Seven U.S. marines, sailor charged with murder

Eliot Rosewater

MrBrian wrote:

agreed, these al gore movie watching commy/canadian freaks!

MrBrian, I'm too lazy to review your other posts, but I'm guessing there's no way in hell that you're serious......or am I wrong?

Eliot Rosewater

Purple Hawk wrote:

THis is the post you say has merrit?

Without question.

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

if you have time you can address the 2 examples i gave

if you have the time...can you provide evidence to the original question of lies?

Purple Hawk

MrBrian wrote:

agreed, these al gore movie watching commy/canadian freaks!

I think it's commIE

Abookamongstthemany

Purple Hawk wrote:

saddam paid terroists and had connections to al dean...errrr zarqawi....and if you don't think saddam had wmd's...you're as clueless as the idiots going to see the al gore movie.

Go troll around some place else and stir up shit there. We already have a Miller anyways. Your posts only make the conservative viewpoint look bad.

MrBrian

Purple Hawk wrote:

I think it's commIE

I know so?

But you need to meet "commy"

Purple Hawk

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Go troll around some place else and stir up shit there. We already have a Miller anyways. Your posts only make the conservative viewpoint look bad.

I may not make it look good...but at least I'm bringing it up for discussion.

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

if you have the time...can you provide evidence to the original question of lies?

Bush: “I would like to remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied (1998), finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -the IAEA- that they were 6 months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020907-2.html

IAEA: “There’s never been a report like that from this agency.”
if you search for Mark Gwozdecky(the IAEA chief spokesman) and bush and some keywords from bush's quote above you can find plenty of sites that list this. but here's the nuclear control institute's site and it has these quotes listed complete w/ references and websites for htem
http://www.nci.org/02NCI/09/iraq-pr9302002.htm

IAEA's 1998 report: “Based on all credible information to date the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved a nuclear weapons program or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.”

the IAEA 1998 report on Iraq is here, here is the link to the assessment. you can see it is the opposite of what bush said
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html#assess

Scott McClellan: "He's referring to 1991 there, in '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."

i'm sure you won't accept it but here's the best one i could find...all the links point to the washington times article which is no longer on their site

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.01B.no.report.htm

The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report. "He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."

Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the IAEA in 1991. Many news agencies -- including The Washington Times -- reported Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 comments as referring to a 1998 IAEA report. The White House did not ask for a correction from The Times.

To clear up the confusion, Mr. McClellan cited two news articles from 1991 -- a July 16 story in the London Times by Michael Evans and a July 18 story in the New York Times by Paul Lewis. But neither article cites an IAEA report on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program or states that Saddam was only six months away from "developing a weapon" -- as claimed by Mr. Bush. The article by Mr. Evans says: "Jay Davis, an American expert working for the U.N. special commission charged with removing Iraq's nuclear capability, said Iraq was only six months away from the large-scale production of enriched uranium at two plants inspected by UN officials."

---

as for rummy's comment:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463146

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269394_rumsfeld08.html?source=mypi

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/08/my_meeting_with_rumsfeld.php

rightondude

El_Kabong wrote:

or rummy and his 'bullet-proof evidence' linking iraq w/ 9/11?

rumsy on the ropes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxahhqmyeg

Rushlimbo

don't gimme no wrote:

Savages? For fuck's sake, if I were an Iraqi I'd be part of the insurgency too. Most of us would. Goddamn....if any country illegally attacked and occupied us don't you fucking think we'd do similar things as the insurgency?

Not Miller, he would provide comfort for the occupying soldiers. Blow jobs and brown eye from Miller for every iraqi soldier in his neighborhood.

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

Bush: “I would like to remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied (1998), finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -the IAEA- that they were 6 months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020907-2.html

IAEA: “There’s never been a report like that from this agency.”
if you search for Mark Gwozdecky(the IAEA chief spokesman) and bush and some keywords from bush's quote above you can find plenty of sites that list this. but here's the nuclear control institute's site and it has these quotes listed complete w/ references and websites for htem
http://www.nci.org/02NCI/09/iraq-pr9302002.htm

IAEA's 1998 report: “Based on all credible information to date the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved a nuclear weapons program or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.”

the IAEA 1998 report on Iraq is here, here is the link to the assessment. you can see it is the opposite of what bush said
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html#assess

Scott McClellan: "He's referring to 1991 there, in '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."

i'm sure you won't accept it but here's the best one i could find...all the links point to the washington times article which is no longer on their site

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.01B.no.report.htm

The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report. "He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."

Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the IAEA in 1991. Many news agencies -- including The Washington Times -- reported Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 comments as referring to a 1998 IAEA report. The White House did not ask for a correction from The Times.

To clear up the confusion, Mr. McClellan cited two news articles from 1991 -- a July 16 story in the London Times by Michael Evans and a July 18 story in the New York Times by Paul Lewis. But neither article cites an IAEA report on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program or states that Saddam was only six months away from "developing a weapon" -- as claimed by Mr. Bush. The article by Mr. Evans says: "Jay Davis, an American expert working for the U.N. special commission charged with removing Iraq's nuclear capability, said Iraq was only six months away from the large-scale production of enriched uranium at two plants inspected by UN officials."

---

as for rummy's comment:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463146

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269394_rumsfeld08.html?source=mypi

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/08/my_meeting_with_rumsfeld.php

Again to repeat...I didn't ask for a list of claims...I asked for evidence of LIES

rightondude

Purple Hawk wrote:

saddam paid terroists and had connections to al dean...errrr zarqawi....and if you don't think saddam had wmd's...you're as clueless as the idiots going to see the al gore movie.

There were no WMD's because the US didn't want to find them. If they found and removed the WMD's (threat) it would be mission accomplished. A lot of troops would then come home and things would wind down. You see, the US wants to keep as many troops as possible, for as long as possible, in the middle east.

Don't you think the US could have fabricated WMD's at any time? Hell they made and sold them way back in the first place. They could have pulled bunkers of missles out of thin air if they wanted with a snap of their fingers and claimed victory...but they didn't. And they didn't want to.

Do you know why?

StupidHumanBeings

How dare any of you sitting in a comfy 1st world country pass judgement or pretend to understand anything about what truly is going on over there. Please people read a book or something.

First: Iraqis are killing each other in the hundreds and thousans for what?..to kill 2 or 3 US soldiers. They are killing their neighbors and random strangers on the street (and kids for god's sake!) who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of you support or justify this?!?!?! Every Iraqi right now is born, lives, and dies knowing only death and murder as a method of solving any problem (and we are truly not helping the situation). It's so sad how little value is placed on human life by the Iraqis "over there" (yeah yeah yeah I'll get to our soldiers too, don't get your panties in a knot...yet). It's not a judgement, it's a statement of fact. It's not their fault it's all they've ever known. Anyone here who claims to support the insurgency is clearly not human (this dosen't mean you a Dubya lover...there's a distinction).

Now to our soilders: The Marines responsible for the killings should get the maximum punishment possible THEY DESERVE IT. Why is it that we have so much trouble putting ourselves in other people's shoes. Can you imange what it's like being 18 or 19 again? Can you imagine what it's like living every day in literal hell while forgeing the strongest friendships you will ever know living with the knowledge that any day can be your last with a senseless death for you or them? Can you imagine the flashpoint of pain you feel when one of your "blood friends" is killed senselessly right before your eyes? No you can't. Because Michael Moore went so out of his way in his movie to portray our soildiers over there as depraved monsters. But yall ate it up and asked for more and never bothered to actually question anything like properly deprogrammed drones are supposed to right? What it all basically came down to was is if Dubya was wrong then no one else can be. And let me tell you something Michael Moore thought his message was so important that he lied and changed evidence to support his case. People open your eyes, just because you disagree with something DON'T IGNORE IT. And you know what, you deserve your ignorance, and blind trust, and I hope it's painful. Goose and gander it was wrong for Dubya it's wrong for Moore.

Don't sit here and pass judgment on any of them. You're sitting comfortably at home and the majority of you would not go and serve in Iraq. I wouldn't either, but I don't pretend I'm better than they are.

We need our troops to come home. At least they have to stop dying.

Next!

MrBrian

StupidHumanBeings wrote:

Don't sit here and pass judgment on any of them. You're sitting comfortably at home and the majority of you would not go and serve in Iraq. I wouldn't either, but I don't pretend I'm better than they are.


Next!

I can't speak for the posters on the board, but only for myself, you are correct, I would not serve in Iraq. why? Because i'm not an idiot.
and yes I am better than they are, I don't kill or take part in the invasions of other countries, those are bad things.

StupidHumanBeings

MrBrian wrote:

I can't speak for the posters on the board, but only for myself, you are correct, I would not serve in Iraq. why? Because i'm not an idiot.
and yes I am better than they are, I don't kill or take part in the invasions of other countries, those are bad things.

I would not server because I beleive there is nothing to be accomplished there and I do not want to die for that nothing. However I seriously doubt that any soilder joined or is now joining with the purpose of "invasions of other countries" most of them sadly is because they want their educations paid for if it dose not cost them their life or limb, wanted to truly defend this nation (mostly previous to Iraq and certanly not with the intetion of what's going on over there), or sadly beleve that there is still good to be acomplished over there.

I know people in the service and I thank them however misguided they are. For each one of them you hate for doing so they probably have it somewhere in the back of their mind (i hope) that they are at best preventing a draft..or at least postponing it until the next crisis requiring our military (if we don't leave Iraq first).

MrBrian

StupidHumanBeings wrote:

I would not server because I beleive there is nothing to be accomplished there and I do not want to die for that nothing. However I seriously doubt that any soilder joined or is now joining with the purpose of "invasions of other countries" most of them sadly is because they want their educations paid for if it dose not cost them their life or limb, wanted to truly defend this nation (mostly previous to Iraq and certanly not with the intetion of what's going on over there), or sadly beleve that there is still good to be acomplished over there.

I know people in the service and I thank them however misguided they are. For each one of them you hate for doing so they probably have it somewhere in the back of their mind (i hope) that they are at best preventing a draft..or at least postponing it until the next crisis requiring our military (if we don't leave Iraq first).

Look, I understand that, but at the end it's just a simple fact that what they are doing in iraq is not good for america or the world.

I mean you can hope all you want about why they joined or what they think they are doing but really, the fact remains....

Also all they had to do is look at the history of the US military and the history of the american government to see that joining the US military is really about invasions and oppression and so on. It's not like before Iraq the US was going country to country planting flowers.

They joined a gang, for money? maybe i'm sure some of them did, but mc donalds is always looking for people. What I mean by that is, the army is by far not the only choice. Or is it?

But I do feel bad in some way for them.

StupidHumanBeings

MrBrian wrote:

Look, I understand that, but at the end it's just a simple fact that what they are doing in iraq is not good for america or the world.

I mean you can hope all you want about why they joined or what they think they are doing but really, the fact remains....

Also all they had to do is look at the history of the US military and the history of the american government to see that joining the US military is really about invasions and oppression and so on. It's not like before Iraq the US was going country to country planting flowers.

They joined a gang, for money? maybe i'm sure some of them did, but mc donalds is always looking for people. What I mean by that is, the army is by far not the only choice. Or is it?

But I do feel bad in some way for them.

Christ! Just make them all the bad guy cuz it's easier to think that way. What about Japan and Germany and WWII. The military is not evil, our leaders often misuse them but the ones who join are not the bad guys.

You can't go to college on McDonalds. Active service get I beleive nearly 3K per month for education, most of them are also working so they have even more. College costs $$$ more than minimum wage per hour can earn and live on.

rightondude

StupidHumanBeings wrote:

Christ! Just make them all the bad guy cuz it's easier to think that way. What about Japan and Germany and WWII. The military is not evil, our leaders often misuse them but the ones who join are not the bad guys.

You can't go to college on McDonalds. Active service get I beleive nearly 3K per month for education, most of them are also working so they have even more. College costs $$$ more than minimum wage per hour can earn and live on.

Precisely. any govt that puts such a glossy sheen on the oh so super convienient cash positive option of joining the military. When they press you down right to the bottom, they offer you a "break". A membership where you sacrifice your very life to the realm of their power. When you join the army, make no mistake, you surrender your soul to _____ any guesses?

Think about it.

How about take all the money from military and let the people keep it (hey there's a concept) to enjoy and enrich their lives with. people...it's a catch 22 of insanity. A total mind F#$%

Think about what's really controlling the reality of your perception and in what ways.

Abuskedti

It's five below in evidence.
The winded eves and sideways snow.
His eminence has yet to show.

Follow the ageless tide.
Follow the angled light.
Follow the strangest tribe.
I... I... I...

It's 6:00 AM. You're waiting for...
You've had your feast. You're wanting more.

Follow the wayward mile.
Follow the distant high.
Follow the strangest tribe.
I... I... I...

Follow the ancient stripe.
Follow the angel's try.
Follow the strangest tribe.
I... I... I...

Abuskedti

I guess these stories will lesson the concern for all the reports of our troops dying... leaving the administration some more time to let the carnage continue.