The Iraq thread 3

[homerj 0]

You watch the news? These guys arent exactly friendly to us you know. And isnt the guy they elected as pres some kind of cleric or very religious?

You have yet to prove that were going to colonize iraq or something. The age of imperialism ended a long time ago. Again do you even grasp the concept of an empire? Empires claim other lands as their own and run the place. But were handing over everything to iraq as we speak, so again, its not about imperialism. Where is this empire you speak of? I sure as hell havent heard of it.

Why is it a disturbing change in foreign policy? Were doing what we always do, liberate the opressed and stand up to dictators. Whats so disturbing about that?

Wrong, his regime wasnt so stable. If it were there would be no revolts or defections of his closest generals.

You have any proof of your outrageous statements? Can you prove hes doing it for his coorporate cronies(if your going to make up shit atleast specify and tell us who is telling him to go to war). Elaborate? How would war please his buddies? Give me one reason why they would want him to go to war? And explain to me exactly how they MADE him go to war? Think you can do that? Probably not, just another stupid conspiracy theory. Your probably going to bring up the whole war for oil bs, but think about this, if all this was for oil and contracts, why not just tolerate saddam, turn a blind eye(like the un) and buy his oil? Thats seems more easy than going to war and rebuilding the country? But noooooo its a big conspiracy. Seriously, the things called op iraqi FREEDOM! Were over there to rebuild iraq and keep it free of dictators and terrorists, where is all the oil this was for? What the fuck would his coorporate buddies want? Halliburton employees are getting killed and kidnapped, their equipment is getting destroyed, why the fuck would they want to go to war so that could happen? THEY WOULDNT! Noone would. They have plenty of work in afghanistan, kuwait, and soudi arabia, its not like there desperate enough for work to want war.

You come up with some interesting theories. LOL, starting a war cause tanks look pretty in the desert, brilliant. Seriously what are you smoking?

Name these other dictators. All I got are DPRK, and iran, mmm on the axis of evil as well. But nooo its all a conspiracy theory and the war was for oil or whatever you believe.

Is it so hard to believe that we did it to take out a ruthless dictator(even by your standards hes one of the worse) and to liberate 25million people and to try to make the world safer? Why is it so hard to believe when we have been doing it for hundreds of years??

NP, tests suck gj.

[denoir 0]

Why is it a disturbing change in foreign policy? Were doing what we always do, liberate the opressed and stand up to dictators. Whats so disturbing about that?

Yeah, about as much as Saddam was liberating the opressed with his invasion of Kuwait. As a matter of fact from a legal point of view your invasion of Iraq was no different than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Quote[/b] ]Your probably going to bring up the whole war for oil bs, but think about this, if all this was for oil and contracts, why not just tolerate saddam, turn a blind eye(like the un) and buy his oil?

Buying is expensive. Food-for-oil was shared with other countries.

Quote[/b] ]But noooooo its a big conspiracy. Seriously, the things called op iraqi FREEDOM!

And Hitler called the invasion of Poland "getting the German nation life-space, which they are entiteled to".

Tell me, homerj, am I right in assuming that you often respond to e-mails that offer you "Make $5 mil in five minutes from your home"

Quote[/b] ]why the fuck would they want to go to war so that could happen?

Oh, gee, well, I suppose this could never have anything to do with it:

Quote[/b] ]Name these other dictators. All I got are DPRK, and iran, mmm on the axis of evil as well. But nooo its all a conspiracy theory and the war was for oil or whatever you believe.

How about 3/4 of Africa? How about most of the other ME countries?

Quote[/b] ]

Is it so hard to believe that we did it to take out a ruthless dictator(even by your standards hes one of the worse) and to liberate 25million people and to try to make the world safer?

Yes because that's not what you did. You threw Iraq into chaos, took over that lovely prison of Saddam's and..well.. those are about the achievements up to date.

Quote[/b] ]Why is it so hard to believe when we have been doing it for hundreds of years??

Hundreds of years? LOL. You havn't even existed for hundreds of years - just slightly longer than 200 years- and it was first at the end of WW1 that America got any real international interest.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

You might not realise it, but America has more of an empire than you think. Empire in denial?

[homerj 0]

Seriously if he gave them up why the hell was he still hiding stuff and kicking inspectors out?

Obviously hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives dont mean shit to you. 840 dead US sailors, airmen, soldiers, and marines meant that we still give a fuck. When the world turned its back on the kurds and millions of opresses iraqis we went in to liberate them, when the un ignored saddams violations of of resolution after resolution we were the only ones to enforce it. Those dead man and women mean to me that America still stands for freedom and democracy even when the rest of the world refuses to do the same. Thats what that means to me.

Where did you read that?

LOL, you think they would do any better? Its not exactly an easy thing to do you know. Try more like a couple thousand rpg carrying sobs. We could take them all out easily, but we discipline ourselves, it would be so eay to just roll in with all we got and kill those fuckers but we show restraint. Doing so lets them sit safe and sound in mosques, restricts or ops and makes us carefull to avoid collateral damage. If we didnt show restraint we could put them down in days. We destroyed one of the worlds largest armies in a matter of hours, the only reason the insurgents remain is cause we show restraint. Its stupid and we should go balls out in there and get them, but we dont, so dont accuse us of killing civilians intentionally when we go through all that trouble to preserve lives.

They basically kicked them out. They werent cooperating so do you think they would stick around?Oh sure just cause of American spies, so the others werent spies either?

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

So what? They had 12 years to comply(ship or hide their wmds) so all of a sudden they start to cooperate when we are about to go to war? You dont believe that do you? If he had nothing to hide he would have opned up to us, he had 12 years to do it, his time was up.

All we hear about is the bad stuff. But its not as widespread as the lib media wants you to believe. Weve done allot, in most places they have electricity when they didnt under saddam, more than half of gov jobs are run by iraqis, their economy is resurfacing, they have more freedom than ever, etc etc. Tell me why its a failure? Tell me why even before power is turned over and after such a short time you think its a failure? These things take dacadesm but we are rebuilding in years.

Check out these sites and ask yourself if its a failure.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/introduction.html

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2003/1020/p09s01-coop.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C92778%2C00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/wmd.search/

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/middle_east_north_africa/new_iraq.html

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030603-084008-6883r.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030808-115950-1720r.htm

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030929.htm

Bush is a danger to the peace of dictators. Why you hate that? I dont know.

Saddam invaded an allied country and we came 12 years late, but we still came in both cases.

He would have to deal with russia, we would be below that. And I doubt he could invade sucesfully. Troop ships on the open seas against worlds best navy? Sounds like a doomed invasion to me.

[EiZei 0]

Check out these sites and ask yourself if its a failure.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/introduction.html

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2003/1020/p09s01-coop.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C92778%2C00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/wmd.search/

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/middle_east_north_africa/new_iraq.html

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030603-084008-6883r.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030808-115950-1720r.htm

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030929.htm

Interestingly enough almost all of those articles are from late-ish 2003. No fallujah or shiite insurgency back then.

[homerj 0]

Its stupid to say he liberated to free and rebuild a country like we did.

Buying is cheaper than repairing everything, security, rebuilding infrastructure and everything else.

So you comparing hitlers wanting more room to our liberation and rebuilding of iraq then leaving?

No you are wrong in that assumption, I bet you respond to the whole "free penis enlargment pills".

Your forgetting the price they pay for "their war".

Do 3/4 of africa have wmd or kill and attack on the scale saddam did?

Were not throwing iraq into chaos the insurgents are, like I said you cant make cake without breaking a few eggs. Sure its not going to be easy and people will resist, but its too early to call it a failure. Look at my links, youl find we did more than just capture saddam.

Obviously you dont know shit about US history, if you did you would be aware of the spanish American war, mex Amer war, and teddy rosevelt.

[homerj 0]

So what? Those things arent still happening or they dont count anymore?

Read this:

http://www.coloradopsycho.com/Good_News_from_Iraq_2004.htm

And what of this revolt and its leader?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3799371.stm

And of the terrorists?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....zarqawi

When the leader of the insurgency wants to stop fighting, and when the leader of AQ in iraq warns that the jihad is failing, do you still think its a quagmire and failure? Couple that with our sucess and progress and it looks pretty good to me.

[denoir 0]

Ok, now I know you're just trolling.

Quote[/b] ]http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/introduction.html

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2003/1020/p09s01-coop.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C92778%2C00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/wmd.search/

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/middle_east_north_africa/new_iraq.html

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030603-084008-6883r.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030808-115950-1720r.htm

"WMD hunters tout progress in Iraq" says David Kay? Are you fucking shitting me? The same Kay that resigned two months later saying that there was no fucking way Iraq had WMD.

Come on, stop trolling and dig up something relevant or at least remotely accurate.

If you want to look at the rebuilding, take a look at the IMF reports (you know, the IMF, the guys that coordinate the money) [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3724409.stm ]

Only a fraction of the planned rebuilding is being done because nobody wants to work in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Were not throwing iraq into chaos the insurgents are

No, you started dropping bombs on Iraq, their campaign is a reaction to your occupation. Like the French resistance that faught the German occupation.

Quote[/b] ]Obviously you dont know shit about US history, if you did you would be aware of the spanish American war, mex Amer war, and teddy rosevelt.

Again you display your utter lack of any basic knowledge. Until WW1 America's engagement was directly tied to America's interests. The early wars were land and money grabbing. WW1 was the first time that America showed any interest in the bigger international scene (actually techinally it was a bit earlier for their mediating role in the Russian-Japanese war, but we're talkonga about military engagements here).

[whisperFFW06 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do 3/4 of africa have wmd or kill and attack on the scale saddam did?

Wait, wait, wait! I thought US was about freeing people from oppression. How WMD or large scale attacks come into this equation?

Quote[/b] ]Were not throwing iraq into chaos the insurgents are

Part of a good planning would have been, if Iraq rebuilding was the real target, to foresee these insurgencies. Obviously this have been completely missed. In fact, the whole "after the war" conduct of operation seems to be completely lacking.

How, about this :

Quote[/b] ]Your forgetting the price they pay for "their war".

Shareholders didn't pay any price. Employees did. I bet that it is considered logical that to be rich, some blood must flow. Just be sure it is not yours.

[homerj 0]

Sure ignore all the evidence and stuff he said they found.

Again you make it seem like they all are out shooting us. Read my links, and my neighbor is in baghdad, says its not half as bad as they make it out to be, says most iraqis are friendly, but only a few in the sunni triangle fuck things up, not all of them.

Whatever you still are ignoring all our other wars and conflicts.

[Frisbee 0]

Do 3/4 of africa have wmd or kill and attack on the scale saddam did?

If you really are this whole benevolent nation. You would 'give peace to Africa, where warlords buy weapons with diamonds the people have to mine, and where genocide is a real and much,much larger problem.

But, the whole world was/is largely inactive to this phenomenon, the US is not to be blamed by any means. (no sarcasm)

But why would you then go 'liberate' Iraq?

Because you're the good guys? Hardly...

I don't need to tell you that war is great for an economy (if you win, and you don't get any damage on your own territory).

Iraq was war, the army needed supplies, arms manufacturers supplied those, now they'll supply the new iraqi army too (this the iraqi's have no say in).

Quote[/b] ]Buying is cheaper than repairing everything, security, rebuilding infrastructure and everything else.

These are private firms rebuilding and repairing etc.

They, opposed to the US governement you're depicting, don't work to return home with a good feeling, they want one thing, $$$$

Who will provide it? The Iraqi population, on a longer period, most likely in oil.

I think europeans just see the US recreate mistakes they themselves have made long ago.

[homerj 0]

We are about freeing people, but obviously we cant free everyone all at once. We liberated iraq cause it was a threat and a good candidate for liberation for many reasons. Most other "opressed nations" arent as bad, or we will get to them later.

Yeah employees do and why would they be willing to start this war? You think if they were really just pawns for a war for oil one of them would speak out? Havent heard of that.

Listen I gotta get some sleep, its like 5:00 am.

Laters all.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Do 3/4 of africa have wmd or kill and attack on the scale saddam did?

The atrocities of Saddam are bleak compared to what is currently going on in parts of Africa, and what has happened before not even 10 years back.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Fun fact-

Number of prisoners kept at Abu-Ghraib prison under the Hussein regime: 5,000

Number of prisoners kept at Abu-Ghraib under the Coalition Provisional Authority (pre-scandal): 7,000

Freedom kicks ass.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

We are about freeing people, but obviously we cant free everyone all at once. We liberated iraq cause it was a threat and a good candidate for liberation for many reasons. Most other "opressed nations" arent as bad, or we will get to them later.

[Gollum1 0]

homerj and farmcoot vs. our regulars, this will be entertaining. Don't mind me.

At least some people have balls.

Brings to mind how the Europeans didn't have any "balls" when they didn't immediately want to back a U.S-led war.

edit: Balls to post completely groundless right wing cliché one-liner posts that are immediately disproven.

Tex:

[walker 0]

We are about freeing people, but obviously we cant free everyone all at once. We liberated iraq cause it was a threat and a good candidate for liberation for many reasons. Most other "opressed nations" arent as bad, or we will get to them later.

Yeah employees do and why would they be willing to start this war? You think if they were really just pawns for a war for oil one of them would speak out? Havent heard of that.

Listen I gotta get some sleep, its like 5:00 am.

Laters all.

Hi homerj

When should we invade the Banana Republic of Florida to oust Papa Doc Jeb Bush?

How can we restore democracy in the USA so that it can once again elect its presidents and not have it foisted on them by judges aledgedly bought and paid for by the NeoConMen?

What should we do about removing the un-President of the USA?

How can we jail the NeoConMen carpet baggers who have stolen the US Republican party?

What should be done to stop the US mass media telling lies to and censoring the minds of the american people?

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Annan slams war crime exemption

Quote[/b] ]The UN secretary general has urged the Security Council not to renew an exemption from prosecution for US troops on UN peacekeeping duties.

Kofi Annan said the exemption, passed for two years running and due to expire on 30 June, would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law.

The US fears its troops could be prosecuted on war crimes charges for political reasons. Mr Annan said abuses in Iraq made the issue particularly relevant.

"For the past two years, I have spoken quite strongly against the exemption and I think it would be unfortunate for one to press for such an exemption, given the prisoner abuse in Iraq," he told reporters.

"Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don't think it should be encouraged by the Council."

The US is among 139 nations to sign the Rome Treaty setting up the International Criminal Court in July 2002.

The international court will prosecute war crimes like genocide if national courts are unable, or unwilling, to do so.

However, like Russia, Israel and others, the US has not ratified the treaty out of fears that troops may be prosecuted for war crimes by foreign courts.

Difficult vote

UN diplomats say America may find it difficult to get the necessary nine votes to pass the exemption resolution in the Security Council, the BBC's Susannah Price reports. The Americans drew up the resolution in May and then postponed the vote saying they wanted to get the resolution on Iraq's handover dealt with first.

They say they are determined to ensure the perpetrators of abuses in Iraq are prosecuted despite the exemption. However, human rights groups say the US should demonstrate that it will abide by international standards.

UK Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell said his country, a Security Council member, is prepared to consider extending the US exemption because a defeat could harm peacekeeping operations around the world.

"We need American support... when the need for those operations has never been greater," he said.

This could get interesting.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The torture orders came from the top that is according to Brig Gen Janis Karpinski

Quote[/b] ]The US commander at the centre of the Iraqi prisoner scandal says she was told to treat detainees like dogs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3806713.stm

with the finger of blame once again pointing up the chain of command the future of many top members of TBA are looking very dire.

The question of whether George Bush Jnr. gave the civilian interigators a get out of jail free card to commit pedophile activites as part of the interigation techniques used in Iraq has still not been answered. As the interigator who raped the young boy has still not been charged by any US court nor is there any sign even of an investigation this depite Taguba's wish to charge the man.

The aledged pedophile may be back in the US now; in walking distance of a school near you and nothing is being done because George Bush Jnr. seems to have said they have exemption from the law.

What happened to swift American Justice?

Seriously p**sed off this is still dragging on walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

More evidence has emerged that the orders for torture in Iraq came straight from the top have emerged

Quote[/b] ]An Army intelligence officer claims the abuses at Abu Ghraib took place after interrogators came under pressure from Bush administration officials.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml

While US Soldiers under orders face convictions the real culprits in the NeoConMen of TBA and their Contractor budies seem to have get out of jail free cards curtesy of George Bush Jnr. that even aledgedly cover crimes like pedophilia and child molestation.

That get out of jail free card has started to unravel the Justice Department.

Quote[/b] ]Jack Goldsmith, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, announced on Thursday that he was resigning at the end of July. The Office of Legal Counsel is embroiled in a dispute over Bush administration memos that contend neither the president, nor anyone acting on his orders as a wartime commander-in-chief, can be held liable under anti-torture laws. Goldsmith was a Pentagon adviser when a similar memo was drafted there. Goldsmith said he was resigning to return to academia.

This all just goes to show what happens when you embark on an unjust war against a fake enemy.

What real ticks me off is that while TBA and TBA2 have wasted time money and effort fighting fake enemies the real enemies in Al Qiada have been allowed to continue their activities planning and purpetrating more and more heinous crimes with virtualy no let or hinderance. Total US troops in Afghanistan amount to around 24,000.

Still just as p**sed off as in my last post walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Lesson of lies for homerj:

1. Septemper 2002 in front of the UN council, Mr. Bush:

"Saddam Hussein is continuing to develope weapons of mass destruction. We can only be sure that he has a nuclear bomb if he uses it, what god may prevent"

2. 7th of october , Mr. Bush:

"If the Iraqui leadership is able to buy, produce or steal an amount of enriched uranium, the size of a single softball, they can produce a nuclear bomb in less than one year. As we have clear evidence of this we can´t wait for the final evidence, the smoking gun, because it would be the flash of the nuke."

3. According to Bush, Iraq has bought uranium in Niger, a claim that has been falsified from the day it was made. Several foreign services pointed out that there is no point in this claim. The claim was wrong, a lie. Nethertheless Bush repeated it all over and over although he knew it wasn´t true.

4. Wilson, a top US diplomat was sent to Nigeria to verify the claims and found nothing.

This is what he had to say:

"According to my personal experiences with the US government that I have made over the past months I have to come to the conclusion that information about the Iraqi nuclear program have been willingly and knowingly exaggerated to pretend a higher threat to us."

The White House of course ignored his report (ordered by CIA btw) and repeated the Niger story again.

As a sidenote: Those papers were really lousy fakes. They were signed by a president of Nigeria who wasn´t in office for 10 years at that time already.

You don´t need to be genius to see that they were fakes but still the TBA ignored it.

5. The alluminium tubes.

On the 27th of january 2003 , one day ahead of Bush´s speach to the nation, El Baradei, chief of the IAEE informed the UN security council that there are no indications for a nuclear WMD program in Iraq. He also mentioned the alluminium tubes and said that they are not useable for nuclear processing of any matter. This claim has been verified by variouse intelligence services before, including the british and US services.

There was nothing spooky about the tubes.

The next day, 28th of january Bush adressed his nation in an agressive manner:

"...Saddam Hussein recently tried to get a remarkable amount of uranium in Africa...Imagine those 19 hijackers with different weapons and different plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. They only had to smuggle a little phiole , a box or a canister into the USA to bring a day of horror to us like we have never experienced one before. We will do everything we can to avoid this."

(double lie as we know today)

6. 16th of march , Dick Cheney, NBC "Meet the press":

"We believe that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons."

3 days later the US went to war...

7. 7th of october 2002, Mr Bush in Cincinatti:

"According to our sources Saddam has authorized and ordered his troops to use chemical WMD´s."

Powell elaborated this in front of the UN:

"A rocket brigade moved their launch pads and warheads with biological warheads into position near Bagdad. Most of the launch pads were hidden in woods and were supposed to be moved in intervals from 1 to 4 weeks to avoid detection.

According to our conservative estimates Iraq today has 100 to 500 tons of chemical WMD´s. This is enough for 16 000 biological or chemical warheads."

Funny enough none of these warheads have been found and judged by the raw amount of them they shouldn´t be that hard to find.

Oh well, Rumsfeld of course knows where they are:

8. 30th of march 2003 , ABC "this week", Mr Rumsfeld:

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Bagdad and a bit east , west, south and north of it "

9. 5th of June 2003, Mr Bush:

" We have recently discovered two mobile weaponfactories that can be used to produce biological weapons."

It turned out the same day that those were some regular Campers Anyway Bush of course did not tell this to public.

That´s it for today. I hope homerj sticks his nose into some papers or books before he spams the thread with his funny nonsense again. I will of course continue this. Bush´s administration is a bunch of liars, that´s for sure. And the people in Iraq pay the price for that.

[farmcoot 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123030,00.html

[Goeth 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123030,00.html

So?

[denoir 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123030,00.html

Awful, disgusting, barbarian, [put your own negative words in here].. but hardly a surprise. I mean they are the terrorists. I don't think you will find many AQ sympathizers here.

Anyway, football time.

[walker 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123030,00.html

Hi farmcoot

Sadly another consequence of George Bush Jnr's unwillingness to swat flies.

TBA could have spent its time and effort hunting down Al Qaida instead it makes up fairytale enemies and chases after them. Leaving more people than ever before in this world to be killed by terrorists.

TBA should have been spending its time hunting for these Al Qaida operatives instead it spends its time trying to make out George Bush Jnr. is a war president.

I give heart felt condolences to Paul M. Johnson's family he was yet another innocent victim of terrorism.

Sadly Walker