There are many Americans whom you probably admire who could be called murderous.
opinion plays into role, in our opinion we think he was bad, but in his mind and his followers, they see it as good for what they and he were doing. just because we say he was evil and wrong doesnt mean its true, thats just OUR opinion.
messfeeder wrote:
What kind of flack did Clinton get from around the world when he dropped bombs to divert attention from a scandal? None.
Though his death is old news now, I had chocolate cake and BBQ pork in memoriam.
that is how you celebrate Al Zarqawi Day, I Too shall eat pork and choclate cake.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Though his death is old news now, I had chocolate cake and BBQ pork in memoriam.
Well, with logic like that you could excuse anyone. However, if you want to see why we thought that he is evil....look here. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=444099#p444099eagles1106 wrote:
opinion plays into role, in our opinion we think he was bad, but in his mind and his followers, they see it as good for what they and he were doing. just because we say he was evil and wrong doesnt mean its true, thats just OUR opinion.
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-06-16 07:23:33)
Its good he is gone, but wishing for somone to be dead isnt good.
1) Almost none of whom would be unfavorably compared to Zarqawi.Bubbalo wrote:
There are many Americans whom you probably admire who could be called murderous.
2) When you are truly dedicated to your agenda (as you are) you will label Mother Theresa as 'murderous' if it advances that agenda.
Few Americans are known for cutting the heads off live victims with a knife. I think that qualifies as 'murderous' no matter how you slice it.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-16 07:43:52)
Once again I didn't quote or use a name.Xietsu wrote:
OOOH HE CAUGHT YOU HORSEMAN! RED-HOOVED!!
I say " Histories Losers " He answers " Hey, Thats me ! " and says I insulted him ?
It defies logic.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-16 08:09:28)
I think there are different types of wishing somebodys death. I can accept if it's only way to stop someone killing others. But I get sick of those bloodthirsty messages where people celebrate someones death and tell how they wish he suffered as much possible. In my opinion it makes wisher equally brutal.daffytag wrote:
Its good he is gone, but wishing for somone to be dead isnt good.
!!!EXTREMELY GRAPHIC!!! www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/armstrong-murder2.wmv !!!EXTREMELY GRAPHIC!!!!
I am piggy backing on Darth_Fleder for posting this video. This video is why I fight! This is why I wear the uniform, Salute the flag, and kill these cocksucking pieces of shit! I have never seen this video until now. And I swear everytime i hear about something like this makes me see red, makes me want to make them suffer like that man did. You anti-american fuckheads call us heartless, baby-killers, unjust. And you feel sorry for the prisoners that got kicked around a little bit. Then you see a link such as above and YOU HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO CALL US OPPRESSORS?!!! Any of you retarded motherfuckers who feel sorry for these assholes because we are on their holy land can suck the barrel of my M-16 because I can speak for our Government no matter how damaged or imperfect it is, WE ARE NOT GOING TO QUIT, not until this bullshit stops! This is ridiculous, we take their prisoners, feed, clothe them, make sure they have medical care. They take prisoners, beat them, interrogate, shoot them, CUT OFF THEIR HEADS AND DISPLAY THEM! That man didnt deserve to die. The ruthless bastards that were too cowardly to show their faces deserve to! Fuckin cowards and I know at least a few of you feel sorry for those people, because we are on muslim holy land. Fuck their land, fuck the extremists and fuck the people in this forum that thinks we are the evil in this war. These extremists seen a few bombs, they havent even tasted a drop of how brutal we can be.
I am piggy backing on Darth_Fleder for posting this video. This video is why I fight! This is why I wear the uniform, Salute the flag, and kill these cocksucking pieces of shit! I have never seen this video until now. And I swear everytime i hear about something like this makes me see red, makes me want to make them suffer like that man did. You anti-american fuckheads call us heartless, baby-killers, unjust. And you feel sorry for the prisoners that got kicked around a little bit. Then you see a link such as above and YOU HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO CALL US OPPRESSORS?!!! Any of you retarded motherfuckers who feel sorry for these assholes because we are on their holy land can suck the barrel of my M-16 because I can speak for our Government no matter how damaged or imperfect it is, WE ARE NOT GOING TO QUIT, not until this bullshit stops! This is ridiculous, we take their prisoners, feed, clothe them, make sure they have medical care. They take prisoners, beat them, interrogate, shoot them, CUT OFF THEIR HEADS AND DISPLAY THEM! That man didnt deserve to die. The ruthless bastards that were too cowardly to show their faces deserve to! Fuckin cowards and I know at least a few of you feel sorry for those people, because we are on muslim holy land. Fuck their land, fuck the extremists and fuck the people in this forum that thinks we are the evil in this war. These extremists seen a few bombs, they havent even tasted a drop of how brutal we can be.
Last edited by d3v1ldr1v3r13 (2006-06-16 11:35:08)
d3v1ldr1v3r13, call me whatever you want (don't religious though) but in my opinion your attitude is one that keeps wars going and going. Do you think Iraqis, Afganistans or every nation who has been in a war doesn't have such evidence about enemy disgracing their countrymen? If every insult is being retaliated, it'll never end.
Those pictures make me sick too, and so does any such picture, doesn't matter who is victim.
Those pictures make me sick too, and so does any such picture, doesn't matter who is victim.
That's not flack, and I wasn't asking about in America. The rest of the world didn't give a shit when that was going on.spastic bullet wrote:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2033 … dog2bb.jpgmessfeeder wrote:
What kind of flack did Clinton get from around the world when he dropped bombs to divert attention from a scandal? None.
PekaA, I want to keep this war going simply because of the multiple things I have put all over this thread, it isnt just about assumptions, or even ideologies. My whole thing is, how much would your world turn upside down, and how pro war would you be if that were your father in that vid? Mother? Brother? Any close family? You would be speakin a whole other language if it were dude. Yes I want to see the Iraqis thrive, as well as the Afghans. The people deserve it, but its things like that video that not only turn my stomach, but make me wonder about humanity. Look I know Terminator 2 was just a movie, but I will have to agree with one quote from the movie "It is in your nature to destroy yourselves", and realistically it is. All I am saying dude, is that shit like cutting peoples heads off need to end. I say, and anyone who sees that vid the way I do will agree, if they dont care about the LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict), and the ROE (Rules of Engagement), then why should we? Guerilla tactics, surprise attacks, shit like that, if we start using those, like they do to us, what can they really do back to us? I am saying, do what we need to do to win, lets worry about the petty shit later. see what I am aiming for here?
The first time I saw a video of a beheading it made me want to enlist that day and go beat the shit out of those fuckheads. They don't even chop people's heads off, they saw them off with a knife. And then they stand on the victim's stomach so they can hear them weaze. Tell me why we shouldn't celebrate the death of sick people like these.d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
!!!EXTREMELY GRAPHIC!!! www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/armstrong-murder2.wmv !!!EXTREMELY GRAPHIC!!!!
I am piggy backing on Darth_Fleder for posting this video. This video is why I fight! This is why I wear the uniform, Salute the flag, and kill these cocksucking pieces of shit! I have never seen this video until now. And I swear everytime i hear about something like this makes me see red, makes me want to make them suffer like that man did. You anti-american fuckheads call us heartless, baby-killers, unjust. And you feel sorry for the prisoners that got kicked around a little bit. Then you see a link such as above and YOU HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO CALL US OPPRESSORS?!!! Any of you retarded motherfuckers who feel sorry for these assholes because we are on their holy land can suck the barrel of my M-16 because I can speak for our Government no matter how damaged or imperfect it is, WE ARE NOT GOING TO QUIT, not until this bullshit stops! This is ridiculous, we take their prisoners, feed, clothe them, make sure they have medical care. They take prisoners, beat them, interrogate, shoot them, CUT OFF THEIR HEADS AND DISPLAY THEM! That man didnt deserve to die. The ruthless bastards that were too cowardly to show their faces deserve to! Fuckin cowards and I know at least a few of you feel sorry for those people, because we are on muslim holy land. Fuck their land, fuck the extremists and fuck the people in this forum that thinks we are the evil in this war. These extremists seen a few bombs, they havent even tasted a drop of how brutal we can be.
Oh, and seeing things like this as evil is not just an opinion in America. These sick fucks are evil! That is not just an opinion. I don't care who you are or how you were raised, that shit is evil.
I am braced, and still waiting,.... any day now.Y0URDAD wrote:
aftermath of vengeance? Brace yourself for the consequential aftermath of dead insurgents.CameronPoe wrote:
Brace yourselves for the aftermath of vengeance from the insurgency!!! It is gonna be MASSIVE!
Didn't the US death toll just pass 2500 today or yesterday?Horseman 77 wrote:
I am braced, and still waiting,.... any day now.Y0URDAD wrote:
aftermath of vengeance? Brace yourself for the consequential aftermath of dead insurgents.CameronPoe wrote:
Brace yourselves for the aftermath of vengeance from the insurgency!!! It is gonna be MASSIVE!
The aftermath of vengeance....CameronPoe wrote:
Brace yourselves for the aftermath of vengeance from the insurgency!!! It is gonna be MASSIVE!
The aftermath of vengeance is ours.Darth_Fleder in ">http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p461361]AP wrote:
Post-al-Zarqawi raids kill 104 insurgents
Staff and agencies
15 June, 2006
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week‘s killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.
He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsone.ca/ottawarecorder/st … ;id=195046
Weak, Cameron....it certainly wasn't put over the top by any "MASSIVE aftermath of vengeance" that you prognosticated. I'd also like to point out that you have now placed yourself on the wrong side of events. In order for your position to be vindicated, you NEED a massive attack to be succesful against coalition troops. Not a position that I would want to find myself in to be validated by the success of our enemy.CameronPoe wrote:
Didn't the US death toll just pass 2500 today or yesterday?
Let's look at that through the prism of history, shall we? 2500 dead in three years while taking over an entire country, helping to install a democratic government so that future Iraqi's may have the same freedoms that you enjoy, rebuilding a thouroughly destroyed infrastructure and military....I'd have to conclude it is a record low and will be a RECORD achievement.
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-06-16 12:38:18)
Are you suggesting that acts like this should not be responded to?PekkaA wrote:
d3v1ldr1v3r13, call me whatever you want (don't religious though) but in my opinion your attitude is one that keeps wars going and going. Do you think Iraqis, Afganistans or every nation who has been in a war doesn't have such evidence about enemy disgracing their countrymen? If every insult is being retaliated, it'll never end.
Not every nation which has been in war can point to something like this: At WORST our enemies in the current conflict can point to some out of control troops who shot and killed innocents. To me this is not as egregious an offense as decapitating a live person with a knife. Regardless, the accusation has not even been proven, and the stated position of our leadership is that; if it is proven, those troops will be punished.
On the other side we have VIDEO TAPED evidence of the enemy's LEADERSHIP actively involved in decapitations, and encouraging this behavior among thier followers.
To claim that these are moral equivalents among the combatants shows a lack of critical thought on your part.
Saying these are moral equivalents...
Wm. F. Buckley Jr. wrote:
...is like saying that a man who pushes an old woman into the path of an oncoming bus, and a man who pushes an old woman out of the path of an oncoming bus, are both people who push old ladies around.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-16 13:03:50)
The aftermath of vengeance is ours.Darth_Fleder wrote:
The aftermath of vengeance....CameronPoe wrote:
Brace yourselves for the aftermath of vengeance from the insurgency!!! It is gonna be MASSIVE!Darth_Fleder in ">http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p461361]AP wrote:
Post-al-Zarqawi raids kill 104 insurgents
Staff and agencies
15 June, 2006
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week‘s killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.
He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsone.ca/ottawarecorder/st … ;id=195046
Weak, Cameron....it certainly wasn't put over the top by any "MASSIVE aftermath of vengeance" that you prognosticated. I'd also like to point out that you have now placed yourself on the wrong side of events. In order for your position to be vindicated, you NEED a massive attack to be succesful against coalition troops. Not a position that I would want to find myself in to be validated by the success of our enemy.CameronPoe wrote:
Didn't the US death toll just pass 2500 today or yesterday?
Let's look at that through the prism of history, shall we? 2500 dead in three years while taking over an entire country, helping to install a democratic government so that future Iraqi's may have the same freedoms that you enjoy, rebuilding a thouroughly destroyed infrastructure and military....I'd have to conclude it is a record low and will be a RECORD achievement.My original quote was just a flippant 'deliberately annoying' remark, which achieved it's goal given the negs I received. I would add however that you appear to steadfastly believe that this US government is quite altruistic - for a government that has proven itself not to be the most trustworthy in recent times I find this naive. Whatever about the situation on the ground now, the war for me was and always will be illegal and unnecessary. Don't get me wrong I hope the Iraqis get peace again but from what I hear from an Arab friend of mine who has cousins in Baghdad, I don't think the prognosis is good. I certainly don't think US human beings should be placed in the firing line to achieve this goal.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-16 13:12:43)
I have no illusions of any government be entirely altruistic, but in the case of this war I stand firmly behind this government and the executive branch. In this case it is not the Bush administration being the untruthful ones and the perpetrators of lies. I would like to point out to that initial French and European opposition was based on the misrepresentation that the war was being initiated by Bush's desire for oil, when in fact it was several European nations, most notably France, who were benefiting by circumventing the "Oil for Food' program. Germany and Russia had also been involved in arms sales to Iraq in direct violation of the U.N. embargo. Furthermore, as to allegations that Bush lied to get us into the war, then they ALL lied.CameronPoe wrote:
I would add however that you appear to steadfastly believe that this US government is quite altruistic
- for a government that has proven itself not to be the most trustworthy in recent times I find this naive. Whatever about the situation on the ground now, the war for me was and always will be illegal and unnecessary.
Hillary Clinton on the issue.
Mrs. Clinton was an occupant of the white house for eight years. Her husband had access to the same intelligence people that Mr. Bush had. If you people are still have it your minds that Bush lied, it is you who are a little short upstairs.Hillary Clinton wrote:
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran…
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Bill Clinton on the issue...
and the list goes on and on...CNN 1998 (long before Bush) wrote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors...
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
Who lied? I ask again, WHO LIED?
Let's talk naive Cameron. Of course these events did happen when you were but a wee laddie, 8-15 years ago.
As to charge of the war being illegal...produce the proof of your allegation.
Darth you seem to have mistaken me for someone who thinks that European governments haven't lied on 'Oil for Food'. Don't imagine that I am some blindly patriotic European - I am as critical of our governments as I am of the US government.Darth_Fleder wrote:
I have no illusions of any government be entirely altruistic, but in the case of this war I stand firmly behind this government and the executive branch. In this case it is not the Bush administration being the untruthful ones and the perpetrators of lies. I would like to point out to that initial French and European opposition was based on the misrepresentation that the war was being initiated by Bush's desire for oil, when in fact it was several European nations, most notably France, who were benefiting by circumventing the "Oil for Food' program. Germany and Russia had also been involved in arms sales to Iraq in direct violation of the U.N. embargo. Furthermore, as to allegations that Bush lied to get us into the war, then they ALL lied.CameronPoe wrote:
I would add however that you appear to steadfastly believe that this US government is quite altruistic
- for a government that has proven itself not to be the most trustworthy in recent times I find this naive. Whatever about the situation on the ground now, the war for me was and always will be illegal and unnecessary.
Hillary Clinton on the issue.Mrs. Clinton was an occupant of the white house for eight years. Her husband had access to the same intelligence people that Mr. Bush had. If you people are still have it your minds that Bush lied, it is you who are a little short upstairs.Hillary Clinton wrote:
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran…
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Bill Clinton on the issue...and the list goes on and on...CNN 1998 (long before Bush) wrote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors...
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
Who lied? I ask again, WHO LIED?
Let's talk naive Cameron. Of course these events did happen when you were but a wee laddie, 8-15 years ago.
As to charge of the war being illegal...produce the proof of your allegation.
The legality of the war is based on the interpretation of the resolution. It is highly ambiguous and the language normally used in resolutions to authorise military action did not appear although the resolution could be construed in such a way that it did. If that weren't such an issue why did the US and UK press hard for so long to get a second resolution through, but to no avail.
Aside from the semantics of a particular document or any kind of legality issues I fundamentally disagree with foreign intervention anywhere in the world, unless it is to rectify extreme humanitarian issues and is done so in a completely unconditional and altruistic manner.
PS Cheers for the condescending tone - very mature.
I might add, as a counter to your copy and paste stories, that a senior well respected cabinet minister, Sir Robin Cook, resigned from the British cabinet because of how weak he found the case to go to war with Iraq. He said that the intelligence on which the whole thing was based did not satisfy him at all and that this war would not be on his head.
The full text of his stirring resignation speech is below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm
Also, you just posted a lot of pre-Iraq war nonsense about how certain people were that Saddam maintained WMDs. That is a little counter-productive given that none were ever found. LOL! If what your driving at is that Democrats were certain that Iraq was a threat as well as Republicans then big wow - I have no particular affiliation to the views of either party, and as it turns out both were proved incorrect.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-16 16:25:22)
in three years, Things aren't exactly picking up for Al Qeuda.CameronPoe wrote:
Didn't the US death toll just pass 2500 today or yesterday?Horseman 77 wrote:
I am braced, and still waiting,.... any day now.Y0URDAD wrote:
aftermath of vengeance? Brace yourself for the consequential aftermath of dead insurgents.
Who's to say we haven't, but under the radar?d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
Guerilla tactics, surprise attacks, shit like that, if we start using those, like they do to us, what can they really do back to us?
unnamednewbie13, I agree dude, I am sure/know its been happening because some believe including in our own government, that if they dont wanna play by the rules neither do we, I dont doubt its happening and I am glad we are using their shit against them.