USA destroying hospitals in Falluja so the world media can't show dead civilians.

Good point Charly

The ignorant in here may have other opinions and they are entitled to them.

The unfortuate bit for them is they are totally out of sync with the rest of the world.

There is little doubt the US will fuck off out of Iraq when they have killed plenty more. There is also little doubt these "insurgents"/"terrorists"/"common criminals" will see that last boatload of em out of the country.

History has a habit of repeating itself - same with Russia in Afghanistan, - but some are too retarded to get even past War 101.

Yeehaw!

It did not take much brain matter to see that!

You and Rich were perfect for the job then.

(Oh, and Yeehaaaaaw! again)

in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

Iraq has a government and a constitution. The "insurgents" are fighting against the establishment of the government and the constitution...as they are killing more of their own people (specifically those that work for the Iraqi government) than the coalition forces are killing "innocent" Iraqi's.

Get it right, Speedbump, Iraq has a puppet government.

You are correct...Richy boy is a liar...but we have known this since he challeged Collins education credentials...and Collins proved his credentials...and Richy boy came up with...the story that he (Richy boy) has three degrees...and owns three of the largest casinos on the net (which unlike Collin...he failed to prove)...when in fact if you could do a search on this board you will learn that he has a mediocre AVS site.

He is also so intelligent and well read that he was unable to predict the outcome of the election correctly. He is no more than an America bashing...troll...along the same line as directfiesta and others like him.

Get it right...asswipe...Iraq has an interim government until elections are held.

Hear, Hear!

Rich clearly has a head on his shoulders. Him and I happen to have different opinions on many things, but I wouldn't call the man stupid.

As for being a liar, I've seen no evidence of it myself and won't buy it until I do. If he infact does own ANY online casinos, regardless of how large they are, it wouldn't be in his best interests to go parading around that kind of specific information. The US treasury takes a very unfavorable stance on Internet gaming and I can't see how winning an argument on GFY would be worth putting yourself in the crosshairs.

He is Canadian (thus I do not know what interest the US treasury would have in him...maybe you can explain)...and when he questioned Collin's education credentials and Colin proved his education credentials...Rich would not prove his proclaimed three degrees...which does not have anything to do with casinos.

The problem with the Us treasurey for Canadians is going to the United States. You see, when a Canadian operating an online Casino allows an American to gamble there (by action or inaction) he is breaking American laws. Those particular US laws carry some severe consquences too.

As for the degrees, I don't know. He's obviously well spoken. He writes in concise and to the point paragraphs. He probably has some sort of education. The thing is, I don't really care how many degrees he has. It doesn't change the value I internally assign to what he has to say.

Rich used to piss me off too. I've had more than one argument with him myself. The kind of reaction you're having to him reminds me of how I might have acted when I was 20 years old. Now that I'm 30 and a little wiser by way of experiences, I find myself carefully considering things he has to say. I may not agree with him, and that's kind of the point. You'd be surprised what you might learn by looking at the world through somebody else's point of view.

Your report about what was said is correct and Richy boys is not...=misinformation/liar.

I discuss politics on a daily basis with everyone from my wife to my super conservative mom to my gay liberal, Bush hating brother and never have I encountered the propagandist gobbledegook that Rich spews out. I think theking's point is that even when Rich is proven wrong, he will come back with some sort of rationale or far-fetched theory as to why he is actually right. He predicted Kerry would win the election, now that Kerry hasn't, Rich says he actually predicted Kerry would get more votes (which he didn't do either, but what else can he say?). Rich said the mainstream US media (all of it) is pro-Bush and pro-America, then changed that to just the network news (not the NY Times), then changed it back to all media again when I called him on it. He then proceeds to use an American article bashing Bush and the US troops in Fallujah as a proof for some other point. Thought all US media was only pro-Bush (?). Believe me, I love learning from people and debating politics, but you have to actually be intelligent and have some sort of intellectual honesty for me to take you seriously. Breaking out the tinfoil hats and calling someone a redneck because they don't agree with you is not my idea of intellectual honesty. If you're getting something out of your conversations with him, more power to you though.

Well...I am in my late forties...and while I read alot of what Richy boy has to say...I learn little if any from it...because he is basically an America bashing troll and no more than that. He places great weight on...seemingly...all negative reports about America while claiming that his sources are the "real" truth when they of course are just another biased source as I have found all media sources to be...to one degree or another. The truth lies somewhere in the middle...and as for America...it wears niether a black hat or a white hat...but a hat with some shades of gray. In other words his negative bashing reports and misinformation he persists in providing...I find...leave him without credibility...the overwhemling majority of the time.

Excellent critique.

Funny how these whiners , Bush bashers, and appeasers sound pretty much the same. How many times must their ideas be rejected and their beloved candidates defeated before they "get it"????????

Cool graphic, but where are my favorite losers: Eminem and P.Diddy?

Hey, don't call Bon Jovi a loser!!!!!! Now I am pissed.

you really don't get it do you. So here is the simple version.

THE AMERICANS ARE THE INVADERS ANY IRAQIS COLLABERATING WITH THEM ARE HELPING THE INVADERS. THEY ARE FIGHTING THOSE DEFENDING THEIR HOMELAND FROM THE INVADERS.

Added to this fact is the whole reason for the invasion was WMD, terrorism and the threat to the US. All of which turned out to be fabrications by the US administration.

The US will NEVER defeat terrorism using these tactics. The just encourage more hatred.

Why so I can give intelligent responses like you do?

Not one part of your response argued a single word I said.

It's too late in the day to deal with your nonsense and fabrications. I've said all I need to in this thread. If you choose not to believe it, that's fine by me. Caps lock and rhetoric don't make you any less of a propaganda spouting idiot than when you first posted in this thread. If you think the people fighting the US and Iraqi forces in Iraq right now deserve to have control of that country, then you're beyond help. Luckily, the majority of the people in Iraq want to control their own destiny and don't want these people to be in power. Hence why they fight *with* the "invaders". Here's an idea: why don't you go on over there and see if you can help out these guys we're going up against? I'm sure they could use a man of your vast intellectual capacity to organize their plans and run their operation to rid their country of "invaders". You might be able to gurgle out "But I defended you guys on GFYYYY..." before they saw your head off like the nice guys they've proven themselves to be.

It is you that does not get it clueless...the reasons provided by you were "public" reasons...when the real reasons are "strategic" reasons...but you are to clueless to ever grasp the concept.

What some refuse to realise is this is a war against terrorism, that the terrorist are elated is happening.

Terrorism is born out of hatred; the terrorist leaders need an evil enemy so they can motivate the people to fight against it.

The Vietnamese had the French, then the Americans.
The IRA had the Protestants and the British Government.
The Palestinians have the Israelis.

Now Al-Queda has the US.

A Godsend for them. The biggest military might in the world decided to crush a little insignificant leader, but a Muslim hero, based on false information.

To achieve this they launched their mighty army against pitiful resistance, remember how long the war took, to kill thousands of innocent people.

Few of these people had ever tried to rise up against this leader who was probably loved by the majority of his countrymen.

When the reasons for the invasion were discovered to be false they carried on. They did change the reason now; apparently the reason was to liberate them by killing so many.

The war on terror cannot be won by crushing a nation, and if the Blitz on England taught anything it was that you couldn?t bomb peoples will to resist. Terrorist can operate out of a room; they do not need a government behind them.

So what do they need?

An enemy who they can promote as the devil, out to destroy them.
Victims they can turn into martyrs.
Financial support, this can be from rich supporters or extortion on the ground.
But most of all they need HATE to recruit more members.

Did it not strike you as strange that after a prolonged session of silence Bin Laden releases to the news media a week before the Presidential election? He has hardly been in front of a camera for how long? Then he pops up to look his best in years, does not look like he's a frightened or living in caves. To announce the fight goes on.

Bush's strongest asset is his war on terror, seems Bin Laden needs him as much as Bush needed Bin Laden. Yes he did point out the fight goes on against Kerry, but would it of been too hard to believe if he had said, "Vote for Kerry and I will stop". That might of made it a little too unbelievable.

The terrorists recruiters are happy to see the might of the US crushing the poor innocent people and freedom fighters in Iraq. It could not of worked out better for them.

Especially now they can also poit the finger at the new Attorny General. Bush's first appointment is the man who tore up the Geneva Convention.

To defeat terrorism you have to win the minds and hearts of the people supporting them. This war has done the opposite.

Now if you disagree with this view, please try to look clever by taking my points and showing where they are wrong. Calling me a clown, buffoon, idiot, etc. and not pointing out where I'm wrong will simply show you as less than me.


trouserrat how do you know what the majority of people want in Iraq? How many times have you been there? How long did you spend there? How many Iraqis have you met and spoken to? Neither you nor me know what they want, we only think we know.

The IRA was supported by the minority in Northern Ireland, plus a lot of Irish Americans, as freedom fighters. It was not until the UK goverment won respect and took that support away that they lost their effectivenesss as a political terrorist group.

Another very scary post by you. This kind of "realpolitik" rationale for starting a war is frightening. Are you acknowledging that the Bush gov't did trump up the case for war to the UN and American public on purpose?

I am so glad I came back to read where this thread had progressed. Thank you.

What you seem to clueless to grasp...is this. The USA is a Republic...which means that we elect other Americans to represent us...this applies to City Government...County Government...State Government and Federal Government. These elected representatives make decisions that they perceive to be in the best interests of their constituents...at the City level...the County level...the State level and the Federal level. At the Federal level these elected representatives make decisions that they perceive to be in the best interests of America. When the Federal Government perceives that something is not in the best interests of America they will modify their policies/make new policies...or when the majority of Americans percieve that they do not like the decisions being made by their elected representatives they...via the vote...will not re-elect those representatives again...so they will be replaced. In the case of the Federal Government members of the House have to face re-election every two years...in the case of the Senate...every six years and in the case of the President every four years.

I believe that the duly elected representatives of America and Americans are more knowledgeable and in a better position to percieve what is in the best interests of America than some nasty toothed clueless foreign pornographer.

It really is an easy concept to grasp...America will do what it chooses to do until it perceives that it is not in the best interest of America. If anyone attempts to deny America of what it perceives to be in its best interest...we have the capability to kill them...by the numbers...and will happily do so.

You of course can feel free to make your "points" but it is of no import...as you have zero input into the decisions made by the duly elected representatives of America.

I am not in a position to know if they trumped up the case or not. All of the worlds major intelligence agencies...concurred with US agencies that Saddam possessed WMD's and had the capability of producing WMD's and Saddam openely supported terrorist orgs as demonstrated by the monies he provided in support of several Palestinian terrorist orgs. So the public reasons provided by the Administration were because they believed them...but in my opinion the public reasons provided were never the important reasons. I stated prior to the invasion that "strategic" reasons were the important reasons.

Whatever the reasons...it is really not important...as America elects leaders to do what they perceive to be in the best interests of America...if others benefit..or do not benefit...is of little import.

It always made me cringe to hear the naive comments like W. just wanted to finish off his daddy's work or he is a little-brained man who's Iraq policy was hijacked by the neo-cons in the Beltway who pushed for war... but I also never believed that the US would kill tens of thousands of opposition soldiers who were ordered to stand guard and protect their country from the invaders because of some "strategic" reason like securing oil reserves in friendly hands or whatever you are intimating.

Strategically it is not just oil. It is an extention on the global war on terror. Iraq strategically locates the US so that we can confront other actual...and potential...enemies in the Mid-East. Part of the "strategic goal" is to develop a Democracy in the Muslim world and turn it into a "jewel" of the Mid-East (the massive oil reserves would provide the money to do this) which the thinking is...will then cause other Muslim countries in the AO to topple their goverments and develop Democracies. It is a big picture...strategic...forward thinking strategy. I have my doubts that our goals will be acheived...not because they cannot be acheived...but because I do not think my fellow Americans will provide their support for the decade or more that I think it will take to acheive any semblance of a stable Democracy in Iraq. Our current leaders express hope that a stable Democracy is achievable in five years...but I suspect that is for public consumption.

Some of you see things in black and white.

Others of you see your cultural values as being those of the world.


Let's get a few basic points out of the way so people stop arguing them.

1. Just because one side is doing something wrong, doesn't make the other side "right".

2. What you think is American Forces trying to look bad in the media might actually be a flawed conclusion.

3. If only moderatlely religious people are risking their lives to fight better trained, better armed American forces, maybe its worth finding out why.

4. Muslim Law dictates that God makes Law, and God rules Man, not vice versa, therefore the Quran promotes theocracy, not democracy. Just because you think DEMOCRACY = FREEDOM! doesn't mean everyone wants it.

Also, if you think US Democracy is purer than a 500 dollar Colombian eightball, think again:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/res...ntresults1.htm

Bay Village: 13,710 registered voters; 18,663 ballots cast
Beachwood: 9,943 registered voters; 13,939 ballots cast
Bedford: 9,942 registered voters; 14,465 ballots cast
Bedford Heights: 8,142 registered voters; 13,512 ballots cast
Brooklyn: 8,016 registered voters; 12,303 ballots cast
Brooklyn Heights: 1,144 registered voters; 1,869 ballots cast
Chagrin Falls (VIL): 3,557 registered voters; 4,860 ballots cast
Cuyahoga Heights: 570 registered voters; 1,382 ballots cast
Fairview Park: 13,342 registered voters; 18,472 ballots cast
Highland Hills: 760 registered voters; 8,822 ballots cast (Over ELEVEN TIMES more votes than voters! You get the cookie!)
Independence: 5,735 registered voters; 6,226 ballots cast
Mayfield (VIL): 2,764 registered voters; 3,145 ballots cast
Middleburg Heights: 12,173 registered voters; 14,854 ballots cast
North Olmsted: 25,794 registered voters; 25,887 ballots cast
Oakwood (VIL): 2,746 registered voters; 7,099 ballots cast
Olmsted Falls: 6,538 registered voters; 7,328 ballots cast
Pepper Pike: 5,131 registered voters; 6,479 ballots cast
Rocky River: 16,600 registered voters; 20,070 ballots cast
Solon (Ward 6): 2,292 registered voters; 4,300 ballots cast
South Euclid: 16,902 registered voters; 16,917 ballots cast
Strongsville (Ward 3): 7,806 registered voters; 12,108 ballots cast
University Heights: 10,072 registered voters; 11,982 ballots cast
Warrensville Heights: 10,562 registered voters; 15,039 ballots cast
Woodmere (VIL): 558 registered voters; 8,854 ballots cast (Oh no, wait! SIXTEEN TIMES! You get a cookie, too!)

(thanks to Codehappy for this)


If the people you are trying to help are shooting at you, maybe you're not helping them as much as you think.

If you think that attacking a hospital is anything but strategic, perhaps research the enemy's past tactics.

Nothing in this war, in any war, is black and white.

Everyone who fires a bullet if they don't have to is in the wrong.

So you are basically saying it is justifiable to send US soldiers into sovereign nations and take out their leaders and kills tens of thousands in the name of some nation-building theory or trying to re-make the world in your image or what you hope to turn it into. That may be some of the scariest logic I have ever seen someone express. So much for the US being a benign superpower and a force of good. You are suggesting if you have the might and an idea, then you have the right to kill and remove leaders and install new governments based around your sensibilities if you are not happy about what you see going on somehwere and are the final judge and jury about how other countries should behave... The case for war was vetted by the american population as being justifiable as there was imminent danger of WMD's being launched against the US or linkage to handing them off to terrorists, not sending US people to die and kill in the name of some fanciful rationale like spreading your version of democracy throughout the world and "freeing" people from the yoke of oppression or whatever fictional circle-jerk self image Americans have of themselves as the land of the free and like to think they must do for other countries and in your post is a good enough pretense for all the loss of life.

Amazing, first the US must go to war because of
1. imminent threat of nucleur suitcase bombs coming into the US via Iraq or
2. other WMD nightmare scenerio, then it was
3. linkage to terrorists, then, when all that was shown to be a load of BS, it is because
4. Saddam is a bad man and show endless news clips of the same one scene in the 80's when he supposedly gassed the Kurds, and then
5. the world is a better place without Saddam in power and now
6. all the above was indeed lies but it doesn't matter as there were "strategic" reasons to go to war that we don't need to worry our little minds about because the gov't knows what its doing in the global game of realpolitik chess by forcing US democracy in Iraq as a prelude to it spreading to other muslim countries nearby and thats why your sons and daughters were slaughtered.

Saddam and the Baathist party were sworn enemies of the United States. Saddam's forces fired almost daily upon American and British forces for about eleven years. Saddam attempted to kill an American President. Saddam...on multiple occasions called for Americans to be killed where ever they are found. Saddam had the capability to rebuild his "WMD Machine" even if it turned out that he did not already have stock piles of them. Saddam supported terrorists. Saddam was a terrorist and had personally not only ordered the execution of many but in fact had executed many himself.

The administration declared global war on terrorism...and Saddam made himself an easy target for the extention of the war on terrorism...to "strategical" foward thinking that places the USA in a position to deal with actual and potential enemies in the area as well as attaining other goals.

I do not know how old you are but the US has never been about being a force for good. The US is just like any other country in that it does what it perceives to be in its best interest...the difference being that it is one of the few countries that can actually act upon what it perceives to be in its best interest. The US has never worn a white hat...and does not wear a black hat...it often wears various shades of gray hats.

FYI...the President never stated that Iraq represented an "imminent" threat. The President said that it was a growing threat and that we could not wait for any country to become an "imminent" threat...thus he imposed the doctrine of pre-emption with the overwhelming approval of the Congress and the American people.

I for one concur with the policy that one cannot allow a country to become an imminent threat...and the policy of pre-emption. I have practiced the same policy...on a personl level...all of my life...ie...if I perceive that you are going to physically attack me...I will attack you first.

I take it you do not like American policy...at least as it regards Iraq. If you are American then write to your Congressman and express your views...and write a letter to the President from time to time expressing your views. You also can exercise the power of the vote...or become an activist. That is the American way.

I am 40, and I don't think you appreciate the perception of the US that people around the world have and how that has been challenged recently. People want to believe the US is a force of good and wears the white hat for the most part. I think you are wrong. I think the US wants to act internationally under a moral code of Judeo-Chrstian decency to others beyond strict self interest. If they can go anywhere they please under the rationale of a policy of pre-emption and self-interest because they are the one country with the might to do it, then the rest of the world will shortly be lining up against the US as who may be next . Will it be Canada because the US is running out of clean running water and if we don't share our water resources, Canada is a threat to the well being of the US and thus the US can act to secure its water needs because Canada is being evil by not sharing. If the US can act as it pleases without any moral compass, than the world will become a scary place.

Ahh...but America does act with a moral compass...it only attacks those that have made themselves into a perceived enemy of America...and even more importantly may have acted out physically against America...such as Saddam did. Fortunately the vast majority of countries have better sense than to make themselves a perceived enemy and even more importantly not to physically act against America. Even Canada is aware of this.

As for water...the US is surrounded on three sides by a vast expanse of water... and I am satisfied that you have heard of purifying sea water...thus water will not be a real problem for a few hundred years at least. Several countries do it for a source of water.

Arguing with you and the likes of Rich is meaningless. You will spin it any way you want after all is said and done regardless of what the truth is. Your belief is we are all a bunch of one tooth war mongering rednecks, chewing and spitting tobacco in the middle of some shit hole desert taking target practice at anything that walks.

You just seem to forget the facts of the past 15 years.

*News flash: Sitting down with them over cookies and milk didn't work as you and Rich would like to believe.

Programs didn't work like the food for oil. hmmm...450,000 kids died due to starvation while those at the top got fat and happy.

Opportinity was at the front door. All they had to do was to join the civilized world. But as with any regime whose philosophy is based on oppression, they chose to oppress their own people through intimidation and violence while feeding them propoganda that Democracy is the enemy.

That is a great society for anyone to flourish in.

As our motto was in 5th Group "De Oppresso Liber"

Now I need to run to the store and get my Copenhagen....Yeehaw!

You...of course...are correct. BTW don't forget to roll down the car window when you spit.

Rich doesn't understand and never will. He believes everything between the lines and spins it so it suits him.

He actually believes that it is the Iraqi people defending their homeland and not the oppressors that exist there.

I solved that problem like any other redneck. I broke the windows out so I wouldn't have to remember to roll them down.

Psssst Rich.....That was a fucking joke.

I suspect Richy boy likes a chaw from time to time.

That's correct, the "insurgents" or "terrorists" as you guys like to call them do believe they are fighting against a colonial power, just as the Vietnamese did. They're not fighting because "they hate democracy". People are pissed off that they were refused democracy a year ago.

Read the article I linked to old man, there were two. The first hospital was taken over, then the clinic was bombed and 20 doctors killed. If you're going to insist on posting, try to keep up with the rest of the class please.

I appreciate the kind words, and don't worry about explaining anything to these trolls. theking can't understand how someone can run adult sites and casinos at the same time. Now according to him I run one AVS site, since I made a post about what converts with my AVS member traffic. lol, he really understands this business.

I don't agree with the America/Military bashing. Even Bill Maher, a 'hated liberal', made a comment about this on his last show. He showed that silly newspaper front page from the UK, showing Bush, and the headline below it "How could 59 million people be so dumb?"

His reply was: "If we want your opinion - we'll dictate it to Tony Blair. Tell me again - how many people voted for Prince Charles? Oh yeah, that's right - 0. He got the job because his great, great, great grandfather married a duchess."

My point being however, that locally, those Republicans who are up in arms about being stereotyped are simply the pot calling the kettle black. EG - liberal is a bad word, all of us democrats hate god and religion, and really only voted because we think P Diddy is the shizzle.

And my favorite- if you're against the war, you're against America.
Oh yeah, and you're stupid and don't get it.

I voted as I did for simple reasons: While I get the theory re: Iraq that someone gave above, it's not compelling for me. It smacks of the Domino theory that got us into Korea and Vietnam. Aside from the Gulf War, our government's history on wars since WW 2 has been terrible. They haven't really earned any trust in the area.

I also don't agree with the tax policies - though I am cautiously for privatization of Social Security.

And finally, I see a tail trying to wag the dog in terms of the Religious Right, and see the Republican party getting itself into deeper and deeper political debt with a group that does not represent the constitution,but instead represents mixing Church and State and legislation of morality.

The divisiveness on both sides has ceased to be about the issues.

nice post