President Bush's Address to the Nation

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

1) From a strategic point of view, Iraq is in smack bang in the middle of terrorist territory. Everyone knows the war was never about WMD's or freeing Iraqi's however gracious these goals are, it was about removing a maniac dictator who posed a direct threat to both U.S. and Israeli security. In the post-9/11 climate such a threat could not be left to burgeon as it could pre-9/11. The added bonus was Iraq is at the heart of the enemy's base and can as such be used as a base to supress terrorism and foster Democracy. The effects are already being shown in Lebanon, Iraq and now even Egypt.

The weaponry Hussein had wasn't capable of touching US soil. Thus, there is no way he could be a direct threat to America.

As for Israel, we all know America gives her favourable treatment. Seeing as she denies it though, America have no reason to look out for Israeli security more than anywhere else. And btw, tell me, what were Hussein's plans for Israel?

2) Iraqi civilans who don't want to be oppressed? OK. That would be why many of these same "civilians" aren't even Iraqi but foreign jihadists sent in by Bin Laden under the supervision of al-Zawhiri. Secondly, exactly how are any Iraqi civilians being oppressed? Unless they're involved (or suspected of being involved) in helping the insurgents/terrorists, Iraqi civilans suffer no oppression unless it's under the hands of the terrorists who are daily slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

Foreigners are fighting in Iraq. Both American & non-Iraqi Arabs. I never dismissed this. I simply highlighted Bush's intentional disregard for facts.

Sent by bin Laden? Prove it.

Yeah, it's true, no-one is being oppressed unless they're a suspect. Problem is, if you're Arab, you're a suspect.

3) 10,000 British troops are still serving in Iraq, the coalition was mentioned a number of times in Bush's speech.

Don't try & tell me how many are still serving in Iraq when you know it was a rhetorical question.

Seeing as I've only seen parts, would you mind quoting the parts where Bush mentions the coalition &/or Britain?

 

[Zero Cool]

The weaponry Hussein had wasn't capable of touching US soil. Thus, there is no way he could be a direct threat to America.

Again you're ignoring the premise. Just because it has now emerged that Hussein didn't have sufficent weaponry to touch U.S. soil (although I have heard differing accounts on this) the whole problem was he may have. Combined with emerging links with al-Zawhiri, post-9/11 this couldn't be allowed stand. Also, as aforementioned, Iraq is in the middle of terrorist territory. Strick at the heart is always good military policy.

As for Israel, we all know America gives her favourable treatment. Seeing as she denies it though, America have no reason to look out for Israeli security more than anywhere else. And btw, tell me, what were Hussein's plans for Israel?

Hussein was an acknolwedged enemy of Israel who posed a persisitant threat to her security. He launched scuds against her in '91 and was developing a nuclear programme before the Israeli's destroyed it in the early 80's.

Foreigners are fighting in Iraq. Both American & non-Iraqi Arabs. I never dismissed this. I simply highlighted Bush's intentional disregard for facts.

Sent by bin Laden? Prove it.

How is Bush disregarding the facts? He has repeatedly stated that it is a minority amount of Iraqi's (mostly disgrunteld Sunni's) combined with foreign jihadists who are causing trouble in Iraq. You seem to forget that a major factor behind the insurgency is the Sunni loss of influence and the extreme element's attempts to counter this. If the insurgents were to emerge successful it would once again be the tryanny of a minority. Everyone knows Bin Laden is financing and encouraging rogue elements to enter Iraq and fight the "infidel" under the leadership of al-Zawhiri amongst others, can you be so naiive as to deny this?

Yeah, it's true, no-one is being oppressed unless they're a suspect. Problem is, if you're Arab, you're a suspect.

This is begininng to sound like MichaelMoore.com. Put simply, that's crap. If you're suspected in engaging in terrorism you're a suspect, if you're not you're not. For the majority, race dosen't play a part.

Don't try & tell me how many are still serving in Iraq when you know it was a rhetorical question.

Seeing as I've only seen parts, would you mind quoting the parts where Bush mentions the coalition &/or Britain?

Unfortunately I don't have a photographic memory therefore I have some trouble in quoting direct passages, however Bush did mention the contribution of the coalition.

 

[PuffnScruff]

it doesnt matter if saddam had wmd's or not.

how did the US illegaly occupy iraq?

after desert storm the UN set up a bunch of rules that saddam had to follow. one of which was letting inspectors into his country. he was in violation of these rules for many years. and it stated that if he did not comply with these rules he ran the risk of going to war all over again, and being invaded. he brought this on himself. the war was never and will never be illegal. how is illegal?

how does a govt that knows for a fact(the whole world should know this for that matter) that a person who has had wmds and has used wmds before, isnt going to use them again?

i'm glad saddam is out of power. i'm glad his sons are dead.

about the speech, i payed little attention to it, i dont like how these gunho democrats are doing there usualy smear campagain. it's pretty sick how they are already thinking about the next election and only the next election when they can be thikning abou other things.

i think bush is right about not setting a time table, how do you set a time table? as soon as you leave more insurgents come up from north africa,syria, iran, and cause more problems till the new iraqi govt no longer exist.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Again you're ignoring the premise. Just because it has now emerged that Hussein didn't have sufficent weaponry to touch U.S. soil (although I have heard differing accounts on this) the whole problem was he may have. Combined with emerging links with al-Zawhiri, post-9/11 this couldn't be allowed stand. Also, as aforementioned, Iraq is in the middle of terrorist territory. Strick at the heart is always good military policy.

So the reason you're using is invading Iraq is for US security.

1. Hussein didn't have sufficient weaponry. Even if they only found this out when they got there, then leave. You now know Iraq contains only insufficient weaponry, so how can she threaten America?

2. Middle of terrorist territory? It borders Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Syria, Kuwait & Saudi Arabia. Only Syria & Iran have been identified as possible enemies & even then, the reasons for identifying them as such are weak. Turkey & Saudi Arabia are staunch allies.

Hussein was an acknolwedged enemy of Israel who posed a persisitant threat to her security. He launched scuds against her in '91 and was developing a nuclear programme before the Israeli's destroyed it in the early 80's.

Hussein's in captivity & this is 2005. Your reasoning here is weak.

How is Bush disregarding the facts? He has repeatedly stated that it is a minority amount of Iraqi's (mostly disgrunteld Sunni's) combined with foreign jihadists who are causing trouble in Iraq. You seem to forget that a major factor behind the insurgency is the Sunni loss of influence and the extreme element's attempts to counter this. If the insurgents were to emerge successful it would once again be the tryanny of a minority. Everyone knows Bin Laden is financing and encouraging rogue elements to enter Iraq and fight the "infidel" under the leadership of al-Zawhiri amongst others, can you be so naiive as to deny this?

No, Bush has repeatedly stated that "insurgents" are doing this & that. And these "insurgents" are hellbent on harming America, not liberating their country. I know there are those who would wish to resume control of the country, but that isn't all of "them" & in fact, given that the previous rulers are in the minority of the country, I'd guess that they are also in the minority of Iraqis fighting for liberation from foreign occupation.

"Everyone knows Bin Laden....."? Umm, no. Just like the US media tried to link Osama bin Laden with a Hussein-ruled Iraq - despite bin Laden's loathing of Hussein - now "everyone knows" this lol. "Everyone knows" what the media tells them. The media would have you believe everyone that is anti-American in Iraq is connected to bin Laden & this is just not true. I think you might realize this, but just to make sure I thought I'd point it out.

It is logical, however, to presume that bin Laden & his counterparts have a close eye on the situation & are supporting anti-Americans. Bush himself said that this had become a focal point for "world terror", he just failed to acknowledge who was doing the terrorizing.

This is begininng to sound like MichaelMoore.com. Put simply, that's crap. If you're suspected in engaging in terrorism you're a suspect, if you're not you're not. For the majority, race dosen't play a part.

Damn, and I thought I was reading a press release from www.OilTycoonsRapingTheWorld.com.

How can you deny Arabs have become targets? It has been found time & time again that Americans suspect domestic & foreign Arabs of being terrorists infinitely more than any other race. And Americans admit this! It happens in Britain too now.

"For the majority, race doesn't play a part"? No.......just, no. How can I rebut something which is so fucking ridiculous!! Racial profiling is an everyday thing & doesn't stop when it comes to terrorism either.

Unfortunately I don't have a photographic memory therefore I have some trouble in quoting direct passages, however Bush did mention the contribution of the coalition.

Well that's nice.

And oh, in terms of oppression, how about what the Yankees do to captives in their prisons? While next to none have been proven guilty of acts of terrorism, even the ones that had don't deserve oppression like that.........liberation, eh?

 

[XIAN]

I didn't get to see the whole thing but I've seen parts & so far I'm left with these same old questions:

1. What the fuck does 9/11 have to do with the illegal occupation of Iraq?
2. What the fuck does Osama bin Laden have to do with Iraqi civilians who do not want to be oppressed &, as such, take up arms?
3. At which point did British troops withdraw from Iraq?

The answers, as far I can see, are:
1. Nothing, except Bush knows he could convince Americans to eat their children, provided he says "9/11" enough times.
2. Nothing, except Bush uses bin Laden to keep 9/11 an open wound.
3. British troops never withdrew but Bush likes to convey the message of "us against the world (who are trying to hurt us)". Granted I never saw it all, but it was "Americans" & "US troops" & not one mention of the coalition.

Anyway, the point he raises about staying in Iraq is all well & good. It is true that to say that the coalition (note: not just American) is leaving at a certain date would lead to the "insurgents" - namely Iraqi civilians - calming down and.......wait, is it just me or did Bush himself say they can't give a date because then there'd be peace? Yes, he did. Although he did so on the premise that as soon as the US troops (coalition you twat) the "insurgents" would take over, if he would just step back & shake the paranoia he would realize that the "insurgents" are people who don't want their country raped & as this is the case, it would be in their interest to remain peaceful as long as possible. But this of course goes against the plague of fear Bush wishes to spread.

And foregoing the opportunity to laugh while choking on my own vomit at the justifications continuously put forth - such as the raping of Iraq is for "the security of America" - I'll press on with this "get the job done" bullshit. I don't know if the fool notices, but US troops are still dying in Afghanistan. You can't put your meddling hand in the Middle East & not get burned. This part of the world doesn't bow down to Yankee authority like that - with the exception of one or two powerful individuals (like the Saudi royal family but not necessarily the Saudi people). British troops are still in Afghanistan also AND Kosovo. Some war experts have estimated that it will most likely take 12 years before it will be "suitable" - going by Bush's definition - to leave Iraq. And that's provided EVERYTHING goes to plan.

Oh well, good thing sand soaks up blood so efficiently.

:thumb:

Also I think it's important to note that not only are the Iraqi people and children suffering because of this war...but the young men and women who are over there following orders. That's such a trajedy that they have to be away from their families and homes for this long and then they are in this war zone where any second they could get blown away. This what they don't show us on TV, 20 year old's, who have never been out of their home state, screaming their heads off, half way around the world, when they lose an arm or get severe burns from bombs.
When I see that shit, I always think, "what for?"
Is this bloodshed worth it? Is it worth anything?

Pray for Peace,

Xian

 

[PuffnScruff]

saddam was not a direct threat because he had no WMD and a pathetic armed forces

so please explain how this is a direct threat to your security

your just repeating the same bs scare tactics bush has been feeding you


not only has this war been a complete disaster, now you and isreal are bigger targets because most of the muslim world hates you

you just invade whomever you wish, take there oil and tell the american people it was for there security

there are many evil people in power in this world, and your president is no differen

so quit trying to excuse america being world police just because your media has made you a little scared

if you want security vote for some1 that will mend your relations with the rest of the world, not further divide the gap that allready exists

wow now that just might be a good idea

do you think saddam should still be in power? do you think he sons should still have all the fear and power they had over the iraqi people? do you agree with their gangster lifestyle? do you think it was right of them to kill whom ever they felt like and dump the bodies in a mass grave? do you agree that its ok for saddams sons to rape any woman they feel like?

their may or may not have been wmds, the us govt has said they have not found any and are calling off their search but, they also said it is still possiable that the weapons could still be in the country or they could have been taken out of the country. Saddam knew he was going to be invaded. he knew they would be on his doorstep very soon. he had plenty of time to sell off his weapons or hide them in another country.

there is a bigger picture in all of this? it's letting the iraqi people be free. like you and me. dont you think they deserve at least that much? saddam wasnt going to give it to them. so who would? canada?

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

:thumb:

Also I think it's important to note that not only are the Iraqi people and children suffering because of this war...but the young men and women who are over there following orders. That's such a trajedy that they have to be away from their families and homes for this long and then they are in this war zone where any second they could get blown away. This what they don't show us on TV, 20 year old's, who have never been out of their home state, screaming their heads off, half way around the world, when they lose an arm or get severe burns from bombs.
When I see that shit, I always think, "what for?"
Is this bloodshed worth it? Is it worth anything?

Pray for Peace,

Xian

It's against US policy to show "disturbing images" - ie. the true state of affairs - to the American people. The media must adhere to this directive. This is why you haven't had almost 2,000 bodyboags come across your TV screen. Had each bodybag been shown as it came in - or didn't, with some dudes being blown to pieces - then there would be a good chance that more than the current 59% of Americans would object to the war & demand America to withdraw.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

do you think saddam should still be in power? do you think he sons should still have all the fear and power they had over the iraqi people? do you agree with their gangster lifestyle? do you think it was right of them to kill whom ever they felt like and dump the bodies in a mass grave? do you agree that its ok for saddams sons to rape any woman they feel like?

Do you think the Americans should still be in power? Do you think it's right that the American troops should still have all the fear and power they have over the Iraqi people? Do you agree with their trigger-happy ways? Do you think it is right of them to maltreat & kill whomever they feel like, cover it up (or not) & not give a fuck? Do you agree that it's ok for US troops to abuse any Iraqi - male or female, sexual or not - they feel like?

there is a bigger picture in all of this? it's letting the iraqi people be free. like you and me. dont you think they deserve at least that much? saddam wasnt going to give it to them. so who would? canada?

Like you? Umm, your freedom is slowly being taken away & the Iraqis, under this occupation, still don't even have the right to breath without America dictating they can. I think they deserve more. Bush, like Hussein, cares more about himself than the people - American & Iraqi. Why bring Canada into it?

 

[Zero Cool]

So the reason you're using is invading Iraq is for US security.

1. Hussein didn't have sufficient weaponry. Even if they only found this out when they got there, then leave. You now know Iraq contains only insufficient weaponry, so how can she threaten America?

2. Middle of terrorist territory? It borders Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Syria, Kuwait & Saudi Arabia. Only Syria & Iran have been identified as possible enemies & even then, the reasons for identifying them as such are weak. Turkey & Saudi Arabia are staunch allies.

In case you've forgotten Saudi is the home of Bin Laden amongst thousands of other terrorists. Saudi princes are well known for financing Bin Laden's activites. Iran are an acknowledged sponser of terrorism and are daily enabling thousands pass through their territory into Iraq. They're also the main backers of groups like Hezbollah. However even if none of this were true it still wouldn't impact on the fact that the U.S. is there to institute democracy and strike the terrorists at their heart. This, is being done. As has been mentioned without U.S. influence such changes that happened in Lebanon, Syria and are beginning to come about in Egypt simply would not have taken place. It is a must for future U.S. security that Iraq is followed through to the end.

Hussein's in captivity & this is 2005. Your reasoning here is weak.

Well my reasoning was in relation to when Hussein was in power not in captivity.

No, Bush has repeatedly stated that "insurgents" are doing this & that. And these "insurgents" are hellbent on harming America, not liberating their country. I know there are those who would wish to resume control of the country, but that isn't all of "them" & in fact, given that the previous rulers are in the minority of the country, I'd guess that they are also in the minority of Iraqis fighting for liberation from foreign occupation.

No. The insurgents are principally Sunni Muslims who are in part Iraqi's and part foreign jihadists. There are almost no Kurds and very few Shia's in comparison engaged in the "insurgency"

"For the majority, race doesn't play a part"? No.......just, no. How can I rebut something which is so fucking ridiculous!! Racial profiling is an everyday thing & doesn't stop when it comes to terrorism either.

Be logical it's hardly sensible to racially profile when your operating in a country full of Arabs. If that were true then obviously you would see many more Iraqi's incarcerated than currently are. Not to mention the fact that it is actually mostly Iraqi's who are now taking charge of their country's security, backed up by U.S. forces. If evidence points to them being involved in the insurgency they are arrested, if not they aren't simple as that.

Well that's nice.

In fact I can quote you portions of the Presidents speech, courtesy of MichaelMoore.com

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing nonmilitary assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction.

Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe."

Our coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task. Thousands of coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders, and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission. Iraqi army and police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia and the United Kingdom. Today dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies and secure its freedom.

Etcetra.

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3156

And oh, in terms of oppression, how about what the Yankees do to captives in their prisons? While next to none have being proven guilty of acts of terrorism, even the ones that had don't deserved oppression like that.........liberation, eh?

Oppression? Hardly. In reference to Guantanamo Bay it has been shown that each inmate has infact gained an average of 10 pounds since incarceration. Every effort is made to service inmates needs. These people are some of the most dangerous on the planet, if physical means is used to extract information regarding U.S. security from them, I for one have no problem with it.

 

[PuffnScruff]

:thumb:

Also I think it's important to note that not only are the Iraqi people and children suffering because of this war...but the young men and women who are over there following orders. That's such a trajedy that they have to be away from their families and homes for this long and then they are in this war zone where any second they could get blown away. This what they don't show us on TV, 20 year old's, who have never been out of their home state, screaming their heads off, half way around the world, when they lose an arm or get severe burns from bombs.
When I see that shit, I always think, "what for?"
Is this bloodshed worth it? Is it worth anything?

Pray for Peace,


Xian

yes well thats war. war has been around along as man could talk. my parents are retired vets, they had to serve their country by being away from their family (i.e. me) cause thats they signed up for. if you dont know what your signing up for then dong sing on the dotted line. and i have seen plenty of videos of people that lost their limbs and our in pain. thats what happens in war. people die, and people get injured. its reality.

 

[PuffnScruff]

Do you think the Americans should still be in power? Do you think it's right that the American troops should still have all the fear and power they have over the Iraqi people? Do you agree with their trigger-happy ways? Do you think it is right of them to maltreat & kill whomever they feel like, cover it up (or not) & not give a fuck? Do you agree that it's ok for US troops to abuse any Iraqi - male or female, sexual or not - they feel like?




Like you? Umm, your freedom is slowly being taken away & the Iraqis, under this occupation, still don't even have the right to breath without America dictating they can. I think they deserve more. Bush, like Hussein, cares more about himself than the people - American & Iraqi. Why bring Canada into it?

if you are asking should american still be in power in iraq. well right now yes, iraqis are getting caught sleeping on the job.

what makes you think americans in iraq have fear and power over the people? i think the people are more fearful of the insurgents.
what trigger happy ways? ive seen plenty of reports from service men saying that they had to actually stop and think twice about shooting a teenager that was pointing an RPG at them. if anyone , kid or adult pointing a rocket probelled gernade at me you better believe i'm shooting first. fuck the politics. insurgents are giving these young kids bribes to work for them. the people arent too smart since they could receive more money than they have ever seen if they would turn these people in.


ive never seen any reports that would go along with what your saying about americans killing and abusing who ever they want over there. so i cant really comment on that since it sounds more like your pulling it out of your ass.

how is my freedom being taken away again?

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

In case you've forgotten Saudi is the home of Bin Laden amongst thousands of other terrorists. Saudi princes are well known for financing Bin Laden's activites. Iran are an acknowledged sponser of terrorism and are daily enabling thousands pass through their territory into Iraq. They're also the main backers of groups like Hezbollah. However even if none of this were true it still wouldn't impact on the fact that the U.S. is there to institute democracy and strike the terrorists at their heart. This, is being done. As has been mentioned without U.S. influence such changes that happened in Lebanon, Syria and are beginning to come about in Egypt simply would not have taken place. It is a must for future U.S. security that Iraq is followed through to the end.

The home? Or was the home? And just because bin Laden is Saudi Arabian doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is not a close ally of America. Again, even if princes funded his "activities", that doesn't mean anything. You might also be referring to his family who gave him money but stopped once it became apparent he was a wanted terrorist.

Damn, Iran are allowing freedom of movement, bomb them!!
They support terrorists like Hezbollah, eh? You support terrorists like America & America supports terrorists like the Israelis.

The fact is, America has no right to "institute democracy" in such a way. American incompetency makes it a necessity to stay in Iraq now, nothing else.

Well my reasoning was in relation to when Hussein was in power not in captivity.

Ok then, I'll just go murder some Germans & use irrelevant justification & you'll support me, right?

No. The insurgents are principally Sunni Muslims who are in part Iraqi's and part foreign jihadists. There are almost no Kurds and very few Shia's in comparison engaged in the "insurgency"

Principally? Who says so?

Be logical it's hardly sensible to racially profile when your operating in a country full of Arabs. If that were true then obviously you would see many more Iraqi's incarcerated than currently are. Not to mention the fact that it is actually mostly Iraqi's who are now taking charge of their country's security, backed up by U.S. forces. If evidence points to them being involved in the insurgency they are arrested, if not they aren't simple as that.

Sensibility has been far from prevalent in this campaign.

In fact I can quote you portions of the Presidents speech, courtesy of MichaelMoore.com

Etcetra.

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3156

Again, that's nice.....& ironic.

Oppression? Hardly. In reference to Guantanamo Bay it has been shown that each inmate has infact gained an average of 10 pounds since incarceration. Every effort is made to service inmates needs. These people are some of the most dangerous on the planet, if physical means is used to extract information regarding U.S. security from them, I for one have no problem with it.

I had Abu Ghraib in mind actually but it's nice that America provides us with a selection of atrocities.

Gaining weight means they're being fed that's all. In doesn't mean they aren't being tortured & abused.

How about defacing the Qu'ran? Doesn't affect their weight, it is the utmost form of abuse though.

 

[PuffnScruff]

they are probably being tortured and or abused at gitmo with good reason. i dont see you bringing up the fact that these prisoners throw their shit and piss at the guards as if they were a bunch of monkeys.
if i were a guard and a prisoner decided to throw their human waste at me, you better believe i would kick the shit out of that person with my hard ass military issued boot.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

if you are asking should american still be in power in iraq. well right now yes, iraqis are getting caught sleeping on the job.

what makes you think americans in iraq have fear and power over the people? i think the people are more fearful of the insurgents.
what trigger happy ways? ive seen plenty of reports from service men saying that they had to actually stop and think twice about shooting a teenager that was pointing an RPG at them. if anyone , kid or adult pointing a rocket probelled gernade at me you better believe i'm shooting first. fuck the politics. insurgents are giving these young kids bribes to work for them. the people arent too smart since they could receive more money than they have ever seen if they would turn these people in.


ive never seen any reports that would go along with what your saying about americans killing and abusing who ever they want over there. so i cant really comment on that since it sounds more like your pulling it out of your ass.

how is my freedom being taken away again?

America should occupy Iraq? Damn, that's fucked up.

Iraqi civilians have been tortured & killed, their homes damaged, imprisoned, etc, etc. That could be justification for them fearing Americans.

Umm, why would the people fear themselves? The people ARE the insurgents & have been for over a decade. The enemy has changed, that's all.

Trigger-happy? I forgot, you guys don't get actual news reports. American troops have been proven to have a trigger-happy mentality - studies show this. An example that is commonly used to show how there is nothing done to curb the wannabe Rambos is that an American soldier can shoot until the sun comes up & never have to give a detailed justification. British troops, like a lot of others, are required to account for every bullet they fired with their ammunition being throroughly checked. There is evidence outwith Iraq also, domestically it is obvious you guys are trigger-happy. Gun crimes are through the roof.

The only thing I'd ask about these reports that you haven't been seeing is, are you blind or do you have your eyes closed purposefully? Abu Ghraib, heard of it? Good.

Your freedom means nothing, courtesy of the Patriot Act.

Check this thread concerning part of your rights. You should remember it, you created it. http://2pacboard.com/forum/thread141086.html

And this too, http://2pacboard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141033&page=1

As for your comments about what YOU would do if you were in certain scenarios. If YOU beat a prisoner then YOU - like your countrymen among many others - would be breaching human rights legislation & YOU - like your countrymen - should be brought to trial but, admittedly, would probably get away with it.

 

[Zero Cool]

The home? Or was the home? And just because bin Laden is Saudi Arabian doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is not a close ally of America. Again, even if princes funded his "activities", that doesn't mean anything. You might also be referring to his family who gave him money but stopped once it became apparent he was a wanted terrorist.

Damn, Iran are allowing freedom of movement, bomb them!!
They support terrorists like Hezbollah, eh? You support terrorists like America & America supports terrorists like the Israelis.

Saudi is nominally a close ally of America however there are grave concerns as to that country's stability. Terrorism is very well funded through a number of prominent Saudi backers and many Saudi's are currently fighting in Iraq.

Terrorists like America, terrorists like the Israelis? You'd fit right in in Tehran.

Principally? Who says so?

Everyone from Sky News to the U.N.

I had Abu Ghraib in mind actually but it's nice that America provides us with a selection of atrocities.

Gaining weight means they're being fed that's all. In doesn't mean they aren't being tortured & abused.

How about defacing the Qu'ran? Doesn't affect their weight, it is the utmost form of abuse though.

Tortured and abused? Have you any actual evidence to back this up. There are, of course, cases of inmates being mistreated but to my knowledge there is no evidence at all to indicate an in-built campaign of abuse and torture by U.S. authorities. Perhaps you'd like to prove otherwise?

As to defacing the Qur'an it's been acknowledged that Newsweek couldn't back up their claims when put under pressure. Also, many of the ex-inmates making these claims are very shady to say the least. Most if not all would certainly fall down under cross-examination. Be that as it may there certainly have been individual cases of maltreatment in this area by U.S. guards. When brought to superiors notice most if not all have been prosecuted and replaced. Therefore there is little or no evidence to indicate a U.S. policy of abuse in this field. If Saddam or Bin Laden were in charge however you can be certain the opposite would be true.

 

[XIAN]

yes well thats war. war has been around along as man could talk. my parents are retired vets, they had to serve their country by being away from their family (i.e. me) cause thats they signed up for. if you dont know what your signing up for then dong sing on the dotted line. and i have seen plenty of videos of people that lost their limbs and our in pain. thats what happens in war. people die, and people get injured. its reality.

NO. That's not reality, it's stupidity. War is not reality. Peace is reality. I'll tell you why: People are happier in peace. Peace is natural, and war is not. If it wasn't we would be happy in war and sad in peace.

Why should you have to go and fight in a war and get killed or kill others or be in pain? There is a better way, and in this day in age we should be able to find it. It's about greed, and the U.S. is on the greed side. They are the oppressors. Israel is the oppressor. Thats why they bulldoze helpless slums in Palestine.
The troops in Iraq are serving their government, NOT their people.

Do you disagree that it's a trajedy? When kids come home torn limb from limb in a body-bag? They thought they were doing us a favor. It's not worth it. I don't know how you could see those images and sounds of them screaming and think that it's worth it. That it's a noble thing to participate in. Their lives were snatched from them. They all had families and friends. They all grew up, and they all had plans for after the war was over.

To me, it's the saddest thing in the world.

Peace.

 

[PuffnScruff]

America should occupy Iraq? Damn, that's fucked up.

Iraqi civilians have been tortured & killed, their homes damaged, imprisoned, etc, etc. That could be justification for them fearing Americans.

Umm, why would the people fear themselves? The people ARE the insurgents & have been for over a decade. The enemy has changed, that's all.

Trigger-happy? I forgot, you guys don't get actual news reports. American troops have been proven to have a trigger-happy mentality - studies show this. An example that is commonly used to show how there is nothing done to curb the wannabe Rambos is that an American soldier can shoot until the sun comes up & never have to give a detailed justification. British troops, like a lot of others, are required to account for every bullet they fired with their ammunition being throroughly checked. There is evidence outwith Iraq also, domestically it is obvious you guys are trigger-happy. Gun crimes are through the roof.

The only thing I'd ask about these reports that you haven't been seeing is, are you blind or do you have your eyes closed purposefully? Abu Ghraib, heard of it? Good.

Your freedom means nothing, courtesy of the Patriot Act.

Check this thread concerning part of your rights. You should remember it, you created it. http://2pacboard.com/forum/thread141086.html

And this too, http://2pacboard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141033&page=1

As for your comments about what YOU would do if you were in certain scenarios. If YOU beat a prisoner then YOU - like your countrymen among many others - would be breaching human rights legislation & YOU - like your countrymen - should be brought to trial but, admittedly, would probably get away with it.

i dont want americans to have control over iraq, but until their own people can stand up for themselves, then who the fuck is going to do it?

a report last week showed that autopshy reports prove alot of the insurgents are coming from north africa and that a lot of the insurgents are not from iraq.

well show me some reports about trigger happy troops.

the patriot act. well i have nothing to hide, so i dont see the govt having any reason to tap my phone. if i were into illegal shit then i wouldnt like this act so much.

were are the rights for the guards that get human shit thrown in their face?

 

[PuffnScruff]

NO. That's not reality, it's stupidity. War is not reality. Peace is reality. I'll tell you why: People are happier in peace. Peace is natural, and war is not. If it wasn't we would be happy in war and sad in peace.

Why should you have to go and fight in a war and get killed or kill others or be in pain? There is a better way, and in this day in age we should be able to find it. It's about greed, and the U.S. is on the greed side. They are the oppressors. Israel is the oppressor. Thats why they bulldoze helpless slums in Palestine.
The troops in Iraq are serving their government, NOT their people.

Do you disagree that it's a trajedy? When kids come home torn limb from limb in a body-bag? They thought they were doing us a favor. It's not worth it. I don't know how you could see those images and sounds of them screaming and think that it's worth it. That it's a noble thing to participate in. Their lives were snatched from them. They all had families and friends. They all grew up, and they all had plans for after the war was over.

To me, it's the saddest thing in the world.

Peace.

i agree peace is the answer. but it's just not in our nature. and it will not be out nature till the rest of the world can be on that same level. there is another way than war. i agree. but not everyone in this world has come that same conclusion. until then...

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Saudi is nominally a close ally of America however there are grave concerns as to that country's stability. Terrorism is very well funded through a number of prominent Saudi backers and many Saudi's are currently fighting in Iraq.

Again, none of this makes Saudi Arabia dangerous. The Saudi backers tend to have left the country (& if they haven't, why aren't they apprehended?) & the Saudis fighting in Iraq, besides merely expressing what most of the Arab world seems to be feeling (that is, "we don't want to be occupied"), are not in Saudi Arabia so do not make a difference to Saudi Arabia as a nation.

And yes there's been attempts to overthrow the government & royal family but guess what? These attempts have failed & they will continue to do so because the royal family are just too damn rich.

Terrorists like America, terrorists like the Israelis? You'd fit right in in Tehran.

And? Only uncultured/brainwashed people will find that they do not share opinions with a variety of people across the world.

Everyone from Sky News to the U.N.

lol, I forgot that day they went out & surveyed the terrorists.

Tortured and abused? Have you any actual evidence to back this up. There are, of course, cases of inmates being mistreated but to my knowledge there is no evidence at all to indicate an in-built campaign of abuse and torture by U.S. authorities. Perhaps you'd like to prove otherwise?

You ask me to back it up, then you indicate you are aware of cases.

And those who were brought to trial? Most of them claimed it had been an order given from above them. Ex-military officials have also stated that this type of tactic is not unusual. And I know that you know America's track record. All this would indicate that it is somewhat of an unwritten part of US military ethos for many military personel.

As to defacing the Qur'an it's been acknowledged that Newsweek couldn't back up their claims when put under pressure.

Good thing I wasn't talking about that then, eh? BBC have reported several cases of this occuring - before & after the Newsweek scandal.

Also, many of the ex-inmates making these claims are very shady to say the least. Most if not all would certainly fall down under cross-examination. Be that as it may there certainly have been individual cases of maltreatment in this area by U.S. guards. When brought to superiors notice most if not all have been prosecuted and replaced. Therefore there is little or no evidence to indicate a U.S. policy of abuse in this field. If Saddam or Bin Laden were in charge however you can be certain the opposite would be true.

Obviously the ex-inmates are "shady", they must be if they were imprisoned, right?

The individual US guards tend to blame their superiors though.

If Hussein (please refrain from calling him Saddam, he is not a child) or bin Laden were in charge.......hmm, tell me, what is the opposite? Christians, on the whole, do not hold the Bible in the same regard that Muslims hold the Qu'ran. That said, remind me of how I could "B certain" that defacement of the Bible would take place?

 

[PuffnScruff]

btw we have destroyed this poor girls thread. maybe should continue this in a new one. i'm off to work. cant wait to see whats posted in here when i get off around 1 am