Slackers

[vampireuk]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/HomePage/GI-foreignslackers.jpg

:D :happy:

[zAlbee]

lol. such a bad photoshop, the gradients make the patches look like metallic stickers that are peeling off. :)

[deesse]

lol. such a bad photoshop, the gradients make the patches look like metallic stickers that are peeling off. :)


really ? i didn't notice it, it seems to real :getlost:

[2fast4u]

what work exactly? dying for their governments? :P

[Slougi]

Shooting Iraqis and Afghans.

[AlphaWolf]

Bah, thats false, everybody knows that France, Germany, and Russia were actively supporting Saddam, and the coalition troops aren't :D

Speak of that, I might be rejoining them soon...

[2fast4u]

you gonna go play in the sand, alpha?

[Xade]

You conchies are missing the point, 2fast... the Iraqis were under an oppressive dictator, now they are not. End of story.

I'm proud of the fact England was in on this.

[Slougi]

Yeah, now our Supreme Overlord George W. Bush watches over the Iraqi people. Especially their oil supply.

[AlphaWolf]

you gonna go play in the sand, alpha?

Nah, I was in the Army, not that branch, and no plans of switching to it either.

(as that song goes):



There are no Airborne Rangers in the Marine Corps, Hoo-ah!
There are no Airborne Rangers in the Marine Corps, Hoo-ah!
Because they're all in the sand,
Making love to their hand!
There are no Airborne Rangers in the Marine Corps, Hoo-ah!

[sheik124]

, now they are not. End of story.
aha, yes they are, they are under a "democratic" dictator appointed by bush and his fogies, they were probably better off with saddam

[sytaylor]

aha, yes they are, they are under a "democratic" dictator appointed by bush and his fogies, they were probably better off with saddam

Thats a good one :paperbag:

The only reason their power supplies etc aren't up to that of say the saudi's is because terrorists are bombing everything any time there is hope of progress. If they want to stay in the stone ages, great for them, but do it away from the Iraqui people who don't

[Azimer]

Everyone should vote in this next election if you are a US citizen. You have two options... Bush... and Not Bush. I REALLY hope you vote the latter (Not Bush for those who confuse latter and former)

[sytaylor]

Not Bush = Kerry who is only there on the ABB (Anyone But Bush) ticket. That is very bad for the USA and the world. I'd have much prefered to see Edwards given the chance over Kerry.. Since Nader put his name into the hat things aren't looking that rosey for the dems either.

[vampireuk]

aha, yes they are, they are under a "democratic" dictator appointed by bush and his fogies, they were probably better off with saddam

You are retarded

[AlphaWolf]

/me has just received his new voter ID card with the word "Republican" written on it :)

Now lets see, how many in this primarily anti-bush thread get to actually vote for the US president? :cool: PWNED!

Everybody I know is planning on voting for Bush. I haven't even heard of anybody who is planning on voting for Kerry yet.

[sytaylor]

Can you blame them? Kerry is a pen0s

[Vegetable]

Why not vote for Bush? He's a smart guy :)

[Talas]

Just saw somethin: VampireUK is banned? Or is that a joke?

[2fast4u]

Kerry is a pen0s

he has no profile or real stance whatsoever. the only way he could win is the bush admin fucking up *big* time.

[2fast4u]

Just saw somethin: VampireUK is banned? Or is that a joke?

he was banned for poor sexual performance, yeah.

[Slougi]

He was most unsatisfying :(

[AlphaWolf]

Personally I favor Bush solely because of the way he is handling the war situation. When the shit hits the fan, you need somebody who is going in a solid direction and wont take any crap. None of the democrats come close to fitting this profile. Plus Bush's tax cuts are doing great on the economy, and IMO are the reason why it is recovering so well. Every single one of the democrats has stated that they want increased taxes. Be it against Kerry or whoever, Bush would win this election regardless.

[pj64er]

But hes the one who put the shit there...

[AlphaWolf]

But hes the one who put the shit there...

Elaborate.

[pj64er]

why did we hit Iraq again?

[Remote]

Because Iraq's infra structure is bad and we need to rebuild it to make sure oil is coming our way? + a great oppurtunity to get saddam in the name of terror..

I really see nothing wrong with bush, as alpha said, he's made up his mind and is following that decision...

[pj64er]

we didnt NEED to rebuild it. The US was under no pressure to/had no reason to attack Iraq. Bush put the shit in the fan, and he is "going in a solid direction" to get the shit back out. But isnt it better not to play with shit near the fan to begin with?

[Remote]

I beg to differ, to make sure we can controll the flow of the oil and by doing that more or less the price on oil. And all countries worth living in has always seen saddam as a threath to our security so taking him out is only a good thing, I would like to know why they didn't take him down during the gulf war though?

and since when do you need a reason to attack someone? :P

[pj64er]

But dont you remember we had these UN inspectors check 'em out? Saddam may be an arse, but hes got nothing to touch the US with.

I never knew the offical reason for fighting there is for oil. Maybe we should tell the soldiers over there that they are risking their neck so we can save a few cents per litre.


and since when do you need a reason to attack someone? :P
Ah, so the shit was thrown in the fan for the fun of it. Great!

[vampireuk]

He was most unsatisfying :(

Give me another chance!

[AlphaWolf]

But dont you remember we had these UN inspectors check 'em out? Saddam may be an arse, but hes got nothing to touch the US with.

Truthfully, the UN is a joke. There have only been two incidents where the UNs' infamous red tape hasn't inhibited perfectly legitimate military action. EVERYBODY, including france and china even, believed that iraq had WMDs (the crap about Bush lieing about them is BS, because so far as he was aware, they were there.)

Kosovo looked like disneyland compared to iraq when even wussy countries like france assisted with the US' military action there. Want to know the best part? It wasn't UN approved. Iraq, which was much worse than kosovo, was in the same boat so far as the UN is concerned. I'll give you three guesses as to why four members of the UN security council opposed the US' lead actions in Iraq, yet didn't give a damn about Kosovo, which had even less of a need for us to intervene.

[pj64er]

So... the point remains, Bush put our troops there. The US had no reason to fight and Bush started the war. There would not have been a war to 'handle'. Bush is cleaning up his own mess, there is nothing great about that. Hes 'handling' the war as well as someone can 'handle' wiping their piss off the floor after they missed the urinal.


Add a bit of conspiracy thinking, we can even say that the war was started so he can 'handle' it. But lets keep that out for now.


Besides, wheres the war on N.Korea? They are the closest thing to actually nuking our cities.

[sytaylor]

Besides, wheres the war on N.Korea? They are the closest thing to actually nuking our cities.

Their own lanugages confuses them and their trains from from 80 years ago, they may have the technology but not the know how...

[zAlbee]

EVERYBODY, including france and china even, believed that iraq had WMDs (the crap about Bush lieing about them is BS, because so far as he was aware, they were there.)

wtf? that's garbage and you know it. no one believed iraq had WMDs, and look at that - there were none! if the whole point of the war was taking out saddam, then great, say so. don't give me this made-up crap about WMDs as an excuse.

it's actually pretty damn interesting how far your opinions differ from others not living in america.

[sheik124]

i don't see how anyone can legitimize bush's actions. it was BULL SHIT. the entire (maybe not entire, bin laden deserves to die) war on terrorism is rubbish. iraq posed no immediate or future threat to the US, and time after time it has been proven that there is no fuckin nukes, George Bush got rid of them during the gulf war, and throughout the years the UN cleaned up after them. innocent people are being killed in order to obtain oil, and you can see what its done to gas prices. i am not trying to be anti-american here, but it seems many of them LOVE the idea of war. afghanistan. at first, they were nabbing the al-qaeda leaders and the taliban, that may have looked good at first, then they ran out of taliban to kill, but for a while they went from oppressive gov't to NO GOV'T. i hardly see that as an improvement. in iraq, they captured saddam, good for them. saddam was a madman, and he needed to be captured, but other than that, america had no reason to invade iraq along with her good buddy britain, after the entire fucking world condemned their idea, i rest my case.

edit: and pj64er i agree with you, bush went and put the shit in the fan, just so it would help his election when he gets the shit out. i bet you all that before election, they will "find" bin laden, i bet you he's in the pentagon right now chillin' with them :bounce: :happy: :ala:

[AlphaWolf]

So... the point remains, Bush put our troops there. The US had no reason to fight and Bush started the war. There would not have been a war to 'handle'. Bush is cleaning up his own mess, there is nothing great about that. Hes 'handling' the war as well as someone can 'handle' wiping their piss off the floor after they missed the urinal.

Theres plenty. WMDs aside, Saddam did have full intentions to support terrorist organizations. That would have grown into a nightmare if we allowed Saddam to continue to rebuild his military. It was a good thing that we brought him down before he could have put up significant resistance, because then we would have had another vietnam.


wtf? that's garbage and you know it. no one believed iraq had WMDs, and look at that - there were none! if the whole point of the war was taking out saddam, then great, say so. don't give me this made-up crap about WMDs as an excuse.

Alright, so why did the UN want to send in weapons inspectors in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it had nothing to do with US' intelligence.


i don't see how anyone can legitimize bush's actions. it was BULL SHIT. the entire (maybe not entire, bin laden deserves to die) war on terrorism is rubbish. iraq posed no immediate or future threat to the US,

See above comments.

[vampireuk]

i don't see how anyone can legitimize bush's actions

Lets see, they went in and removed a evil dictator that tortured and commited genocide against his own people, the reasons for going were not just but what they have done is right.


it was BULL SHIT

As is your highly biased and uneducated opinion of the US foreign policy.


the entire (maybe not entire, bin laden deserves to die) war on terrorism is rubbish

How so, acording to reports terrorism is at a all time low over the past 30 years, strange huh.


iraq posed no immediate or future threat to the US

Iraq was a serious threat to the world, should we wait until Saddam had the capability to strike at nations with devastating weapons before we acted and removed this madman from power?


and time after time it has been proven that there is no fuckin nukes

Nobody ever said they had nukes, your credability has just fallen through the floor.


George Bush got rid of them during the gulf war

Actually Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor that they were working on, thanks to the French, your history is a little distorted yes?


and throughout the years the UN cleaned up after them

You mean with those sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of people? Yes if cleaning up is genocide they did a awesome job :p


innocent people are being killed in order to obtain oil

Wow you really are stupid if you believe this, if the war is about oil then why is the US trying to keep the peace in towns? Why don't they simply set up huge command posts around oil refineries to keep the oil safe, why have there been so few attacks on oil lines compared to civlian targets? The war for oil line is very old and holds about as much water as a paper bag with a large hole in the bottom


and you can see what its done to gas prices

Petrol prices here are the same, in fact I think they have gone up a little ;)


i am not trying to be anti-american here

We don't think you are, we just think you are been ignorant and spouting the same rehased words that someone else had said so many times before you have.


but it seems many of them LOVE the idea of war

War is not a preferable choice but at times it is the only solution, you prefer appeasement yes? Look what happened with Germany when we ignored them. Mad evil bad guys, and they are bad guys believe it or not, will not listen to reason.




Do you live in afganistan? Do you see anything of afganistan other than what liberal reporters show you? No? Then don't harp on about something you do not know about.

[quote]good for them. saddam was a madman, and he needed to be captured, but other than that, america had no reason to invade iraq

I'm sorry I thought we had no reason at all, make up your mind. If you do not think removing a evil dictator from power and liberating millions of people from opression is not a good cause then you are, stupid. It's funny how you harp on about been a humanitarian but yet you would rather see people tortured and mass murder than America and the UK going in to free them.


after the entire fucking world condemned their idea

America, UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Georgia. Kthnx

[pj64er]

Theres plenty. WMDs aside, Saddam did have full intentions to support terrorist organizations. That would have grown into a nightmare if we allowed Saddam to continue to rebuild his military. It was a good thing that we brought him down before he could have put up significant resistance, because then we would have had another vietnam.

sources please?


If theres solid proof that Saddam is linked to terrorist groups, I think a lot of people wouldnt be so against the US. For one, I think it would at least get the UN off their arse :p


vamp: gg with proving Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html) true :p


btw, no answer for N. Korea? Nothing about how the US is appeasing them when they are obviously going for nuclear related tech, vamp?

[sheik124]

If you do not think removing a evil dictator from power and liberating millions of people from opression is not a good cause then you are, stupid.
since you seem so profound, would you kindly fucking tell me the last time you heard about saddam committing mass murders? he has been sitting on his ass ever since he finished up all his SCUD rockets on Israel. i would HARDLY call what bush did as liberation. the second saddam's regime fell apart iraq went out. people were looting each other, it was no longer about getting saddam gone. did you know that a poll showed most iraqis would have rather had saddam. sanctions or not, at least there was a system of order. now bush is going to appoint some pro-american leader in his newly established and "rescued" democracy (just like he went and did in afghanistan). thousands of valuable US soldiers are being killed for no reason. i'm sure as hell that with their military, the us could have snuck in and pulled saddam right out. and with the entire world saying NO YOU HAVE NO REASON TO STICK YOUR NOSE IN THERE JUST LIKE YOU DID IN VIETNAM, who was busy fighting itself with no intent of harming anyone but themselves, bush walked right in and made himself look like a total ass (although he really mustn't try that hard, its rather natural). and alphawolf said something about the tax cuts being HELPFUL? over my dead and rotting body they are, did you know that the economy might be recovering from 9/11 at a good rate, but do you know how fucking high the debt is because of bush? under clinton (the democrats p3wn you, republicans are idiots) the budget was almost balanced, under bush, what is it now? -9 trillion dollars? i rest my case

EDIT:1. this is slowly becoming a flame war, so i suggest a mod /locks it
2. i see some sense in attacking afghanistan, because due to al-qaeda's idiotic and terrorist actions on 9/11, causing 5,000 deaths, i'd want their ass too, but saddam was just sitting there, he had no intent of attacked, he'd already tried, and had his ass kicked, so he left the US be, i hardly find what they did reasonable. america is always trying to be the hero, thwarting the opressors, just mind your own business please

[AlphaWolf]

sources please?

Ask me about that tommorow (no time to dig through the news archives ATM.)



btw, no answer for N. Korea? Nothing about how the US is appeasing them when they are obviously going for nuclear related tech, vamp?

Ok so what do you think we should we do about north korea? Keep in mind that invasion is out of the question since it very well could be another Vietnam, as most of the north koreans hate america completely and would not allow it (iraq is a completely different story, the opportunity was there and the citizens were ready to get rid of saddam.) Not only that, but attacking them would serve no benefit for anybody. North korea wouldn't use nukes though. Why? Because none of their neighbors want it, and doing so would get them thrashed and they know it.


since you seem so profound, would you kindly fucking tell me the last time you heard about saddam committing mass murders?

Ah, I suppose all of the skeletons in those mass graves were just freak rock formations then?

And vampireuk, what the helll is going on here? did I just travel into an alternate parallel universe or something? You're usually the one who is the most against me :P

[pj64er]

Ask me about that tommorow (no time to dig through the news archives ATM.)


sure :)



Ok so what do you think we should we do about north korea? Keep in mind that invasion is out of the question since it very well could be another Vietnam, as most of the north koreans hate america completely and would not allow it (iraq is a completely different story, the opportunity was there and the citizens were ready to get rid of saddam.) Not only that, but attacking them would serve no benefit for anybody. North korea wouldn't use nukes though. Why? Because none of their neighbors want it, and doing so would get them thrashed and they know it.

Simple. Search and destroy any traces of nuclear tech (oh, and do take other WMDs too). As well, although I cant say they have people being oppressed over there, its not like their government hasnt fucked them over already :p

And I wouldnt be so sure that North Korea would not use their nukes. They are also going for ICBM's. Add an unstable leader, and you dont need to be selling nukes to be a danger to the world.



And vampireuk, what the helll is going on here? did I just travel into an alternate parallel universe or something? You're usually the one who is the most against me :P

yea, weird..

[vampireuk]

I'll reply soon but at the moment im doing a complete system reinstall

[vampireuk]

Alpha my opinions have changed quite a bit lately :D


would you kindly fucking tell me the last time you heard about saddam committing mass murders?

You mean aside from the daily torture and murder of his own citizens, his oprresion of the kurds. The time he gassed Kurds? Oh wait thats ok because it happened back in the 80's right? I mean he must really be a nice guy now since that was so long ago :rolleyes:


he has been sitting on his ass ever since he finished up all his SCUD rockets on Israel

Actually after his scud rockets he had artillery shells capable of deploying chemical weapons these were dated to be just before the gulf war and as such was not the smoking gun the bush administration required, however its quite adequete for proving you know jackshit about your history again ;)


i would HARDLY call what bush did as liberation

Obviously you have no idea what liberation is then, they were living under a maniac who tortured and killed his own people for his own amusement, now they are not.


the second saddam's regime fell apart iraq went out. people were looting each other

They were because they got their first taste of freedom and decided to act like savages, are you proposing law and order under the guise of torture and murder is ok as long as the population is quelled?


did you know that a poll showed most iraqis would have rather had saddam

Well they are extremely uneducated, and thats not a insult thats simply the truth. They have been living under lies and manipulation their whole lives and genuinely think Saddam was a good leader in some cases.


at least there was a system of order

So again you agree with brutal opression as a system of law and order?


thousands of valuable US soldiers are being killed for no reason

Thousands? I think once again you prove how little you know about this merely by claiming thousands of troops have been killed ;)


i'm sure as hell that with their military, the us could have snuck in and pulled saddam right out

Well you see Iraq had this little thing called the military, its what they use to "protect" or in Saddams case opress his people. We couldn't have simply gone in and pulled him out, you are watching too many delta force movies. And if we did just remove saddam and left, then what? Leave the Iraqis with no hope? I'm sorry I thought you were a humanitarian. US and UK troops along with civilian contractors are rebuilding Iraq along with the help of Iraqi civilian contractors. They are trying to rebuild the country to make it a better place for the Iraqi people and install a form of government that will not turn into another dictatorship. So you believe we should have removed Saddam and installed another dictator in his place....


and with the entire world saying NO

I went over this too, the entire world did not say no, we have broad international support with troops coming from many countries to help. Also countries like France and Russia, why did they say no? Possibly because they had supplied Saddam with weapons and they wanted that to remain hidden.


YOU HAVE NO REASON TO STICK YOUR NOSE IN THERE JUST LIKE YOU DID IN VIETNAM

So we have no right to go into a country and free its people from a dictatorship that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, is this that humanitarian in you again?


bush walked right in and made himself look like a total ass

I don't paticulary like Bush but at least he had the guts to do something about terrorism and countries run by bad guys, unlike people like you who like to hide and cower from threats.


america is always trying to be the hero, thwarting the opressors, just mind your own business please

If the UK and US lived by your cowardly reasoning France would be controlled by Germany, we have every right to take down evil regimes and I support our troops fully when they go to do this. In fact I will be one of them in the future.


this is slowly becoming a flame war

Sorry but you are the only one doing any flaming with your fucking this and fucking that, the rest of us are actually debating here, care to join us?

[AlphaWolf]

sure :)


And we shall...a basic google search yielded this (http://cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/iraq.html) which outlines it quite well, and there were more a while back that I can't seem to find again.

Also, I remember seeing a poll (not once, but from two different news sources) which said that 85% of iraq citizens support the US occupation there. For some reason I can't find it anymore though.

/me continues searching.

[pj64er]

Pretty good read. Tell me if Im wrong, but it seems to say that Iraq has ties to terrorist groups in the PAST. Not only that, the terrorist groups that they HAD support have nothing to do with the US. Not only that, evidence of the government of Iraq currently (as in, just before Operation Iraqi Freedom) supporting terrorism is poor.

[sheik124]

So we have no right to go into a country and free its people from a dictatorship that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, is this that humanitarian in you again?
i can see your one of the many spoonfed the american onesided media. the numbers were completely exaggerated, and i know some people may not accept this, but it was america that gave the OK for saddam to invade kuwait, for saddam to kill his own people. there were a couple thousand civillian casualties caused by no one other than the american military during this "operation iraqi liberation" do you know what that stands for sire? OIL. i see no purpose argueing with someone who doesn't want to accept facts. and the recent flag change just shows how much the iraqi people have been humiliated. do you happen to watch any non-american media? possibly any IRAQI media. it seems that most people today just want to attack muslims for 9/11. 9/11 was an attrocity that cannot be justified, but you cannot blame ALL muslims for it. i read up on islamic law and killing another human being who is not engaged in a state of war with you, is a crime punishable by hellfire, and it nullifies one's Islam. killing innocent civilians for "revenge" (like bin laden did, or whatever the hell that madman wants to call it) or killing them during "liberation" (like bush is) is complete and utter stupidity. the operation in afghanistan may possibly be called liberation, because they were currently in a state of oppression, and they were currently being persecuted. but in the last 15 years, the only side doing any attacking in iraq has been america. saddam is a lost cause, he can't persecute his people any more. those "skeletons" are actually from his attack on Iran, and if Iran was america's ally, then their actions would be justifiable. and america's invasion of germany WAS a good thing. hitler wasn't persecuting his people, he was killing EVERYBODY, and he was attacking america's allies, and since they are allies, america might as well go and defend them, that i can accept.

[vampireuk]

i can see your one of the many spoonfed the american onesided media. the numbers were completely exaggerated

How have I been "spoon fed" you are the one claiming that thousands of troops have died when they have not, address your own lies before you make some silly little claim against me.


it was america that gave the OK for saddam to invade kuwait

Actually Saddam invaded on his own, do you remember how the US went in and kicked Iraq out?


there were a couple thousand civillian casualties caused by no one other than the american military during this "operation iraqi liberation"

They are unfortunately casualties of war, the US did not deliberately kill them, do not put our countries on the same level as Saddam, you will appear a even bigger fool than you do now.


do you know what that stands for sire? OIL. i see no purpose argueing with someone who doesn't want to accept facts.

It's quite funny that you still think this is over oil, it quite clearly shows that you are the one been spoon fed as you are listening to all these little conspiracy theorists that believe the war is about oil. I covered your comment about oil earlier and demolished it. You see no sense in arguiing with me because you cannot accept that you are wrong. You look even more foolish when you use your uneducated biased pride in your opinions spoon fed to you by anti war liberals and refuse to accept what you are saying is wrong. Get your own damn opinions for once, get your brain in gear and you will see this has nothing to do with oil.


and the recent flag change just shows how much the iraqi people have been humiliated

You mean the flag which has blue in it? And shock horror israel have blue in their flag too, oooh what a evil conspiracy, if you think the flag is designed to humiliate them you are even more foolish than I first thought.


do you happen to watch any non-american media?

I don't watch American media, I watch the BBC, and the BBC were criticised for been biased against America and well known for leaning to the left, care to try again?


possibly any IRAQI media

You mean Al Jazeeeeeera, the tv group that claims a boatful of navy seals was killed by the taleban one time....and it never happened. Or perhaps Iraqi media of how the Americans were been slaughtered at the gates of baghdad :D


it seems that most people today just want to attack muslims for 9/11

Once again you are a complete fool for thinking this is simply about attacking Islam, get that brain of yours in gear son.


but you cannot blame ALL muslims for it

We don't you just claim that we do to suit your own silly opinions.


i read up on islamic law and killing another human being who is not engaged in a state of war with you, is a crime punishable by hellfire

Did you also read about how they are allowed to kill the infidels? Or is that part not suitable for your opinions and you selectively ignored it.


killing innocent civilians for "revenge" (like bin laden did, or whatever the hell that madman wants to call it) or killing them during "liberation" (like bush is) is complete and utter stupidity.

And thinking that we are doing it deliberately is sheer stupidity, but you have proven yourself to be highly anti west and pro terrorist it seems. You think its best to leave dictators in place, you support brutal police tactics to keep the population under control, basically you support anything that is against what the US is doing. You son look like a complete tosser in this thread.


the operation in afghanistan may possibly be called liberation, because they were currently in a state of oppression, and they were currently being persecuted. but in the last 15 years, the only side doing any attacking in iraq has been america

Do you even read what you type? Since Saddam was in power the people of Iraq have been opressed, how can you defend him you small minded little child. You obviously know nothing about this and you are letting your hatred for the US do your talking for you, look I'll paypal you £10 so you can buy a american flag and burn it, if you promise to stop talking out of your arse on here.


saddam is a lost cause, he can't persecute his people any more

Yes because we removed him from power.


those "skeletons" are actually from his attack on Iran, and if Iran was america's ally, then their actions would be justifiable

Oh my fucking god do you even know what you are saying, first of all "skeletons" wtf? They are fucking skeletons of people that were murdered, do you know how mass graves come about? Those will be prisoners that were executed and dumped into a pit, how is launching a chemical attack in contrevention to the geneva convention justifiable in your mind? You are so stupid it is unbelieveable.

As for Vietnam, do you know America actually went to Vietnam because of the paris accords? Read some actual history instead of letting your butt do your talking.

[AlphaWolf]

Tell me if Im wrong, but it seems to say that Iraq has ties to terrorist groups in the PAST. Not only that, the terrorist groups that they HAD support have nothing to do with the US.

Well, to quoth the raven:


Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq. The camps of Ansar fighters, who clashed repeatedly with anti-Saddam Kurds, were bombed in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Powell added that senior Iraqi and al-Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s.

And more stuff:


The Clinton administration sought to contain Saddam with a mixture of sanctions and arms inspections but ultimately concluded that Saddam had to go., Bush administration officials took up the anti-Saddam cause, especially after 9/11. Officials characterized Saddam’s regime as an immediate threat to America—because of its history of attacking its neighbors, using chemical weapons, supporting terrorist groups, defying U.N. Security Council resolutions, and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. In his first State of the Union address after September 11, President Bush said Iraq belonged to an “axis of evil.”

Shift back to the WMDs:


Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. Iranian officials also accuse Iraq of dropping mustard-gas bombs on Iranian villages. Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988, Saddam’s forces reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons.

Also, this bit tells me that there is a lot more than meets the eye:


The camps of Ansar fighters, who clashed repeatedly with anti-Saddam Kurds, were bombed in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

And sheik124, try to use correct formatting and grammar in your posts, its a bit annoying and I am not going to read these big blocks of text that resemble a poorly translated instruction manual.

[pj64er]

Well, to quoth the raven:
Ansar al-Islam is "in a lawless part of northern Iraq". The government has no control over them. Their relation to Iraq seems to be limited to Iraq paying them to keep others out. Mercenary-ish if you will.



And more stuff:
This is pretty well known, but this is also in the past. In the end, no WMDs has been found. Also remember, the US also has a history of attacking its neighbours :p



Shift back to the WMDs:
yea, hes a bastard.



Also, this bit tells me that there is a lot more than meets the eye:
From what I can tell, the Ansar seems to be paid/funded to fight off Iraq's (neighbouring) enemies. Seems reasonable. Are you saying this camp may have had chem/bio weapons (from al-Zarqawi and co.), but we bombed it to kingdom come? If the US did know they had WMD's there, why didnt searches after the bombing turn up traces of them?




btw, Im going to be moving tomorrow. I may not get internet access for a few more days. Have fun with shiek :p

[sheik124]

fuck this, i seem to look like an idiot now and i am but a mere teen, i still think america had no business to do in iraq, and no vampireUK i was not talking about aljazeera.
i don't hate america and i don't want to burn the flag, only an idiot would go out and burn the flag, what good will it do you besides possibly catching on fire yourself?
there IS/WAS NO WMDs, i really don't care what fucking quotes you can pull out, but the UN went in, the UN came out, THERE WAS NONE. and if you watch any TV at all, powell, bush, and rumsfield all look like idiots too because they DIDN'T find any WMDs, and they blamed it on their insider source, "Curveball" or whatever his name was. the entire attack on Iraq was viewed as anti-humanitarian and vampireuk, i'd hardly call your list of 6 countries the whole world, since the UN DID NOT approve of the invasion, and the only people who wanted it were Bush and Blair. you guys can argue amongst yourselves if you wish, i'm out

[vampireuk]

You claim that the entire world said no, I prove you wrong and now you try to discredit me?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1

[Davemc]

Saddam must have done a good job, he kept the country in order. Now we can see what cunts he had in the country, and why sometimes he had to do bad things to keep the country from getting out of control.

[Remote]

korn you are soo wrong, a lot of iraqi kids have suffered from saddam being in control.. around 1 million, if not more... I don't think there are any winners amongst regular people in Iraq, the who had the oppurtunity left for other contries a long time ago..

[pj64er]

Actually, my move went better than expected. So I'm back. Bring it on :)

[AlphaWolf]

Saddam must have done a good job, he kept the country in order. Now we can see what cunts he had in the country, and why sometimes he had to do bad things to keep the country from getting out of control.

Hitler did a good job too, he brought unity to the german people, restored their pride after WWI, and also brought them out of an economic depression. He was very charismatic had amazing leadership skills, probably the best the world has ever seen. Based on how germany was before he took over, you can see why he had to do some bad things to keep all of the impure races from destroying humanity. :puke:

[pj64er]

Please refrain from Nazi comparisons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_Law) The thing about the current situation is No Government vs Bad Government.

[vampireuk]

Please refrain from Nazi comparisons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_Law) The thing about the current situation is No Government vs Bad Government.

Why should he? It's a good point, even vlad the impaler had a fucking system.

[pj64er]

Hitler and the Nazis did a lot of things. Comparisons to them proves nothing. I was hoping you guys have more valid points to make :/

[AlphaWolf]

Hitler and the Nazis did a lot of things. Comparisons to them proves nothing. I was hoping you guys have more valid points to make :/

Well, I didn't have to pick hitler, there are a number of people I could have picked, just hitler was the best example. This post was not accusing him or his idea of being a nazi/hitler thing which is what the godwins law is speaking of. It was mainly an analogy with the intent of giving him a bigger realization of what exactly he was saying.

The whole hitler/nazi thing is plenty relavent for discussions that involve history in any fassion though, so I don't fully understand the reasoning for godwins law to exist, other than maybe flame fests that resort to it, e.g. somebody calling somebody else a fascist or a nazi just out of nowhere. (namely I recall a discussion I had a while ago where some guy kept running his mouth about some crap, and I replied with something along the lines of "would you please shut up, nobody likes hearing your bullshit" so then he called me a hitler because he believed that I was trying to use the popular oppinion for the purpose of silencing him, I suppose godwins law would be useful in that case)

[vampireuk]

Hitler and the Nazis did a lot of things. Comparisons to them proves nothing.

Yes it does, people say that Saddams system of "rule" kept people in check, the same can be said for Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, Stalin, do you see where I am going here. Also its strange how suddenly you dive right into saying you hope we have more points to make, when quite clearly I've nearly posted a entire fricking novel on why sheik is wrong :P

[sheik124]

korn you are soo wrong, a lot of iraqi kids have suffered from saddam being in control.. around 1 million, if not more... I don't think there are any winners amongst regular people in Iraq, the who had the oppurtunity left for other contries a long time ago..
and now the iraqi kids are not being allowed to be taught their history, religon, or anything about their previous gov't. i am not saying that saddam had complete rule, but after his gov't fell apart, the country fell apart.

[Allnatural]

and now the iraqi kids are not being allowed to be taught their history, religon, or anything about their previous gov't.
That's a bold claim. Source?

[vampireuk]

He has no sources he just makes stuff up, and once you own his false allegations he just moves the bar again and makes even more stuff up.

[DuDe]

Am I the only one that thinks that Korn was joking?

[vampireuk]

We replied just in case he wasnt :P

[linemu]

Here are some quotes:



Rolf Ekeus

Head of UN WMD inspections 1991-1997

"Detractors of Bush and Blair have tried to make political capital of the presumed discrepancy between the top-level assurances about Iraq's possession of chemical weapons (and other WMD) and the inability of invading forces to find such stocks. The criticism is a distortion and trivialization of a major threat to international peace and security." —Washington Post op-ed, June 2003


Richard Butler

Head of UN WMD inspections 1997-1999

"Iraq certainly did have weapons of mass destruction. Trust me. I held some in my own hands." —September 2003 to convention of utility and transportation contractors in Atlantic City

David Kay

CIA Special Adviser for Strategy, Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs (head of Iraq Survey Group), June 2003-January 2004

"We have found an extensive network of laboratories operated by the Iraqi intelligence service now numbering about two dozen that were not known before. We have also found that the Iraqis initiated work on new agents: Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever being one, brucellosis being another, that they had not done before and had not declared. So we found quite a bit of activity in the weapons area, but we have not, again, we haven't found the weapons." —October 2003 interview, Newshour with Jim Lehrer


Charles Duelfer

Successor to David Kay, appointed by CIA Director George Tenet, January 2004

"When [weapons inspectors] left in December 1998, there certainly remained in Iraq the intellectual know-how to continue all these programs. UNSCOM had significant concerns about remaining production capability and indeed, weapons themselves. During the period of time UNSCOM still worked in New York, but was not in Iraq, it continued to collect evidence of ongoing Iraqi work in all areas of WMD. I doubt anyone believes Iraq has stopped its WMD efforts." —testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, October 2001

Anyone who says that "no one" ever thought there were WMD's in Iraq besides Bush, is just ignoring the facts. Those who say we invaded for oil.. PLEASE back your statements up with facts. Anyone can make baseless accusations. The petrol prices haven't dropped any either, although they have gone up a bit.
As for the "having a sadistic madman genocidal dictater is better than having no government" argument, Well for your information, the U.S isn't just leaving Iraq in anarchy, We're staying until the country gets a stable government. We're not like countries like spain who just pack up and leave because of a campaign promise.

Also, John Kerry hasn't presented a miracle plan for Iraq either.

[Davemc]

Yeah, I was joking, but if the war against Saddam was justified because of what he did to his own people (which it was, IMO) why aren't we going after others that have commited the same humanitarian crimes? Eg Mugabe?

[sheik124]

eg ariel sharon if you ask me, that bastard needs to be strung by his guts

[AlphaWolf]

Those who say we invaded for oil.. PLEASE back your statements up with facts.

Its my oppinion that the whole political issue was over oil. US was probably motivated at least somewhat by that prospect, (who the hell wouldn't be? honestly...) and the biggiest members of the UN security didn't want to lose the oil they already had access to (which they did, under the we give you food (that you trade for munitions) for oil program.)

EDIT: Although I hate the new york times with a passion, they posted an informative comparison of Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/georgewbush/index.html) vs. Kerry (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/johnfkerry/index.html).

If it asks you to register, go here (http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html).

(those are URLs for you IE users, click them.)

Personally I agree with Bush on everything except the abortion and environment bits (possibly education too, depends on whether or not those vouchers work for religious schools, if so I say to hell with that.) I ardently disagree with Kerry on everything else. Vote for the man, not the party.

[deesse]

oh god, no need to argue like that :plain:

[vampireuk]

eg ariel sharon if you ask me, that bastard needs to be strung by his guts

As does every palestinian terrorist

[sheik124]

i am not a palestinian terrorist O.o and his war crimes are beyond acceptable

[vampireuk]

i am not a palestinian terrorist O.o and his war crimes are beyond acceptable

I did not say you were a terrorist, I replied by saying all palestinian terrorists should get the same treatment by your standards.

[DuDe]

eg ariel sharon if you ask me, that bastard needs to be strung by his guts
So by that logic, should the leaders of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan and all kinds of other countries in the region be strung by their guts? Because face it, all of the above are neo-fascistic dictatorships. Only a few weeks ago hundreds of Kurds were killed by the Syrian army, should Bashar Assad be hung by his balls now?

[sheik124]

DuDe, i want to say something i really mean to you.
1. I am in fact, an Arab, and I do think Bashard Al-Assad should be hung by his balls :), because frankly, I have Syrian friends, and because of him and his father's shit legacy, their fathers cannot return to Syria, because they left w/o enlisting in the army like most men over there are FORCED to, and i must agree, that is worth ball stringing, or whatever. Malik (king) Abdullah of Jordan? I think he is a backstabbing traitor if you ask me. Malik Fahd of Saudi? I'd hardly classify Saudi as the "Islamic State" because many of their laws (my uncle lives in saudi with his family) are totally unislamic, like women cannot leave their houses unless they are with a man they cannot marry (uncle, dad, brother, son, so on) or their husbands. And king fahd is also a complete bastard, he doesn't care for his people at all. And I assure you if you ask any arab, they all think that all the gulf rulers are a bunch of rich bastards :). In Egypt, men are not allowed to grow beards as the prophet (peace be upon him) did, they aren't really allowed to fully indulge in studying Islam, and believe it or not, the "Muslim" "Democratic" Ruler (more like dictator), imposes rather odd restrictions on followers of his own religon.
2. When I say that about Sharon, I don't hope to offend ANY Israelis, because what Sharon has done is truly an atrocity. Sabra and Shatila? Don't tell me that was an accident. His illegal (international law baby) holding of settlements in the West Bank. Claiming Jeruasalem (ok so he didn't do this all on his own) as the Israeli capital, when in fact, it should be an international city, and should be open to anyone. And the massacres in Nablus.
3. If I really did offend you with what i sid, then i apologize and want you to know it is unintentional. I don't believe all Israeli's are big monsters, and I totally disagree with what those barbarians (suicide bombers) are doing, walking onto buses, wasting their lives, and killing innocent civilians, no matter what their beliefs against/toward anyone be. In Islam, it is a major sin to kill anyone with whom you are not engaged in war with, who is a child, who is an elderly person, who is a woman, and believe it or not, it is Haram to strike down even a tree.

if you don't care to read this fine by me, if you want to hate me because i am a muslim or an arab, fine by me too, i just want you to know, that you haven't offended me or bothered me, so i really don't have a problem with you. as a matter of fact, i have a couple of jewish and israeli friends as it is a preferable action for us to interact with members of other faiths, and not to piss all over their beliefs and call them names like some arabs out there are doing

EDIT: double posted

I did not say you were a terrorist, I replied by saying all palestinian terrorists should get the same treatment by your standards.
well, those idiots are too busy blasting their balls, along with the rest of their bodies, and a bunch of israeli civlians bodies too, to smitherenes, and people like them shouldn't be allowed to roam the streets. if they feel like they need "revenge" for what the israeli army did to them, they should go blow them up, if anyone for that matter. the whole idea of suicide bombing seems like a way of getting away from their troubles to me, they have nothing better to do, so they take others lives with them. that is completely unacceptable, i hope to see them burn in hell.

[AlphaWolf]

sheik124, I don't understand it, you complain about how bad those dictators are, yet you oppose to the US removing the worst one?

[pj64er]

Also its strange how suddenly you dive right into saying you hope we have more points to make, when quite clearly I've nearly posted a entire fricking novel on why sheik is wrong :P

Yea, but you were countering his points. Nothing new was brought onto the table :p


Anywho...am I interpreting that article (the one that alpha linked to a page back) right?

[DuDe]

DuDe, i want to say something i really mean to you.
1. I am in fact, an Arab, and I do think Bashard Al-Assad should be hung by his balls :), because frankly, I have Syrian friends, and because of him and his father's shit legacy, their fathers cannot return to Syria, because they left w/o enlisting in the army like most men over there are FORCED to, and i must agree, that is worth ball stringing, or whatever. Malik (king) Abdullah of Jordan? I think he is a backstabbing traitor if you ask me. Malik Fahd of Saudi? I'd hardly classify Saudi as the "Islamic State" because many of their laws (my uncle lives in saudi with his family) are totally unislamic, like women cannot leave their houses unless they are with a man they cannot marry (uncle, dad, brother, son, so on) or their husbands. And king fahd is also a complete bastard, he doesn't care for his people at all. And I assure you if you ask any arab, they all think that all the gulf rulers are a bunch of rich bastards :). In Egypt, men are not allowed to grow beards as the prophet (peace be upon him) did, they aren't really allowed to fully indulge in studying Islam, and believe it or not, the "Muslim" "Democratic" Ruler (more like dictator), imposes rather odd restrictions on followers of his own religon.
2. When I say that about Sharon, I don't hope to offend ANY Israelis, because what Sharon has done is truly an atrocity. Sabra and Shatila? Don't tell me that was an accident. His illegal (international law baby) holding of settlements in the West Bank. Claiming Jeruasalem (ok so he didn't do this all on his own) as the Israeli capital, when in fact, it should be an international city, and should be open to anyone. And the massacres in Nablus.
3. If I really did offend you with what i sid, then i apologize and want you to know it is unintentional. I don't believe all Israeli's are big monsters, and I totally disagree with what those barbarians (suicide bombers) are doing, walking onto buses, wasting their lives, and killing innocent civilians, no matter what their beliefs against/toward anyone be. In Islam, it is a major sin to kill anyone with whom you are not engaged in war with, who is a child, who is an elderly person, who is a woman, and believe it or not, it is Haram to strike down even a tree.

if you don't care to read this fine by me, if you want to hate me because i am a muslim or an arab, fine by me too, i just want you to know, that you haven't offended me or bothered me, so i really don't have a problem with you. as a matter of fact, i have a couple of jewish and israeli friends as it is a preferable action for us to interact with members of other faiths, and not to piss all over their beliefs and call them names like some arabs out there are doing

That's a great post up there, and I agree with most of what you said. I hope that opinions as moderate as yours will become the dominant ones in the region I live in, god knows we have enough fucktards on both sides.

[Remote]

Too tired to read what you have been writing but isn't Bush a major oil / oil share owner?

[sheik124]

Too tired to read what you have been writing but isn't Bush a major oil / oil share owner?
i mentioned that a couple of pages ago but others were quick to strike me down :ranting:
EDIT: it wasn't vampireuk and AlphaWolf, i had their names up there originally

EDIT: wanna add something

sheik124, I don't understand it, you complain about how bad those dictators are, yet you oppose to the US removing the worst one?
No I do not oppose the US for removing Saddam. Believe it or not, when i saw Saddam all raggedy :ala: , i applauded the US for doing so, they humiliated him on international TV, and finally put an end to his madness. But it is the "War in Iraq" or "Operation Iraqi Liberation" or whatever you want to call it I want to oppose. They are going to build a "democratic" gov't for them. The Iraqis should just be given an idea of how order works and should be left to themselves. If they need help, they'll ask for it. And the Bahth party (saddam and bashar anyone) is a bunch of ass cracks. Why am i suddenly typing with capital letters and what not?

[AlphaWolf]

The Iraqis should just be given an idea of how order works and should be left to themselves. If they need help, they'll ask for it. And the Bahth party (saddam and bashar anyone) is a bunch of ass cracks. Why am i suddenly typing with capital letters and what not?

It don't work that way. Iraq is full of vast resources, and that said it is a massive power vaccume ready to be filled. The majority of those trying to fight the US out of there right now aren't even from Iraq. If we don't remain there in order to help establish order, a system like saddams will quickly resurface, with the only difference being that its somebody else in charge.

[sheik124]

i still think the bahth pary is a bunch of asscracks :)

[Remote]

I think it's a good party and bush is doing a good job I guess, could have been worse and I rather see high oil prices for him fighting the terrorrist / iraqi's etc for our cause amongst others then the other way around..

[sheik124]

you think bahth party is....good?
wow, first time i hear that
most syrians hate it (nah i'm not syrian) and they think just like i do
and oil prices are going up just as fast as ram prices are :) both are the highest they've ever been