If Saddam was labeled a "brutal dictator" who's enemies were tortured, what is Bush?

[DEMON CUNT]

Is it OK to torture in the name of democracy?

It's way worse than previously reported.

FBI Agents Complained of Prisoner Abuse, Records Say (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/latimests/20041221/ts_latimes/fbiagentscomplainedofprisonerabuserecordssay)

The FBI complained that military interrogators had gone beyond the restrictions of the Geneva Convention that prohibit torture; the agents cited Bush administration guidelines that permit the use of dogs and other techniques to harass prisoners.

More... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/latimests/20041221/ts_latimes/fbiagentscomplainedofprisonerabuserecordssay)

[squib]

holding a dog on enemy combatants vs. mass chemical warfare ...give me a break

[DrMaddVibe]

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to these idiots. It's for nations you fucking cunt!

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to these idiots. It's for nations you fucking cunt!

Iraq isn't a nation?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to these idiots. It's for nations you fucking cunt!

You conservatives seem to think that you can just make stuff up. Why is that?

[DrMaddVibe]

Iraq's army isn't fighting us.

Ford...I thought you were smarter than that.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Iraq's army isn't fighting us.

Ford...I thought you were smarter than that.


I didn't think you were smarter than this. Who the fuck do you think is fighting us? Where the hell do you think the 1000s of army members went when we de-activated them? How do they and their families eat?

I believe what you are saying is that we aren't fighting a formal, organized army. But we are. It's just playing by rules we're not used to and didn't prepare for. We had plenty of opportunity to learn and prepare, we just didn't.

[DrMaddVibe]

There's no formal declaration, so it's not a nation vs nation. It's a bunch of ragheads that have been usurping the world's cash only to build the largest terrorist network that would make the CIA, KGB, MI5 and the Mossad blush!

They hid behind goodwill gestures and political manuvering, but let someone try to rid the world of this type of scum and look who comes to protect them and call US the "bad guys"! If putting panties and dog leashes on those rat bastards is the most you have to worry about then settle down...the grown-ups will solve the problems for you. Stop playing in your diapers and throwing it against the wall to see what sticks.

I'll be the first to apologize to you and your ilk because this conflict wasn't over before your bedtime. The fact that the insurgents are streaming across the borders into Iraq show me just how desperate THEY are. They don't want democracy to thrive in that region. Freedom, once it takes root there will expose the governments in that regions for the overbearing tyrants they are. You go ahead and moan about the body counts and notion that we're all alone over there. We're fighting an enemy that's backed up against the wall and will kill their own nationals to get to us. Think about how fucked up that really is before you talk about how organized they are. They're running scared, running low on support, low on morale and if Bin Laden is their spokesman and you still want to badmouth the coalition effort over there, then why don't YOU take up arms against us over there too!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
There's no formal declaration, so it's not a nation vs nation. It's a bunch of ragheads that have been usurping the world's cash only to build the largest terrorist network that would make the CIA, KGB, MI5 and the Mossad blush!



It doesn't matter, the Iraqi insurgents are considered "Partisans" or a guerilla army under the Geneva Conventions. That's why the CIA and FBI are the first to decry the treatment of prisoners whether they are Iraqis or not.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It doesn't matter, the Iraqi insurgents are considered "Partisans" or a guerilla army under the Geneva Conventions. That's why the CIA and FBI are the first to decry the treatment of prisoners whether they are Iraqis or not.


Answer me this Nick, if Saddam planned to fight an insurgency after his Republican Guard crumbled, and he specifically trained and paraded the Saddam Fedayeen, AND, once we attacked Iraq the army evaporated back into society, AND we knew ( or know now at least) that this was the plan, then how could you not label the insurgency as an army? The Iraqi Army? The very clearly are. Just because they ditched the tanks and uniforms doesn't mean anything.

This shit ain't rocket science people.

edit: I want to make it clear I'm agreeing with you, just going at it from a weird angle...

[DrMaddVibe]

Read up on the Geneva Convention Nick.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Read up on the Geneva Convention Nick.

Why don't you read it for me.

Here, I'll even help:

From the hated UN (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[DrMaddVibe]

When did Congress pass the declaration of war?

[DrMaddVibe]

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/king/qtr1/0225.htm

http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Jun/20040620News016.asp

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/19/world/main624915.shtml

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7624

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saudi.kidnap/

And you're worried about panties and a fucking dog leash?

When have they EVER lived up to any UN action? Do you really believe in your paper-thin mind that they would honor the Geneva Convention?

Road side bombs ring a bell?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ Check out the body count here!

http://massgraves.info/ Where was your "humanity" and "outrage"?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
When did Congress pass the declaration of war?
'
That's what I want to know! Who should go to jail for conducting an illegal war overseas?!:mad:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/king/qtr1/0225.htm

http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Jun/20040620News016.asp

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/19/world/main624915.shtml

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7624

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saudi.kidnap/

And you're worried about panties and a fucking dog leash?

When have they EVER lived up to any UN action? Do you really believe in your paper-thin mind that they would honor the Geneva Convention?

Road side bombs ring a bell?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ Check out the body count here!

http://massgraves.info/ Where was your "humanity" and "outrage"?

Most of the men in Abu Ghaireb were not involved in the insurgency! The sexual humiliation was a tactic to blackmail muslim men to infiltrate guerilla groups and to be our spies!

Read This Thread (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14802)

Those insurgents should send us Ramadon cards for that scandel, we did them a huge favor for recruitment!

A Foriegn Fighters Tale (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15010)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Most of the men in Abu Ghaireb were not involved in the insurgency! The sexual humiliation was a tactic to blackmail muslim men to infiltrate guerilla groups and to be our spies!

Read This Thread (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14802)

Those insurgents should send us Ramadon cards for that scandel, we did them a huge favor for recruitment!

A Foriegn Fighters Tale (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15010)

Use another color for links when you quote, Nick. I don't need a migraine today. I already have pneumonia and must refrain from drinking to let the drugs work. :(

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
'
That's what I want to know! Who should go to jail for conducting an illegal war overseas?!:mad:


OH! So you want the Geneva Convention without a war now...I see!


It doesn't work like that. The gloves are off and if they feel the need to behead westerners then I'd tell them to get used to wearing dog collars!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Use another color for links when you quote, Nick. I don't need a migraine today. I already have pneumonia and must refrain from drinking to let the drugs work. :(

SO THAT'S why your posts have been deranged and filled with piss -n- vineger lately!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
OH! So you want the Geneva Convention without a war now...I see!


It doesn't work like that. The gloves are off and if they feel the need to behead westerners then I'd tell them to get used to wearing dog collars!

And you ASKED ME to read the Geneva Convention!:rolleyes:

[DrMaddVibe]

Yes I did...keep reading. Also look into when it applies. Stop seeing only what you want to see.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Yes I did...keep reading. Also look into when it applies. Stop seeing only what you want to see.

You lack a clue! I won't do your critical thinking for you Busheep!

[DrMaddVibe]

You lack the ability to comprehend what you read!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You lack the ability to comprehend what you read!

Tell me again how not "Declaring War," which is illegal in itself in a protracted conflict, makes us immune from the Geneva convention.

Consider, I suppose, if two cops come and drag you out of your house and beat the fuck out of you and and extract a confession, then say, "It's all legal because we didn't actually ARREST you," then tell me all about reading comprehension.

Because that's pretty much what has happened.

[DEMON CUNT]

DrMaddVibe is the perfect example of the American ego out of control. The notion that America can do no wrong is just ridiculous. This mentallity is at the very root of Bin Laden's reasons for attacking us.

So it's wrong for Saddam to torture, but the U.S. has torture carte blanche!?! We are creating a whole new generation of terrorists, you dummy!

The point of my original post: The great conservative double standard is alive and well. Thank you DrSaddVibe for proving my point.

And then you sucked my balls.

[DrMaddVibe]

You still don't have a set of balls...CUNT. What you have is attention deficit issues and a knack for being an attention whore. Your bender about neo-con's this and that isn't bringing home one soldier or stopping Bin Laden from ordering another train attack.

Perhaps this will help...http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040616-104948-9712r+

It's really obvious who has and who hasn't been in the US military.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You still don't have a set of balls...CUNT. What you have is attention deficit issues and a knack for being an attention whore. Your bender about neo-con's this and that isn't bringing home one soldier or stopping Bin Laden from ordering another train attack.

Perhaps this will help...http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040616-104948-9712r+

It's really obvious who has and who hasn't been in the US military.

You are citing reactionary shithead "Jonah Goldberg" from the Moonie Timeshttp://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/tutorial/doc/images/tm.gif, is that your source for legality? No wonder we are losing the War!

[DrMaddVibe]

Notice I did say...perhaps and help.

Nick, you're bent on comforting and aiding the enemy for reasons only known to you. I won't. I don't waste a single breath regarding the care and welfare of enemy combatants and the hospility we shower them with. They're not worth it.

Be glad that Bush is there in the White House and not me because I'd rather apologize to the globe about using nuclear weapons in that region than house and feed one of them!

[TLR]

*yawn*

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Notice I did say...perhaps and help.

Nick, you're bent on comforting and aiding the enemy for reasons only known to you. I won't. I don't waste a single breath regarding the care and welfare of enemy combatants and the hospility we shower them with. They're not worth it.

No. Just denying the 'enemy' propoganda and recruitment videos to get more fighters and kill more Americans, not that we ever should have gone to Iraq in the first place. We, YOU, don't even know who the enemy is!

Be glad that Bush is there in the White House and not me because I'd rather apologize to the globe about using nuclear weapons in that region than house and feed one of them!

No. I'll never be glad about bumkin' Dubya', and if you nuked the Middle East, all that oil would be worthless, and your oil special interests would be very upset!

[TLR]

Anyone trying to draw a comparison between US and THEM and/or Bush and Saddam is an idiot. Period...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by TLR
Anyone trying to draw a comparison between US and THEM and/or Bush and Saddam is an idiot. Period...

How insightful.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You still don't have a set of balls...CUNT. What you have is attention deficit issues and a knack for being an attention whore.

Stick to the subject, scrotum breath.


Your bender about neo-con's this and that isn't bringing home one soldier or stopping Bin Laden from ordering another train attack.

And torturing Iraqi's is? And And Iraq had what to do with Bin Laden? Didn't GW say that he wasn't concerned with Bin Laden's whereabouts?


It's really obvious who has and who hasn't been in the US military.

So you did laundry on some military base... how does that make you an expert on foreign relations?

And then you sucked my balls some more. Your lips must be terribly chapped by now!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by TLR
Anyone trying to draw a comparison between US and THEM and/or Bush and Saddam is an idiot. Period...

Yeah, let's not give any thought to the situation. Let's just blow up them damn Muslums! They suck, we don't! God like us more! Yeeehaw!

What a retard!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

Be glad that Bush is there in the White House and not me because I'd rather apologize to the globe about using nuclear weapons in that region than house and feed one of them!

What a bunch of macho bullshit. You have a confederate flag in the back window of your el camino, don't you?

But Mr. President, you will also have to consider the reaction of the other nuclear nations. Your over inflated ego is not strong enough to protect the homeland. This shows how narrow your thinking is. Put down the Sean Hannity book and sign up for the National Guard.

And then you sucked my balls.

[TLR]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How insightful.

How about how intelligent or common-sense based? I stand by my original opinion...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by TLR
How about how intelligent or common-sense based? I stand by my original opinion...

How about they both break the law freely and both have killed over 100,000 Iraqis? Mmmm...No comparison there. I'm tired of hearing the conervative spin on this 'War of Liberation' for the Iraqis! Each week sees a new justification for this war, and all are easily refuted. Fucking mess!

[DrMaddVibe]

Actually labia liberal...I abhor the confederate flag.

I think I understand your fascination with people on a bulletin board and you somehow believing that your "balls" are being sucked. You're fucking retarded!

You chose a moniker that somehow makes you out to be the big puss you claim you aren't!

I'd really like to hear from you and Nick and the other Us/Them( what should we call it "we"?!?) einstein and hear what you would do NOW about the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. So far I've heard a lot of complaining but no ideas about a different way to handle the problems facing us. See, I believe that Iraq was the "purse" for these rat bastards. Denying them their money and enforcing the UN to act on issues they stated they would are positives to me. They're on the run and desperate to overturn the election process and denying the Iraq citizens of protecting themselves by constantly selecting the police stations/army bases/training camps as bombing targets.

Let's hear what YOU would do.

[TLR]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yeah, let's not give any thought to the situation. Let's just blow up them damn Muslums! They suck, we don't! God like us more! Yeeehaw!

What a retard!

Oops, so sorry. I just today began to think about this subject.

I also apologize for saying we should "blow up them damn Muslums (sic)" and "They suck, we don't! God like (sic) us more!" Oh, wait. I didn't say those things.

I suppose this is where I should amend my original statement to say: FUCKING idiot.

Is this the point in time where I'm supposed to bow to your intellectual superiority? I'm trying to stifle a giggle here...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I'd really like to hear from you and Nick and the other Us/Them( what should we call it "we"?!?) einstein and hear what you would do NOW about the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan and the war on terrorism....
Let's hear what YOU would do.

You could start by NOT CONFUSING IRAQ WITH AFGHANISTAN AND NOT LUMPING IT IN WITH THE WAR ON TERROR. Gee, maybe I would have started by NOT INVADING IRAQ for NOT attacking us! And focused my efforts on Osama Bin Laden. Gosh! How can one complain?!

[TLR]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How about they both break the law freely and both have killed over 100,000 Iraqis? Mmmm...No comparison there. I'm tired of hearing the conervative spin on this 'War of Liberation' for the Iraqis! Each week sees a new justification for this war, and all are easily refuted. Fucking mess!

Do the words "right" and "wrong" mean anything to you and your kind?

If you are "tired of hearing," there's a solution: stop listening...

[DrMaddVibe]

See, we go back to the comprehension issue you have Nick...I even capitialized it too...I stated NOW...no Monday QB job...no hindsight being 20/20...NOW.


Go.

[Nickdfresh]

And if you do decide to invade Iraq, which is a stupid idea to begin with, don't let incompetent old bastards do your planning for you!


"YOU DUMBASS!"

[DrMaddVibe]

Stick with the question...what would you and liberal labia do about Iraq/Afghanistan and the war on terrorism RIGHT NOW.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by TLR
Do the words "right" and "wrong" mean anything to you and your kind?

If you are "tired of hearing," there's a solution: stop listening...

Yes...



RIGHT (WING)
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/KeystoneCopsCapitalism1.jpg


WRONG

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

Let's hear what YOU would do.

Simple, go after Bin Laden, you know the guy who apparently planned the 9/11 attack. Richard Clarke said that there were more police officers in Manhattan than soldiers in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden. If any country needs to be invaded it's Saudi Arabia.

You may "believe" that Saddam was funding terrorism world wide, but the evidence speaks otherwise.

How do you keep your tongue so soft and supple?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Stick with the question...what would you and liberal labia do about Iraq/Afghanistan and the war on terrorism RIGHT NOW.


I would cut a power sharing arrangement with the insurgents and bring them into the 'Iraqi Gov't' and try to end the Iraqi War (similiar to what has happened in Angola and El Salvador).

[DrMaddVibe]

C'mon...you can do it...stay on topic...what would you and liberal labia do about Iraq/Afghanistan and the war on terrorism RIGHT NOW.

No more funny pictures or namecalling. Open that skull and share your problem solving skills in regards to the matter.

[Nickdfresh]

Check previous post. Does Howard Dean make more sense now?

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Simple, go after Bin Laden, you know the guy who apparently planned the 9/11 attack. Richard Clarke said that there were more police officers in Manhattan than soldiers in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden. If any country needs to be invaded it's Saudi Arabia.

You may "believe" that Saddam was funding terrorism world wide, but the evidence speaks otherwise.

How do you keep your tongue so soft and supple?


You're implying that we're not still after Bin Laden?

I wouldn't utter Clarke's name in regards to the war on terrorism. He's kinda like Kerry on this one. He'll be whatever he wants to be and then forget the lies he's told.

I agree with the Saudi statement. You don't think we're letting them "dangle" for Bin Laden to exact his "revenge" on the royal family?

These aren't exactly new ideas. I was expecting so much more, what with the constant complaining going on.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Check previous post. Does Howard Dean make more sense now?

Notice the time...we posted the same time...kinda hard to take turns on this BB when the timestamp states you were there nanoseconds before my last post!

Dean isn't a soloution. He'd bend faster than Carter ever did!

so now..."I would cut a power sharing arrangement with the insurgents and bring them into the 'Iraqi Gov't' and try to end the Iraqi War (similiar to what has happened in Angola and El Salvador)."

You'd deal with terrorists? I wouldn't. They cannot be trusted. They're terrorists! Freedom + Democracy doesn't = terrorism.

You think Angola and El Salvador are calm nice regions to bring up a family? You really believe that the hostilities are resolved there?

After hearing from both of you on what you'd do...I'd shut the fuck up and quit the whining like a little bitch when it comes to the way we're handling the war on terrorism. Your ideas reek of playground mentalities but you both never overcame the "bully".

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You're implying that we're not still after Bin Laden?

I wouldn't utter Clarke's name in regards to the war on terrorism. He's kinda like Kerry on this one. He'll be whatever he wants to be and then forget the lies he's told.

I agree with the Saudi statement. You don't think we're letting them "dangle" for Bin Laden to exact his "revenge" on the royal family?

These aren't exactly new ideas. I was expecting so much more, what with the constant complaining going on.

Bush said "I truly am not that concerned about him" in reference to Bin Laden.

How can you just dismiss Richard Clarke? He was there in the thick of it while you were just suckling my tasty balls. You dismiss him because you have been told to by the "liberal" media.

No, Saudi royals are close personal freinds of the Bush family. BONUS QUESTION: Bin Laden is a member of which royal family?

You asked what I would do. It's really that simple. Are you looking for manna from heaven? Some magic James Bond type shit?

Whay are you so obsessed with my balls?

[DrMaddVibe]

I can dismiss Clarke because of his recanted testimony compared to what he's gone on the record stating, Clinton's statements, Clinton's Administration statements regarding Clarke. The actions that they(Clinton) took regarding 8 years of Clarke being on the job and the fact that Clarke felt the compelling urge to distort his record to puff up his résumé for a Bush cabinet appointment and a book deal.

Bin Laden is so much closer to the royal family than your jaded opinon lets on. Why would they pay extortion money to him? Why haven't the royal family sided with the coalition if they're in Bush's back pocket and chummy chummy?

I asked what you would do because it's apparent that despite the best effort the globe has had to restore world peace in that region you go out of your way to make it some Republican "agenda"! So on your playground where you scream and whine these world problems only popped out because a Republican is in the White House? Bin Laden could give one shit less about who's in the White House prior to 9-11, he was going to carry out his diabolical plan regardless. Clinton "slept" for 8 years and only dealt with global terrorism when he needed a diversion from his impeachment scandal! You should be more pissed off at Clarke for not screaming then after what happened on 9-11 than Bush now for dealing with it!

You way of dealing with them isn't "dealing" with them at all. You like to hear the sound of your own voice when it comes to matters you think you can comprehend, you and people with beliefs like yours feel that the louder they yell the more credible they become. It only points out how silly you really are if you believe you can "deal" with terrorists.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

so now..."I would cut a power sharing arrangement with the insurgents and bring them into the 'Iraqi Gov't' and try to end the Iraqi War (similiar to what has happened in Angola and El Salvador)."

You'd deal with terrorists? I wouldn't. They cannot be trusted. They're terrorists! Freedom + Democracy doesn't = terrorism.

You think Angola and El Salvador are calm nice regions to bring up a family? You really believe that the hostilities are resolved there?



We invaded their country Assvibe! They did not attack us...ever. Just because they form resistance groups, and decide not to fight us on OUR terms of mobile armored warfare, doesn't necessarily give us the right to lable them 'terrorists.' They are fighting a guerilla war, do they use terrorism YES. Is our bombing the shit out of people a form of terror...YES!

And what solution do you propose, more of the same, news flash...It isn't working.

And the people you voted for a paralyzed because any change in policy would mean that we made a mistake! And No! We could never, ever admit that eh, LBJ..er...Dubya?

[DrMaddVibe]

Did we not tell them we were? Did we not give them conditions? Did we not go before the UN and secure one more sanction vote?

How many more decades were you going to devote to Saddam changing? How many more Iraqi's were you willing to let sit in his prisons and mass graves?

We're not talking about a nice guy here. DON'T defend him! Bush stated quite clearly that the war on terror would take many fronts and wouldn't be resolved quickly. You missed that one obviously.

The Iraqi's themselves have stated multiple times that the insurgency is loaded with people from other countries. You yourself posted a thread about some raghead from Lebanon!

Until they hold elections how in the world can you whine about it NOT working! They haven't even been ELECTED!

I'm not stating that no mistakes were ever made, but given the intel we had from Tenet and Clarke we acted upon it. Don't shoot the "piano player" if you don't like the music!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Why haven't the royal family sided with the coalition if they're in Bush's back pocket and chummy chummy?


This shows a lack of understanding of Saudi politics. Those kings are hanging on by a fingernail. Same reason why moderate Bashir Assad can't stop our enemies in Syria.

[DrMaddVibe]

Oh believe me I'm well aware of what's going on in the "kingdom". My answer was in retort to some aparent jab that they're "poodles" for Bush.

You share that opinion as well?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Oh believe me I'm well aware of what's going on in the "kingdom". My answer was in retort to some aparent jab that they're "poodles" for Bush.

You share that opinion as well?

It's a symbiotic relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush. F911 was good at demonstrating the interconnected web of investment. There's too much going on and I'm out of work now so I'll save it. My worthless ass will probably be logging on at home shortly...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Did we not tell them we were? Did we not give them conditions? Did we not go before the UN and secure one more sanction vote?

How many more decades were you going to devote to Saddam changing? How many more Iraqi's were you willing to let sit in his prisons and mass graves?

Great! We over threw Saddam to liberate the Iraqis! Whhttp://money.cnn.com/1999/10/13/life/raise/male1_symbol.jpg's Next?


The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

By David Wallechinsky
Published: February 22, 2004

Last year, PARADE Contributing Editor David Wallechinsky selected “The 10 Worst Living Dictators.” We asked him to make a new assessment for 2004. To compile this year’s list, Wallechinsky consulted (as in 2003) independent human-rights organizations willing to expose both left- and right-wing regimes, including Freedom House, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders.

Most dictators marshal various arguments to justify their repressive actions to their people and the world, Wallechinsky notes. The most common are: 1) “The human-rights situation in my country is better than it used to be.” 2) “Western versions of democracy and human rights are not compatible with my nation’s traditions.” 3) “Strict measures are necessary because an outside force is threatening our society.” We offer this list to provide some perspective on world events and to stimulate reflection on our freedoms at home.

1. Kim Jong Il, North Korea.
Age 63. In power since 1994.
Last year’s rank: 1.

All the discussion about Kim’s development of nuclear weapons has deflected attention from the fact that his government represses its own people more completely than any other in the world. Each year, the human-rights group Freedom House ranks every country according to its level of political rights and civil liberties. North Korea is the only nation to earn the worst possible score for 31 straight years. It also ranks in last place in the international index of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders. An estimated 150,000 Koreans perform forced labor in prison camps created to punish alleged political dissidents, their family members and North Koreans who fled to China but were forced back by the Chinese government.

2. Than Shwe, Burma.
Age 71. In power since 1992.
Last year’s rank: 5.

General Than Shwe has survived a power struggle to emerge as the sole leader of Burma’s military dictatorship. Because Than Shwe represents the hard-line faction, his rise has turned an already dreadful human-rights situation even worse. Burma has more child soldiers than any other nation, and the Burmese regime continues to kidnap ordinary citizens and force them to serve as porters for the military in various conflicts against non-Burmese ethnic groups.

In 1990, the party of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi won 80% of the vote in an open election. The military regime canceled the results. The popular Suu Kyi spent much of the ensuing years, off and on, under house arrest. On May 30, 2003, hired thugs attacked Suu Kyi’s motorcade, killing several of her supporters and arresting others. Suu Kyi has been returned to house arrest. Unlike most dictators, General Than Shwe prefers to work behind the scenes. Even the Burmese people know little about him. He has promised new elections—in four or five years.

3. Hu Jintao, China.
Age 61. In power since 2002.
Last year’s rank: Dishonorable mention.

Hu spent 38 years moving up the Communist Party hierarchy, proving himself efficient and willing to do whatever was necessary to advance himself. Now, as president and general secretary of the party, Hu is the leader of an unusually repressive regime. Apologists point to China’s economic liberalization and say its human-rights situation “is better than it used to be.” However, the party still controls all media and uses 30,000 “Internet security agents” to monitor online use. More than 300,000 Chinese are serving “re-education” sentences in labor camps. China carries out in excess of 4000 executions a year, more than all other nations combined.

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators (http://archive.parade.com/2004/0222/0222_dictators.html)



We're not talking about a nice guy here. DON'T defend him! Bush stated quite clearly that the war on terror would take many fronts and wouldn't be resolved quickly. You missed that one obviously.

Who's defending him! Read "Imperial Hubris" and tell me all about the War on Terror on many fronts!


The Iraqi's themselves have stated multiple times that the insurgency is loaded with people from other countries. You yourself posted a thread about some raghead from Lebanon!

And if you read the article closely, you'll find it stated that even the U.S. Military knows very few of these guys are "Foriegn Fighters" and it also noted how hard and expensive it is for these guys to get to Iraq.


Until they hold elections how in the world can you whine about it NOT working! They haven't even been ELECTED!

Assuming all the polling stations aren't blown up.


I'm not stating that no mistakes were ever made, but given the intel we had from Tenet and Clarke we acted upon it. Don't shoot the "piano player" if you don't like the music!

Maybe, but we didn't have to 'act' by invading Iraq while al-Qaida remains strong and active.

[DrMaddVibe]

But when confronted with what you would do...you'd "deal" with terrorists. You've become more of a gnat on an elephant's ass in regards to the way your side "deals" with issues.

Don't hate the "playa"!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
But when confronted with what you would do...you'd "deal" with terrorists. You've become more of a gnat on an elephant's ass in regards to the way your side "deals" with issues.

Don't hate the "playa"!


The Provisional IRA and UDA used Terrorism in Northern Ireland. The U.K. Government has dealt with them.

The Indonesians, Algerians, and Vietnamese used terrorism. The Dutch, the French, and the U.S. dealt with them.

The Patriot Revolutionaries from OUR revolution used terrorism, as did the British & Tories, we dealt with each other.

Hezbollah, backed by Iran, used terrorism against the U.S. Marines in Lebanon, and Reagan turned tale and ran.

Oh and by the way, according to my side (The Democrats now), the North Koreans were the biggest threat before 9/11, and where are they on the list? I thought so!

[DrMaddVibe]

In every instance you named govenrments that dealt with or ran from terrorists only emboldening their cause. Notice you put the USA in there. You really feel we were "terrorists"?

None have been successful.

[alexpgrimes]

These people don't know how to be civilized. we should start beheaded prisoners too. Then put it in television. I don't care for Bush but there savages need to be dealt with in a way their used to. Gut them like fish, behead them and put their heads on sticks. Maybe some of this shit will stop then.

[ODShowtime]

hard to disagree with someone sportin' an avatar like that!

[DEMON CUNT]

We have been over all of this. And now AssVibe has played the blame Clinton card.

It's foolish to think that we can defeat terrorism. We kill them, then they kill us, then we kill them, then they kill us, on and on. There will be no end to it. The terrorism directed towards us is because of our policies. We are essentually shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Big Train]

But if they declare holy war, changing our policies would then mean nothing correct, because of the damage we have already done. Are you saying your an optimist regarding foriegn policy?

[DEMON CUNT]

I don't know. But reconsidering our policies would be a step in the right direction. Bin Laden has been very clear about why he attacked us.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
In every instance you named govenrments that dealt with or ran from terrorists only emboldening their cause. Notice you put the USA in there. You really feel we were "terrorists"?

None have been successful.

We used terrorist/guerilla tactics, during the Revolutionary War, because we were fighting a world power that would usually destroy us in a conventional battle. Put's things into perspective.

And the 'terrorists/guerillas/freedom fighters were not always emboldened, they became part of the nation-state structure out of "war weariness."

By the way I left out quit a few: such as Israel (keep that in mind when you bash Arafat's dead ass), The Republic of Ireland, Nicaragua, Chile, South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. The list goes on, too many to name really.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by alexpgrimes
These people don't know how to be civilized. we should start beheaded prisoners too. Then put it in television. I don't care for Bush but there savages need to be dealt with in a way their used to. Gut them like fish, behead them and put their heads on sticks. Maybe some of this shit will stop then.

But you are making a mistake. You all assuming THEY are all the same. The Iraqis have numerous groups with different goals, and some would just as easily turn their guns on al-Zarqawi's hated gang as the USMC. Zarqawi should be butchered and his group exterminated, but that is only one small faction.

[DrMaddVibe]

Keep fooling yourself Nick. Keep thinking that you can deal with these people.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Keep fooling yourself Nick. Keep thinking that you can deal with these people.

You keep fooling yourself by believing we can totally defeat them.

[FORD]

Yeah, since it's hard to defeat something you can't even define, and which in fact, may not exist at all.

[DrMaddVibe]

Ford, after exposing 2 loudmouth self-proclaimed know-it-alls and doom and gloom crying posters...there's room for your "everything has to be Bush's fault and it's a conspiricy" answer to what YOU would do regarding Afghanistan/Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Not looking into the past and re-inventing but what you would offer as a solution NOW.


Go.

[Apollo]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Notice I did say...perhaps and help.

Nick, you're bent on comforting and aiding the enemy for reasons only known to you. I won't. I don't waste a single breath regarding the care and welfare of enemy combatants and the hospility we shower them with. They're not worth it.

Be glad that Bush is there in the White House and not me because I'd rather apologize to the globe about using nuclear weapons in that region than house and feed one of them!


HAHAHA what an idiot you are.
So because you dont agree with Nick he is now AIDING the "ENEMY"???
Dickhead!

The only reason the US invaded Iraq was to fortify its hold in the middle east to secure its oil interests. The Bush regime however tried to sell it as some sort of liberation war. Sadly so many of your kind have swallowed that crap.
The fact that the US has in the past used the CIA to support various dictators and tyrants to secure its OWN interests clearly shows the double standard of the whole thing.

You are using that crap argument: "if you are not with me you must be against me".

Go back to your traler and watch your Rambo videos.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Apollo
HAHAHA what an idiot you are.
So because you dont agree with Nick he is now AIDING the "ENEMY"???
Dickhead!

The only reason the US invaded Iraq was to fortify its hold in the middle east to secure its oil interests. The Bush regime however tried to sell it as some sort of liberation war. Sadly so many of your kind have swallowed that crap.
The fact that the US has in the past used the CIA to support various dictators and tyrants to secure its OWN interests clearly shows the double standard of the whole thing.




Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Geez, you're all alike. :rolleyes:

Getting your talking points from MoveON.org and the DemocraticUnderground I see.

You people need to come up with something new.

:cool:

[Brettt]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Getting your talking points from MoveON.org and the DemocraticUnderground I see.

You people need to come up with something new.



This coming from the motherfuckin-king-of-copy-paste ideas?!?

No sense of irony at all.

Dipshit Superstar!

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Geez, you're all alike. :rolleyes:

Getting your talking points from MoveON.org and the DemocraticUnderground I see.

You people need to come up with something new.

:cool:


The sources for such info are THOSE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WERE INVOLVED IN SUCH ACTIONS!!!

Let's see you put up some fucking credibility!

Too bad...you can't.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Brettt
This coming from the motherfuckin-king-of-copy-paste ideas?!?

No sense of irony at all.

Dipshit Superstar!


Yet you didn't deny it.

You're a moron.

Move along, little boy.

:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Brettt]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yet you didn't deny it.

You're a moron.

Move along, little boy.



What? Slow copy paste day? Is Novak on holiday?

What a fucking hayseed you are.

[Brettt]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
The sources for such info are THOSE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WERE INVOLVED IN SUCH ACTIONS!!!

Let's see you put up some fucking credibility!

Too bad...you can't.

BBB is retarded and he proves it more every day.