country south of Baghdad where
- Baath loyalists are not a factor, and these people
- are also blaming the US and British for their
- current state of affairs.

I would be ticked off too if I did'nt have these basic amenities. But that will be improved as time passes.

- I think MNG has addressed the mobile lab issue
- numerous times on these boards. Besides, there is no
- trace of biological/chemical agents anywhere near
- the vehicles in question, so I am inclined to think
- as are many others, that they don't represent a WMD
- program.

MNG has addressed the mobile lab issue so I guess he is right, well there is my proof then according to him the British company that made those labs said it was to blow up artilary balloons. But that is what Saddam told them what they will be used for. But with a nip here a tuck there and you have a.........WMD tool.
-
- As far as the old machine parts and documents that
- were buried in somebody's backyard over ten years
- ago, last time I checked buried objects neither
- represent a reconstituted nuclear weapons program
- (as was claimed repeatedly by Bush and Co. prior to
- the war) or the intent to start one in the future.
- They were simply buried items, and considering the
- CIA has refused to call the discovery the "smoking
- gun" the Bush administration is looking for only
- proves my point.

So if we happen to find burried chemical and biological agents then it just means that they are irrelevent because they are burried? hello that is how you hide things....No?
-
-- I know what the Bush administration said over and
-- over again. But people like you heard something
-- completely different like what ever fits your agenda
-- better.

I have no agenda I am not a politician, I want people to wake up and realize that we are living in a different world.
There is evil out there and we have to find it and destroy it. This war is a lot bigger then you can imagine my friend, this war will change History.

- Last time I checked you are a very small percentage
- of the US population, and there are far more people
- then just I that heard something totally different
- from this administration.

Is that why Bush's popularity was so high?
-
- Also, I have told you time and time again that I did
- not support the war, but now that it is a done deal
- I hope Bush succeeds in bringing stability and
- prosperity to Iraq.

You dont have to tell me time and time again I know you didnt support the war. But saying you hope he succeeds and then saying that what ever the Bush administration comes up with will be lies. That shows how much hope you have.

- I am not the one that is naive my friend. This
- current administration however is a different story,
- especially considering the situation within Iraq at
- the moment.

This administration is trying to deal with all the problems in Iraq and the problems with terrorism and of course the "friendly" obsitcle that pop out here and there.

As for your terrorist reference, I have
- yet to see or here of any concrete/conclusive
- evidence to date that would indicate such
- individuals were actually in Iraq under Saddam's
- command prior to or after the war.

How would you and I and MNG or any reporter be in a position to know the details of the concrete/conclusive evidence.
-
- Yes Hornet, we all know you are of a much higher
- intellect then the average board member or US
- citizen. However, almost 50% of Americans now seem
- to have doubts about the current administration's
- effort in Iraq, so it would appear there are a good
- amount of people here in the United States that
- doesn't agree with your "no brainer" reference.

Has nothing to do with a high intellect V3, it has to do with common sense.........and I'm swimming in common sense.
Thats because they have no brain /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ha ha ha j/k dont you people get your panties all stained, but almost 50% sounds to me like I have a better chance of being on the right side of the issue. Not that I believe in poles anyway.
-
--- Therefore, they were simply oblivious to what lye
--- ahead in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, or they
--- thought by informing the American public what
--- rebuilding a nation really meant they would loose
--- backing for the war. Either way, the situation on
--- the ground is not going according to plan.

Give some credit to the American people V3, because most of them can see through the political *****s that are trying to discredit this President before their elections. Most Americans feel we are doing the right thing, but maybe need to change strategy and plan.

- Easy for you to say, but try telling that to the
- average Iraqi who has no security, electric, food,
- or water.

Then I will say one thing to the Iraqi people. Get off your asses and start helping the US and by doing that you will help yourselves. Complaining is what people do when they dont have what they need. Again Patience is needed now more then ever.
-

-
- Yeah, but before you claimed they did not support US
- military intervention in Iraq because of their
- economic dealings with Saddam. Now you are claiming
- they simply did not agree with the current
- administration's threat assessment of Iraq's Baath
- regime. Which one is it Hornet?

Both are accurate V3
-
-
- Biased like every other news source, including your
- favorite Fox News, but like I said your point is
- irrelevant because civilians in Iraq will still die
- due to the ongoing battle between insurgents and US
- forces regardless of what the media reports.

That is very true but let there be a mistaken kill and BBC will be there to make sure everyone knows the "truth" that the Americans are killing inocent civilians.
BTW Fox News reports, you deside. BBC reports the way they deside.
-
-
- Previously you claimed, "They know who is causing
- all this trouble, but they don't want to be killed
- by these thugs. 30 years under such Regiem will
- instill fear on anyone." However Hornet, now you
- are saying, "Maybe if they get some balls and help
- out with their situation like point out Bathist
- loyalists." Well, if they are frightened to death
- how do you expect them to get these "balls" you
- speak of? Please explain this to me?

I think you can find creative ways to help American troops with information they are seeking and still be safe from the Baathists. That would make life a lot easier for them and for our soldiers.

-
- Again Hornet which one is it? Economic betrayal or
- simply a differing opinion on how much of a threat
- Saddam posed to the US and its allies? Please make
- up your mind.

Ah there was never just one thing V3.
-
- At any rate Bush's so called "coalition of the
- willing" was comprised of roughly thirty countries.
- That leaves 150 some odd United Nations members that
- did not support military intervention in Iraq.
- Surely they all did not have economic relations with
- Saddam.

Listen to Blairs speech he made today at the joint session of Congress and you will hear my exact sentiments about the whole situation.
-
-



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

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of 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
07-18-2003, 05:14 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- V3-Dev wrote:
--
-- You sound almost as optimistic as the administration
-- did prior to the war. Nevertheless, come back to us
-- when and if these things actually occur because as
-- of right now they don't seem attainable.
-
- Come back I am not going anywhere. It will take time
- since we have to fight the terrorists in the world
- and the clueless at home and in Europe.

Yeah, but we are not talking about fighting terrorists throughout the world and the people that you deem clueless. We are talking about the stabilization of Iraq and its reconstruction.

-- Patience is something I have a lot of Hornet. The
-- Iraqi people on the other hand don't. Also, I
-- seriously doubt there is anything the current
-- administration could conjure up that would surprise
-- me, especially after the massive misinformation
-- campaign they ran to convince the public that Saddam
-- posed an imminent threat to us, which obviously
-- never existed I might add.
-
- Like I said before people like you and MNG and a
- host of others will never believe anything other
- then what you want to believe. Not because your dumb
- I am sure your not dumb. but because there is a
- certain despise for the US politicaly or otherwise,
- and nothing will change your mind even if we not
- only find the smoking gun but the smoker himself.

You presume way too much Hornet. I said I disagreed with the current administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, and the manner in which they are handling reconstruction in that country. That is it! Nothing more nothing less. For you to sit here and claim I despise everything about our government or country is complete nonsense.

Matter of fact, every time somebody on these forums disagrees with you on a matter concerning Iraq you ultimately resort to this partisan rhetoric, especially when you can't provide anything of real substance to enhance your argument. First we are posting liberal bull crap, and now it is because we despise this country and its government.

I mean, where were you when I voiced my opinion against affirmative action, or stated very clearly that I did not hold the former Clinton administration in high regard. Was I posting liberal bull crap then? Maybe you didn't read those threads, or maybe you just agreed with what I wrote, hence you found it unnecessary to leap into to one of your right wing tirades. Either way, give it a rest please because you do nothing to advance your position with such remarks.

-- If unilaterally attacking Iraq with a few countries
-- isn't saying the U.N. is irrelevant I don't know
-- what is. Like I have said repeatedly before, the
-- overwhelming majority of the world community,
-- including a good amount of people here in America
-- did not support US military intervention in Iraq,
-- but you seem to find it difficult to realize this
-- fact.
-
- First, the UN made it self Irrelevant by not taking
- a more tougher stance with Saddam.
- The overwhelming majority of the world community
- COULD be wrong. Do you disagree?
- After all what proof do you have that we are
- absolutly wrong...and dont tell me we have'nt found
- any WMD, that is getting old by now.

Getting old eh? Once again you appear to be avoiding the main justification for going to war with Iraq. Besides, you ever here the saying, "the burden of proof rests on the accuser"? Faulty intelligence report after faulty intelligence report and still no weapons. What else is there to say? It seems pretty simple to me.

-- This is an allegation that has resonated from
-- pro-war advocates repeatedly, yet to this date I
-- have not heard of or seen any evidence supporting
-- this claim. When and if you actually find something
-- of substance on it please feel free to share it with
-- all of us.
-
- Why share it, you probably wont believe it anyway.

Find it first Mr. Presumption, and then we will see if I believe it or not.

-- I mean, regardless of whether or not such
-- international forces would legitimize the American
-- invasion/occupation, these groups have swallowed
-- their pride and reached out to the US. It is now
-- time for the Bush administration to do the same for
-- the sake of the Iraqi people.
-
- I agree with that. The US should allow any help they
- can get, but under their control as it should be.

To be quite honest, I don't care who is in control as long as more boots get on the ground in Iraq. However, the fact remains that the ball is in America's court, so whether they reach out or not to the international community in an effective manner is up to them and nobody else.

-- Actually, the paragraph you replied to above implies
-- the US is in need of help, not the other way around.
-
- No the Iraqi people need the help. Not the Americans
- or the British.

You really have a way to twist things around here. Sometimes I feel like we are just going around in circles. Nevertheless, a few paragraphs above you stated the US could use any help they can get, but now the Iraqis need that help not the British or Americans. For the sake of compromising with you and clarifying the situation once and for all, I think it would be safe to say the US and British both need international assistance to stabilize Iraq in order to better the lives of Iraqis.

-- Furthermore, if you really cared about the Iraqi
-- people as much as you claim Hornet, you too would
-- want organizations like NATO and U.N. to contribute
-- personnel to Iraq. Without them the US mission will
-- only take longer, and in the process Iraqis will be
-- the ones that suffer.
-
- I always said that the only way to combat terrorism
- is to join together like Mr. Blair so elequently put
- it in his recent speach in the joint session of
- gongress. But there has to be one leader the US at
- the helm, because if there is no support of the
- leadership in a fight against terrorism we just
- fight against each other. Ever heard of the term
- "too many chiefs not enough Indians"

Alienating our closest allies by unilaterally attacking Iraq is not joining together to combat terrorism Hornet. Once you and this administration realize we are not alone in this world and need all the help we can get, then we can combat the scourge of global terrorism effectively. American can't do this single-handedly, and they will need much more then the British to ultimately win this battle.

-- Naive I am not, however I am guilty of simply
-- describing the situation on the ground in Iraq as I
-- know it. Yes, I agree there are plenty of people
-- that are terrified of Baath loyalists. However, this
-- is occurring in mostly Sunni areas of Iraq, and
-- despite all this there are still many Iraqis in
-- these areas that are blaming the US.
-
- If I was a Baath loyalist I would go to Sunni areas
- to start trouble as to confuse people as to who is
- doing it.
- Makes sense dont you think?

Yeah, that is the reason why I have stated a thousand times we are fighting a low-intensity guerilla war in that specific area of Iraq.

- As far as the many Iraqi's that are blaming the US
- how do you know they are not baath party loyalists?
- Do you get my point? like how do you know who to
- trust right now?

I don't know Hornet, but something tells me there isn't enough Baath Party loyalists within Iraq to account for the thousands of men, women, and children that file complaints or protests Bremer's Iraqi Authority on such a daily basis.

- Besides that being afraid can make you say things
- you dont believe in. By the way what are they
- blaming the US for? water, electricity, services?

All of those things, and you can add security to that list also, which in my opinion is the most important for the other stuff to fall into place.

-- Not to mention, there are many Iraqis going without
-- security, food, water, and basic services throughout
-- other areas of the country south of Baghdad where
-- Baath loyalists are not a factor, and these people
-- are also blaming the US and British for their
-- current state of affairs.
-
- I would be ticked off too if I did'nt have these
- basic amenities. But that will be improved as time
- passes.

Yes, time will ultimately tell.

-- I think MNG has addressed the mobile lab issue
-- numerous times on these boards. Besides, there is no
-- trace of biological/chemical agents anywhere near
-- the vehicles in question, so I am inclined to think
-- as are many others, that they don't represent a WMD
-- program.
-
- MNG has addressed the mobile lab issue so I guess he
- is right, well there is my proof then according to
- him the British company that made those labs said it
- was to blow up artilary balloons. But that is what
- Saddam told them what they will be used for. But
- with a nip here a tuck there and you have
- a.........WMD tool.

With a "nip here and tuck there" you could change all types of things into a "WMD tool". It is called dual-use, and Iraq has thousands of such facilities throughout the country, as does every other nation that manufactures petrochemical products among other things.

-- As far as the old machine parts and documents that
-- were buried in somebody's backyard over ten years
-- ago, last time I checked buried objects neither
-- represent a reconstituted nuclear weapons program
-- (as was claimed repeatedly by Bush and Co. prior to
-- the war) or the intent to start one in the future.
-- They were simply buried items, and considering the
-- CIA has refused to call the discovery the "smoking
-- gun" the Bush administration is looking for only
-- proves my point.
-
- So if we happen to find burried chemical and
- biological agents then it just means that they are
- irrelevent because they are burried? hello that is
- how you hide things....No?

No, finding actual biological/chemical agents and the means to deliver them would constitute a WMD program. Finding old machine parts buried for ten years, as well as so-called "mobile labs" with no trace of any WMD agents inside them is not. Now if we could only find these items we wouldn't have to talk about this matter any longer.

--- I know what the Bush administration said over and
--- over again. But people like you heard something
--- completely different like what ever fits your agenda
--- better.
-
- I have no agenda I am not a politician, I want
- people to wake up and realize that we are living in
- a different world.
- There is evil out there and we have to find it and
- destroy it. This war is a lot bigger then you can
- imagine my friend, this war will change History.

Once again, you find it necessary to resort to your good vs. evil rhetoric. Totally unnecessary Hornet. I am well aware of the fact there are malicious individuals in this world, I just don't agree with certain people on how to get rid of them.

-- Last time I checked you are a very small percentage
-- of the US population, and there are far more people
-- then just I that heard something totally different
-- from this administration.
-
- Is that why Bush's popularity was so high?

Actually, Bush's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, which is the lowest since 9/11.

-- Also, I have told you time and time again that I did
-- not support the war, but now that it is a done deal
-- I hope Bush succeeds in bringing stability and
-- prosperity to Iraq.
-
- You dont have to tell me time and time again I know
- you didnt support the war. But saying you hope he
- succeeds and then saying that what ever the Bush
- administration comes up with will be lies. That
- shows how much hope you have.

It is called realism Hornet. I did not like the way we went about things leading up to the war, but once things went down all I hoped for was a quick resolution with the minimal loss of life to our military personnel and the Iraqis. I don't no anyway else to convey this to you.

Also, I have always supported our armed forces as they are apolitical, but I take objection to how they are used, especially in reference to the stabilization/reconstruction phase in Iraq. Therefore, I have no problem criticizing this administration or any other one for that matter if that were the case.

-- I am not the one that is naive my friend. This
-- current administration however is a different story,
-- especially considering the situation within Iraq at
-- the moment.
-
- This administration is trying to deal with all the
- problems in Iraq and the problems with terrorism and
- of course the "friendly" obsitcle that pop out here
- and there.

I agree, there will always be bumps in the road. However, they would be able to deal with these obstacles more effectively if they reached out to the international community, especially the U.N. and NATO.

-- As for your terrorist reference, I have
-- yet to see or here of any concrete/conclusive
-- evidence to date that would indicate such
-- individuals were actually in Iraq under Saddam's
-- command prior to or after the war.
-
- How would you and I and MNG or any reporter be in a
- position to know the details of the
- concrete/conclusive evidence.

I don't know, but you are the one that claimed there was terrorists in Iraq not me.

-- Yes Hornet, we all know you are of a much higher
-- intellect then the average board member or US
-- citizen. However, almost 50% of Americans now seem
-- to have doubts about the current administration's
-- effort in Iraq, so it would appear there are a good
-- amount of people here in the United States that
-- doesn't agree with your "no brainer" reference.
-
- Has nothing to do with a high intellect V3, it has
- to do with common sense.........and I'm swimming in
- common sense.

Well, do us a favor and don't drown. We would hate to lose you. Also, make sure you save some of that common sense for whoever is providing our current President with his intelligence briefings.

-- Therefore, they were simply oblivious to what lye
-- ahead in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, or they
-- thought by informing the American public what
-- rebuilding a nation really meant they would loose
-- backing for the war. Either way, the situation on
-- the ground is not going according to plan.
-
- Give some credit to the American people V3, because
- most of them can see through the political *****s
- that are trying to discredit this President before
- their elections. Most Americans feel we are doing
- the right thing, but maybe need to change strategy
- and plan.

Sure just like they saw through all the hyped up intelligence, which has now come to light through Congressional hearings. Besides, what about all the conservative Republicans in the Senate that have even questioned the way this administration has gone about post-war Iraq? Are they just political *****s trying to discredit the President too?

-- Easy for you to say, but try telling that to the
-- average Iraqi who has no security, electric, food,
-- or water.
-
- Then I will say one thing to the Iraqi people. Get
- off your asses and start helping the US and by
- doing that you will help yourselves. Complaining is
- what people do when they dont have what they need.
- Again Patience is needed now more then ever.

Maybe when the US and its so-called "coalition of the willing" secure the country, the people you speak so fondly of will step up to the plate. Until then don't count it.

-- Yeah, but before you claimed they did not support US
-- military intervention in Iraq because of their
-- economic dealings with Saddam. Now you are claiming
-- they simply did not agree with the current
-- administration's threat assessment of Iraq's Baath
-- regime. Which one is it Hornet?
-
- Both are accurate V3

Thank you for the clarification.

-- Biased like every other news source, including your
-- favorite Fox News, but like I said your point is
-- irrelevant because civilians in Iraq will still die
-- due to the ongoing battle between insurgents and US
-- forces regardless of what the media reports.
-
- That is very true but let there be a mistaken kill
- and BBC will be there to make sure everyone knows
- the "truth" that the Americans are killing inocent
- civilians.
- BTW Fox News reports, you deside. BBC reports the
- way they deside.

Hornet is there a point in discussing this any longer? We both know news sources can be biased, and we both realize civilians will continue to die in Iraq as a result of ongoing battles between the US and forces opposed to them. If you don't like what a particular media or news outlet is reporting my advice to you is simply don't watch/read them.

-- Previously you claimed, "They know who is causing
-- all this trouble, but they don't want to be killed
-- by these thugs. 30 years under such Regiem will
-- instill fear on anyone." However Hornet, now you
-- are saying, "Maybe if they get some balls and help
-- out with their situation like point out Bathist
-- loyalists." Well, if they are frightened to death
-- how do you expect them to get these "balls" you
-- speak of? Please explain this to me?
-
- I think you can find creative ways to help American
- troops with information they are seeking and still
- be safe from the Baathists. That would make life a
- lot easier for them and for our soldiers.

I believe there has been the flow of some intelligence, which is represented by the capture of certain Baath regime officials. However, Arab culture in the area designated the "Sunni Triangle" by US forces live within a strict tight-lipped tribal structure.

In addition, these people over the years were well taken care of by Saddam, so the majority of them owe no allegiance to anybody but him. Therefore, until the US can provide 100% security for the average person living in these particular areas, I don't think intelligence will be as easy to come by. Let's hope I am wrong.

-- At any rate Bush's so called "coalition of the
-- willing" was comprised of roughly thirty countries.
-- That leaves 150 some odd United Nations members that
-- did not support military intervention in Iraq.
-- Surely they all did not have economic relations with
-- Saddam.
-
- Listen to Blairs speech he made today at the joint
- session of Congress and you will hear my exact
- sentiments about the whole situation.

I have already listened to Mr. Blair's address (read the transcript also) to the US Congress. However, by reading your comments here on this forum, I think it is safe to say I already know exactly what your sentiments are concerning this administration's foreign/military policies.

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 08:07 AM
"People knew that graves with as much as 10,000 bodies existed and they didnt think of it as anything?"

Yes, sad, isnt it? Hundreds of thousands have been killed in various internal conflicts in African countries, no one gave a dang. People were butchered in the Balkans, even as UN troops watched, and none did a thing. People disappear daily and are killed by deathsquads in South American countries, people watch it on the news and say "Dang!" but thats it. Thats the way it is. Its sad, but it doesnt change the fact that its the reality we live in.

"What difference does it make as to when they find them? are you serious?
but no traces of WMD's. What exactly is a WMD to you? isn't biochemical warfare WMD? if yes then

...a mobile biochemical trailer, a centerfuse to enrich Uraniam sounds like traces of possible WMD development to me. And since Saddam was in control I'd say very possible."

Please tell me when and where they found a biochemical trailer used for manufacturing WMD's that had been used within the latest 5 - 10 years. A link would be nice, or any other kind of proof.

"You got it wrong. When we leave Iraq we will have a nice fluffy bed for us to come visit."

Sure, because all that people will just stop hating you for all the suffering they endured, all of a sudden. Yeah, thats gonna happen....

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 11:50 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
- Listen to Blairs speech he made today at the joint
- session of Congress and you will hear my exact sentiments
- about the whole situation.

Well, I suppose at least you agree with him. I don't though.

EDIT: Oh, and seeing has he's the British PM, shouldn't he be representing our views rather than pandering to you guys?

<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.


Message Edited on 07/18/0311:51AM by joeschmoe22nd

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 09:37 PM
longinus, Ve, Mng gather around

*All asume huddle position*.

Saddam is guilty in any way shape or form. You threestooges over here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif are trying to make excuses for Saddam. Not because you believe he is innocent but because you have giant chip on your shoulders with the Bush Administration.
It is very obvious, by the way you never give the benefit of the doubt to the leader of the free world but falling head over heels to defend Saddam Hussein. You are all picking on expected technicalities and demand proof when you dont have proof of Saddam's innosence. But you know very well what he is capable of. If not before surely after you heard of the atrocities he commited on his own people.
Yet you saying things like The US and Britain need the help not the Iraqi people. I beg to differ V3 but the Iraqi people need the help of the entire careing world.
Anyone watched Tony Blair's speech? Dit it make any sense?

keeping my fingers crossed.



<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
07-18-2003, 09:43 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
-
- EDIT: Oh, and seeing has he's the British PM,
- shouldn't he be representing our views rather than
- pandering to you guys?

I believe he was speaking to everyone that has any common sense on how to defeat the entire conflict we are facing.
But I guess you dont agree./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BTW when you disagree with someone they are pandering?

<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
07-21-2003, 08:33 AM
"Saddam is guilty in any way shape or form. You threestooges over here are trying to make excuses for Saddam."

No, we are not making excuses for Saddam. I for one have never defended Saddams torture, murders or opression. I do however think that as soon as any nation, no matter which, starts war without the approval of the UN, that war is illegal. Thats my stand point. Its even worse when the leaders of said country lie to their own people and the world about the reasons for the conflict.

"Not because you believe he is innocent but because you have giant chip on your shoulders with the Bush Administration."

This is true. Its not about Saddam, its about TBA.

"It is very obvious, by the way you never give the benefit of the doubt to the leader of the free world but falling head over heels to defend Saddam Hussein."

Leader of the free world? I live in a free world and I sure as sh1t dont consider Bush to be my leader. And as far as I am concerned, TBA was responsible for this war and not Saddam. There for the blaim lay on them.

However, Saddam should have been removed from power. By war if necessary. But the UN should have been at the helm, not George W Bush.

"You are all picking on expected technicalities and demand proof when you dont have proof of Saddam's innosence. But you know very well what he is capable of. If not before surely after you heard of the atrocities he commited on his own people."

This, again, has nothing to do with why I object to TBA's actions. There are loads of dictators and mass murdering politicans in this world, some even supported by the US. This was was not about liberating the Iraqis. They were not the primary concern of this operation.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:46 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
- I believe he was speaking to everyone that has any
- common sense on how to defeat the entire conflict we
- are facing.

No, he was speaking to the US Congress. You could tell because he was surrounded by congressmen. Oh, and your sentence makes no sense, so I can't really answer you.

- But I guess you dont agree

Very true.


- BTW when you disagree with someone they are
- pandering?

No, people can pander on both sides of the arguement.

<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 12:02 PM
longinius wrote:
-
- No, we are not making excuses for Saddam. I for one
- have never defended Saddams torture, murders or
- opression. I do however think that as soon as any
- nation, no matter which, starts war without the
- approval of the UN, that war is illegal. Thats my
- stand point. Its even worse when the leaders of said
- country lie to their own people and the world about
- the reasons for the conflict.

So no matter what the reasons or how bad the Tyrant leader as you "free thinkers" would agree saddam was, no country has the right to go in and take him out if the UN dont agrree? I wonder if you where one of the citizens under saddam if you would think the same way.
-
- "Not because you believe he is innocent but because
- you have giant chip on your shoulders with the Bush
- Administration."
-
- This is true. Its not about Saddam, its about TBA.

So in that case dont give me your biased BS because I dont buy it that you care so much as to what the UN thinks or not.
-
- "It is very obvious, by the way you never give the
- benefit of the doubt to the leader of the free world
- but falling head over heels to defend Saddam
- Hussein."
-
- Leader of the free world? I live in a free world and
- I sure as sh1t dont consider Bush to be my leader.
- And as far as I am concerned, TBA was responsible
- for this war and not Saddam. There for the blaim lay
- on them.

Its not up to you to agree if Bush is the leader of the free world or not, because the majority of the world believes he or any American President is. Or Why do they all want to know what the US thinks?
-
- However, Saddam should have been removed from power.
- By war if necessary. But the UN should have been at
- the helm, not George W Bush.

BS. Saddam was bad and something had to be done about it. Your precious UN didnt have the balls to do anything about it so we did. Live with it!

-
-Ok When you finally wake up and able to debate with out any bias about the problem at hand we can continue to discuss this. Your hatred for TBA is not only idiotic but WRONG!

<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
07-21-2003, 12:08 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
-
- No, he was speaking to the US Congress. You could
- tell because he was surrounded by congressmen. Oh,
- and your sentence makes no sense, so I can't really
- answer you.

And the TV cameras was so the congress can take the tape home as a souvenier?
Wake up sleepy head.
-
-
-- BTW when you disagree with someone they are
-- pandering?
-
- No, people can pander on both sides of the
- arguement.

But you are only pondering on one side. Biased? you bet.
-
At least you have someone in your country with the balls to speak the truth.

<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
07-21-2003, 12:18 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- And the TV cameras was so the congress can take the
- tape home as a souvenier?

The speech was obviously weighted toward an American audience rather than a British one.

- Wake up sleepy head.

I am awake.

- But you are only pondering on one side. Biased? you
- bet.

Pondering over what exactly? Also, lets bare in mind that I've said right from the start that if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, then this war would have credibility. I'm not biased, I just expect my government to tell the truth and act with at least a shred of honour. Guess I just set my standards that little bit higher.

- At least you have someone in your country with the
- balls to speak the truth.

Yes we did, and he's dead now. Unless of course, by truth you mean he states facts that you find more in line with your own way of thinking.


<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 08:27 AM
"So no matter what the reasons or how bad the Tyrant leader as you "free thinkers" would agree saddam was, no country has the right to go in and take him out if the UN dont agrree? I wonder if you where one of the citizens under saddam if you would think the same way."

Thats exactly correct. You know that Hitler started WW2 by liberating germans who they considered to be oppressed in neighbouring areas, right?

Thats the reason why wars should be sanctioned by the UN, especially if the aggressor is a UN member himself. No matter what the intentions, its still a war and its still an act of aggression. As a member of the UN the US is bound by its rules. But its obvious that the US will only use the UN when it suits them and disregard them the rest of the time.

And no, if I was a citizen of an oppressed nation I probably would not agree. As such a citizen I wouldnt agree to what the US is doing in Iraq now as well, after it has been "liberated". So it doesnt matter very much.

"So in that case dont give me your biased BS because I dont buy it that you care so much as to what the UN thinks or not."

You don't have to buy it. Because, honestly I dont care if you do or not. I know what my opinions are and I stand by them. You are not required to "buy it".

"Its not up to you to agree if Bush is the leader of the free world or not, because the majority of the world believes he or any American President is. Or Why do they all want to know what the US thinks?"

Because otherwise they will get smacked? "If you are not with us, you are against us." The US president is not the leader of the free world no matter what you might think. While he might get other countries to do his bidding, it has nothing to do with being a leader and everything to do with being the strongest kid on the block. If he was such a world leader, how do you explain the lack of support for this recent Iraq war? His coalition wasnt exactly something to be proud of.

But its nice to see that you show your true colors in support of a dictatorship and a leader of the world who has not been democraticaly elected by the people he allegedly leads. That explains quite a lot.

"BS. Saddam was bad and something had to be done about it. Your precious UN didnt have the balls to do anything about it so we did. Live with it!"

OK. So you accept all wars of aggression based on the fact that the leader is "bad"? Bad of course being determined by our western values? Enjoy your third reich buddy. As soon as you accept one nations desire to invade and occupy another, at their own will, you are opening up Pandoras Box.

"Ok When you finally wake up and able to debate with out any bias about the problem at hand we can continue to discuss this. Your hatred for TBA is not only idiotic but WRONG!"

You are in a small glass house throwing huge boulders. Calling me biased and hinting you are not? Sure, you are so very objective.

As for my opinion of TBA, it isnt hate. I have felt hate and this isnt it. But I do think they are wrong. As luck would have it I live in a nation where I can have my own opinions. Maybe you should come and invade us to, since many of us dont agree with you? After all, that means we are against you according to your own president.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:50 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
- Its not up to you to agree if Bush is the leader of
- the free world or not, because the majority of the
- world believes he or any American President is.

Sorry, but I have to pick up on this. Hornet, you're in some pretty serious denial if you believe that Bush is widely considered "Leader of the Free World" outside of the United States.

Have a look at this poll...his approval rating outside the US isn't exactly sky high:

<img src=http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/img/political/graph_2.gif>

Also look at how people across the world respond to this:

<img src=http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/img/political/graph_19.gif>

You should think about whether people from other countries would want to live in America:

<img src=http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/img/cultural/graph_37.gif>

I look forward to you dismissing these statistics without rational debate.

<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:39 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
-- Its not up to you to agree if Bush is the leader of
-- the free world or not, because the majority of the
-- world believes he or any American President is.
-
- I look forward to you dismissing these statistics
- without rational debate.
-

Pipe dreams young lad...




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, 06:23 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
-
- The speech was obviously weighted toward an American
- audience rather than a British one.

Funny thing is I thought he was talking to everyone about a big problem concerning everyone, now or in the future.
You thought he was going up there and praise Britain? not that Britain should'nt be praised but that was'nt the point.

-
-
The fact that you dont believe there are any WMD's in Iraq is your opinion but when you say that our government lied to us with out any conclusive proof then it becomes a biased opinion.
-
-- At least you have someone in your country with the
-- balls to speak the truth.
-
- Yes we did, and he's dead now. Unless of course, by
- truth you mean he states facts that you find more in
- line with your own way of thinking.

I guess a lie to you is when its against your own way of thinking eh? hmm...yeah thats fair./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.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
07-22-2003, 06:39 PM
longinius wrote:

- But its nice to see that you show your true colors
- in support of a dictatorship and a leader of the
- world who has not been democraticaly elected by the
- people he allegedly leads. That explains quite a
- lot.

What in the wide wide world of morons are you talking about son?
-
- "BS. Saddam was bad and something had to be done
- about it. Your precious UN didnt have the balls to
- do anything about it so we did. Live with it!"
-
- OK. So you accept all wars of aggression based on
- the fact that the leader is "bad"? Bad of course
- being determined by our western values? Enjoy your
- third reich buddy. As soon as you accept one nations
- desire to invade and occupy another, at their own
- will, you are opening up Pandoras Box.

Are you calling me a Hitler supporter? Put on you dunce cap and come over here my boy.....We didnt go into Iraq to take out Saddam because he was a naughty boy.....like you. He was a Baaaad asssss. That country was going to waste and taking its people with it and if we didnt do something now your country and more important /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif my country.

-
- "Ok When you finally wake up and able to debate with
- out any bias about the problem at hand we can
- continue to discuss this. Your hatred for TBA is not
- only idiotic but WRONG!"
-
- You are in a small glass house throwing huge
- boulders. Calling me biased and hinting you are not?
- Sure, you are so very objective.

I am very objective, and I know sense when I see it.
-
- As for my opinion of TBA, it isnt hate. I have felt
- hate and this isnt it. But I do think they are
- wrong. As luck would have it I live in a nation
- where I can have my own opinions. Maybe you should
- come and invade us to, since many of us dont agree
- with you? After all, that means we are against you
- according to your own president.

Ok sure do you have any oil? how about terrorists?

-
-
-
-



<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, 06:46 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
-
--
- Sorry, but I have to pick up on this. Hornet, you're
- in some pretty serious denial if you believe that
- Bush is widely considered "Leader of the Free World"
- outside of the United States.

Well give him a chance.
-
- Have a look at this poll...his approval rating
- outside the US isn't exactly sky high:

Hehe.....I am suppose to believe it because you post a poll of somekind? I dont think so...besides I dont believe on the accuracy of the polls anyway. Not for or against. Pols are not nessessary fact.
-
- I look forward to you dismissing these statistics
- without rational debate.
-
- Lets wait and see what happens in the future shall we. Now we have a funeral to celebrate of two very nice brothers.

<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, 06:49 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- -
- Pipe dreams young lad...

Peace pipe MNG.....but first war paint.


<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, 08:27 PM
Nothing personal Hornet, but your little one liners and regular use of rhetoric are very reminiscent of the current President's speech patterns. That leads me to believe you are either secretly masquerading as a forum member when in fact you are Mr. Bush's speech writer, or that you are simply associated with some sort of George W. Bush cult and are more or less the equivalent of a crazed NSYNC pop fan. Judging from your habitual misspelling and grammatical errors, I am leaning more towards the latter, but who knows these shortcomings may simply be part of a deception tactic on your behalf in an effort to conceal your real function within the Bush Whitehouse. I suppose we will never really now.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:05 PM
"Are you calling me a Hitler supporter? Put on you dunce cap and come over here my boy....."

No, I'm not.

"We didnt go into Iraq to take out Saddam because he was a naughty boy.....like you. He was a Baaaad asssss. That country was going to waste and taking its people with it and if we didnt do something now your country and more important my country."

Utter bull. If its about liberating people who have it sh1tty, what about Somalia? Liberia? Tibet even? Dang, there are so many miserable countries around the world its not even funny and the US isnt doing SQUAT for them. Why? No oil, for one.

"I am very objective, and I know sense when I see it."

Oh, yeah. You are so objective.... For sure.

"Hehe.....I am suppose to believe it because you post a poll of somekind? I dont think so...besides I dont believe on the accuracy of the polls anyway. Not for or against. Pols are not nessessary fact."

No, but you could believe us who actually live outside of the US. We do not consider Bush to be our leader. Noone in Sweden, Denmark, Norway or Finland does. Except maybe the occasional nut case. I wager its the same for most European countries.

I repeat, we do not consider Bush to be our leader. He is even less of a leader than Clinton ever was, who actually was very popular abroad.

I will spell it out for you:
WE DO NOT LIKE BUSH.

Travek abroad and find out for yourself why don't you.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:30 PM
The sad part of stupid propaganda like "Bush leading the free world" is that some people actually believe it.
C'mon people! You had your war, The US is indeed the only superpower, enjoy it! But don't fool yourselves believing the current US admin international policy is based in leadership, you may be confusing the meaning of leadership with coercion.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 01:38 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Nothing personal Hornet, but your little one liners
- and regular use of rhetoric are very reminiscent of
- the current President's speech patterns. That leads
- me to believe you are either secretly masquerading
- as a forum member when in fact you are Mr. Bush's
- speech writer, or that you are simply associated
- with some sort of George W. Bush cult and are more
- or less the equivalent of a crazed NSYNC pop fan.
- Judging from your habitual misspelling and
- grammatical errors, I am leaning more towards the
- latter, but who knows these shortcomings may simply
- be part of a deception tactic on your behalf in an
- effort to conceal your real function within the Bush
- Whitehouse. I suppose we will never really now.

Are you retarted or just playing a ******?
sighting my misspellings and bad grammer is cute but what I lack in spelling and grammer I more then make up with good common sense which seem to have escaped your mind.
Take off that Liberal blindfold and you will see the light.
Never mind keep it on you cant handle the truth.
-



<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, 03:05 AM
There is nothing ******ed about recognizing your tendency for party-line rhetoric dear boy. In fact, you never seem to disappoint with your steady flow of it hear at this forum. To be honest though, I would not have it any other way because I find your comments absolutely hilarious at times. Keep up the good work Hornet.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 03:14 AM
longinius wrote:
- Oh, yeah. You are so objective.... For sure.

No really I am, you got to believe me really I am begging you to believe me its so important to me
-
- No, but you could believe us who actually live
- outside of the US. We do not consider Bush to be our
- leader. Noone in Sweden, Denmark, Norway or Finland
- does. Except maybe the occasional nut case. I wager
- its the same for most European countries.

I am sorry I didnt realize you asked eveyone in Sweden Denmark Norway and England. But you can stop playing dumb and try to understand that nobody in their right mind will admit that any US president or any other countries president is their leader. But when push comes to shove you all look up to the US for leadership. Wether you want to admit it or not.
-
- I repeat, we do not consider Bush to be our leader.
- He is even less of a leader than Clinton ever was,
- who actually was very popular abroad.

Now why am I not surprise you would think that. I remember the warm reception Clinton got in Europe after he took out Milosovich.
-
- I will spell it out for you:
- WE DO NOT LIKE BUSH.

that is yelling not spelling.


-
- Travek abroad and find out for yourself why don't
- you.

If I gave a crap how Europe feels I would. But Frankly ginius I dont give a damn.
-
-
-
-
-



<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, 03:15 AM
Guayo wrote:
- The sad part of stupid propaganda like "Bush leading
- the free world" is that some people actually believe
- it.
- C'mon people! You had your war, The US is indeed the
- only superpower, enjoy it! But don't fool yourselves
- believing the current US admin international policy
- is based in leadership, you may be confusing the
- meaning of leadership with coercion.

Another Liberal has spoken.
-
-



<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, 03:20 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
- Another Liberal has spoken.

Ohh noooo! I always wanted to be conservative! damn it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 03:22 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
- There is nothing ******ed about recognizing your
- tendency for party-line rhetoric dear boy. In fact,
- you never seem to disappoint with your steady flow
- of it hear at this forum. To be honest though, I
- would not have it any other way because I find your
- comments absolutely hilarious at times. Keep up the
- good work Hornet.


Well you have to admire his spirit [Hornet that is], he never gives up. America was founded on such tenacity /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
07-23-2003, 05:54 AM
Yes MNG, extreme determination is something Hornet never seems to be short of here at this forum, especially when it comes to defending his hero George W. Bush. I must say though, comparing him to the persistence or steadfastness exhibited by our founding fathers would be a little bit of a stretch don't you think? After all, they had a vision and lead by example, confronting tyranny. Hornet on the other hand simply tows the GOP party-line unconditionally, acquiescing to whatever rubbish the current administration feeds him.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:17 AM
"I am sorry I didnt realize you asked eveyone in Sweden Denmark Norway and England. But you can stop playing dumb and try to understand that nobody in their right mind will admit that any US president or any other countries president is their leader."

I travel a lot in my job, all over the Nordic area, much of Europe and even to the US and Canada on occasion. I meet a lot of people, I read newspapers and watch TV. I have yet to see any indication of anything ressembling support of Bush in the Nordic area for example.

Have you ever been to any of these countries? Talked to the people? Read local magazines? Watched the news? If not, I suggest you drop it because then your input is quite irrelivant.

"But when push comes to shove you all look up to the US for leadership. Wether you want to admit it or not."

Did you mean to say: When Bush comes to shove?

If so, then you might have a point. At any rate, no, we dont look up to the US leadership. We used to, but we dont anymore.

"that is yelling not spelling."

No, that is spelling. I wrote a word down, thats spelling it out actually.

"If I gave a crap how Europe feels I would. But Frankly ginius I dont give a damn."

Then why are you debating it?
Why claim to know what the opinion in that region is?

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 02:10 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Yes MNG, extreme determination is something Hornet
- never seems to be short of here at this forum,
- especially when it comes to defending his hero
- George W. Bush. I must say though, comparing him to
- the persistence or steadfastness exhibited by our
- founding fathers would be a little bit of a stretch
- don't you think? After all, they had a vision and
- lead by example, confronting tyranny. Hornet on the
- other hand simply tows the GOP party-line
- unconditionally, acquiescing to whatever rubbish the
- current administration feeds him.

Well they say George Washington enjoyed reading Letters from Voltaire. I wonder what Hornet reads?


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, 03:33 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- I wonder what Hornet reads?

Probably something along these lines:

http://www.anncoulter.org/images/treason_sm.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 05:35 PM
Guayo wrote:

-
- Ohh noooo! I always wanted to be conservative! damn
- it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
-
-
Don't worry when you grow up and get some real life experience, you will be a conservative /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
07-23-2003, 05:48 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
--
- Well you have to admire his spirit [Hornet that is],
- he never gives up. America was founded on such
- tenacity /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

When you have reasons to believe what the truth is,
you dont go for the political assasinations. You do what should , should've, and what was done.

Whether you agree with Bush's politics here at home or abroad should not interfeer with what has to be done to achieve long lasting peace. I meaning Me believe that Bush is on the right track and when I am proven wrong by future events that is when I will conceed.

<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, 05:56 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- - Well they say George Washington enjoyed reading
- Letters from Voltaire. I wonder what Hornet reads?

I read that Saddam's tyranical sons are now taking a dirt nap, and that is good news for the good guys. And you know who they are.
-
-
-

<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, 06:01 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- I wonder what Hornet reads?
-
- Probably something along these lines:
-
Do not read that Ann coulter book it will make you dizzy.
Its meant for people with a brain.

<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, 06:10 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- V3-Dev wrote:
-- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--- I wonder what Hornet reads?
--
-- Probably something along these lines:
--
- Do not read that Ann coulter book it will make you
- dizzy.
-
- Its meant for people with a brain.


Now, now Hornet, no need to get testy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif But hey! Something tells me the reservists are getting frustrated with the war in Iraq:

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/guard.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, 06:18 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
--
- Now, now Hornet, no need to get testy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif But hey! Something tells me
- the reservists are getting frustrated with the war
- in Iraq:


You finally figured it out MNG. You didnt think they would enjoy staying away from their families did 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
07-23-2003, 06:34 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
---
-- Now, now Hornet, no need to get testy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif But hey! Something tells me
-- the reservists are getting frustrated with the war
-- in Iraq:
-
-
- You finally figured it out MNG. You didnt think
- they would enjoy staying away from their families
- did you?

Apparently neither did Gee Dubya. Yee-hah!!!


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, 07:07 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Now, now Hornet, no need to get testy.

Yes, no need to get upset my dear Hornet. It was merely a joke.

- But hey! Something tells me the reservists are getting
- frustrated with the war in Iraq.

I agree, Judging from that image it would definitely appear many would enjoy a return flight home as soon as possible.

Message Edited on 07/23/0302:32PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 03:19 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- Yes, no need to get upset my dear Hornet. It was
- merely a joke.
-
So I take it you didnt like my joke?

<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, 04:14 AM
On the contrary Hornet, I actually enjoy your witty humor most of the time. However, in that particular instance I was simply under the impression you were a tad bit upset with me. Anyway, it's glad to know you were only joking mate.

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 08:15 AM
From The New York Times:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/AFF.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
07-27-2003, 05:38 PM
Yeah, we deserve the truth MNG, but the likelihood of getting it from this administration is highly unlikely. After all, it took almost two years for Congress to release a report on 9/11 due to the resistance of the Whitehouse, and even when they did finally give in, they cut out every reference incriminating the Saudi government simply because our addiction to their oil must continue by any means necessary.

Furthermore, this whole Iraq obtaining fissile material from Niger claim pretty much sums up how inept Mr. Bush and his underlings really are. When first questioned on their assertion, they claimed they were a 100% sure it was true. Then when a former US ambassador reveals the truth, all of a sudden it was DOI Tenet's fault it got into the speech, and he steps forward to take the blame.

Now after some official memos turn up it has been revealed that it was the National Security Council that is at fault, but much to everybody's surprise they choose a deputy advisor as the scapegoat, and not Mrs. Rice who technically has the last word on anything that leaves her department. Supposedly, she forgot to go over the assessment on the matter, but somehow her office still allowed the allegation to make it into the State of the Union address.

Anyway, time and time again, this administration has changed its story. First they blame this guy, and then they blame that guy. First it is true, now it isn't true. The funniest thing is, the British still claim their intelligence data on Iraq and Niger is true, saying they obtained the information from a third party country who they can't name. If that doesn't sound like a cover up I don't know what is.

To make matters worse it has become pretty obvious also that the other intelligence used to make the case for military action against Iraq was much politicized. It has been almost four months since the fall of Baghdad, and every one of the CIA's prewar assessments on possible WMD sites has been proven false. There were no Scud missiles, no distribution of chemical artillery shells to Saddam's forces, and no imaginary redline ringing the Iraqi capital.

Also, if the Iraqis had a biological/chemical weapons program as extensive as claimed something would have been found by now. It is simply not that easy to hide such facilities as this administration would lead one to believe. Yes, Iraq had numerous dual use factories for producing anything from fertilizer to pesticides, but if they were producing things such as Anthrax and VX some trace materials would surely have been found.

Ultimately, I think Mr. Bush refuses to come clean on these intelligence matters due the fear of losing public support in an upcoming election year, in addition to whatever credibility the US has left in the world community. The poor reconstruction effort ongoing in Iraq doesn't help his situation either.

The fact remains however, that if this were any other administration heads would definitely be rolling, but much to many people's dismay Mr. Tenet and Mr. Rice have not resigned or been fired despite their obvious deficiencies. Intelligence failure after intelligence failure and all the President still has to say is that he has confidence in all the parties involved.

Personally, I think somebody should give him a desk sign like President Truman had which read "the buck stops here". Maybe then he will wake up and be reminded to either take responsibility for our intelligence shortcomings or at the least hold certain individuals accountable. When you have no accountability the system breaks down as it has, and something should really be done about it as soon as possible before the US really does face an actual imminent threat one day.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:01 AM
Indeed the lack of accountability per se and the lack of accountability that the American place in their leaders is worrying. No one seems to care that a) these people lied or b) these people do not take responsibility for what they say. It is a sad indictment of our governments.

But nobody cares.


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, 06:39 AM
And this differs from almost any other government on the planet, How?

Leep Out:

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

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 02:22 PM
Leep wrote:
- And this differs from almost any other government on
- the planet, How?


It doesn't thats why I said "our governments" plural(!).


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, 04:22 PM
We should remember Leep, that just because other governments also lie, that does not mean our own politicians are exempt from the standards that we would set ourselves.

The governments of both the US and UK appear to have either misled their citizens or been misled themselves. There are answers missing which both nations heartily deserve.

Bush declared the fighting in Iraq over on the first of May, nearly three months have passed since then with no tangible evidence of the weapons of mass destruction that we were told were the reason for this war.

Oh, and also...still no Saddam, still no Osama.

What's up with that then?

<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:27 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Indeed the lack of accountability per se and the
- lack of accountability that the American place in
- their leaders is worrying. No one seems to care
- that a) these people lied or b) these people do not
- take responsibility for what they say. It is a sad
- indictment of our governments.
-
- But nobody cares.
-
-
- Let me get this straight MNG, V3 you guys want to get the truth and you read The New York Times? Got any other jokes you can tell us?

Simple fact is you people cant handle the truth.

<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, 04:38 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:

- We should remember Leep, that just because other
- governments also lie, that does not mean our own
- politicians are exempt from the standards that we
- would set ourselves.

Leep is just trying to convey reality Joe. No politician is going to give you the obsolute truth. Why? Votes.
But still that dont mean Bush lied.
-
- The governments of both the US and UK appear to have
- either misled their citizens or been misled
- themselves. There are answers missing which both
- nations heartily deserve.

The answers will some day come to light, but nobody can deny that Saddam had to go.
-
- Bush declared the fighting in Iraq over on the first
- of May, nearly three months have passed since then
- with no tangible evidence of the weapons of mass
- destruction that we were told were the reason for
- this war.

not tangible evidence to some people Joe not all the people. Most people believe Saddam had and still has WMD somewhere. The evidence of existance are there if you care to look.
-
- Oh, and also...still no Saddam, still no Osama.

....But where are Uday and Qusay? and you know Saddam and Osama will join them Someday.
-
- What's up with that then?

Its all good



<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, 05:32 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

--
-- Let me get this straight MNG, V3 you guys want to get the truth and you read The New York Times? Got any other jokes you can tell us?
-
- Simple fact is you people cant handle the truth.


LOL! Yeah alright Colonel Nathan Jessep, so what should I read?


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, 06:51 PM
Read everything you can get your hands on. Listen to all the newscasts. Then, using the intelligence God gave you- sift through all the chaff and separate all the wheat.
Then go out and mow the back forty, milk those dang cows. Tote that barge, lift that bale- get a little drunk you land in jail- Whew- this getting to the truth is hard work. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As the man said- many longs ago- "Democracy ain't perfect, but it's still the best damnm thing out there."

Except for Racquel Welch, uh, that last is just my opinion. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leep out:

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

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

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 07:04 PM
Hornet. If you are in future going to dispute what I say, then please provide reference material, otherwise you can't bring any weight to this debate.

Ta.

<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 07:07 PM
Leep wrote:

-
- As the man said- many longs ago- "Democracy ain't
- perfect, but it's still the best damnm thing out
- there."
-
-
- Except for Racquel Welch, uh, that last is just my
- opinion.

Racquel Welch was looking pretty worn out the last time I saw her.

Hey! Look at the Terminator!

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/jul2003/6/2/00023B0B-B036-1F1B-AC3180BFB6FA0000.jpg



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, 07:28 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- Let me get this straight MNG, V3 you guys want to get
- the truth and you read The New York Times? Got any other
- jokes you can tell us?
-
- Simple fact is you people cant handle the truth.

Actually, I usually obtain my information from over two dozen or so websites, newspapers, cable news channels, and scholarly journals. Some of which are liberal, but some that are in fact also very conservative by nature such as the National Review, Washington Times, the American Spectator, and your favorite Fox News.

Anyway, Hornet my advice to you is to do the same as I because this way you will finally establish some sort of objective view on matters for once in your life, and maybe even be able to "handle the truth" while you are at it. After all, you don't want to remain a Fox News watching couch potato the rest of your life do you?

Message Edited on 07/28/0302:38PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 10:34 PM
I just want to say something to all you knuckleheads out there......and you know who you are, You can read until your brains pop out of your heads, but unless you take a real close look at reality,the fact that Saddam and his regiem where and are evil there is nothing you can show me to prove otherwise. And if you agree that they are evil then what are we arguing about. Joe you want me to give you something concrete? what is your concrete evidence?
The world knows what saddam was and what he had. Like I said before unless you searched every square inch of Iraqi land you dont know Jack.....
V3, thanks for the advise but I rather depend on my common sence. It has taken me pretty far in life, despite my bad spelling and grammar. The reason I dont rely on Newspaper reports is that Jurnalism is gone down the tubes. Eveyone has an agenda and right now that agenda is to take down Bush no matter what the cost. And that is a shame.

<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, 11:08 PM
Wow MNG, I had no idea that Raquel had falled into such a state of disrepair. And she was so beautiful once. I luvveedd her. (What, are you sure, oh now you tell me) Ah, my friend here just informed me that is a picture of Arnold, and not Raquel, wheeewww. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leep Out:

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

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:27 PM
Poor Arnold....That's what happens to you when you marry a Democrat /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.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
07-28-2003, 11:40 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
- Hornet. If you are in future going to dispute what I
- say, then please provide reference material,
- otherwise you can't bring any weight to this debate.

Come on Joe, haven't you realized by now that Hornet's "reference material" is always his common sense? Yeah, that coupled with a good amount of Fox News and he can provide an impartial analysis on just about any political issue out there.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 12:33 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
- Poor Arnold....That's what happens to you when you
- marry a Democrat

LOL! Pretty funny Hornet.

BTW It's common senSe! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.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
07-29-2003, 01:31 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
-- Poor Arnold....That's what happens to you when you
-- marry a Democrat
-
- LOL! Pretty funny Hornet.
-
- BTW It's common senSe! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
-
- MNG, it does'nt matter how you spell common senSe.....because you don't have any/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
07-29-2003, 07:42 AM
hornet i am with you on this

ppl running around saying george bush mislead the world and ousted a cute fuzzy lil inocent brutal dictator.

and what did he mislead anyone on?

wmd's??: sooooo Unka Saddam needed all those nuke, chem, and bio scientist for what? making cookies?

he did previously buy uranium from Niger and is speculated to have tried again (the brits stand by their intel /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )

Letme guess those long rang missles he was working on....Doh thats right they found them with big piles of fertilizer and other "farming chemicals" pesticides and whatnot...still have yet to find a person tell me how you bomb yourself a nice crop of corn.

Hey what about that enriched uranium they stopped in a turkish taxi....his fare was to iraq....gee golly howd dat get there??

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Look I like a good mud slinging but get real saddam was making weps o mass boom. while the actual stockpile may be in a big hole in the sand somewhere it will eventually show up.

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
07-29-2003, 07:44 AM
I thought knucklehead was a term used to describe an uneducated thug?

I didn't ask for concrete evidence hornet, I asked for reference sources. Petty insults, sweeping generalisations and inferrals that I hate someone I've never met are not reference sources.

Until you can provide me with some research aside from your own opinion and the good old fashioned "everyone knows", this isn't a debate, just an expression of contrary standpoints.

<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:52 AM
casauboneco wrote:
- the brits stand by their intel

Ummm...

Not really, a Commons Select Comittee has been investigating several issues in relation to the UK going to war. One of those is what is now seen by many as the deficient intel which led to us going to war.

How do I know this? I'm living in the British capital.


<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 09:38 AM
While I doubt that anyone on the forum exactly mourns for the loss of Saddam's sons and are equally upset that he is out of his Presidential Palaces and on the run, they are concerned about the techniques used in going about their removal. While it's far from being a new technique the idea of preying on a groups fears in order to exagerate information that is complete facts (worst case rumors) has been used for years in all levels of politics throughout the world, it does seem considerably worse when used to justify certain things. Such as legislation limiting/changing the rights of certain citizens, dramatic changes to laws and statutes regarding how a nation is run or to start a war. Especially since similar techniques have been used in the past to create and sustain some of the most brutal governments/dictatorships the world has seen. While I'm not attempting to call Bush a dictator or anything like it. All it takes are subtle changes to how a nation runs itself domestically and how it conducts itself internationally in determining whether or not the nation the nation will have a bright future or one at all in certain extreme cases.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:02 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
- I thought knucklehead was a term used to describe an
- uneducated thug?

No knucklehead is another word for moron.....but I did'nt mention any names now did I? I just said you know who you are./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- I didn't ask for concrete evidence hornet, I asked
- for reference sources.

Well Joe, since most reference sources I feel are biased (and they are) I tend to go by my own gut feel, which has gotten me pretty good results in my 46 years on planet earth. Both sides of the argument agree that Saddam was evil (no dispute there) We know what he had (we sold it to him remember) but he has no documantation of what happened to it. We also know that he keeps many documents, since we are finding them at various raids of saddam loyalists homes. The money he stole from his people. But unless we find those WMD's the war is not justified? BS

Petty insults, sweeping
- generalisations and inferrals that I hate someone
- I've never met are not reference sources.

I never said they were.
-
- Until you can provide me with some research aside
- from your own opinion and the good old fashioned
- "everyone knows", this isn't a debate, just an
- expression of contrary standpoints.

When I said everyone knows I meant everyone that is open minded know that Saddam is a very bad apple. Some choose to defend him regardless, which to me means some are politialy blinded and dont care to look at facts that would make their political oposition look good.
The UN obviously believed Saddam had something to hide, and they where willing to give him more time. Now everyone wants to find the WMD pronto, or else it was all a lie.
Please excuse me for not wasting time looking for refrenses and doing research on the Internet since we are talking about Saddam here.


<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, 03:10 PM
casauboneco wrote:
-
- wmd's??: sooooo Unka Saddam needed all those nuke,
- chem, and bio scientist for what? making cookies?

Yes you are quite right. Saddam should have immediately expelled those Iraqi citizens from Iraq.
-
- he did previously buy uranium from Niger and is
- speculated to have tried again (the brits stand by
- their intel

No Tony "Tell us another" Blair stands by it. The experts who investigated it (The IAEA) say it's bollocks.


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, 05:36 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- But unless we find those WMD's the war is not justified?

Yes, unless we locate the alleged WMD Saddam is suspected of having the justification given for the war will not be proven, and the military operation's primary objective will not be met. There is simply no way in the world the American people would of allowed this administration to send over 200,000 troops to the Middle East in order to simply free the Iraqi people. Their liberation was just a by-product of taking out a perceived imminent threat, which in the end wasn't so imminent to begin with.

Furthermore Hornet, I'm really astonished by the minimal importance you and your conservative friends now place on finding these alleged weapons of mass destruction. I mean wasn't one of the main concerns of this current administration that WMD could possibly fall into the hands of various terrorist organizations? Well, if they can't prove these weapons were destroyed or even existed at all, then there really is no way to verify that such items aren't in the possession of radicals is there?

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:52 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Hornet57 wrote:
-
-- But unless we find those WMD's the war is not justified?
-
- Yes, unless we locate the alleged WMD Saddam is
- suspected of having the justification given for the
- war will not be proven, and the military operation's
- primary objective will not be met. There is simply
- no way in the world the American people would of
- allowed this administration to send over 200,000
- troops to the Middle East in order to simply free
- the Iraqi people. Their liberation was just a
- by-product of taking out a perceived imminent
- threat, which in the end wasn't so imminent to begin
- with.

Why not stop for a second and take a look at the overall picture here. Most American people understand how untrustworthy Saddam was, they know and have experienced his constant lying, we know he used chemicals to kill his own people we know how he tortured people we know all that. Saddam can not be trusted by any sensible person. Therefore, although WMD will mainly serve as further obvious proof that they existed to people like yourself, and MNG but I am sure you and MNG armed with some "well" researched Liberal report will find something wrong with what ever we find. But the whole picture V3 is the result of a democratic Iraq. There will be benefits for everyone in the world.

Main point....Saddam had to be stopped now one way or another. He chose to fight just like his two idiot sons.



<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, 06:03 PM
Hornet57 wrote:


- Why not stop for a second and take a look at the
- overall picture here. Most American people
- understand how untrustworthy Saddam was, they know
- and have experienced his constant lying, we know he
- used chemicals to kill his own people we know how he
- tortured people we know all that. Saddam can not be
- trusted by any sensible person. Therefore, although
- WMD will mainly serve as further obvious proof that
- they existed to people like yourself, and MNG but I
- am sure you and MNG armed with some "well"
- researched Liberal report will find something wrong
- with what ever we find. But the whole picture V3 is
- the result of a democratic Iraq. There will be
- benefits for everyone in the world.
-

There are some problems with what you are saying Hornet. Mainly, its the facts that get in the way. Saddam used chemicals not on his own people but on the Kurds. He did also slaughter a bunch of his own people in the 91 uprising but consider that both of these events were to put down insurrections. What do you think Bush would do if 200,000 people in Texas started an armed insurrection?

Further, can we lecture Saddam on human rights? America killed three million people in Indo-China during the Sixties and Seventies, but nobody suggested hunting LBJ or Nixon down to a villa and demolishing the building with missiles. Also, the US used chemical weapons on the Vietnamese /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW You should know - Blair is a liberal /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
07-29-2003, 06:13 PM
You can continue with your "we'll eventually find them" attitude Hornet, but until such assertions become reality, the war in the eyes of many will remain as nothing more then an aggression by one nation upon another.

Main point: liberating Iraqi citizens and the potential democratization of their nation wasn't the rationale given by the current Bush administration to preemptively attack Saddam's regime and occupy a country.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 06:28 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- BTW You should know - Blair is a liberal

Yes, and he is running for President in 2004 (see link below).

http://www.blair2004.com/

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 06:44 PM
Regardless of the rationale given by the administration, and I too share some of the concerns you all do- I was never convinced that Bush had "Any' reliable information tha Sadamm had nuclear capabilities. In fact when he started all this, I thought to myself, does he really think we are all idiots out here? But, having said that, i do not care one iota that we are there getting rid of that murderingregime.
I wish he just would havesaid- "we think he may have them, we know he has chemical and biological weapons, and has used them. So- I have made the decision, since he has flaunted and broken every agreement he made in the first Gulf War, that it is time to make an example out of this murdering butcher. Now, that i would have applauded.
I hate war, it kills too many innocents. But, sometimes it is necessary to cleanse a particular area of a particular evil-or if you prefer, just a really miserable human being, and -or- regime.

We are losing good men and women in this war- conflict- difference of opinion, whatever you care to assign to it.
But no intelligent, free thinking man, or woman, in my opinion, can disagree that the world, the country of Iraq and even the universe, is not a better , safer place since this started. i do believe also, that there is more, much more to come, and I also believe thet our president and everyone around him has learned a valuable lesson here and will incorporate this new found intelligence in the next one.
Things are going to get a lot worse before they are going to get better, gentlemen. And, while I welcome this discourse from all sides, when it comes right down to it, there will come a time when we- all of us, regardleaa of our views or political affliations-will have to stand together and show a united front to the rest of the world, because it's going to us against them.
So- there it is- kick it around and think about this:

If and when this takes a more critical turn for the worse- we will come together.

Ok- kinda old but as true as it ever was. And I probably have it a little wrong, but the gist is here.

" We must hang together or we will surely hang separately."
I know that's not quite right, someone out there search your memory and post the right quote-please?

Leep Out:

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

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:45 PM
The US and UK pretty have drawn their line in the sand. As things might not being going great and the level of criticism is high foreign and domestic. I'd see things getting a lot worse if either nation decided to give up. Even worse is that it'll just add to the "they start but don't finish" attitude much of the world already harbors towards both nations.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 08:06 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- There are some problems with what you are saying
- Hornet. Mainly, its the facts that get in the way.
- Saddam used chemicals not on his own people but on
- the Kurds. He did also slaughter a bunch of his own
- people in the 91 uprising but consider that both of
- these events were to put down insurrections. What
- do you think Bush would do if 200,000 people in
- Texas started an armed insurrection?

Besides that there would never be a reason for 200,000 Americans uprising because simply Bush is not a dictator.
He is a decent man doing a decent job or at least trying to.

-
- Further, can we lecture Saddam on human rights?
- America killed three million people in Indo-China
- during the Sixties and Seventies, but nobody
- suggested hunting LBJ or Nixon down to a villa and
- demolishing the building with missiles. Also, the
- US used chemical weapons on the Vietnamese /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

How many Germans did we kill....shoudld our Leader be executed for that also?
-
- BTW You should know - Blair is a liberal /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-
- Ok he is a Liberal with sanity /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
07-29-2003, 08:12 PM
Leep wrote:
-

Thanks Leep you expressed my exact feelings, only with better spelling and grammar. You hit the target between the eyes /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
07-29-2003, 08:15 PM
V3-Dev wrote:

-- BTW You should know - Blair is a liberal
-
- Yes, and he is running for President in 2004 (see
- link below).

Great maybe he can show some sense to our Liberals here.



<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, 08:32 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
- When I said everyone knows I meant everyone that is
- open minded know that Saddam is a very bad apple.
- Some choose to defend him regardless, which to me
- means some are politialy blinded and dont care to
- look at facts that would make their political
- oposition look good.
- The UN obviously believed Saddam had something to
- hide, and they where willing to give him more time.
- Now everyone wants to find the WMD pronto, or else
- it was all a lie.
- Please excuse me for not wasting time looking for
- refrenses and doing research on the Internet since
- we are talking about Saddam here.

Right then, let's go through this.

1. I do not support Saddam.
2. I am open minded; I'm willing to entertain the possibility that Bush and Blair are/were right
3. The UN suspected; and wanted to investigate further. Bush blocked their investigation.
4. No, you are not excused. Please stop passing your incredibly biased opinion as fact. Gut feelings are not admissible to debate.


<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:21 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
-
- Right then, let's go through this.
-
- 1. I do not support Saddam.

You could have fooled me.

- 2. I am open minded; I'm willing to entertain the
- possibility that Bush and Blair are/were right

Ok when are you going to start entertaining the Possibility that Bush and Blair are/were right?

- 3. The UN suspected; and wanted to investigate
- further. Bush blocked their investigation.

How do you investigate with out full cooperation from the person you are investigating?

- 4. No, you are not excused. Please stop passing your
- incredibly biased opinion as fact. Gut feelings are
- not admissible to debate.

Debating Saddam's innocence is just plain dumb. And BTW if you don't support him stop debating on his side. You cant say this war is unjustified and at the same time you say you dont support saddam, it dont make any sense....but then again I am not really surprised.
-
-
-
-

<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, 01:55 AM
Ooooh, I can smell the hostility!!!

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

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

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:03 AM
durdd wrote:
- Ooooh, I can smell the hostility!!!


Perhaps all you are smelling is that tounge hanging under your nose?

"Brave Rifles!"

- Matt
"The spirit of the Cav is reason enough to fight!"

http://www.angelfire.com/vamp/guidon666/images/BR.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:08 AM
You mean Tongue??

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

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

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:10 AM
durdd wrote:
- You mean Tongue??


Yep. Wasnt my spelling.... it was my lack of typing.

"Brave Rifles!"

- Matt
"The spirit of the Cav is reason enough to fight!"

http://www.angelfire.com/vamp/guidon666/images/BR.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:11 AM
Nice, Niiiiice.

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

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

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 03:38 AM
Hmmm I smell spam.


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, 05:54 AM
Smell Spam-Man that guy is in every post and responsible for at least 25% of every response. Went from "Who is this" to Follower Of The Boards in like 6 days?
Sheesh. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Leep Out:

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

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 03:04 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Hmmm I smell spam.
-
-
-Time for a shower /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-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.

Message Edited on 08/01/0311:02AM by Hornet57

XyZspineZyX
08-05-2003, 05:37 PM
Hey Hornet, here's one for you. Explain this gem from the Dubya:

'During a news briefing with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the President stated, "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to let the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations . . . ." '

Now answer me this. Is he insane? Or just a liar? And why don't the American people care. Isn't that disturbing?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4361.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
08-05-2003, 05:46 PM
The American people don't care because the vast majority believe whatever CNN/MSNBC/FOXNews tells them. These news sources are so obviously influenced by the government that even a lobotomized monkey could see it. Also, I'd like to add that CNN news coverage makes me want to vomit.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 02:41 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- The American people don't care because the vast
- majority believe whatever CNN/MSNBC/FOXNews tells
- them. These news sources are so obviously
- influenced by the government that even a lobotomized
- monkey could see it. Also, I'd like to add that CNN
- news coverage makes me want to vomit.

Agreed. And what is really concerning is how this bold-faced lie passed by the media without so much as a whimper.

Arachnid and Leep, if you are watching, this is an example of what I am talking about.


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, 08:50 PM
The latest numbers:

13 Aug 2003 18:40:38 GMT
FACTBOX-Table of casualties in Iraq

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

(Adds latest reported deaths and revised U.S. tolls)

LONDON, Aug 13 (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded on Wednesday when their armoured personnel carrier drove over an improvised mine, the third deadly bomb attack on U.S. forces in Iraq in 24 hours.

On Tuesday, two U.S. soldiers were killed when their convoys were attacked by improvised explosives in Ramadi, a restive Sunni Muslim town west of Baghdad, and near the town of Taji just north of the capital.

Centcom also said one soldier from 101st Airborne Division was killed and a civilian interpreter injured when their vehicle was hit by a taxi on August 12.

Following is a table of U.S., British and Iraqi casualties in the Iraq war and its aftermath as announced by U.S., British and Iraqi authorities or independently confirmed by Reuters correspondents.

The revised U.S. tolls are based on new figures provided by the Pentagon on August 13.

NOTE: The figures in brackets refer to casualties after May 1, when U.S. President George W. Bush declared major combat over.

U.S. AND BRITISH TROOPS KILLED:

COMBAT/ATTACKS

United States 174 (59)

Britain 14 (6)

NON-COMBAT

United States 93 (71)

Britain 29 (4)

IRAQIS KILLED:

MILITARY 2,320#

CIVILIANS Between 6,087 and 7,798*

# = U.S. military estimates relating only to fighting in or near Baghdad. No other figures available.

* = Figure compiled on Web site www.iraqbodycount.net, (http://www.iraqbodycount.net,) run by academics and peace activists, based on incidents reported by at least two media sources.

NOTE: NON-COMBAT is defined as accidents, U.S. or British fire killing or wounding their own troops, and other incidents unrelated to fighting.


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, 09:02 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Hey Hornet, here's one for you. Explain this gem
- from the Dubya:
-
- 'During a news briefing with UN Secretary General
- Kofi Annan, the President stated, "The larger point
- is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam
- Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is,
- absolutely. And we gave him a chance to let the
- inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And,
- therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to
- remove him from power, along with other nations . .
- . ." '
-
- Now answer me this. Is he insane? Or just a liar?
- And why don't the American people care. Isn't that
- disturbing?
-
I was hoping by the time I come back....oh never mind.

To answer your question....neither his is right on the money. No if's and's or but's. Saddam Hussein did have a weapons program that is the larger point my friend. We did give him a chance to let the inspectors in to find them with no obstractions which we had plenty.

<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, 09:45 PM
Yeah, speaking of obstructions, as of right now the United States and its huge coalition (coughs) has had no such impediments whatsoever for the past four months, so when are these weapons you speak of going to be found Hornet? Claiming Iraq is a large country and we need more time to search only goes so far with the American people and the world at large. I bet ten years down the line you'll still probably be voicing the same nonsense like a broken old record.

By the way, for a minute there I thought you may have left these boards permanently to head on over to Iraq or something. I mean God knows Bremer's provisional authority could definitely use any help they can get with roughly one soldier a day dying; widespread electrical, water, food, and fuel shortages; Shia riots in the south; Saddam nowhere to be found; under funded reconstruction; sky-rocketing crime. The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the point.




Message Edited on 08/13/0304:46PM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 09:52 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- Hey Hornet, here's one for you. Explain this gem
-- from the Dubya:
--
-- 'During a news briefing with UN Secretary General
-- Kofi Annan, the President stated, "The larger point
-- is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam
-- Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is,
-- absolutely. And we gave him a chance to let the
-- inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And,
-- therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to
-- remove him from power, along with other nations . .
-- . ." '
--
-- Now answer me this. Is he insane? Or just a liar?
-- And why don't the American people care. Isn't that
-- disturbing?

-
- To answer your question....neither his is right on
- the money. No if's and's or but's. Saddam Hussein
- did have a weapons program that is the larger point
- my friend. We did give him a chance to let the
- inspectors in to find them with no obstractions
- which we had plenty.


Yay! Hornets back! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

You seem to be suffering from some temporal difficulties here my friend, and you only dealt with half the paragraph. Saddam DID have a weapons program - in the Eighties. But here Bush has completely lied. He just said that Saddam did not let the inspectors in. This is completely untrue - the inspectors were in the country right before the US invaded!!!

So I ask you again. Did Bush lie or is he insane?!!!


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, 10:15 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- So I ask you again. Did Bush lie or is he
- insane?!!!

Personally, I think he is both a liar and insane, but hey with people like Hornet blindly backing him, I am sure he'll pull the country out of its sorry state of affairs (rolls eyes).

By the way MNG, did you hear the RNC announced today that it is changing the Republican emblem from an elephant to a condom because it more clearly reflects the Party's political stance:

A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, stifles the next generation, protects a bunch of ******, and gives one a sense of security while screwing others.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 01:02 AM
Where the heck was this and the other post for the last week???

A Liar, you say? You have no information to back up that statement, V3. I'm not saying he is or isn't , just we have no proof. Insane?? Well, I have to tale issue with that statement. Though, you do have to view the world a little differently to even want a job in politics. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I kinda like the last part there, pretty funny.
Now, for what upsets me to no end. we have all the military might in the world, and the best trained troops. why the he... can't we send out some night patrols with night vision to catch these maggots who are sneaking out and setting bombs on the roads.? I mean, they know they are going to be on the roads, so patrol the dang roads, at least up to the point you expect to travel the next day.

Man:

Glad this is back- I was so bored. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Leep Out:

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

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 02:26 AM
Leep, in my opinion exaggerating or hyping up pre-war intelligence (especially the false nuclear claims) in order to portray Saddam as an imminent threat is simply lying. How much more obvious does it have to be?

I mean after arguably the most single lopsided victory in modern warfare, we have learned that there was no WMD deployed to Iraqi forces as our intelligence claimed. No imaginary red line surrounding Baghdad as our intelligence claimed. No WMD manufacturing facilities as our intelligence claimed.

To top it all off, now that the administration can't find anything, they are putting forth the notion that the weapons may have been destroyed prior to the war. Matter of fact, the hunt for actual WMD has now taken a back seat to the search for evidence (documents) that could be used to bolster the argument Saddam was going to reconstitute banned weapon programs ten years down the line.

Anyway, I could go on and on Leep, but it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the only thing Saddam was a threat to was his own people. His dilapidated shell of an army did not have the means to threaten us here at home, let alone any of his neighbors, including tiny Kuwait who since the first Gulf War had developed a far superior military in comparison to Baathist Iraq.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:14 AM
You know, as this drags on and on, I have the tendency toagree with some of your assertions. But, and this bears consideration, all your assertions could be just as wrong. Give it time, man, give it time. As the old saying goes, "Truth will out"

As thin as their claims that Iraq had WMD's may be, we have to look at what they consider WMD's.

Can we be content with justthe knowledge that they did indeed possess biological and chemical weapons that, yes, would fall under that umbrella. or, as many feel, do we need proof that they did indeed have the beginnings of nuclear capabilities? And, how important is that distinction now that we are in it up to our collective eyeballs?
I have stated earlier, much earlier, that I too never believed him a threat to us, or anyone else for that matter.
Just his own people: And, in my opinion, that was justification enough to go there and dethrone him> I just wish that they had been upfront and said that. What would have been wrong with telling us that, "We believe he has a nuclear program up and running. We know he has chemical and biological weapons, and we feel that he "Must" be removed because he is a butcher and murders men , women, and children."
That would have satisfied me, and millions of others, I believe.

But, much of this is now moot, we are there and we are in it up to oue eyes and we have to finish it. If we do not, we will lose any credibility with those that hate us and want us dead. And, they will be emboldened beyond belief, because this culture and the people understand only one thing, power. Since they first trod those burning sands they have been at war with other countries and amongst themselves.

The yardstick we measure "Civilized" people with cannot be used with the same confidence with them. They operate on a level that is current only with biblical days. I assure you that the New Testement was not a best seller over there and force was all they ever respected, and little has changed in all those centuries.
So, I ask you, V3, MNG: What do we do now?

We have little choice in the matter, now. we have to either win outright, or find a way to bring others in from the UN to aid us in this,,and then win, or we have made a very grave error indeed on the world stage.

Whether we like it or not, we have been forced to look at the big picture here. Our very existence may be at stake, at least the one we have become accustomed to all these years.

It is well and good what we do here, but now we have to take a more serious look at what is happening and what is to happen still.

The world is changing, rapidly, and i am unsure if we even have the capacity to recognize even that much, let alone what it will now take to "Fix" things.

Thinhs are going to get worse, much worse, long before they are going to get better.

The time will come, I believe, when we are all going to engage in a little one on one with our Maker, and that may be sooner than we think.

Or,we might wake up tomorrow and find it has resolved itself. Iwouldn't want to pass those odds on down to the bookmakers in Vegas anytime soon, though.

Take care:

Leep Out:

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

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:42 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
--
-- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--- Hey Hornet, here's one for you. Explain this gem
--- from the Dubya:
---
--- 'During a news briefing with UN Secretary General
--- Kofi Annan, the President stated, "The larger point
--- is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam
--- Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is,
--- absolutely. And we gave him a chance to let the
--- inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And,
--- therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to
--- remove him from power, along with other nations . .
--- . ." '
---
--- Now answer me this. Is he insane? Or just a liar?
--- And why don't the American people care. Isn't that
--- disturbing?
-
--
-- To answer your question....neither his is right on
-- the money. No if's and's or but's. Saddam Hussein
-- did have a weapons program that is the larger point
-- my friend. We did give him a chance to let the
-- inspectors in to find them with no obstractions
-- which we had plenty.
-
-
- Yay! Hornets back! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- You seem to be suffering from some temporal
- difficulties here my friend, and you only dealt with
- half the paragraph. Saddam DID have a weapons
- program - in the Eighties. But here Bush has
- completely lied. He just said that Saddam did not
- let the inspectors in. This is completely untrue -
- the inspectors were in the country right before the
- US invaded!!!
-
- So I ask you again. Did Bush lie or is he
- insane?!!!
-
-
- Ok MNG one more time just for you. Since we all know that he let the inspectors in we also know for a FACT that he had his people following and making sure they are not looking in the right direction (if you get my drift) you know bugging Inspector's hotel rooms and that sort of thing.
BTW we did find traces of his weapons program

V3 I see you still have no patience. I can't do anything about that though, we just have to wait.
As far as our soldiers getting killed. My opinion is to start doing some much needed *** kicking.

<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
08-14-2003, 10:52 AM
V3-Dev wrote:


- I am sure he'll pull the country out of its sorry
- state of affairs (rolls eyes).

Ok now you can see the light on the end of this tunnel /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- By the way MNG, did you hear the RNC announced today
- that it is changing the Republican emblem from an
- elephant to a condom because it more clearly
- reflects the Party's political stance:
-
- A condom stands up to inflation, halts production,
- stifles the next generation, protects a bunch of
- ******, and gives one a sense of security while
- screwing others.

Yeah and the Democratic party are changing their party's amblem to a tube of KY jelly so their followers wont feel the pain when they are getting....well you know what they are getting. After all look at all those needy families how well off they were when the Democrats where in charge.
-



<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
08-14-2003, 12:23 PM
I agree Leep. I have previously stated that I'm a realist, and I acknowledge that whatever my reservations may have been prior to the war, we are there now and the US must stay the course in Iraq. Not really because of us losing our credibility (it has already been lost in my opinion), but because it would be an utter tragedy to fail the Iraqis at this point.

Furthermore, as many people have repeatedly stated, this administration really needs to swallow their pride and internationalize the situation within Iraq. It has become very clear for months now that our force composition there is not able to handle the security dilemma, let alone the reconstruction itself for which U.N. organizations have much more experience.

Oddly enough, yesterday the President abandoned any idea of giving the U.N. a broader role in Iraq, a role which would have opened up the flood gates for tens of thousands of peacekeepers, as well as many non-profit organizations more familiar with rebuilding societies in contrast to the private corporations the US is utilizing now.

Anyway, everyday that goes by the administration appears to be playing a deadly game of incrementalism. They are barely getting by in Iraq. Our forces are stretched too thin, and for an operation of this scope the funds are inadequate. Simply put, why sit there hoping to unilaterally secure the pledge of foreign troops and aid (while our troops keep dying) when a U.N. resolution will promptly bring about both of those things and more?

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 01:27 PM
V3-Dev wrote:

when a U.N. resolution will
- promptly bring about both of those things and more?

For example the 12 resolutions that brought Saddam to his knees?

You're a realist, why don't you get real 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
08-14-2003, 02:18 PM
Leave it to you Hornet to provide us with a very poor generalization for a very dire situation. Maybe if you were the one actually getting shot at everyday in Iraq like our service men and women, or had inadequate food, water, and basic services like most Iraqis, you'd place more value on the importance of internationalizing the situation in Iraq with the help of the U.N.

I mean they are without a doubt the only organization that can mobilize the kind of peacekeeping and humanitarian components that are in extreme need of at this point in time. To say otherwise would be utter nonsense on your behalf, and a disservice to our troops who are struggling on a daily basis to cope with immense task which lies before them.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 02:58 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- Well Joe, since most reference sources I feel are
- biased (and they are) I tend to go by my own gut
- feel, which has gotten me pretty good results in my
- 46 years on planet earth. Both sides of the argument
- agree that Saddam was evil (no dispute there) We
- know what he had (we sold it to him remember) but he
- has no documantation of what happened to it. We also
- know that he keeps many documents, since we are
- finding them at various raids of saddam loyalists
- homes. The money he stole from his people. But
- unless we find those WMD's the war is not justified?
- BS

Um, if the only goal was to get rid of Saddam, the best way of doing it would've been to just take him to a war crimes tribunal. He would obviously have been guilty of violating the Geneva Convention case closed.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 04:58 PM
Leep wrote:
- Where the heck was this and the other post for the
- last week???
-
- A Liar, you say? You have no information to back
- up that statement, V3.

Leep that statement is fast becoming your catchphrase. But as for information to back it up - Bush said that Saddam Hussein would not allow inspectors back in the country. That is completely untrue. How do you explain that?



BTW V3 very funny!


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, 05:25 PM
Hey Hornet, are you going to join the war against terrorism?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/join_bw_letter.jpg





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, 06:32 PM
I would hardly call using a phrase once or twice a 'Catch Phrase, MNG: Still. it does serve it's purpose in a succinct manner, don't you think? And, still needs an answer, not a deflection. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

V3- I cannot argue with many of your points except for the UN view. Bush does not want the UN to be involved because they want to come in and take a larger part in this than Bush thinks he should. It is like the old story about the Little Red Hen who asked the frog, and hmm, a couple other characters who wants to help plow, "not I" was the answer from all concerned So the Little Red Hen plowed the field herself. "Who will help me plant the wheat?" Again all substained. And then it was time to reap the wheat, no help there either. "Who will help grind the wheat," well none could be bothered there with that phase. And finally, "Who will help me bake the bread?" No one came forward to provide any assistance.
Now, "Who would like to help me eat the bread?"

The U.N. said eagerly, "I will, I will." Whereupon the Little Red Hen told them to all take a Flying Leap, (Now where have I heard that before? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) er I mean the Frog and the rest of them, dang that's an old fairy tale. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif And there's nothing worse than an old fairy that tells tales, specially French Fairies. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leep Out:



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

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:28 PM
That argument would be great Leep if it weren't for the fact the US successfully got the U.N. to lift sanctions against Iraq after the war, in addition to issuing a resolution legitimizing the United States and British occupation of Iraq. Even as we speak the US is seeking a resolution that acknowledges the Iraqi governing council they have installed in Baghdad, and once again the U.N. is going to acquiesce.

You see what I'm saying is the US has no problem going to the U.N. to further its ambitions, but when it comes to sharing the burden of the enormous task in Iraq and keeping sole control of that nation they take issue with the world body. Let's not forget how this administration sought out the U.N. for several months in order to get that stamp of approval for the war, but when it comes to making the peace in Iraq they shun the one organization that is more experienced then any in doing just that.

This policy my friend runs totally counter to what is best for the Iraqis at the moment, which is internationalizing the face of the occupation as well as getting in the global agencies who are best equipped in dealing with a humanitarian situation of this magnitude. I mean overall I find the story of the "Little Red Hen" cute Leep, but it gives the impression that you and this administration are more worried about the spoils of war as opposed to improving the appalling situation within Iraq at the moment.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:33 PM
[b]*Opens door so everyone can see me in kevlar and a turbine. Screams with a middle eastern accent, "Americans can rot in hell. Praise Allah!" and runs away.*

_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/yanyan.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:40 PM
Sorry but I don't really find the humor in your comments above. Care to enlighten me? Also, for your own future reference it is spelled "turban" not "turbine".

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:42 PM
Ah, yes. There it is, the offended good-hearted person.

_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/yanyan.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:45 PM
I'm already doing that MNG, in spirit /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . Unless they start to enlist 46 year old men in the military that is the best I can do. When I came to the US in 69 I was twelve and wanted to enlist in the military as soon as I learned to speak english but was still too young. That was during the Vietnam war BTW. I am ready to defend this country anytime they need me or want me I do have a family and I will go. I will go fight for my country because I will be securing my daughters future. But its no sense talking because we all know that it is not possible at my age.

Are you going to join Saddam's secret army? they dont care who they get they just need bodies. And sinse its such an unjust occupation and you are so against unjustified occupantions you should go help. No? Take V3 with you

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

The beatings will stop when morals improve.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:47 PM
Pfft. Heha, you should see southern Philipines. We be bustin' Muslim cap!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/yanyan.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:49 PM
durdd wrote:

- Ah, yes. There it is, the offended good-hearted
- person.

I never claimed that I was offended by anything. I simply stated that I failed to find any humor in what you said, hence the reason why I stated "care to enlighten me".

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:52 PM
Ah... eh.. oops. No, humor. Just showing that that if I were a terrorist (Hell, I prolly am/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ), watcha gonna do about it? eh? huh? HUH? <font size=16>EH?</font>

_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/yanyan.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:57 PM
V3-Dev wrote:

Maybe if you were the one actually getting shot at
- everyday in Iraq like our service men and women, or
- had inadequate food, water, and basic services like
- most Iraqis, you'd place more value on the
- importance of internationalizing the situation in
- Iraq with the help of the U.N.

Hey V3 maybe if the U.N had the guts to do uphold all those resolutions and help bring all those gutless countries to go against Saddam there would be no need for all the crap that is going on now. That my friend is reality.

On the other hand all those brave men and women are there because they enlisted by their own free will. Nobody likes to be shot at especially me, but they are there to do a job .

- I mean they are without a doubt the only
- organization that can mobilize the kind of
- peacekeeping and humanitarian components that are in
- extreme need of at this point in time. To say
- otherwise would be utter nonsense on your behalf,
- and a disservice to our troops who are struggling on
- a daily basis to cope with immense task which lies
- before them.

If that is true why not send them in under US command?

BTW, just because they'll be wearing blue helmets dont mean they wont be shot at.


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

The beatings will stop when morals improve.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:31 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Hey V3 maybe if the U.N had the guts to do uphold
- all those resolutions and help bring all those
- gutless countries to go against Saddam there would
- be no need for all the crap that is going on now.
- That my friend is reality.

The U.N. is a collective body Hornet. Its job is not to coerce member nations into pursuing one policy or another. If one country disagrees with the policy of another it is within their right to object just as it is normal for them to find common ground and pass a resolution as they've done on numerous occasions, including the more recent one numbered 1444 which the US requested and got in order to justify in their minds the military intervention in Iraq.

- On the other hand all those brave men and women are
- there because they enlisted by their own free will.
- Nobody likes to be shot at especially me, but they
- are there to do a job .

Yeah, the problem is however that the job you speak of is proving more and more difficult, and the bulk of our forces were not properly trained in order to fulfill the peacekeeping and reconstruction role it has been handed.

- If that is true why not send them in under US
- command?

The fact is Hornet, not many countries favor placing their armed forces under the sole command of any single nation. A U.N. mandate provides an umbrella that many countries can place their forces under to offset discontent towards the occupation of Iraq within their own countries. A perfect example is the cases of Pakistan and India. Two countries who's governments were not overwhelmingly against the war in contrast to their populace, and are presently more then willing to send thousands of soldiers to assist us in Iraq as long as they are part of a true international coalition.

- BTW, just because they'll be wearing blue helmets
- dont mean they wont be shot at.

Thank you for stating the obvious. However, the likelihood of such acts of violence will surely be diminished with the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers. Remember, besides the guerilla attacks that are occurring in Iraq, much of the animosity on behalf of your average Iraqi is directed towards the US who they see as an occupying force unable to provide the most basic of services. Putting an international face on the ground will not only help remedy the overall situation, but it will definitely lift a lot of the burden off the shoulders of our troops who are now struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:41 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- The beatings will stop when morals improve.

I believe that should be morale. I wouldn't be so picky only its in your sig.




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
08-15-2003, 02:27 AM
V3-Dev wrote:

-
- Thank you for stating the obvious. However, the
- likelihood of such acts of violence will surely be
- diminished with the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers.
- Remember, besides the guerilla attacks that are
- occurring in Iraq, much of the animosity on behalf
- of your average Iraqi is directed towards the US who
- they see as an occupying force unable to provide the
- most basic of services. Putting an international
- face on the ground will not only help remedy the
- overall situation, but it will definitely lift a lot
- of the burden off the shoulders of our troops who
- are now struggling to make ends meet on a daily
- basis.

And to make matters worse, they have just had their pay cut. Just what you need when you are halfway across the world being shot at.


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
08-15-2003, 03:41 AM
I'll be the first to admit that I'm way too lazy to read MNG's thread (Mainly, because I'm sick of reading MNG's 'sky is falling' threads) but whose troops are we referring to exactly (British?). I have a bunch of friends, and friends with relatives in the military (and probably some family but I don't talk to a lot of them very often) and they've all said morale is actually very high. Most of the Iraqi people will go out of their way to help out our troops and that it's helping to keep morale very high. One of my closest friend's uncle was involved in taking out Uday and Qusay, you guessed it, morale was high in his unit too. Let's face it, the media will always be able to find someone who doesn't like the way things are going.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:07 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- I believe that should be morale. I wouldn't be so
- picky only its in your sig.


I stand corrected.

Thank you MNG /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


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

The beatings will stop when morale improve.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:10 PM
Thoramir wrote:
- I'll be the first to admit that I'm way too lazy to
- read MNG's thread (Mainly, because I'm sick of
- reading MNG's 'sky is falling' threads) but whose
- troops are we referring to exactly (British?). I
- have a bunch of friends, and friends with relatives
- in the military (and probably some family but I
- don't talk to a lot of them very often) and they've
- all said morale is actually very high. Most of the
- Iraqi people will go out of their way to help out
- our troops and that it's helping to keep morale very
- high. One of my closest friend's uncle was involved
- in taking out Uday and Qusay, you guessed it, morale
- was high in his unit too. Let's face it, the media
- will always be able to find someone who doesn't like
- the way things are going.

How do they feel about having their pay cut?


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
08-15-2003, 02:27 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- The U.N. is a collective body Hornet. Its job is not
- to coerce member nations into pursuing one policy or
- another.

What is the reason for the resolutions then?
What is the point of drawing a line in the sand if you do nothing when its crossed?

If one country disagrees with the policy of
- another it is within their right to object

Then why you object when the US disagrees with the policy of another country/countries?


- Yeah, the problem is however that the job you speak
- of is proving more and more difficult, and the bulk
- of our forces were not properly trained in order to
- fulfill the peacekeeping and reconstruction role it
- has been handed.

Nobody can say how hard or easy a job would be or become.
What would you except of a tyrant to do when he sees that many countries are on his side even when everyone knows what scumbag he is?
So the fact is this war is more against Bush then it is against Saddam.

-- If that is true why not send them in under US
-- command?
-
- The fact is Hornet, not many countries favor placing
- their armed forces under the sole command of any
- single nation. A U.N. mandate provides an umbrella
- that many countries can place their forces under to
- offset discontent towards the occupation of Iraq
- within their own countries. A perfect example is the
- cases of Pakistan and India. Two countries who's
- governments were not overwhelmingly against the war
- in contrast to their populace, and are presently
- more then willing to send thousands of soldiers to
- assist us in Iraq as long as they are part of a true
- international coalition.

V3 the fact still remains that if the resolutions where truly upheld like they where suppose to there wouldn't have been a war to begin with.
-
- Thank you for stating the obvious. However, the
- likelihood of such acts of violence will surely be
- diminished with the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers.

How do you know that for a fact. The whole idea for these attacks are to regain control isn't it?
I dont believe just because the UN is involved the attacks will stop. Do you?

- Remember, besides the guerilla attacks that are
- occurring in Iraq, much of the animosity on behalf
- of your average Iraqi is directed towards the US who
- they see as an occupying force unable to provide the
- most basic of services.

Then the UN should come in and help provide those services while our troops go after those guerilla's more effectively.
but as you very well know the reason is political.

Putting an international
- face on the ground will not only help remedy the
- overall situation, but it will definitely lift a lot
- of the burden off the shoulders of our troops who
- are now struggling to make ends meet on a daily
- basis.

Yep, agreed.



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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:20 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- What is the reason for the resolutions then?
- What is the point of drawing a line in the sand if
- you do nothing when its crossed?

If that is your philosophy why doesn't the US reign in countries like Israel who have been in violation of U.N. resolutions for over fifty years? I mean if you are going to use that as a basis for your argument at least make sure there aren't any double standards involved.

- Then why you object when the US disagrees with the
- policy of another country/countries?

Because just like any country I am entitle to my own opinion, and in this particular case I simply don't agree with the rationale given by this administration to preemptively attack Iraq.

- V3 the fact still remains that if the resolutions
- where truly upheld like they where suppose to there
- wouldn't have been a war to begin with.

Like I said before, if the US is all about enforcing sanctions they should make such a policy uniform across the board. Meaning why not confront the other dozen or so countries who are currently violating U.N. resolutions?

- How do you know that for a fact. The whole idea for
- these attacks are to regain control isn't it?
- I dont believe just because the UN is involved the
- attacks will stop. Do you?

Hornet there will always be dead-enders from the old regime floating around Iraq willing to take shots at the US or anybody else for that matter. However, once the U.N. peacekeepers and affiliated agencies start taking care of the day to day tasks in the country, this will free up additional American soldiers in order to more actively seek out the entities which are perpetrating these acts of violence, hence diminishing the threat of future attacks. Furthermore, with a true international force in place, it will alleviate a lot of the tension your average Iraqi has towards the US, which it sees as an occupying power unable to provide the most basic of human services.

- Then the UN should come in and help provide those
- services while our troops go after those guerilla's
- more effectively.
- but as you very well know the reason is political.

The U.N. does not work that way. A mandate is needed to mobilize a peacekeeping contingent as well as the numerous non-profit groups which would accompany them. The only way such a mandate can occur is if the US puts forth a resolution requesting the assistance of the U.N. However, much to everybody's dismay (including the Iraqis) they have failed to take such action. So you see the ball is America's court, and hopefully they will come to their senses and reach out to the world community, if not for themselves at least for the Iraqis.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:21 PM
You know there's a certain irony when you consider that the US apparently can't keep the power on in Iraq or America...


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
08-15-2003, 04:28 PM
Yeah, we lose power here in the northeast for the first time in years and everybody has a fit, yet the Iraqis have such outages on a daily basis in addition to an inadequate supply of food and water.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:32 PM
yeah? guess what... so do many other countries, and because of their own laziness. So yeah, we have a right to throw a fit, because we work for our electricity, and we have certain standards that other lazy bastard countries don't. Cuba included, so don't think I'm trying to be prejudice to other countries without thinking about the implications for my own country of origin. They're a lazy bastard country as well, because of their situation, and that is the way other countries are also.

But you can go ahead and lower the bar of standards if you want, but AMERICANS, will not.

<font color="white"><table style="filter:glow[color=blue, strength=4)"><font size=1>"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"
- George Orwell</table><font color="white">
<font color="red">[/b]</u>[/i]</font size>
<marquee bgcolor="#000000"><font color="yellow"><font size=4>Now in the news................................Ubisoft loses sales due to poor customer service and falsly advertised "technical support".....................Ubisoft enemies grow %3.25 today.....................Newest patch for Raven Shield include a whopping 14 extra computer crashing bugs, with a bonus extra level that makes your computer explode and kill you.....................New patch available for download for Ubisoft's Raven Shield (patch 1.99999999b).....................New investigation concludes that Liberia broke into civil war because their president defended Ubisoft, and the citizens did not.....................Author Tom Clancy gets arrested today as he enters game company Ubisoft offices, and strikes a developer several times in the face before escorted out of the building by a SWAT team.....................Man wanted for murder takes hostages in Montana home; police say that the demands are that Ubisoft stops screwing customers over. The police abruptly stopped negotiating when they found out his demands, and sent in the SWAT team in fear that the demands were impossible.....................Ex-Police Chief Charles Moose tells reporters of why he didn't write about his lousy experiences with game company Ubisoft. Moose says he will have to write another book just about that................................Man in L.A. jumps off 7 storey building today. Suicide note tells of a sad story - the man was trying to get Raven Shield to work on his computers for 3 weeks straight with no technical support</marquee><font color="white">[/b]</u>[/i]</font size>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:53 PM
First off, I was speaking of Iraq specifically, a country that had no shortage of electricity prior to the war. Secondly, I live in New York City, and yes I am up upset with situation, but what else would one expect to happen when we're a superpower with a third-world power grid? I mean if we have certain standards as you say Ambassador they are apparently set very low considering the archaic nature of our energy infrastructure. Oh and for the record, much of the third world would have coped much better with such a power failure due to the fact far more services and business have back-up generators as a matter of course in stark contrast to us here in the states.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 06:54 PM
Speaking of powerless, that is a term that fits the U.N. like a glove. Sure they are falling in line now, they have little choice. That is how they operate. I say this knowing that you are aware that i do not give our Govt. a free pass on the reasons for us being there. But, ALL govts. do that to the masses. There is not a government on the face of the earth that will ever be comepletely honest with the people that live there.

The reasons are varied , but consistent from one country to another. The powers that be do not believe that the majority of the people really give a rats behind what we (they) do, and sadly, that is probably true. Another- they simply believe that they are so superior to the rest of us that we do not have the need to know, or would not "Get It' if they did share it with us. There is a lot of truth to this , also.

And, they are certain of this: That no matter what they do or say, regardless of how ridiculous or idiotic it may sound to some of us, or even the majority, So What?? There is so little chance or possibility that Anyone is going to be able to stir the masses to the degree needed to bring about change, and history bears this particular view out quite nicely, that they can usually go about their dark business with impunity.

Look at the huge scandal involving Enron and some of the other companies that fleeced millions of billions. I have been watching this rather closely, but it is difficult as there is little coverage now. but, the last i heard, there has been only two or three who have even gone to prison. Our attention span is woefully short.


Even the horror of 9/11 has lost it's ability to keep us focused enough to do what is necessary to insure that it does not occur again. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Now, our attention has been refocused on yet another problem that needs our immediate attention, Iraq.
So, here we are. Soon, it will be something else.

I am curious though, as to why none of those here who have been all too ready to take the U.S. to task for what is going on in Iraq has not floated this idea.

Does anyone think that the timing of the invasion, that has been characterized as so important, did not curiously deflect the ongoing anger at the big companies that defrauded so many investors, companies that held many in govt. as large investors? From the Pres> to the vice Pres.
to many Senators and members of the House? This was going to be a Huge election problem for many of those reigning in power. Millions of devastated investors, many of those senior citizens, the largest voting block in the nation, were going to cheerfully vote out anyone even remotely involved with those companies.

Do I really believe that our administration would wage war simply for that reason?? I do not, but you have to admit that it solves a myriad of problems that were looming on the horizon.
AS long as this war, and the war on terror is ongoing, it will almost insure that this administration will still be in power next election. And, I have to make that distinction between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. They are not necessarily one and the same. I believe that both are necessary and both closely related, just not necessarily as intertwined as they would have us believe,

Now, I still believe what we are doing is necessary, and that the world will be a safer place, and hopefully a better place.
But, as some have relentlessly pointed out, the powers that be, while not the demons they have been portrayed to be, are not always as truthful and forthcoming as they could or should be. I say, so what? It has always been so and it is our responsibility as citizens, of whatever country, to hold them accountable. And, sometimes we all do indeed have to choose the lesser of the 2- 10- 200 evils.

This is far from a perfect world. it is a world born into and steeped with sin. I can see Satan holding his sides as he sits and watches all this unfold, laughing all the way to tha bank.


And perhaps the Lord, as well, sitting and shaking his head, musing to his self, "Why the hell did I even bother"

"I should have known they wouldn't do any better this time around either" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Hmm, well perhaps not the last part. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Leep out:

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

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 06:54 PM
lol you've never lived in a 3rd world country have you?

anyways, but yeah the power grid went down. we're throwing a fuss when it does. As long as they have the thing running, that is a good enough standard for most. But in other countries, it is good enough that it goes out every once in a while, and that is their standard. All I'm saying is that AMERICANS have higher standards than to say "oh it's ok, you guys can shut it down anytime you want" like other countries do.

And where the heck do you get your facts that Iraq never had power problems before?

<font color="white"><table style="filter:glow[color=blue, strength=4)"><font size=1>"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"
- George Orwell</table><font color="white">
<font color="red">[/b]</u>[/i]</font size>
<marquee bgcolor="#000000"><font color="yellow"><font size=4>Now in the news................................Ubisoft loses sales due to poor customer service and falsly advertised "technical support".....................Ubisoft enemies grow %3.25 today.....................Newest patch for Raven Shield include a whopping 14 extra computer crashing bugs, with a bonus extra level that makes your computer explode and kill you.....................New patch available for download for Ubisoft's Raven Shield (patch 1.99999999b).....................New investigation concludes that Liberia broke into civil war because their president defended Ubisoft, and the citizens did not.....................Author Tom Clancy gets arrested today as he enters game company Ubisoft offices, and strikes a developer several times in the face before escorted out of the building by a SWAT team.....................Man wanted for murder takes hostages in Montana home; police say that the demands are that Ubisoft stops screwing customers over. The police abruptly stopped negotiating when they found out his demands, and sent in the SWAT team in fear that the demands were impossible.....................Ex-Police Chief Charles Moose tells reporters of why he didn't write about his lousy experiences with game company Ubisoft. Moose says he will have to write another book just about that................................Man in L.A. jumps off 7 storey building today. Suicide note tells of a sad story - the man was trying to get Raven Shield to work on his computers for 3 weeks straight with no technical support</marquee><font color="white">[/b]</u>[/i]</font size>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 07:55 PM
Ambassador wrote:
- lol you've never lived in a 3rd world country have
- you?

That isn't what he said young man, pay attention! /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
08-15-2003, 07:56 PM
Ambassador wrote:
-
- And where the heck do you get your facts that Iraq
- never had power problems before?

That isn't what he said young man, pay attention! /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
08-15-2003, 07:58 PM
*Pictures MNG as an old nun with a discipline stick*

_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www.hostmysig.com/data/durdd/yanyan.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:03 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
-
- If that is your philosophy why doesn't the US reign
- in countries like Israel who have been in violation
- of U.N. resolutions for over fifty years? I mean if
- you are going to use that as a basis for your
- argument at least make sure there aren't any double
- standards involved.

When was the last time Israel has threaten the US V3 lets not mix apples with oranges ok. I don't know about Israel's resolutions but I don't think they have anything to do with US national security.
-
- Because just like any country I am entitle to my own
- opinion, and in this particular case I simply don't
- agree with the rationale given by this
- administration to preemptively attack Iraq.

Ok you have your opinion like I have mine then. I think exactly the opposite that the Bush administration is correct on preemptively attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam before we have a catastrophic awakening.

Like I said before, if the US is all about enforcing
- sanctions they should make such a policy uniform
- across the board. Meaning why not confront the other
- dozen or so countries who are currently violating
- U.N. resolutions?

If those countries are threatening US security then we should confront them. Remember the war on terrorism?
-
- Hornet there will always be dead-enders from the old
- regime floating around Iraq willing to take shots at
- the US or anybody else for that matter. However,
- once the U.N. peacekeepers and affiliated agencies
- start taking care of the day to day tasks in the
- country, this will free up additional American
- soldiers in order to more actively seek out the
- entities which are perpetrating these acts of
- violence, hence diminishing the threat of future
- attacks. Furthermore, with a true international
- force in place, it will alleviate a lot of the
- tension your average Iraqi has towards the US, which
- it sees as an occupying power unable to provide the
- most basic of human services.

I disagree, the US took Saddam out by themselves with the help of UK and a few others. It is only fair they should be the ones calling the shots and if the UN and the rest of the world gave a flying crap about the Iraqi people and their dilema they can go in and help. Period......but that is only my opinion.
-
The U.N. does not work that way. A mandate is needed
- to mobilize a peacekeeping contingent as well as the
- numerous non-profit groups which would accompany
- them. The only way such a mandate can occur is if
- the US puts forth a resolution requesting the
- assistance of the U.N. However, much to everybody's
- dismay (including the Iraqis) they have failed to
- take such action. So you see the ball is America's
- court, and hopefully they will come to their senses
- and reach out to the world community, if not for
- themselves at least for the Iraqis.

The US I believe has said they welcome any help from the world community but under their control, because we just cant trust the UN to handle it their way.



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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:10 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Yeah, we lose power here in the northeast for the
- first time in years and everybody has a fit, yet the
- Iraqis have such outages on a daily basis in
- addition to an inadequate supply of food and water.

Now you see how bias you and MNG are? I can understand MNG ge us just guessing because he is not here he is somewhere in UK but you........where the hell did you hear that people haveing fits V3, maybe you are having a fit because you cant log on to your pc and spute crap about the Bush administration, but from what I hear here in NY anyway people are getting by just fine, and there are always complainers here like there are in Iraq. Maybe you should start worrying more about your own country instead of Iraq's electrical problems which by the way were caused by their own people.

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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:23 AM
I'm havin' a fit! I can;t reach the TV remote... so far... 6 inches...

_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www.hostmysig.com/data/durdd/yanyan.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:30 AM
V3-Dev wrote:
- First off, I was speaking of Iraq specifically, a
- country that had no shortage of electricity prior to
- the war.

And you know that Iraq had no shortage of electricity prior to the war How exactly? and Like I said on my prior post it was Saddam's people that did the nasty to the Iraqi power grid. There was no reason for the US to take out the Iraqi power grid, makes no sense.

Secondly, I live in New York City, and yes
- I am up upset with situation,

I too live in New York City and from what I see and hear people although understandably upset they coped just fine.
Having set that I dont equate the Iraqi people's with the US people's situation. Clearly the Iraqi people have it a lot worse, but it was self inflicted by their own goverment.

but what else would
- one expect to happen when we're a superpower with a
- third-world power grid? I mean if we have certain
- standards as you say Ambassador they are apparently
- set very low considering the archaic nature of our
- energy infrastructure.

I believer VP Chaney in 2001 said that the power grid needed updating and federalized but Congress didnt see it fit to do anything about it. But maybe now they will.

Oh and for the record, much
- of the third world would have coped much better with
- such a power failure due to the fact far more
- services and business have back-up generators as a
- matter of course in stark contrast to us here in the
- states.

Yeah and since every other day they need those generators it is a good idea, but that is not the answer for us here in the US. Except ofcourse hospitals and such for emergencies such as this and 9/11



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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:32 AM
This kids on a roll... Relax, it's not that important anymore... Guhddamn power outtage is whats pushin' my buttons...



_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www.hostmysig.com/data/durdd/yanyan.jpg

_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www.hostmysig.com/data/durdd/yanyan.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:33 AM
durdd wrote:
- *Pictures MNG as an old nun with a discipline
- stick*
-
- LOL no just an old man. He forgot he said it the first time so he post it again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 04:23 AM
Hornet, I don't know what borough or neighborhood you reside in, but there are plenty of people here in Manhattan where I live that are more then furious over the blackout, so I don't quite agree with your assessment. Not to mention, the city losing well over half a billion dollars in revenue today is nothing to be happy about.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:30 AM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Now you see how bias you and MNG are? I can
- understand MNG ge us just guessing because he is not
- here he is somewhere in UK but you........where the
- hell did you hear that people haveing fits V3, maybe
- you are having a fit because you cant log on to your
- pc and spute crap about the Bush administration, but
- from what I hear here in NY anyway people are
- getting by just fine, and there are always
- complainers here like there are in Iraq. Maybe you
- should start worrying more about your own country
- instead of Iraq's electrical problems which by the
- way were caused by their own people.

Biased? What in the world are you talking about? Millions of people from Detroit to New York suffer a huge electrical blackout and are less then happy about it. That sounds pretty objective to me.

Furthermore, don't be so concerned with who or what I worry about. I do plenty of community work, pay my taxes and vote just like many other Americans, so I do more then my part to support this nation.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:30 AM
Hornet57 wrote:

- And you know that Iraq had no shortage of electricity
- prior to the war How exactly?

Assessments on various aspects of Iraq's prewar infrastructure are readily available on many government and public policy research foundation websites. I suggest you take a look at them some time.

- Like I said on my prior post it was Saddam's people that
- did the nasty to the Iraqi power grid. There was no
- reason for the US to take out the Iraqi power grid, makes
- no sense.

I never claimed that the US military destroyed Iraq's power grid. When I said "prior to the war" I simply meant that due to the lawlessness as a result of Saddam's toppling, the situation was ripe for many desperate Iraqis as well as remnants of the old regime to loot or destroy the countries infrastructure. In fact, the latter of that group continues to do so to this day.

- I believer VP Chaney in 2001 said that the power
- grid needed updating and federalized but Congress
- didnt see it fit to do anything about it. But maybe
- now they will.

Scientists and engineers with the National Research Council warned the White House and Congress about the vulnerability of the power grid as recently as November, but as usual no US lawmakers or Presidents have the guts to take on the energy lobby that represents corporations who refuse to spend a dime on updating the system.

- Yeah and since every other day they need those
- generators it is a good idea, but that is not the
- answer for us here in the US. Except ofcourse
- hospitals and such for emergencies such as this and
- 9/11

I was never trying to imply that people in the US should do the same as those living in third world nations. I was merely stating how people in underdeveloped nations cope with the on again off again nature of their electrical power.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 06:26 AM
- Hornet57 wrote:

- When was the last time Israel has threaten the US V3
- lets not mix apples with oranges ok. I don't know
- about Israel's resolutions but I don't think they
- have anything to do with US national security.

Hey I was simply making light of a double standard the US has towards certain members of the international community. Besides, I am not the one that said we should enforce U.N. resolutions, that my friend would be you.

- If those countries are threatening US security then
- we should confront them. Remember the war on
- terrorism?

Yeah, I remember the war on terrorism. However, the only terrorists to be found in Iraq are the ones now entering the country in order to kill US troops.

- The US I believe has said they welcome any help from
- the world community but under their control, because
- we just cant trust the UN to handle it their way.

The United States could work along side the U.N. without any problems. After all, with America as a permanent member of the Security Council there is not a single thing the United Nations could do without oversight from the Bush administration.

In the end, it is not like the U.N. is just going to come in and take over Iraq. They would simply assume roles in which they are better trained for such as local policing, education, electoral procedures, and certain other basic services.



Message Edited on 08/16/0301:27AM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 12:22 PM
Cowanchicken wrote:

- Um, if the only goal was to get rid of Saddam, the
- best way of doing it would've been to just take him
- to a war crimes tribunal. He would obviously have
- been guilty of violating the Geneva Convention case
- closed.



Hmm.

US have violated the Geneva Convention in Iraq to. So clearly this alone will not be enough to get someone before a war crimes tribunal.
Iraq wouldent be the only place that have happened for the US either.
Not to mention Israel.

Besides, i dident think US cared much for war crime tribunals.


However, in war s#!t happens. There is a lot of US troops on the ground and in the air during a campaing for example and not all of them can be super intelligent. So shyte happens once in a while when someone makes a bad splitsecond decesion.

Still, US have a v e r y biased attitude towards war crime tribunals.

But i agree with you. It would have been great if the US had captured him and brought him to court.

First, Where is the proof of all the things Saddam was to have in his possesion?
Bloody hard actually trying your case in a real court without proof.

Almost all accusations against Iraq leading up to the war wasent exactly water tight. And have yet to be confirmed.

Exept the fact that Saddam is a real Dhead that needed to be removed because of all the suffering he causes. Agreed but this argument kinda looks like the US "reaching for the last straw".

Its just that its hardly news to the USA is it!? That Saddam runs a tight ship.
Infact, we can accuse US for helping a criminal.

Holy crap, when we start digging we discover US have a rather long history of helping regimes and countries and individuals who take lightly on human rights. People who are criminal.

We discover that US have helped plan, provided information or hardware to kill people with international illegal chemicals. US have also distributed chemicals from the air themselfs. They dont always need others to do their dirty work.

US actually works closely together with countrys the UN again and again and again have condemmed and imposed resolution after resolution upon.

If one can prove in court, that US is just as clever and willing to distort the truth as Saddam ever was, what will that look like? In court?


On one question im very curious. Can we accuse US for not doing anything while people was beeing killed under Saddams rule?
Why did the Iraqi people have to wait over 20 years for the US to come liberate them?



Second, Saddam gets accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes and what ever we can think of.

Is it then ok for another foreing court to accuse the US and maybe even certain US individuals of war crimes, for example?


So maybe it wouldent work for the US. I think they want him dead not alive.



Note, im not anti US. I just sound like that/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Seriously- i find some actions from Bush very questionable a long with a few things US have done in the past. I am by no means at all trying to disrespect the US people or its actions done in good will.

I just belive we have NOT been told the truth about the motivation for US invading Iraq. Saddam was not the reason. He was no threat.

I think we have been lied to. Plain and simple. And that really worries me. I think the war in Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg.
Im also deeply in disagreement with Bush on how to fight back on terror.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:38 PM
V3-Dev wrote:

- Hey I was simply making light of a double standard
- the US has towards certain members of the
- international community. Besides, I am not the one
- that said we should enforce U.N. resolutions, that
- my friend would be you.
-
Like I said before I am not sure about Israel's resolutions and what they are about, so i cant defend them.
Too bad Geist is MIA he could have shed some light perhaps.

Now as far as the US being eager to enforce U.N resolutions, I still stand by my statement because our National Security is instake. That is my opinion just like you have your opinion, as wrong as it may be /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

- Yeah, I remember the war on terrorism. However, the
- only terrorists to be found in Iraq are the ones now
- entering the country in order to kill US troops.

And hopefuly we would deal with them as soon as possible.
Too bad we have to deal with the Iraqi infastructure first.
But maybe that would be put in the back burner sooner then later. Our troop's safety should come first. The Iraqi civilians kinda brought this mess on to themselves with all the looting and all.

- The United States could work along side the U.N.
- without any problems. After all, with America as a
- permanent member of the Security Council there is
- not a single thing the United Nations could do
- without oversight from the Bush administration.
-
Then the UN should have no problem working along side the US
with out any problems.

- In the end, it is not like the U.N. is just going to
- come in and take over Iraq. They would simply assume
- roles in which they are better trained for such as
- local policing, education, electoral procedures, and
- certain other basic services.
-
Exactly so what is the problem then?

The US and it's Allies have worked very hard to take down saddam's regiem and still working at it. If the UN want to help they should offer their help with no catch.


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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 02:44 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

Like I said before I am not sure about Israel's resolutions and what they are about, so i cant defend them.
Too bad Geist is MIA he could have shed some light perhaps.



Hello old chap.

Dont worry. I can help you on this.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 03:10 PM
Hey Doc welcome back /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Dr_Nick_Rivera wrote:

- Hmm.
-
- US have violated the Geneva Convention in Iraq to.
- So clearly this alone will not be enough to get
- someone before a war crimes tribunal.

What violation of the Geneva Convention are your talking about that the US has violated In Iraq or any other country for that matter?
-
- Besides, i dident think US cared much for war crime
- tribunals.

well then you are wrong.
-
-
- However, in war s#!t happens. There is a lot of US
- troops on the ground and in the air during a
- campaing for example and not all of them can be
- super intelligent. So shyte happens once in a while
- when someone makes a bad splitsecond decesion.

Nothing new there Dr. Nick

- But i agree with you. It would have been great if
- the US had captured him and brought him to court.

Well the clock is still ticking
-
- First, Where is the proof of all the things Saddam
- was to have in his possesion?

We are looking for it

- Bloody hard actually trying your case in a real
- court without proof.

And you really think they will publish what ever proof they have before they catch him and bring him to court?
-
- Exept the fact that Saddam is a real Dhead that
- needed to be removed because of all the suffering he
- causes. Agreed but this argument kinda looks like
- the US "reaching for the last straw".

Here we go again, "Saddam is real Dhead and needed to be removed, but we removed him for the wrong reasons".
Lets get real Dr. Nick shall we? If that Bastard needed to be removed the rest is just a matter of waiting for the proof. But the main point is the Evil Ship head is gone from power.
-
- Its just that its hardly news to the USA is it!?
- That Saddam runs a tight ship.
- Infact, we can accuse US for helping a criminal.
-
- Holy crap, when we start digging we discover US have
- a rather long history of helping regimes and
- countries and individuals who take lightly on human
- rights. People who are criminal.

And like I asked before where were the UN and all these Monday morning quaterbacks when we put him in power and gave him all those nice toys to play with? You didnt seem to mind then eh?
-
- We discover that US have helped plan, provided
- information or hardware to kill people with
- international illegal chemicals. US have also
- distributed chemicals from the air themselfs. They
- dont always need others to do their dirty work.

two words for that statement. Bull Ship!
-
- US actually works closely together with countrys the
- UN again and again and again have condemmed and
- imposed resolution after resolution upon.

Let me guess........Israel?
-
- If one can prove in court, that US is just as clever
- and willing to distort the truth as Saddam ever was,
- what will that look like? In court?

Go Prove it then, but you can't and you know why?
because you cant prove something that is not true.

- On one question im very curious. Can we accuse US
- for not doing anything while people was beeing
- killed under Saddams rule?

Maybe but then you have to accuse the UN for doing squat also.
- Why did the Iraqi people have to wait over 20 years
- for the US to come liberate them?

Good question to ask the Secretary General of the U.N
-
-Second, Saddam gets accused of crimes against
- humanity and war crimes and what ever we can think
- of.

I thought you agreed that Saddam was an Evil Dhead?
are you saying now they were falls accusasions?
-
- Is it then ok for another foreing court to accuse
- the US and maybe even certain US individuals of war
- crimes, for example?

Sure its ok but you have to prove it or at least find something that shows you are correct.

- So maybe it wouldent work for the US. I think they
- want him dead not alive.

You think wrong.. sorrry
-
- Note, im not anti US. I just sound like that

No you sound like something else.....but that is another story.

-
- Seriously- i find some actions from Bush very
- questionable a long with a few things US have done
- in the past. I am by no means at all trying to
- disrespect the US people or its actions done in good
- will.
-
- I just belive we have NOT been told the truth about
- the motivation for US invading Iraq. Saddam was not
- the reason. He was no threat.

You just believing otherwise dont mean Bush lied my friend.Besides how can you say that Saddam was bad and needed to go and then say the US has other reasons? that dont make any sense.
-
- I think we have been lied to. Plain and simple. And
- that really worries me. I think the war in Iraq is
- only the tip of the iceberg.

Truth of the matter is besides the oil we also need all that sand so Bush can make one huge Sand Castle.

- Im also deeply in disagreement with Bush on how to
- fight back on terror.

Yeah me too. It is called a Nuke.

BTW have you noticed the seige of suicide murders in Israel? Hmmm. the road map to peace is on the right track perhaps or just coinsidence?

Have a nice day Doc.

I hope I wasn't very harsh. No hard feelings


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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 04:06 PM
Hornet, with the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council, there was not a single thing the United Nations could've done to prevent American policies concerning Iraq throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's. The US would have simply vetoed any resolution condemning their support of Saddam, and in the end if worse came to worse they could've withheld funds from the world body or even excused themselves as a member all together.

By the way, you were kidding about the "Roadmap" right? I mean there were two bombings just this past week followed by the demolition of two homes thought to be owned by the relatives of the perpetrators, which by the way is illegal under the Geneva Convention protocols that ban any form of collective punishment. Also let's not forget that Israel is still continuing the construction of settlements and an illegal security wall, both of which the current administration has condemned repeatedly.

Oh, I almost forgot, to make matters worse the Israeli government recently passed a new law forcing Palestinians who marry Israeli Arabs to live separate lives. This is clearly a racist measure (violating the international human rights treaty) that threatens to divide thousands of families and force them out of the country. We are talking about a law that could eventually lead to the expulsion of over 1 million Arabs from Israel. Anyway, if all this is your idea of a peace plan being on the right track, I would say you are slightly delusional my friend.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 11:14 PM
Hornet wrote:

-"What violation of the Geneva Convention are your talking about that the US has violated In Iraq or any other country for that matter?".


Well, the most famous examples are the exposure of Iraqi POW`s on TV. Its a clear violation of the Geneva Convention .

Im not disliking that you cant stand watching your country men beeing POW`s or laying dead in the streets. Im disliking the fact you guys only stopped showing everything after you yourself was subject to watching your own troops caught between a rock and a hard place.

The use of cluster bombs is a violation when used close to or on top of residential areas. In 1991 almost 2000 Iraqi civilians was killed from US cluster bombs and more than 2500 was injuried.

The depleted uranium case im not gonna get into but is similar to the cluster bomb. Just with a lot more debate about how DU effects the human body.

The military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is in total defiance of the Geneva Convention. At least ten articles are being violated here.

US are ignoring articles number: 27, 31, 32, 45, 49, 87, 97, 124, 125, 127.

You can look the articles up yourself but you should know by now that im not trying to kid you nor will i try to pass you false information. Just remember, torture come in many forms.

I dont know if this counts to you but the US even vetoed a UN Security Council resolution in 1987 that called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.



Hornet wrote:

-"well then you are wrong".



Lets go ask Belgium what they think...
They was shown "the bird" by US when they showed up with their new war crimes tribunal.
So maybe not that wrong after all.



Hornet wrote:

-"We are looking for it".



So like i said. Right now in a court room you stand no chance of proving Saddam was in possesion of all the things you guys accused him of having. Or that he was indulged in dirty deeds together with O`smelly Bin Laden and that other bloke, Al Queda.

Its a problem when you accuse someone of something and cant back up your claims with hard core facts and long lasting evidence. Isent it?

Is it ok for politicians to spin stories around?



Hornet wrote:

-"And you really think they will publish what ever proof they have before they catch him and bring him to court?".



Yeah well mate, i dont think they will take Saddam to court. I dont think that even if US tried real hard that they could get him alive either.

Its my opinion that, Saddam in the witness chair, in some court in all his glory would damage US reputation and image more than Bush can accept.

Do you think that if Saddam have a say in it he will allow to let himself get captured, alive?

However, Saddam is gone. Surely US can now show us his big arsenal of WMD`s. Whats the threat in that. Since you guys move on so solid information and evidence i dont see why Bush dont just show the world how right he is. It would settle a lot of disputes.



Hornet wrote:

-"Here we go again, "Saddam is real Dhead and needed to be removed, but we removed him for the wrong reasons".
Lets get real Dr. Nick shall we? If that Bastard needed to be removed the rest is just a matter of waiting for the proof. But the main point is the Evil Ship head is gone from power"



Easy there big fellow. That wasent my point.
Im saying we got lied to. Thats a fact. Thats worrying.

The argument that we needed to invade Iraq because of the people came only after all other accusations US had brought against Saddam had failed. The US simply could not or would not show any evidence to back their claims.
What evidence they gave the world was very quickly dismissed. Some "evidence" was even fabricated. Thats really low.

The argument that Saddam was evil and therefor should be removed was nothing but US "reaching for the last straw".
Never the less he is a scumbag and should have been removed a long time ago. And it dident make things better that you guys was in cahoots with him.

I dont belive its about Saddam`s WMD`s. Its oil, control of who in the world that can acquire WMD`s and about keeping the power balance the way it is today.

Removing Saddam, who is a soft target with a low price tag, will send the message US wants to send to countries like Iran and N. Korea that they will not be allowed to build WMD`S as they see fit.

And maybe, for us in the west, thats a good thing since we depend on US to use its forces to keep us safe. US have done so since the second world war and through the cold war. But US have also been a big part of the reason why we needed protection.

I wholeheartedly belive Rumsfeld overestimated the warm welcome US troops would get throughout the middle east after Saddam was brought to his knees.



Hornet wrote:

-"And like I asked before where were the UN and all these Monday morning quaterbacks when we put him in power and gave him all those nice toys to play with? You didnt seem to mind then eh?



Nope. I dident seem to mind since i was busy getting pubic hair on my bag and trying to impress the "ladies" with that, at the time. I also got drunk from half a beer and then conquered the dance floor with my groovy moves.
Disco is dead now and i have grown up. Sort of anyway.

But did you know that US provided Saddam with satellite photos of Iranian troops and their movement so that Saddam could use mustard gas to kill them?

And that after the UN condemned this the US provided Saddam with chemicals and know- how to start his own super professional up- to- date chemical weapons development laboratories?

Or that he was a menace to his people even back then with the occasional picking someone up for a good old fashioned "interwiew" on the police station or killing of people who dident agree with him? Just think of how he came to power. Nice and violent and he was not afraid to get his hands all dirty and red. Sometimes you just need to get things done yourself...

A bit chilling with all this cruel behaviour going on. Would you support a guy like that if you knew?



"Monday morning quaterbacks". Im gonna use this one, great/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Hornet wrote:

-"two words for that statement. Bull Ship!".



Not really mate. Like i just told you above things actually were pretty grim. Not a lot of the spirit from the Geneva Convention was left when US was backing Saddam. No real respect for human rights.

Also note that US happily used Agent Orange in Vietnam a few years earlyer.

Seems like US sets the standard and then the rest of the world tries to catch up when it comes to developing weapons of any sorts and the use of them.



Hornet wrote:

-"Let me guess........Israel?".



Wohuu. Give that man a cigar!
Also Turkey and Indonesia springs to mind.



Hornet wrote:

-"Go Prove it then, but you can't and you know why?
because you cant prove something that is not true".



Your right. You cant prove something that is not true.
I can prove however that US provided the world with rotten evidence and false statements in its arguing for war. Thats a fact.


Actually Bush is not the first US president to use this sort of tactics.

Lyndon B. Johnson, when he ran for office was at a political rally one day where he debated his opponent. Suddenly and out of nowhere Lyndon started to accuse his opponent of beeing gay and for having sex with animals. You think he shocked the crowd???
On his way down from the podium one of Lyndons assistants asked: "but sir, you know this is not true".

Lyndon replied with the famous quote: "let him deny it".
Lyndon B. Johnson won the election.

A true story.



By the way, dident we all just love that story about Jessica Lynch?...



Hornet wrote:

-"Maybe but then you have to accuse the UN for doing squat also".



I dont have a problem with that.
I do have a problem with the way US tries to control and manipulate the UN. Or the way Bush tries to spin the truth.



Hornet wrote:

-"Good question to ask the Secretary General of the U.N".



Why?


Anyway and totally off topic, what do you think of this:

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

US is not always a night in shining armor. Interesting reading if you havent already been there.
Kinda paint a picture why US wasent in a hurry to help the Iraqis. No need really...



Hornet wrote:
-"Sure its ok but you have to prove it or at least find something that shows you are correct".



No problem there.
Think of Henry Kissinger. Theres a handfull of countries that would like 10 minuttes alone with him in a dark room.

You guys could have expected tons of accusations of war crimes against you if you had accepted the Belgium war crime tribunal the way Belgium originally thought of doing it, dont you think. US got troops in action all over the globe. This is not rocket science.

And as long as the evidence is valid why have a problem with that tribunal?



Hornet wrote:

-"You think wrong.. sorrry".



You know that for a fact?



Hornet wrote:

-"No you sound like something else.....but that is another story".



Hornet. Dont get personal like this. Im allergic to it.



Hornet wrote:

-"You just believing otherwise dont mean Bush lied my friend.Besides how can you say that Saddam was bad and needed to go and then say the US has other reasons? that dont make any sense".



Oh k.

Sense you say. I actually had to read what you just wrote a couple of times before i got some kind of idea of what you meant/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Bush have provided the world with false information regarding Iraq. Is that a fact or am i lying?
And where the bloody h*** is the tons and tons of missiles and raw materials for his WMD`s?
So how can you say for a fact that he has got any?



Hornet wrote:

-"Truth of the matter is besides the oil we also need all that sand so Bush can make one huge Sand Castle".



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Thats news to me. But give Bush jr. a couple of toy soldiers a long with him to the sand castel and he will have a great time. You better put some sort of sun block on him though. He gets red easily when playing in his sandbox all day long.



Hornet wrote:

-"Yeah me too. It is called a Nuke".



A bit radical. I actually prefer what Bush is doing then/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



Hornet wrote:

-"BTW have you noticed the seige of suicide murders in Israel? Hmmm. the road map to peace is on the right track perhaps or just coinsidence?".


Hum hum...
I cant figure out exactly what you really want to say here but its a great question anyway.
I dont think the road map will work.

And since you put it like that, have you noticed the bunch of dead Palestinians lately?

So here we are. P!$$ing up and down the same pole to win the contest. But there is no winner.

The attitude you just showed there is the thing i see as the biggest hurdle in achieving peace.
Its going to take major sacrifice from both sides to get a long lasting peace.


Hornet wrote:

-"I hope I wasn't very harsh. No hard feelings".



I sometimes get the feeling you much rather want to drag me outside and beat me silly.

Anyway its clear theres a heart in there in you somewhere and that its actually beating.
Sort of/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I`ll let you in on a secret. I infiltrated US with my "anti US terror group" this summer and next summer me and my brother are picking up lock, stock and barrel to move to the states for a couple of years. How about that!?

You and I could get together and have a beer at the local pub and shout slogans at eachother. Neat.


Since your beeing somewhat of an old rat in the trade of mechanics i would like to ask if its true that American car companies wont give up the 0-60 mph performance and topspeed for new cars because its considered to encourage to speeding? Weird...

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 05:04 AM
Dr_Nick_Rivera wrote:
-
-
- Well, the most famous examples are the exposure of
- Iraqi POW`s on TV. Its a clear violation of the
- Geneva Convention .

Showing Iraqi Pow being treated for their injuries or fed was a clear violation to you in comparison to our dead soldiers laying like garbage in the street or the Pow's that where practicaly interogated in front of the TV camera's ?
-
- Im not disliking that you cant stand watching your
- country men beeing POW`s or laying dead in the
- streets. Im disliking the fact you guys only stopped
- showing everything after you yourself was subject to
- watching your own troops caught between a rock and a
- hard place.

We never mistreated any of the Iraqi POW's Dr. Nick we actually released many of them to go back to their homes, which I still dont understand as to why they where released.
-
- The use of cluster bombs is a violation when used
- close to or on top of residential areas. In 1991
- almost 2000 Iraqi civilians was killed from US
- cluster bombs and more than 2500 was injuried.

I never heard of cluster bombs being droped on known civilian residential areas. But as you should know Saddam liked to move military equipment into residential areas. Or store weapons and ammo in schools and such as we found out this time around. Or was that a lie too?
-
- The depleted uranium case im not gonna get into but
- is similar to the cluster bomb. Just with a lot more
- debate about how DU effects the human body.

Sorry I know nothing about the depleted uraniaum case and since it has nothing to do with current events I will leave it for someone else to debate.
-
- The military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is in
- total defiance of the Geneva Convention. At least
- ten articles are being violated here.

Those POW's are being kept in much better quaters then the Taliban ever gave them. They are suspected terrorists and might have information we need.
-
- US are ignoring articles number: 27, 31, 32, 45,
- 49, 87, 97, 124, 125, 127.

I dont know the facts behind those numbers but will try and play them on the next lotto drawing though.
but seriously I will try to find out about those articles and get back to you.
-
- You can look the articles up yourself but you should
- know by now that im not trying to kid you nor will i
- try to pass you false information. Just remember,
- torture come in many forms.

Well I dont believe the US is so easely ignoring International laws or torturing anyone in any form.
-
- I dont know if this counts to you but the US even
- vetoed a UN Security Council resolution in 1987 that
- called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions
- in its treatment of the Palestinians.
-
Seeing how the Palestinian authority chose to resolve their problems I dont realy blame Israel for defending themselves.

- Lets go ask Belgium what they think...
- They was shown "the bird" by US when they showed up
- with their new war crimes tribunal.
- So maybe not that wrong after all.

Well they just shown us "the bird" with Iraq so we are even.

- So like i said. Right now in a court room you stand
- no chance of proving Saddam was in possesion of all
- the things you guys accused him of having. Or that
- he was indulged in dirty deeds together with
- O`smelly Bin Laden and that other bloke, Al Queda.

We don't realy know what our government have as concrede proof as of yet do we. And no they would'nt just let it be known just to prove to you (and by you I mean the people that think the Bush administration is full of lies and deceptions ) you wont buy it anyway.

- Is it ok for politicians to spin stories around?

Nope, but they all do that includes politicians from all over the world including your country.
-
- Yeah well mate, i dont think they will take Saddam
- to court. I dont think that even if US tried real
- hard that they could get him alive either.

That is not our problem if he desides to join the fate of his two lovable sons.
-
- Its my opinion that, Saddam in the witness chair,
- in some court in all his glory would damage US
- reputation and image more than Bush can accept.

Don't worry If he ever goes to court he wont be in a witness chair.
-
- Do you think that if Saddam have a say in it he will
- allow to let himself get captured, alive?

I sure hope not. I hate to see him make a circus out of the courts
-
- However, Saddam is gone. Surely US can now show us
- his big arsenal of WMD`s. Whats the threat in that.

He is not dead is he? For now you have to be satisfied with the evidence of his weapons program. -

- Easy there big fellow. That wasent my point.
- Im saying we got lied to. Thats a fact. Thats
- worrying.

No that is not a fact to me, maybe to you it is but not to me and many Americans........with common sense.
-
- The argument that we needed to invade Iraq because
- of the people came only after all other accusations
- US had brought against Saddam had failed.

I dont know where you see it as failed just because we haven't found the WMD's.........yet.


The US simply could not or would not show any evidence to
- back their claims.

They have shown evidence but your wont believe it.
- What evidence they gave the world was very quickly
- dismissed. Some "evidence" was even fabricated.

what evidence was fabricated? and please give proof of that fabrication?

- The argument that Saddam was evil and therefor
- should be removed was nothing but US "reaching for
- the last straw"

So you are saying that Saddam was not evil and therefor he shouldn't be removed?

- Never the less he is a scumbag and should have been
- removed a long time ago. And it dident make things
- better that you guys was in cahoots with him.

Sorry but you are confusing the crap out of me Nick, which is it is he evil or not? Whether or not another President 30 years ago was in "cahoots" or not dont make this president guilty, so dont put them in the same bed.
-
- I dont belive its about Saddam`s WMD`s. Its oil,
- control of who in the world that can acquire WMD`s
- and about keeping the power balance the way it is
- today.

And you dont think other nations would love to have the power balance tilted to their side?
-
- Removing Saddam, who is a soft target with a low
- price tag, will send the message US wants to send to
- countries like Iran and N. Korea that they will not
- be allowed to build WMD`S as they see fit.

You know something I hope they get the message because they are not responsible enough to have WMD in their hands.
-
- And maybe, for us in the west, thats a good thing
- since we depend on US to use its forces to keep us
- safe. US have done so since the second world war and
- through the cold war. But US have also been a big
- part of the reason why we needed protection.
-
- I wholeheartedly belive Rumsfeld overestimated the
- warm welcome US troops would get throughout the
- middle east after Saddam was brought to his knees.

Only time will tell Dr. Nick. I personaly believe that time would come....sooner then later.

- Nope. I dident seem to mind since i was busy getting
- pubic hair on my bag and trying to impress the
- "ladies" with that, at the time. I also got drunk
- from half a beer and then conquered the dance floor
- with my groovy moves.

was that you on the dance floor with the bright white suit and the hairy chest.

- But did you know that US provided Saddam with
- satellite photos of Iranian troops and their
- movement so that Saddam could use mustard gas to
- kill them?

He was an allie but I dont think they did it with the intent to have him use mustard gas to kill them though.
-
- And that after the UN condemned this the US provided
- Saddam with chemicals and know- how to start his own
- super professional up- to- date chemical weapons
- development laboratories?

Oh please that is getting as old as your disco days.
Tell me did you also smoke some funny ciggaretes those days? just asking. The US has been helping many nations as you stated before since ww2. Why would they help him create weapons to kill inocent people. But I cant be sure about that and neither can you.
-
- Or that he was a menace to his people even back then
- with the occasional picking someone up for a good
- old fashioned "interwiew" on the police station or
- killing of people who dident agree with him? Just
- think of how he came to power. Nice and violent and
- he was not afraid to get his hands all dirty and
- red. Sometimes you just need to get things done
- yourself...

What the hell does that have to do with George W. Bush and his fight with Saddam now? Even if what you say is the truth Now is a different matter another President made a bad decision and this President is trying to clean up the mess.
-
- A bit chilling with all this cruel behaviour going
- on. Would you support a guy like that if you knew?

Ofcourse not. And apperantly neither does Dabya.

- Also note that US happily used Agent Orange in
- Vietnam a few years earlyer.

Old history again?

- Seems like US sets the standard and then the rest of
- the world tries to catch up when it comes to
- developing weapons of any sorts and the use of them.

That's how you remain a super power I suppose.

- Your right. You cant prove something that is not
- true.

But in Saddam's case all you have to do is ask the Iraqi people and anyone that knows how Evil Saddam Hussein is which btw is most of the world.

- I can prove however that US provided the world with
- rotten evidence and false statements in its arguing
- for war. Thats a fact.
-
How is it a fact? because we havent shown you the WMD's yet?
That is not a fact or proof of anything other then you must wait and see.

- Actually Bush is not the first US president to use
- this sort of tactics.
-
- Lyndon B. Johnson, when he ran for office was at a
- political rally one day where he debated his
- opponent. Suddenly and out of nowhere Lyndon started
- to accuse his opponent of beeing gay and for having
- sex with animals. You think he shocked the crowd???
- On his way down from the podium one of Lyndons
- assistants asked: "but sir, you know this is not
- true".
-
- Lyndon replied with the famous quote: "let him deny
- it".
- Lyndon B. Johnson won the election.

Was this conversation recorded?
-
- A true story.

Again I ask you Was this conversation recorded?

If not I can make up a few good ones too, If I wanted to.

- By the way, dident we all just love that story about
- Jessica Lynch?...

We sure did.

--"Maybe but then you have to accuse the UN for doing squat also".

- I dont have a problem with that.
- I do have a problem with the way US tries to control
- and manipulate the UN. Or the way Bush tries to spin
- the truth.

Ah yes you have no provlem with that but you never mention UN and only accuse the US. whats up with that?

- Hornet. Dont get personal like this. Im allergic to
- it.

Oh yeah I forgot /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Bush have provided the world with false information
- regarding Iraq. Is that a fact or am i lying?

You are lying or are dilusional.

- And where the bloody h*** is the tons and tons of
- missiles and raw materials for his WMD`s?
-So how can you say for a fact that he has got any?

I dont know that is what blix and his inspectors were trying to find out wasn't it, but Saddam didnt have any answers. After all we did sell them to him didnt we? we know he has them if he destroyed them he should give us proof of it. Don't you agree?

But you dont seem to care about the proof of their destruction just the proof of where he has hidden them. Well that takes time.
-
- Thats news to me. But give Bush jr. a couple of toy
- soldiers a long with him to the sand castel and he
- will have a great time. You better put some sort of
- sun block on him though. He gets red easily when
- playing in his sandbox all day long.

Don't you worry about Dabya he is a cowboy and cowboys are tough as nails.

- A bit radical. I actually prefer what Bush is doing
- then

Yeah I thought you might think that way. But I am dying to know what would you do to fight terrorism?
Besides joining them, if you cant beat them?

-
- I dont think the road map will work.
-
- And since you put it like that, have you noticed the
- bunch of dead Palestinians lately?

Where they inocent civilians? I am asking because I didnt hear anything about any attacks from any side since last week I was away on a cruise with no news available.
-
- I sometimes get the feeling you much rather want to
- drag me outside and beat me silly.

You got me all wrong Dr. Nick I would bother drag you outside J/K /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Anyway its clear theres a heart in there in you
- somewhere and that its actually beating.
- Sort of

Yep and its beating to the tune of God Bless America

- I`ll let you in on a secret. I infiltrated US with
- my "anti US terror group" this summer and next
- summer me and my brother are picking up lock, stock
- and barrel to move to the states for a couple of
- years. How about that!?

Would you be arriving by air or container?

You and I could get together and have a beer at the
- local pub and shout slogans at eachother. Neat.

Ok I'll start practicing my slogans

- Since your beeing somewhat of an old rat in the
- trade of mechanics i would like to ask if its true
- that American car companies wont give up the 0-60
- mph performance and topspeed for new cars because
- its considered to encourage to speeding? Weird...

I would love to answer that question but I dont understand what your asking. Maybe I am reading it wrong but it dont make sense the way it is asked.

Post with you soon
-
-



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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 05:38 PM
Hornet wrote:

-"Showing Iraqi Pow being treated for their injuries or fed was a clear violation to you in comparison to our dead soldiers laying like garbage in the street or the Pow's that where practicaly interogated in front of the TV camera's ?".


You have got to stop twisting things around in order to make it fit your needs. I never ever said that. Or anything close to that.

Im not anti US. YOU see me as that. What I accuse Bush of is the same things I accuse the danish PM of.
Its childish Hornet and exactly what i would expect from you son.

US showed POW`s before Iraq did. Showed dead molested Iraqi bodys laying like garbage in the streets. Civillians to. Even kids. Or maybe you dident watch Gulfwar I. CNN showed it all.

Im not accusing CNN of anything here. Many other news agencys did the same thing. Gulfwar I would set a new standard in "war coverage".

Showing Iraqi soldiers (that more than likely was drafted to the battelefield) surrendering to US troops- will that be ok with you?
Rules have got to work both ways.

During Gulfwar I, CNN broadcasted to and from Iraq and the signal did not get interfered with by Saddam. He actually thought it would be great for the world to see him kick some diciplin into the American infedels butt.

So the Iraki people could sit in the comfort of their homes and w a t c h their sons and fathers laying dead, like garbage in the streets of Kuwait and the desert of Iraq. Not to mention the residents of Kuwait who went through the same thing.

Think of the "highway of death" in Saudi Arabia during Gulfwar I. A particular piece of road in SA where fighting/ US bombing took place. That piece of road gave good pictures.

Anyway, showing POW`s is a Geneva Convention violation. For a reason.

Yoa asked for a violation and i supplied you one. Stop crying. Im not anti US.

Im genuinly sad for the US troops loosing their lifes in Iraq and i think of their familys, who will have to get through a very tough time.
I myself had family in the US army during the war in Iraq.



Hornet wrote:

-"We never mistreated any of the Iraqi POW's Dr. Nick we actually released many of them to go back to their homes, which I still dont understand as to why they where released".



The reason for the Coallition of Willing (also know as the "****** Squad") to let go of its prisoners of war was because they did not have the manpower to guard that many prisoners.

The reason for lack of manpower can partly be found in the fact that the coallition was on a strategy not unlike the old WW2 german strategy, Blietzkrieg. They wanted to move straight to the heart of Iraq without stopping till they got there. So there was way to few troops that could stay behind and guard the POW`s.
Besides, the plan worked well- dont you think?


I know the US POW`s in Iraq was beeing tortured.
But does that give the US more right to show its POW`s? To use that as propaganda?
Why dont you think rules should work both ways? Not that im surprised though.



Hornet wrote:

-"I never heard of cluster bombs being droped on known civilian residential areas. But as you should know Saddam liked to move military equipment into residential areas. Or store weapons and ammo in schools and such as we found out this time around. Or was that a lie too?".



Cluster bombing like that actually happened during Gulfwar I. And in Afghanistan. Open a newspaper.

Human Rights Watch reported in April that US forces in Iraq was using cluster`s with a very high failure rate. Thus creating immediate and long-term dangers for civilians and friendly soldiers.

I have read a couple of articles by journalists (BBC) in Iraq now and they claim to have picked up pieces of Cluster bombs from various locations in Baghdad. Bombs dropped in this Gulfwar II.

I know Saddam moved ammo and equipment into residential areas or even into schools. Do you have to cluster bomb a place like that?

Besides, a cluster bomb would not be the weapon of choice to take out a school if that was the case. So i think Cluster`s was used for other purposes but still inside residential areas.

Jennifer Lynch. Now, thats a bogus story. Utter bollox. You swallowed hook, line and sinker.

This story is a perfect example of US using propaganda or even feeding us lies in order to justify their actions. Another good example is the young girl that during Gulfwar I, in froont of the world press told how she had witnessed rape, louting and worse by the Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait. Later the world found out it was all bogus and utter lies made up by the US administration.

Would you care to deny that story?



Hornet wrote:

-"Sorry I know nothing about the depleted uraniaum case and since it has nothing to do with current events I will leave it for someone else to debate".



Warehouses could be filled with what you dont know. We will get back to that.



Hornet wrote:

-"Those POW's are being kept in much better quaters then the Taliban ever gave them. They are suspected terrorists and might have information we need".



No bloody way. Those POW's are not being kept in much better quaters then the Taliban ever gave them. Torture come in many ways. Constant loud music, heavy metal, banging away in your cell, will have an effect wont it?

Keeping children the age of 13-15 on Guantanamo Bay without any sort of legal help (like it would help) is f..... wrong. Further more, these kids is suspected to have been forced into fighting for the Taliban, according to base commander General Geoffrey Miller. They should have been released a long time ago. You might argue that 13- 15 year old boys will be told secrets by the Taliban. I just dont think so.

Sensory deprivation is a refined but no less cruel form of torture. All the prisoner's senses are blocked. The eyes are completely blindfolded. The ears are muffled. So is the nose. The prisoner cannot see, hear, smell, or feel anything. The method leaves no physical traces but can turn your mind into a trauma.

The US tells us that this method is only used when transporting the prisoners but several prisoners that now have been released say that the method is widely used inside Guantanamo Bay.

In 1974 British authorities outlawed this kind of mental and psychological torture (it happened with suspected IRA members). In addition, some US$5 million has since been paid out by the British government over the years to victims of this torture.

Listen to what one of the prisoners realesed from Guantanamo Bay have to say:

"At 2:00 am at night Americans came to our house and asked me to show them where the Taliban was. Since I am deaf, I couldn't understand what they said so they arrested me. It took them more than a year to realise I am innocent."

Bismillah, of central Uruzgan province, was at the mercy of the US Army. He had no rights so he could get no legal help to prove his innocence. Today the US Army have admitted he is innocent and telling the truth.
Its fundementally wrong to be locked up and subjected to interrogations for more than a year and a half, to prove your innocence.

Will the prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay, since they are what they say they, be able to apply for compensation for the time in jail?

Would you demand compensation if it had been you or one of your kids that was locked away without any rights?

US describes all its prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as unlawful combatants who can be held indefinitely without trial.



Hornet wrote:

-"I dont know the facts behind those numbers but will try and play them on the next lotto drawing though.
but seriously I will try to find out about those articles and get back to you".



I dont think I will ever hear from you again regarding these numbers/ violations on the Geneva Convention. Unless you actually win the lotto. Then we really wont hear from you again.



Hornet wrote:

-"Well I dont believe the US is so easely ignoring International laws or torturing anyone in any form".



I believe you love your country and are prepared to stand up for the "old lady" at any time. At the same time you seem to get a little "fundemental" in your beliefs.
This post alone will tell you that you are wrong in believing that US are not in some cases ignoring International laws or that they dont torture anyone in any form.



Hornet wrote:

-"Seeing how the Palestinian authority chose to resolve their problems I dont realy blame Israel for defending themselves".



"Defending themselfs". This is the problem. Israel is seen as the invader. The brutal invader, holding arab land. And there is some truth in that, if you care to look back at what really happened when the state of Israel was created and up till today.

Never the less i agree with you, bombing civillians is not on. That goes for both sides.

The state of Israel on May 15, 1948 inflicted an historic injustice upon the Palestinian people. Palestinians were driven from their land and homes at gunpoint, by acts of terrorism (by todays standard) and massacre and by the threat of war and further violence!

Off course, a chap like you would call this "expropriating land". No big deal.
750,000 men, women, and children became exiles living in refugee camps in neighboring Arab countries.

Under UN resolutions and international law, Palestinnians have and always have had, the right to return to their homes. Israel has refused to acknowledge this right and the US has failed to enforce it. To say the least.

More than 4 million Palestinians have today been "expropriated".



Hornet wrote:

-"Well they just shown us "the bird" with Iraq so we are even".



No. I think the score is:
Belgium 0 - USA 2.



Hornet wrote:

-"We don't realy know what our government have as concrede proof as of yet do we. And no they would'nt just let it be known just to prove to you (and by you I mean the people that think the Bush administration is full of lies and deceptions ) you wont buy it anyway".



I think when you use false material to prove a point your a disgrace. I also call it a lie.



Hornet wrote:

-"Nope, but they all do that includes politicians from all over the world including your country".



So?

The danish PM is right in there with Bush and Blair. However the Minister of Foreing Affairs in Denmark have admitted he used material not to be taken seriously. "we know this now". Pffff.

The danish minister can say that. Bush will not be able to admit it. Bush is the sun in which the rest of the coallition of willing is spinning around. If he stumbles so will the rest of the coallition.

But take a look at some of the "proof" behind claiming Saddam was a world class threat. Dubious photos, false statements, leaving out bits and pieces of the truth and using schoolpapers for background material.
Ridiculos and actually proved wrong. Will you deny that?



Hornet wrote:

-"That is not our problem if he desides to join the fate of his two lovable sons".



Nope.
But its your idea US troops will capture him and take him to court. Alive.

Im doubtfull about the fact that Saddam wants to be taken alive and about Bush really wanting a Saddam in the witness box.



Hornet wrote:

-"Don't worry If he ever goes to court he wont be in a witness chair.



At some point during the trial you would have to put him there. Besides the point is the spectacle he would make and the stories he could tell. To expensive for Bush. Election year is coming up.



Hornet wrote:

-"I sure hope not. I hate to see him make a circus out of the courts".



Just watch. He would freak out if you gave him the chance.

By the way, O.J. Simpson beat Saddam to making a circus out of the court. Saddam can only be a wannabie on this.



Hornet wrote:

-"He is not dead is he? For now you have to be satisfied with the evidence of his weapons program.



Evidence...
Please enlighten me on this weapons program, in detail. I want facts not rumors.

Bush admitting Saddam is still a threat must feel like a slap in the face.



Hornet wrote:

-"No that is not a fact to me, maybe to you it is but not to me and many Americans........with common sense".



Many Americans with common sense think that when you make the bogus evidence yourself, it hardly counts as evidence.



Hornet wrote:

-"I dont know where you see it as failed just because we haven't found the WMD's.........yet".



I think you missed my point.

This is what i wrote:

- The argument that we needed to invade Iraq because
- of the people came only after all other accusations
- US had brought against Saddam had failed.

Your refering to another argument for war than the one i am talking about.
Short attention span?


Cant help myself so gotta know. If US never find WMD`s in Iraq, will you admit to the fact that Saddam wasent that big a threat?



Hornet wrote:

-"They have shown evidence but your wont believe it".



I dont believe its evidence. And I think much of it is even fabricated. So why dont you simply tell me what exactly you know- for a fact- about Saddams holdings of WMD`s. Or his co-op with Al Queada.



Hornet wrote:

-"what evidence was fabricated? and please give proof of that fabrication?".



What about backing up your (Powell) claims in the UN with material copyed from an American postgraduate's doctoral thesis. Grammatical mistakes and all. A thesis that is 12 years out of date hardly count as evidence in the UN.

There is the case of the allegation that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger. The proof of this accusation turned out to be fake. Chief United Nations nuclear inspector Mohammad ElBaradei said that the documents trying to prove this was fake. Mohammad ElBaradei never blaimed US or UK for the making of these documents. He only said it was wrong using such "evidence" in order to prove your point to the UN. And that the evidence was fake.

Powell said in the UN that satellite imagery had showed ammo storage bunkers which he claimed were used for chemical weapons that were moved out prior to inspection.
UN inspectors examined the places and found nothing suspicious. "Sniffers" was used by inspectors. They can detect the past presence of chemical and biological weapons.

In the UN Powell claimed Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. However UN nuclear inspectors have repeatedly contradicted this. They also concluded the notorious aluminum tubes Powell said were for uranium-enrichment centrifuges were actually conventional 122-mm rocket artillery casings.

Together with Powell in the UN was CIA chief George Tenet . His agency had contradicted the White House claims that Iraq had nuclear capability and posed an imminent threat to the US- or anyone else for that matter.

Powell claimed he had positive proof that Iraq was linked to al-Qaida through Ansar al-Islam. A small 600 man Islamist group in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq (which is not under Saddam's control) and through a "deadly terrorist network" led by one Abu Musa al-Zarqawi.

The first charge was immediately dismissed by Ansar's leader, Mullah Krekar. A longtime and bitter foe of Saddam.

Al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody. Not on any FBI wanted list. His name came from suspects being tortured in Jordan. Many reputable experts on terrorism scoffed at Powell's overblown charges.

When Bush (or his administration) claim that there have been top-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq going back a decade and then provides NO proof it looks suspecious.

Claiming that Iraq assisted some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development and offer NO proof is plain dumb. To say the least.

Bush himself have accused Saddam of giving aid to terrorists and that Saddam protects terrorist members of Al Qaeda. Again, without ANY proof at all.

In a recent article, former CIA Iraq desk chief Stephen Pelletiere cast doubt on the charge repeated by Bush and Powell, that Iraq gassed its own Kurdish citizens in the town of Halabja.

Remember Hornet, you think all politicians spin the truth. You have said that. Disturbing to say the least.
The list just goes on and on. We have got no proof. No smoking gun. If there was we wouldent be discussing this.

Please note im not saying im sad now that Saddam is gone or that he dident have weapons. Im saying i dident see him as a big threat like Bush did and that Bush should proove what he is talking about.

Bush, of all people in the world needs to be the one who sets a good example, dont you agree?

We have not been fully informed about the US intensions. There are way to many mistakes in their reasoning for war and no smoking gun/ evidence. Highly dodgy
business.



Hornet wrote:

-"So you are saying that Saddam was not evil and therefor he shouldn't be removed?".



How did you come to that conclusion? Wishfull thinking? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

This is what i wrote:

- The argument that Saddam was evil and therefor
- should be removed was nothing but US "reaching for
- the last straw".

What dont you understand here?



Hornet wrote:

-"Sorry but you are confusing the crap out of me Nick, which is it is he evil or not? Whether or not another President 30 years ago was in "cahoots" or not dont make this president guilty, so dont put them in the same bed.

It dosent matter nearly as much to me as it matters to the arab world.

There is a increasing demand from them that US starts acting a little more responsible in the midddle east or infact get the hell out. Invasion and especially a invasion led by US wasent what many arabs wanted to see.

Many of them have for years now asked for help with money and weapons to fight Saddam but US have refused to support. Like US broke its promise to rebel fighters in Iraq that wanted to remove Saddam right after Gulfwar I. The rebels was quickly sniffed out by Saddam and killed because they fought on Allies side during the war and off course for the fact they wanted to remove him in a coup.

In my opinion, there is a reason for arabs to say they dont trust the US.



Hornet wrote:

-"And you dont think other nations would love to have the power balance tilted to their side?".



Its a double egde sword. Like the "sword of Damokles".
Most countries wants more power. Most of them are relucten to pay the prize to get it. You only get to be a super power through weapons power/ brute force.

And no. Im not into further arms race and think we should distribute the wealth in the world a little better.



Hornet wrote:

-"You know something I hope they get the message because they are not responsible enough to have WMD in their hands".



You know what. The same can be said for the US. " not responsible enough to have WMD in their hands". US gave Saddam satelite photos of Iranian troops so that Saddam could kill them with his newly aquired chemical`s during the Iraq- Iran war.

The UN condemned this so US simply gave Saddam the means to make his own supply.

At the same time US provided Iran with intelligence and weapons through Israel as neutral "middle man".
All of this is also know as the "Iran-Contra scandal".

Will you deny any of these facts?

So there is some double standard in US trying to decide who can do what in terms of arms race. And that US refuse to sign several agreements about weapons ban and development.

We need some kind of neutral institution for this. Which we already have. But no one listens to it.



Hornet wrote:

-"Only time will tell Dr. Nick. I personaly believe that time would come....sooner then later".



So you think the US troops sometime in the future will get a warm welcome by the arabs. I mean, that US troops would actually be welcome?

Peace in the arab - US conflict will not come anytime soon.



Hornet wrote:

-"was that you on the dance floor with the bright white suit and the hairy chest".



OMG. So it was you standing in the corner with a beer and giving me the eyes....

Funny. I never thought you would dress in womens clothing....but great legs honey.

This is getting well cosy - wait i`ll put the fire on.



Hornet wrote:

-"He was an allie but I dont think they did it with the intent to have him use mustard gas to kill them though".



Thats what you think. Ask yourself what you know for a fact.

US/ Reagan/Rumsfeld knew what they were doing. It happened more than once. It was shady bussines. I made a freaking long post about it a long time ago. It would be good of you to find that and read it. If you can find it in the sea of lost posts.

Or you could just search Goggle for "Iran- Contra".



Hornet wrote:

-"Oh please that is getting as old as your disco days.
Tell me did you also smoke some funny ciggaretes those days? just asking. The US has been helping many nations as you stated before since ww2. Why would they help him create weapons to kill inocent people. But I cant be sure about that and neither can you".



Ahem.
You could look this up yourself. When UN condemns you its hard to misunderstand. Especially since we know how much power the US have in the UN.

Still, im willing to help you get closer to the truth. Im a great guy.

Help ~ http://www.dse.nl/~mfh/unresolutions.html



Hornet wrote:

-"What the hell does that have to do with George W. Bush and his fight with Saddam now? Even if what you say is the truth Now is a different matter another President made a bad decision and this President is trying to clean up the mess".



The current president have ties to another president who have ties to yet another president, R. Reagan.

Bush Jr. is son of Bush Sr. (doh!) and Bush Sr. used to work for Reagan as vice president.

Reagan is Satan down there. Reagan provided all these nasty things to Saddam. Rumsfeld was Reagans special envoy to Iraq. He was the one making sure Saddam was keept pleased.
So its not that far away for the arabs.
They dont trust Bush. And with good reason to be honest.
So now we will see if they can learn to trust you guys again.



Hornet wrote:

-"Ofcourse not. And apperantly neither does Dabya".



So you wouldent support a guy like that.
But you did. Your tax money helped Saddam. No?

And if US have to do something, then why wait more than 20 years after you supported him like that? So why are you here now?

I think the arabs have a reason or two for not trusting US. That cannot be ignored in the campaing to gain their hearts and minds.



Hornet wrote:

-"That's how you remain a super power I suppose".



Yes, by keeping up the arms race.

US is using more money on military than the next 9 countries on that list.

When the cold war stopped, all countries around the world reduced their budgets for defence. US increased theirs. They could afford it.



Hornet wrote:

-"But in Saddam's case all you have to do is ask the Iraqi people and anyone that knows how Evil Saddam Hussein is which btw is most of the world".



I agree. Its not the point however. US had to resolve to several arguments before they came up with the argument that the war was for the Iraqi people. If US could proove to the UN that Saddam was not disarmed and that he was a threat the whole world would wanted something to be done about it. But what proof did we get? No stonecold hardcore evidence have ever been given by the US.
I dare you to show me any?



Hornet wrote:

-"How is it a fact? because we havent shown you the WMD's yet?
That is not a fact or proof of anything other then you must wait and see".



No no. Im talking about proving beyond any doubt that Saddam was in possesion of the weapons Bush accused him of having. Also his links to Al Quaeda needs some polishing up.

If Bush could convince the world beyond any doubt I think he would. Smashing some proof on the table and tell all us wankers he is right would do him good. It would also serve as a mean to decrease motivation for terror.



Hornet wrote:

-"Was this conversation recorded?"



I hope your kidding.
I read it in a biography about him. Not aware if there is any audio recording on this. Did you know that he won that election with the biggest margin ever in US history?

Are you saying im lying?

You seem a bit single minded and not very open minded. By choice i think.

You did good in that "Roadblock thread". Trying to se both sides of the story. But when it comes to good old US of A you completely stall. US is not only doing good and great things for humanity. Once in a while they only move for selfish reasons. Thats a fact.

If i can accept it and not let it change my overall great picture of US you should be able to accept facts to without thinking that the world now sees US as only evil. I do have a litle more well balanced wiew on US. At least please stop portraying me as anti US.



Hornet wrote:

-"We sure did".



Do you believe the story about Jennifer Lynch beeing rescued from the Iraqi hospital? That there was a gunfight and Navy Seals got injuried trying to get her out from there?
You must be joking...



Hornet wrote:

-"Ah yes you have no provlem with that but you never mention UN and only accuse the US. whats up with that?".



No. Accuse the UN of beeing lazy and sloppy. I dont mind.

On some issues i disagree with the Bush administration. The American people and the country is another matter. Im going there myself. Eventhoug it is a remote part of US/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Hornet wrote:

-"You are lying or are dilusional".


Your a snotty little punk.
However, your a naive snotty little punk.



Hornet wrote:

-"I dont know that is what blix and his inspectors were trying to find out wasn't it, but Saddam didnt have any answers. After all we did sell them to him didnt we? we know he has them if he destroyed them he should give us proof of it. Don't you agree?
But you dont seem to care about the proof of their destruction just the proof of where he has hidden them. Well that takes time".



Like Rumsfeld said:

"the more inspectors continue to find nothing the stronger our case against Saddam becomes. The lack of a smoking gun is the smokiest gun of all".

In reallity those huge ammounts of weapons have either been used, destroyed or have degraded to a useless state. I dont think there can be much if anything left.

Several UN weapon Inspectors have said that in their opinion, and after beeing there when Saddam declared his weapons, he cannot have the ammounts left Bush is saying he has. So far, they look to be correct.

I like the fact that Bush in a very Napoleonic way demands "credible proof" from Saddam. Bush do not meet his own standards for this. Unless he has a very low standard.

Lets make it clear what Blix said. "US is misquoting my Iraq report" is his own words. And he added "it is not justified to (conclude) that something exists because it is unaccounted for".

Blix said there was no evidence that Saddam continued with his banned weapons programme after the 1991 Gulf war. Off course Blix is probably some muslim spy terrorist who only have evil intensions.

I think he was giving a neutral assesment of the case. Based on facts and that alone.



Hornet wrote:

-"Don't you worry about Dabya he is a cowboy and cowboys are tough as nails".



I dont know. I`ve bend a few nails in my time.



Hornet wrote:

-"Yeah I thought you might think that way. But I am dying to know what would you do to fight terrorism?
Besides joining them, if you cant beat them?".



Audi partem alterum.
(Hear the other side)

I thought this was clear.

Like the muslim terrorists Bush is not much for diversity. "Your either with us or against us". Thats an attitude that creates enemys if not wars.

You never answered me on this:

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

Dont you think this is a part of why the middle east hesitates to trust US again?



Hornet wrote:

-"Where they inocent civilians? I am asking because I didnt hear anything about any attacks from any side since last week I was away on a cruise with no news available".



Ha. Warehouses could be filled with......

Im tired of having to provide you with facts Hornet. Please make an effort yourself.



Hornet wrote:

-"You got me all wrong Dr. Nick I would bother drag you outside J/K".



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Theres a good chance you might actually get the chance. Lets hope you stayed in shape. Loose the skirt though.



Hornet wrote:

-"Yep and its beating to the tune of God Bless America".



Performed by wierd Al Yankovic...



Hornet wrote:

-"Would you be arriving by air or container?".


Im dane. We walk on the water.



Hornet wrote:

-"Ok I'll start practicing my slogans".



Start... you say...



Hornet wrote:

-"I would love to answer that question but I dont understand what your asking. Maybe I am reading it wrong but it dont make sense the way it is asked".



It wasent that hard son.

>shakes head< "chip on his shoulder"....

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:04 PM
Nick, all you have to do now is defend that thesis and you will have your Ph.D.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 11:20 AM
I guess it was to much for Hornet. So he is not going to show up.

No Ph.D. for me this time/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 01:12 PM
This will boost their morale /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3184709.stm




<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 03:05 PM
Dr_Nick_Rivera wrote:
- I guess it was to much for Hornet. So he is not
- going to show up.
-
- No Ph.D. for me this time

Wrong again. I never hide, but in answer to your very Loooooooooooooong post, to make it short.

That's a lot of one sided BS, but the good news is I expected nothing less from you.


you can waste all the time you have on searching for "facts" to win your argument, but I can waste my time to do the same but the facts are remain to be seen.
I dont have the attention span to answer every pointless argument you brought up.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-



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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 04:13 PM
buccaneer wrote:
- This will boost their morale

$40!

They're having a laugh!



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
08-27-2003, 05:05 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- buccaneer wrote:
-- This will boost their morale
-
- $40!
-
- They're having a laugh!
-
-
Stay tuned when they find those nasty WMD's,
they will be paying $40 for the doll's flightsuit alone.

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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:03 PM
Well, rest up Hornet.

Enjoy a break, a burger, a good beer and a packet of smokes if you smoke and sit ringside here so you can commentate on events you know little or even nothing about.
Its clear you consider yourself to be the most perceptive "commentator" out there.


I would actually be surprised if you rose to the challenge and tried to prove me wrong. Never the less I would welcome it very much.

My guess is that the more I prove you wrong, the less you will be willing to admit im right. A vicious circle. But we have been down that road before, havent we?


You have repeatedly asked me for evidence to back up my claims and I have provided you with what you asked for. If you dont see it as evidence tell me exactly what is wrong with it, according to you! Why is that so hard....

When will you start telling us what you know- for a fact???

So far, you have offered NO proof/evidence for your case. Just a lot of baloney and hot air. Maybe you dont agree- well, look at facts Hornet; What Proof have you provided? Actual proof!

You cant play this one by ear. Your going to need facts. That takes time. Its called an effort. Try.


A real chocolate soldier.

Please, by all means, show how wrong I am. Tear my facts apart......if you can. If you could you would.

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 04:32 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
-- buccaneer wrote:
--- This will boost their morale
--
-- $40!
--
-- They're having a laugh!
--
--
- Stay tuned when they find those nasty WMD's,
-
- they will be paying $40 for the doll's flightsuit
- alone.

Will they have a Saddam doll so that we can have them fight each other? Will they also have WMD accessories so at least you can fantasize about finding 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
08-28-2003, 04:58 PM
Dr_Nick_Rivera wrote:
-
- Enjoy a break, a burger, a good beer and a packet of
- smokes if you smoke and sit ringside here so you can
- commentate on events you know little or even nothing
- about.
- Its clear you consider yourself to be the most
- perceptive "commentator" out there.

Nope you are wrong once again I concider my self to have a lot of sense.
You on the other hand spend your time looking for evidence on some jurnalist's "facts" something I can do if I chose to find the right journalist.
-
-
- I would actually be surprised if you rose to the
- challenge and tried to prove me wrong. Never the
- less I would welcome it very much.

I would not waste my time since your mind is made up (with wrong facts) so I will wait until this is over and the real facts smack you accross the face so you can see common sense is always right.
-
- My guess is that the more I prove you wrong, the
- less you will be willing to admit im right. A
- vicious circle. But we have been down that road
- before, havent we?

Yes we have been down the road before and you have'nt changed. You have'nt poved anything either Dr. so keep hallusinating.
-
- You have repeatedly asked me for evidence to back up
- my claims and I have provided you with what you
- asked for.

What REAL evidence exactly have you given me Nick?
the one that is on your mind?

If you dont see it as evidence tell me
- exactly what is wrong with it, according to you! Why
- is that so hard....

because its all biased nonsense.
-
- When will you start telling us what you know- for a
- fact???

Ok here it is in a nutshell
Saddam and his Regiem where evil people, They support terrorism and given the chance they would strike the US with the weapons they where developing. Enough said now go research that.
-
- So far, you have offered NO proof/evidence for your
- case. Just a lot of baloney and hot air. Maybe you
- dont agree- well, look at facts Hornet

You have no concrete facts either Dr. you just think you have facts but when you look at it the war is not over, the war contninous and items and people are found it will take a long time but you will see the facts. The real facts and nothing but the facts. Ok now go get yourself a beer and research another topic.



- You cant play this one by ear. Your going to need
- facts. That takes time. Its called an effort. Try.

In your case its called a waste of biased time.

- A real chocolate soldier.
inside joke? didnt work
-
- Please, by all means, show how wrong I am. Tear my
- facts apart......if you can. If you could you would.

Ok once again, I will NOT waste any more time debating you "facts." because that is all they are YOUR facts gotten from some Liberal reporter. The New York Times had an honest reporter That gave us "facts".
So go play attorney with someone that gives a frogs ***



-
-
-
-



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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 03:09 PM
Hornet wrote:
-"Nope you are wrong once again I concider my self to have a lot of sense".


Thats what I said /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Hornet wrote:

-"You on the other hand spend your time looking for evidence on some jurnalist's "facts" something I can do if I chose to find the right journalist".



I do not search for facts. I react to what I already know.

I would like to point out that you screamed at me to come up with facts to back up my claims. I did that.
Now you cry about the fact that I actually did what you asked.

Now you have facts, your not the slightest willing to discuss them. Thats odd.

By the way- they are all well documented facts, bless your soul.

How can you say my facts are wrong? On what do you base that opinion? What I describe is all common knowledge. No dark secrets revealed here.

Lets comepare my facts to yours.

Eeeer, we cant. You dont come up with any. Just a lot of rhetoric about how wrong I am and how sensible you are. NO facts come from you at all. Its like you dont know.

You seem to suffer from a big lack of bagground knowlegde regarding many of the things you commentate.

One thing that bugs me is that you have to portray me as anti US. That I like to see dead US troops laying like garbage in the streets of Kuwait. Or that I danced in the streets when WTC came down.

This Hornet, is very very childish.
I think you do this in a try to devalue my opinion/ posts/ facts.
But like I said, a very childish way of doing so.

Wouldent you rather want to attack me on facts and by that prove me wrong?

Your laungage get nastyer the more we discuss. And like last time Hornet, once you get cornered you start on personal attacks rather than accept that you could be wrong. Childish.

Anyway, you ask for proof and I supply you with some. You then deny all facts by simply saying im wrong. No other reason than that. And you yourself refuse, though asked many times now, to show some evidence for your claims about Iraq/ Saddam.



Hornet wrote:

-"I would not waste my time since your mind is made up (with wrong facts) so I will wait until this is over and the real facts smack you accross the face so you can see common sense is always right".



What facts are wrong?

The facts I have given you here about the two Gulfwars in Iraq, Saddams WMD`s/ his weapon programs and terror coming from him is pulled from UN, BBC, CNN, CIA, FBI and various US Dep. of all kinds.

Its common knowlegde.
Why dont you just show where and why im wrong? If your so certain why cant you just, in plain words, tell what exactly is wrong?

Back up your claims.



Hornet wrote:

-"Yes we have been down the road before and you have'nt changed. You have'nt poved anything either Dr. so keep hallusinating".



Please show what is wrong instead of simply blowing hot air. Im not interested in a heated debate or personal insults but you seem to be wanting that. Why?

Anyway, SHOW why im wrong. Tell me. Why is that so hard...
Instead of making one post that would set me straight you make several posts about how your not going to comment on it, that its all lies and to deliver some crude personal attack.

You only had to make one post where you proved me wrong. Instead I get several "empty" replies from you that just get nastyer and nastyer in nature. Maybe they come in a try to restore your mandom...



Hornet wrote:

-"What REAL evidence exactly have you given me Nick?
the one that is on your mind?".



Just take a look at it. Pick it appart. Go ahead.
Instead of just saying your right why dont you go ahead and prove it? Or at least try in some way to back your claims up.



Hornet wrote:

-"because its all biased nonsense".



How?
And what of it is biased?
What of what I wrote is not true?
Tell me exactly what is wrong?

You cant...so you go for a personal attack.



Hornet wrote:

-"Ok here it is in a nutshell
Saddam and his Regiem where evil people, They support terrorism and given the chance they would strike the US with the weapons they where developing. Enough said now go research that".



Why are US only now helping the people of Iraq? Why the wait? (more than 20 years after US knew what was going on in Iraq)

What made Iraq the prime target of US?

Will Saddam be the only evil tyrant US removes from power for now?

Are there regimes in the world, right now, that can be seen as even more brutal than the former Iraqi regime? Or as a bigger threat than Iraq was?

What weapons development in Iraq?

What terrorists did Iraq support?

Prove Iraq wanted to attack US.



You make a lot of claims- you never back them up.



Hornet wrote:

-"You have no concrete facts either Dr. you just think you have facts but when you look at it the war is not over, the war contninous and items and people are found it will take a long time but you will see the facts. The real facts and nothing but the facts. Ok now go get yourself a beer and research another topic".



"No concrete facts"?
You keep saying that but you never provide any background as to why you have that opinion.

Besides, I think its US that must prove Saddam was linked to Al- Quaeda, that Saddam was developing nuclear devices or that he had other illegal weapon programs running.

Your hanging on to the hope that someday something will be found that prove your right. A tad naive when it comes to sending our soldiers into combat.



Hornet wrote:

-"In your case its called a waste of biased time".



If you would back up your claims in a slightly different way than this:

-"Saddam and his Regiem where evil people, They support terrorism and given the chance they would strike the US with the weapons they where developing. Enough said now go research that".


Proof of that old boy would be nice. I predict you cannot and will not come up with any. Yet again.

However, George Tennet, head of CIA together with the FBI states on february 3. 2003 to Ritzau, that Bush is over interpreting intelligence reports regarding Iraq and that the CIA and FBI do not see a link between Al- Quaeda and Iraq.

Both agencys in this statement says that there are NO proof of Saddam beeing in cahoots with Al- Queada. They themselfs have looked for a connection and have yet to come up with something that would even indicate a connection like that.

Both agencys say they are surprised the Bush administration insists on this terror connection between Iraq and Al Aqaeda.

Both agencys also at the same time expressed strong concern about the Bush administrations constant allegations of Iraq`s WMD`s.
Neither CIA nor FBI believe Saddam is in possesion of the weapons Bush claims he have. Or that Saddam was able to build up the weapons programs Bush state he has after the1991 Gulfwar.

All this is summed up by a statement from George Tennet: "keeping the integrity of the CIA is more important than pleasing the goverment".

I must say I really respect a remark like that. Considering his position and situation.

This was made public from Ritzau and New York Times a few days before Powell would try to prove US case against Iraq in the UN.

Do you believe me? Did I just try to feed you a lot of baloney and muslim propaganda or is the above facts and actual statements?
Pulled from Ritzau and the New York Times?

You can research yourself. I just dont think you going to. Like your never going to investigate the violations of the Geneva Convention on Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
Or if Israel have had UN resolutions against them for far longer than Iraq?
Or find out who have killed the most people; Saddam or the Israel occupation of Palestinian land?

You seem to think rules do not have to work both ways.

Your stuck in an opinion and you refuse to listen to facts that go against you. You are fanatic in your beliefs not unlike the muslim fanatics that hate the US.
Both of you are against diversity. There is only one truth and thats yours.
F... the rest.



Hornet wrote:

-"A real chocolate soldier.
inside joke? didnt work".



I meant: hollow with no core.



Hornet wrote:

-"Ok once again, I will NOT waste any more time debating you "facts." because that is all they are YOUR facts gotten from some Liberal reporter. The New York Times had an honest reporter That gave us "facts".
So go play attorney with someone that gives a frogs ***".



The facts I give you come from the same sources you would trust to give you a truthfull picture of things. Or so I think.

Off course, you can insult me when I present my facts, facts you asked for, with the ridiculous remark that I get my facts from "some Liberal reporter".

I do not think I have presented facts here that cannot be verified. If you could show me, that what I have written is wrong- I will most certainly bow to you.

Personal attacks just because you cant get it your way is the way you -still- respond.

Hornet. You dont even try to back up your claims. And simply saying "your right and Im wrong and thats it", is not on old chap.
How old are you again? Not what you expect from a grown man is it!?

Funny how you loose that "frogs ***" as soon as you have to work for it in order to defend your point of wiews and outrageous claims. Thats a real chocolate soldier.


What im really reacting to right now is not the fact that you dont agree Hornet. Its your constant provocations and not so subtle personal remarks that I have a hard time tolerating.
They also look like your last line of defence.
Try to keep your replies on a facts level.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 05:17 PM
Dr_Nick_Rivera wrote:
-
I am going to give you one Fact that we all know Dr. and that is that Saddam was an Evil twit and George Bush took him out.

You can sit there and say what ever you want. The man had to go and now he is gone. What ever else comes up out of this mess we will find it in the future NOT in the past.
That is all I have to say on the matter.

Lucky for the US Geroge W. Bush is the President when we got attacked on our homeland, because he has the guts to go in and show these Tyrants and their terrorist friend what a big mistake they made when they attack us.

Ok now tell me how bad the US is for wanting to remove guys like Saddam from power.



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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 04:49 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 06:42 PM
Dr_Nick_Rivera wrote:
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:11 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- Lucky for the US Geroge W. Bush is the President
- when we got attacked on our homeland, because he has
- the guts to go in and show these Tyrants and their
- terrorist friend what a big mistake they made when
- they attack us.


see Hornet and again u dont get anything.
that plane flighing into buildings on the 11h September
was not an action, it was the <u>RE</u>action of those fundamentalistic punks on the foreign policy of the US.
Out of their point of view the US is interfearing permanently into other peoples business and countries which are not of their concern. For them it is the reaction and revenge or the defense on the fact that US soldiers are killing muslims in their own countries or US supporting other who do that.


The F-word is appreciated (http://www.thegamingunion.co.uk/users/amcclan/Random/f-word.html)

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:32 PM
AMC_Pace wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:

- see Hornet and again u dont get anything.
- that plane flighing into buildings on the 11h
- September
- was not an action, it was the <u>RE</u>action of
- those fundamentalistic punks on the foreign policy
- of the US.

And again You can call it any name you want to us civilians was an attack on us. My friend that died in one of the towers never killed anyone or ever visited that sand trap called soudi arabia.

- Out of their point of view the US is interfearing
- permanently into other peoples business and
- countries which are not of their concern. For them
- it is the reaction and revenge or the defense on the
- fact that US soldiers are killing muslims in their
- own countries or US supporting other who do that.

Those Monkeys dont give a flying Puck about the Muslim people or they would'nt treat them like they do. They have killed a lot more Muslims then the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq put together during a war. They have killed Muslims for listening to music for crying out loud. These are not people they are evil animals that want to control people through their fundamentalism.




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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 04:06 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- AMC_Pace wrote:
-
-- Out of their point of view the US is interfearing
-- permanently into other peoples business and
-- countries which are not of their concern. For them
-- it is the reaction and revenge or the defense on the
-- fact that US soldiers are killing muslims in their
-- own countries or US supporting other who do that.
-
- Those Monkeys dont give a flying Puck about the
- Muslim people or they would'nt treat them like they
- do. They have killed a lot more Muslims then the US
- did in Afghanistan and Iraq put together during a
- war. They have killed Muslims for listening to music
- for crying out loud. These are not people they are
- evil animals that want to control people through
- their fundamentalism.

Yeah, but you missed his point. The US government has habitually propped up various governments in the region like those in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, the same regimes that oppress their citizenship on a regular basis, hence providing an unending stream of recruitment for radical terrorist organizations such as Al Queda.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:23 PM
Bravo68 wrote:

- Yeah, but you missed his point. The US government
- has habitually propped up various governments in the
- region like those in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
- and Egypt, the same regimes that oppress their
- citizenship on a regular basis, hence providing an
- unending stream of recruitment for radical terrorist
- organizations such as Al Queda.

I got his point Bravo, but tell me what does that have to do with Osama saying if your are not a Muslim or if you are an infedel you must die unless you renounce your religion and join Islam?

What about that statement says we are sick of you coming here and proping up governments on our land. He didnt seem to mind our help in Afghanistan with the Russians did he?
-
-



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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:45 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Bravo68 wrote:

-- Yeah, but you missed his point. The US government
-- has habitually propped up various governments in the
-- region like those in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
-- and Egypt, the same regimes that oppress their
-- citizenship on a regular basis, hence providing an
-- unending stream of recruitment for radical terrorist
-- organizations such as Al Queda.

- I got his point Bravo, but tell me what does that
- have to do with Osama saying if your are not a
- Muslim or if you are an infedel you must die unless
- you renounce your religion and join Islam?

Nothing at all Hornet, but that wasn't the viewpoint I or Pace were trying to convey. In other words, Bin Laden's personal beliefs towards people of other religions are only one piece of the puzzle. The fact is, he wouldn't have much of a recruitment pool for his organization to begin with if it weren't for the impoverished, uneducated, and oppressed individuals who reside in those nations where the government is supported financially, militarily, and politically by the United States. In other words, malleable young minds who feel disenfranchised by their own leaders provide fertile recruitment fields for Al Queda and their like.

- What about that statement says we are sick of you
- coming here and proping up governments on our land.
- He didnt seem to mind our help in Afghanistan with
- the Russians did he?

Of course he didn't mind America supporting a fundamentalist movement that was opposed to the Soviet Union's invasion of that country. If anything it was probably a dream come true for Bin Laden. The Saudis matching the US dollar for dollar in their support of the Muhajadeen was also an added bonus, but in the end the only thing it got us after we abruptly pulled the plug was the Taliban taking control of Afghanistan and a base of operations for Al Queda to plan the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:59 PM
BBC have a new site up titled "Islam and the West".

BBC wishes you to "Take part in a global debate with world leaders, experts, and thinkers".

Sounds interesting?

Learn about "the new enemy".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/special/islam/default.stm

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 06:45 PM
Bravo68 wrote:
- Yeah, but you missed his point. The US government
- has habitually propped up various governments in the
- region like those in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
- and Egypt, the same regimes that oppress their
- citizenship on a regular basis, hence providing an
- unending stream of recruitment for radical terrorist
- organizations such as Al Queda.

Israel does not belong in the same category as those other nations. Israel is a democratic society which does not oppress its own citizens and grants their arab citizens rights unequalled by any other middle Eastern country. Israel has also never tried blackmailing the US or stabbing us in the back.

"Those who are merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind."

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:26 PM
Geist wrote:
- Israel has also never tried
- blackmailing the US or stabbing us in the back.

But there was that emabarrassing episode in late 2001 when several Isreali students were ejected from the US for not playing by the rules. *cough*espionage*cough*.

Comment?

N.B. I'm glad to see that you're safe and well, Geist. A pleasure as always to read your posts. *tips hat*

http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:12 PM
Slackbladder wrote:
- But there was that emabarrassing episode in late
- 2001 when several Isreali students were ejected from
- the US for not playing by the rules.
- *cough*espionage*cough*.

They were ejected for visa violations, not espionage. Visa violations are not uncommon by any stretch of the imagination. The difference is that Israel doesn't cause any problems when we catch Israelis violating their visas. We send them home and that's that.

As an FYI, many Israelis take trips to the Americas after they finish their army service and travel around. Many of them do violate their visas, often from a combination of negligence and ignorance. Very often, they are quite immature in many ways and exceptionally mature in others. They often do some things which are not so smart in that timeframe.

Regarding Israeli espionage, such as John Pollard, there are several things to bear in mind. First, the Israelis are very good at it, and extremely paranoid about it since they have been held over the barrel a few too many times by allies. Therefore, they spy on most everyone. Then again, so do we. The difference is the method, we tend to use more diplomats with full immunity, and they tend to use people with no such protection. Much of the world hates Israel, and they're rightly concerned about that. One note specific to Pollard is that much of the "damning" evidence against him came from Aldrich Ames.

- N.B. I'm glad to see that you're safe and well,
- Geist. A pleasure as always to read your posts.
- *tips hat*

Nice to see you as well. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Those who are merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind."

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:27 PM
Geist wrote:

- They were ejected for visa violations, not
- espionage. Visa violations are not uncommon by any
- stretch of the imagination. The difference is that
- Israel doesn't cause any problems when we catch
- Israelis violating their visas. We send them home
- and that's that.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/03/Tampa050302.html

Visa ejections may be commonplace, but students who find an affinity with restricted information and "secure" areas are not students. Especially with backrounds in signals intel, military intel and ordnance to boot.

So your viewpoint is that so long ast he state of Israel does not interfere with the US on the diplomatic circuit, it is acceptable to pursue an aggressive espionage policy against friendly states?



http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:19 AM
Slackbladder wrote:
- Visa ejections may be commonplace, but students who
- find an affinity with restricted information and
- "secure" areas are not students. Especially with
- backrounds in signals intel, military intel and
- ordnance to boot.

Actually, they probably are students. Otherwise they would have been charged. Those backgrounds are not at all unusual, particularly bearing in mind that the majority of Israelis serve in the military, many in non-combat roles such as signals or intel. Also, every fifth or sixth infantryman get advanced demolitions training.

The article you referred to was full of supposition for the most part, but did affirm that no one has been charged. The links at the bottom of the page spoke volumes about the veracity of the rest of the information.

- So your viewpoint is that so long ast he state of
- Israel does not interfere with the US on the
- diplomatic circuit, it is acceptable to pursue an
- aggressive espionage policy against friendly states?

I don't recall saying or even thinking any such thing. What "aggressive espionage policy" are you referring to?

"Those who are merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind."

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:37 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
- I got his point Bravo, but tell me what does that
- have to do with Osama saying if your are not a
- Muslim or if you are an infedel you must die unless
- you renounce your religion and join Islam?

Uhh, there are people in the Bible Belt in the southern United States who think the same thing about non-Christians and non-White people. Not condoning it though.

- What about that statement says we are sick of you
- coming here and proping up governments on our land.
- He didnt seem to mind our help in Afghanistan with
- the Russians did he?

No, because the US was helping them get rid of the russian troops without occupying the country.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:42 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- Uhh, there are people in the Bible Belt in the
- southern United States who think the same thing
- about non-Christians and non-White people. Not
- condoning it though.

How many airliners have they highjacked? How about homicide bombers? Any recent mass murders?

There is a huge difference between thinking and acting. To say nothing of support from governments. I have not heard of any government sponsoring a telethon to raise funds for radical Christian terrorists, have you?

"Those who are merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind."

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 05:48 AM
Other than the KKK, and they aren't a religious organization, i can think of no Religion down south or anywhere- Christian religion, that espouses such nonsense as you have alluded to. Would you care to provide any examples, just one would be enough to sway me??

Leep Out:

Sheesh, some people's kids. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 01:10 PM
Geist wrote:

- I don't recall saying or even thinking any such
- thing. What "aggressive espionage policy" are you
- referring to?

An "aggressive espionage policy" is one which makes extensive use of illegal agents (glossary at the bottom for the uninitiated) to purloin secrets concerning the military, intelligence services and current private paradigm of leaders in the target nation.

Much "intelligence" work can be done by reading the right newspapers and industry journals. Simply keeping yourself abreast of developments in friendly nations is merely good housekeeping. Developing rings of "illegals" takes, time, money and no small amount of risk. Therefore, it is expected to produce results that make this effort worthwhile. This is an "aggressive" policy.

I'm asking you if you would class such activity as being acceptable, providing the diplomatic faces were always smiling, nodding and shaking hands. I'm aware that there is little substantive evidence of such a thing happening, but I'm interested in your opinion of it, should such a headline be printed tomorrow.

Legal Agent: A member of the intelligence services from Country "A" who works in the target country "B" as a member of the Embassy staff, therefore with diplomatic immunity. Everybody knows they are spies, but they are playing by the rules so people tolerate them. This is because the Country "B" will have an embassy in Country "A" with their own intelligence network in place. Quid pro quo.

Illegal agent: The "James Bond" factor. These agents are unknown to the target country and run all the biggest risks with no safety net. If caught, they are usually executed or sentenced to lengthy prison terms. They collect information and pass it via a network back to the "Legal" agent where diplomatic channels carry the information safely back to base.

http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg



Message Edited on 09/08/0303:01PM by Slackbladder

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:05 PM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- Cowanchicken wrote:
-- Uhh, there are people in the Bible Belt in the
-- southern United States who think the same thing
-- about non-Christians and non-White people. Not
-- condoning it though.
-
- How many airliners have they highjacked? How about
- homicide bombers? Any recent mass murders?
-
- There is a huge difference between thinking and
- acting. To say nothing of support from governments.
- I have not heard of any government sponsoring a
- telethon to raise funds for radical Christian
- terrorists, have you?

Well they have bombed a few abortion clinics. But it doesn't take much these days to cause a catastrophic disaster. I'm thinking Oklahoma. Even though TM was not a Christian radical - as far as I know - it does not take much funding to blow something up. And some of these nuts will act if they feel like it.

Who do you suppose was responsible for the anthrax attacks?


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
09-08-2003, 05:53 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
- Who do you suppose was responsible for the anthrax
- attacks?

The one that put it in the mailbox? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:37 AM
Slackbladder wrote:
- An "aggressive espionage policy" is one which makes
- extensive use of illegal agents (glossary at the
- bottom for the uninitiated) to purloin secrets
- concerning the military, intelligence services and
- current private paradigm of leaders in the target
- nation.

And there is nothing to indicate that Israel has any such policy as it pertains to the United States. The Mossad is actually the only foreign intelligence agency which regularly shares their take with us freely. Even the Brits usually want a quid pro quo. And this is the same policy they follow pertaining their scientific, engineering and technological advances as well.

- Much "intelligence" work can be done by reading the
- right newspapers and industry journals. Simply
- keeping yourself abreast of developments in friendly
- nations is merely good housekeeping. Developing
- rings of "illegals" takes, time, money and no small
- amount of risk. Therefore, it is expected to
- produce results that make this effort worthwhile.
- This is an "aggressive" policy.

Developing a "ring of 'illegals'" would usually not take the form of people who freely identify themselves as Israeli. They would better serve Israel by claiming to be Jordanian or Lebanese, and would likely be able to pull it off quite well. Most Israeli intelligence officers speak at least Arabic and French as well as Hebrew (obviously) and English. Many of their Arabic accents are Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian or JOrdanian.

- I'm asking you if you would class such activity as
- being acceptable, providing the diplomatic faces
- were always smiling, nodding and shaking hands. I'm
- aware that there is little substantive evidence of
- such a thing happening, but I'm interested in your
- opinion of it, should such a headline be printed
- tomorrow.

Should such a headline be printed tomorrow from a reliable source with hard evidence to back it up, I would be remarkably surprised. That being said, I would most likely not approve, depending on the nature of the compromise. "Acceptable" means something rather different.


MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Well they have bombed a few abortion clinics. But
- it doesn't take much these days to cause a
- catastrophic disaster. I'm thinking Oklahoma. Even
- though TM was not a Christian radical - as far as I
- know - it does not take much funding to blow
- something up. And some of these nuts will act if
- they feel like it.

No, it takes very little funding and not too much knowledge to make a rather dangerous device. These days it also requires a large degree of negligence. Of course, whenever someone is willing to die they will be more likely to accomplish their objective.

- Who do you suppose was responsible for the anthrax
- attacks?

I frankly do not know. Yes, it is entirely possible that it was an Iraqi agent, but it is equally likely that it was a disgruntled American.

"Those who are merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind."

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:35 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
---
-- Who do you suppose was responsible for the anthrax
-- attacks?
-
- The one that put it in the mailbox?

How could you possibly know that? Unless...

Hmm perhaps they should make you a person of interest?


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
09-09-2003, 11:51 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:

-- The one that put it in the mailbox?
-
- How could you possibly know that? Unless...
-
- Hmm perhaps they should make you a person of
- interest?

All they have to do is check out my highschool lab reports and they know I am innocent. Besides my spelling science was not my strong point.


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

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 12:11 AM
Many thanks for the considered and honest reply, Geist. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:16 AM
Slackbladder wrote:
- Many thanks for the considered and honest reply,
- Geist.

You're quite welcome. I hope you weren't expecting a reactionary and dishonest one! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Those who are merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind."

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:26 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- You're quite welcome. I hope you weren't expecting
- a reactionary and dishonest one!

A man can dream... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:28 AM
Slackbladder wrote:
- A man can dream...

It's good to have dreams. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Of course, that one is more like a nightmare...

Bear this in mind - you've seen how long and involved my responses can be. Would you really want to try and read an absolute rant from me? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Those who are merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind."

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:46 AM
Geist wrote:
- Bear this in mind - you've seen how long and
- involved my responses can be. Would you really want
- to try and read an absolute rant from me?

An excellent point. I've discovered in the course of my short life that the nicer the man, the lighter his light, you can guarantee that the shadow is darker than hell's own blackout curtains.

IF you ever consigned a rant to the forum, I very much doubt that the forum dwellers would ever get to see it. Not only would the language filter melt into silicone puddles speckled with solder, but the sheer length, ferocity and poison-spitting fury would cause the fragile server to crash out of some primitive insinct for self-preservation.

After an hour of trying to access the forums online, I would give up and watch an internationally approved news channel, where the lead story would be about an angry man, thought to be a rabbi in training, is picking up cars and throwing them into the newly established palestinian embassy. Screaming in fury, the swarm of media helicopters are blown back and narrowly avoid becoming married with a ballistic Ford Explorer.

The only quote suitable for pre-watershed viewing will be:

"GEIST MAD! GEIST SMASH!"

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg