Was World War II Worth It?

[BigBadBrian]

In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."

Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.


To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.

To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:


For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.


Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.

Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.

The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.

If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?

True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.



If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.

Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.

[Nickdfresh]

I guess a Third World War would have made it all worthwhile.

[DrMaddVibe]

Looking back at it all now.

FUCK NO!

Shudd've waited with our bombs and attacked when they came to us.

We struck off from them and we shouldn't have helped them then or now.

[steve]

A turd coming out of Franklin Roosevelt's handcapped sphincter is 10X the President Reagan or Bush or Bush Jr. could ever become.

(since that is the point of all this - to try to discredit our 3rd greatest President ever - because he was freaking "liberal").

[steve]

1. George Washington.
2. Abe Lincoln
3. FDR


No one else comes close.

[American Gypsy]

WW2 was the first phase in the New World Order. America didn't have to join in the fun across the Atlantic, but, look at how America can push thier will on all the European countries because of it.

[Jérôme Frenchise]

Looking to the east of the Iron Curtain, it sure makes you wonder if it was all worth it.
On the west side of the bloody curtain, they'll say it was unquestionably necessary.
European nations owe their freedom and democracies to the USA. I mean Western Europe.

Though I have a lot of respect for the Soviet Army for fighting as they did, their regime had smelled a "bargain" and were preparing the bases of their coming empire. Slavish countries were spoilt in Yalta, but well, B.B.B.'s opening post is just great, I won't rewrite it.

We Froggies can but pay homage to the Yankee saving intervention. Your fathers and grandfathers freed our land and that of our neighbors. They put an end to the holocaust, it was late, but what other nation could have ended that war and its horrors?

The British were true heroes too, as they resisted nazi bombing from beginning to end, never thought of surrender despite the terrifying V1s and V2s...
When it comes to speak about the Second World War, there are always some of my countrymen who dare suggesting the USA and the UK did not play fair. Then I'll remind them of British people's heroic resistance and American people's most honorable merits. It seems so obvious to me.

As for Slavish countries, WWII would have been worth being done differently. It's really sad, but I'm afraid they paid the price for peace in the rest of the world. The U.S.S.R. was so powerful that the sacrifice could not be avoided.
Would it just be because of that, we all owe respect to the Polish, the Czech, the Slovakian, the Litvian, the Lituanian, the Estonian, the Hungarian, the Romanian and the Yugoslavian.
Once the Iron Curtain was drawn, a deadly black night fell on them brothers. They were the hostages who carried the west-European comfort. :(

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by steve
A turd coming out of Franklin Roosevelt's handcapped sphincter is 10X the President Reagan or Bush or Bush Jr. could ever become.

(since that is the point of all this - to try to discredit our 3rd greatest President ever - because he was freaking "liberal").

Clearly it can't be! Since PAT BUCHANAN has rejected the bullshit rhetoric for the Iraq War and has harshly criticized Neo Con fools that spew it. I'll find the thread. Apparently Neo Cons can't find the happy medium between isolationism and invading everybody, then resorting to hollow sabre rattling when local insurgents tie you down in a guerilla war.

It's all the same faulty logic and pseudo-historical-parallelism for them.

For some reason, the same Neo Cons can't figure out that we did not have a choice in the matter since HITLER DECLARED WAR ON THE US eight days after Pearl harbor! And Truman was president when the end of WWII happened.

And the real issue Buchanan is addressing is the effective ceding of Eastern Europe after WWII, well Patton talked about fighting the Soviets, but it was thought better of when we would have suffered several 100,000, if not millions, of more casualties as a result. Not to mention we were still fighting the Japanese.:rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Looking back at it all now.

FUCK NO!

Shudd've waited with our bombs and attacked when they came to us.

We struck off from them and we shouldn't have helped them then or now.

World War II (1939–1945)

Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) versus Allies (U.S., Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia).

1939
Germany invades Poland and annexes Danzig; Britain and France give Hitler ultimatum (Sept. 1), declare war (Sept. 3). Disabled German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee blown up off Montevideo, Uruguay, on Hitler's orders (Dec. 17). Limited activity (“Sitzkrieg”) on Western Front.

1940
Nazis invade Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg (May 10). Chamberlain resigns as Britain's prime minister; Churchill takes over (May 10). Germans cross French frontier (May 12) using air/tank/infantry “Blitzkrieg” tactics. Dunkerque evacuation—about 335,000 out of 400,000 Allied soldiers rescued from Belgium by British civilian and naval craft (May 26–June 3). Italy declares war on France and Britain; invades France (June 10). Germans enter Paris; city undefended (June 14). France and Germany sign armistice at Compiègne (June 22). Nazis bomb Coventry, England (Nov. 14).

1941
Germans launch attacks in Balkans. Yugoslavia surrenders—General Mihajlovic continues guerrilla warfare; Tito leads left-wing guerrillas (April 17). Nazi tanks enter Athens; remnants of British Army quit Greece (April 27). Hitler attacks Russia (June 22). Atlantic Charter—FDR and Churchill agree on war aims (Aug. 14). Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Guam force U.S. into war; U.S. Pacific fleet crippled (Dec. 7). U.S. and Britain declare war on Japan. Germany and Italy declare war on U.S.; Congress declares war on those countries (Dec. 11).

We did!

[DrMaddVibe]

And we should've told Britain to suck it!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
And we should've told Britain to suck it!

That has to be one of the silliest things you've ever said.

Man Assvibe do you drink the kool-aid! You want to send American boys to die in Iraq, but never to defeat an enemy that truly threatened the existence of our way of life, far-more-so than any other.

[Warham]

No, WWII wasn't worth it. We should have allowed Germany to run roughshod over Europe.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, WWII wasn't worth it. We should have allowed Germany to run roughshod over Europe.

They pretty much did actually.
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/images/eur66060.jpg

[Warham]

No, we didn't allow them finish up, Nick. They still needed to take out Great Britain and few others before we invaded.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, we didn't allow them finish up, Nick. They still needed to take out Great Britain and few others before we invaded.

The British never allowed them to finish, and Hitler was just too stupid to win the war before we could arm Britain and turn it into the "largest aircraft carrier known to man."

Oh, and the Russians (despite being fucked by Stalin) rose up and began to fight like holy hell after they realized that Hitler was even worse.

BTW, just to translate the article, because I'm not sure you guys understand his intention; Buchanan was not saying the US should never have become involved in WWII (because he knows we never had a choice!) but that we should have re-armed the Germans and invaded the Soviet Union and "liberated" Eastern Europe in 1945.

Something that's easy to say 60 years after the fact. Of course he might not be aware that US troops (draftees) were on the verge of mutiny over having to fight Japan after VE, much less marching towards Stalingrad with the guys that were just killing they're friends.

[DrMaddVibe]

You're off your fucking rocker Nick.

My grandfather was a veteran of WWII. His unit fought in Germany and then was deployed to the islands to fight the Japanese.

I remember as a kid meeting with his old unit at a reunion of theirs, there was no dissention. Just remembering what they did, and those that fell.

You need to watch "Band Of Brothers" or read "Easy" and gain a different perspective. There's a reason why that theirs is called "The Greatest Generation". They gave willingly, yeah they were drafted and a lot volunteered. They knew the risks and what they were fighting for.

Not much has changed from them to the valiant soldiers that are in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Don't diminish their mission with your petty politics. It doesn't work.

You're broken.

[Warham]

The morale is still high in Iraq. If anything, those boys over there must be wondering why the liberals back in the states are saying it's a lost cause, etc.

[Seshmeister]

Stalin was worse to his own people in the beginning but I think that I would rather have lived in a communist Easter Europe than a Nazi one.

Hitler was just getting started.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
The morale is still high in Iraq. If anything, those boys over there must be wondering why the liberals back in the states are saying it's a lost cause, etc.

You think so?

Are they having fun?

Is this based on letters home written so as not to worry their relatives?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You're off your fucking rocker Nick.

My grandfather was a veteran of WWII. His unit fought in Germany and then was deployed to the islands to fight the Japanese.

I remember as a kid meeting with his old unit at a reunion of theirs, there was no dissention. Just remembering what they did, and those that fell.

You need to watch "Band Of Brothers" or read "Easy" and gain a different perspective. There's a reason why that theirs is called "The Greatest Generation". They gave willingly, yeah they were drafted and a lot volunteered. They knew the risks and what they were fighting for.

Not much has changed from them to the valiant soldiers that are in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Don't diminish their mission with your petty politics. It doesn't work.

You're broken.

Check your posts asshole, your the only one "diminishing" their legacy! And the truth is that a majority did not want to go to Japan. I've seen "Band of Brothers" about ten times now and read "Easy" twice.

If anyone is "diminishing their legacy, it's George Bush, and his sycophant Buchanan and his simpleton historical revisionism.

Try reading Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers." The feelings of the grunts are in there, your Grandfather not withstanding. The infantry forces were ground down because the US Army virtually stopped sending replacements by the end of '44.

And I am sure the majority did not want to face the Red Army and march to Moscow (which is Buchanan's basic, if unstated premise). There is a limit as to what one can expect a relative few to endure. But you wouldn't know that comfortably posting your recycled drivel and semantic horseshit on a message board, would you? And fuck off with your patriot card, flag draping horseshit as well!;) I have only heard negative things by the (few) veterans of the Iraqi War that have posted!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The morale is still high in Iraq. If anything, those boys over there must be wondering why the liberals back in the states are saying it's a lost cause, etc.

Thank you for speaking for them all. The ones I've seen post here are not so gleeful!

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
There's a reason why that theirs is called "The Greatest Generation". They gave willingly, yeah they were drafted and a lot volunteered. They knew the risks and what they were fighting for.

Not much has changed from them to the valiant soldiers that are in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Don't diminish their mission with your petty politics. It doesn't work.


Apples and oranges, AssVibe.

The "Greatest Generation" HAD something to fight for. There was an insane fascist tyrant trying to take over the world, and they had to stop him.

Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan may well be doing the best job possible, but they definitely do not know the reason they are there, apart from "just following orders".

They CAN'T know, because the BCE themselves change their story weekly, if not daily.

Maybe that's because this time the insane fascist trying to take over the world this time is their so-called "commander in chief".

I wonder how many German soldiers during WWII were actively committed to Hitler's ideology

[Warham]

I think the troops over there know full why they are over there FORD.

The BCE hasn't changed their story since the beginning of this thing. The only thing that's happened is that the info Bush got was wrong on some fronts. Perhaps that's got something to do with the former administrations policies. Wasn't George Tenet a Clinton guy?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I think the troops over there know full why they are over there FORD.

The BCE hasn't changed their story since the beginning of this thing. The only thing that's happened is that the info Bush got was wrong on some fronts. Perhaps that's got something to do with the former administrations policies. Wasn't George Tenet a Clinton guy?

See that's where you're wrong, George pressed the CIA for what he wanted to hear and even fired those that didn't go along.

That's just a big myth for the coverup!

[Warham]

Probably fired them because they were incompetent. We all know how well Clinton's administration did on terrorism.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Try reading Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers." The feelings of the grunts are in there, your Grandfather not withstanding. The infantry forces were ground down because the US Army virtually stopped sending replacements by the end of '44.

Now that wouldn't have anything to do with the Manhattan Project would it fuckhead?

Why don't YOU read "Citizen Soldiers"! What example are you trying to pervert with your peacenik delusional mind? It comes more from an enlisted man's point of view. They don't have it as nice as the officers and that's factual, but you trying to rewrite history to fit it the way YOU see it is fucking insane!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Now that wouldn't have anything to do with the Manhattan Project would it fuckhead?

Why don't YOU read "Citizen Soldiers"! What example are you trying to pervert with your peacenik delusional mind? It comes more from an enlisted man's point of view. They don't have it as nice as the officers and that's factual, but you trying to rewrite history to fit it the way YOU see it is fucking insane!

No actually, it had more to do with the U.S. Army counting the chickens before they were hatched, before The Battle of the Bulge.

And I am rewriting history? WTF, you guys do nothing but revise as necessary to use the rhetoric of cry "liberator."

But that fact was after seven years of continual combat, and with most of Europe in ruin, nobody wanted any more for ANY REASON.

And we also had no way of knowing how Stalin was actually going to act. Up until then, he had kept up his side of the deal.
But some historians, including Ambrose himself in his more leftist days would say that OF COURSE THE SOVIETS WANTED AN IRON CURTAIN and buffer around their nation after being invaded twice in the 20th cent. and suffering nearly 30 million casualties from 1941-1945. That certainly does not justify their oppression in Eastern Europe. But it certainly is not as clean, neat and easy as Buchanan is making it sound. The fact was that Russia, like it or not, had enormous conventional military power. We may have been able to defeat them, maybe not. But millions would have died either way.

And I am no peacenik. There certainly is a time for war, dying, and killing; but you'd better damn well have a better reason than trying to remake the world into your self-perceived image!

[DrMaddVibe]

Funny how certain generals knew how Stalin would act isn't it?

Patton wanted to run his tanks right into Russia after hitting Germany. He knew what he was up against.

Stalin was commiting his purges well before WWII. Don't make it seem like he was some closet psychopath. He was out there from '32 with it!

[Seshmeister]

I don't think the Allies would have beaten Russia.

Not without another few years of war anyway.

[DrMaddVibe]

Hitler would've if he wasn't in Belgrade. The Serbs spit on his car and pissed him off bad. He put of the Russian invasion so he could flatten Yugoslavia. He was advised by his high command that it would be dissasterous to start later in the year because of the Soviet winters.

Napolean found out the hard way too.

Now if he was able to crush Stalingrad he would've had Moscow. Supply lines were stretched to their limits and the scorched earth policy adopted by the Red Army made damn sure that the Nazis had no where to sleep and nothing to eat. Once the tanks ran out of gas or froze in place they were sitting ducks. If he made Moscow then perhaps the Japanese would've been able to hit the other side and split them.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Hitler would've if he wasn't in Belgrade. The Serbs spit on his car and pissed him off bad. He put of the Russian invasion so he could flatten Yugoslavia. He was advised by his high command that it would be dissasterous to start later in the year because of the Soviet winters.

Napolean found out the hard way too.

Now if he was able to crush Stalingrad he would've had Moscow. Supply lines were stretched to their limits and the scorched earth policy adopted by the Red Army made damn sure that the Nazis had no where to sleep and nothing to eat. Once the tanks ran out of gas or froze in place they were sitting ducks. If he made Moscow then perhaps the Japanese would've been able to hit the other side and split them.

That lack of four engined bombers in the Luftwaffe also permitted the Red Army to receive continual supplies or weapons such as WWII's finest tank, the T-34.http://sunsite.tus.ac.jp/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/pictures.new/t34-85-2.gif

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
I think the troops over there know full why they are over there FORD.


Cool!

Can they tell the rest of us?

In the interviews I saw with US troops a lot of them seemed to think it was something to do with 9-11 or Osama Bin Laden or something.

Or was it WMD's?

Cheers!

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I think the troops over there know full why they are over there FORD.

The BCE hasn't changed their story since the beginning of this thing. The only thing that's happened is that the info Bush got was wrong on some fronts. Perhaps that's got something to do with the former administrations policies. Wasn't George Tenet a Clinton guy?

Really.

ALL 150K ++ troops think alike?

seriously?

You've heard from them all?





And furthermore, "THEIR STORY HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS THING"



ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?????????????????????

Jesus H Christ.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


unFUCKINGbelievable:mad:

[Warham]

I don't think Bush's reasons for going in are any different now than they were two years ago. Sure, the intel was bad, but that's the reason he went in, and now you've got to finish the job.

And no, I don't think each serviceman thinks alike, but I've heard the morale is still very high over there. I don't take the liberals' viewpoint, which is all of our guys over there are writing to mom crying and sobbing about the reasons we are over there.

Let me add...I said 'I think', not 'it's a fact'. I wish you guys could learn to READ through my posts before you respond with your Bush bashing.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham

Let me add...I said 'I think', not 'it's a fact'. I wish you guys could learn to READ through my posts before you respond with your Bush bashing.

Now you're just be unreasonable;)

[LoungeMachine]

MY point was and IS, that many over there are PISSED AS HELL for being LIED to as to their mission.

O peration
I raqi
L iberation


That, and needing to REPLACE our Saudi military bases

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I don't think the Allies would have beaten Russia.

Not without another few years of war anyway.


I do. I've done a quite a bit of reading on that theater of the war. The Red Army is not the feared war machine it was made out to be in 1945. It suffered some 300,000 casualties alone in the Battle for Berlin, not to mention the horrendous beatings the Germans and Russians gave each other from '41 through the Spring of '45. The Red Army had pretty much overstretched it's supply lines.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I do. I've done a quite a bit of reading on that theater of the war. The Red Army is not the feared war machine it was made out to be in 1945. It suffered some 300,000 casualties alone in the Battle for Berlin, not to mention the horrendous beatings the Germans and Russians gave each other from '41 through the Spring of '45. The Red Army had pretty much overstretched it's supply lines.

Granted, they certainly were not as effective as the Germans, Brits, or Americans man-for-man, unit-for-unit; but the mere fact they COULD SACRIFICE 300k for Berlin says something.

And don't forget we had to ship our stuff over the Atlantic while, the Soviets pushed them through the rail system.

And the only Allied tank capable of taking on a T-34/U85 was the M-26 Pershing, and those were precious few, although I suspect the Allies could have adopted the German Panther as well (the French did actually until the 50's).

Perhaps the Western Allies could have defeated the Soviets, but I think we're talking about two years of war, and 100,000's more killed if not millions of the people we were trying to liberate in the first place.

And I find Buchanan's vision of "liberty" a little dubious since this guy actually thought highly of Pinochet.'

[Seshmeister]

It would have been completely untenable politically to then attack our main ally. The beleagered public and troops would have never stood for it.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries. Brainwashed fools. Too bad the people still can´t lead their lives without resorting to stupid ancient superstitions!


Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Castro murdered their tens of millions. When did Castro murder tens of millions? How many more were murdered in Cuba under US backed dictatorship than under Castro?

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by FORD
Apples and oranges, AssVibe.

The "Greatest Generation" HAD something to fight for. There was an insane fascist tyrant trying to take over the world, and they had to stop him.

Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan may well be doing the best job possible, but they definitely do not know the reason they are there, apart from "just following orders".

They CAN'T know, because the BCE themselves change their story weekly, if not daily.

Maybe that's because this time the insane fascist trying to take over the world this time is their so-called "commander in chief".

I wonder how many German soldiers during WWII were actively committed to Hitler's ideology

I think the President was real clear when he said that he was going to stop terror. I would think that even you are smart enough ford to see terroists in Iraq.

JH

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
I think the President was real clear when he said that he was going to stop terror. I would think that even you are smart enough ford to see terroists in Iraq.

JH

Precisely how did he stop terrorism by invading the wrong country? :confused:

[Jérôme Frenchise]

Though the rendition will not be the same, here is a translation of one of our most popular singers' song, Michel Sardou, a great songwriter at all events, addressing his fellow country folks some 25 years ago.
The music is slow, solemn. The voice is powerful, like putting things right.

"Les Ricains"

If the Yankees were not there
You'd all be living in Germany
Talking about I dunno what,
Saluting I dunno who.

Of course years have passed.
Guns have changed hands.
Is this a reason for forgetting
One day we needed them?

A guy who came from Georgia
Who didn't give a damn about me
Came to die in Normandy,
One morning when you weren't there.

Of course years have passed.
We have become friends.
At the executed's association,
They say they died for nothing.

If the Yankees were not there
You'd all be living in Germany
Talking about I dunno what,
Saluting I dunno who.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Seshmeister


Hitler was just getting started.



And that's the scary part

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Precisely how did he stop terrorism by invading the wrong country? :confused:

I still would like to get Abdul Rahman Yasin who resided in wonderful Bagdad until recently.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I still would like to get Abdul Rahman Yasin who resided in wonderful Bagdad until recently.

We invade a country, kill up to 100,000 people, and suffer 1600+ dead for one guy that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Don't we have a Cuban terrorist residing in Miami?

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
We invade a country, kill up to 100,000 people, and suffer 1600+ dead for one guy that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Don't we have a Cuban terrorist residing in Miami? Exactly! Especially considering Yasin was off the world´s "most wanted" list for years!

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Stalin was worse to his own people in the beginning but I think that I would rather have lived in a communist Easter Europe than a Nazi one.

Hitler was just getting started.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Stalin was infatuated with Hitler. He "collected" the motherfucker. A veritable shrine.

Stalin's big-dogs secured Hitlers' body, and with more than a casual penchant for the macabre, planted and re-exhumed it several times in an effort to acquire the grand museum piece.

Stalin cried himself to sleep as the Third Reich collapsed from within. Shit, he sure got bitter and withdrawn...who the fuck pissed in his caviar?

Nothing like having a sand-bagging scheme nullified.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
We invade a country, kill up to 100,000 people, and suffer 1600+ dead for one guy that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Don't we have a Cuban terrorist residing in Miami?

2001 was to finish the job that wasn't completed in 1993.

OBL's name was on the list of phone calls they made before and after the 93 attacks. So was Saddam's. The one guy fled and got exile in Iraq.

Maybe you think there isn't a tie there...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
We invade a country, kill up to 100,000 people, and suffer 1600+ dead for one guy that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Don't we have a Cuban terrorist residing in Miami?

A Cuban terrorist who quite possibly played a role in assasssinating a President of the United States, no less.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
2001 was to finish the job that wasn't completed in 1993.

OBL's name was on the list of phone calls they made before and after the 93 attacks. So was Saddam's. The one guy fled and got exile in Iraq.

Maybe you think there isn't a tie there...

Sheep Alert!

The NeoCon fishing is getting ludicrous.

Everyone knows that the Muslim fundamentalists hated Iraq for being secular. I cunt believe you are still swallowing this...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
2001 was to finish the job that wasn't completed in 1993.

OBL's name was on the list of phone calls they made before and after the 93 attacks. So was Saddam's. The one guy fled and got exile in Iraq.

Maybe you think there isn't a tie there...

No. Just selective BS from Neo Con media outlets/think tanks that have lost all credibility.

[Warham]

LOL.

The only media outlets that have lost credibility are the liberal ones like CBS, ABS, and NBS.

I've never heard that FOX is under investigation for memos and the like.

Where is Bob Burkett when you need him?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
LOL.

The only media outlets that have lost credibility are the liberal ones like CBS, ABS, and NBS.

I've never heard that FOX is under investigation for memos and the like.

Where is Bob Burkett when you need him?

No, you just vote for the liars.;)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/Rumsfeld.jpg

And I believe that CBS's investigation was largely self-directed. FOX would would never admit they were wrong. They just parrot the press releases handed to them.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No. Just selective BS from Neo Con media outlets/think tanks that have lost all credibility.

first off why don't you read up on the 1993 bombing trial and what came out in COURT about who was in on the first wtc attack second why don't you read up at http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm thats from 95/96 deals with what came out in court and oh by the way was written by a clinton advisor Laurie Mylroie

[lucky wilbury]

i also forgot to say for all of you who doubt that someone involved in the 93 wtc attack fled to iraq and has been there ever since read about it here its a little interview Abdul Rahman Yasin did from baghdad http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/02/60minutes/main510847.shtml or http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm or http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/national/2001/sept11/yasin.html

maybe a pic or two will help

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/national/2001/sept11/img/yasin.jpg

how about this one taken IN iraq by cbs when he gave them an interview:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/05/31/image510807l.jpg

still don't belive he's there?

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Sheep Alert!

The NeoCon fishing is getting ludicrous.

Everyone knows that the Muslim fundamentalists hated Iraq for being secular. I cunt believe you are still swallowing this...

yet hamas was more then willing to take saddams money for suicide bombings :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Palestinians get Saddam funds


Iraq regularly parades volunteers to "liberate Palestine"
Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.

Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques.

"Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.

With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the ceremony as support for terrorism.

Saddam's payments
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35m paid since September 2000
PALF figures

One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a local pro-Iraq group.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

Saddam's avowed support for the Palestinians, and his missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, have won him wide backing in the territories.

Saddam's 'kindness'

Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for terrorism.

"It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the Middle East," said Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry.


Saddam is the only one that has stood with us

Tahseen Maghani
father of dead Hamas fighter

However, families at this week's ceremony said the money would be used to rebuild homes destroyed by Israel and bring up orphaned children.

"Saddam supports the families of the martyrs, not terrorism," said Ahmed Sabah, 69, whose son was killed by an Israeli missile strike in December.

"It is a shame that Arabs stand silent as America prepares to occupy Iraq."

Israel blamed Mr Sabah's son Mustafa for bomb attacks on three Israeli tanks which killed seven soldiers in 2002.

Tahseen Maghani, whose Hamas militant son Karam was killed trying to infiltrate the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, said he would use the money to plant crops and build a house.

"These are tough times for Saddam but his kindness will help us a lot," he said.

"Saddam is the only one that has stood with us."

Sabri Salama, a relative of two Palestinian teenagers killed in an Israeli air strike on Gaza in January, said America was "the chief terrorist state".

Ibrahim Zanen, a PALF spokesman, said he hoped the ceremony would not be the last.

[DrMaddVibe]

They can't fathom going down the rabbit hole to see how far it goes! The difference is we're not talking about Alice in Wonderland or The Matrix. We're talking about a global terrorist network. A network that was alive and well, thumbing their noses at primarily the US out of sheer hatred for Freedom and what we stand for. Need to know what we stand for? Here...http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/liberty/solnews/Bartholdi100/BartholidAnniversary.htm

Then there are those political Monday morning quarterbacks. The ones that don't have command of a team, fan base or even have licensed merchandise but they can do the job better from a playbook that doesn't exsist! It's pure playa hater at its best.

"The war on terror will have many fronts".

[Nickdfresh]

So let's see, invading Iraq, spending billions of dollars and getting tied down into a guerilla war, which will ultimately damage (if not destroy) the current formulation of the all-volunteer military as well as our economy, was a good idea based on:

A bombing that happened 12 years ago, and killed less than 20 people. Of course your articles from partisan sources will fail to mention to the other Busheep that under Clinton, the US was conducting a little bombing campaign of its own. I am sure we killed hundreds, maybe thousands, of Iraqi air defense personnel along with civilians due to "collateral damage." Not to mention sanctions in which killed 100,000's of Iraqis died as a result either directly or indirectly due to food shortages. Of course I will not exonerate SADDAM in all of this as others do, but we still contributed.

And then of course there is the war in which nearly 100,000 Iraqis perished no doubt. Many due to "shock and awe."

And as for the SADDAM paying suicide bombers to hit Israel, I did not realize that the U.S. military was an extension of the Israeli Defense Forces (although some in America's own fifth column, The Israeli Lobby might think so) The Israelis also bear some responsibility for the terrorism that befalls their own country. I mean they are not these historically innocent little victims.

Israelis did actually displace 700,000 Palestinians through ethnic cleansing in 1948-50...Did they not? Of course the Arabs just used them and never really gave a shit about them either.

I don't think the US and Israel had very good relations until the late 60's if I am not mistaken. And I think the Israelis are clearly ahead in the Israelis vs. Palestinian body count cuntest, at inflicting casualties. While suicide bombing is disgusting and horrifying tactic, and the Israeli Army does in fact attempt to avoid civilian casualties (in most cases), a dead Palestinian kid is just as horrible at the end of the day as a dead Jewish kid. No matter how they died. Some Americans and a few psychotic "religious" Israelis might disagree with that however.

Again, you Busheep see terrorism as some sort phenomena that happens for no particular reason, it comes out of a vacuum because people are just jealous of our freedom. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of history (since the crusades), colonialism, and the blatant truth that we are not the totally innocent good guys in all this. Again, HUSSEIN was a bastard, and the world is better off without him (actually he's still here), his existence was largely a product of British (and European and even American) Imperialism. Three separate and distinct ethnic groups were patched together into one state. A very bad and prime example of what has happened the world over. Yes fascist despots have taken advantage of these facts since then, but we never would have noticed the tyranny of SADDAM had he not had large reserves of oil underneath his sand, and more importantly, in neighboring Kuwait.;)

Try addressing the root causes of terrorism, like recognizing that the Palestinians deserve a state too and Palestinian citizens should have the same security that Israeli citizens should have. Then, we might actually win in the long run. It's called "hearts and minds." It actually worked to some extent during the cold war, as much as it was implemented. We are not innocent either. One needs only to look back at the Crusades to see that.

[Seshmeister]

Great post Nick but I am starting to think some of these guys just aren't smart enough to understand it.

[Nickdfresh]

Thanks SESH. But I don't think intelligence is the problem; I think it's a combo of bind fear and lack of empathy.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So let's see, invading Iraq, spending billions of dollars and getting tied down into a guerilla war, which will ultimately damage (if not destroy) the current formulation of the all-volunteer military as well as our economy, was a good idea based on:

first off we've been over this "guerilla war" thing. it can't be a "guerilla war" when its all forigners


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
A bombing that happened 12 years ago, and killed less than 20 people. Of course your articles from partisan sources will fail to mention to the other Busheep that under Clinton, the US was conducting a little bombing campaign of its own. I am sure we killed hundreds, maybe thousands, of Iraqi air defense personnel along with civilians due to "collateral damage." Not to mention sanctions in which killed 100,000's of Iraqis died as a result either directly or indirectly due to food shortages. Of course I will not exonerate SADDAM in all of this as others do, but we still contributed.

1.i didn't know cbs or usatoday could be considered partisain sources

2. it isn't nor have ever been said that iraq was just about yasin. you've also got zarqawi,abbas,nidel etc etc etc all of which have combined to kill hundreds and wounded thousands of americans.

3. the sanctions didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people saddam did and even the iraqis know that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F25%2Fwirq25.x ml

Saddam's parades of dead babies are exposed as a cynical charade
(Filed: 25/05/2003)

UN sanctions did not kill the hundreds of infants displayed over the years - it was neglect by the former regime, Iraqi doctors in Baghdad tell Charlotte Edwardes


read the article



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And then of course there is the war in which nearly 100,000 Iraqis perished no doubt. Many due to "shock and awe."

did you read the other thread that blew that number out of the water?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And as for the SADDAM paying suicide bombers to hit Israel, I did not realize that the U.S. military was an extension of the Israeli Defense Forces (although some in America's own fifth column, The Israeli Lobby might think so) The Israelis also bear some responsibility for the terrorism that befalls their own country. I mean they are not these historically innocent little victims.

would you be refering to the aticle that disproves seshs myth that fundamentalists arabs didn't like saddam yet they took sadddams money dispite hating him? secondly those suicide bombing have killed americans more americans in fact then the embassy bombings in africa. and also some of those groups saddam has paid in the past did things like this:

http://www.beirut-memorial.org/graphics/photos/after.jpg

who were there by the way to protect the Palestinians. it should also be said they blew up french soliders the same day



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Israelis did actually displace 700,000 Palestinians through ethnic cleansing in 1948-50...Did they not? Of course the Arabs just used them and never really gave a shit about them either.

the british did similar things including but london is still standing. hell it was their plan to reinstall the Shah of iran. the germans killed 6 million jews and 6 million other people yet i don't see any jewish or other suciede bombers hitting berlin. israel hasen't nuked duseldorf now have they?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't think the US and Israel had very good relations until the late 60's if I am not mistaken. And I think the Israelis are clearly ahead in the Israelis vs. Palestinian body count cuntest, at inflicting casualties. While suicide bombing is disgusting and horrifying tactic, and the Israeli Army does in fact attempt to avoid civilian casualties (in most cases), a dead Palestinian kid is just as horrible at the end of the day as a dead Jewish kid. No matter how they died. Some Americans and a few psychotic "religious" Israelis might disagree with that however.

those kids are put in that postion in most case on purpose to try to draw sympathy for the pa cause.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Again, you Busheep see terrorism as some sort phenomena that happens for no particular reason, it comes out of a vacuum because people are just jealous of our freedom.

yet that is one of the things thats used againest us: our freedom. if your were to actually read up on the middle east you would know that most of the things that are pointed out by fundamentalists as reasons why were are corrurpt, immororal etc etc etc is our way of life. our freedom. our culture of freedom. you walk down any street in the arab world one thing they all like is our freedom. everywhere from iran to lebanon. which is why theyprotest for it , go to jail and in many cases are dieing for it. one thing they won't like about our freedom is the ultra left part of of culture the in your face vulgarity and sexuality. they do like our freedom which is why they come here. their lack of freedom is why most people in the arab world turn to extremeism. they have nothing else to turn to. they see no hope of a better life. they think nothing could get better where as in this country anything can happen to you if you want to make it happen and they are resentful of that fact.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of history (since the crusades), colonialism, and the blatant truth that we are not the totally innocent good guys in all this.

and were we involved in the crusades? i think so they were well before our time. don't you? were any of these countries our colonies? if those are your reasons for terrorism in the middle east briatin, france, italy, spain,germany , russia shit all of western europe should have been vaporized a long long time ago. those countries like installed all these dictators everyone from the shah of iran to the kings of saudi arabia and kuwait. everyone of the despots in the middle east. europe created the middle east as it stands now. the boarders all the disputed lands its their fault. europe supports all this people yet they don't get blamed for the problems in the middle east we do. we represent the west to many people in the arab world. the majority aspire to move here or have their countries reform to be like us which is why everywhere from egypt to kuwait to saudi arabia people are pushing democratic reforms



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Again, HUSSEIN was a bastard, and the world is better off without him (actually he's still here), his existence was largely a product of British (and European and even American) Imperialism.

its more like british's fault.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Three separate and distinct ethnic groups were patched together into one state. A very bad and prime example of what has happened the world over. Yes fascist despots have taken advantage of these facts since then, but we never would have noticed the tyranny of SADDAM had he not had large reserves of oil underneath his sand, and more importantly, in neighboring Kuwait.;)

see my earlier point.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Try addressing the root causes of terrorism, like recognizing that the Palestinians deserve a state too and Palestinian citizens should have the same security that Israeli citizens should have.


yet even when we go to the middle east to protect the Palestinians these are the things that happen:

http://www.beirut-memorial.org/graphics/photos/after.jpg

or even if we're flying through:

http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/be/200px-TWA_847_Hijacker_with_Capt..jpg

or anyone of these:

Apr 18,1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut 63 killed

Oct. 23,1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut 241 marines more than 100 injured

Dec. 12,1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait 6 killed 80 injured

Mar 16,1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped died in captivity

Sept 20,1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut 24 killed

Dec. 3,1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221 2 killed

June 14,1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 1 killed

Oct. 7,1985 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro 1 killed

Dec. 17,1985 airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed 20 killed

Apr 5, 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque 2 killed nearly 200 wounded

Dec 21,1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 270 killed

Feb 26,1993 truck bombing at the World Trade Center 6 killed over a 1000 injured

Nov 14 1995, car bombing exploded in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 7 killed

June 25,1996 Bombing of Khobar Towers 19 killed wounding hundreds

Aug. 7,1998 Bombings of embassys in Kenya and Tanzania 224 killed more than 4,000 wounded

Oct 12 2000 Bombing of the USS Cole 17 killed 39 injured

Sept 11 2001 Highjacking of Flight 93 crashed in Penn 45 people killed

Sept 11,2001 Highjacking of American Airlines Flight 11, crashed into the north tower of WTC 92 killed

Sept 11,2001 highjacking of American Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard.

Sept 11,2001 highjacking of United Airlines Flight 175, crashed into the south tower 65 killed

Sept 11,2001 Crash of highjacked American Airlines Flight 77 at Pentagon 125 killed

Sept 11,2001 Attack on the World Trade Center Towers 2,630 killed

May 12, 2003 Attack in Riyadh 34 killed 194 wounded

Apr. 21, 2004 Suicide bomb kills 9 Also 125 wounded in a suicide bombing outside the 5-story Saudi General Security Building in Riyadh

May. 1, 2004 Saudi Arabia 6 Westerners killed in attack 4 attackers entered a compound and opened fire on workers

May. 30, 2004 Saudi Arabia Gunmen 'killed 22' in Khobar The 25-hour crisis ended when commandos stormed a complex where militants had been holding dozens of people hostage

Jun. 6 2004 Saudi Arabia Two BBC men shot in Riyadh Cameraman Simon Cumbers has been killed and correspondent Frank Gardner injured after gunmen opened fire

Jun. 8, 2004 Saudi Arabia American killed in Riyadh Gunmen have shot dead an American man in the capital

Jun. 13, 2004 Saudi Arabia American shot dead in Riyadh

Jun. 13, 2004 Saudi Arabia Militants claim American kidnapped and is later killed


thats and old list i dug uf from and early post now considering what britain and others have done in the middle east their is no way in hell their countries should still be standing


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Then, we might actually win in the long run. It's called "hearts and minds." It actually worked to some extent during the cold war, as much as it was implemented. We are not innocent either. One needs only to look back at the Crusades to see that.

last time i checked the crusades happend 500 years before we came around. if you want to keep saying its because of the crusades go ahead but the hatred of the us has nothing to do with that.

[Warham]

This thread just shows that many liberals hate the country they live in. We are the only superpower in the world, unfortunately, and our imperialistic ways must be curtailed at ALL costs.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
This thread just shows that many liberals hate the country they live in. We are the only superpower in the world, unfortunately, and our imperialistic ways must be curtailed at ALL costs.


I had no idea that being a patriot meant being a brainless enabler (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=enabler).

Maybe if you know and "love" an alcoholic, you can make beer runs for him until he/she drinks themself to death to show your "love" for them. :rolleyes:

If you had lived in there time, maybe you'd have been a pro-British Tory during the Revolution, or pro-Confederacy during the CIVIL WAR. After all, those were good "conservative" values to have at the time! "Support your KING," no matter how dumb of a prick he is!


Like the sort of people that still support VAN HA(GAR), even though EDDIE's a drunken prick making horrible decisions. I've been told at the LINKS that I hate VAN HALEN and I am a lesser fan for not being an EDDIE sycophant.

That I hate my country, or I am any less of a patriot than people who shout out Neo Con apologist slogans is pretty silly.

[Warham]

Yep, it's liberal rags like Newsweek who run a story without doublechecking their facts that get our guys killed over there. They must not really want us to succeed if they are trying everything they can to take Bush down in a flaming heap. I'm just waiting for liberals to realize it's not going to happen. Rather tried with Bush's national guard service, and now Newsweek.

If Bush can be taken down, then it doesn't matter what the costs are, even if our troops are going to be put into even more harm's way. Their hatred for Bush is their undoing.

That, and 9/11 was really our fault, after all. Let's not blame those poor terrorists who were abused by American foreign policy for years.

And you want to talk about slogans and talking points? Halliburton, National Guard, Diebold, Saudi Royal Family...on and on.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
first off we've been over this "guerilla war" thing. it can't be a "guerilla war" when its all forigners

First off, they're not Foriegners. Even the military admits that! Only 10% of insurgents are estimated to be non-Iraqi. Most of the foreigners (Saudis, from our friendly allies in the Kingdom:)) Nice myth you are trying to perpetuate btw, Find any WMD's lately.;)

And foreign fighters using guerilla tactics are still guerillas! (and terrorists of course).




1.i didn't know cbs or usatoday could be considered partisain sources

I was talking about the website article clearing house that selectively keeps articles pertaining to their point of view, not the actual sources. You have to admit being a little to quick on the cut and pastes Agent Z.


2. it isn't nor have ever been said that iraq was just about yasin. you've also got zarqawi,abbas,nidel etc etc etc all of which have combined to kill hundreds and wounded thousands of americans.

It was about the phantom WMD's that SADDAM was going to kill off AMERICA with, that was the rationale I saw. We only know Zarqawi because we gave him a chaotic forum, his own Afghanistan if you will, to spout his terror and jihad bullshit. He'd probably be in a Jordanian jail or dead if it weren't for the IRAQI WAR.


3. the sanctions didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people saddam did and even the iraqis know that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F25%2Fwirq25.x ml Saddam's parades of dead babies are exposed as a cynical charade
(Filed: 25/05/2003)
UN sanctions did not kill the hundreds of infants displayed over the years - it was neglect by the former regime, Iraqi doctors in Baghdad tell Charlotte Edwardes


read the article
[quote]

Yeah, SADDAM is an evil cunt. But the sanctions sure helped kill a lot of people, irregardless. We never gave a shit about SADDAM until 1990, and you know it. It's about oil, not justice!


[quote]did you read the other thread that blew that number out of the water?

Blew it out of the water? Uh-no...I read a selectively cut and pasted article from one source out of many. One article does not make the truth. Information is not truth. I mean, doesn't FORD's article dispel the myth that only 1,600 servicemen have died in Iraq? Yes, exactly! You know I read it because I stated that I believed neither article you or FORD posted!



would you be refering to the aticle that disproves seshs myth that fundamentalists arabs didn't like saddam yet they took sadddams money dispite hating him? secondly those suicide bombing have killed americans more americans in fact then the embassy bombings in africa. and also some of those groups saddam has paid in the past did things like this:

http://www.beirut-memorial.org/graphics/photos/after.jpg

who were there by the way to protect the Palestinians. it should also be said they blew up french soliders the same day

OMG! Don't even get me started on the day mighty Ronald REGAN PUSSED OUT on the Iranians! The Iranians vlew that barracks! We never did shit about it. I have an article of my own on that one.

I get back to you on the rest later Z.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
First off, they're not Foriegners. Even the military admits that! Only 10% of insurgents are estimated to be non-Iraqi. Most of the foreigners (Saudis, from our friendly allies in the Kingdom:))

Speaking of the Kingdom, you never did answer my question whether you advocated war against Saudi Arabia when you said we invaded the wrond country. Do you, in fact, feel we invaded the wrong country? Should we do so now. Answer up and do it promptly. Quit dodging the issue.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Speaking of the Kingdom, you never did answer my question whether you advocated war against Saudi Arabia when you said we invaded the wrond country. Do you, in fact, feel we invaded the wrong country? Should we do so now. Answer up and do it promptly. Quit dodging the issue.

:gulp:

Actually I think I basically stated no; that we should have kicked them in the balls harder meaning possibly sanctions and restitution.

We also should have built a larger military complex just to piss Osama off.

BTW, on conspiracy theory re: 9/11 that I DO BELIEVE is that many members of the SAUDI ROYAL family suddenly "died of dehydration" in the vast desert, possibly over 100 of them.

We should have sent more troops into Afghanistan and sealed the border, or at least made it more difficult for BIN LADEN and his lackeys to operate. But we were saving them for bigger fish.:rolleyes:

Something that is about likely as an American dying of starvation while driving the interstates because he is too stupid to pull over at a rest stop fast food joint!

The implication is that SAUDI ARABIA was "presented" with a list of people we wanted arrested and interrogated, but the SAUDI's "disappeared" them instead.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
First off, they're not Foriegners. Even the military admits that! Only 10% of insurgents are estimated to be non-Iraqi. Most of the foreigners (Saudis, from our friendly allies in the Kingdom) Nice myth you are trying to perpetuate btw, Find any WMD's lately.

And foreign fighters using guerilla tactics are still guerillas! (and terrorists of course).

guerilla war is a war waged by indiginous people. zarqawi isn't an iraqi. most of the forieners aren't saudis. it's mostly syrians, iranians and lebanese and its way more then 10%



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I was talking about the website article clearing house that selectively keeps articles pertaining to their point of view, not the actual sources. You have to admit being a little to quick on the cut and pastes Agent Z.

you didn't even read it. a: its from 95 96 b: you do a search then or better yet go to the libary and look up what came out in ramzi yousefs trial. everything in that article happend. its in the COURT RECORDS that he called iraq. its in the court records look up the news articles on it:
from August 4, 1997
http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/03/wtc.trial.advancer/




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It was about the phantom WMD's that SADDAM was going to kill off AMERICA with, that was the rationale I saw. We only know Zarqawi because we gave him a chaotic forum, his own Afghanistan if you will, to spout his terror and jihad bullshit. He'd probably be in a Jordanian jail or dead if it weren't for the IRAQI WAR.

only problem with your statements are he was a: in iraq BEFORE the war started b: was already wanted for killing americans http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/14/jordan.killing/ c: already wanted on charges he tried to blow up hotels that americans were staying in. saddam didn't turn him over in 2000 and he wasent about to either



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Blew it out of the water? Uh-no...I read a selectively cut and pasted article from one source out of many. One article does not make the truth.

here i'll even use and leftist site that blows it out of the water: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Min 21705
Max 24628

now thats even an anti war site. still want more?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Information is not truth. I mean, doesn't FORD's article dispel the myth that only 1,600 servicemen have died in Iraq? Yes, exactly! You know I read it because I stated that I believed neither article you or FORD posted!

fords article isn't dispelling shit! its claiming that 6,000 servicemen have died. 6,000! you can just check anywhere even antiwar sites that have a far far lower number. fords thing is claiming that the us is covering up 4,500 deaths which is bullshit.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
OMG! Don't even get me started on the day mighty Ronald REGAN PUSSED OUT on the Iranians! The Iranians vlew that barracks! We never did shit about it. I have an article of my own on that one.

I get back to you on the rest later Z.

you would be refering to hezbullah NOT the iranians who blew it up. hezbullah has recieved both money and training from both iraq and iran, they hold no allgence to anyone.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury

would you be refering to the aticle that disproves seshs myth that fundamentalists arabs didn't like saddam yet they took sadddams money dispite hating him? secondly those suicide bombing have killed americans more americans in fact then the embassy bombings in africa. and also some of those groups saddam has paid in the past did things like this:

http://www.beirut-memorial.org/graphics/photos/after.jpg

who were there by the way to protect the Palestinians. it should also be said they blew up french soliders the same day

That was an IRANIAN operation! Anyone that knows anything about intell knows that! And we did virtually nothing about it except send in the CIA to torture a few people, to death, in once case at least. But that bomb was built in IRAN and nowhere else. REAGAN wanted to avoid a showdown with them during the COLD WAR.

USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-05-30-bombing-lawsuit_x.htm)

So why did we not go after the true bombers? Because it was not the politically expedient thing to do! But Sept. 11 made everything go boom!


the british did similar things including but london is still standing. hell it was their plan to reinstall the Shah of iran. the germans killed 6 million jews and 6 million other people yet i don't see any jewish or other suciede bombers hitting berlin. israel hasen't nuked duseldorf now have they?


Yes, but the JEWs have a homeland, don't they? One whose right to exist I fully support, and that they should have. The Holocaust was the most disgusting chapter in human history. But the GERMANs gave a lot of support to the ISRAELI's after the war, half of the IAF was ME109s! (WEST) GERMANY has always been a big supporter of ISRAEL, behind the scenes at least.

The PALESTINAIN leaders, and a lot of the arab leaders are no doubt scum for abandoning them, but the problem is that Americans are taught to see the Israeli-Arab conflict as one of pure good vs. pure evil, but the Israelis have to give up something for their security, just as they took the space of Palestine for their Homeland.

Poverty and social injustice breed terrorism as much as fanatical fascist murderers like ARAFAT that exploit it, or so the US Army taught me. That is what gave him support to hang on for so long!


those kids are put in that postion in most case on purpose to try to draw sympathy for the pa cause


Oh c'mon! Those kids grow up in slums with little hope of any future, of course they pick up a gun! Ever met a Catholic kid from inner-city Belfast? I have, and you begin to learn that there are reasons as to why they are pissed, not just propaganda!

And the little PALESTINIAN school girl that was machine-gunned (20 times or so?) by and IDF lieutenant, was she looking for sympathy? His troops didn't think so when they arrested him for murder!



yet that is one of the things thats used againest us: our freedom. if your were to actually read up on the middle east you would know that most of the things that are pointed out by fundamentalists as reasons why were are corrurpt, immororal etc etc etc is our way of life. our freedom. our culture of freedom. you walk down any street in the arab world one thing they all like is our freedom. everywhere from iran to lebanon. which is why theyprotest for it , go to jail and in many cases are dieing for it. one thing they won't like about our freedom is the ultra left part of of culture the in your face vulgarity and sexuality. they do like our freedom which is why they come here. their lack of freedom is why most people in the arab world turn to extremeism. they have nothing else to turn to. they see no hope of a better life. they think nothing could get better where as in this country anything can happen to you if you want to make it happen and they are resentful of that fact.


I am not an expert on the Middle East. Many of those facts are true, but also exaggerated! TURKEY is a Muslim country, the majority of people they kill nowadays are fellow Muslim (Kurds). Why is that? They even work closely (secretly) with Israel. Could it be that (semi-) Democratic and wealthy Muslim countries become Westernized, while repressive regimes we have traditionally supported breed ISLAMIC Fundamentalism?

EGYPT, PAKISTAN, the SAUDIs, to a lessor extent JORDAN, KUWAIT (whom we liberated only to pop the EMIR back into power despite the fact that resistance groups that actually stayed and fought the IRAQIs wanted democratic reform)...these are all our allies that have had repressive regimes years now. All of a sudden, the march of freedom rhetoric comes in, but I fear that it is too little too late. You mentioned IRAN, which is a prime example! The CIA (with or without the Brits) overthrew a democratically elected but "socialist":eek: gov. and installed the SHAH.

We could very well have pushed for reform without invading IRAQ while exterminating terrorists. The "carrot and stick" approach...It's what the BRITISH did in NORTHERN IRELAND, and it has worked, to some extent!


and were we involved in the crusades? i think so they were well before our time. don't you? were any of these countries our colonies? if those are your reasons for terrorism in the middle east briatin, france, italy, spain,germany , russia shit all of western europe should have been vaporized a long long time ago. those countries like installed all these dictators everyone from the shah of iran to the kings of saudi arabia and kuwait. everyone of the despots in the middle east. europe created the middle east as it stands now. the boarders all the disputed lands its their fault. europe supports all this people yet they don't get blamed for the problems in the middle east we do. we represent the west to many people in the arab world. the majority aspire to move here or have their countries reform to be like us which is why everywhere from egypt to kuwait to saudi arabia people are pushing democratic reforms


The Crusades were before our time, but to the Muslims, they are still living them, just as we gloat over WWII continually (and use it metaphorically), which was also before our time.

I like the democratic reform aspect, but invading IRAQ was not the answer, we should have pressured for reform starting with our allies, then perhaps the IRAQIs would have felt more pressure. In fact, I surmise that SADDAM may have been on his last legs in IRAQ. Do you know what he was doing during his final days before the "COALITION" invasion? he was writing a novel! Even his own Baathists were questioning this and his mental state.

And you speak of the morally degenerate left? I think the real degenerates are people like NEO CON DONALD (Dr. NO) RUMSFELD and his COPPER GREEN operation at Abu Ghraib! What they did convinced far more IRAQIs that we were moral degenerates than any issue of Playboy, or four letter words like fuck, ever did! We fucking went down to SADDAM's level! Just ask the guy who was arrested by HUSSEIN's secret police and physically tortured there, and then by the US ARMY, and psychologically tortured with the stigma arabs put on that shit. He still is shunned by his family!



yet even when we go to the middle east to protect the Palestinians these are the things that happen:

http://www.beirut-memorial.org/graphics/photos/after.jpg

or even if we're flying through:

http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/be/200px-TWA_847_Hijacker_with_Capt..jpg

or anyone of these:

Apr 18,1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut 63 killed
[quote]


Those were IRANIAN backed terrorists! And we were involved because ISRAEL invaded and occupied LEBANON in 83'.

[quote]
Oct. 23,1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut 241 marines more than 100 injured

Dec. 12,1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait 6 killed 80 injured

Mar 16,1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped died in captivity

Sept 20,1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut 24 killed

Dec. 3,1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221 2 killed

June 14,1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 1 killed

Oct. 7,1985 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro 1 killed

Dec. 17,1985 airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed 20 killed

Apr 5, 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque 2 killed nearly 200 wounded

Dec 21,1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 270 killed

Feb 26,1993 truck bombing at the World Trade Center 6 killed over a 1000 injured

Nov 14 1995, car bombing exploded in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 7 killed

June 25,1996 Bombing of Khobar Towers 19 killed wounding hundreds

Aug. 7,1998 Bombings of embassys in Kenya and Tanzania 224 killed more than 4,000 wounded

Oct 12 2000 Bombing of the USS Cole 17 killed 39 injured

Sept 11 2001 Highjacking of Flight 93 crashed in Penn 45 people killed

Sept 11,2001 Highjacking of American Airlines Flight 11, crashed into the north tower of WTC 92 killed

Sept 11,2001 highjacking of American Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard.

Sept 11,2001 highjacking of United Airlines Flight 175, crashed into the south tower 65 killed

Sept 11,2001 Crash of highjacked American Airlines Flight 77 at Pentagon 125 killed

Sept 11,2001 Attack on the World Trade Center Towers 2,630 killed

May 12, 2003 Attack in Riyadh 34 killed 194 wounded


Okay, explain to me how invading IRAQ was pay back for any of these terrorist operations...



Apr. 21, 2004 Suicide bomb kills 9 Also 125 wounded in a suicide bombing outside the 5-story Saudi General Security Building in Riyadh

May. 1, 2004 Saudi Arabia 6 Westerners killed in attack 4 attackers entered a compound and opened fire on workers

May. 30, 2004 Saudi Arabia Gunmen 'killed 22' in Khobar The 25-hour crisis ended when commandos stormed a complex where militants had been holding dozens of people hostage

Jun. 6 2004 Saudi Arabia Two BBC men shot in Riyadh Cameraman Simon Cumbers has been killed and correspondent Frank Gardner injured after gunmen opened fire

Jun. 8, 2004 Saudi Arabia American killed in Riyadh Gunmen have shot dead an American man in the capital

Jun. 13, 2004 Saudi Arabia American shot dead in Riyadh

Jun. 13, 2004 Saudi Arabia Militants claim American kidnapped and is later killed


Good! It's about time the bastards in the KINGDOM have the heat turned up on them for their own rhetoric and tolarance for these "religious schools," now maybe they'll be a little more fucking cooperative!;)


thats and old list i dug uf from and early post now considering what britain and others have done in the middle east their is no way in hell their countries should still be standing

Britain has done some horrible things all over the world. Probably far worse in AFRICA than in the ME. But it doesn't change the fact that we are the main power now and have to reap what the West has sowed! I mean we are 6% of the world's population, but we use over 25% of it's oil.

I am not saying this is wrong necessarily, nor am I judging my country, for AMERICA is a far better country, morally speaking, than the empires have preceded it. But every AMERICAN should know the vast resources we pull out of the global community before they open their fucking mouth about any other nations!

But I also think even the EUROPEANs that post here will tell you they prefer a superpower UNITED STATES of AMERICA to the ruthless, and possibly evilly led, RED DRAGON that is rising in CHINA. I rue the day they may surpass us in military power.

Attention WAL MART shoppers!:( :confused:


last time i checked the crusades happend 500 years before we came around. if you want to keep saying its because of the crusades go ahead but the hatred of the us has nothing to do with that.

Last time I checked, WWII happened 60 years ago, but here's a nice thread on it! We love to relive our glory of beating the HUN, as do the Muslims enjoy yearning for the past they ejected the infidels from their soil. I hear there is a good film about the Crusades out now, maybe we can all learn a thing or two from it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
guerilla war is a war waged by indiginous people. zarqawi isn't an iraqi. most of the forieners aren't saudis. it's mostly syrians, iranians and lebanese and its way more then 10%


No! It's not. It seems we have little idea of who we're fighting.

A picture of the composition of the insurgency, though in constant flux, has come into somewhat greater focus. London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings. However, American officials believe that the greatest obstacles to stability are the native insurgents that predominate in the Sunni triangle. Significantly, many secular Sunni leaders were being surpassed in influence by Sunni militants. This development mirrors the rise of militant Shia cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr vis-à-vis the more moderate Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani.

From: www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

The same article also states there may be 40,000 full and part-time guerillas (split 50/50)! So it's probably more along the lines of 5% if you only count the full time insurgents.

The foreign Jihadists are on TV all the time, but they are not the core of the insurgency! Ba'athists and religious nuts are!




http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Min 21705
Max 24628

now thats even an anti war site. still want more?



fords article isn't dispelling shit! its claiming that 6,000 servicemen have died. 6,000! you can just check anywhere even antiwar sites that have a far far lower number. fords thing is claiming that the us is covering up 4,500 deaths which is bullshit.


This is what that site said regarding the disparity:

Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.


www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

So they only count what is "reported" by the media...

Oh whatever! I said I don't believe either article, but I can pull shit off the web that says only SADDAM killed all his own people!

Because we damn well know all of the Iraqi insurgents are foreign fighters (a myth anyone in the military will quickly dispel) and that hardly any Iraqis died as a result of our bombing campaign and the resulting destruction of sanitation services and the like. :rolleyes:

sigh....



you would be refering to hezbullah NOT the iranians who blew it up. hezbullah has recieved both money and training from both iraq and iran, they hold no allgence to anyone.

NO! I would be referring to Iranian Intelligence, which planned and directed the operation, built the fucking sophisticated and powerful bomb, shipped it to Lebanon, and used a Hezbollah suicide sap as a front to carry it out!

What to debate that one?

Gee, I noticed a contradiction there though, the state sponser of the terrorists get off scott free (Iran) in that case, and those evil Palestinian Hezabollah fanatics are all to blame for the Beirut Barracks' bombing; but Al-Qaida, which virtually recieved no support from Iraq, is only contained in the Afghan/Pakistan border region whilst we invade the country that had nothing to do with the biggest terrorist attack in American (and world) history.

Interesting...:confused:

Oh, I am such a liberal America hater!:rolleyes:

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That was an IRANIAN operation! Anyone that knows anything about intell knows that! And we did virtually nothing about it except send in the CIA to torture a few people, to death, in once case at least. But that bomb was built in IRAN and nowhere else. REAGAN wanted to avoid a showdown with them during the COLD WAR.

USAToday

So why did we not go after the true bombers? Because it was not the politically expedient thing to do! But Sept. 11 made everything go boom!

the bomb wasen't built in iran. the point i was making is that hezzbullah is terrorist group which saddam has used



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes, but the JEWs have a homeland, don't they? One whose right to exist I fully support, and that they should have. The Holocaust was the most disgusting chapter in human history. But the GERMANs gave a lot of support to the ISRAELI's after the war, half of the IAF was ME109s! (WEST) GERMANY has always been a big supporter of ISRAEL, behind the scenes at least.

and the palestian's have a home land too. its called jordan


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The PALESTINAIN leaders, and a lot of the arab leaders are no doubt scum for abandoning them, but the problem is that Americans are taught to see the Israeli-Arab conflict as one of pure good vs. pure evil, but the Israelis have to give up something for their security, just as they took the space of Palestine for their Homeland.

yet every peace deal that is offered isn't taken shouldn't that tell you something. for the most part it is a battle of good vs evil. the isralis do their best to avoid hiting civilains yet the other side targets them and has targeted them including americans in the past.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Poverty and social injustice breed terrorism as much as fanatical fascist murderers like ARAFAT that exploit it, or so the US Army taught me. That is what gave him support to hang on for so long!

Oh c'mon! Those kids grow up in slums with little hope of any future, of course they pick up a gun! Ever met a Catholic kid from inner-city Belfast? I have, and you begin to learn that there are reasons as to why they are pissed, not just propaganda!

yet in one of the richest areas of the world it is also the poorest. in the middle east they turn to terrorism againest israel because anywhere you go from the poorest of the poor town in saudi arabia to a poor town in syria that it is israels fault. get rid of the jews and all will be ok


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And the little PALESTINIAN school girl that was machine-gunned (20 times or so?) by and IDF lieutenant, was she looking for sympathy? His troops didn't think so when they arrested him for murder!

that is the extremly rare case. what about when hamas and hezbullah use the kids as human sheilds? when they stage a kids shooting for propaganda? look up Mohammed al-Dura staged shooting you pick what ever site and you can read all about it



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I am not an expert on the Middle East. Many of those facts are true, but also exaggerated! TURKEY is a Muslim country, the majority of people they kill nowadays are fellow Muslim (Kurds). Why is that? They even work closely (secretly) with Israel. Could it be that (semi-) Democratic and wealthy Muslim countries become Westernized, while repressive regimes we have traditionally supported breed ISLAMIC Fundamentalism?

EGYPT, PAKISTAN, the SAUDIs, to a lessor extent JORDAN, KUWAIT (whom we liberated only to pop the EMIR back into power despite the fact that resistance groups that actually stayed and fought the IRAQIs wanted democratic reform)...these are all our allies that have had repressive regimes years now. All of a sudden, the march of freedom rhetoric comes in, but I fear that it is too little too late. You mentioned IRAN, which is a prime example! The CIA (with or without the Brits) overthrew a democratically elected but "socialist" gov. and installed the SHAH.


iran isn't "socialist" by any stretch. all those countries weren't encouraged to reform before now but now they are and its better late then never


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
We could very well have pushed for reform without invading IRAQ while exterminating terrorists. The "carrot and stick" approach...It's what the BRITISH did in NORTHERN IRELAND, and it has worked, to some extent!

no way. anytime any progress would have been made saddam would have paid for a suciede bombing to stir shit up again. you'll notice all this progress is being made in the middle east both in the peace process and elsewhere post saddam



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The Crusades were before our time, but to the Muslims, they are still living them, just as we gloat over WWII continually (and use it metaphorically), which was also before our time.

i've meet people who fought in ww2 never meet anyone who fought in the crusades which is why its still relevent. the particpants are still around to talk about it. not to many other wars are discused.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I like the democratic reform aspect, but invading IRAQ was not the answer, we should have pressured for reform starting with our allies, then perhaps the IRAQIs would have felt more pressure. In fact, I surmise that SADDAM may have been on his last legs in IRAQ. Do you know what he was doing during his final days before the "COALITION" invasion? he was writing a novel! Even his own Baathists were questioning this and his mental state.

iraq would have never fallen. even after the gulf war with all that heat he didn't fall.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And you speak of the morally degenerate left? I think the real degenerates are people like NEO CON DONALD (Dr. NO) RUMSFELD and his COPPER GREEN operation at Abu Ghraib! What they did convinced far more IRAQIs that we were moral degenerates than any issue of Playboy, or four letter words like fuck, ever did! We fucking went down to SADDAM's level! Just ask the guy who was arrested by HUSSEIN's secret police and physically tortured there, and then by the US ARMY, and psychologically tortured with the stigma arabs put on that shit. He still is shunned by his family!

first off there was no operation at abu ghrab and before you start quoting seymour hersh look up the article he wrote about our failing attack on the taliban and how we were losing guys daily.actually here to read about the mistakes http://slate.msn.com/id/2058474/ better yet see if you can find the interview he gave where he said 200+ special forces and regular military were killed in the first weeks of the afghan war and 15 were taken hostage by al queda a claim even sesh dismissed . that interview has nothing to do with the failing attack on the taliban article. it was an interview a few months later in europe. thrid in reality you really think that that there was some sort of program being run there by a: national guard people b: untrained national guard people c:untrained national guardmens who by her own admission is partically retarded? you really think the miltary would trust them to gather intel? all that "abuse" was a couple of morons who now had a little bit of power over people and abused it. happens in every prison all over the world.

back to the point people in the middle east don't like our values? in egypt they banned van halen!



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Okay, explain to me how invading IRAQ was pay back for any of these terrorist operations...

Dec. 12,1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait 6 killed 80 injured

was carried out by shite bombers based in iraq

April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility

islmaic jihad have in the past used wester iraq as a base


Oct. 7,1985 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro 1 killed

mastermind abu abbas was caught in iraq he later died in us custody

Dec. 17,1985 airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed 20 killed

masterminded by abu nidal who "committed sucide" in baghdad in 2002

and several others of those are tied to groups that did buisness with saddam in the past



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Britain has done some horrible things all over the world. Probably far worse in AFRICA than in the ME. But it doesn't change the fact that we are the main power now and have to reap what the West has sowed! I mean we are 6% of the world's population, but we use over 25% of it's oil.

forget about oil. if the west should reap what it sowed those countries involved should be targeted not us.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I am not saying this is wrong necessarily, nor am I judging my country, for AMERICA is a far better country, morally speaking, than the empires have preceded it. But every AMERICAN should know the vast resources we pull out of the global community before they open their fucking mouth about any other nations!

we are the worlds number one supplier of humanitarian and finacial aid. hell we give more to fight aids in africa then the rest of the world combined.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But I also think even the EUROPEANs that post here will tell you they prefer a superpower UNITED STATES of AMERICA to the ruthless, and possibly evilly led, RED DRAGON that is rising in CHINA. I rue the day they may surpass us in military power.

Attention WAL MART shoppers!

europe will make any deal with any country. they never stop anything or anyone. they let germany role over most of europe without even saying hey you cant do that!




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Last time I checked, WWII happened 60 years ago, but here's a nice thread on it! We love to relive our glory of beating the HUN, as do the Muslims enjoy yearning for the past they ejected the infidels from their soil. I hear there is a good film about the Crusades out now, maybe we can all learn a thing or two from it.

see my earlier point on this


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No! It's not. It seems we have little idea of who we're fighting.

A picture of the composition of the insurgency, though in constant flux, has come into somewhat greater focus. London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings. However, American officials believe that the greatest obstacles to stability are the native insurgents that predominate in the Sunni triangle. Significantly, many secular Sunni leaders were being surpassed in influence by Sunni militants. This development mirrors the rise of militant Shia cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr vis-à-vis the more moderate Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani.

From: www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

The same article also states there may be 40,000 full and part-time guerillas (split 50/50)! So it's probably more along the lines of 5% if you only count the full time insurgents.

The foreign Jihadists are on TV all the time, but they are not the core of the insurgency! Ba'athists and religious nuts are!

most of the relious nuts are foriegn which is why there is an increase of sucide bombings. the only record of local iraqis doing suicide bombings have shown that they have literally been chained to the wheel and told to delvier the bomb and their families who most of the time are hostages are released. iraqis aren't eger to die and gulf war one and gulf two show that.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
This is what that site said regarding the disparity:

Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.


www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

So they only count what is "reported" by the media...

and the media reports what the hospitals say. the 100,000 is a guess that someone made to even use that number is a joke.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh whatever! I said I don't believe either article, but I can pull shit off the web that says only SADDAM killed all his own people!

well he was the best at it


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because we damn well know all of the Iraqi insurgents are foreign fighters (a myth anyone in the military will quickly dispel) and that hardly any Iraqis died as a result of our bombing campaign and the resulting destruction of sanitation services and the like.

sigh....

there was no sanitation to begin with. we do our best to avoid civilin casualties.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
NO! I would be referring to Iranian Intelligence, which planned and directed the operation, built the fucking sophisticated and powerful bomb, shipped it to Lebanon, and used a Hezbollah suicide sap as a front to carry it out!

What to debate that one?

Gee, I noticed a contradiction there though, the state sponser of the terrorists get off scott free (Iran) in that case, and those evil Palestinian Hezabollah fanatics are all to blame for the Beirut Barracks' bombing; but Al-Qaida, which virtually recieved no support from Iraq, is only contained in the Afghan/Pakistan border region whilst we invade the country that had nothing to do with the biggest terrorist attack in American (and world) history.

i brought it up because saddam has worked with hezbullah. he worked with anyone that was out there . and the 80's were a completly different time for how we dealt with terrorists.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Interesting...

Oh, I am such a liberal America hater!

so you admit it ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
[B]the bomb wasen't built in iran. the point i was making is that hezzbullah is terrorist group which saddam has used


Yes it was built in Iran.


and the palestian's have a home land too. its called jordan


Here we go...It's all the Palestinians fault. 'Get the fuck out you stinky arab, Jordan is your new home.'



yet every peace deal that is offered isn't taken shouldn't that tell you something. for the most part it is a battle of good vs evil. the isralis do their best to avoid hiting civilains yet the other side targets them and has targeted them including americans in the past.

Yeah, here's a plate of shit boys, eat up! And there are cases where the Israelis don't mind adding to the suffering in there little war of attrition. But the death toll of civilians is still higher on the Palestinian side.


yet in one of the richest areas of the world it is also the poorest. in the middle east they turn to terrorism againest israel because anywhere you go from the poorest of the poor town in saudi arabia to a poor town in syria that it is israels fault. get rid of the jews and all will be ok


Because their Pan-Arab nationalist/Islamic fascist governments use Israel as the panacea for all their problems, granted.

The Israelis of course feed this by building walls thrrough territories earmarked for Palestinian territory and sending their extremist settlers to build new kibbitzes in a sea of arabs. But I think the majority of Israelis might be getting fed up with paying enormous security cost. I know Americans should goddamn well be!


that is the extremly rare case. what about when hamas and hezbullah use the kids as human sheilds? when they stage a kids shooting for propaganda? look up Mohammed al-Dura staged shooting you pick what ever site and you can read all about it


I think that is also a rare case. Mohammed al-Dura and that cunt of a IDF lieutenant have much in common.


iran isn't "socialist" by any stretch. all those countries weren't encouraged to reform before now but now they are and its better late then never

Was Z, pay attention. I meant WAS a democratic socialist gov't before the Langley boys thought we'd get a better deal by installing an asshole emperor. Took a few years, but it had quite disastrous consequences.


no way. anytime any progress would have been made saddam would have paid for a suciede bombing to stir shit up again. you'll notice all this progress is being made in the middle east both in the peace process and elsewhere post saddam


I guess Arafat's death had nothing to do with it?

And it's too early to judge the long term affects. Lebanon is a great thing I'll grant you, but it was more of a case of Syrian intelligence being really, really stupid than a spontaneous uprising.


i've meet people who fought in ww2 never meet anyone who fought in the crusades which is why its still relevent. the particpants are still around to talk about it. not to many other wars are discused.


Me too. But it is still history. And anyone who knows anything about that region will tell you the crusades still resonate. Only stupid people would ignore that fact, like, um well... (W.)


iraq would have never fallen. even after the gulf war with all that heat he didn't fall.

He was losing his mind. It was a matter of time. Would the next set of bastards been any better? Who knows? but SADDAM dying or being overthrown would have had a ripple effect of it's own.

Meanwhile Kim Jong Il walks free....


first off there was no operation at abu ghrab and before you start quoting seymour hersh look up the article he wrote about our failing attack on the taliban and how we were losing guys daily.actually here to read about the mistakes http://slate.msn.com/id/2058474/ better yet see if you can find the interview he gave where he said 200+ special forces and regular military were killed in the first weeks of the afghan war and 15 were taken hostage by al queda a claim even sesh dismissed . that interview has nothing to do with the failing attack on the taliban article. it was an interview a few months later in europe. thrid in reality you really think that that there was some sort of program being run there by a: national guard people b: untrained national guard people c:untrained national guardmens who by her own admission is partically retarded? you really think the miltary would trust them to gather intel? all that "abuse" was a couple of morons who now had a little bit of power over people and abused it. happens in every prison all over the world.

back to the point people in the middle east don't like our values? in egypt they banned van halen!

I don't know about HERSH's other stuff. But I do know that there is sound evidence for what he says, including a book that was written in the 70's regarding the sexual humiliation of Arab men and how they could be blackmailed, even destroyed using such humiliating routines implying homosexuality or sexual submission to a woman.

Pretty tough for a bunch of hick Nat'l Guard MP's, eh? And actually many "conservatives" are crying foul regarding how the investigation was cut off at the lower ranks, and it was a little funny that there seemed to be a large military intelligence presense at the prison that as well, that was never interviewed or saw anything.

In fact the hicks made perfect scapegoats for that reason alone.

I have heard that Iraq is one of the largest consumers of porn!:D



most of the relious nuts are foriegn which is why there is an increase of sucide bombings. the only record of local iraqis doing suicide bombings have shown that they have literally been chained to the wheel and told to delvier the bomb and their families who most of the time are hostages are released. iraqis aren't eger to die and gulf war one and gulf two show that.


Yes, most of the suicide bombers are indeed foreign I heard, they are untrained, expendible dolts mainly from the Kingdom of Saudi Suicide bombers.

And yes, some Iraqis are extorted into it, I actually posted an article.

But the trained hardcore insurgents won't kill themselves to detonate a car near some troops to maybe score a hit. The fact they use others shows how smart they are.

And funny, those insurgents seem to be very tenacious and adapt their tactics well. Paint them as cowards all you want, but your either delusional or lying;), 'cause I know you're not dum.


and the media reports what the hospitals say. the 100,000 is a guess that someone made to even use that number is a joke.


Why? Because you say so. Actually I don't think it's quite that high. We'll never know for sure, but it's much higher that 24,000 for reasons previously stated. We could even split the difference.


well he was the best at it

True, but we caught on quick.


there was no sanitation to begin with. we do our best to avoid civilin casualties.

i brought it up because saddam has worked with hezbullah. he worked with anyone that was out there . and the 80's were a completly different time for how we dealt with terrorists.

Oh, a mere semantical blurb that is supposed to justify this massive invasion. One more little trivial incident in the Neo Con fact book of rationalizations when no WMD's are found. SADDAM once did this..blah blah...

Whatever! Qaddafi killed 300 civilians at Lockerbie, I knew one of them. When do we invade Libya and kill 24k-100k Libyan civilians in response?


so you admit it ;)

Well I was being ironical. I served and pay my taxes without bitching. I have a right to critique.;) I find it interesting when flag waiving conservatives never serve in the military, and bitch about income taxes. It's great to be an American without really making any sacrifices. I think John Fogerty put it best:

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief",
oh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no senator's son,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no,

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman come to the door,
Lord, the house look a like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no millionaire's son.
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Yeh, some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give,
oh, they only answer, more, more, more, yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no military son,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

- John C, Fogerty

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes it was built in Iran

Here we go...It's all the Palestinians fault. 'Get the fuck out you stinky arab, Jordan is your new home.'

well when you consider what is today know as jordan was set up as the new home land for the palestinians and is almost 90% palestinian and is where most now live.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, here's a plate of shit boys, eat up! And there are cases where the Israelis don't mind adding to the suffering in there little war of attrition. But the death toll of civilians is still higher on the Palestinian side.

arafat was offer 90% percent of what he wanted and balked at it that should tell you something



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because their Pan-Arab nationalist/Islamic fascist governments use Israel as the panacea for all their problems, granted.

The Israelis of course feed this by building walls thrrough territories earmarked for Palestinian territory and sending their extremist settlers to build new kibbitzes in a sea of arabs. But I think the majority of Israelis might be getting fed up with paying enormous security cost. I know Americans should goddamn well be!

the israels are doing their best to protect their people. you'll notice the number of suiciede bombings has gone down since the wall was built


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Was Z, pay attention. I meant WAS a democratic socialist gov't before the Langley boys thought we'd get a better deal by installing an asshole emperor. Took a few years, but it had quite disastrous consequences.

iran was monarchy before the shah was installed in 1953 they never had a democracy. the people today want one but have yet to have one



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I guess Arafat's death had nothing to do with it?

And it's too early to judge the long term affects. Lebanon is a great thing I'll grant you, but it was more of a case of Syrian intelligence being really, really stupid than a spontaneous uprising.

that unrest was there. the death of hari brought it to the surface but its been there for awhile. same with iran. there is a huge amount of unrest over the lack of a democracy that flares up and will again.... soon.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Me too. But it is still history. And anyone who knows anything about that region will tell you the crusades still resonate. Only stupid people would ignore that fact, like, um well... (W.)

He was losing his mind. It was a matter of time. Would the next set of bastards been any better? Who knows? but SADDAM dying or being overthrown would have had a ripple effect of it's own.

crazy people are the most unpredictable. he would have killed his own kids if he thought they were acting againest him


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Meanwhile Kim Jong Il walks free....


not for all that much longer



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't know about HERSH's other stuff. But I do know that there is sound evidence for what he says, including a book that was written in the 70's regarding the sexual humiliation of Arab men and how they could be blackmailed, even destroyed using such humiliating routines implying homosexuality or sexual submission to a woman.

Pretty tough for a bunch of hick Nat'l Guard MP's, eh? And actually many "conservatives" are crying foul regarding how the investigation was cut off at the lower ranks, and it was a little funny that there seemed to be a large military intelligence presense at the prison that as well, that was never interviewed or saw anything.

i don't consider what those mps did as all that tough and as far as an investigation goes with all the interviews i've seen these guys give all they say is "i was just following orders" the follow up? who gave the order? "i don't know." they weren't ordered to do shit otherwise they would be ratting out anyone and everyone


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
In fact the hicks made perfect scapegoats for that reason alone.

they weren't made scapegoats. they got caught being stupid

I have heard that Iraq is one of the largest consumers of porn!


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes, most of the suicide bombers are indeed foreign I heard, they are untrained, expendible dolts mainly from the Kingdom of Saudi Suicide bombers.

And yes, some Iraqis are extorted into it, I actually posted an article.

But the trained hardcore insurgents won't kill themselves to detonate a car near some troops to maybe score a hit. The fact they use others shows how smart they are.

And funny, those insurgents seem to be very tenacious and adapt their tactics well. Paint them as cowards all you want, but your either delusional or lying, 'cause I know you're not dum.

i didn't paint them as cowards. the tatics they are employing are the same ones used in chechnya. from the propganda side of it right down to the board layouts they use for their ied's.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why? Because you say so. Actually I don't think it's quite that high. We'll never know for sure, but it's much higher that 24,000 for reasons previously stated. We could even split the difference.

if there were 100,000 dead thats comes out to be 1,000 per week then we would be talking ww2 numbers.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
True, but we caught on quick

i know of no time where we put people through woodchippers


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh, a mere semantical blurb that is supposed to justify this massive invasion. One more little trivial incident in the Neo Con fact book of rationalizations when no WMD's are found. SADDAM once did this..blah blah...

i've wanted saddam gone for a long long time. even before clinton bombed iraq over wmd and his ties to terrorism


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Whatever! Qaddafi killed 300 civilians at Lockerbie, I knew one of them. When do we invade Libya and kill 24k-100k Libyan civilians in response?

and you'll notice since the iraq war he's cleaned up his act dramtically.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well I was being ironical. I served and pay my taxes without bitching. I have a right to critique. I find it interesting when flag waiving conservatives never serve in the military, and bitch about income taxes. It's great to be an American without really making any sacrifices. I think John Fogerty put it best:

i don't see it anywhere where it says you could only critize if you serve. tell that anicdote to ford and see his reaction. there are people who are conservative on this board who served but they don't use that fact to tell others they can't critize. as for myself i'll say what i have said before: i have not and will not ever state what i do for a living on this board or any other on the net. thats to much info to let out there here in cyberspace. people will guess but few will know

[4moreyears]

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv

I say this is still the best video of all time.

JH

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Warham
They must not really want us to succeed if they are trying everything they can to take Bush down in a flaming heap. Some, like me, really don´t want to see the USA succeed in Iraq. And the reason is, that we believe invading harmless third world countries just because you can isn´t exactly the way to go, and if it takes the Iraq mess up to avoid such things in the future, so be it!

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
Oct. 7,1985 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro 1 killed

mastermind abu abbas was caught in iraq he later died in us custody

Dec. 17,1985 airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed 20 killed

masterminded by abu nidal who "committed sucide" in baghdad in 2002

Abu Nidal had sworn off terrorism well before he showed up in Iraq. He was off the worldwide "most wanted" lists for quite a while before 2002.

Just to refute some of the propaganda you obviously hve been brainwashed with.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and you'll notice since the iraq war he's cleaned up his act dramtically.

He´s cleaning up his act because he´s finally being offered to play fair ball internationally concerning trade agreements and all that. In the past he was supposed to clean up his act without being offered a thing for it.

A slight difference, I´d say!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
[B]well when you consider what is today know as jordan was set up as the new home land for the palestinians and is almost 90% palestinian and is where most now live.

So both Arabs & Jews are responsible for the Palestinian plight. How novel!


arafat was offer 90% percent of what he wanted and balked at it that should tell you something

The Israeli right-wing also had a lot to do with scuttling negotiations. You may be correct on that, but I don't think it was quite that simple.

Irregardless, the prick's dead and there is new hope.


the israels are doing their best to protect their people. you'll notice the number of suiciede bombings has gone down since the wall was built


Yes. But my point is that the wall arbitrarily goes through Palestinian territory. It's like the US building a border fence on Mexican or Canadian territory.


iran was monarchy before the shah was installed in 1953 they never had a democracy. the people today want one but have yet to have one


He was not the first "Shah," but he was installed overthrowing a democratically elected gov't.


that unrest was there. the death of hari brought it to the surface but its been there for awhile. same with iran. there is a huge amount of unrest over the lack of a democracy that flares up and will again.... soon.

Well we'd like to think that. I know Iranian students have rioted recently. But if we threaten Iran with military action, it only gives the hardliners excuses to clamp down.


crazy people are the most unpredictable. he would have killed his own kids if he thought they were acting againest him


SADDAM was crazy like a fox. He was/is a detestable bastard, but he was also rational enough to stay in power for 30 years or whatever. He should have killed his own sons though.


not for all that much longer

i don't consider what those mps did as all that tough and as far as an investigation goes with all the interviews i've seen these guys give all they say is "i was just following orders" the follow up? who gave the order? "i don't know." they weren't ordered to do shit otherwise they would be ratting out anyone and everyone

I don't consider them tough either. But at the very least, they were thrown into a position in which they were understaffed and ill prepared. Rumsfeld and his Neo Con lackeys are to blame on way or another. And you know, and I know, there were two chains of command in that prison. On was the MPs, the other was MI.


they weren't made scapegoats. they got caught being stupid

Or they were stupid enough to be made patsys.



i didn't paint them as cowards. the tatics they are employing are the same ones used in chechnya. from the propganda side of it right down to the board layouts they use for their ied's.

Interesting. But the vast majority are Iraqi. And we have to talk with some of them sooner or later to split their tenuous ranks of composite ideologies.


if there were 100,000 dead thats comes out to be 1,000 per week then we would be talking ww2 numbers.


There are 10,000s irregardless of the final tally. Tragic any way you look at it.


i know of no time where we put people through woodchippers

I should hope not. though there are a very few that should be!


i've wanted saddam gone for a long long time. even before clinton bombed iraq over wmd and his ties to terrorism

Everybody did! But I also want the assholes that run the Sudan gone. We can't invade everybody without destroying ourselves and allowing the Chinese to step in!


and you'll notice since the iraq war he's cleaned up his act dramtically.

He was on that road even before the Iraq war. Secular Arab Pan-Nationalists like Qadafi are enemies of Al-Qaida. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


i don't see it anywhere where it says you could only critize if you serve. tell that anicdote to ford and see his reaction. there are people who are conservative on this board who served but they don't use that fact to tell others they can't critize. as for myself i'll say what i have said before: i have not and will not ever state what i do for a living on this board or any other on the net. thats to much info to let out there here in cyberspace. people will guess but few will know

I understand, and know there are a lot of "Fabulous" internet psychos that will do there own background checks based on a message board ans think that is totally gay!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv

I say this is still the best video of all time.

JH

No this video is the best of all time!

http://miscellaneousheathen.com/heathen/abd.mov

And more truthful.;)

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No this video is the best of all time!

http://miscellaneousheathen.com/heathen/abd.mov

And more truthful.;)

That is funny, but obvously not truthful. The Kerry video is not truthful because all the man does is lie, dependng who he is talking to.

[Nickdfresh]

No. All extremist-REPUBLICAN groups can do is manufacture attack ads that pick apart everything he says with half-truths and distorsions as they casually, and quite hypocritically, ignore the lies of the guys they voted for. Read up on Kkkarl Rove, he did it to McCAIN too. That's all it is...

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No. All extremist-REPUBLICAN groups can do is manufacture attack ads that pick apart everything he says with half-truths and distorsions as they casually, and quite hypocritically, ignore the lies of the guys they voted for. Read up on Kkkarl Rove, he did it to McCAIN too. That's all it is...

Come on Nick, how can you blame the republicans for this. All the "distorsions" come from Kerry's lips. His own words killed him. all the Repbulicans did was splice this thing together.

JH

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No this video is the best of all time!

http://miscellaneousheathen.com/heathen/abd.mov

And more truthful.;)

Now THAT is a fucking classic!

And now, a word from the pResident. (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml)

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by FORD
Now THAT is a fucking classic!

And now, a word from the pResident. (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml)

Funny all you can come up with are things that have distorted the words of the Pres. and VP.

I have Kerry doing the distortion. We dont have to work as hard to put our videos together. John Kerry did it for us.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Come on Nick, how can you blame the republicans for this. All the "distorsions" come from Kerry' lips. His own words killed him. all the Repbulicans did was splice this thing together.

JH

Fear of terrorism killed him. KERRY buried BUSH in both debates and is clearly a much smarter man. But KERRY's fixation of SWIFTBOAT military cred, and the "terra-alert" BS is what killed KERRY, not some bullshit partisan, so-called, expose.' If this were about truth, BUSH would have gone down in flames over IRAQ and the MISSION ACCUNTPLISHED poster hanging over his head. The election was a bout fear and middle-class "Republicans" and Democrat Soccer moms that voted against their own interests, against all logic. But I really am no expert on the election, that's just my spin...

[FORD]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Funny all you can come up with are things that have distorted the words of the Pres. and VP.

I have Kerry doing the distortion. We dont have to work as hard to put our videos together. John Kerry did it for us.

Where's the distortion in that video? Every word of it came from Junior's mouth.

As for the Cheney/Scarface video, I thought it was very creative. And it's not like there isn't a lot of parallells between Scarface and the BCE.

Drug dealing murderers who built their empire in Miami using Cubans.... yep, sounds about right to me. :)

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So both Arabs & Jews are responsible for the Palestinian plight. How novel!

its the truth though and if any arab government wanted to spend 1 days oil proifts rebuilding the palestinian lands there wouldn't be a problem.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The Israeli right-wing also had a lot to do with scuttling negotiations. You may be correct on that, but I don't think it was quite that simple.

Irregardless, the prick's dead and there is new hope.



Yes. But my point is that the wall arbitrarily goes through Palestinian territory. It's like the US building a border fence on Mexican or Canadian territory.

the wall in israel goes over land that can at best be disputed there are no real set boarders there yet which is on of the sticking points in the current negotiations



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He was not the first "Shah," but he was installed overthrowing a democratically elected gov't.

nope. nothing but coups a quick history:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/iran_history.asp
In 1921, Reza Khan, an army officer, effected a coup and established a military dictatorship.

Reza Khan was subsequently (1925) elected hereditary shah, thus ending the Qajar dynasty and founding the new Pahlevi dynasty. Reza Shah Pahlevi abolished the British treaty, reorganized the army, introduced many reforms, and encouraged the development of industry and education. In Aug., 1941, two months after the German invasion of the USSR, British and Soviet forces occupied Iran. On Sept. 16 the shah abdicated in favor of his son Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi . American troops later entered Iran to handle the delivery of war supplies to the USSR.

In 1951, the National Front movement, headed by Premier Mussadegh , a militant nationalist, forced the parliament to nationalize the oil industry and form the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Although a British blockade led to the virtual collapse of the oil industry and serious internal economic troubles, Mussadegh continued his nationalization policy. Openly opposed by the shah, Mussadegh was ousted in 1952 but quickly regained power. The shah fled Iran but returned when monarchist elements forced Mussadegh from office in Aug., 1953; covert U.S. activity was largely responsible for Mussadegh's ousting.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well we'd like to think that. I know Iranian students have rioted recently. But if we threaten Iran with military action, it only gives the hardliners excuses to clamp down.

the military wont be needed in iran.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't consider them tough either. But at the very least, they were thrown into a position in which they were understaffed and ill prepared. Rumsfeld and his Neo Con lackeys are to blame on way or another. And you know, and I know, there were two chains of command in that prison. On was the MPs, the other was MI.

but who was caught "abusing" prisnors? who were the knuckleheads taking pictures? it was their own fault.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Or they were stupid enough to be made patsys.

Interesting. But the vast majority are Iraqi. And we have to talk with some of them sooner or later to split their tenuous ranks of composite ideologies.

sunni groups are already saying they'll stop if they can be involved with the next set of elections and if we spare saddams life


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Everybody did! But I also want the assholes that run the Sudan gone. We can't invade everybody without destroying ourselves and allowing the Chinese to step in!

He was on that road even before the Iraq war. Secular Arab Pan-Nationalists like Qadafi are enemies of Al-Qaida. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

but qadafi has dance with islamic jihad amoung others who laid the ground work for al queda. it was suspected he has in the past worked with egyptian islamic jihad a group that has since merge with al qadea.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I understand, and know there are a lot of "Fabulous" internet psychos that will do there own background checks based on a message board ans think that is totally gay!

i don't think we'll be having anymore "fabulous" problems any more

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Fear of terrorism killed him. KERRY buried BUSH in both debates and is clearly a much smarter man. But KERRY's fixation of SWIFTBOAT military cred, and the "terra-alert" BS is what killed KERRY, not some bullshit partisan, so-called, expose.' If this were about truth, BUSH would have gone down in flames over IRAQ and the MISSION ACCUNTPLISHED poster hanging over his head. The election was a bout fear and middle-class "Republicans" and Democrat Soccer moms that voted against their own interests, against all logic. But I really am no expert on the election, that's just my spin...


kerry lost because of kerry. he didn't stand for shit. he was for the iraq war then against it. for this then against it and on and on its something that has been well known around here his taking both sides and it was known early on that his ambiguous postions to say the least would kill him

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
Drug dealing murderers who built their empire in Miami using Cubans.... yep, sounds about right to me. :)

What state is Mena in again?

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Some, like me, really don´t want to see the USA succeed in Iraq. And the reason is, that we believe invading harmless third world countries just because you can isn´t exactly the way to go, and if it takes the Iraq mess up to avoid such things in the future, so be it!

Because we can, that is exactly why we did it. What a dumb ass.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by FORD
Where's the distortion in that video? Every word of it came from Junior's mouth.

As for the Cheney/Scarface video, I thought it was very creative. And it's not like there isn't a lot of parallells between Scarface and the BCE.

Drug dealing murderers who built their empire in Miami using Cubans.... yep, sounds about right to me. :)

Not saying those words were not spoken by Bush but they were various speaches that were spliced together to make it look like the president was saying complete sentances that he never said. The Kerry thing is different. He finishes his complete thought and another opposite complete thought which contradicts the previous is uttered out of his crowd pleasing lips.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury

nope. nothing but coups a quick history:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/iran_history.asp
In 1921, Reza Khan, an army officer, effected a coup and established a military dictatorship.

In 1951, the National Front movement, headed by Premier Mussadegh , a militant nationalist, forced the parliament to nationalize the oil industry and form the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Although a British blockade led to the virtual collapse of the oil industry and serious internal economic troubles, Mussadegh continued his nationalization policy. Openly opposed by the shah, Mussadegh was ousted in 1952 but quickly regained power. The shah fled Iran but returned when monarchist elements forced Mussadegh from office in Aug., 1953; covert U.S. activity was largely responsible for Mussadegh's ousting.


Mussadegh was elected.





[b]the military wont be needed in iran.

I would love nothing more than to see Iranian students coupled with factions of their regular military topple the Islamicists and reflect the true will of the people there.


but who was caught "abusing" prisnors? who were the knuckleheads taking pictures? it was their own fault.

The MI and Sp Ops knew better.;)


sunni groups are already saying they'll stop if they can be involved with the next set of elections and if we spare saddams life

I think I posted something on that like six-months ago. We are not going to defeat these insurgents soley through military means. Some sort of political accomadation should be reached. SADDAM should die though after a fair trial.


but qadafi has dance with islamic jihad amoung others who laid the ground work for al queda. it was suspected he has in the past worked with egyptian islamic jihad a group that has since merge with al qadea.

The Egyptians were Q's enemy #1 in the 80's. Of course he exploited the situation any way he could.

His downfall really began when his Soviet equiped military using the latest armor was outflanked and neutered by a bunch of Chadians in Toyota pick-ups.



i don't think we'll be having anymore "fabulous" problems any more

:) But we might have a few "fabulous" aliasses to contend with unfortunately. But it will stop when she finds somewhere else to stalk. She's never coming back this time.

Ally might want to keep an eye on this...

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Mussadegh was elected.



he was only prime minister by the shah but he grew to powerful for the shah. he as prime minster was overthrown

the the Majlis is the Iranian parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq
A while later, the Majlis voted for Mossadegh as new prime minister. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets.