British Soldiers forced Iraqi POWS to BJ them!

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Gaard
We came in peace?

Yeh just like those aliens in that Dolph Lundgren movie.

Back on topic, I think everyone should reserve judgement until the photos are released. I hardly think you can copndemn these soldiers on the opinions of one photo operator. The story behind the photos will come out then we can decide if these guy need to fry or not.

 

[Nitemare]

Isn't the sun the equivalent of the National Enquirer in the US. Is anybody else running with this story besides the Sun and the BBC who gets the story from the Sun?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Isn't the sun the equivalent of the National Enquirer in the US. Is anybody else running with this story besides the Sun and the BBC who gets the story from the Sun?

As you say, take what the Sun says with a huge pinch of salt - that's not to say though that there might not be some truth in this.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[kylebisme]

heck, considering it rather "anti-war" slanted and it is the sun i would not be suppressed if it was not simply a ploy to discredit dissidents who buy into the such propaganda. not quite the foxnews why but very much still Rupert Murdock's style.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Let's pray American soldiers didn't participate in such acts...

We came in peace to liberate...so we were told...

I thought we came to relieve Saddam of all those tons of evil WMD? Oh wait...that's right...the reason is liberation now.

I, for one, don't give a damn what excuses we used to get into iraq. But now that we're in, let's do our (real) objective, and do it well.

Is it just me? Or does anyone else think think that this doesn't sound right?

It kinda sounds like you don't care whether or not our president was actually truthful or not with his reasons for attacking Iraq. It doesn't bother you one bit that our president is being accused of lying to the world?

If our president said that our main reason for going to war was WMD, would/did you say "Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.

Let's just go."

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Let's pray American soldiers didn't participate in such acts...

We came in peace to liberate...so we were told...

I thought we came to relieve Saddam of all those tons of evil WMD? Oh wait...that's right...the reason is liberation now.

I, for one, don't give a damn what excuses we used to get into iraq. But now that we're in, let's do our (real) objective, and do it well.

Is it just me? Or does anyone else think think that this doesn't sound right?

It kinda sounds like you don't care whether or not our president was actually truthful or not with his reasons for attacking Iraq. It doesn't bother you one bit that our president is being accused of lying to the world?

If our president said that our main reason for going to war was WMD, would/did you say "Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.

Let's just go."

I have my own interests for us going into iraq. the reason was a legitimate reason, but the objective may have been totally different. I support the objective.

 

[Gaard]

What's the real objective?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's the real objective?

it'll become obvious to you when you take a look at the bigger picture and put all the pieces together.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's the real objective?

it'll become obvious to you when you take a look at the bigger picture and put all the pieces together.

Well whatever you feel is the real objective, I ask myself, "Why did our president have to resort to making claims (truthful or not) of a secondary reason for why going to war was necessary?"

Do you ever ask yourself that? Oh wait, I forgot...you don't give a sh!t what reasons were stated for going to war, what matters is that we did go to war.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's the real objective?

it'll become obvious to you when you take a look at the bigger picture and put all the pieces together.

Well whatever you feel is the real objective, I ask myself, "Why did our president have to resort to making claims (truthful or not) of a secondary reason for why going to war was necessary?"

Do you ever ask yourself that? Oh wait, I forgot...you don't give a sh!t what reasons were stated for going to war, what matters is that we did go to war.

Are you saying that there weren't other "reasons" presented? I suggest you better think and research carefully before answering

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's the real objective?

it'll become obvious to you when you take a look at the bigger picture and put all the pieces together.

Well whatever you feel is the real objective, I ask myself, "Why did our president have to resort to making claims (truthful or not) of a secondary reason for why going to war was necessary?"

Do you ever ask yourself that? Oh wait, I forgot...you don't give a sh!t what reasons were stated for going to war, what matters is that we did go to war.

Are you saying that there weren't other "reasons" presented? I suggest you better think and research carefully before answering

CkG

Do you know what the word secondary means?

Yes, I know there were other reasons. But, they were all secondary reasons. Hell, back before the war began, and shortly into it, hoardes of members (I can't remember if you were one of them) were bellowing about how the freeing of the Iraqi people was a pleasant by-product of this war. Does this sound familiar at all..."We go in and get the WMD and the liberation of the Iraqis is icing on the cake"? How many times was a variation of that quote used here in the weeks leading up to the war. Honestly...please answer honestly...Do you deny that WMD was the primary reason given for waging this war?

Let me ask you something CAD. You refuse to accept that our president was less than completely honest...and you adamantly counter any criticism given to this war or the justifications given for waging it. Why? Is it strictly a trust thing with you?

April 10, 2003 press briefing w/ Ari Fleischer
<<But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.>>

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's the real objective?

it'll become obvious to you when you take a look at the bigger picture and put all the pieces together.

Well whatever you feel is the real objective, I ask myself, "Why did our president have to resort to making claims (truthful or not) of a secondary reason for why going to war was necessary?"

Do you ever ask yourself that? Oh wait, I forgot...you don't give a sh!t what reasons were stated for going to war, what matters is that we did go to war.

Are you saying that there weren't other "reasons" presented? I suggest you better think and research carefully before answering

CkG

Do you know what the word secondary means?

Yes, I know there were other reasons. But, they were all secondary reasons. Hell, back before the war began, and shortly into it, hoardes of members (I can't remember if you were one of them) were bellowing about how the freeing of the Iraqi people was a pleasant by-product of this war. Does this sound familiar at all..."We go in and get the WMD and the liberation of the Iraqis is icing on the cake"? How many times was a variation of that quote used here in the weeks leading up to the war. Honestly...please answer honestly...Do you deny that WMD was the primary reason given for waging this war?

Let me ask you something CAD. You refuse to accept that our president was less than completely honest...and you adamantly counter any criticism given to this war or the justifications given for waging it. Why? Is it strictly a trust thing with you?

April 10, 2003 press briefing w/ Ari Fleischer
<<But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.>>

I was waiting for the Ari quote What you seem to not understand is that you people are highlighting WMD and then jump anyone who tried to say that there are other reasons too and twisting those reasons to mean that WMD isn't/wasn't the "main".

Less than honest? about what? WMD? be careful - moonbeam is getting his ass kicked at the moment in a different thread

CkG

 

[GoingUp]

Its from teh goddamn sun paper... take it with a grain of salt

 

[Gaard]

Let me ask you again...do you deny that WMD was the primary reason for waging this war?

<<I was waiting for the Ari quote>>
Yet you didn't comment on it. You believe that he was/is wrong?

<<Less than honest? about what? WMD?>>
Yes, it's my belief that exaggerations and/or fabrications were given by this administration in order to get the support they needed to go ahead with this war. Your rebuttal will be "Prove it." I can't. It's my belief. Convince me I'm wrong. Show me the light. Lead me to that place where I blindly trust.

<<moonbeam is getting his ass kicked at the moment in a different thread>>
subjective

 

[dpm]

Well, to quote a certain Mr. Wolfowitz, the reasons for war were as follows;

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again
...
To wrap it up. The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation."

So to sum up, we went to war because

1) Iraq had WMDs (although the gov is no longer so sure if they actually had them when we went to war)
2) Because of links between Saddam and terrorism (although the gov can't quite agree on this amongst itself)
3) To free the people of Iraq (although this isn't worth risking American soldiers for)

and fourthly, and most importantly, because of 1) and 2) combined. God, that was one messed up interview. Should he really be allowed to speak in public?

 

[0roo0roo]

gah, whos stupid enough to develop sensitive photos at the photomart. use digicams peeps... good lord.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's the real objective?

it'll become obvious to you when you take a look at the bigger picture and put all the pieces together.

but that varies from individual to individual, each having his or her own real reasons. however no one can rightly start a war like that, so people wind up working together to build up some "big picture" of what will convince others that all the bloodshed will be worthwhile. :disgust:

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's the real objective?

it'll become obvious to you when you take a look at the bigger picture and put all the pieces together.

Well whatever you feel is the real objective, I ask myself, "Why did our president have to resort to making claims (truthful or not) of a secondary reason for why going to war was necessary?"

Do you ever ask yourself that? Oh wait, I forgot...you don't give a sh!t what reasons were stated for going to war, what matters is that we did go to war.

Are you saying that there weren't other "reasons" presented? I suggest you better think and research carefully before answering

CkG

Do you know what the word secondary means?

Yes, I know there were other reasons. But, they were all secondary reasons. Hell, back before the war began, and shortly into it, hoardes of members (I can't remember if you were one of them) were bellowing about how the freeing of the Iraqi people was a pleasant by-product of this war. Does this sound familiar at all..."We go in and get the WMD and the liberation of the Iraqis is icing on the cake"? How many times was a variation of that quote used here in the weeks leading up to the war. Honestly...please answer honestly...Do you deny that WMD was the primary reason given for waging this war?

Let me ask you something CAD. You refuse to accept that our president was less than completely honest...and you adamantly counter any criticism given to this war or the justifications given for waging it. Why? Is it strictly a trust thing with you?

April 10, 2003 press briefing w/ Ari Fleischer
<<But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.>>

I was waiting for the Ari quote What you seem to not understand is that you people are highlighting WMD and then jump anyone who tried to say that there are other reasons too and twisting those reasons to mean that WMD isn't/wasn't the "main".

Less than honest? about what? WMD? be careful - moonbeam is getting his ass kicked at the moment in a different thread

CkG

Heh, you're the one getting ur a$$ kicked but don't have the mental capacity to know it.

In today's news:

Rep. Henry Waxman, in a letter to Bush, renewed his demand that the president explain why the White House repeatedly cited Iraq's alleged attempts to obtain nuclear material from Niger, even though the CIA (news - web sites) had expressed doubts about the validity of the documents that were cited as evidence. The documents later were judged forgeries.


Waxman first sought an explanation in March, but said he just received a one-page reply from the State Department "that raises far more questions than it answers."

 

[Zebo]

The documents later were judged forgeries.

Who forged them? Why hav'nt we heard more about this? Sh1t should be hitting the fan if true.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Its from teh goddamn sun paper... take it with a grain of salt

Also on the BBC.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

The documents later were judged forgeries.

Who forged them? Why hav'nt we heard more about this? Sh1t should be hitting the fan if true.

It is true, and your guess is as good as mine as to why the "Sh1t isn't hitting the fan" about it. The International Atomic Energy commission (or association, or group, or something) determined that the documents that Bush cited which proclaimed that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials from Niger as well as aluminum tubes used for nuclear weapons were false. Not necessarily forged, but "clearly false" and misleading.

 

[Gaard]

They were forgeries...and not very convincing ones, I might add.

text

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's the real objective?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it'll become obvious to you when you take a look at the bigger picture and put all the pieces together.

Let me see if I can put all the peices together

power + money + control + money + fear + money + hate +money + ignorance + money + super ego = WAR


"bubblin crude, Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea"




And this is what Iraqis will be singing when we leave

Well now its time to say goodbye to Jed and all his kin.
And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin in.
You're all invited back a gain to this locality
To have a heapin helpin of their hospitality

Hillybilly that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?.

 

[Phokus]

"We came for the nonexistant WMD's, we stayed for the man chowder"

Operation Iraqi Freedom: WINNING THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THOSE AT HOME AND ABROAD

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

In response to all those who are lowering the significance of "WMD" as being the be all and end all of this war - from a British perspective, let me clarify this for you. Tony Blair, on numerous occasions leading up to the war, made conclusive statements that WMD were the be all and end all of this war, IMHO. Lots of other reasons were cited subsequent to this - but make no mistake at all in that the British public were/are led to believe 100% that the only legal/moral reason for starting a war in Iraq was that Iraq posed a signinifcant threat (to the UK/US/Western world) through the use/sale/donor of it's large WMD stockpile. It pains me to see the "liberation" arguement given as the reason for war after the event.

Cheers,

Andy