Author Topic: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers  (Read 17665 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #100 on: May 17, 2007, 09:17:59 AM »
some of the events you listed happened 20+ years before we invaded.

We had riots in Los Angeles 20 years ago.  Is America an unstable nation?



It was a consistent pattern.

Comparing the U.S. to Iraq?  How stupid is that? 

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #101 on: May 17, 2007, 09:20:53 AM »
Domestically you guys are all correct...BB and I are saying (I think) that after 911 all bets were off as to what this guy could do. Al Queda would allow this guy to do more damage to us and others in the region.....anyway he had to go....what followed is up for debate.
L

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #102 on: May 17, 2007, 09:21:20 AM »

for the average Iraqi person is was very stable unless you were a Kurd and even then as long as you didn't speak out or try to over throw Saddam you were ok.

The examples you gave there were years old or didn;t have anything to do with Iraq other than torture chambers which were for political opposition and was a effective way of dealing with the secs in that country.

Those examples are moot and pale in comparison to what's going on there now. 

What had Saddam been doing since the year 2000 other than playing games with the UN inspectors?

So as long as you weren't a Kurd and weren't foolish enough to say anything bad about Saddam, either of which resulted in torture and murder, you were okay.  You call that stable?  You gotta be kidding.  

Nothing changed for the Iraqi people during his entire reign of terror.  He was raping his people financially and he was a constant threat to his neighbors.  

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #103 on: May 17, 2007, 09:22:55 AM »
It was a consistent pattern.

Comparing the U.S. to Iraq?  How stupid is that? 

YOU were the one who compared Pre- to Post-war and wouldn't admit it's more violent and dangerous today than before.

I guess admitting it would compeltely undermine your own moral position on the war - you've repeatedly said it's only about democracy and saving iraqis and NOT about oil.  So, if we indeed did make it more unsafe than before, it would become a failure in your eyes.  that fragile house of lies you use to support the war couldn't withstand that.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #104 on: May 17, 2007, 09:28:55 AM »
So as long as you weren't a Kurd and weren't foolish enough to say anything bad about Saddam, either of which resulted in torture and murder, you were okay.  You call that stable?  You gotta be kidding. 

Nothing changed for the Iraqi people during his entire reign of terror.  He was raping his people financially and he was a constant threat to his neighbors. 

In comparison to what's going right now it was very stable. 

Saddam raping his people financially is not instability it's corruption.

My idea of instability is every day violence in the ordinary life of a person who works, goes to school, to the market etc....    In that sense Iraq is a very unstable place in relation to the way it was under Saddam.


Old_Rooster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
  • SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #105 on: May 17, 2007, 09:31:48 AM »
keep in mind, thse people are involved in a premeditatd war of agression ... that is exactly what we hung the german generals for after WWII ... what am i saying? these are soldiers, but they are also war criminals and its rewarding to see them get whats coming :)
You may be the only person on earth that I hope rots in hell and by golly you seem to have that locked up.
Rot in helll you piece of shiat.
Benjamin Pearson-Pedo

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #106 on: May 17, 2007, 09:33:52 AM »
You may be the only person on earth that I hope rots in hell and by golly you seem to have that locked up.
Rot in helll you piece of shiat.

I certainly hope you see the "goat for a goat" in this "get your Goat" sweepstakes that is being played here since you are a professional at it.

 ;D

Old_Rooster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
  • SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #107 on: May 17, 2007, 09:37:26 AM »
I certainly hope you see the "goat for a goat" in this "get your Goat" sweepstakes that is being played here since you are a professional at it.

 ;D
Of course I do, what the hay, you think i'm blind brother?
Benjamin Pearson-Pedo

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #108 on: May 17, 2007, 09:45:10 AM »
Brush up on your history Decker.  Here is what I recall:

1.  Saddam gassed his own people.  

2.  He had torture chambers and tortured and murdered his own people.  He was actually tried and executed for murdering his own people.  Not much of a stabilizing force when you're murdering your own people.  

3.  He invaded a sovereign country - Kuwait - and only left when we kicked him out.  

4.  He was massing his troops on the Saudi border when we initiated Operation Desert Storm.  

5.  He dropped scuds on Israel during Desert Storm.  

6.  Hillary, Bill, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, Albright, Byrd, and a host of other Democrats all told the American people that Saddam had WMDs or was trying to obtain them.  Doesn't sound very stable to me.  

7.  Saddam gave financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.  

EDIT:

8.  He was pilfering his country's resources. 

Now, if you look at those facts and conclude that the region and Iraq was "stable," I'd say your position is absurd.  

Internal strife happens in every country. 

Kuwait is surrounded by Saudi Arabia. 

Of course he's going to have troops by the border if Hussein is annexing Kuwait. 

The Iraq-Kuwait problem was an oil problem--surprise.  Kuwait was cross drilling into Iraq reserves.  April Glaspie--the US diplomat--told Hussein that the US had no opinion on his annexation of Kuwait.   

Pilfering is not relevant.

In all fairness, the middle east is a hotbed. 

Kuwait & Iraq were allies in the Iraq/Iran war.  The character of ally/enemy changes rather quickly there.

Iraq was no more a threat to the stability of the region than any other country there.

Israel has massacred the Palestinians, commandeered their land and choked off Palistine's commerce.  Palestine has responded with attacks including suicide bombing.

I would argue that Israel's threat to the area dwarfed any from Iraq.

Anyways, if you look at:


the ongoing civil war,
the growth of Al Qaeda terrorism,
the tiny green zones of "safety" amidst
the demilitarized zones,
and the influx of Iranian influence into the area

I'd say Iraq is a tad bit more unstable than at any time under Hussein.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #109 on: May 17, 2007, 10:35:47 AM »
YOU were the one who compared Pre- to Post-war and wouldn't admit it's more violent and dangerous today than before.

I guess admitting it would compeltely undermine your own moral position on the war - you've repeatedly said it's only about democracy and saving iraqis and NOT about oil.  So, if we indeed did make it more unsafe than before, it would become a failure in your eyes.  that fragile house of lies you use to support the war couldn't withstand that.

Actually, I wasn't the one who started the discussion about whether Iraq was stable before the war.  It was Decker and I was responding his assertion. 

Comparing Iraq to the U.S. is stupid. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #110 on: May 17, 2007, 10:38:05 AM »
In comparison to what's going right now it was very stable. 

Saddam raping his people financially is not instability it's corruption.

My idea of instability is every day violence in the ordinary life of a person who works, goes to school, to the market etc....    In that sense Iraq is a very unstable place in relation to the way it was under Saddam.



Anyone who happened to be a Kurd or oppossed Saddam in any way was tortured and murdered.  Hardly sounds like domestic tranquility to me.  People were controlled by fear.  That isn't stability. 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #111 on: May 17, 2007, 10:44:37 AM »
Anyone who happened to be a Kurd or oppossed Saddam in any way was tortured and murdered.  Hardly sounds like domestic tranquility to me.  People were controlled by fear.  That isn't stability. 


Well here's the definition:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sta·bil·i·ty      /stəˈbɪlɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stuh-bil-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1.   the state or quality of being stable.
2.   firmness in position.
3.   continuance without change; permanence.
4.   Chemistry. resistance or the degree of resistance to chemical change or disintegration.
5.   resistance to change, esp. sudden change or deterioration: The stability of the economy encourages investment.
6.   steadfastness; constancy, as of character or purpose: The job calls for a great deal of emotional stability.
7.   Aeronautics. the ability of an aircraft to return to its original flying position when abruptly displaced.
8.   Roman Catholic Church. a vow taken by a Benedictine monk, binding him to residence for life in the same monastery in which he made the vow.


The US hasn't been able to create a "stable" situation in Iraq.


Saddam had accomplished this.  There was:  firmness in position and continuance without change; permanence.  Now,  his government wasn't a good thing, but for the average citizen, there wasn't the violence then that we now see very day and the uncertainly of future.

What you are talking about is a governing issue involving free speech or peaceful change of power (like presidential elections in the USA) without penalty.

2 very different things.

I think you are incorrectly comparing an unstable situation with a "bad" government or repressive dictatorship.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #112 on: May 17, 2007, 10:45:37 AM »
Internal strife happens in every country. 

Kuwait is surrounded by Saudi Arabia. 

Of course he's going to have troops by the border if Hussein is annexing Kuwait. 

The Iraq-Kuwait problem was an oil problem--surprise.  Kuwait was cross drilling into Iraq reserves.  April Glaspie--the US diplomat--told Hussein that the US had no opinion on his annexation of Kuwait.   

Pilfering is not relevant.

In all fairness, the middle east is a hotbed. 

Kuwait & Iraq were allies in the Iraq/Iran war.  The character of ally/enemy changes rather quickly there.

Iraq was no more a threat to the stability of the region than any other country there.

Israel has massacred the Palestinians, commandeered their land and choked off Palistine's commerce.  Palestine has responded with attacks including suicide bombing.

I would argue that Israel's threat to the area dwarfed any from Iraq.

Anyways, if you look at:


the ongoing civil war,
the growth of Al Qaeda terrorism,
the tiny green zones of "safety" amidst
the demilitarized zones,
and the influx of Iranian influence into the area

I'd say Iraq is a tad bit more unstable than at any time under Hussein.


Decker you are sugarcoating Saddam and his brutal regime.  Internal strife?  Are you kidding?  It was the torture and murder of Iraqi civilians by the Iraqi government.  You call that stable?    

So Saddam invades Kuwait and then begins massing his troops on the Saudi border and this is not evidence that he was going to invade Saudi Arabia?  Give me a break.  

A dictator pilfering his country's resources, resulting in many of the people living in poverty is absolutely relevant to whether or not the country is stable.  

Iraq was at war with Iran for 8 years and this isn't evidence of instability in the region?  

Are you actually trying to justify Saddam dropping scuds on Israel and sponsoring terrorism in Israel?  

This is crazy.  How can you look at what happened in that country in the decades before we invaded and conclude it was stable?  Look at this story:

Inside Saddam's torture chamber

By Bill Neely
Basra, southern Iraq  

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a state of terror, and the security apparatus was at the heart of it.

As I walked into the secret police headquarters in Basra - which is now in British hands - I met former inmates and ordinary Iraqis had been terrified to come here until now.

 The secret police building is now a bombed out shell
What was to follow was a horrific education in terror.

In the smoking basement of the bombed building was a warren of cells where prisoners had been tortured.

"People died, people were imprisoned without trial," one man told me.

We went further down, to cells that had no light and little air. They were covered with cockroaches and filth - and on the ground I saw a gas mask and bottles of chemicals.

One man said he had spent eight years inside, just for attending Friday prayers. He prayed too much and was seen as a dangerous radical.

But the secret police headquarters had more horrors to reveal.

One man whose relatives had been killed here said they had their hands tied behind their backs, and were left to hang from their arms for days on end.

Crying out

Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq through fear, torture and execution. It happened here to tens of thousands of Iraqis deemed dangerous by the secret police.
 
Former prisoners showed how they were interrogated
A man cowered for months, crammed with 300 others into a huge cell.

Hameed Fatil told me he was tortured, along with his two brothers who were executed, and re-enacted their ordeal.

Security officers kept record of prisoners. Their fingerprints are all that is left of them - apart from photographs of their interrogations.

To call all this a chamber of horrors is a cliche - and this place is beyond cliche. The hundreds or thousands that died here and were given no trial, no voice, cry out.

On the ground I found a book called the Psychology of Interrogation, as if the men who worked here needed a handbook.

On my way out I was glad of the fresh air and glad to leave - glad that I could.

No one knows yet whether the new Iraq will be the kind of place where children can grow up free of the fear, the horror of torture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2930739.stm

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #113 on: May 17, 2007, 10:53:02 AM »

Well here's the definition:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sta·bil·i·ty      /stəˈbɪlɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stuh-bil-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1.   the state or quality of being stable.
2.   firmness in position.
3.   continuance without change; permanence.
4.   Chemistry. resistance or the degree of resistance to chemical change or disintegration.
5.   resistance to change, esp. sudden change or deterioration: The stability of the economy encourages investment.
6.   steadfastness; constancy, as of character or purpose: The job calls for a great deal of emotional stability.
7.   Aeronautics. the ability of an aircraft to return to its original flying position when abruptly displaced.
8.   Roman Catholic Church. a vow taken by a Benedictine monk, binding him to residence for life in the same monastery in which he made the vow.


The US hasn't been able to create a "stable" situation in Iraq.


Saddam had accomplished this.  There was:  firmness in position and continuance without change; permanence.  Now,  his government wasn't a good thing, but for the average citizen, there wasn't the violence then that we now see very day and the uncertainly of future.

What you are talking about is a governing issue involving free speech or peaceful change of power (like presidential elections in the USA) without penalty.

2 very different things.

I think you are incorrectly comparing an unstable situation with a "bad" government or repressive dictatorship.

You're focusing on one issue, which I think is only part of the analysis.  You can apply that definition to any regime that has a dictator and uses torture and murder to control the people.  I'm saying this kind of dictatorship, which includes the murder of civilians by the government, is part of what made Iraq and the region unstable.  There is also:

- An eight year war with Iran
- The invasion of a sovereign country
- The attempted invasion of another sovereign country
- Dropping bombs on yet another sovereign country
- Sponsoring terrorism in another sovereign country
- Stealing the country's resources and forcing large segments of the population to live like cavemen
- Attempting to develop and/or obtain WMDs

IMO, whether or not Iraq and the region is more unstable now than before the war is debatable, but whether Iraq and the region were unstable before the war is as plain as J-Lo's butt. 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #114 on: May 17, 2007, 11:00:08 AM »
You're focusing on one issue, which I think is only part of the analysis.  You can apply that definition to any regime that has a dictator and uses torture and murder to control the people.  I'm saying this kind of dictatorship, which includes the murder of civilians by the government, is part of what made Iraq and the region unstable.  There is also:

- An eight year war with Iran
- The invasion of a sovereign country
- The attempted invasion of another sovereign country
- Dropping bombs on yet another sovereign country
- Sponsoring terrorism in another sovereign country
- Stealing the country's resources and forcing large segments of the population to live like cavemen
- Attempting to develop and/or obtain WMDs

IMO, whether or not Iraq and the region is more unstable now than before the war is debatable, but whether Iraq and the region were unstable before the war is as plain as J-Lo's butt. 


Just about everything you listed there is before 1993.  10 years of practically nothing to 2003.   Now we have what 2500  of al queda int he country and a situation that is forcing us to stay there and pour more of our money and lives into it because all hell will really break lose if we leave.  Not that Cheney's bullet proof vest is any indication of how safe it is there now.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #115 on: May 17, 2007, 11:06:17 AM »
Just about everything you listed there is before 1993.  10 years of practically nothing to 2003.   Now we have what 2500  of al queda int he country and a situation that is forcing us to stay there and pour more of our money and lives into it because all hell will really break lose if we leave.  Not that Cheney's bullet proof vest is any indication of how safe it is there now.

I disagree.  At the time we invaded: 

- Torture and murder of his own people = ongoing
- Sponsoring terrorism in Israel = ongoing
- Stealing his country's resources = ongoing
- Attempting to develop and/or obtain WMDs = ongoing

And the only reason he wasn't attacking people (other than sponsoring terrorism) was the presence of our military. 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #116 on: May 17, 2007, 11:11:29 AM »
I disagree.  At the time we invaded: 

- Torture and murder of his own people = ongoing
- Sponsoring terrorism in Israel = ongoing
- Stealing his country's resources = ongoing
- Attempting to develop and/or obtain WMDs = ongoing

And the only reason he wasn't attacking people (other than sponsoring terrorism) was the presence of our military. 


None of those fit into the definition of instability.  They do fit into the definition of the repressive dictatorship.   

The questions now are:

-  Is torture and murder fro political reason going on right now in Iraq?   YES and YES
-  Is there increased terrorism in Iraq and outside Iraq?  YES and YES
-  Who's getting their resources now?  (all i know is that i pay $3.29 for gas versus $1.89 and we are still 400 billion in debt over this)
-  Who needs WMD's when you have a cache of fanatic suicide bombers ready to show for turnips?


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #117 on: May 17, 2007, 11:36:17 AM »
None of those fit into the definition of instability.  They do fit into the definition of the repressive dictatorship.   

The questions now are:

-  Is torture and murder fro political reason going on right now in Iraq?   YES and YES
-  Is there increased terrorism in Iraq and outside Iraq?  YES and YES
-  Who's getting their resources now?  (all i know is that i pay $3.29 for gas versus $1.89 and we are still 400 billion in debt over this)
-  Who needs WMD's when you have a cache of fanatic suicide bombers ready to show for turnips?



True, if you accept your definition of stability.  I don't.  I think it's too narrow. 

And your questions are relevant to whether Iraq and the region are more unstable now than before the war.  IMO, it's sort of pointless to argue this, if you conclude (like I have) that it was unstable before the war.   

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #118 on: May 17, 2007, 11:40:26 AM »
True, if you accept your definition of stability.  I don't.  I think it's too narrow. 

And your questions are relevant to whether Iraq and the region are more unstable now than before the war.  IMO, it's sort of pointless to argue this, if you conclude (like I have) that it was unstable before the war.   

I hear ya, although i disagree.   

I look at things from the point of view as to where we can better put our energies and resources in fighting terrorism to work and that's part of the reason why i didn't think invading Iraq was good in the first place.

Our actions in Afghanistan where very justifiable to almost all arabs at that time.  Invading Iraq spent all the credit we built up from that.  Credit we could use to fight terrorism. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #119 on: May 17, 2007, 11:45:42 AM »
Decker you are sugarcoating Saddam and his brutal regime.  Internal strife?  Are you kidding?  It was the torture and murder of Iraqi civilians by the Iraqi government.  You call that stable?    

So Saddam invades Kuwait and then begins massing his troops on the Saudi border and this is not evidence that he was going to invade Saudi Arabia?  Give me a break.  

A dictator pilfering his country's resources, resulting in many of the people living in poverty is absolutely relevant to whether or not the country is stable.  

Iraq was at war with Iran for 8 years and this isn't evidence of instability in the region?  

Are you actually trying to justify Saddam dropping scuds on Israel and sponsoring terrorism in Israel?  

This is crazy.  How can you look at what happened in that country in the decades before we invaded and conclude it was stable?  Look at this story:

.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2930739.stm
There's rampant torture in Iraq today based on sectarian difference.  That's not going away.

Under Hussein, only his enemies were victims.  That's disgusting but certainly less lethal than today's situation in Iraq where it’s shia v sunni v extreme factions of each. 

Hussein was a rather practical man.  His beef over the cross drilling was with Kuwait and not with Saudi Arabia.  Given that he checked out the US’s position prior to annexing Kuwait, I would surmise that he’d view an invasion of Saudi Arabia w/out the US’s consent as a ‘no-go.’  But you are free to speculate as you wish.

As for the Iraq/Iran war, that war was a long time in the making.  It was as much a religious war as anything else.  Sunni v. Shia.

Which side did the US support again?  That's right, both sides.

Do you really think that I'm justifying Saddam's violence?  Shame, shame, shame….

Here's how I can look at what happened in that country and conclude it was more stable then than it is now: 

The origin of instability in the Middle East is largely due to religious differences.  Bush's illegal invasion removed a stopgap that kept Iran and Iraq divided.  Now with Hussein out of power, it's only a matter of time before the Shia majority cleanses Iraq of the sunni minority. 

Guess what?

Iran (largely Shia) has more ties to the Shia majority than we do.  Guess who the real benefactor is?  Iran.

Think about that the next time you consider today's Iraq a stabilizing force in the area.

On second thought, I guess it is:  The shia of Iran will run the entire Iran/Iraq area.  Now that's stability.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #120 on: May 17, 2007, 12:06:22 PM »
I hear ya, although i disagree.   

I look at things from the point of view as to where we can better put our energies and resources in fighting terrorism to work and that's part of the reason why i didn't think invading Iraq was good in the first place.

Our actions in Afghanistan where very justifiable to almost all arabs at that time.  Invading Iraq spent all the credit we built up from that.  Credit we could use to fight terrorism. 

I was in favor of invading and still believe it was the right thing to do.  I know we disagree on that.  But we do agree that the war was not managed properly.  I think we screwed up by not listening to General Shinseki.  Our force wasn't nearly large enough.  Our men and women were not properly equipped.  They weren't really trained well enough to deal with guerilla warfare.  Now we're stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight and we're not even sure who the enemy is.  :-\

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #121 on: May 17, 2007, 12:08:16 PM »
Alot of this could have been mitigated by huge numbers of troops and an ROE that would have alllowed guys like me to shoot folks we knew were Bathists and Fedayeen Saddam  and avoid guys over there now, having to deal with them.
L

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #122 on: May 17, 2007, 12:10:58 PM »
There's rampant torture in Iraq today based on sectarian difference.  That's not going away.

Under Hussein, only his enemies were victims.  That's disgusting but certainly less lethal than today's situation in Iraq where it’s shia v sunni v extreme factions of each. 

Hussein was a rather practical man.  His beef over the cross drilling was with Kuwait and not with Saudi Arabia.  Given that he checked out the US’s position prior to annexing Kuwait, I would surmise that he’d view an invasion of Saudi Arabia w/out the US’s consent as a ‘no-go.’  But you are free to speculate as you wish.

As for the Iraq/Iran war, that war was a long time in the making.  It was as much a religious war as anything else.  Sunni v. Shia.

Which side did the US support again?  That's right, both sides.

Do you really think that I'm justifying Saddam's violence?  Shame, shame, shame….

Here's how I can look at what happened in that country and conclude it was more stable then than it is now: 

The origin of instability in the Middle East is largely due to religious differences.  Bush's illegal invasion removed a stopgap that kept Iran and Iraq divided.  Now with Hussein out of power, it's only a matter of time before the Shia majority cleanses Iraq of the sunni minority. 

Guess what?

Iran (largely Shia) has more ties to the Shia majority than we do.  Guess who the real benefactor is?  Iran.

Think about that the next time you consider today's Iraq a stabilizing force in the area.

On second thought, I guess it is:  The shia of Iran will run the entire Iran/Iraq area.  Now that's stability.



I'm focusing on the condition of Iraq before we invaded.  Even if you only focus on the most recent events, you have him sponsoring terrorism in another country, which creates immense problems in the region, and you have the torture and murder of civilians domestically:

"People died, people were imprisoned without trial," one man told me.

We went further down, to cells that had no light and little air. They were covered with cockroaches and filth - and on the ground I saw a gas mask and bottles of chemicals.

One man said he had spent eight years inside, just for attending Friday prayers. He prayed too much and was seen as a dangerous radical.

But the secret police headquarters had more horrors to reveal.

One man whose relatives had been killed here said they had their hands tied behind their backs, and were left to hang from their arms for days on end.


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #123 on: May 17, 2007, 12:13:01 PM »
I was in favor of invading and still believe it was the right thing to do.  I know we disagree on that.  But we do agree that the war was not managed properly.  I think we screwed up by not listening to General Shinseki.  Our force wasn't nearly large enough.  Our men and women were not properly equipped.  They weren't really trained well enough to deal with guerilla warfare.  Now we're stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight and we're not even sure who the enemy is.  :-\

Agreed.

When the iraqis started raiding and pilfering government buildings it was the water shed moment for the chaos that grown to what it is now.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers
« Reply #124 on: May 17, 2007, 12:16:55 PM »
I watched it...i remember some guys taking crap from a hospital..we called it up..there was a15 min pause as my boss asked wht to do from his..they came back with..fuck it..'let em do it until somebody gets back to us". My boys were all ready to light them up.
L