Inside Iraqi Torture Chambers

[Mordenheim]

double post

[ 04-12-2003, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

[Animal]

Originally posted by Lil Lil: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: Okay fine. No one else was capable of doing. There is not another country in the world that can stand up against the US. So why the lie? Why claim it's about something when it's not?

What lie are you referring to, there seem to be so mnay.
What is it about again? (seriously)

And I think there are other countries who can and will go against the U.S. when the timing is right.
We aren't going to be in a pretty position when we strain our resources "taking over" Iraq. We have yet to see how much further those resources will be strained in tieng all the loose ends either and if this country doesn't develop ways to support itself without imported oil it is bound to happen in the future.[/QUOTE]Lil Lil, there is no country in the world that can stand up, militarily to the US. War is profitable. Business is a gamble.

Like I said, I really hope that you are right. But as a succesful business man, I understand how BUSINESS works.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: Quote: Originally posted by Lil Lil: Quote: Originally posted by Mordenheim: who the heck want's praise. How about a little "Sadam needed to removed and no one else was sure as heck going to do it". That would be enough.

No kidding.

no one else was sure as heck going to do it
Esp those countries so set against the war that they would cause dissension in the UN...those same countries who are now millions in uncollected debts for weapons, machinery and who knows what else that they had been providing Iraq's government while saying they had nothing to do with what was going on there. [/QUOTE]Okay fine. No one e;se was capable of doing. There is not another country in the world that can stand up against the US. So why the lie? Why claim it's about something when it's not?[/QUOTE]Here is a great example of either jelousy or something else. Who said no one can stand up against America? You sound bitter. A great example of twisting my word's.

I never once used the word capable. No one else was WILLING to do it. Big difference and frankly I don't like you putting meaning into my word's I never put in them.[/QUOTE]No, I SAID capable, not you. No one else is capable. The US has the most powerful military in the world. I'm not questioning the ability, but more the motives.

[Mordenheim]

My apoligies

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Animal: Quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: As I asked earlier If a man pulls somebody out of a burning house does it really make a poops difference if the man was casing the neighborhood for a robbery? In other words motive smotives, its results that matter. motives don't feed people bringing them bread does, motives don't stop dictators troops on the ground does. Would any of you wrong motives people rather the Iraqi people continued to be brutalized, tortured, raped, and killed until somebody desides to come up with the right motive? Would you sleep better at night knowing the screams, and cries of pain continued until a motive you agreed with was found? Well let me ease your minds reason # 8 for going into Iraq was because Sodamn Insane is a brutal Dictator that tortuted, and killed the people of Iraq. (as Given by President Bush, then Sec. Def. Rumsfled) so now you can join the war was the thing to do crowd.

Okay fair enough. So keep going. The attrocities don't stop with Saddam. If the coalition is going to start a job, they need to finish it.[/QUOTE]Personally I'm for that taking out every two bit dictator or elected goverment on the face of the planet, that uses torture, rape, kills it's citzens in huge plastic shreaders, keeps food from its people to feed it's army leading to the starvation of thousands, slaughters women and children (sorry men but we're on our own here, yea I know I'm a pig but a man must know his limitations) deprives people of due process, exterminates people because of their hertiage, color of skin, religion, lanugage or any other reason. But then again I rooted for the Y2K bug to send us all back to the dark ages. There are lots of evil worthless slime ball SOB's in this world. As you can tell it wouldn't do for me to be God, I'm not very merciful to the unmerciful.

Originally posted by Animal: Lil Lil, there is no country in the world that can stand up, militarily to the US. War is profitable. Business is a gamble. Like I said, I really hope that you are right. But as a succesful business man, I understand how BUSINESS works.

If the U.S. has no fuel to drive their tanks or fly their planes, they are just a bunch of joes on the ground with guns like everyone else. I was speaking of a long-term (very real) future possibility.

(This war is profitable and it is also being conducted as a business.)
As a successful businessman, you should be able to see the profitable angle better than most...no it isn't pretty but wherever on the planet have you seen capitalism, or democracy for that matter, where the whole picture smells of roses?

I don't know where things will go from here Animal. I just hope that the human race can live in peace before I die...wouldn't that be nice?

[pritchke]

Originally posted by pritchke: Canada tried to make a reasonable proposal with deadlines that would have lasted an extra month but may have added support at the end of the time. Both the US and the French had such big swollen heads that it was ignored, not even looked at. Neither one could get past their pride French Non, US we want war now. This is what an American friend told me. Anyway the past is the past. We must now look to the present and future so let us stop arguing about the reasons for starting the war right or wrong (but let us not forget what was said). Now a current question is why is Rumsfield lying again? "The looting is not that bad we keep seeing one person looting a vase over and over again". What crap! Why does he have to understate the obvious and continue to lie about the situation at hand? Could one of you guys give him a pie to the face, that is what we do up here to lying officials.

I am jealous of Animal [img]smile.gif[/img] , everyone is ignoring the question "On why is Rumsford lying again?"

I have no problems with the US deciding to invade Iraq to take out Saddam. My main problem was integrity, I didn't believe it was about WoMD. I didn't believe it was the motives of Pearle, and the more I hear of Rumsford the more manipulative he seems. You can not get my support when I feel lied to.

Anyway the past is the past. We must now look to the present and future so let us stop arguing about the reasons for starting the war right or wrong. I don't know if integrity means anything anymore but to me it is important and builds trust. I would think the current problem is restoring order, Bagdad looks like a city in revolt in the Civ 3 game. Many Iraqies are saying "I have welcomed the Americans but we need to restore order because I fear for my kids. At least under Saddam we were save as long as towed the line." I think restoring order and protecting people from stray shooters, and looters is important don't you? Else everything you worked for may go in the toilet.

[ 04-12-2003, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Animal: Quote: Originally posted by Lil Lil: Animal, a lot of "why Iraq?" may be answered by what we've been finding in the way of Russian built underground nuclear facilities, French-made trucks, modified to load biological weapons into SA missles, etc. (granted, none of the smoking guns have been proven to be smoking guns but Russia and France in particular are facing great losses in Iraqi revenues by what is happening there, and why? Why are Russia, France and Germany refusing to cooperate in the rebuilding of Iraq without full reign being given to the UN? Even I support the idea that Bush & Co have a lot of profit to gain by being the heroes and saving the oil fields at the same time but it seems to me that there is a lot more going on, through covert actions on the part of other countries, that have yet to be revealed; action that in the long run, could have other countries in no better positions than Iraq was with Saddam. Of course, Bush could be the beast and they are trying to save the world.

And the US never sold anything to Iraq. Okay?

If the UN has full control over the new government of Iraq, that eliminates any question of US subterfuge over the invasion. The US invades Iraq then sets up there own hand picked government. No, not suspicious at all.

Yes, there is a lot more going on. Why such interest from the US?[/QUOTE]The only problem with the UN doing that is the UN is to slow and unweldy (SP?) Look at Kosivo, Hatti compared to Afghaistan much smaller countries yet they are no where near having a stable Goverment after years and years of UN help. The UN is good at passing out food and clothes but making a goverment, sorry but it's a Charlie Foxtrot.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by pritchke: Quote: Originally posted by pritchke: Canada tried to make a reasonable proposal with deadlines that would have lasted an extra month but may have added support at the end of the time. Both the US and the French had such big swollen heads that it was ignored, not even looked at. Neither one could get past their pride French Non, US we want war now. This is what an American friend told me. Anyway the past is the past. We must now look to the present and future so let us stop arguing about the reasons for starting the war right or wrong (but let us not forget what was said). Now a current question is why is Rumsfield lying again? "The looting is not that bad we keep seeing one person looting a vase over and over again". What crap! Why does he have to understate the obvious and continue to lie about the situation at hand? Could one of you guys give him a pie to the face, that is what we do up here to lying officials.

I am jealous of Animal [img]smile.gif[/img] , everyone is ignoring the question "On why is Rumsford lying again?"

I have no problems with the US deciding to invade Iraq to take out Saddam. My main problem was integrity, I didn't believe it was about WoMD. I didn't believe it was the motives of Pearle, and the more I hear of Rumsford the more manipulative he seems. You can not get my support when I feel lied to.

Anyway the past is the past. We must now look to the present and future so let us stop arguing about the reasons for starting the war right or wrong. I don't know if integrity means anything anymore but to me it is important and builds trust. I would think the current problem is restoring order, Bagdad looks like a city in revolt in the Civ 3 game. Many Iraqies are saying "I have welcomed the Americans but we need to restore order because I fear for my kids. At least under Saddam we were save as long as towed the line." I think restoring order and protecting people from stray shooters, and looters is important don't you? Else everything you worked for may go in the toilet.[/QUOTE]Because the statis of the looting is relative. SEE South Central LA after the Rodney King Verdicts, They knew how to loot, they were looting people that had gone into the stores to loot, burning their own house, stores, and neighborhoods. A 12 years old kid couldn't stand beside a couple of tv's and computers on the sidewalk and the other looters walk by and leave him alone. IN real looting they would have thrown the kid down and taken his stuff. In a USA looting spree, if you can't defend something you have taken all the way to your house it gets taken away from you by other looters. There is none of those holding doors open for other looters, stepping out of their way as they are bringing out a color TV that you don't have, or honking your car horn at a man holding an AK47 and him waving at you then moving out of the way. "Hale" they have been repressed so long they don't even know how to loot corrctly

[ 04-12-2003, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Originally posted by pritchke: Now a current question is why is Rumsfield lying again? "The looting is not that bad we keep seeing one person looting a vase over and over again". What crap! Why does he have to understate the obvious and continue to lie about the situation at hand? Could one of you guys give him a pie to the face, that is what we do up here to lying officials. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am jealous of Animal [img]smile.gif[/img] , everyone is ignoring the question "On why is Rumsford lying again?" I have no problems with the US deciding to invade Iraq to take out Saddam. My main problem was integrity, I didn't believe it was about WoMD. I didn't believe it was the motives of Pearle, and the more I hear of Rumsford the more manipulative he seems. You can not get my support when I feel lied to. Anyway the past is the past. We must now look to the present and future so let us stop arguing about the reasons for starting the war right or wrong. I don't know if integrity means anything anymore but to me it is important and builds trust. I would think the current problem is restoring order, Bagdad looks like a city in revolt in the Civ 3 game. Many Iraqies are saying "I have welcomed the Americans but we need to restore order because I fear for my kids. At least under Saddam we were save as long as towed the line." I think restoring order and protecting people from stray shooters, and looters is important don't you? Else everything you worked for may go in the toilet.

I missed the question on Rumsfield earlier. Sorry, Pritchke!

My guesses would be:
1) because its his job
2) because he stands to profit too
3) because he is running a public relations spin for the people who are pressuring him to do something about it.
4) because he believes what he is saying.

The U.S. has had a plan approved to bring in security forces from other countries.

When those forces arrive is anyone's guess as far as I know. I am figuring that as long as the Fedayeen are putting up a fight in Baghdad it could be delayed but then again, I didn't get the details on the countries providing security or how soon they plan to be there.

I agree wholeheartedly that something needs to be done soon but I also remain cautious about placing our troops in a police-state in a country that for the most part, was raised not to like us all that much, and on the borders of countries waiting with baited breath for us to slip up. Liberators or not, we are still the great satan to the Arab world.

I think we have to wait for the war to be over for that pie in the face unless we want to face being arrested for terrorism. We usually save that honor for businessmen like Gates & Trump.

[ 04-12-2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]