Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Let's see where this will go
FN Posted: Mon May 17 10:31:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ok, question to the pro-bushies and such, before I start doing my thing, tell me what to you guys the reason for the war on Iraq were.


 
Maya Posted: Mon May 17 11:30:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  *locks herself in the war shelter mumbling "why did ya go and bring that up?"


;)


 
FN Posted: Mon May 17 11:39:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Maya said:
>*locks herself in the war shelter mumbling "why did ya go and bring that up?"

Because I'm a bad boy baby, and don't act like you don't like it.


 
Christian Posted: Mon May 17 14:42:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  to save the Iraquis????????


 
Worm Posted: Mon May 17 15:27:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hell, I was there, and I'm still not sure. But I do believe that it was the right thing to do. It's just a matter of opinion really.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 17 15:29:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Worm said:
>Hell, I was there, and I'm still not sure. But I do believe that it was the right thing to do. It's just a matter of opinion really.

You don't know why yet still you think it was the right thing to do?

Sounds a bit like indoctrination.


 
Mark Posted: Mon May 17 16:52:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  They started the war to protect world peace... (or perhaps their oil)


 
casper Posted: Mon May 17 16:57:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Worm said:
>>Hell, I was there, and I'm still not sure. But I do believe that it was the right thing to do. It's just a matter of opinion really.
>
>You don't know why yet still you think it was the right thing to do?
>
>Sounds a bit like indoctrination.

you seem to use that word (indoctrination) an awful lot...but everybody is indoctrined to some degree in some form. yes, even you. all it really means is how you were raised to believe.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 17 17:15:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>everybody is indoctrined to some degree in some form. yes, even you. all it really means is how you were raised to believe.

Perhaps, but there are different degrees, reasons, and means.

Still no answers to my question though.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 17 17:22:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wolffie said:
>They started the war to protect world peace... (or perhaps their oil)

And how was Iraq a threat to world peace.


 
addi Posted: Mon May 17 17:36:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper makes a good point. we all are indoctrinated by our environment, some more than others i think. to me the trick is that when you reach the age when you are capable of stepping outside your personal world of experience and begin questioning the personal indoctrination you got in your "wonder bread" years (this age varies from person to person, some never reach it) you start to objectively analyze what you were taught, and keep what seems right and true, and reject what doesn't, even if it means rejecting what generations before you believed (sorry bout the run on sentence).
This is an ongoing process by the way. it never ends.
If you don't go through this process you are just giving any search for truth lip service, and not really pursuing it.

*worm, I'm assuming that when you said you had been there you meant as a soldier in Afganistan or Iraq. If that's true it would be intersting to hear more from the perspective of someone that's experienced this war first hand.


 
addi Posted: Mon May 17 17:40:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  sorry, christophe. I'm not trying to avoid your question, but you pretty well already know where i stand on this dubyaject.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 17 17:44:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>sorry, christophe. I'm not trying to avoid your question, but you pretty well already know where i stand on this dubyaject.

Yeah I know :o)

I'm just trying to draw the bushies out so I can get on with the thread :o)


 
Zacq Posted: Mon May 17 18:25:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>to me the trick is that when you reach the age when you are capable of stepping outside your personal world of experience and begin questioning the personal indoctrination you got in your "wonder bread" years (this age varies from person to person, some never reach it)

Another way to go about this is to stop the indoctrination before it can fully set in, while you're a teenager.


 
iggy Posted: Mon May 17 21:00:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  to enslave the iraqi fools to make them become our slaves to work in US beer and frozen pizza factories in iraq.


 
addi Posted: Mon May 17 21:29:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  chanz said:
>to enslave the iraqi fools to make them become our slaves to work in US beer and frozen pizza factories in iraq.

LMAO!
Rumsfeld: "Shit! They're on to us!!"


 
Kira Posted: Mon May 17 23:03:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I stay out all day long and come back to find a measly sixteen posts in a political thread? I'm shocked--shocked and appalled. I expect you people to entertain me!


 
Dancer Posted: Mon May 17 23:12:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  politicians do many things and have a thousand and one ways to justify it, but their true intentions we know little of. i did not oppose the iraq war, that doesn't make me a pro bushie.
i just felt that the war is not absolutely wrong based on the simple fact that saddam is not a peace loving dude afterall.


 
antartica Posted: Tue May 18 00:09:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  well...
let's say that irak or iraq or whatever-rakq... had no oil what so ever...

would the states bother?

it has been a proven fact that 99% of all wars was for more resources... i.e. OIL...

unless it's for women... but i dun think no one was interested in Saddam's wives...


 
Mark Posted: Tue May 18 01:01:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Wolffie said:
>>They started the war to protect world peace... (or perhaps their oil)
>
>And how was Iraq a threat to world peace.
They where not imho. But if I remember correctly, it was stated that Iraq was helping terrorists and therefor a threat. Didn't agree with the war though.


 
Worm Posted: Tue May 18 02:30:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I would voice my opinion on why we were there, but I will refrain for two reasons:
A. I'm pretty sure that somebody would say that my opinion is the dim view of a brainwashed military that exists only to spend taxpayers money and blow the shit out of foriegn countries.
B. It doesn't really matter what the reasons were, cuz if you didn't want us to be there in the first place then no reason that myself or anyone else gives is going to change your mind.

As for my previous post, I know why I went. I just can't quite put it into words. And yes, I still believe we did the right thing.


 
addi Posted: Tue May 18 07:25:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Worm said:

>As for my previous post, I know why I went. I just can't quite put it into words. And yes, I still believe we did the right thing.

thanks, worm. i wasn't trying to bait you. I just thought it would have been interesting to hear from someone who had experienced it first hand. you would have a perspective that us armchair war quarterbacks couldn't have.




 
FN Posted: Tue May 18 11:03:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ok,

I'll make it easier then:

Were this the reasons:


WMD's
Possibility of nukes
Long distance rockets
Terrorist links
Saddam tortured his people


Did I forget anything?



 
casper Posted: Tue May 18 16:56:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i think the reason no one is responding is because it smells like a trap... :)


 
addi Posted: Tue May 18 18:10:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  they're scared, chris. I don't think they trust you lol!

I will say that I heard an interview with an editor of the some politally conservative publication today (Nat'l Week in Review, or something like that). He is also a member of one of those big washington conservative thinktank groups.
I just found it a sign of the times when he's railing on Bushs handling of the war, but comdemning the growing trend of conservative politicians publically saying that we need to get out of Iraq now, like rats jumping from a sinking ship. He also said we have to have a much larger force in there now to do the deed (cha-ching $$$$).

The REALLY big pisser to me is that our soldiers are there now. They have done (for the most part) a very admirable job doing what they were asked to do under very shitty conditions.
Well folks...
It's too fucking late now! where were these dumbfucks before it all started?!! I'll tell you; they were re-gurgitating the gospel according to st. bushie and his apissles, and lapping up his every damn lie.
well we can't go in and clean house, and then say, "hey, they're not waving roses at us. Those are guns and bombs!", and suddenly decide to leave. Can you even imagine the good will coming our way from other countries if we leave them to their own devices now and pull out? It would be a madhouse there. Pulling out isn't an option now. We are stuck there for a long time (once again today the whitehouse refuses to say how long because they don't know) trying to make Iraq a democracy.

Liberals don't even need to scrounge up some type of hocus pocus defense for their views. the events unfolding every day here and in Iraq (from any news source)say it all. Bit by bit and piece by piece a mosaic begins to form of the big picture, and that picture confirms all their fears from the day Gore conceaded the 2000 election.

Civil rights
the economy
needless war and deaths
foreign policy

i'll take a cigar-toting-blow-job president any day over this nonsense





 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 18 20:27:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Who are these conservative politicians demanding that we leave Iraq now ?

And who gives a shit about good will from other countries that don't give a shit about us ? All those countries that jumped on the anti-American bandwagon can kiss our asses. In the very near future, Al-quaeda will begin massive terror operations in Western Europe where they are very well entrenched and then we'll see how they want to fight terror. Because these mutherfuckers want to kill all of us who aren't muslims, not just Americans.

The facts are that Iraq was a state sponsorer of terrorism and we did the right thing by going over there.
Syria will be next if they don't get their collective heads out of their asses.
I sure as hell don't see any of the anti Bushies coming up with any kind of anti terror campaign at all, just that we were wrong to go to Iraq.
Kerry wants to go the UN ? Give me a fucking break ! The UN is worse than Saddam was. This is an organization that literally pulled their trucks off the road to make way for Sudanese rebels to get by so they could hack up women and children with their machetes while they wached.
Yeah, only when hell freezes over will Americans depend on the UN for any kind of security.


 
addi Posted: Tue May 18 21:50:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Who are these conservative politicians demanding that we leave Iraq now ?

I turned it off before the interview was over. never heard names, but i figured you'd know. Remember this wasn't coming out of the mouth of one of our guys, it was an outspoken high profile conservative. There was no reason for him to make this up since it only makes republicans look bad.

>And who gives a shit about good will from other countries that don't give a shit about us ?

We all should give a shit. We can't live in an isolated world anymore. it's in our best interest to cooperate and coexist as peacefully as possible with other countries. Al-quida lives in Afganistan and bombs the world trade towers, then go after them. But we need to pick and choose our fights carefully, and keep traditional allies behind us as much as possible. Unilateral action doesn't help our cause. For all practical purposes this is/was a U.S. effort.

>All those countries that jumped on the anti-American bandwagon can kiss our asses.

this kiss our ass mentality is precisely the attitude that citizens from "all those countries" think americans have. not good

>In the very near future, Al-quaeda will begin massive terror operations in Western Europe where they are very well entrenched and then we'll see how they want to fight terror.

you need to lend Bush the crystal ball you're using for future predictions. He could have used it a year ago. : )

>Because these mutherfuckers want to kill all of us who aren't muslims, not just Americans.

These motherfuckers you speak of are motherfuckers, but they were a very small percentage of motherfuckers within the muslim community. Bush's policies are making their ranks swell. Whether we like it or not we need the moderate rational peace loving muslims to condemn their actions and put internal pressure on them. We do not need to be turning moderate passive muslims into America hating fanatics.

>The facts are that Iraq was a state sponsorer of terrorism and we did the right thing by going over there.

you are confusing fact with opinion, a frequent tactic of hawkish conservatives.

>Syria will be next if they don't get their collective heads out of their asses.

did ya hear that syria? and the rest of you mamby-pamby middle eastern countries better start minding your P's and Q's too! (and we're keping an eye on you pussy Aussies too)

>I sure as hell don't see any of the anti Bushies coming up with any kind of anti terror campaign at all, just that we were wrong to go to Iraq.

My crazy German father in law could come up with a better anti terrorist campaign than what i've seen the past 3 years from the best republican minds on the job.

>Kerry wants to go the UN ? Give me a fucking break ! The UN is worse than Saddam was.

I know! Let's keep doing it Bush's way! It's been working like a charm.

>This is an organization that literally pulled their trucks off the road to make way for Sudanese rebels to get by so they could hack up women and children with their machetes while they wached.

I'm surprised they didn't get out and help slaughter the children, hif. Everyone knows U.N. people are really blood thirsty cannibals.

>Yeah, only when hell freezes over will Americans depend on the UN for any kind of security.

And I'm saying a strong UN is in America's best interest. We can't keep going it on our own in the future.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 19 07:05:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sorry Addie, I'm not buying your argument, but I will say this,It would be nice to have our traditional allies on board, but we cannot ask them for permission to defend ourselves, and in matters of national security.
France is not our friend, at least not as long as Chirac is in charge.
If you don't think that Saddam supported terrorists, then you better go back and look again at the facts.
I agree that a strong UN would be in our best interest, but there is no such thing and never will be in the current incarnation. As long as countries that are ideologically opposed to our way of life sit on the governing council, the UN will never be in our best interests.
As far as going into Iraq unilaterally, where were the liberals when we were bombing the shit out of Kosovo. . . . unilaterally ?


 
addi Posted: Wed May 19 08:23:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i know we'll be at different places on this hif. I think it's at a fundamental level that we part ways. I saw Afganistan as "defending ourselves".

I don't view invading Iraq as critical to our defense. I believe there were better choices to be made as to how to go after those responsible for 9/11, and not create more extremists and ill will in the process. therein lies the difference between you and i


 
iggy Posted: Wed May 19 08:51:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Ok,
>
>I'll make it easier then:
>
>Were this the reasons:
>
>
>WMD's
>Possibility of nukes
>Long distance rockets
>Terrorist links
>Saddam tortured his people
>
>
>Did I forget anything?

bollocks...
dubya was pissed that saddam was much better looking than him in that moustache and army gear



 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 09:02:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:

> I don't view invading Iraq as critical to our defense. I believe there were better choices to be made as to how to go after those responsible for 9/11, and not create more extremists and ill will in the process. therein lies the difference between you and i

what choices would you have made? would you have just continued to ignore the problems in iraq? i'm not trying to antagonize you i'm just curious what you believe would have been the better course of action. because regardless saddam was doing some shady shit


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 09:21:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>France is not our friend, at least not as long as Chirac is in charge.

You mean as long as there is a president that doesn't just do whatever the US asks?


No proven link for terrorist support to date.


And again hif, just to be clear, did I leave any reasons out?


 
addi Posted: Wed May 19 09:50:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Casper, if we justified invading every country run by a dictator despot guilty of doing "shady things" we'd be quite busy wouldn't we? I'd start a country by country list, but you get the picture.

it's silly i even feel i have to say this, but no, I don't think Saddam was just a silly mean guy. He was a horrible leader that did terrible things to his people. I would never defend his reign of terror.

did terrorists ever use Iraq? No doubt. Hell, terrorists were using Canada and America to train in. Were there strong ties between al-queda, Osama, and Saddam? I have yet to see overwhelming proof of this.
I do know that Osama thought of saddam as an "infidel" (same thing he calls us) so I know they weren't bedfellows. I know he saw his regiem as secular and an affront to Allah. Quite frankly this administrations "truths" have long since lost any validity for me, so any claims of Saddam/al-Queda connections coming from them I am highly suspicious of.

this is a different war we got ourselves in to. terrorists aren't a coventional fighting force that we meet on the field of battle and vanquish forever. Defeating the Iraqi army I would venture to say has very little to do with defeating the forces of terrorism (in the end it may prove to have actually have strengthened them).

I will not pretend to be a terrorist expert, but it seems to me that because we are engaged against a non-conventional enemy, we need to think outside the box and deal with them in a non-conventional way.
Go after those WE KNOW were involved with Osama and company, along with the full support of our allies.

This whole Iraq invasion just seems to be shots in the dark to me, and the bullets have reached their pinnacle and gravity is now bringing them speeding back towards us.


and i know you weren't trying to antagonize me. It's cool. I understand where you're coming from, and I also understand that there are some things I believe now that probably are not true.


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 10:14:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i agree with alot of what you are saying but in one area i am confused. are you saying you would not have done anything against saddam? you would have just continued on with the status quo as he continued to terrorize his own people and consistantly boot out the UN weapons inspectors?


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 10:20:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>i agree with alot of what you are saying but in one area i am confused. are you saying you would not have done anything against saddam? you would have just continued on with the status quo as he continued to terrorize his own people and consistantly boot out the UN weapons inspectors?


Last thing I heard the US shouldn't care about the UN, which includes it's inspectors, and the iraqi's are the enemy.

I also heard somewhere on here that the welbeing of the iraqi people wasn't one of the main reasons.

I wonder why it's called iraqi freedom then, considering the iraqi's are the enemy.


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 10:25:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>i agree with alot of what you are saying but in one area i am confused. are you saying you would not have done anything against saddam? you would have just continued on with the status quo as he continued to terrorize his own people and consistantly boot out the UN weapons inspectors?
>
>
>Last thing I heard the US shouldn't care about the UN, which includes it's inspectors, and the iraqi's are the enemy.
>
>I also heard somewhere on here that the welbeing of the iraqi people wasn't one of the main reasons.
>
>I wonder why it's called iraqi freedom then, considering the iraqi's are the enemy.

it's hard to care about what the un says or does when they are so ineffective. maybe if they would have done something from the beginning when saddam wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors in the US Gov may be a little more willing to work within the boundaries that the UN puts forth.




 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 10:31:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  After those torture pictures it became clear to me why the US was so reluctant to agree to the international court in The Hague.


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 10:32:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>After those torture pictures it became clear to me why the US was so reluctant to agree to the international court in The Hague.

fuck you chris


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 19 10:38:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The links between Iraq and Al-quaeda are there, they may not be OVERWHELMING", but they are there nonetheless, more importantly, the fact that Saddam sponsored terrorists are indisputable.
State sponsored terrorism is something we absolutely cannot and will not tolerate any longer. When terrorists no longer have a sponsor to turn to, their mission will be much more difficult to accomplish, if not impossible.
No, it is not necessary to invade every country that sponsors terrorism. Each country has to be dealt with in it's own way. Iran had thumbed it's nose at the world for way too long and was much too dangerous to allow it to go on.
Tell me, if you thought (as the whole world did) that he had stockpiles of wmd's would you have just let another UN resolution go by the way ?
As supportive as you are of the UN, how would you grade them on their performance where Iraq is concerned ?
Considering they did nothing.


 
addi Posted: Wed May 19 10:50:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
> are you saying you would not have done anything against saddam?

valid question and one I probably don't have a satisfactory answer to for you.

No, ignoring him would have only led to delaying problems down the road. It wasn't responding to saddamn that i disagree with, it was the nature and timing of the response i guess. If he truely posed as emminent of a threat as we were told then we move, with or without world support.
I just find it harder and harder to swallow that he was in fact the emminent threat that we were told he was. Continuing diplomatic pressure and talks with other middle eastern countries and european allies still seems to me to have been a viable option, compared to what we now find ourselves in the middle of.
If at some point down the road we deem Saddamm to pose a serious threat to middle east stability then we act with force, but only with a considerably larger coalition of countries involved in the fray.
the policy of appeasement used in the '30's towards Hitler came back to bite us all in the butt. I think comparing the abilities of saddam to nazi germany is a real stretch though.

In the end I just feel we lost track of our main objective and got off track by swatting at a pesky fly, while the killer bees were refortifying and gaining strength behind our back.


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 11:04:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  good points...at least that's closer to an answer than i've gotten from a lot of other people. most people just seem to say we screwed up without wanting to give any other options as to what we should have done. it's easy to condemn actions in hindsight.


 
addi Posted: Wed May 19 11:05:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>When terrorists no longer have a sponsor to turn to, their mission will be much more difficult to accomplish, if not impossible.

Don't be so naive, hif. they will find a way to strike back, with or without an official state supporting them. Hate always finds its target sooner or later. if you believe the incidents of worldwide terrorist attacks are going to significantly decrease because we have Saddam (the force behind Iraqi state sponsored terrorism)you are in for a huge dissapointment.


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 11:48:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The links between Iraq and Al-quaeda are there, they may not be OVERWHELMING", but they are there nonetheless, more importantly, the fact that Saddam sponsored terrorists are indisputable.
>State sponsored terrorism is something we absolutely cannot and will not tolerate any longer.


Might I remind you of the fact that to Russia the afghans were terrorists as well, who was sponsoring them at first you think?


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 12:05:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>The links between Iraq and Al-quaeda are there, they may not be OVERWHELMING", but they are there nonetheless, more importantly, the fact that Saddam sponsored terrorists are indisputable.
>>State sponsored terrorism is something we absolutely cannot and will not tolerate any longer.
>
>
>Might I remind you of the fact that to Russia the afghans were terrorists as well, who was sponsoring them at first you think?

why you gotta bring up old shit... :)

and actually it was more like guerilla warfare against an occupying force. russia had taken over afganistan (at least tried to) and they were fighting them back. i don't recall any afganis going over to russia and blowing up civilians...but i may be a little hazy on my history


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 19 12:09:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>When terrorists no longer have a sponsor to turn to, their mission will be much more difficult to accomplish, if not impossible.
>
>Don't be so naive, hif. they will find a way to strike back, with or without an official state supporting them. Hate always finds its target sooner or later. if you believe the incidents of worldwide terrorist attacks are going to significantly decrease because we have Saddam (the force behind Iraqi state sponsored terrorism)you are in for a huge dissapointment.
>
No one said they would go away, but without such support you have to know that they would be considerably less effective. They would not have been able to pull ov a 9/11 without massive support. And they sure won't have as many places to hide.
No, not because we have Saddam, I'm talking about ALL terrorist sponsoring states being dealt with.
This is going to be a long hard road, but it must be done. And the UN will be no help to anyone. Nothing but a bunch of fat cats sucking on America's tits.


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 12:36:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ok so I guess since nobody refuted it these were the reasons to go to war with Iraq:



WMD's (none found untill now)

Possibility of nukes (actually the possibility of the possibility to create one, along with a forged document thrown in)

Long distance rockets (they had those but they could only reach neighbouring countries, not the US as far as I know, if I'm wrong please inform me)

Terrorist links (not proven, only based on suspicion)

Saddam tortured his people (a fact, although according to some people on this forum that wasn't one of the official reasons for the war)

Iraq didn't allow any UN/US inspectors



Now let us all take a look at North Korea.


WMD's (known and proven, biological and chemical, South Korea holds monthly drills to be prepared for an attack from it's neighbour)

Possibility of nukes (North Korea has them, number lies around 7-8 nukes, including the possibility to make a small nuke to sell to terrorists)

Long distance missiles (It is proven that North Korea has those as well, they can hit anywhere in the world without too much trouble)

Terrorist links (Known, for example the bombing of a passenger aircraft (forgot the exact number but look it up))

Torture: Documented executions, torture, and tests on human beings of chemical and biological weapons; information gathered from ex-scientists in those facilities, people who witnessed it in some way or another, and in the case of "camp 21" documents which were proven to be real, describing one of the tests with gas. One of the former head scientists in one of those camps now lives in the US and has given detailed reports about everything that went on over there, including him admitting to have killed several families because he had a bad day.

North Korea is considered to be the most closed society/country on earth, it has been years since the last inspectors have set foot on North Korean soil.

Furthermore there is film material of a North Korean general getting completely pissed off saying he plans to destroy america, filmed by an english camera crew. Pictures and films of official North Korean bulletin boards stating they will get revenge on the US.




So, what is the difference between North Korea and Iraq?

The things stated above, and the fact that Iraq has oil and North Korea is a peasant state which has nothing except a considerable army because that's where all the funds it has go to.


Now keep into account that the american economy is an autarkian one (don't know the correct english term), meaning it concentrates mainly on it's internal market (only a VERY small percentage of the gross national product comes from international trade) and meaning it strives to be able to supply itself with it's own resources without having to depend on them from other countries.


I took the time to look some stuff up to get my point across about that last thing.

I'll compare it to Belgium for good measure in relative percentages. (before you get on your horse hif, only to show that it is a different type of economy, not saying that one is better than the other, it's just a little different and both systems have their advantages and downsides; it's just to prove that last point)


In 2000 (most recent numbers I could find right away) export for Belgium was a little under 20000€ per capita a year. Export per capita per year for the US was about 2500€ (no, not forgetting any 0's, it's 20000 and 2500).

The transparrencyratio (meaning how much of the national product consists of international trade) for Belgium in 2000 was 46,33%.

That of the US in 2000 was a little over 7,6%

Again I'm not mixing any numbers up, 46,33% and 7,6%.

The reason for this is the fact that Belgium is dependant on it's neighbouring countries for a big part in order to get raw materials, especially oil, as the Belgian economy specialises in high-tech products and consequently needs a lot of imported resources to resell after processing them.

But as stated before, the biggest part of the import consists of oil since Belgium has none of it's own.

The US having the highest energy usage in the world (even per capita) needs more and more energy, especially oil, and because of that was growing more and more dependant on other countries to supply it.

Iraq has one of the largest left oil reserves in the world. It posed no clear threat to the world, certainly not to the US and to this date there are no proven links between saddam and al qaida.

And even if it did, if WMD's, long distance missiles, human rights, nukes, and terrorist links mattered, North Korea would be a 10 times more likely candidate to attack in order to guard the world peace than Iraq.

One of the largest simultaneous operations in the war on Iraq to this point was the capture of the iraqi oil platforms at sea and those on the ground, which were at times more heavily defended than the cities relativly speaking.

The bush administration also has clear links with the energy and weapons industry.


So what do you think the real reason for the war on Iraq is?

And if it isn't, why not Korea then.



Farfetched?


 
addi Posted: Wed May 19 12:37:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

> They would not have been able to pull ov a 9/11 without massive support.

ingredients for another attack on american soil:
1. weathly muslim that hates america

2. a handful of islamic dupes that live high on the hog for a while off of fat cat's money, and sincerely believe they will enter paradise with 16 Libra's yearning for them for an eternity as martyrs for allah.

(notice state sponsorship is not listed above)




>Nothing but a bunch of fat cats sucking on America's tits.

i think you're exaggerating things here, but your use of erotic imagery i find quite arousing : )


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 12:38:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>why you gotta bring up old shit... :)

"Hey we saved your pussy European asses in World War II, now you are obliged to help us"

>and actually it was more like guerilla warfare against an occupying force.

You mean like now in Iraq?

>russia had taken over afganistan (at least tried to) and they were fighting them back.

Like in Iraq?

>i don't recall any afganis going over to russia and blowing up civilians...but i may be a little hazy on my history

Most of the terrorists on those planes were from Saudi-Arabia, the US's biggest oil source, to this date there are no clear links between Iraq and terrorism on the US within the last decade or so as far as I know.


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 12:40:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>This is going to be a long hard road, but it must be done. And the UN will be no help to anyone.


I wonder hif, considering the incredible deficit america has and all, how many countries you'll still be able to attack.

Last thing I heard the resistance in Afghanistan hasn't died out either, and it seems to me that Iraq isn't quite there yet as well and already troops have to be pulled out of South Korea to help in Iraq.


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 12:46:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>why you gotta bring up old shit... :)
>
>"Hey we saved your pussy European asses in World War II, now you are obliged to help us"

i'm sorry i said that where now?
>
>>and actually it was more like guerilla warfare against an occupying force.
>
>You mean like now in Iraq?

yeah something like that...that's why we are not calling the people still attacking us terrorists...i think we are using the term insurgants or some such :)
>
>>russia had taken over afganistan (at least tried to) and they were fighting them back.
>
>Like in Iraq?

yeah pretty much :)
>
>>i don't recall any afganis going over to russia and blowing up civilians...but i may be a little hazy on my history
>
>Most of the terrorists on those planes were from Saudi-Arabia, the US's biggest oil source, to this date there are no clear links between Iraq and terrorism on the US within the last decade or so as far as I know.

i don't recall saying there was...you are the one that brought up afgan and russia not me


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 12:49:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Christophe said:
>>"Hey we saved your pussy European asses in World War II, now you are obliged to help us"
>
>i'm sorry i said that where now?

You haven't, other people on this forum have, and don't act like a lot of americans don't think of it that way.

>>>russia had taken over afganistan (at least tried to) and they were fighting them back.
>>
>>Like in Iraq?
>
>yeah pretty much :)

I thought it wasn't an invasion?

>>i don't recall any afganis going over to russia and blowing up civilians...but i may be a little hazy on my history
>>
>>Most of the terrorists on those planes were from Saudi-Arabia, the US's biggest oil source, to this date there are no clear links between Iraq and terrorism on the US within the last decade or so as far as I know.
>
>i don't recall saying there was...you are the one that brought up afgan and russia not me

You said that there weren't any afghans going to russia blowing civilians up, implying there were iraqi's going to america to blow up civilians, since that's supposed to be one of the reasons for the invasion.


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 12:52:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>State sponsored terrorism is something we absolutely cannot and will not tolerate any longer.
>
>
>Might I remind you of the fact that to Russia the afghans were terrorists as well, who was sponsoring them at first you think?


So in fact america belongs to the "axis of evil" as well, considering it has sponsored terrorists.


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 13:05:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>Christophe said:

>You haven't, other people on this forum have, and don't act like a lot of americans don't think of it that way.
>
excuse me but alot of people say alot of things on this forum...i don't attribute any of the fucked up things people say to you so i prefer you not to do the same to me. and as far as the "attitude" goes I believe you are wrong. most people know that we didn't single handedly do anything during that war so it would be asinine to act like we did.

>I thought it wasn't an invasion?

guess it depends on your definition of an invasion. as far as i know if you go into another country with a military force with the express purpose of overthrowing that government then it is an invasion. i can't think of anything else to call it...
>

>>>
>>>Most of the terrorists on those planes were from Saudi-Arabia, the US's biggest oil source, to this date there are no clear links between Iraq and terrorism on the US within the last decade or so as far as I know.

what's this got to do with russia and afganistan? you are trying to link two totally different scenarios
>>

>
>You said that there weren't any afghans going to russia blowing civilians up, implying there were iraqi's going to america to blow up civilians, since that's supposed to be one of the reasons for the invasion.

i implied that where? where did i say that there were iraqi terrorists threatening us? i don't really consider terrorists being from any particular nation or anything. i'm sure there are some iraqis in with the terrorists we are fighting...just like there are suadis and americans and prolly just about every other nationality out there.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 19 13:26:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
May 19, 2004

One could be forgiven for thinking that the detonation of two "improvised explosive devices" equipped with toxic chemical agents would be seen as confirmation that there are still Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. These events might even be seen as rebuttals to those who have derided the Bush administration for its prior inability to substantiate pre-war claims that such weapons in Saddam’s hands constituted an intolerable threat to the United States.

Unfortunately, such thinking fails to appreciate a stand-by of Washington Beltway politics: "moving the goalposts." Whenever the opposing team comes close to proving its point, one simply relocates the end zone to a point out of reach.

Rarely has this phenomenon been more in evidence than with respect to Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. Practically everyone – members of the Coalition’s intelligence services, the United Nations, even the French, Germans and Russians – recognized that, at one time, Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and a program for building nuclear devices. Since he never satisfactorily accounted for the complete destruction of the stocks of WMDs, like those he previously used in lethal attacks on Iran and his own Kurds, the only reasonable conclusion was that they continued to exist in some form, in unknown quantity.

To prove the point, one would seem to need only to have found a few chemical and/or biological weapons. Well, that would appear to have been the incontrovertible upshot of the two recent episodes, involving sarin and mustard gas weapons. Yet the goal-post-movers’ response has been that these do not – in and of themselves – confirm the claims that Saddam still had stockpiles of these sorts of WMDs.

UN inspectors – whose return to Iraq in 2002 was only made possible by President Bush’s determination to disarm Saddam, one way or the other – shed no more light on the question. That did not, however, keep then-Chief Inspector Hans Blix from suggesting that there was no evidence Iraq still had active WMD programs.

To disprove this contention, it would seem sufficient to establish that chemical and biological production facilities continued to exist, perhaps in the form of advanced fertilizer or pharmaceutical plants which, thanks to the dual-use nature of their technologies, would allow them readily to be used for weapons purposes. And the Iraq Survey Group, a team of specialists that has been scouring Iraq since the fall of Baghdad trying to ferret out and secure Saddam’s WMDs, has confirmed that, while actual weapons have eluded them so far, the ancien regime did indeed have the ability to produce fresh batches of chemical and biological agents at will. Yet the skeptics choose to ignore the reality that, in the wrong hands, even small amounts of such toxic substances – precisely what could be manufactured in short order by this sort of stand-by production capability – could cause immense loss of life.

No less studiously ignored is evidence that has come to light that Saddam Hussein could, indeed, have handed Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorists bent on employing them against the United States and its allies. As Charles Smith reminded us in Newsmax.com yesterday, "(F)ormer Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified that in 1998 Saddam's top nerve gas experts met with several members of al-Qaeda in Baghdad."

Recent events underscore the danger such a combination represents. Smith notes that just a few weeks ago, a number of al-Qaeda operatives based in Iraq were caught before they were able to carry out a plot aimed at killing tens of thousands of Jordanians with poison gas. Evidently, the failure to perpetrate such an atrocity permits some to persist in the fantasy that this aspect of the WMD case against Saddam is still without foundation.

Whether partisan Democrats, antiwar zealots and rabid Bush-haters wish to admit it or not, Saddam Hussein is guilty as charged. We now know that Saddam once had significant quantities of Weapons of Mass Destruction and aspired to build more; he used them against his own people and his neighbors; and he persisted in violating nearly two-score UN Security Council resolutions – right up to the end of his days in power – by concealing his actual programs and capabilities.

It is now safe to conclude as well that Saddam bequeathed a frightening legacy to post-liberation Iraq: the Weapons of Mass Destruction still at large in Iraq. The alternative thesis – namely, that the only two WMDs left in the entire country were employed in the (fortunately) failed IED attacks involving sarin and mustard gas conducted in recent days – is preposterous on its face.

While we may still be in the dark as to where all of the remaining WMDs are – their specific condition and numbers – these attacks should serve indisputably to establish that there are at least some WMDs in-country and accessible to terrorists. Moreover, the Jordanian near-miss underscores the point that we should take no comfort from the fact that the status of such weapons is unknown, since some of them may wind up being used outside Iraq.

It is entirely understandable that those who opposed the war with Iraq and/or President Bush for launching it would try to make hay of the difficulty we have had to date locating quantities of WMDs that former chief inspector David Kay once said would fit in a two-car garage, while searching a country the size of France. Now that we have begun to find them the hard way, it behooves such critics to stop moving the goal-posts, to recognize the validity of Mr. Bush’s concerns and to throw their support behind the urgent effort to find and destroy such weapons – wherever they may be, including possibly in neighboring Syria – before any more of them are used against us...inside Iraq or outside.




 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 13:29:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>excuse me but alot of people say alot of things on this forum...i don't attribute any of the fucked up things people say to you so i prefer you not to do the same to me.

Wasn't my intention to do so, it's just one of the things you frequently hear when talking to americans, not only on this forum.


Btw, I just heard on the news that one of the guys who tortured some iraqi's is getting 1 year in jail...

I also read an interview with the attorney of one of those women who took part in it, saying that his client says that they were encouraged to do so by the interrogating CIA agents.


Also saw about the attack of an Isreali helicopter on a palestinian protest, the official Isreali statement about this event is that they didn't mean to shoot. What the fuck.


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 13:30:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Nice article hif, and even if it were true, North Korea would still have been the country to attack.


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 13:39:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Nice article hif, and even if it were true, North Korea would still have been the country to attack.

who says we won't :) give us time and who knows...maybe belgium will be next. fuck oil we want your beer!


 
casper Posted: Wed May 19 13:41:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:

>
>Wasn't my intention to do so, it's just one of the things you frequently hear when talking to americans, not only on this forum.

yeah well there ignorance everywhere i suppose...
>
>
>Btw, I just heard on the news that one of the guys who tortured some iraqi's is getting 1 year in jail...

yeah he made a plea bargain...pled guilty and gave up a bunch of names. they are trying to get to the higher ups who supposedly gave the orders
>
>I also read an interview with the attorney of one of those women who took part in it, saying that his client says that they were encouraged to do so by the interrogating CIA agents.
>
that may be true...but even if it wasn't it's what i'd say if i was in their position...



 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 13:50:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Christophe said:
>>Nice article hif, and even if it were true, North Korea would still have been the country to attack.

Where will you get the money?

It's putting the entire american economy into a downward spiral in the mid-long run.

>who says we won't :) give us time and who knows...maybe belgium will be next. fuck oil we want your beer!

Lol.

Not while I'm here, I'd show you what organised resistance really means.

;o)


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 14:14:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>that may be true...but even if it wasn't it's what i'd say if i was in their position...

Yeah, but something that I find rather odd: Janis Karpinski, who had the control over the entire Iraqi prison system as the commander of the 800th brigade of the MP, had no experience whatsoever with prisonsystems.

Also, the 3400 reservists she controlled had no experience with prisonsystems either.


A month after she said that she was afraid that Iraqi prisoners wouldn't want to leave anymore since they were being treated so well, she was fired.

Leuitenant-General Ricardo S. Sanchez ordered an investigation of the iraqi prisonsystem, which was conducted by General-major Antonio M. Taguba, resulting in a report counting 53 pages which wasn't meant for publication, but it was made public by The New Yorker is I remember correctly somewhere in februari.

Some of the things described in the report: breaking TL-lamps and dumping the fosfor in it on the skin of iraqi prisoners, freezing of prisoners with cold water, demeaning them in various ways, rape, unnecessary intimidation with police dogs and even letting them attack, allowing an MP guard with no medical training to stitch the wound of a prisoner that had been abused, anal penetration with TL-lights and broomsticks, and the list goes on for quite a while.

Taguba's investigation also pointed out that over 60% of the people in the Abu Ghraid prison were not considered to be a threat to society.

With this the US is violating the 4th Geneva convetion stating that an occupying force cannot imprison civillians untill they pose a clear and present threat to safety.

Last thing I heard Human Rights Watch had some serious questions about this as well, along with the treatment at Guantanamo Bay.


 
Christian Posted: Wed May 19 14:36:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  awwww casper and christophe are FINALLY making up....I thought a divorce might be in the works = - O


 
Zacq Posted: Wed May 19 16:13:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>I also read an interview with the attorney of one of those women who took part in it, saying that his client says that they were encouraged to do so by the interrogating CIA agents.

Yea, that and several other things I've been saying for over a week now are finally being picked up by the mainstream media.

...maybe I'm being bugged.


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 16:31:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Yea, that and several other things I've been saying for over a week now are finally being picked up by the mainstream media.
>
>...maybe I'm being bugged.

Who are you?

Let me welcome you to the forum.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed May 19 16:37:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>Who are you?
>
>Let me welcome you to the forum.

What?


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 16:49:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>Who are you?
>>
>>Let me welcome you to the forum.
>
>What?

It's called sarcasm.

Nevermind :o)


*swoosh*


 
Zacq Posted: Wed May 19 16:52:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>It's called sarcasm.
>
>Nevermind :o)
>
>
>*swoosh*

I had a feeling it might be sarcasm but I'm not sure why you'd make that joke in this context - also, sarcasm is hard to detect by studying pixels.


 
FN Posted: Wed May 19 16:53:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I had a feeling it might be sarcasm but I'm not sure why you'd make that joke in this context - also, sarcasm is hard to detect by studying pixels.

I was insinuating people have been ignoring you.

Now look what you made me do, I hate explaining stuff like this.

*sobs*


 
FN Posted: Thu May 20 05:45:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Why is nobody replying to that fucka-wif-ya-eyes article I wrote? :o(

Poor me.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 20 08:48:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sunday, April 4, 2004

Up against fanaticism

By Phil Lucas
Executive Editor



If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages, and take the children, too.

This piece is not for you.

We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims.

Some readers didn’t like it.

Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don’t want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we? That’s just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt.

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can’t get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc. etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims. We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them.

One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more than 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City.

Madeline Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resented the Crusades. Well, Madame Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let’s recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe and when they reached sufficient numbers they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France. Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious. Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland. Sound familiar?

Let’s consider the concept of a “long war.” Last time it was 200 years, give or take.

Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn’t fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That’s the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys.

There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims – some live here – but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Centers, the millions gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on “diversity,” we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we’re so addled on Ritalin we wouldn’t know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn’t take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.

Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that’s the way it was and that’s the way it is.

But many Americans don’t get it.

That’s why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it’s a start.



 
FN Posted: Thu May 20 09:51:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That's all very nice hif, but still not an answer to my qestion as to why Iraq was attacked and not North Korea.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 20 09:55:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Christophe said:
>>After those torture pictures it became clear to me why the US was so reluctant to agree to the international court in The Hague.
>
>fuck you chris

You can be pretty certain that they would spend more than a year in jail for violating human rights.


 
casper Posted: Thu May 20 10:18:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>After those torture pictures it became clear to me why the US was so reluctant to agree to the international court in The Hague.
>>
>>fuck you chris
>
>You can be pretty certain that they would spend more than a year in jail for violating human rights.

actually for him it was the maximum sentence seeing as how he didn't actively participate in any of the mistreatment. he was just witness to it and didn't say anything. one year in jail, forfiture of all pay and allowances, and kicked out of the army for not wanting to rat out the people he had to live and work with everyday. and no it's not an excuse...its a fuckin reason


 
FN Posted: Thu May 20 10:24:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I heard he gave up 6 names?


 
casper Posted: Thu May 20 10:26:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I heard he gave up 6 names?

yeah...he was prolly hoping it'd keep him from getting booted out of the army but it didn't work. also i don't think he gave up the names because i'm pretty sure they already knew their names due to the photos/videos. i think he agreed to testify against them


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 20 10:47:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I also think one year in a military prison would be equal to much more than a year in a civilian prison.


 
antartica Posted: Thu May 20 11:13:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I also think one year in a military prison would be equal to much more than a year in a civilian prison.

you bet ya ass!... (pun intended)


 
antartica Posted: Thu May 20 11:18:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  but seriously... although i've never been in the brig, but i've heard stories and it's like...

no ciggies
no visitors
no mail & correspondance
no parole - 1 year is 1 year
and lotsa other daily privi's that we've take for granted get taken away...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 20 11:20:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's like boot camp, but without all the amenities.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 20 11:26:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If somebody shoved a TL-Lamp up your ass, would you be satisfied with him going to jail for 1 year hif?

Or what if they did it to your son or any other relative?


 
antartica Posted: Thu May 20 11:32:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's like boot camp, but without all the amenities.

heh... boot camp i think would be like paradise...


 
casper Posted: Thu May 20 11:34:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>If somebody shoved a TL-Lamp up your ass, would you be satisfied with him going to jail for 1 year hif?
>
>Or what if they did it to your son or any other relative?

i guess you missed the part where he didn't actively participate in any of it...

and i've heard lots of rumors about rapings but not a whole lot of proof. stacking prisoners in paramids naked is degrading enough without having to bring up insubstantial claims.
the charges brought up on the 6 soldiers were: dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, battery and indecent acts...and no...indecent acts isn't rape..that's sexual assault...if they had any evidence of rape that would have been added to the list


 
FN Posted: Thu May 20 11:42:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So you're saying the report by General Taguba was false?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 20 11:45:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>If somebody shoved a TL-Lamp up your ass, would you be satisfied with him going to jail for 1 year hif?
>
>Or what if they did it to your son or any other relative?
>
One more time for those of you who weren't paying attention : THIS GUY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE ABUSE AND WAS NOT CHARGED AS SUCH.


 
casper Posted: Thu May 20 11:49:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.


ok there is one count of rape in there and for that i apologize...but please tell me where it states anybody was sodomized by a tl-lamp? and what does that have to do with this one person? are you saying because one person raped a female detainee EVERYBODY that was there should get punished for rape? how about we just charge that one soldier with rape...yeah..that sounds like a good idea to me...


 
casper Posted: Thu May 20 11:50:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>If somebody shoved a TL-Lamp up your ass, would you be satisfied with him going to jail for 1 year hif?
>>
>>Or what if they did it to your son or any other relative?
>>
>One more time for those of you who weren't paying attention : THIS GUY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE ABUSE AND WAS NOT CHARGED AS SUCH.

scream it louder for the cheap seats hif ;)


 
FN Posted: Thu May 20 12:03:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>If somebody shoved a TL-Lamp up your ass, would you be satisfied with him going to jail for 1 year hif?
>>
>>Or what if they did it to your son or any other relative?
>>
>One more time for those of you who weren't paying attention : THIS GUY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE ABUSE AND WAS NOT CHARGED AS SUCH.

Ah hif, I thought you weren't reading this thread anymore :o)

Care to answer my question?


 
casper Posted: Thu May 20 12:21:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>that may be true...but even if it wasn't it's what i'd say if i was in their position...
>
>Yeah, but something that I find rather odd: Janis Karpinski, who had the control over the entire Iraqi prison system as the commander of the 800th brigade of the MP, had no experience whatsoever with prisonsystems.
>
>Also, the 3400 reservists she controlled had no experience with prisonsystems either.
>
>
>A month after she said that she was afraid that Iraqi prisoners wouldn't want to leave anymore since they were being treated so well, she was fired.
>
>Leuitenant-General Ricardo S. Sanchez ordered an investigation of the iraqi prisonsystem, which was conducted by General-major Antonio M. Taguba, resulting in a report counting 53 pages which wasn't meant for publication, but it was made public by The New Yorker is I remember correctly somewhere in februari.
>
>Some of the things described in the report: breaking TL-lamps and dumping the fosfor in it on the skin of iraqi prisoners, freezing of prisoners with cold water, demeaning them in various ways, rape, unnecessary intimidation with police dogs and even letting them attack, allowing an MP guard with no medical training to stitch the wound of a prisoner that had been abused, anal penetration with TL-lights and broomsticks, and the list goes on for quite a while.
>
>Taguba's investigation also pointed out that over 60% of the people in the Abu Ghraid prison were not considered to be a threat to society.
>
>With this the US is violating the 4th Geneva convetion stating that an occupying force cannot imprison civillians untill they pose a clear and present threat to safety.
>
>Last thing I heard Human Rights Watch had some serious questions about this as well, along with the treatment at Guantanamo Bay.

did you actually read the report? cuz i just did...

there was no mention of TL-lamps, no mention of non-medically trained personnel stitching wounds, no broomsticks, there was nothing about 60% of the detainees being no threat to society (the closest i could find was at the beginning where it stated that there was a good chunk of the detainees who were not terrorists but instead were iraqi criminals...as far as i know criminals should still be incarcerated but what do i know...)

your arguments may go better if you actually verify your facts...


 
FN Posted: Thu May 20 13:21:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'll check it out, got my info from an interviews with Scott Dobeck of the CID, Gary Meyers (attorney of a guy who's named as 'seargant frederick'), Matthew Wisdom (a witness), reports of witness account (Joseph Darby, Jerry Phillabaum) and the version (translated) I saw of the forementioned report.


My question is still standing.


 
casper Posted: Thu May 20 13:35:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I'll check it out, got my info from an interviews with Scott Dobeck of the CID, Gary Meyers (attorney of a guy who's named as 'seargant frederick'), Matthew Wisdom (a witness), reports of witness account (Joseph Darby, Jerry Phillabaum) and the version (translated) I saw of the forementioned report.
>
>
>My question is still standing.

i found the report you were looking at...but the actual reports don't list all those things. i don't know where they got their intel. that exert i posted earlier was everything that he found as far as detainee abuse and that came directly from the report


 
iggy Posted: Thu May 20 15:28:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i spent time in military prison, it was a short week though
not fun at all
so don't think it's a walk in the park

i could have gotta 1/2 year.
long story but i had to take the rap

how's it like?

take the longest fucking day of your life, multiply it by 10. that's how long it feels inside.

u get to share a cell with 3-4 other fellas with a straw mat each and no pillows or blankets.

u get a 2 litre milk can for a urinal, and when u have to shit, the fucking guards make u wait for bloody 3-4 hours.
oh yeah the guards. they dun treat u like a human at all.
they shout at u all the time and try to make ur life in there as 'comfortable' as possible... just because they have the power to do so. motherfuckers

sandbag PT is the best. try carrying an army fullpack filled with sandbags. that's about 20 kilos. and u march, run, jog and do exercises with it.
that takes up about 3 hours of your day.

the worst is at night. u can't sleep.
an hour feels like a day at night.


 
FN Posted: Fri May 21 06:35:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Come on hif/casper, humour me, why was it Iraq and not North Korea.


 
casper Posted: Fri May 21 10:00:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Come on hif/casper, humour me, why was it Iraq and not North Korea.

you act like we just said...well...lets go to war with iraq even though they havn't done anything. we've been trying to deal with saddam since the end of the first war over 10 years ago. we've had talks, inspections, embargos and prolly a whole bunch of shit that i don't know about. you claim that america is quick to just jump into a fight but you think we should have went to war with n. korea as soon as they started acting up but you condemn us for going to war with iraq who's been acting up for a dozen years?


 
FN Posted: Fri May 21 10:32:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I condem the reasons the public got shoved down it's throat, because if that was what everything was really about it would have been north korea.

Or don't you agree?


 
casper Posted: Fri May 21 10:41:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I condem the reasons the public got shoved down it's throat, because if that was what everything was really about it would have been north korea.
>
>Or don't you agree?

because they are not arabs...and right now we are on an arab kick...we'll get to all those slant eyes later ;)

plus all that stuff with the nukes from korea came about after we had already started the plans for iraq.


 
addi Posted: Fri May 21 10:51:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>plus all that stuff with the nukes from korea came about after we had already started the plans for iraq.

he's right, chris. the plans to invade Iraq were started way back in the '80's.

D'oh!


 
casper Posted: Fri May 21 10:53:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>casper said:
>
>>plus all that stuff with the nukes from korea came about after we had already started the plans for iraq.
>
>he's right, chris. the plans to invade Iraq were started way back in the '80's.
>
>D'oh!

lmao...damn...he figured it out! :)


 
FN Posted: Fri May 21 11:15:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>because they are not arabs...and right now we are on an arab kick...we'll get to all those slant eyes later ;)

Yeah, that's a pretty good reason to go to war.

>plus all that stuff with the nukes from korea came about after we had already started the plans for iraq.

If I remember correctly everything about North Korea (nukes and other wmd's) was known before the war on Iraq, it just came into the media again because they were firing up a new reactor to make more nukes.

If not, what are you saying, the US just targetted Iraq and didn't care to inspect the rest?

I also read an interview a couple of months ago (will try to find it back, must be somewhere in one of my closets) with one of the (ex-)highest ranking anti-terrorism officers of the US, who was in the room with Bush and Rumsfeld and so on right after the WTC attacks had happened.

The guy stated that right away Rumsfeld started saying that they should attack Iraq without any prior knowledge even though that guy constantly said there was no proof or even reason to think so whatsoever that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks.



So yeah, there isn't any doubt in my mind that it was pretty certain Iraq was going to be attacked, but not for the reasons mentioned though, and if it was for those reasons, again, it should have been North Korea. Anybody saying anything different is plain stupid, the facts are there.


 
casper Posted: Fri May 21 11:31:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>because they are not arabs...and right now we are on an arab kick...we'll get to all those slant eyes later ;)
>
>Yeah, that's a pretty good reason to go to war.

i was kidding!


 
FN Posted: Fri May 21 11:34:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Christophe said:
>>casper said:
>>>because they are not arabs...and right now we are on an arab kick...we'll get to all those slant eyes later ;)
>>
>>Yeah, that's a pretty good reason to go to war.
>
>i was kidding!


I know but my guess is that you're not too far from the truth.

It's a bit like in medieval times during the crusades, once the arabs were more or less beaten to shit they needed a new enemy to focus on and started invading Lithonia and the regions surrounding it.

Just like the middle east now seems to be the follow-up for communism.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 21 14:35:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>So yeah, there isn't any doubt in my mind that it was pretty certain Iraq was going to be attacked, but not for the reasons mentioned though, and if it was for those reasons, again, it should have been North Korea. Anybody saying anything different is plain stupid, the facts are there.
>
What facts ?


 
FN Posted: Fri May 21 16:02:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Read my way too long post lol.


 
casper Posted: Fri May 21 16:27:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>So yeah, there isn't any doubt in my mind that it was pretty certain Iraq was going to be attacked, but not for the reasons mentioned though, and if it was for those reasons, again, it should have been North Korea. Anybody saying anything different is plain stupid, the facts are there.
>>
>What facts ?

The D.P.R.K. is not known to have sponsored terrorist acts since 1987, when KAL 858 was bombed in flight. The D.P.R.K. has made statements condemning terrorism. In October 2000, the U.S. and the D.P.R.K. issued a Joint Statement in which "the two sides agreed that international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global security and peace, and that terrorism should be opposed in all its forms." The U.S. and D.P.R.K. agreed to support the international legal regime combating international terrorism and to cooperate with each other to fight terrorism.

got that from the us department of state website...


 
FN Posted: Fri May 21 16:39:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Haha, yeah, if they made statements condeming terrorism they must be good guys.

The fact that one of the highest ranking generals was swearing openly in front of a camera that he'd destroy americans every chance he got and that there are huge signs saying N Korea will get revenge on the US doesn't change anything about that.

And that also solves the other points mentioned, ofcourse.

How ling has it been that there has been any proven evidence of iraqi-sponsored terrorism?


 
casper Posted: Fri May 21 16:51:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Haha, yeah, if they made statements condeming terrorism they must be good guys.
>

i don't care about what statements they made...the fact is we have no proof of any terrorists acts since '87

>The fact that one of the highest ranking generals was swearing openly in front of a camera that he'd destroy americans every chance he got and that there are huge signs saying N Korea will get revenge on the US doesn't change anything about that.
>
i bet there's people in belgium who say the same shit :) we are universally hated after all

>And that also solves the other points mentioned, ofcourse.
>
>How long has it been that there has been any proven evidence of iraqi-sponsored terrorism?

man i easily post a dozen articles that state how iraq is tied to terrorism and you can come up with an equal amount saying the opposite. and seeing as how media like the internet and news is the only "proof" either one of us is going to be able to come up with, and the fact of the matter is that none of the media is all that trustworthy in my opinion, what's the point of fighting this battle?


 
FN Posted: Fri May 21 17:00:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>i bet there's people in belgium who say the same shit :) we are universally hated after all

There's a difference between some guy in the street saying it and the commander of the nation's army, don't you think?

And you're more or less right about the terrorism links I guess, the other stuff however are facts that you'll find on official sites as well.


 
casper Posted: Fri May 21 17:04:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>i bet there's people in belgium who say the same shit :) we are universally hated after all
>
>There's a difference between some guy in the street saying it and the commander of the nation's army, don't you think?

yeah...but the fact is they havn't killed any americans that we know of so we still can't put too much validity into what he said. maybe he was drunk :)
>
>And you're more or less right about the terrorism links I guess, the other stuff however are facts that you'll find on official sites as well.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 21 22:17:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>i bet there's people in belgium who say the same shit :) we are universally hated after all
>
>There's a difference between some guy in the street saying it and the commander of the nation's army, don't you think?
>
Now let's get our facts straight, was it a North Korean general or The commander of the nation's army, who it would seem should be Kim Il Jung.
The mitigating factors are, that North Korea simply does not pose the immediate threat that Iraq did to our security. They do not have a lot of ideological hatred for Americans. Terrorist cannot easily move about in that country, the way they can in the middle east.
They do not have the history of aggression that Saddam did either. To my knowledge they have never attacked another country.
And you can say what you want about the media's untrustworthiness, but Saddam never made any secrets about his affinity for supporting terrorism.
Hell, he had a public ceremony to award money to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers and to encourage more of them to do it. Abu ?Nidal lived openly and opulently in Baghdad. And yes there are documented meetings between Al-Queda and Iraqi officials.
The TWA jet that North Korea shot down was not an act of terrorism, the airliner was clearly in their airspace. It was a despicable act but not an act of terrorism.


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 10:00:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>And you're more or less right about the terrorism links I guess, the other stuff however are facts that you'll find on official sites as well.

which stuff are you talking about? are you talking about the "facts" of the sticking the broomstick up some guys bunghole? because as far as i know i havn't seen any facts on that.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]