Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command (Post 12430034)

do you have any actually facts to proof you are so so right on this ?


- problem with your thinkin
- will be explained


all your thinkin is based on speculation .. thats a problem .. think about it .. yes you speculate that he was not a problem .. yes you speculate that he had no intentions in our direction . . but how do YOU know that ? cant imagine you have em on speed dial and that he was actually informing you about every move he was going to make

two words : terror funding

thats the problem . he does not like the US . he has lots of money . what he be doing with his dollars ?

we dont know .. have no idea .. is he makin large donations to certain organisations without our knowledge ? we dont know . can we stop him .. yes we can and we did

crazy people in charge of countries with lots of monies is NOT a safe situation and SHOULD BE seen as a threat


for that reason Iran is not that much of a problem .. them bitches are broke . .well as good as . . :warning

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 12430178)

50 calls to wake up America...

US Funded Mercenary Contractors in Iraq

Bush's Response

ADG

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 12430325)

Also we installed saddam and after he gassed all those people , we still did business with him.The pic of him shaking hands with rumsfield was after that happened. Also lets talk about Bush the first who told those poor people to rise up against saddam and we will help you and we did nothing.

Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12429133)

I'll answer this - simply because your post is beyond the realms of stupidity.

It is not any business of any country to assume some "rights" to "nation building" in another country. This simply demonstrates total arrogance and stupidity.



Soft?? On who exactly?? Al Queda perhaps??




Enter the national disease - it's all the fault of some political party in the US. News for ya - the world does not give a flying fuck about any political party in the US - they are irrelevant.

Suggest you immediately sign up with US forces and get into the front line and support the country you believe in so much :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12429053)

You remember the day that Colin Powell was used as the dummy to present what was described as "evidence" to the UN? That was prob the last straw in a lack of credibility in the US admin.

It never did need *any* security service or intelligence to know this was a charade. Even the photographs presented as "evidence" had already been published and discounted by press on the ground at these locations.

Will always remember a two second reaction in a CNN press interview with Hans Blick within days prior to the invasion, when he was asked "When US troops invade, do you think Iraqi troops will use nuclear weapons?" The guy stopped for a second, obviously stunned that he was being asked this stupid question - then smiled and answered with a hint of sarcasm, "No, I don't think they will somehow". It was already well-known the whole charade was a farce.

Hell.. can even remember predicting while Rummy's bullshit "Shock and Awe" was in progress that this will be yet another "Vietnam" - and ... low and behold... Intelligence services must be very severely mentally incapacitated to not have a clue of this already - but don't think they were not aware, just in the land of nod and with very little clue of the "way it is" in that region (still think they are totally clueless on this).

OK.. my :2 cents: - the instigators of the Iraq scenario are accountable. They are responsible for the severe hardship, death and injuries of many people (on both sides). I'd go as far to say their action was far worse than any serial killer. There is also the economic cost to their own countries - that has got to be one of the biggest economic disasters ever. Again - they are responsible - no one else.

Equally, both the US and the UK have no business whatsover in the Middle East - they should not even be there. The UK has had a history of screwing up that region and the newcomer on the block (US) has done the same, but with slightly different agenda - the current one being greed and screwing more oil from the region. Bets on, that will never happen.

There are wars and wars - most have been "honorable wars" and had fairly universal support. The other kind, such as in Iraq, are both dishonorable and repugnant to any civilized person. Ultimately, there is a "real cost" to this and I'd have total sympathy for the victims in that real cost (they are usually innocent people) - but always remember who are the main culpable parties. For these people, I have not one ounce of sympathy - they deserve an equal dose of the hell they created for others.

I think it's called karma :pimp

Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12429445)

Sure... noticed this stuff for a while now. The old term was "contractor", and still is, but with expanded sphere of operation. "Contractors" use to deal with stuff the "official govt" could not touch (ie CIA operations at hands length etc).

It's clear that now includes mercenaries dressed up as "contractors" and employed by corps which rip off big time. At the same time, these are the people being used to commit offenses where conventional troops would have a problem.

Shit.. only me, but if I was on some opposing side with a country that conducts it's wars with hired help - they are first in line for a bullet in the head and have no sympathy for em. (Tho - still feel sorry for the guy who does this kinda whoring to earn a living).

On the subject of "sympathy" - just think it is totally disgusting to see kids of 17-18 upwards being sent to a war zone based on the agenda of a perverse idiot. I'd never wish that on any kid - the effects can be long lasting and they have little chance against experienced fighters. Saw a clip on TV recently - three "soldiers" in Iraq around 18 years - hell, they were still stuck to their video games - sad shit.

Back to the economy - firmly believe (after the war is over and a priority) the economy is seriously screwed and suspect to an extent we don't actually know about yet. Can't see any change in this but downwards for ... who knows? Ten years ahead? This is going to cause severe damage all round - both internationally and on the domestic front. It's hard to conceive that the extent of the damage could have happened in.. around 5-6 years. Suspect the US is already at risk on the economic front - especially where other nations are holding large levels of loans, and, tho nobody wants to rock the boat - it prob would not take much for problems to surface.

Give you an example of "confidence" - there was a trade deal with China signed recently for the mutual trading in cars etc. This would have given US car manufacturers an opening to the Chinese market and same with China. But... the US implements... think 2% on Chinese cars and China then slaps 25% duty on US cars. Basically they don't give a shit - the Central Bank of China is already holding more dollars than they want and have an upper hand. It's the old debt-ridden corp scenario where the bank can break the corp any time it likes.

It's kinda stunning that this scenario has been allowed to progress like this and, you are 100% correct, the bill at the end of the day will be presented to US taxpayers - tho they really had little say in the accumulation of that bill. Sad times.

Originally Posted by theking (Post 12430458)

More babble.

Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12429588)

Would agree with that notabook and that there was international support for that action. It would prob fall into the category of an "honorable war".

Would also add... when someone takes a shot at ya, the immediate instinct is to hit back, but on a higher level this may not be prudent. There are plenty ways of skinning a cat and possibly more effective ways - no hurry and plenty time to do it capturing your "opponent" unawares.

Who knows and I sure don't, but smell (in addition to the Afghanistan operation, tho not letting that mess up the longer term goal) it may have been better to "gear up" (with personnel, language training and extended intell etc) and conduct covert operations and attempt to strike at the heart of Al Queda operations - almost to the same level Al Queda elect to use and with the aim of terminating leadership and command structure. This is not a "war" as such, but sustained strikes at where it matters - and no need to have much public discussion over it.

People like Al Queda have never been "beaten" by conventional forces - it has been the same pattern in many countries for centuries. The total flipside to this is often these types of opponents have ultimately sat down at a conference table and, over time, a resolution has been found. (Same scenario, tho different geo situation with the IRA etc).

Still think the instant desire to act was, least in this instance, an error - with declarations of a "War on Terrorism" etc. That type of war is never winnable.
The effect his been an increased support for Al Queda and spreading of sympathetic groups internationally - making the final goal more difficult to achieve.

This is almost like the mentality of a good cop - they will not rush out and have a tantrum without intelligence and background data. They may take a year or so (and sometimes a lot longer) establishing "associations", planting undercover officers etc - then hit when it's least expected.

Sure... the stupid attention paid to Iraq ruined the whole scenario and cost the US a lot of cred internationally.

Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12430406)

Can't quite remember the year, but even before Saddam was placed into office, it was already known he was a thug and that was the basis of engaging him to assassinate the democratically-elected Finance Minister of Iran. Saddam spent almost six months getting briefed in a London hotel by the CIA and, eventually, the assassination succeeded.

BUT... everything blew backwards and the religious element in Iran then took over - exactly what the US did not want (they wanted oil deals at the time), and then the "friendly thug" was armed up to create a war with Iran - another attempt by the US to screw Iran for oil.

Odd when you look back at history - it gets clearer as to how folks may feel about "western imperialism" when they have went thru constant attempts at screwing them :pimp

Originally Posted by theking (Post 12430466)

And even more babble.

Originally Posted by theking (Post 12430476)

Never ending babble. Babble and pigshit dished up by Webby on a daily basis. Fucking pathetic.

Originally Posted by wyldworx (Post 12430495)

but thats what you get when you elect an idiot to run the most powerful country in the world.

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson (Post 12430588)

people, Bush didn't go to Iraq because of WMD but because of (free) OIL :)
once you realize that much other things will make sense....

those oil platforms are drilling millions of dollars in oil a day!!!!

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 12428739)

but I honestly believe that we had more than ample reason to go into Iraq and kick arse.

Originally Posted by allanuk (Post 12428568)

A few years ago, there seemed to be a very much pro Bush and pro war feeling from most of you in the USA, almost not beliving that others outside the USA thought it wrong.

So how do you feel now?

In the UK, I think 80% or more are against the war and glad Blair is now going.

And in other countries the mood also seems to be against the war.

Also from the news in the UK you get the feeling people are now turning against Bush.

so what are your feelings now?

Originally Posted by theking (Post 12430726)

I advocated the take down of Sadaam and the Bathist government...for multiple reasons...

Originally Posted by theking (Post 12430726)

We then decided to establish a democratic government.

Originally Posted by theking (Post 12430726)

Who is to blame? Civilian leadership that the military is required by law to say yes sir too.

Originally Posted by David - PG (Post 12430749)

For those interested, go over to http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003...s/2007.05.html and look at the faces of those who died in this ridiculous "war for freedom".

Some recent casualties:

Date: May 2007
Rank & Name: Pfc. Roy L. Jones III
Age: 21
Unit: 984th Military Police Company, 759th Military Police Battalion
Hometown: Houston, Texas
Details: Died of wounds suffered from small-arms fire in Diwaniya, Iraq, on May 10, 2007

Why did this kid have to die? His life had barely begun.

I love it how the right wings now use the term "The Cost of Freedom". Was this kid's death worth the pain his family suffers? Did him giving his life completely trusting our Commander in Chief's assessment that it's a just cause improve our safety and level of freedom?

Originally Posted by David - PG (Post 12430749)

For those interested, go over to http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003...s/2007.05.html and look at the faces of those who died in this ridiculous "war for freedom".

Originally Posted by theking (Post 12430726)

Will it be brought under control? No. Who is to blame? Civilian leadership that the military is required by law to say yes sir too.

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command (Post 12430034)

crazy people in charge of countries with lots of monies is NOT a safe situation and SHOULD BE seen as a threat

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command (Post 12430034)

do you have any actually facts to proof you are so so right on this ?


- problem with your thinkin
- will be explained


all your thinkin is based on speculation .. thats a problem .. think about it .. yes you speculate that he was not a problem .. yes you speculate that he had no intentions in our direction . . but how do YOU know that ? cant imagine you have em on speed dial and that he was actually informing you about every move he was going to make

two words : terror funding

thats the problem . he does not like the US . he has lots of money . what he be doing with his dollars ?

we dont know .. have no idea .. is he makin large donations to certain organisations without our knowledge ? we dont know . can we stop him .. yes we can and we did

crazy people in charge of countries with lots of monies is NOT a safe situation and SHOULD BE seen as a threat


for that reason Iran is not that much of a problem .. them bitches are broke . .well as good as . . :warning

Originally Posted by theking (Post 12430726)

I have never been a fan of President Bush and I am even less so at this point. As for the invasion of Iraq. I advocated the take down of Sadaam and the Bathist government...for multiple reasons...within months of the cease fire in '91. I was still and advocate when we invaded. The take down of Sadaam and the Bathist government was accomplished within the first 24 days. Mission accomplished. We then decided to establish a democratic government. Millions of Iraqi's voted on multiple occasions to estabish a constitution and a democratic government. Mission accomplished. We should have called it a day and withdrew when the government was established.

Am I pleased with the prosecution of this so called "war"? No...not at all. Could it have gone better? Yes. Could the current level of turmoil have been avoided? Yes...absolutely. Could the current level of turmoil be brought under control? Yes...of course. Will it be brought under control? No. Who is to blame? Civilian leadership that the military is required by law to say yes sir too.

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command (Post 12430034)

two words : terror funding

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command (Post 12430034)

thats the problem . he does not like the US . he has lots of money . what he be doing with his dollars ?

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command (Post 12430034)

we dont know .. have no idea .. is he makin large donations to certain organisations without our knowledge ? we dont know .

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command (Post 12430034)

crazy people in charge of countries with lots of monies is NOT a safe situation and SHOULD BE seen as a threat

Originally Posted by Deputy Chief Command (Post 12430034)

for that reason Iran is not that much of a problem .. them bitches are broke . .well as good as . . :warning

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 12430310)

lets not talk about most of the 911 terrorists were saudi's and they definitely fund terrorism but the right is silent about that.

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 12430325)

Also we installed saddam and after he gassed all those people , we still did business with him.The pic of him shaking hands with rumsfield was after that happened. Also lets talk about Bush the first who told those poor people to rise up against saddam and we will help you and we did nothing.

Originally Posted by allanuk (Post 12428568)

A few years ago, there seemed to be a very much pro Bush and pro war feeling from most of you in the USA, almost not beliving that others outside the USA thought it wrong.

Originally Posted by Supaflyz (Post 12431833)

I wonder why the us governement aren't so concerned about the 10,000+ us citizens shot and killed by guns EVERY year.

Originally Posted by Supaflyz (Post 12431833)

I wonder why the us governement aren't so concerned about the 10,000+ us citizens shot and killed by guns EVERY year.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 12428739)

I could care less about Bush but I honestly believe that we had more than ample reason to go into Iraq and kick arse. While everyone hypes up the WMD arguement, well, there was a list of a dozen or so reasons why we went in - gross violations of prior terms set up with Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War including them shooting at US warplanes.

Shoot at a US Warplane and we'll invade your country and destroy your government. That sends a pretty clear message to others.

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 12430325)

Also we installed saddam and after he gassed all those people , we still did business with him.The pic of him shaking hands with rumsfield was after that happened. Also lets talk about Bush the first who told those poor people to rise up against saddam and we will help you and we did nothing.

Originally Posted by Supaflyz (Post 12431833)

I wonder why the us governement aren't so concerned about the 10,000+ us citizens shot and killed by guns EVERY year.

Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12430895)

Totally agree David - many of these "soldiers" were little more than teens with little chance on a "war front". It takes guts and bravery for any leader to send kids to fight a war.

The plus these guys got was more than any Iraqi ever got - at least their bodies got counted.

Here's a few more who never got the honor of being counted:

http://http://www.coia.org.uk/babybk.jpg

http://www.coia.org.uk/babyfrt.jpg

http://www.coia.org.uk/samarra_mass8.jpg

http://www.coia.org.uk/ahmed.jpg


http://www.coia.org.uk/us_raid_Ishaqi1.jpg

http://www.coia.org.uk/samarra_mass2.jpg

http://www.coia.org.uk/carrychild.jpg

http://www.coia.org.uk/baquba_children.jpg


And nice pic of the retarded thug and imbecile responsible for their deaths/maimings - "George The Baby Lover":


http://www.coia.org.uk/bushbaby.jpg

Originally Posted by Yahook (Post 12433138)

I think war in Iraq was big mistake :(

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks (Post 12429749)

Nation building is essential because democracies don't export terror.