"That's a violation of the Geneva Convention." - R

[Ronnie Raygun]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81911,00.html

Arabic News Channel Shows Alleged U.S. Prisoners







Sunday, March 23, 2003
By Liza Porteus


Arabic news channel Al-Jazeera showed footage Sunday of what it said were five U.S. prisoners, including one woman.





The station showed footage of the alleged soldiers being questioned by their captors and being asked things such as where they were from and their names. The tape that was broadcast was reportedly provided by Iraqi television and was edited.

"This is the first we've seen of it -- it looks like Iraqi TV propaganda," said a U.S. Defense Department spokesperson. "What they're doing is wrong -- we're trying to get to the bottom of what we're seeing. We're investigating the tape now."

Three prisoners -- including the woman -- said they were from Texas, another was from New Jersey and another from Kansas.

"They shot at me first so I shot them … I wouldn't kill anybody … they don't bother me, I don't bother them," said the Kansas man. "I was told to come here," he said when asked why he came to Iraq.

One Texas man said: "I follow orders," when asked why he was there.

When asked how the Iraqi people have received him -- whether it be with "flowers or guns" -- the Texas man said "I don't understand … they're people of their own country."

In the interviews, two of the prisoners identified their unit only as the 507th Maintenance. The woman said she was 30 years old. She had no shoes on.

The station said the prisoners were captured around Nasiriyah.

Al-Jazeera also showed at least one prisoner lying on a cot, appearing to be wounded. Two prisoners were bandaged.

One of the male prisoners, sitting up, was being interviewed by an unseen person holding a microphone labeled "Iraqi TV." The soldier spoke in English and at one point said: "I'm sorry. I don't understand you."

The station also showed a gruesome and disturbing video of bodies in uniform in an Iraqi morgue that it said were Americans.

While an Iraqi smiled at the camera over the bodies and shifted them to better display the wounds, the tape showed what is purported to be U.S. Marines in U.S. military attire lying on the floor with serious head and torso wounds -- many execution style.

At one point, Iraqis pulled out what appears to be a passport and other papers out of one deceased person's pocket. Soldiers' shirts were pulled up, and pants pulled down, to show the extent of the wounds.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, reacting to the video during an appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, said: "That's a violation of the Geneva Convention."

The convention prohibits photographing and humiliating captured troops.

Adopted in Aug. 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, in Geneva, the agreement says prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act -- including death or injury -- committed by detainees "will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention," according to the agreement.

POWs should not be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment. POWs "at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity," it states.

Defense officials said they were analyzing the video. They also said there is nothing in the tape that would lead them to believe the prisoners were not really U.S. troops.

"We will … get these men and women out of there -- there's no question in my mind," Fox News military analyst Maj. Gen Burton Moore said Sunday.

Referring to the tape showing the dead bodies, Moore said: "Make no mistake about it ... if in fact it is our people, the execution of these people is against the Geneva Convention."

"This is an outrage -- it's an outage to all Americans and it will continue to shore up our resolve" to win war," Moore continued. "This is Saddam Hussein through and through -- this is no surprise they would do this … this is still a terrible tragedy."

Fox News' David Lee Miller and Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

...........................

Yet some of you insist on supporting Saddam's cause..

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We love Saddam, Ronnie. I think it'll be the name of my first born.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Hmmmm.

No concern for the troops.

Just as I thought.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That's a lie. My very opposition to this war has been based on a concern for ALL lives involved.

If Iraq is in violation, what do you propose we do? We're already going to destroy that government, even if it means destroying all of Baghdad. Look at the pictures of babies with burns from bomb blasts, and tell me about the fucking Geneva Convention, as if a conservative EVER cares about international treaties and agreements (only if they serve his purpose for argument, of course). How many men have we been glad to leave in places such as Pakistan in the war on terror?? We leave them there for interogation, why Ronnie???

This "support Saddam" shit is no better than Red baiting, much like your inept buddy Sean Hannity does to make up for his lack of an argument.

So you can say "support Saddam" and "love Saddam" and "cheer for Saddam" all you like, just as long as you acknowledge that you "love to see death," "love to see destruction," "love to see innocent BABIES burned," "love to see civilians dying," etc. etc.

[AChimp]

If it's against the Geneva Convention to photograph or humiliate POWs, what about those dudes from Afghanistan that the U.S. is holding?

... Oh yeah, the White House used some political faggotry to say they don't "count."

:lol

Ah well. If Americans were captured, it's because they were overconfident and foolish.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"That's a lie. My very opposition to this war has been based on a concern for ALL lives involved."

Where was your (and people like you) concern for the innocent in Iraq in 98' and in Kosovo when a democrat was bombing civilain targets? The fact that you deny the hypocracy shown by the left makes me doubt your concern. Kevin, I know you don't like Saddam but you actions and Anti-war attitude supports that of Saddam. Do you disagree?

"If Iraq is in violation, what do you propose we do?"

First of all, there is NO doubt that he is.

Second, we should do exactly what we are doing right now.

"We're already going to destroy that government, even if it means destroying all of Baghdad."

You know that's not going to happen. Just look how hard we are trying to limit civilian casualties. Do you disagree?

"Look at the pictures of babies with burns from bomb blasts, and tell me about the fucking Geneva Convention,"

We have in NO way violated the Geveva Convention. We have treated our prisoners very well. Do you disagree?

"as if a conservative EVER cares about international treaties and agreements (only if they serve his purpose for argument, of course)."

WHAT!? The reason we are in Iraq right now is because of one!!

Most international treaties are set against us. But still, I would lake an example.

"How many men have we been glad to leave in places such as Pakistan in the war on terror?? We leave them there for interogation, why Ronnie???"

CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

"This "support Saddam" shit is no better than Red baiting, much like your inept buddy Sean Hannity does to make up for his lack of an argument."

Hannity never loses a debate. How do you explain that?

"So you can say "support Saddam" and "love Saddam" and "cheer for Saddam" all you like, just as long as you acknowledge that you "love to see death," "love to see destruction," "love to see innocent BABIES burned," "love to see civilians dying," etc. etc."

I was hearing that way before I ever said anything about you supporting Saddam. The fact is, you ARE supporting Saddam if you are anti-war. If you are pro-war you are for the liberation of the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant.

NOW!

Back to the Geneva Convention.

[FS]

You're a bastard, Ronnie.

[Ronnie Raygun]

......more love from the anti-war crowd.

[FS]

People have been wounded and died in battle and you try to make use of the occasion to once again label war protestors as Saddam-lovers.

Therefore, you are a bastard.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Where was your (and people like you) concern for the innocent in Iraq in 98' and in Kosovo when a democrat was bombing civilain targets?

Your naive and ignorant if you DON'T believe people like myself have held, and maintain criticism of Clinton's foreign policies.

But the fact remains that this is different than Kosovo, it's different than Desert Fox, and it's even different than the FIRST Gulf War. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this only proves how blinded you are by your desire to see this war.

The fact that you deny the hypocracy shown by the left makes me doubt your concern. Kevin, I know you don't like Saddam but you actions and Anti-war attitude supports that of Saddam. Do you disagree?

I disagree completely, because unlike yourself, many opposing the war can think and analyze on multiple levels. It's like saying "if you buy gas, you support terrorism." As cute and amusing as that line is, it's not all that true, and far too simplistic, wouldn't you agree?

First of all, there is NO doubt that he is.

Like Choimp said, maybe Iraq has decided American soldiers don't "count" in terms of Geneva.

You know that's not going to happen. Just look how hard we are trying to limit civilian casualties. Do you disagree?

I didn't say it will happen, but to blindly assume that it won't happen is ridiculous. Saddam's "best" troops have pulled back to Baghdad, they will do ANYTHING, I have no doubt. They will use civilians, they will play very, VERY dirty. It will be nearly impossible I think to get them without causing a considerable amount of damage.

I DO agree that the military has been cautious, I mean, about as cautious as you can be when basically throwing a large explosive into a solid structure. And much like GAsux said, I feel you can thank the peace movement for this caution. A few months ago the Bush administration wasn't "ruling out" WMD against Baghdad. Do you think if there wasn't such a global outcry against war, that our military would be acting with such strict concern? I doubt it.

We have in NO way violated the Geveva Convention. We have treated our prisoners very well. Do you disagree?

I'm not even TALKING about our prisoners or the fucking Geneva convention. Soldiers are soldiers. Our troops should NOT be submitted to anything cruel and unusual, but the bottom line is that they ARE soldiers, and they ARE at war.

Children don't know war. Babies don't understand the Geneva Convention. Half of Iraq's population is under the age of 15, to my understanding.


WHAT!? The reason we are in Iraq right now is because of one!!

1441? Cuz of the SCUDS that haven't been fired? Because of the WMD that haven't been found? Cuz of the bio-weapons and the gasses that haven't been found?

You hate the UN, and you likewise could care less if we abided by their decisions. The new found love and respect for the "sanctity" of the UN and global treaties is a joke. Youuse it for your own personal advantage now.


"How many men have we been glad to leave in places such as Pakistan in the war on terror?? We leave them there for interogation, why Ronnie???"

CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

Why lock men up in Cuba? Why interogate men IN Pakistan?

Hannity never loses a debate. How do you explain that?

How do I explain the wax in your ears?

I was hearing that way before I ever said anything about you supporting Saddam. The fact is, you ARE supporting Saddam if you are anti-war. If you are pro-war you are for the liberation of the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant.

Would we be doing this if 1. 9/11 had not happened, a 2. there were no natural resources there? When does the liberation of Sudan start? How about the liberation of Qatar, our alllies? How about Pakistan? North Korea? the Kurds? China?

There's a long list, sport. We better buy more guns and bombs.

If you are anti-war you're this, if you're pro-war your that. You should write for Sesame Street.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm.

No concern for the troops.

Just as I thought.


Actually Ronnie, the manner and tone in which you posted this information tells me that YOU in fact do not care about the troops nor their families, and the only reason you care at all about this situation is that you seem to want to use it to gloat over it.

I find this post you made very crass.

[theapportioner]

Kevin's been on a tear lately. :worship

Half of Iraq's population is under the age of 15, to my understanding.

Hrm, this is rather interesting...

[CaptainBubba]

Hey Ronnie. Do you like food? Just answer it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Half of Iraq's population is under the age of 15, to my understanding.

Hrm, this is rather interesting...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

The CIA factbook has it at about 40%, I've heard other numbers, still a sizable amount of young people (not to mention that the largest bracket, 15-64, is vague).

[VinceZeb]

And those young people will never have to live and grow up more within the tyranny of Saddam.

And yes, they violated 1441 when they would not let the inspectors have FULL, UNBLOCKED access to whereever they wanted. Just from that they broke it. Also, all that info given to the inspectors about the disarmament and the procedures was said to be not helpful whatsoever. Who said that? Hans Blix.


Man, you all believe any good evil disinformation campaign. If Lucifer acended from Hell right now you would believe he was the good guy in the whole situation as long as they said the right things.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And those young people will never have to live and grow up more within the tyranny of Saddam.

I pose the same question to you that I posed to Ronnie. When do we liberate the North Korean children? The Saudi women? the Chinese children? the Pakistani children? etc. etc.

I don't disagree with you that an Iraq without Saddam is desirable, I just disagree with you on the measures that have been taken to do so, and the pretext under which it will/has been done.

And yes, they violated 1441 when they would not let the inspectors have FULL, UNBLOCKED access to whereever they wanted. Just from that they broke it. Also, all that info given to the inspectors about the disarmament and the procedures was said to be not helpful whatsoever. Who said that? Hans Blix.

"We had made rapid start," he said. "We did not have any obstacles from the Iraqi side in going anywhere. They gave us prompt access and we were in a great many places all over Iraq."
(BBC News, 3/20/03)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2867913.stm

Who said that?

Man, you all believe any good evil disinformation campaign. If Lucifer acended from Hell right now you would believe he was the good guy in the whole situation as long as they said the right things.

:lol

[VinceZeb]

Last time I checked, back in 1998 the inspectors were kicked out.... and the last time I checked after the last time... Blix said the Iraq reports were really not that helpful.

Hans Blix also thinks the enivorment is more important than the weapons inspections when it comes to global events. Said it in an interview on MTV that they have on their web site.

[The_Rorschach]

I've seen the footage, even took the time to find my own copy of it on the web, and while the people they show on the video fairly convincing, I'm not sure I buy it.

As Kelly can attest, in boot camp they drill you instruction on proper conduct as a prisoner of war, and one thing you are expressly forbidden from doing is reading or responding to any statements on video which could possibly incriminate the US. (This is for the same reason that we're not supposed to officially speak with media without our command's position, lest what we say be taken as an official statement).

On a purely personal note, I still get my silly little DoD emails about eight times a day, which normally just say what areas are upgrading their alert status and, what billets are coming open, and noting anyone who died in uniform. . .And I haven't heard anything about anyone missing from the 507 yet. Which, while I'm not necessarily saying I would be told, but General Burton surely wouldn't be saying 'we're looking into it.' He would already damn well know one way or the other. As often as the military screws the pooch, we're not so fucked up that we would miss the loss of a score of people ion the front lines without having any idea what happened to them.

[FS]

Perhaps the POWs were drugged before put on camera.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Last time I checked, back in 1998 the inspectors were kicked out....

Weren't kicked out, were PULLED out.

and the last time I checked after the last time... Blix said the Iraq reports were really not that helpful.

Well now you know you were wrong. And knowing's half the battle. :)

Hans Blix also thinks the enivorment is more important than the weapons inspections when it comes to global events. Said it in an interview on MTV that they have on their web site.

Okay, so first you were ready to crown him Sir Blix for supporting your claims, and now that you realize he doesn't, well, then he's a bastard...?

Great logic. :lol

[mburbank]

"you ARE supporting Saddam if you are anti-war."

THIS, Naldo, is how Hannity 'never' loses a debate. If you pre-define your terms and refuse to budge on them, anyone can 'never lose' a debate. You do it yourself all the time. These are not debates in any sense of the word. You do not debate.

And how do you know he never loses? Do you go to debatewinners.com, or do you just rely on your own narrow assesment, boxed in as it is by arbitrary definitions. Show me if you can in what way my being against the war actively supports saddam.

But before you do, here is my pre-defined conciet.

"You ARE supporting the death of innocent non combatants if you are pro-war."

[Anonymous]

http://www.popndeth.com/imock/greatdebate.jpg

[VinceZeb]

I'm only reporting what Blix said. I have always thought the guy was useless and stupid. He knows nothing about weapons, and is not the guy I would want inspecting someting he knows nothing about. But the problem is that you are not arguing what the man said, you are only trying to discredit me. Which in itself is useless, because I did not possess blix via mindlink and cause him to so what he said.

Nice picture. I love how the left is good at telling and making jokes but when it comes to anything serious their claims dry up like a sponge in Death Valley. That is why people who think like me are in the majority in this country. Jokes can only take you so far until you have to confront reality. Then, and if, you tell jokes, you are just seen as a shallow idiot with no depth perception when it comes to reality.

[VinceZeb]

Besides, the war is on TERROR, not on liberation. Liberating Iraq is a great side effect of this war. Now, if any other country wanted to sponsor or carry out terror, then we would blow them away as well.

[Anonymous]

I love how the left is good at telling and making jokes...That is why people who think like me are in the majority in this country. Jokes can only take you so far until you have to confront reality. Then, and if, you tell jokes, you are just seen as a shallow idiot with no depth perception when it comes to reality.
Absolutely. Anger and waving your metaphorical penis about is by far the best way to 'get the job done right.'

[VinceZeb]

Those two factors along with a sence of justice and servitiude to have freedom is the reason the United Staes of America is a free country and has destroyed world-wide evil doers since its existance.

I'm sorry if big-nuts diplomacy makes you sad, but its the way the world runs. There will ALWAYS be wars and rumors of them. A wiser man than I stated that undeniable truth.

[Anonymous]

You have to admit that the penis bit is a considerable chunk of it, though.

[Anonymous]

Besides, the war is on TERROR, not on liberation. Liberating Iraq is a great side effect of this war. Now, if any other country wanted to sponsor or carry out terror, then we would blow them away as well.


Was that supposed to be a joke or are you just an idiot?

[Protoclown]

The "war on terror" is the biggest crock of shit since the "war on drugs".

[kellychaos]

Ah well. If Americans were captured, it's because they were overconfident and foolish.

I'm not a big proponent of the war but this is unfair AChimp. Soldiers have been seeing a lot of genuine people surrendering and other such things happening repeatedly which, yes, would probably make them susceptible to a rouse (as a matter of habit ... so to speak). In addition, these are support personnel ... not combat arms personnel who are trained to react to ambushes and firefights, ect. You don't have to be a warmonger to have at least a little compassion for human suffering ... they're basically truck drivers for crying out loud. OK, I'm done venting. :)

[kellychaos]

I pose the same question to you that I posed to Ronnie. When do we liberate the North Korean children? The Saudi women? the Chinese children? the Pakistani children? etc. etc.



... or Iraq for that matter. I mean between the time of the gassing of the separatists Kurds in the north that they like to over-reference so much and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Kurds weren't important but Kuwait was. Hmmm ... kind of showed where their priorities were then. Have things changed since? Just sayin' :/

[VinceZeb]

The War on Iraq has two purposes which have been told to everyone: 1) to disarm Saddam which we have every right to do according to the U.N. (I bring this up so someone doesnt talk about the legality of the war. I hate the U.N. but Ill use their weapons agains them) and 2) to liberate Iraq.

We cannot police the world and instill our virtue on everyone. That is not our policy. Now, if they become a terrorist threat, we go after them.

And for the U.N. lovers, why didnt they go into Rawanda (my spelling is probably wrong) and stop the million that died? Why did they fuck up the former Yugoslavia so bad?

[mburbank]

Nobody gives a screw about darkies and unibrowed eastern euros who don't have any oil in the first place, so it didn't seriously come up.

[Jeanette X]

The War on Iraq has two purposes which have been told to everyone: 1) to disarm Saddam which we have every right to do according to the U.N. (I bring this up so someone doesnt talk about the legality of the war. I hate the U.N. but Ill use their weapons agains them) and 2) to liberate Iraq.

N. Korea is a threat, definetely has WMD, and represses its people. Why aren't we at war with them also for those reasons?

[The_Rorschach]

"N. Korea is a threat, definetely has WMD, and represses its people. Why aren't we at war with them also for those reasons?"

If you don't know the answer to this one, you shouldn't be an active participant in these conversations. The differences between the two are actually rather obvious. North Korea did not prosecute a war on its neighbor, regardless of whatever provocation was given. Secondly, it did not choose aggressive action against the U.N. coalition and then refuse to abide by the peace agreement that it agreed to. Thirdly, diplomacy between Kin Jung Il and the U.N. is more than a possibility, it is a reality. Talks are underway currently to discuss whether nuclear arms in Korea will be allowed, and if disallowed, what will be offered in return to mitigate factors.

Unlike Iraq, which stockpiled weapons as a reality, North Korea is merely building the capabilities to create nuclear and ballistic warheads. Why, and why do so publically? It's believed by many, and I am one, that it is a facade being utilized in order to strengthen bargaining tactics which will grant North Korea with better trade options and pump their staggering economy and maybe even see to it that their citizens can eat at least once day.

[AChimp]

Or, you know, they might all wanna set a few off so they can glow in the dark.

[VinceZeb]

Max once again avoids the serious question that I propose to him about his precious U.N. Wow.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm only reporting what Blix said. I have always thought the guy was useless and stupid. He knows nothing about weapons, and is not the guy I would want inspecting someting he knows nothing about.

You specificaly threw him into your sentence to add credibility, and when you found out that he has said something to the contrary, you demonized him. Heh.

But the problem is that you are not arguing what the man said, you are only trying to discredit me.

You do a fine job of that on your own. :lol

You said he said something, I showed he said otherwise. Nothing devious, nothing deceptive, pretty straight forward point-counter point.

[mburbank]

Actually, my answer was completely serious. The UN is a difficult, fractious, unwieldy tool, but it's the only tool out there. For any action to take place, ENORMOUS pressure has to be brought to bare. A good example was the invasion of Kuwait.


The difference between That and Rawanda and Yugolsavia is spelled O-I-L.

Just becuase you didn;t understnd me, don't assume I didn't mean something.

And Shach. I repectfully disagree. I think the major differences between North Korea and Iraq are that North Korea has nuclear weapons and a capable army strategically placed and does not have oil. We can't beat the crap out of them as easily as we do Iraq, and there are no spoils to be had.

[The_Rorschach]

Assume I'm a complete and other shitwit, not far from the truth, and explain to me the connection between government action and Saddam's oil. As to date, I have only heard the most tenuous ties made between the two.

[VinceZeb]

They cant explain it. I'll just go ahead and answer it for you: No Blood for Oil is a perfect liberal mantra. 1) It fits on a bumper sticker, which is the extent of liberal evidence and brain power. 2) The question on a base level answers itself, but when you ask these protester to show evidence or proof to anything, you are nothing but a facist warmonger.

Man, I could go on for days, but it wont answer the question fully at hand.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Your naive and ignorant if you DON'T believe people like myself have held, and maintain criticism of Clinton's foreign policies. - Kevin

WHERE WERE THE PROTESTS WHEN CLINTON BOMBED CIVILAIN TARGETS IN IRAQ AND IN KOSOVO???? PLEASE ANSWER!!!

"But the fact remains that this is different than Kosovo, it's different than Desert Fox, and it's even different than the FIRST Gulf War." - Kevin

IT WAS NO DIFFERENT WHEN THE PROTESTS STARTED 6 MONTHS AGO!! HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT!!!

"Your unwillingness to acknowledge this only proves how blinded you are by your desire to see this war. - Kevin

It's different now because the Iraqi people are being liberated as a result of us protecting our national security.

"I disagree completely, because unlike yourself, many opposing the war can think and analyze on multiple levels. It's like saying "if you buy gas, you support terrorism." As cute and amusing as that line is, it's not all that true, and far too simplistic, wouldn't you agree?"

No I don't. Because it's not my analyzation that's in question. It's a questio og Saddam's interpretation. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? When he sees people on t.v. burning the American flag and protesting the U.S. while saying NOTHING about what he's doing wrong, it looks like support for him. It has nothing to do with ME. It's between YOU and HIM.

"Like Choimp said, maybe Iraq has decided American soldiers don't "count" in terms of Geneva. - Kevin

If they do, they are wrong.

"Saddam's "best" troops have pulled back to Baghdad, they will do ANYTHING, I have no doubt." - Kevin

Wrong, secret police thugs are in Baghdad while the best troops are in Baghdad.

"They will use civilians, they will play very, VERY dirty. It will be nearly impossible I think to get them without causing a considerable amount of damage." - Kevin

The civilian population will start to leave Baghdad when the fighting starts there. Therefore making it harder for these people to blend in.

"1441? Cuz of the SCUDS that haven't been fired? Because of the WMD that haven't been found? Cuz of the bio-weapons and the gasses that haven't been found?" - Kevin

EXACTLY!!! Blix is an idiot who couldn't find what he was looking for. Why? Well, mostly because that's not the job of the inspectors. Every nation knows he has them.....why do his troops have chemical suits and remedies for chemical and bio exposure?

"You hate the UN, and you likewise could care less if we abided by their decisions. The new found love and respect for the "sanctity" of the UN and global treaties is a joke. Youuse it for your own personal advantage now." - Kevin

I have no love for the U.N. You are right. When it suits our purpose, I think we should use it as a tool just like every other country does.


"Why lock men up in Cuba? Why interogate men IN Pakistan?" - Kevin

Why not? What difference does that make? Does Geneva not apply there?

"Would we be doing this if 1. 9/11 had not happened, a 2. there were no natural resources there? - Kevin

Probably not.

"When does the liberation of Sudan start? How about the liberation of Qatar, our alllies? How about Pakistan? North Korea? the Kurds? China?" - Kevin

When we have a security interest there.

"If you are anti-war you're this, if you're pro-war your that. You should write for Sesame Street."

If I did, you still wouldn't be able to comprehend it

[ItalianStereotype]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/sprj.irq.pows.executed/index.html

they have also fired missiles ranging 190 kilometers, a clear violation of resolutions 687 and 1441.

[sspadowsky]

:eek 190 kilometers? OH MY GOD! ANOTHER 10,000 KILOMETERS, AND THEY MIGHT BE HITTING OUR SHORES! CLEARLY THEY ARE A DIRECT THREAT TO US AFTER ALL! :faint
________
Vaporizer Review (http://twitter.com/vaporizer)

[Jeanette X]

Those two factors along with a sence of justice and servitiude to have freedom is the reason the United Staes of America is a free country and has destroyed world-wide evil doers since its existance.

What about the Shah of Iran?

[FS]

Haha, that's an amusing quote. Are these the same evildoers the US put out there themselves? You know, sorta like target practice?

[kellychaos]

" The differences between the two are actually rather obvious. North Korea did not prosecute a war on its neighbor, regardless of whatever provocation was given.


The Korean War was halted by an cease-fire, not a treaty. There is still an actively patroled DMZ and, technically, the two countries are still at war.

"
Secondly, it did not choose aggressive action against the U.N. coalition and then refuse to abide by the peace agreement that it agreed to.

North Korea involved itself in an act of agression about fifty years ago. Iraq did the same about twelve years ago. Both have a basic disregard for U.N. policy and are not above publicly thumbing it's nose at them. Hmmm ... then again ... so do we. :/ Apart from the amount of time between their last act of aggression, they're both doing the same type of thing, really. North Korea just puts up a better bluff or maybe they just scare us more because there's conjecture that they may have intercontinental missle capability. So basically the bottom line is: Iraq really is not that big a threat and they are bad liars about it. They don't scare us so we're going to kick their ass. North Korea is a better poker player and possibly a bigger threat with a better trained/oraganized army that scares us so that we choose not to try and kick it's ass. Well ... that's the way I see it anyway.

BTW, check your attitude at the door when someone's asking a sincere question. There's no need to be insulting and I know that you're more intelligent than some of these other "jerk offs" in this forum.

[ItalianStereotype]

:eek 190 kilometers? OH MY GOD! ANOTHER 10,000 KILOMETERS, AND THEY MIGHT BE HITTING OUR SHORES! CLEARLY THEY ARE A DIRECT THREAT TO US AFTER ALL! :faint

no, but they are within firing range of our allies. besides, these terms were laid out in 687 right after the first gulf war, i would appreciate it if you wouldnt try to dismiss me as you would vincezeb....

but of more importance i think is that they are executing POWs...

[Jeanette X]

BTW, check your attitude at the door when someone's asking a sincere question. There's no need to be insulting and I know that you're more intelligent than some of these other "jerk offs" in this forum.

Thank you for standing up for me kellychaos. :)

[Ronnie Raygun]

"but of more importance i think is that they are executing POWs"

HA!

You think spad cares. He thinks it proves his point.

"That's what they get for being there" - Spad

[VinceZeb]

Yes, they broke laws that they agreed to after Gulf War I. See, that is the problem with you people that try to dismiss off my ideals. The problem is, they are right. You just dont like the messenger. Which only proves my point about you who won't directly debate the points made.

Disregarding me and people like me wont make the truth not the truth anymore.

[sspadowsky]

"but of more importance i think is that they are executing POWs"

HA!

You think spad cares. He thinks it proves his point.

"That's what they get for being there" - Spad

Kindly point out when and where I said that. Asshole. I've said time and again that I want our troops to come home in one piece. My beef is with the actions of the Bush Administration, not the troops. How dare you put words like that in my mouth? Besides, you're the one who approves of torture, buddy. It seems your ignorance truly knows no bounds.
________
Iolite vaporizer website (http://vaporizer.org/reviews)

[sspadowsky]

Yes, they broke laws that they agreed to after Gulf War I. See, that is the problem with you people that try to dismiss off my ideals. The problem is, they are right. You just dont like the messenger. Which only proves my point about you who won't directly debate the points made.

Disregarding me and people like me wont make the truth not the truth anymore.

Wow. Them are the most intelligent sentences I ever done saw you talk in.
________
Mexico City Hotels (http://mexicocityhotel.info)

[Ronnie Raygun]

Good come back, Spad.

[sspadowsky]

Yes, it was, wasn't it?
________
LovelyWendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Protoclown]

"I'm a piss poor example of what Christianity should be" -- Ronnie Raygun

Just playing the game, folks. Just playing the game.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

WHERE WERE THE PROTESTS WHEN CLINTON BOMBED CIVILAIN TARGETS IN IRAQ AND IN KOSOVO???? PLEASE ANSWER!!!

They were there, just not in this kind of magnitude. There's a lot of factors involved in this. The most important, and the most obvious for those who are older than 2 and without any kind of mental retardation, is that IT'S TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS!! WE WERE NOT HOLDING A FULL SCALE INVASION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY INTENT ON COMPLETELY OVERTHROWING ANOTHER REGIME!!!

Secondly, the connections are much more shady. Milosevich was blatantly and consistenly commiting genocide. While Saddam's regime is (was) just as rotten and oppressive, it wasn't done in the same fashion. Also, why are we going to war? To end terrorism? To liberate Iraq? To "save" the Middle East from its backward self? For oil? The objectives are much more unclear in this war, period.

IT WAS NO DIFFERENT WHEN THE PROTESTS STARTED 6 MONTHS AGO!! HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT!!!

What are you talking about?

It's different now because the Iraqi people are being liberated as a result of us protecting our national security.

So I guess all the other folks living under such regimes just need to start blowing up American buildings before anybody cares enough to "liberate" them, right?

No I don't. Because it's not my analyzation that's in question. It's a questio og Saddam's interpretation. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? When he sees people on t.v. burning the American flag and protesting the U.S. while saying NOTHING about what he's doing wrong, it looks like support for him. It has nothing to do with ME. It's between YOU and HIM.

You're a fool. And when you go buy gas, without acknowleding that we buy oil from oppressive, rotten regimes, you in fact are silently condoning that practice. Right?

The civilian population will start to leave Baghdad when the fighting starts there. Therefore making it harder for these people to blend in.

Providing the Guard doesn't start shooting people and keeping them there (I honestly have no clue what's going on, I've been out of the loop the past few days).


EXACTLY!!! Blix is an idiot who couldn't find what he was looking for. Why? Well, mostly because that's not the job of the inspectors. Every nation knows he has them.....why do his troops have chemical suits and remedies for chemical and bio exposure?

Blix was your hero when it fit the context, I'm sure.

Maybe they have fears of us using illegal crowd control nerve gases, like our military hinted at doing? I dunno, you tell me. Either way, we'll never know now, since the facade of a weapons inspection was shaemfully used by the Bush administration to go to war. It took 3 years for the team to be comiled. We gave them a little over three months. NO weapons inspection has gone that long and been expected to succeed. It was a hoax all along.


I have no love for the U.N. You are right. When it suits our purpose, I think we should use it as a tool just like every other country does.

Maintaining that moral high ground, I see......


Why not? What difference does that make? Does Geneva not apply there?

Look at how men have been treated in Pakistan, with OUR awareness, and tell me if Geneva applies there. I'll bet Geneva applies to throwing men in holes in Cuba, too.

"Would we be doing this if 1. 9/11 had not happened, a 2. there were no natural resources there? - Kevin

Probably not.

Right, so this isn't about Iraqi freedom. Thanks for your honesty.

"When does the liberation of Sudan start? How about the liberation of Qatar, our alllies? How about Pakistan? North Korea? the Kurds? China?" - Kevin

When we have a security interest there.

:lol

So should it be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom, of course, only if it's in our interest, otherwise, fuck 'em" ????

You're quite the humanitarian, Ronnie.