Thread: US attack in Iraq (WAR Talk)

>>Rumsfelt seems to forget about the images of Iraqis being killed sent around the world live. He forgets about the images of Iraqi POW's.

>>He also conveniently forgets about denying people from other countries the same rights as he gives US citizens. ie David Hicks as compared to John Lindt.


1. We don't interrogate these POW's on television - in fact the media is not allowed to speak to them...

2. Your bleeding heart for terrorists is quite astonishing - these ppl are foreign fighters not even ethnic afghanis and were already in limbo going from one jihad to another... they are all from other countries who somehow found themselves inside of afghanistan to fight a war against the US and these were also the 'worst of the worst'... The actions in afghanistan are not even over so they can rot as far as i'm concerned - in fact i'd like to personally see them taken to a barge and sunk in the ocean just off the Cuban coast - the only thing that keeps them alive is they are potential info sources - once that's been milked I think it would be nice if we packed them up and sent them to some US ally in which the media is not so omnipresent - and we can off them there using torture - no one will miss them - except novacain...

Oh, I was going to make a rational point, but then I saw it was OSR.

Does nobody else see the irony of starting a war with someone because they won't follow the rules and then, during the war, complaining because they aren't following the rules?

Don't forget, this time round the idea isn't just to kick him in the teeth and tell him he's a naughty boy. We are going in to kill Hussein, all his cronies and his entire armed forces (if they don't surrender). To the people around Hussein we are nothing but marauding invaders a bit like the Nazis (yes I know we are doing it for the greater good but they won't see it like that will they?). Bearing that in mind I don't expect Saddam to comply by the Geneva Convention for one second. In fact I am surprised he has played as fair as he has up till now, of course, we haven't entered Baghdad yet. I am also surprised he hasn't unleashed any of those chenical and bio weapons on our troops (he does have them after all doesn't he?), I know I would. If someone is fighting for their life they fight a lot harder and a lot more vicious than they do for material posessions or anything else.

Another thing, I have a mate in Iraq with The Royal Marines and if he was captured I would be over the moon for him to be interviewed on TV with dumb questions like 'Why did you come to Iraq?'. At least if I could see him lookng relatively well I would know he wasn't being beaten half to death on a cold, stone prison floor.

He won't hurt you; the US will protect you.

It might be hard to believe, but we are not afraid of any Iraqi. No Iraqi has ever threatened to harm me, so I have no intention to harm one of them for my personal protection.

I do think some harm now is better than prolonged suffering for a whole country under this man, so I'm pro-war, but I still can't help but argue pro-Iraq whenever I read about other pro-war oppinions because they are either naive ( "we attack his country to capture and kill him... he should at least play fair" ) or warmongering and seriously misinformed ( "we should kill all those iraqi terrorists" ).

> Anyone notice we are not being given Coalition casualty figures only the Iraqi casualties?

You're not looking hard enough (or at all), then. I saw casualty figures yesterday on CNN.

edit: I just checked again - 45 confirmed coalition dead so far.

>Anyone notice we are not being given Coalition casualty figures only the Iraqi casualties?

WRONG, i dont know what your crappy media has ben giving you but they have been telling us quite well how many us soldiers have been captured and died.

>From the Pentagon == from Donald Rumsfelt.

SINCE WHEN IS HE THE ONLY EMPLOYEE?!!?

>
He started this by complaining the Iraqis were not abiding by the Geneva Convention (in showing footage of US POW's).
Rumsfelt seems to forget about the images of Iraqis being killed sent around the world live.
He forgets about the images of Iraqi POW's.
<

i have not seen one Iraqi POW's face except during capture which is not from what i've been told a violation.
and SHOWING THEIR FACES DONT NOT COMPARE TO INTEROGATION AND EXECUTION SO STFU!

>
He also conveniently forgets about denying people from other countries the same rights as he gives US citizens. ie David Hicks as compared to John Lindt.
<

THEY ARE GODDDAMNED ILLEGAL COMBATANTS OR TERORISTS END OF STORY SO STFU.

>
How can a place be staffed by US Navy personel, under US control in a hostile country (Cuba) and funded by US tax payers but NOT under US law? (as per the US Supreme Court ruling)
<

ask them, im sure they have a good reason, stfu.

>This is why we needed an international court. Pity the US passed the "Haig Invasion Act" and sqashed the IJC.

awww, I and most would never support letting U.S. citzens be tried by the anti-american vandals at the U.N. , and i dont expect any other nation to either.
GET OVER IT.

>This was an unconfirmed news report on the 7th March 2003. Well before the war started. IMHO just part of the pre war propaganda.

WATCH THE FREAKING NEWS THEY JUST REPORTED THEY FOUND AN ASSLOAD OF U.S. UNIFORMS!!

edit:: why do you think i put the word "fact" in quotes anyway? bacause its unconfirmed.

I think the jist of the preceding is for novacain to STFU!

bythe way nova I hear AL Queda put up a recruitment website, go sign up, and shut up. Actually im sure they'd love to hear your bull$$$$.

_________________________

>We don't interrogate these POW's on television

WE DONT INTEROGATE IRAQI POWS AT ALL.

>
Does nobody else see the irony of starting a war with someone because they won't follow the rules and then, during the war, complaining because they aren't following the rules?
<

these are entirely differnt matters.

>
I am also surprised he hasn't unleashed any of those chenical and bio weapons on our troops (he does have them after all doesn't he?)
<

supposedly he's already given the order if we approach baghdad.
and i guess the fact they found 3000 chem suits doesn't mean anything to you?

>I know I would.

just shows how different people are huh...

Jesus Christ, relax.....

> WE DONT INTEROGATE IRAQI POWS AT ALL.

Wow... If you believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

no-one:

>>>
THEY ARE GODDDAMNED ILLEGAL COMBATANTS OR TERORISTS END OF STORY SO STFU.
<<<

Putting those labels on these people does not alter the fact that they are human beings. The US is very keen to be seen as the protector of human rights.

One persons terrorist is another persons hero, consider, there are Iraqi's fighting against the official Iraqi army units in Basra. By doing so, they are, effectively, traitors to their government, terrorists no less. Should the US incarcerate these people or clap them on the back.

>>> ask them, im sure they have a good reason,

Most obvious being by doing so, they do not have to do anything else.

>>> and i dont expect any other nation to either.

The former Serbian president is being tried at The Hague as we "speak". He is not the first, and will not be the last.

Finally, shouting and insulting people is likely to get your posts edited or deleted. Debate rationally.

no-one,

I didn't understand any of your points. But I think you are preaching to someone who is already agreeing.

>>
these are entirely differnt matters.
<<

What I mean is that he's a $$$hole right? We knew that before we went in, in fact it's partly why we went in. So it comes as absolutely no surprise if he's an $$$hole to our troops too. He has never played by the book or followed any rules of any kind. For example, in Desert Storm he didn't abide by the Geneva Convention so I don't see what is different now.

>>
supposedly he's already given the order if we approach baghdad.
and i guess the fact they found 3000 chem suits doesn't mean anything to you?
<<

I never argued that he didn't have them.

>>
just shows how different people are huh...<<

I confess, if someone came into my home armed to the teeth and intent on murdering my family and destoying everything I have, I would happily spray him with all the chemical agents I could get from my kitchen. I think anyone would.




I am fully in support of this war. But I also realise that we are sending our men and women to destroy the regime of a man who has a history of being vicious, violent and unpredictable. I fully accept that I will have to face images of appaling atrocites carried out on my own countrymen. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is simply naive. People have this image of this war as being like a game of cricket, where everyone shows up, shakes hands, plays by the rules, applauds the winner and then goes home having enjoyed themselves. They think that a few well placed cruise missiles will somehow disable his combat capability to such an extent that he will just say 'Oh jolly good show old chaps' before relinquishing his power. Why on earth does anyone think Saddam is going to just lie down and let us in? He is a violent dictator who will no doubt fight to the bitter end using any means necessary to try and win this war.

>Wow... If you believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

its the truth, we question them we do not interrogate them, there is a significant non symantical difference.

>
Putting those labels on these people does not alter the fact that they are human beings. The US is very keen to be seen as the protector of human rights.
<

are the tortured, sick, starving, thirsty, beaten? no!

they are extremely well treated for what they've done, we do this so that we can interrogate them, ok, so that more terrorist attacks dont happen.

>
One persons terrorist is another persons hero, consider, there are Iraqi's fighting against the official Iraqi army units in Basra. By doing so, they are, effectively, traitors to their government, terrorists no less.
<

they are not terrorists they are traitors or "Revolutionaries", theres a difference.

>Should the US incarcerate these people or clap them on the back.

they are not traitors to us, we are not their governments ally...

>
The former Serbian president is being tried at The Hague as we "speak". He is not the first, and will not be the last.
<

look, i don't agree with a lot of policys around the world, though i admit the need for an entity capable of trying international criminals, i do not trust the intentions against americans since most of the UN is strictly anti-american.

>Finally, shouting and insulting people is likely to get your posts edited or deleted. Debate rationally.

I aplogize, i'll try to post when im less ........ed next time.

>
What I mean is that he's a $$$hole right? We knew that before we went in, in fact it's partly why we went in. So it comes as absolutely no surprise if he's an $$$hole to our troops too. He has never played by the book or followed any rules of any kind. For example, in Desert Storm he didn't abide by the Geneva Convention so I don't see what is different now.
<

point taken and understood, but people keep trying to say the U.S. is not and that why should he if we don't WHEN HES EXECUTION OUR SOLDIERS!, maybe when he starts executing brits you people will give a $$$$.

>I never argued that he didn't have them.

yet you seem to give him the benefit of the doubt, why? does he deserve it? no!!

>
I confess, if someone came into my home armed to the teeth and intent on murdering my family and destoying everything I have, I would happily spray him with all the chemical agents I could get from my kitchen. I think anyone would.
<

We offered him many many ways out, its his fault.

I would not unless there was no other way, and even then i would have to consider who and why. I dont think you comprehend just how terrible chem and bio weapons really are.

to your last point:



i never expected anything different!!

im just amazed at the level of vileness his fid ayin(fed ayeen, whatever), have stooped to, and im also very worried that people will mistake his "guized" troops for really being us.

it just some people insist on turning anything he does around into something we've done or trying to say everything is our fault, and giving every evil S.O.B. who we go after the benifit of the doubt, im tired of it.

What did we ever do to cmpare to Saddam or Al Queda?
Why should he/they get the benefit of the doubt and not us?

the truth is i could go on for hours but im gonna spare you.

> its the truth, we question them we do not interrogate them, there is a significant non symantical difference.

Yeah, I'm totally sure of that. You can't honestly believe that if we capture an officer or something and they don't tell us what we want to know we just say "Hey, that's cool" and walk away, can you?

> but im gonna spare you.

Maybe there's a God after all...

>SHOWING THEIR FACES DONT NOT COMPARE TO INTEROGATION AND EXECUTION

I didn't notice any executions yet... maybe you should watch the scenes you are talking about more closely ?

>THEY ARE GODDDAMNED ILLEGAL COMBATANTS OR TERORISTS END OF STORY

Illegal combatants ? ROFLMAO. Come on, tell me what is legal about invading a country and shooting people. Show me a legal combatant. This isn't some wargame with rules and referees. People are getting killed there.

>WE DONT INTEROGATE IRAQI POWS AT ALL.

No, they all get a nice sweet home in Florida, a new car, a decent job and a pony. And they lived happily ever after...

>supposedly he's already given the order if we approach baghdad.

Supposedly, thats what any person would do if threatened. Use all weapons available to him to save his life.

>and i guess the fact they found 3000 chem suits doesn't mean anything to you?

It means to me that even for this years conscripts, they are 271035 Chem suits short of a good protection. But he would sacrifice his men if he could kill coalition soldiers anyway.


By the way: Your shift key is stuck, try another keyboard.

>
Yeah, I'm totally sure of that. You can't honestly believe that if we capture an officer or something and they don't tell us what we want to know we just say "Hey, that's cool" and walk away, can you?
<

this is largly what has happened, realize that most of them hate saddam as much or more than we do. plus, i seriously doubt our leaders would risk such an incedent comming to light either.

>Maybe there's a God after all...

even, if he only exists to shut up my ranting, maybe.

>I didn't notice any executions yet... maybe you should watch the scenes you are talking about more closely ?

I guess you didn't see the pictures of our "captured" soldiers shot in the face then, i won't watch the video just to prove that they are telling the truth.

>By the way: Your shift key is stuck, try another keyboard.

THANKS I'LL LOOK INTO IT>

>Wtf? What was that for. I never once slated the US's treatment of prisoners. Calm down will you.

sorry, that wasn't aimed at you. it was a more general statement to the people that do.

>Agreed, it kind of gets to the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation doesn't it.

quite.