The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Charity Case]

I'm curious -- why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between the fine men and women in uniform carrying arms to defend their country and some ignorant asshole in the White House who chose to risk their lives in a war of aggression against a sniveling little weakling nation that wasn't capable or interested in causing us harm?

Don't kid yourself, they were very interested in causing us harm.? Turns out they were not capable at the time, but they were certainly interested.

No threat was made, period.

"interested" is a reason to go to war in your brilliant opinion?

Well, I never said that did I?  Try to read people's post and respond to what they say rather than what you think they mean. 

I think if a country is capable AND interested then it would possible be a good reason to go to war depending on many other things.  Remember, at the time we thought he was both interested and capable.  Russia was capable, but turns out they weren't that interested (thankfully).

Not sure why you need to start up the insults here?  But I would definately place my opinion in the brilliant category as well, thanks.   Your opinion on the other hand...well I think we have enough opinions stated in this thread as to what your opinion is worth.

[SLCPUNK]

I'm curious -- why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between the fine men and women in uniform carrying arms to defend their country and some ignorant asshole in the White House who chose to risk their lives in a war of aggression against a sniveling little weakling nation that wasn't capable or interested in causing us harm?

Don't kid yourself, they were very interested in causing us harm.  Turns out they were not capable at the time, but they were certainly interested.

No threat was made, period.

"interested" is a reason to go to war in your brilliant opinion?

I think if a country is capable AND interested then it would possible be a good reason to go to war depending on many other things.

Yikes.....

[Charity Case]

I'm curious -- why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between the fine men and women in uniform carrying arms to defend their country and some ignorant asshole in the White House who chose to risk their lives in a war of aggression against a sniveling little weakling nation that wasn't capable or interested in causing us harm?

Don't kid yourself, they were very interested in causing us harm.? Turns out they were not capable at the time, but they were certainly interested.

No threat was made, period.

"interested" is a reason to go to war in your brilliant opinion?

I think if a country is capable AND interested then it would possible be a good reason to go to war depending on many other things.

Yikes.....

If you find it scary that people go to war against enemies because they are capable and willing to attack them then there is no scenario in which you would ever use force.  That is why we usually vote republicans in during times of crisis.

Remember how long it took Iran to release those hostages after Reagnn took office?....one day.  While Carter (worst president ever) negotiated for hundreds of days.  See when you want results or action, our country tends to vote republican.

[BigCombo]

I'm not going to defend Carter's actions in response to the hostages...but he did try using force twice.

In april of 1980, American special forces convened in Eastern Iran.? The operation did not go to plan as there was a sandstorm which resulted in a cargo plane clipping a helicopter killing 8 US servicemen.? Another operation was planned but was scapped after the election.

By action do you mean military response?? Becasue Reagan didn't invade Iran.? He actually sold Iran weapons during the mid 80's.? Seems ironic...

[SLCPUNK]

I'm not going to defend Carter's actions in response to the hostages...but he did try using force twice.

In april of 1980, American special forces convened in Eastern Iran.  The operation did not go to plan as there was a sandstorm which resulted in a cargo plane clipping a helicopter killing 8 US servicemen.  Another operation was planned but was scapped after the election.

By action do you mean military response?  Becasue Reagan didn't invade Iran.  He actually sold Iran weapons during the mid 80's.  Seems ironic...

Yes, the helicopters crashed in the desert if I remember correctly, I was very young.

CC: And if you think it was Reagan had some super power to release the hostages you are delusional. Reagan had nothing to do with it, they chose to release them on that day. It was a pure political move, nothing more.

[Charity Case]

It was a move to avoid having to deal with Reagan.  They knew they couldn't pussyfoot around with him in office they way they did with Carter.  Remember what Reagan did to Quadaffi (never remember how to spell his name)?  Remember how the french wouldn't let us fly over their country?  Typical.  Well, the world hasn't heard from that shit bum since.

As for the use of force by Carter...well now you see why the Iranians weren't too afraid of it.

[Rain]

It was a move to avoid having to deal with Reagan.? They knew they couldn't pussyfoot around with him in office they way they did with Carter.? Remember what Reagan did to Quadaffi (never remember how to spell his name)?? Remember how the french wouldn't let us fly over their country?? Typical.? Well, the world hasn't heard from that shit bum since.

As for the use of force by Carter...well now you see why the Iranians weren't too afraid of it.

France again ?

And it's actually funny you don't react when the Iran Gate is brought up !

[SLCPUNK]

It was a move to avoid having to deal with Reagan.  They knew they couldn't pussyfoot around with him in office they way they did with Carter. 

haha, yea write.

You guys are hilarious!!! 

[SLCPUNK]

FORT HOOD, Texas - Army Pfc.

Lynndie England, whose smiling poses in photos of detainee abuse at Baghdad's
Abu Ghraib prison made her the face of the scandal, was convicted Monday by a military jury on six of seven counts.

England, 22, was found guilty of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count.

The jury of five male Army officers took about two hours to reach its verdict. Her case now moves to the sentencing phase, which will be heard by the same jury beginning Tuesday.

England tried to plead guilty in May to the same counts she faced this month in exchange for an undisclosed sentencing cap, but a judge threw out the plea deal. She now faces a maximum of nine years in prison.

England, wearing her dark green dress uniform, stood at attention Monday as the verdict was read by the jury foreman. She showed no obvious emotion afterward.

Asked for comment after the verdict, defense lawyer Capt. Jonathan Crisp said, "The only reaction I can say is, 'I understand.'"

England's trial is the last for a group of nine Army reservists charged with mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib in
Iraq, a scandal that badly damaged the United States' image in the Muslim world despite quick condemnation of the abuse by
President Bush. Two other troops were convicted in trials and the remaining six made plea deals. Several of those soldiers testified at England's trial.

Prosecutors used graphic photos of England to support their contention that she was a key figure in the abuse conspiracy. One photo shows England holding a naked detainee on a leash. In others, she smiles and points to prisoners in humiliating poses.

The conspiracy acquittal came on a count pertaining to the leash incident; she was found guilty of a maltreatment count stemming from the same incident.

Beyond the sordid photos, prosecutors pointed to England's statement to Army investigators in January 2004 that the mistreatment was done to amuse the U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib.

"The accused knew what she was doing," said Capt. Chris Graveline, the lead prosecutor. "She was laughing and joking. ... She is enjoying, she is participating, all for her own sick humor."

Crisp countered that England was only trying to please her soldier boyfriend, then-Cpl. Charles Graner Jr., labeled the abuse ringleader by prosecutors.

"She was a follower, she was an individual who was smitten with Graner," Crisp said. "She just did whatever he wanted her to do."

England, from Fort Ashby, W.Va., has said that Graner, now serving a 10-year sentence, fathered her young son.

The defense argued that England suffered from depression and that she has an overly compliant personality, making her a heedless participant in the abuse.

England's earlier attempt to plead guilty under a deal with prosecutors was rejected by Col. James Pohl, the presiding judge. Pohl declared a mistrial during the sentencing phase when testimony by Graner contradicted England's guilty plea.

Graner, a defense witness at the sentencing, said pictures he took of England holding a prisoner on a leash were meant to be used as a training aid. In her guilty plea, England had said the pictures were being taken purely for the amusement of Abu Ghraib guards.

[Holy War]

My problem with what went on in Abu Ghraib is what some of the soldiers did seemed more like extreme hazing than any form of actual interrogation.? I don't think using just any prisoner in some lewd stunt is going to get us the information we need.

Many of harder-line Al-Qaeda rucruits are trained in resisting interrogation.? We need to take things to the limit of the law if needed, and if that doesn't work turn them over to an ally country that has more "options" available.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

My problem with what went on in Abu Ghraib is what some of the soldiers did seemed more like extreme hazing than any form of actual interrogation.? I don't think using just any prisoner in some lewd stunt isn't going to get us the information we need.

Many of harder-line Al-Qaeda rucruits are trained in resisting interrogation.? We need to take things to the limit of the law if needed, and if that doesn't work turn them over to an ally country that has more "options" available.

you should listen to what your avatar says

ps: i kid, i kid ?___?

[shades]

England was a victim of election year propaganda.
Was she wrong, sure she was wrong.
But I hardly find posing 'prisoners' nude in uncomprimising positions worthy of all this attention.

And never mind these 'prisoners' were caught either trying to kill American soldiers, or associating with those that were.

[Genesis]

England was a victim of election year propaganda.
Was she wrong, sure she was wrong.
But I hardly find posing 'prisoners' nude in uncomprimising positions worthy of all this attention.
And never mind these 'prisoners' were caught either trying to kill American soldiers, or associating with those that were.

Ever heard of prisoners rights? The Geneva Convention? Guess not, eh?
You can't do anything u want to somebody just bcoz they were captured in war. The same would apply if an American soldier was captured by Iraqi troops.

[shades]

geneva convention applies to 'uniformed' soldiers.
"Ever read it? guess not."
Lot of wise asses on this forum, Is it part of the criteria?

I, personally would have shot them on site, anybody holding a weapon or not immediately responding to my presence in a non threatning way would have never made it to Abu Gharib.
But thats just me.

I said England was wrong by the way.
I just think its overblown.
Put her in prison for treating an animal like an animal? not fair IMO

[Izzy]

My problem with what went on in Abu Ghraib is what some of the soldiers did seemed more like extreme hazing than any form of actual interrogation.? I don't think using just any prisoner in some lewd stunt is going to get us the information we need.

Many of harder-line Al-Qaeda rucruits are trained in resisting interrogation.? We need to take things to the limit of the law if needed, and if that doesn't work turn them over to an ally country that has more "options" available.

Jesus Christ

Reading that made my blood run cold.

U have to be 12 with idiotic ideas like that.

I really wonder sometimes

[badapple81]

My problem with what went on in Abu Ghraib is what some of the soldiers did seemed more like extreme hazing than any form of actual interrogation.? I don't think using just any prisoner in some lewd stunt is going to get us the information we need.

Many of harder-line Al-Qaeda rucruits are trained in resisting interrogation.? We need to take things to the limit of the law if needed, and if that doesn't work turn them over to an ally country that has more "options" available.

Jesus Christ

Reading that made my blood run cold.

U have to be 12 with idiotic ideas like that.

I really wonder sometimes

They never cease to amaze me.. I think he is just enjoying having a lend of us all and enjoying a laugh.. surely he can't be serious.. 

[Genesis]

geneva convention applies to 'uniformed' soldiers.

The Geneva Convention:

# A series of international agreements first signed in 1906 to provide for the humane treatment of the wounded, prisoners of war, and civilians in time of war. Provides for the better treatment of the wounded in war and forbids any misuse of the Red Cross flag. [GRL. RE]

# A convention following WWII which discussed the rules for war, the boundaries not to be crossed, such as chemical weaponry, and genocide. As well, it addresses the rights of non-combatants. Nuclear weapons basically violate this convention, and this is being brought to the ICJ for ajudication.

# Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of July 28, 1951

"Ever read it? guess not."
Lot of wise asses on this forum, Is it part of the criteria?

Go screw urself shades.

[jarmo]

geneva convention applies to 'uniformed' soldiers.
"Ever read it? guess not."
Lot of wise asses on this forum, Is it part of the criteria?

I think I'll correct that issue very soon.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

geneva convention applies to 'uniformed' soldiers.
"Ever read it? guess not."
Lot of wise asses on this forum, Is it part of the criteria?

I think I'll correct that issue very soon




/jarmo

Methinks the "ban stick" is about to be swung with righteous fury.

[shades]

Hey, if you want a forum with all left wing pantie wearin opinions.
let her rip.
might make for very boring conversation though.

I dont know anything about Charitycase's 'past',
 If he or she was banned in the past for legitimate reasons.
All Im seeing in the way of insult / opinions is an equal, albeit juvenile playing field.
Dont throw rocks in a glass house I guess Im saying.