ABC finds "Wiretap Secrets: "Saddam declared the war was over because President Bush had ordered a cease-fire"

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spyro

But let me ask again. What is the problem if a deal was struck with commanders to hand over Baghdad? Were you wanting a blood bath there?

I'm thining that the point here is that the public should have known that this deal was taking place.

Why? Cripes - you guys and your "We want to know..." whining. You need to get over that fact that our government has a need to keep some things confidential.

CkG

When I said that I was thinking that the point here is I was referring to the original poster, sheesh

My point is still valid whether or not you actually agree with what you posted.

CkG

Your point is only "valid" from YOUR point of view.

I know you like to live in your little world . . . I am simply posting what the REST of the WORLD (the OTHER 6 BILLION humans) thinks . . .
Perhaps you are not capable of handling the truth and prefers to swallow everything the government spoon feeds you.

You need to get over that fact that our government has a need to keep some things confidential.

Something of note here would be that our government doesn't actually have to keep things confidential, but quite a few things are kept confidential because it wants to.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Interesting.

So tell me, did the iraqi commander get to sit in the pilots lap or the gunners lap?
Even if we did cut a deal, why is that such a problem, did you want more iraqi dead?

Well since you didn't bother to read my links that I posted, I won't waste further time with a ridiculer.

I read the articles, i even saved the repost bit....
But feel free to answer my questions, but I know you wont.

I simply don't believe that - in the four minutes between the time I posted links to TWO articles and the time YOU replied that you even skimmed them - let alone read them or considered them and formulated a thoughtful reply.

You are a ridiculer. You don't give my posts ANY thought. Why should I bother with your ridiculous views?
(I won't)

ok, then let me add to the articles you posted

REPOST!

Now did the commander sit in the pilots lap or the gunners lap in the apache?
Did you want more bloodshed in Baghdad?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Interesting.

So tell me, did the iraqi commander get to sit in the pilots lap or the gunners lap?
Even if we did cut a deal, why is that such a problem, did you want more iraqi dead?

Well since you didn't bother to read my links that I posted, I won't waste further time with a ridiculer.

I read the articles, i even saved the repost bit....
But feel free to answer my questions, but I know you wont.

I simply don't believe that - in the four minutes between the time I posted links to TWO articles and the time YOU replied that you even skimmed them - let alone read them or considered them and formulated a thoughtful reply.

You are a ridiculer. You don't give my posts ANY thought. Why should I bother with your ridiculous views?
(I won't)

ok, then let me add to the articles you posted

REPOST!

Now did the commander sit in the pilots lap or the gunners lap in the apache?
Did you want more bloodshed in Baghdad?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Here is another interesting article for the open minded people to read that brings up a lot of excellent points. Link

Interesting spin, but no real facts only conjecture.


But let me ask again. What is the problem if a deal was struck with commanders to hand over Baghdad? Were you wanting a blood bath there?

The problem is that Bush alleged that Saddam was a war criminal and now he's letting him go. It sounds very hypocritical to me.

Is he letting him go? As far as I'm concerned there is no proof of this yet.

Negotiating a surrender from a commander is not the same as letting Saddam go.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spyro

But let me ask again. What is the problem if a deal was struck with commanders to hand over Baghdad? Were you wanting a blood bath there?

I'm thining that the point here is that the public should have known that this deal was taking place.

Why? Cripes - you guys and your "We want to know..." whining. You need to get over that fact that our government has a need to keep some things confidential.

CkG

When I said that I was thinking that the point here is I was referring to the original poster, sheesh

My point is still valid whether or not you actually agree with what you posted.

CkG

Your point is only "valid" from YOUR point of view.

I know you like to live in your little world . . . I am simply posting what the REST of the WORLD (the OTHER 6 BILLION humans) thinks . . .
Perhaps you are not capable of handling the truth and prefers to swallow everything the government spoon feeds you.

Spoon fed? Hardly

and for you speaking for 6 billion people? YIKES! :Q

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spyro

But let me ask again. What is the problem if a deal was struck with commanders to hand over Baghdad? Were you wanting a blood bath there?

I'm thining that the point here is that the public should have known that this deal was taking place.

Why? Cripes - you guys and your "We want to know..." whining. You need to get over that fact that our government has a need to keep some things confidential.

CkG

When I said that I was thinking that the point here is I was referring to the original poster, sheesh

My point is still valid whether or not you actually agree with what you posted.

CkG

Your point is only "valid" from YOUR point of view.

I know you like to live in your little world . . . I am simply posting what the REST of the WORLD (the OTHER 6 BILLION humans) thinks . . .
Perhaps you are not capable of handling the truth and prefers to swallow everything the government spoon feeds you.

Spoon fed? Hardly

and for you speaking for 6 billion people? YIKES! :Q

CkG

Dont worry Appopin is spoon feed by french media

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin


REPOST!


Did you want more bloodshed in Baghdad?

I have PROOF you don't read my posts . . . I already answered your question several posts above this one.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Here is another interesting article for the open minded people to read that brings up a lot of excellent points. Link

Interesting spin, but no real facts only conjecture.


But let me ask again. What is the problem if a deal was struck with commanders to hand over Baghdad? Were you wanting a blood bath there?

The problem is that Bush alleged that Saddam was a war criminal and now he's letting him go. It sounds very hypocritical to me.

Is he letting him go? As far as I'm concerned there is no proof of this yet.

Negotiating a surrender from a commander is not the same as letting Saddam go.

Until, any details of this deal are known, I wouldn't be to sure about that.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin


REPOST!


Did you want more bloodshed in Baghdad?

I have PROOF you don't read my posts . . . I already answered your question several posts above this one.

A fact that can be conveniently ignored.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin


REPOST!


Did you want more bloodshed in Baghdad?

I have PROOF you don't read my posts . . . I already answered your question several posts above this one.

this was your response, which I did infact read

I simply don't believe that - in the four minutes between the time I posted links to TWO articles and the time YOU replied that you even skimmed them - let alone read them or considered them and formulated a thoughtful reply.

You are a ridiculer. You don't give my posts ANY thought. Why should I bother with your ridiculous views?
(I won't)

This answers neither where the commander sat or if you indeed wanted more bloodshed in Baghdad.

I just searched the thread up to where these 2 questions were posed, and this is the best answer I received from you.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Here is another interesting article for the open minded people to read that brings up a lot of excellent points. Link

Interesting spin, but no real facts only conjecture.


But let me ask again. What is the problem if a deal was struck with commanders to hand over Baghdad? Were you wanting a blood bath there?

The problem is that Bush alleged that Saddam was a war criminal and now he's letting him go. It sounds very hypocritical to me.

Is he letting him go? As far as I'm concerned there is no proof of this yet.

Negotiating a surrender from a commander is not the same as letting Saddam go.

Until, any details of this deal are known, I wouldn't be to sure about that.

Well you are welcome to speculate all you want, but it does not make the conjecture true.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Here is another interesting article for the open minded people to read that brings up a lot of excellent points. Link

Interesting spin, but no real facts only conjecture.


But let me ask again. What is the problem if a deal was struck with commanders to hand over Baghdad? Were you wanting a blood bath there?

The problem is that Bush alleged that Saddam was a war criminal and now he's letting him go. It sounds very hypocritical to me.

Is he letting him go? As far as I'm concerned there is no proof of this yet.

Negotiating a surrender from a commander is not the same as letting Saddam go.

Until, any details of this deal are known, I wouldn't be to sure about that.

What "Proof"? . . . What "deal"?
It is ALL speculation.




Interesting speculation

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin


REPOST!


Did you want more bloodshed in Baghdad?

I have PROOF you don't read my posts . . . I already answered your question several posts above this one.

A fact that can be conveniently ignored.

It is easy to ignore, because it does not exist.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin


this was your response, which I did infact read . . .

This answers neither where the commander sat or if you indeed wanted more bloodshed in Baghdad.

I just searched the thread up to where these 2 questions were posed, and this is the best answer I received from you.

Then I'll give aid and assistance to the "enemy" (especially because it will bring you no comfort) - Quote by Me:

I am certainly not sure what to believe. But - as I have repeated - it's very interesting.

The Jordanian "freedom fighters" sure think a "deal" was struck at the highest levels. The French are picking up on it.

I'd actually have a better opinion of Bush if he did "strike a deal" with the devil, Saddam to "save" Baghdad and especially our troops. At least, we'd have "assurances" the WMD would be found and the Iraq government changed with minimal bloodshed.

But I fear we shall never know for sure.

There is no edit. You DON'T read what I write but certainly ARE willing to shove words in my mouth.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin


this was your response, which I did infact read . . .

This answers neither where the commander sat or if you indeed wanted more bloodshed in Baghdad.

I just searched the thread up to where these 2 questions were posed, and this is the best answer I received from you.

Then I'll give aid and assistance to the "enemy" (especially because it will bring you no comfort) - Quote by Me:

I am certainly not sure what to believe. But - as I have repeated - it's very interesting.

The Jordanian "freedom fighters" sure think a "deal" was struck at the highest levels. The French are picking up on it.

I'd actually have a better opinion of Bush if he did "strike a deal" with the devil, Saddam to "save" Baghdad and especially our troops. At least, we'd have "assurances" the WMD would be found and the Iraq government changed with minimal bloodshed.

But I fear we shall never know for sure.

There is no edit. You DON'T read what I write but certainly ARE willing to shove words in my mouth.

Well you answered one of two. I missed this answer as it was buried in your reply.

So where did the iraqi commander sit in the apache?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: charrison
So where did the iraqi commander sit in the apache?

The suspense is certainly killing me.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: charrison
So where did the iraqi commander sit in the apache?

The suspense is certainly killing me.

Am I still on the "hot seat"?
(this isn't the only thread)




Who knows if Le Monde knows the difference between an Osprey and an Apache? Or - if it was a "real deal", he may have got the gunners spot with weapons off-line.

What does it have to do with ABC's "find"?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: charrison
So where did the iraqi commander sit in the apache?

The suspense is certainly killing me.

Am I still on the "hot seat"?
(this isn't the only thread)




Who knows if Le Monde knows the difference between an Osprey and an Apache? Or - if it was a "real deal", he may have got the gunners spot with weapons off-line.

What does it have to do with ABC's "find"?

Yes I can imagine being sent into a battle zone without my gunner to pick up a commander after there have been fake surrenders. So at least you admit now that this particular article has at least 1 glaring factual error.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: apoppin
What does it have to do with ABC's "find"?

How the hell do I know...you posted it not me.

 

[etech]

BS from BarneyFife

The Arabs just can't admit that they lost. Stories will be made up to save "face". This isn't all that surprising, it's actually pretty typical of the Arab media.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: charrison
So where did the iraqi commander sit in the apache?

The suspense is certainly killing me.

Am I still on the "hot seat"?
(this isn't the only thread)




Who knows if Le Monde knows the difference between an Osprey and an Apache? Or - if it was a "real deal", he may have got the gunners spot with weapons off-line.

What does it have to do with ABC's "find"?

Yes I can imagine being sent into a battle zone without my gunner to pick up a commander after there have been fake surrenders. So at least you admit now that this particular article has at least 1 glaring factual error.

Now that is your speculation . . . Without a gunner but WITH an ESCORT? - sure, I'd take that chance.

Shortly thereafter an Apache helicopter escorted Sufyan from the Al Rashid camp, east of Baghdad, to an unknown location.

And WHY did I post the link to that article? Because it somewhat supported my point on "deals" being brokered.

And you guys have nothing . . . not even links to support your claims . . . come to think of it, WHAT are you claiming? or are you just ridiculing?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: etech
BS from BarneyFife

The Arabs just can't admit that they lost. Stories will be made up to save "face". This isn't all that surprising, it's actually pretty typical of the Arab media.

Who "lost"? Only Saddam and his supporters, I think . . .

You Bush supporters can't admit to the mistakes they have made in this war. What's the difference between your narrow-mind and the Arab narrow mind other than POV?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: charrison
So where did the iraqi commander sit in the apache?

The suspense is certainly killing me.

Am I still on the "hot seat"?
(this isn't the only thread)




Who knows if Le Monde knows the difference between an Osprey and an Apache? Or - if it was a "real deal", he may have got the gunners spot with weapons off-line.

What does it have to do with ABC's "find"?

Yes I can imagine being sent into a battle zone without my gunner to pick up a commander after there have been fake surrenders. So at least you admit now that this particular article has at least 1 glaring factual error.

Now that is your speculation . . . Without a gunner but WITH an ESCORT? - sure, I'd take that chance.

Shortly thereafter an Apache helicopter escorted Sufyan from the Al Rashid camp, east of Baghdad, to an unknown location.

And WHY did I post the link to that article? Because it somewhat supported my point on "deals" being brokered.

And you guys have nothing . . . not even links to support your claims . . . come to think of it, WHAT are you claiming? or are you just ridiculing?

I would not at all be surprised or offended if deals were brokered. This article just seems suspect.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: etech
BS from BarneyFife

The Arabs just can't admit that they lost. Stories will be made up to save "face". This isn't all that surprising, it's actually pretty typical of the Arab media.

Who "lost"? Only Saddam and his supporters, I think . . .

You Bush supporters can't admit to the mistakes they have made in this war. What's the difference between your narrow-mind and the Arab narrow mind other than POV?

Mistakes were made and will be made in the future. Afterall none of us are perfect. There have been far more successes than failures in this opperation and folks like you seem to be having a hard time with this fact.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: charrison
So where did the iraqi commander sit in the apache?

The suspense is certainly killing me.

Am I still on the "hot seat"?
(this isn't the only thread)




Who knows if Le Monde knows the difference between an Osprey and an Apache? Or - if it was a "real deal", he may have got the gunners spot with weapons off-line.

What does it have to do with ABC's "find"?

Yes I can imagine being sent into a battle zone without my gunner to pick up a commander after there have been fake surrenders. So at least you admit now that this particular article has at least 1 glaring factual error.

Now that is your speculation . . . Without a gunner but WITH an ESCORT? - sure, I'd take that chance.

Shortly thereafter an Apache helicopter escorted Sufyan from the Al Rashid camp, east of Baghdad, to an unknown location.

And WHY did I post the link to that article? Because it somewhat supported my point on "deals" being brokered.

And you guys have nothing . . . not even links to support your claims . . . come to think of it, WHAT are you claiming? or are you just ridiculing?

I would not at all be surprised or offended if deals were brokered. This article just seems suspect.

Then WTH are we arguing about?

I already said I believe it to be SPECULATION.

Damn!

(interesting speculation) . . . that's ALL, folks.

Mistakes were made and will be made in the future. Afterall none of us are perfect. There have been far more successes than failures in this opperation and folks like you seem to be having a hard time with this fact.

Not at all. I am extremely (very very) HAPPY it turned out so well with relatively little bloodshed.