some intelligent topic for you

Thecure

NoK wrote:

The way I see it the idea behind it is wrong in the first place.. how could it be a success when the whole reason why the US entered Iraq was not to create democracy or any of that bullshit rhetoric now used.. If the US had entered Iraq with that in mind and then that happening along the line then yes it would be a "success".. but those were not the intentions. Success in quotations because killing civilians is never a success. Things could of been solved without war.

What proves the intentions are not as clean as some people on this board would hope is the fact that they drop depleted uranium bombs which will scar civilians for many years to come.. Now how does contaminating their land for many years to come look out for their interest?

Finally for those who say Saddam is an ISLAMIC dictator.. Get your facts straight. He used to kill religious people for a hobby.

what do you think then was the reason for war?

boxwine_in_hell

Thecure wrote:

since it does not look like people read comments. the way i asked the questions was to have a joke with another thread question. so for you Boxwine-in-hell, here is the question.

If the war in Iraq leads to a better and peaceful middle east, will George Bush be seen as a person who was ahead of his time and did something that was good.

And the answer is no. Because George Bush has black bile running through his heart and he will hopefully burn forever in a lake of fire where fundamental Islamists will repeatedly behead him for eternity.

But on a serious note. I don't see how on earth this war is going to lead to a better and peaceful Middle East? Seems like it's quite the contrary to me.

my2hands

Thecure wrote:

can i pick Terry Schiavo?

sure thing. go right ahead.

Thecure

my2hands wrote:

sure thing. go right ahead.

i am assuming that you did not like that the government let her die is that correct.

Cosmo

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

When Cheney said going into Iraq was a quagmire, he was telling the truth.

He quickly changed his tune when he saw the dollar signs however.

If what Cheney and Bush have gotten away over the years is not found to be impeachable, then no one is.

...
Going into and occupying any country militarily is a quagmire. Was/is there one occupation was wasn't?
Especially when our culture, customs, religion and language are in completely different universes. We are NEVER going to change their culture... just as they can NEVER change ours. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. We can change their leaders.. but was cannot change them. THEY will have to initiate and create the change... if they want it.
What we did was place the guns in the hands of the other side. Then we ask, "What happened?" Reality happened. We were too busy blowing our own horn to listen to what they might have been saying.

Drowned Out

jlew24asu wrote:

this is debatable. many people agree things like water boarding should be used in cases of getting information for a dirty bomb attack for example.

It is a double standard. the threat of a US invasion, over false claims of WMD, was a much greater threat to Iraq than that of a dirty bomb was to the US….so would it have been ok for Iraqis to have captured and tortured US soldiers and/or civilians in 2001/02, for information regarding the imminent threat of invasion? yes, many people may agree with torture, but that is a sad statement about the mindset of those people – the mindset that the US is inherently right and justified in it’s actions.

jlew24asu wrote:

ok what about them (wmd)? If the Iraq war turns out successful, this will be forgotten.

I don’t know how this war can be judged as a success when it’s based on lies. If it is someday considered a success, it will be because of the “Plan B” reason for the invasion – regime change. I guess you’re right…this is a theoretical example of selective memory, and the “victors” spin on history.

jlew24asu wrote:

sure its not good, but he has a plan to reduce it and time will tell if it works.
.

if the US slides into a serious recession it will be easy to point fingers at the war, regardless of it’s outcome.

jlew24asu wrote:

both are also debatable. some believe they are important to fight possible terror attacks in the US. (like I said, far left liberals disagree).

I don’t consider myself a far left liberal, and I think those are the two most damaging aspects of his legacy out of all the items we’re discussing. Personal freedom and human rights shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

jlew24asu wrote:

again in a grey area. during this time of war, a unconventional war, terms like enemy combatant appear.

The grey area is the term enemy combatant or terrorist….but it does not affect only enemy combatants…its effects are more far reaching than the ‘war on terror’. It’s another contraction of personal freedom, and expansion of state power. Time will tell how this will affect your country once the ‘terrorist’ witch hunt ends….I would hope that eventually people will realize the potential for abuse against US citizens.

jlew24asu wrote:

what about them? (cia black prisons)

See the torture segment above.

I suppose in the context of Bush’s legacy, for your statements to stand, we would need to assume that the average American either will not care or won’t know about the loss of personal freedom, nor the complete disregard for international law…and that Bush will escape scrutiny over the economic situation. This discussion is a good example of how the war on terror and the war in Iraq have been used to facilitate one another, when they were originally sold to the American people as separate subjects.

Thecure

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

And the answer is no. Because George Bush has black bile running through his heart and he will hopefully burn forever in a lake of fire where fundamental Islamists will repeatedly behead him for eternity.

But on a serious note. I don't see how on earth this war is going to lead to a better and peaceful Middle East? Seems like it's quite the contrary to me.

first how many times can a person be beheaded? i am guessing twice (just joking)

let say that Iraq has free elections and choose who they want as a leader(s) let's say that they work with the palestians to end the war with isreal. let's say that women have the chance to go to school. let's say that poverty is reduced.

now who knows this might not happen (it seems like that now because we are so intrench in this war it hard to see any good) the questions was never when this happens but if it happens.

NoK

Thecure wrote:

what do you think then was the reason for war?

The reasons stated at the time were 1) Iraq was developing WMD 2) Iraq had links to 911.. which were both flat out lies.

The real reason behind the war is OIL.

NoK

Thecure wrote:

let's say that women have the chance to go to school.

Mate please.. read up on Iraq before the war.

The only thing affecting people going to school was the UN imposed sanctions.

Cosmo

Thecure wrote:

first how many times can a person be beheaded? i am guessing twice (just joking)

let say that Iraq has free elections and choose who they want as a leader(s) let's say that they work with the palestians to end the war with isreal. let's say that women have the chance to go to school. let's say that poverty is reduced.

now who knows this might not happen (it seems like that now because we are so intrench in this war it hard to see any good) the questions was never when this happens but if it happens.

...
Again.. I ask... what is the cost?
What are YOU willing to pay for this? Someone else's life? Someone else to pick up the bill?

Thecure

NoK wrote:

The reasons stated at the time were 1) Iraq was developing WMD 2) Iraq had links to 911.. which were both flat out lies.

The real reason behind the war is OIL.

you think it is about that only. maybe it is and i am just thinking that it is to small a reason. i really think the answer is not just abotu OIL but also (and i know i am going to be ripped for this) I think that 911 fucked Bush up and he saw himself as someone who had to save the US. then i think he had people liek Chaney and others who thought OIL.

my2hands

jlew24asu wrote:

define torture.

are we cutting their heads off?

at most we have used waterboarding. something, people stand up and walk away from when its over.

something for the folks that have no clue what they are talking about...

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face[1] to force the inhalation of water into the lungs.[2] Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[3] and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure.[4] Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.


During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. The German technique was called the German equivalent of "u-boat". During the Double Tenth Incident, waterboarding consisted of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach. In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor


Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States.

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding#_note-WashPostWaterboarding_100406

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

NoK

Thecure wrote:

you think it is about that only. maybe it is and i am just thinking that it is to small a reason. i really think the answer is not just abotu OIL but also (and i know i am going to be ripped for this) I think that 911 fucked Bush up and he saw himself as someone who had to save the US. then i think he had people liek Chaney and others who thought OIL.

Nah there is another reason. The US wants to establish itself in the middle east so when shit hits the fan in 10-20 years time they can fight World War III on non US soil.

Thecure

NoK wrote:

Mate please.. read up on Iraq before the war.

The only thing affecting people going to school was the UN imposed sanctions.

that were placed on Iraq When?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Cosmo wrote:

...
Going into and occupying any country militarily is a quagmire. Was/is there one occupation was wasn't?
Especially when our culture, customs, religion and language are in completely different universes. We are NEVER going to change their culture... just as they can NEVER change ours. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. We can change their leaders.. but was cannot change them. THEY will have to initiate and create the change... if they want it.
What we did was place the guns in the hands of the other side. Then we ask, "What happened?" Reality happened. We were too busy blowing our own horn to listen to what they might have been saying.

This is why I seriously question what's really going on right now. Cheney admitted it. He knew, all their advisor's knew, I mean shit...they all knew what they were getting into. They had endless meetings, ongoing discussions, intelligence reports, you name it, and a couple years on top to think about and consider it, and still they decided to sell it around fabrications, and then go and do it. Irresponsible is not the word.

It's extremely intentional and calculated. It wasn't a mistake, as well Haliburton is somewhat of a huge conflict of interest, regardless of who was "directing" the company at the time. Plame was outed. That should be reason right there. Libby was directed by someone, and he made reference to it, and it came right from the top.

Not good. That's some serious corruption right there. That's just the tip of the tip of the iceberg in this saga.

Somebody cashed their chips in and went to town.

NoK

Thecure wrote:

that were placed on Iraq When?

I think you already know the answer to that. The point I'm trying to make is there was no Saudi Arabia scenario in Iraq under Saddam. As I said before he used to kill religious folk as a hobby. I have friends that came from schools/universities in Iraq before the war. Both male and female.

jlew24asu

my2hands wrote:

something for the folks that have no clue wehat they are talking about...

hey napoleon, do you get off being an asshole....lets continue shall we....

my2hands wrote:

[4] Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage

why am I not surprised you didnt bold this????

my2hands wrote:

it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.

extreme pain? ok pain doesnt last forever. probably a few hours at most. brain damage? sure its possible. but happen every time? no. (self inflicted) broken bones from struggling? wow ok, another stretch that doesn't happen every time.

what else you got?

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

hey napoleon, do you get off being an asshole....lets continue shall we....




why am I not surprised you didnt bold this????



extreme pain? ok pain doesnt last forever. probably a few hours at most. brain damage? sure its possible. but happen every time? no. (self inflicted) broken bones from struggling? wow ok, another stretch that doesn't happen every time.

what else you got?

Lets see.. say hypothetically a very close family member of yours was accused of knowing information about a dirty bomb.. taken away and tortured using this technique.. kept telling them he/she knew nothing.. but it continued.. until they realised "oops he/she might actually be telling the truth".. how will you feel? its alright.. it only happened once, twice, three times.. water under the bridge.. no wait straight in ur face not under the bridge

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Some people think that if torture leaves no visible marks then nothing really happened, and it's acceptable.

The real damage that occurs with torturing a person is not the physical portion. as that portion heals for the most part. It's the emotional damage that is the worst part of the process, and that takes many, many years to heal (if it ever really does).

Arguing torturing on physical technicalities is quite rediculous. It's the act itself.

It's like arguing rape is not as bad if the rapist uses KY jelly.

boxwine_in_hell

Thecure wrote:

first how many times can a person be beheaded? i am guessing twice (just joking)

let say that Iraq has free elections and choose who they want as a leader(s) let's say that they work with the palestians to end the war with isreal. let's say that women have the chance to go to school. let's say that poverty is reduced.

now who knows this might not happen (it seems like that now because we are so intrench in this war it hard to see any good) the questions was never when this happens but if it happens.

And pigs might grow wings and fly and if a dog had a square ass he'd shit bricks, and if that retard on the Bills didn't miss that field goal, they'd have been Super Bowl champions.