American beheaded in Iraq

[BabyHeadCrab]

its all awful, reminds me of the psychological warfare that the cong's used in nam. They did things like put U.S. Marine heads on spears and stick them on display in the ground after abandoning outposts.. or takeing skewered bodies and crucifying them and leaveing them for bidazzled horrified shellshocked U.S. soldiers to stumble upon.. War is a horrible game ;(

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I meant 'them' as in 'the people in the videos', certainly not all Iraqis.

ahhh, ok that makes sense... I misread the post it would seem
i'm sick and tired of kids thinking any kind of war crime is acceptable.. it's just as terrible regaurless of sides... its this kind of ignorance that makes the United States appear to be so horrid amongst the U.K. and other parties.. thats not to say the United States are the only ignorant ones

 

[Lucifer Crass]

Omg lol I got my post count reset LOLz. Probably Chris_D but whatever. hahahah

 

[Chris D]

It wasn't me

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

LOL HEY LOOK EVERYONE THIS IS MY leet POST! WOOT!

I would like to announce that Bush is a killer. Those that live in the middle east do not know better because death is rampant, like a pimple on the earth, but instead of putting on Stridex to get rid of the problem we poke it and poke it until it finnaly pops and leaves a disgusting mess.
Did I mention rednecks are stupid and need to die off?

that pimple analogy is amazeing... I couldent agree more, but bush is not the only person to blame.

 

[itakeyourbullets]

Anyone know where I can watch the video? Or was it shutdown? :sniper:

 

[Apos]

Clinton had a chance to nab Bin Laden FOUR times during his tenure in office, so dont blame this all on Bush.

There were plans on the table, but the military nixed them as unworkable and many turned out to be based on false information anyway. And some of these supposed missed opportunities (like the supposed Sudan deal) are myths. Plus, Clinton DID launch several operations to try and kill or capture Bin Laden. Not that I'm trying to excuse Clinton either. But two screw ups does not equal two decent guys. If Clinton failed, that doesn't mean Bush failing is likewise acceptable.

But also realize that that was in hindsight: no one knew that Al Qaeda would be as major a threat back then as we know now. Bush doesn't have the luxury of not knowing how dangerous Al Qaeda could be. Plus he had far more of a real opportunity: Clinton could barely make a move without everyone being all over him. If Bush had killed Zarqawi, who was holed up not in a foriegn country, but in a terrority we basically controlled, no one would have even batted an eyelash.

 

[Lucifer Crass]

If I was a bored MP, my frist thought is not to humiliate detainees. It would be to see how my friends where doing on the front lines or something. It remindes my of people that say they are your friend but if you fall or something they laugh their asses off even if your hurt really badly.

Or resets your post count..............I cant wait for 666 post count Muahahhahahahah

 

[Chris D]

You'll have to find it yourself I'm afraid.

We don't want that kind of content on here.

 

[seinfeldrules]

There were plans on the table, but the military nixed them as unworkable and many turned out to be based on false information anyway. And some of these supposed missed opportunities (like the supposed Sudan deal) are myths. Plus, Clinton DID launch several operations to try and kill or capture Bin Laden. Not that I'm trying to excuse Clinton either. But two screw ups does not equal two decent guys. If Clinton failed, that doesn't mean Bush failing is likewise acceptable.

But also realize that that was in hindsight: no one knew that Al Qaeda would be as major a threat back then as we know now. Bush doesn't have the luxury of not knowing how dangerous Al Qaeda could be. Plus he had far more of a real opportunity: Clinton could barely make a move without everyone being all over him. If Bush had killed Zarqawi, who was holed up not in a foriegn country, but in a terrority we basically controlled, no one would have even batted an eyelash.

Well it has been reported that the Saudis had Bin Laden in custody and offered him to us Americans. Clinton refused on the grounds that we didnt have the legal custody to take control of him. What garbage. And what Bush is doing in Iraq is a strong step forward in foreign policy. The foreign policy of most nations is usually wait until it was too late. From all reports given to Bush (not just the CIA, all western intelligence agencies), the Iraqis were within a few years of developing a nuke. What would be the public outcry if a mushroom cloud had appeared over NYC? Why didnt Bush go in when he had the chance?! Look back to WWII for a perfect example of such a situation. Its about time someone stepped up to the plate and stopped a threat before it fully materialized.

Clinton could barely make a move without everyone being all over him.

And Bush is any different? The liberals are calling for Rumsfeld to resign over the action of 20 or so men.Talk about politicizing a national 'crisis'. The democratic primary was one big Bush bashing fest. Just remember.
"I voted for the war in Iraq, before I voted against it!"

 

[The Mullinator]

Anyone know where I can watch the video? Or was it shutdown? :sniper:

It really shouldn't be too difficult to find now anyway. If you often watch disgusting videos then you probably already know of a few sites that will have the video posted up now.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

clayman has a point.. i'm glad you're all so angry about murder, but it's not as if this hasn't happened before/won't happen again. nick berg died in a fairly greusome manner, but probably hundreds of people die violent/slow deaths every day. are you all equally outraged everytime someone is murdered? or is it only the richard pearls and nicholas bergs of the world that command such grief?

many of you seem to be struggling with the question of religion as it pertains to "us" and "them", or the "civilised" and the "barbarians" or whatnot. but honestly the religion animosities are just window-dressing. it actually is as simple as "us" and "them"; it's pure tribalism. we've never needed religion to kill and torture each other. deny it if you wish, but it's just human nature.

to the original post, the torture of iraqi prisoners and the murder of berg actually have nothing to do with each other. the people who killed berg just used it as an excuse, they didn't really need a reason. they just used this as an opportunity to strike more personally at america. "why can't we torture theirs"? dude, that's one of the stupidest things i've ever heard, and i'm sure you realize that too. 1) the iraqi prisoners didn't kill mr. berg 2) it's just not a useful endeavor: it doesn't illicit information and it doesn't make us any friends in the region. 3) the aformentioned and ubiquitous "being better than them", though i think of it more as 'being a good human being'.

something you have to realize is that we live in a comfy relatively safe war-free area. someone mentioned seeing a similar video not long ago. that was most-likely the russian soldier being decapitated by chechen rebels. imo, civilisation is relative. try lbeing born, growing up and surviving in a war zone, watching your family raped and murdered and then lets see how civilised you are. i'm not even trying to justify anything on either side. it just seems to me that people need some perspective.

 

[The Mullinator]

Well it has been reported that the Saudis had Bin Laden in custody and offered him to us Americans. Clinton refused on the grounds that we didnt have the legal custody to take control of him. What garbage. And what Bush is doing in Iraq is a strong step forward in foreign policy. The foreign policy of most nations is usually wait until it was too late. From all reports given to Bush (not just the CIA, all western intelligence agencies), the Iraqis were within a few years of developing a nuke. What would be the public outcry if a mushroom cloud had appeared over NYC? Why didnt Bush go in when he had the chance?! Look back to WWII for a perfect example of such a situation. Its about time someone stepped up to the plate and stopped a threat before it fully materialized.

A full out invasion and occupation of a country is not going to stop such weapons from being developed anyway. It isn't so much the governments of these countries that are the biggest threat when it comes to WMD's, its more of a problem with terrorist groups inside those countries.

Did Iraq have WMD's? Well it seems not, however even if they did or even they were merely developing them, then invading would not have stopped them in their tracks anyway. The full invasion of Iraq has only made more people in the middle east pissed off at the US, any WMD's that they may have had, or were trying to develop would have simply been moved to other middle eastern countries.

So really invading Iraq did not serve much purpose on the WMD front, the most it could have done would be to delay any terrorists from developing and using any WMD's. Unless you want the US to invade EVERY middle eastern country that is suspect to trying to develop WMD's (and that really would be close to impossible given the number of countries and the number of people it would piss off around the world) then its really not going to do cause much of a problem for terrorist groups.

 

[Death.Trap]

Bush is moron and everone knows it. Hes no better than those that suicide bomb things or cut off heads. Damn rednecks need to die off faster.

Wow, that is quite posssibly one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard-Next to the one earlier in this thread about Bush having more blood on his hands than any president in history. Why do people find it so difficult to look past the politics of a situation and see the real side of it? Whatever motivated Bush to invade Iraq; be it that the CIA told him there were WMD's there or he just wanted oil, it doesn't matter, the fact is we did the right thing for POSSIBLY the wrong reasons. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA told bush there were WMD's in Iraq. Another thing that irritates me is when people act so surprised when they find out about some sort of government cover-up. My god people! The government is not going to tell you everything, it doesn't work like that. Why are people so eager to criminalize the fact that Bush didn't do anything about Al-queda before 9/11? No matter what anyone says, we do NOT know ALL the facts. From what I've heard about the findings of this supposed 9/11 commission it's not suprprising that nothing was done. But the fact remains that we will never know the entire truth.

On the thought of someone earlier on in this thread saying that Bush has more blood on his hands than any president in history- Let's look at some facts. First of all, as a result of Trumans order to drop the atomic bomb on hiroshima 50,000 people died instantly, 200,000 later died as a direct result of radiation. In Vietnam over 50,000 american soldiers lost their lives. How can you possibly come to the assesment that president bush is some kind of war mongering lunatic?


I hate discussing issues such as these. I doubt I will post in this thread again.

 

[Epyon]

anyone here that is searching for the video to pleasure themselves with something disgusting, then dont waste your time. It was horrible that this happen, but, the video quality was very bad, you werent able to make out what was happending such as you coudlnt see blood and stuff, or maybe i have bad eyes. Those who are finding it to see just how awful these people are, look for it, that is why i watched it, and it made me hate them more.

 

[seinfeldrules]

A full out invasion and occupation of a country is not going to stop such weapons from being developed anyway. It isn't so much the governments of these countries that are the biggest threat when it comes to WMD's, its more of a problem with terrorist groups inside those countries.

Did Iraq have WMD's? Well it seems not, however even if they did or even they were merely developing them, then invading would not have stopped them in their tracks anyway. The full invasion of Iraq has only made more people in the middle east pissed off at the US, any WMD's that they may have had, or were trying to develop would have simply been moved to other middle eastern countries.

So really invading Iraq did not serve much purpose on the WMD front, the most it could have done would be to delay any terrorists from developing and using any WMD's. Unless you want the US to invade EVERY middle eastern country that is suspect to trying to develop WMD's (and that really would be close to impossible given the number of countries and the number of people it would piss off around the world) then its really not going to do cause much of a problem for terrorist groups.

I completely disagree with that belief. Terrorists dont have the funding, nor the facilities to develop sophisticated WMD, like a nuke. They rely on nations such as Iraq to develop these weapons then sell them off. By cutting off Saddam, we effectively stopped the funding going into this research.

Secondly, I could really care less about who hates us over there. They already did. When children are growing up being taught that Americans are the devil, and 9.11 was a Zionist/American scheme to destroy the Muslims, there is something wrong to begin with. That whole area of the world needs to be rid of extremists so Islam can rise again to the great religion it once was. Currently it is being played with by terrorist supporters using to it guarantee virgins in the after life. I have nothing against Muslims/Islams, but they are the Christians of Mid-Evil times, totally backwards and barbaric.

Finally, I wouldnt mind invading every country in the Middle East if it meant America and the Western World would be safe from barbaric, terrorist attacks. We are the protectorates of freedom and must act as such if necessary. One day, probably after another 9/11 type attack on a much larger scale, America will realize that this will be the only way to secure our freedom. We are in a war more vast than we realize. And invading Iraq has had some effect. Libya has seen the determination in which this President will fight the War on Terror and has ceased their production of WMD.

 

[The Mullinator]

Wow, that is quite posssibly one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard-Next to the one earlier in this thread about Bush having more blood on his hands than any president in history. Why do people find it so difficult to look past the politics of a situation and see the real side of it? Whatever motivated Bush to invade Iraq; be it that the CIA told him there were WMD's there or he just wanted oil, it doesn't matter, the fact is we did the right thing for POSSIBLY the wrong reasons. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA told bush there were WMD's in Iraq. Another thing that irritates me is when people act so surprised when they find out about some sort of government cover-up. My god people! The government is not going to tell you everything, it doesn't work like that. Why are people so eager to criminalize the fact that Bush didn't do anything about Al-queda before 9/11? No matter what anyone says, we do NOT know ALL the facts. From what I've heard about the findings of this supposed 9/11 commission it's not suprprising that nothing was done. But the fact remains that we will never know the entire truth.

On the thought of someone earlier on in this thread saying that Bush has more blood on his hands than any president in history- Let's look at some facts. First of all, as a result of Trumans order to drop the atomic bomb on hiroshima 50,000 people died instantly, 200,000 later died as a direct result of radiation. In Vietnam over 50,000 american soldiers lost their lives. How can you possibly come to the assesment that president bush is some kind of war mongering lunatic?


I hate discussing issues such as these. I doubt I will post in this thread again.

I agree with everything you said, however I still think Bush is of below average intelligence (a moron if you want to be mean :O ). I am not however basing this so much on his decisions as president as I am on his speeches, and past things he has said and done. Thankfully many of his actual decisions are from his advisors, otherwise things would be really weird.

 

[seinfeldrules]

While I am on a roll, I would also like to comment on the media in America. Where is the outcry over this murder? Where is the congressional investigation? Where is the outrage? Where is the attention?
Furthermore, where is the reporting on VICTORIES in Iraq, all you ever hear about is defeatism. There are victories in Iraq and I believe the media is purposely underplaying them to follow a politcal goal. Ever since Vietnam the media has taken this approach and I am quite tired of it. I realize that the defeats need to be reported, but do it in proportion to the victories. The current American media is in a sad shape.

 

[fizzlephox]

There were plenty of news on victories when Iraq fell. We heard about the U.S. and UK troops winning with little casualties and saw statues collapsing and people cheering. Then we declared "mission accomplished". There's not much to report on now unless Iraqi Insurgents start killing people and causing trouble. There are no major victories captures to report on now. Just soldiers guarding things and waiting for an attack.

 

[moz4rt]

Because we elected Mr. Bush, the most blood stained president to date.

??? LOL!!!
C'mon man! Ever heard of the WWII, the Korean War, or Vietnam?!?!?!? Oh wait, Death.Trap already beat me to it. Anyway, I don't like it when people ignorantly make comments based on no fact at all.

Without rednecks, there would be no redneck jokes. I'm not willing to give those up.

 

[Apos]

Where is the outcry over this murder? Where is the congressional investigation? Where is the outrage? Where is the attention?

Uh, how about plastered across the frontpage of every single paper and news site? There is widespread outrage: in fact public outrage is probably bigger than the torture scandal. And as for a congressional investigation: do you have any clue what you are talking about? Those are to investigate internal conduct by the US, not third parties. Congressional investigations are entirely relevant to the torture scandals: they have little relevance for individual murders committed by people who are ALREADY sworn enemies of the U.S.

Furthermore, where is the reporting on VICTORIES in Iraq, all you ever hear about is defeatism.

What constitutes a "victory" to you? And where is it not being reported?

You are basically just parroting the spin right wingers in the U.S. are putting out because they are scared that all this might hurt George Bush's election chances.

 

[The Mullinator]

I completely disagree with that belief. Terrorists dont have the funding, nor the facilities to develop sophisticated WMD, like a nuke. They rely on nations such as Iraq to develop these weapons then sell them off. By cutting off Saddam, we effectively stopped the funding going into this research.

Secondly, I could really care less about who hates us over there. They already did. When children are growing up being taught that Americans are the devil, and 9.11 was a Zionist/American scheme to destroy the Muslims, there is something wrong to begin with. That whole area of the world needs to be rid of extremists so Islam can rise again to the great religion it once was. Currently it is being played with by terrorist supporters using to it guarantee virgins in the after life. I have nothing against Muslims/Islams, but they are the Christians of Mid-Evil times, totally backwards and barbaric.

Finally, I wouldnt mind invading every country in the Middle East if it meant America and the Western World would be safe from barbaric, terrorist attacks. We are the protectorates of freedom and must act as such if necessary. One day, probably after another 9/11 type attack on a much larger scale, America will realize that this will be the only way to secure our freedom. We are in a war more vast than we realize. And invading Iraq has had some effect. Libya has seen the determination in which this President will fight the War on Terror and has ceased their production of WMD.

You would be surprised just how much money and resources some terrorist groups have, I've heard of videos and documents from some of the experiments and the work they have done using their own funding and research, they involve biological weapons, and chemical weapons. Although nuclear stuff really is something that only a centralized government can handle the fact is that a well used chemical or biological weapon can do more damage than any nuke anyway.

Also not caring about how people over there feel about americans is not the smartest thing to do for the US government, obviously it was stupid of them to have started this teaching of hatred against the west but there were still many that were not against the US. Now that the US is doing so much to make them angry it just adds to the US's problems in the future: More people willing to devote their lives to terrorism, more money for terrorists to work with, more academics that can assist them with their WMD developments, more people willing to help hide them and support them.

Obviously the world needs to be rid of extremists, but when the US goes in guns blazing, ignoring what arabs say (even if its wrong it doesn't matter since the effect is the same) and generally pissing them off then its going to create more extremists than its going to destroy. Don't ask me for a different method of fixing the problem since I don't know of any, although I wish I did. Ignoring the problem and pulling everything out of the middle east obviously won't help now since it will just give them everything they need to attack the US, and obviously the US can't keep on with its policy of always being on the offensive since its just creating more extremists.

 

[Apos]

I completely disagree with that belief. Terrorists dont have the funding, nor the facilities to develop sophisticated WMD, like a nuke. They rely on nations such as Iraq to develop these weapons then sell them off.

Why would they want to spend ten years trying to develop WMD in Iraq under the watchful eye of the entire world and then try to smuggle it into the US, when they can just steal WMD from the huge and largely unguarded stockpiles we have here in the U.S.? It makes no sense.

Secondly, I could really care less about who hates us over there. They already did.

This is the sure sign of fanaticism: to assume that entire cultures are simply as hateful as they could possibly be and nothing we can do can make it worse.

Well, I have news for you: there are TONS of hearts and minds that are uncertain about us and how to deal with us. Al Qaeda knows this: that is exactly what their purpose is: to take advantage of events to radicalize more and more people in the Middle East. But you: you would have us simply blind ourselves to one of the most important aspects of the war that we are fighting by declaring then all a lost cause!

Finally, I wouldnt mind invading every country in the Middle East if it meant America and the Western World would be safe from barbaric, terrorist attacks.

What if it meant just the opposite? What if, as seems to be the case in reality, right now, that our invasion has actually strengthened the ranks and motives and PR of terrorists, and made us all a lot LESS safe than we were before?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Uh, how about plastered across the frontpage of every single paper and news site? There is widespread outrage: in fact public outrage is probably bigger than the torture scandal. And as for a congressional investigation: do you have any clue what you are talking about? Those are to investigate internal conduct by the US, not third parties. Congressional investigations are entirely relevant to the torture scandals: they have little relevance for individual murders committed by people who are ALREADY sworn enemies of the U.S.



What constitutes a "victory" to you? And where is it not being reported?

You are basically just parroting the spin right wingers in the U.S. are putting out because they are scared that all this might hurt George Bush's election chances.

Yes I realize that a Congressional investigation would be out of line, but it is also out of line for the prision investigation. I was merely exaggerating to prove a point. Within a few days this will be on the sidelines and the prison scandal will be back on the front pages. I call that a double standard.

A victory to me would be Americans rebuilding a town. Iraqis showing support for America. Americans busting an Iraqi/terrorist stronghold without a loss of life. You never hear anything outside of Fallujah, Najaf, or Baghdad on the mainstream news because in the other areas, from what I have heard, Americans are being recepted in a good manner. Its not just in Iraq either, its pretty much every American conflict (save GW1) since Vietnam.

 

[not28]

Anyone know where I can watch the video? Or was it shutdown? :sniper:

If you really really want to see it, and you haven't already found it, then I can send it to you through a PM.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Why would they want to spend ten years trying to develop WMD in Iraq under the watchful eye of the entire world and then try to smuggle it into the US, when they can just steal WMD from the huge and largely unguarded stockpiles we have here in the U.S.? It makes no sense.



This is the sure sign of fanaticism: to assume that entire cultures are simply as hateful as they could possibly be and nothing we can do can make it worse.

Well, I have news for you: there are TONS of hearts and minds that are uncertain about us and how to deal with us. Al Qaeda knows this: that is exactly what their purpose is: to take advantage of events to radicalize more and more people in the Middle East. But you: you would have us simply blind ourselves to one of the most important aspects of the war that we are fighting by declaring then all a lost cause!



What if it meant just the opposite? What if, as seems to be the case in reality, right now, that our invasion has actually strengthened the ranks and motives and PR of terrorists, and made us all a lot LESS safe than we were before?

I disagree again, it is much easier to receive a WMD from a country like Iran/Iraq and then smuggle it into the USA. Only 3 of 100 ships entering the USA are being searched from reports that are floating around. And WMD in America is hardly just lying around outside in the woods. We probably have the most protected arsenal in the world. Before the whole controversy over Iraq arose again recently it (Iraq) really was not watched all that intensely.

Again I disagree. When you see news footage of Arabs in the street celebrating 9/11 how can you claim they didnt hate us before? Muslims in Saudi Arabia were being taught that the Americans were devils and only intended to destroy their religion. How about Al Jazeera and the other Arab news station which is blatantly Anti- American. No, I believe that many Arabs have been brainwashed into believing America is only out to hurt them.

Either way their ranks would of grown, at least now we have on less nation that will harbor terrorists and provide them with funding and weapons to fight us. Its a lot better then sitting around and waiting for the Arab world to open up to America. 9.11 proved that.

 

[not28]

While I am on a roll, I would also like to comment on the media in America. Where is the outcry over this murder? Where is the congressional investigation? Where is the outrage? Where is the attention?
Furthermore, where is the reporting on VICTORIES in Iraq, all you ever hear about is defeatism. There are victories in Iraq and I believe the media is purposely underplaying them to follow a politcal goal. Ever since Vietnam the media has taken this approach and I am quite tired of it. I realize that the defeats need to be reported, but do it in proportion to the victories. The current American media is in a sad shape.

What about all of the innocent Iraqis being killed and humiliated? I can point you to a website that lists videos and photos of American troops who have killed innocent civilians, but nobody really actually cares about Towelhead right? We're just over there to "restore peace and install democracy," but really nobody actually gives a shit about the Iraqi people. This is just a chance for America (and many, not all, Americans) to feel big about themselves.

 

[seinfeldrules]

What about all of the innocent Iraqis being killed and humiliated? I can point you to a website that lists videos and photos of American troops who have killed innocent civilians, but nobody really actually cares about Towelhead right? We're just over there to "restore peace and install democracy," but really nobody actually gives a shit about the Iraqi people. This is just a chance for America (and many, not all, Americans) to feel big about themselves.

Do you have a link showing the 2 million people Saddam killed? We, 99% of the time, kill innocent civilians as a mistake. That is what seperates us from the terrorist. We DO care about the "Towelhead" that is why we are over there liberating them from Saddam's brutal regime.

 

[itakeyourbullets]

If you really really want to see it, and you haven't already found it, then I can send it to you through a PM.

k, but is it gruesome? And will I get in trubble? :O

 

[seinfeldrules]

A guy lost his head, of course it will be grusome.

 

[Murray_H]

k, but is it gruesome?

No he sings what a wonderful world and flowers come out of his neck..... :dozey:

 

[itakeyourbullets]

A guy lost his head, of course it will be grusome.

But I heard that the video quality is bad and you don't see much, so that's why I asked.

 

[Prince of China]

What about all of the innocent Iraqis being killed and humiliated? I can point you to a website that lists videos and photos of American troops who have killed innocent civilians, but nobody really actually cares about Towelhead right? We're just over there to "restore peace and install democracy," but really nobody actually gives a shit about the Iraqi people. This is just a chance for America (and many, not all, Americans) to feel big about themselves.

They didn't get decapitated.

 

[Tork]

Its just sick, anyone who can do this to another human and call the name of "God" while doing it belongs in an asylum. They looked like a bunch of animals while doing it and I believe they will burn in hell for ETERNITY.

 

[Apos]

Well it has been reported that the Saudis had Bin Laden in custody and offered him to us Americans.

Utter bullplop. First of all, it was Sudan that supposedly was offering him, but the reason the deal fell through is that they didn't actually have him in custody, and were'nt serious about turning him over anyway: they were just trying to play us.

Clinton refused on the grounds that we didnt have the legal custody to take control of him. What garbage.

Exactly: what garbage. The story, I mean. Just a right-wing echo chamber myth.

And what Bush is doing in Iraq is a strong step forward in foreign policy. The foreign policy of most nations is usually wait until it was too late. From all reports given to Bush (not just the CIA, all western intelligence agencies), the Iraqis were within a few years of developing a nuke.

Except, this isn't the case, and it's also not the case that this is what all intel was pointing to. There was conflicting accounts, and in fact, the accounts about nukes came from people with big motives to lie: Chalabi and his gang. They wanted Saddam taken out so that they could take over. Of course, now that that doesn't look like it will happen, they sold us out to Iran. And yet we still pay this bunch of cheats and liars.

Bush cherry-picked only the intelligence he wanted to hear: told the intel agencies to make the case, whether it was there or not.

What would be the public outcry if a mushroom cloud had appeared over NYC?

Pretty big: so why didn't we invade North Korea instead, who actually have nukes and are actually threatening to use them? How come we basically neglected to buy up all the loose nukes floating around the former Soviety Union so to keep them out of terrorist hands? Iraq was hardly the only or the biggest threat to the U.S., and even if they HAD been building nukes (which we have yet to find solid evidence of), they would still have been almost a decade away. A threat, but certianly not an urgent one for which we should have dropped all the other important stuff like finding Bin Laden.

I don't think invading Iraq was in general a bad idea. But the timing and execution was awful, and it's made the occupation a disaster. Worse: a FORESEEABLE disaster that could have been avoided if the administration had not been so arrogant to discount and disregard all the safeguards and plans people had made.

Why didnt Bush go in when he had the chance?! Look back to WWII for a perfect example of such a situation.

I don't get you here. Fact was, a brutual terrorist seems like he was let go mainly so that something that was already a lie could be maintained.

And Bush is any different? The liberals are calling for Rumsfeld to resign over the action of 20 or so men.

Nice way to downplay it. It was a lot more than just 20 men, and it happened because of major lapses in policy and oversight that never should have happened. We ahve sources in the White House now saying that Rumsfeld people LAUGHED when Powell tried to raise the issue with them. We have the Red Cross saying that what was done to the prisoners was actually standard interrogation practice in the "new world."

"I voted for the war in Iraq, before I voted against it!"

You know, it can't get more dishonest than this. Kerry authorized the use of force when Bush was pretending that it was going to be used in order to prove the U.S. resolve in getting together full U.N. support and to put pressure on the Iraqis. Then Bush totally broke all those promises, burned his alliances, and invaded too soon, before we were ready. Many soldiers died needlessly for lack of equipment or full manpower. Then Bush wants more funding for the occupation. So Kerry says "you got it, here's a bill that does it, and pays for it with tiny tax increases." Bush says no. Kerry considers it irresponsible to ask for 87billion dollars with no way to pay for it. He opposes Bush and votes against Bush's VERSION of the bill.

And then, some slimly liar finds a way to twist those facts into "he voted for the war, then against it, LOL, he's a crazy man mommy!" It doesn't get more crooked or dishonest than that.

 

[fizzlephox]

Do you have a link showing the 2 million people Saddam killed? We, 99% of the time, kill innocent civilians as a mistake. That is what seperates us from the terrorist. We DO care about the "Towelhead" that is why we are over there liberating them from Saddam's brutal regime.

I can assure you the U.S. didn't go over there just to help out the people of Iraq and be nice. I'm sure you know that, but helping the Iraqi's wasn't even why we supposedly went there in the first place. Weapons of mass destruction? Imminent threat to democratic countries?

 

[Apos]

And WMD in America is hardly just lying around outside in the woods. We probably have the most protected arsenal in the world.

No, litterally lying around in the woods is pretty close. That's because Republicans have fought to make sure there is no legislation companies to properly store or guard extremely dangerous chemicals, biological waste, and byproducts. There are litterally bins of chemicals toxic enough to melt human skin if vaporized into the air sitting in cheap drums protected by nothing more sophisticated than a chain link fence and a padlock. There is a bioweapon lab not twenty miles from me right now that is protected by two security guards and is falling apart. Why? No regulation, and because Bush wont spend any money on homeland defense: just pork.

Before the whole controversy over Iraq arose again recently it (Iraq) really was not watched all that intensely.

Are you kidding? It was watched by one of the largest survelliance operations in the history of the world. We have satelites over it constantly, enforce no fly zones in the North and South, and watched it hawkishly.

Again I disagree. When you see news footage of Arabs in the street celebrating 9/11 how can you claim they didnt hate us before?

Some did, some don't, some aren't sure. But you're only proving my point: only a fanatic would see complete and total fanaticism in the Middle East, with no distinction or way to get worse. You really shouldn't speak about a part of the world about which you are clueless and know only propaganda.

Muslims in Saudi Arabia were being taught that the Americans were devils and only intended to destroy their religion. How about Al Jazeera and the other Arab news station which is blatantly Anti- American. No, I believe that many Arabs have been brainwashed into believing America is only out to hurt them.

And yet... by and large the biggest failure of the Al Qaeda so far is that they have FAILED to radicalize the Middle East. Most people in the Middle East may distrust the U.S., but there are very very few who are willing to actually rise up and fight the US or become terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda has so far failed to get them on their feet and joining the jihad, as they had hoped.

Either way their ranks would of grown, at least now we have on less nation that will harbor terrorists and provide them with funding and weapons to fight us.

Now this is truly clueless. We have one MORE nation, not one less. Iraq used to be a well contained secular dictatorship where Saddam wouldn't put up with Al Qaeda vying for power in his own backyard. Now it's terrorist's wet dream: chaotic, destabilized, angry, and ripe for recruiting people to their cause.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Utter bullplop. First of all, it was Sudan that supposedly was offering him, but the reason the deal fell through is that they didn't actually have him in custody, and were'nt serious about turning him over anyway: they were just trying to play us.



Exactly: what garbage. The story, I mean. Just a right-wing echo chamber myth.



Except, this isn't the case, and it's also not the case that this is what all intel was pointing to. There was conflicting accounts, and in fact, the accounts about nukes came from people with big motives to lie: Chalabi and his gang. They wanted Saddam taken out so that they could take over. Of course, now that that doesn't look like it will happen, they sold us out to Iran. And yet we still pay this bunch of cheats and liars.

Bush cherry-picked only the intelligence he wanted to hear: told the intel agencies to make the case, whether it was there or not.



Pretty big: so why didn't we invade North Korea instead, who actually have nukes and are actually threatening to use them? How come we basically neglected to buy up all the loose nukes floating around the former Soviety Union so to keep them out of terrorist hands? Iraq was hardly the only or the biggest threat to the U.S., and even if they HAD been building nukes (which we have yet to find solid evidence of), they would still have been almost a decade away. A threat, but certianly not an urgent one for which we should have dropped all the other important stuff like finding Bin Laden.

I don't think invading Iraq was in general a bad idea. But the timing and execution was awful, and it's made the occupation a disaster. Worse: a FORESEEABLE disaster that could have been avoided if the administration had not been so arrogant to discount and disregard all the safeguards and plans people had made.



I don't get you here. Fact was, a brutual terrorist seems like he was let go mainly so that something that was already a lie could be maintained.



Nice way to downplay it. It was a lot more than just 20 men, and it happened because of major lapses in policy and oversight that never should have happened. We ahve sources in the White House now saying that Rumsfeld people LAUGHED when Powell tried to raise the issue with them. We have the Red Cross saying that what was done to the prisoners was actually standard interrogation practice in the "new world."



You know, it can't get more dishonest than this. Kerry authorized the use of force when Bush was pretending that it was going to be used in order to prove the U.S. resolve in getting together full U.N. support and to put pressure on the Iraqis. Then Bush totally broke all those promises, burned his alliances, and invaded too soon, before we were ready. Many soldiers died needlessly for lack of equipment or full manpower. Then Bush wants more funding for the occupation. So Kerry says "you got it, here's a bill that does it, and pays for it with tiny tax increases." Bush says no. Kerry considers it irresponsible to ask for 87billion dollars with no way to pay for it. He opposes Bush and votes against Bush's VERSION of the bill.

And then, some slimly liar finds a way to twist those facts into "he voted for the war, then against it, LOL, he's a crazy man mommy!" It doesn't get more crooked or dishonest than that.

I apologize about the incorrect country reference, but it was reported in the Boston Globe, hardly right wing by even the most liberal viewpoint.

Why not NK? Because NK would of immediately cost tens of thousands of lives. They currently have the largest army in the world and have been digging in for 50 years. Also, they ALREADY have nukes and could use them on, say Tokyo, at any point in time. You never know what Kim Il Song could do.

The execution of the invasion was awesome, the best military campaign in recent history. It was the after party which ruined the show. I am telling you Iraq is much better off then it sounds. You never hear about American success stories over there as you do the defeats.


Well it is unknown how many men were involved, but there was an investigation running since last Feburary I belive, its not like there was a coverup. Also, Rumsfeld doesnt know much about ANY ongoing investigation because there is a military law which could be used to get convicted soldiers acquitted if commanding officers got too involved. That is why he first saw the pics on 60 Mins 2. Where was the Red Cross before? I think they are just trying to cover up for THEIR lack of knowledge on teh subject.

The resolution was to authorize the President to use military force based on his assesment of the situation. He felt it was needed. We dont pass resolutions based on what the UN will do, this is the USA, not the UNSA. We look out for our own interests first. Furthermore, Kerry is quoted as saying that (on tape). You have never seen that Bush ad? Anyway you look at it, that 87 billion was needed, you worry about the troops 1st, not how you will pay it off. That is irresponisble.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, litterally lying around in the woods is pretty close. That's because Republicans have fought to make sure there is no legislation companies to properly store or guard extremely dangerous chemicals, biological waste, and byproducts. There are litterally bins of chemicals toxic enough to melt human skin if vaporized into the air sitting in cheap drums protected by nothing more sophisticated than a chain link fence and a padlock. There is a bioweapon lab not twenty miles from me right now that is protected by two security guards and is falling apart. Why? No regulation, and because Bush wont spend any money on homeland defense: just pork.



Are you kidding? It was watched by one of the largest survelliance operations in the history of the world. We have satelites over it constantly, enforce no fly zones in the North and South, and watched it hawkishly.



Some did, some don't, some aren't sure. But you're only proving my point: only a fanatic would see complete and total fanaticism in the Middle East, with no distinction or way to get worse. You really shouldn't speak about a part of the world about which you are clueless and know only propaganda.



And yet... by and large the biggest failure of the Al Qaeda so far is that they have FAILED to radicalize the Middle East. Most people in the Middle East may distrust the U.S., but there are very very few who are willing to actually rise up and fight the US or become terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda has so far failed to get them on their feet and joining the jihad, as they had hoped.



Now this is truly clueless. We have one MORE nation, not one less. Iraq used to be a well contained secular dictatorship where Saddam wouldn't put up with Al Qaeda vying for power in his own backyard. Now it's terrorist's wet dream: chaotic, destabilized, angry, and ripe for recruiting people to their cause.

OK how about Howard Dean's nuclear plant in Vermont? It was rated the least safe in the country, and he is a Dem. Dont blame only the Republicans. Furthermore, waste is a lot different from weapons like a nuclear bomb or an anthrax bomb.

Yes and we, and the other western nations, STILL believed he was making weapons! Surveillance can only cover so much ground!

Obviously it isnt complete fanatasism, no need for the blatant misrepresenation of my character either, by no means am I a fanatic. I am not calling you a liberal hippy, so I would appreciate the same respect. What else can they watch? Who else can they believe? Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt in some places, Palestine, and Pakistan all predominantly Anti-American with many of their people feeling the same way. Not to mention countries like Oman and Yemen which I believe were terrorist ports before the crackdown.

What do you call the terrorist camps which housed thousands upon thousands of terrorists at a time in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda HAS succeeded, 9.11 is proof enough for me. There also have been links between Iraq and terrorism, just not as major as an Afghanistan type situation.

It is too early to judge how Iraq will turn out. We will know for sure by the end of next year I believe. The stance of taking out individual cells of terrorism was proven to be a failure under Clinton. Bush's policy of taking down any country harboring terrorism seems to be working better so far (Libya), again only time will tell.

 

[63]

Do you know what I find sick about all of this? Not the torture and the humiliation, but what the marines are ORDERED to do when in combat. There was a video a couple days ago of an american apache attacking a convoy. 5 seconds and all the trucks were down. The lucky iraqis that survived came crawling out of there vehicles, limping and screaming in pain. Some made it about 3 steps before giving in to the pain, falling down and sobbing. That didnt stop the american helicopter from firing round after round at the wounded and dying on the ground. They couldnt even defend themselves.