BF2S Forums 'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

Cameron, Just shut up, quit being a liberal little bitch.  All your wannabe big shot political talk is really stupid alot like yourself, so go fuck yourself with your so called "fair and balanced" and quit trying to justify the war in Iraq.  I been over there twice and until your get your skinny white ass and put it on the line for something that means something to you, I dont even think you know what it means to fight for something you believe in.

You're pathetic.

Janysc wrote:

I'm so sick and utterly tired of American nationalists who will not listen and who will not discuss because they've been brainwashed into believing that their standpoints can not be discussed because they are "right". When people want to put the US's actions under debate, the brainwashed's only defenses are bad attempts to discredit them. Open your eyes and become more than a rerun of the collapsing British Empire.

I wonder when I'll hear American children say to people like CameronPoe, "You're a thought criminal." I fear that day is not far away...

Unsure of your point with that one... but that is the way we feel about the other side, as well.  Most people are completely sure they are right and the other side is wrong.  People tend to believe things that reinforce what they already believe, and to discresit or put down what gowes against what they believe to be true. It is called a self serving bias. Everyone, EVERYONE does it, whether they mean to or not.  You actually have to take great pains to correct for that behavior.  That goes into everything here. 

A lot of people love america and what it stands for, and tend to believe things that make america look better, and to disregard things that make america look silly, weak, or what have you.

A lot of people, inside america and out, do not like america for various reasons which I will not list out right now.  They tend to believe things that make america look silly, weak and what have you, and tend to disregard  anything that makes america look strong or what have you.

You know what?  The truth is somewhere in the middle.  It is not on either extreme.  America is not all good, even though I personally think the good far outweighs the bad.  America is not, however, the root of all evil, and it is plain silly to think that is the case, although you are allowed to think the bad outweighs the good.  The difference is a matter of scale and perspective.  Most of you; most of us, are too busy being self rightous to try to wonder why the other side feels the way they do.  You are still free to feel the way you do, just admit that the other side may have a perfectly valid point. 

now to see how bad I get flamed for trying to bring some sense into this forum.

SMSgtDoc wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Ok, this document shows our country's views towards their tyrranical government at the time and it shows what our country did about it.  Go ahead, it's educational and may help you.  Take note of these words: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Now, read this gem of a document which provides the bounds to be broken, warranting said "throwing off of such (a) government".  Take note of these words in number 2: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.  This is the "how" you're looking for.

Yes, we'll go ahead and chalk this one up as a single unit of "pwnage" to the IRONCHEF.  And on a more reverrent note, it is seriously sad that you can't fathom this.  But then, none of the chickenhawks in this country can, that's why they let Bush destroy that goddamned piece of paper!

For future reference, don't call the bluff  like this.  It will only embarass you.

So you are going to use the constitution as your justification to mount a rebellion against the government that was created and evolved from the constitution.  Very nice!  I'll tell you what is really sad, the fact that you have distorted the constitution to somehow make it ok in your mind that you can overthrow the republic.  That my friend is very Ted Kazinski like.  But hey by all means, please go ahead and bask in your impression of my pwnage if it makes you feel better.  Like I said in a post above, I think the current situation we are in sucks, but I believe we live in a great country and enjoy many freedoms that will never be known anywhere else in the world.  Please feel free to overthrow the republic at any time, I will be waiting for you.

Oh, I'm not really embarassed, because I don't think you really mad a point for forcefully overthrowing our government.  But I will be waiting for it, and you if you ever give it a try.

I said i was going to mount a rebellion against my governement?  Again, practice some basic reading comprehension.  I said I'd happily support and participate in removing this government.  Our government is not the republic..it's a bunch of men and women who run the republic.  Further, the constitution is designed to protect our country from governments like the one king george ran back then.  The declaratio of independence is an example of how we are to act to overthrow such a governement.  Now there's a different King George and the constitution explains how it is the duty of you and me to overthrow said governement.

You really are a dumb fuck.  Please stop typing and go play, please.

IRONCHEF wrote:

imortal wrote:

Choumichel wrote:

GWB should be prosecuted after his presidency

For what? For leaking the name of a covert CIA Agent?  Oh, nope.  Wasn't him.  Democracts spent months shouting for impeachment on that.  Now that he is clear, all they do is change the reason why they hate him.  Wire tapping?  (well, not really wire tapping, just signals monitoring, but once the media reports something wrong... it just stays wrong); well, it has been done by EVERY single administration since WWII.  So is he doing something new?  You think Bush started the NSA?  sorry.  An illeagal war?  Well, it WAS done according to the UN accords, even if the UN doesn't like it.  Illeagal detainees?  Well, enemy POWs are normally kept until the end of hostilities anyway.  They are not being held by the department of justice.  Abuse?  Depends on what you define as abuse, but most of stuff that has come out has either been laughable or actions taken against individuals who went too far.

But how many of you really care?  All you want is to get the man who had the temerity to win the election instead of Gore.  And then beat Kerry.   That was the unforgivable offense.

Prosecuted for:
Invading a sovereign nation
Destroying the constitution
crimes against humanity (100k iraqis dead, why again?) (also, i would put war crimes, but we're not legally at war)
using depleted uranium (which is against us military practice, geneva conventions, and several other accords he's bound to)
telling lies where the result was death
going AWOL in 1973 (should be shot for that)
accepting abramhoff money


I'm sure I could go on, but there's more than enough to prosecute and win with.

slippery slope, IRONCHEF.  I do believe the Invasion of Iraq was congressionally approved.  The President is off scot free for that one, at least under US law, whether it later to have been needed or not.

The constitution is still there.  That is what the supreme court is for, to strike down laws that are unconsitutional.  I can argue that Democrats have been trying to destroy the Consitution for years.  You may not like some of the things he has done, but that is what congress and the supreme court are for; to make sure the executive branch stays under control.  However, it is also important to remember that the supreme court does not make laws, only reviews them and kills the unconstitutional ones.  But we can argue the constitution on another thread.

Iraqi dead.  Most of them were soldiers, or have been killed by their own people.  And cannot prosecute for 'collateral damage.' It happens.  All that has to be shown was that he was not intentionally targeting civilians for no military gain, and he is off scot free.

Using Depleted Uranium?  Perfectly legal, not covered under any of the Rules of war conventions.

going AWOL in 1973.  Past statute of limitations, and even then was not that serious.  IF you want serious, try having a person with a reserve commision in the United States navy leaving the country and meeting with officials from a country during hostilities with that country to work in ways contrary to US policy, and without orders.  This is what John Kerry did after leaving the Navy, and should be grounds for treason and espionage.  So, do you really want to start the 'my guy is better than your guy' on this one?

accepting abramhoff money?  Unfamiliar with this, I would need details before expressing an informed opinion.

All of these 'reasons' are just excuses the democratic party throws up because they did not like losing, and are, as a collective party, throwing a temper tantrum.

IG-Calibre wrote:

imortal wrote:

Choumichel wrote:

GWB should be prosecuted after his presidency

For what? For leaking the name of a covert CIA Agent?  Oh, nope.  Wasn't him.  Democracts spent months shouting for impeachment on that.  Now that he is clear, all they do is change the reason why they hate him.  Wire tapping?  (well, not really wire tapping, just signals monitoring, but once the media reports something wrong... it just stays wrong); well, it has been done by EVERY single administration since WWII.  So is he doing something new?  You think Bush started the NSA?  sorry.  An illeagal war?  Well, it WAS done according to the UN accords, even if the UN doesn't like it.  Illeagal detainees?  Well, enemy POWs are normally kept until the end of hostilities anyway.  They are not being held by the department of justice.  Abuse?  Depends on what you define as abuse, but most of stuff that has come out has either been laughable or actions taken against individuals who went too far.

But how many of you really care?  All you want is to get the man who had the temerity to win the election instead of Gore.  And then beat Kerry.   That was the unforgivable offense.

Lets be VERY CLEAR about something here - the UN never sanctioned the invasion of Iraq, if it had of been done according to UN accords, the weapon inspectors would of went back into Iraq and found the WMD which was posing an imminent threat to us all, get your facts straight mate

Then they should have written their declarations better.  They did allow for one nation to act unilaterally.  Of course, since the leader of the UN and his son were getting rich off the Iraqi "oil for food" program, and germany, france, and russia were getting free oil under the table for smuggling in prohibited items, then of course the UN would be upset at america for ruining their sweet deal.

imortal wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

imortal wrote:

For what? For leaking the name of a covert CIA Agent?  Oh, nope.  Wasn't him.  Democracts spent months shouting for impeachment on that.  Now that he is clear, all they do is change the reason why they hate him.  Wire tapping?  (well, not really wire tapping, just signals monitoring, but once the media reports something wrong... it just stays wrong); well, it has been done by EVERY single administration since WWII.  So is he doing something new?  You think Bush started the NSA?  sorry.  An illeagal war?  Well, it WAS done according to the UN accords, even if the UN doesn't like it.  Illeagal detainees?  Well, enemy POWs are normally kept until the end of hostilities anyway.  They are not being held by the department of justice.  Abuse?  Depends on what you define as abuse, but most of stuff that has come out has either been laughable or actions taken against individuals who went too far.

But how many of you really care?  All you want is to get the man who had the temerity to win the election instead of Gore.  And then beat Kerry.   That was the unforgivable offense.

Lets be VERY CLEAR about something here - the UN never sanctioned the invasion of Iraq, if it had of been done according to UN accords, the weapon inspectors would of went back into Iraq and found the WMD which was posing an imminent threat to us all, get your facts straight mate

Then they should have written their declarations better.  They did allow for one nation to act unilaterally.  Of course, since the leader of the UN and his son were getting rich off the Iraqi "oil for food" program, and germany, france, and russia were getting free oil under the table for smuggling in prohibited items, then of course the UN would be upset at america for ruining their sweet deal.

BlahBlahBlah - you still tried to lend credence to your pathetic argument by saying that it was done according to the UN, well it wasn't get your facts straight

jonnykill wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support" - US Senate Report

Whaddaya know? The blatantly obvious to any reasonable logical thinker has been officially stated by the US Senate! Please do not use this lame excuse for war in Iraq AGAIN. /transmission over

Well what do ya know the very news source you claimed to be BS. Now all of a sudden is picture perfect unbiased reporting.

Dude: Don't shave for a month. Go to your nearest Mosque. Covert to Islam. GTFO out of your country. Go to Iraq and join the Muslim extremists and go fight the USA and coalition troops and get your head blown off. In that order. / transmission over.

Shouldn't u be off raping some kids ?

The really fun point is that the Bush admistration never stated there was a link between Hussein and Bin Laden.  The Democrats SAID that he said it, and the media never questioned that, but kept repeating it until it was heard so many times it was thought to be true.  It is called "the big lie."

The FIRST official reason for going into Iraq was to eliminate the danger of Weapons of Mass Destruction from an unstable person who may use them against us, or turn them over to those who will.  Remember, Hussein at this time was giving 10,000 dollars to the family of suicide bombers.

Ok, we took out the country and everything has happened since.  I will grant that the bush administration has been jumping back and forth about the reasons for the war, and I dissaprove of him doing that.

Oh, and as little as 5 years before, DEMOCRATS (the ones yelling that it was evil of us to get rid of hussein) were calling for deposing saddam.  They are on record in 1998 saying he is a danger to the United States and should be removed.  What changed?

Okay, now the country is in shambles.  Whould the would want us to pull out and leave it in turmoil, or try to restore peace, or at least civility to the region?  WE managed to rebuild Japan and Germany after all, and most would say we did a pretty good job.

Now, most of you are yelling "But you should never have gone in in the first place!!" at your monitors.  Ok, maybe, maybe not.  The fact is we did, and you cannot change that.  The question now is what do we do from here?  The fact is, if America pulled out right away, there would be an orgy of violence as a power struggle ensued, almost certainly to be one by Iran, since they already have a lot of proxies in place. 

Then violence started breaking out.  At first it was the 'specail troops' saddam had, who went into civilian clothes and hid among the populace.  Resistance or illeagal combantants, judge for yourselves.  But most of them got themselves caught or killed, and US troops started to find more people from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Eqypt and elsewhere fighting US troops in Iraq, and killing Iraqis.  Now, you think these people simply want Peace in Iraq and leave Iraqis in peace?  The vast majority of Iraqi deaths have been caused by these people, and not as collateral damage, or to accompish a military objective.  Iraqi civialins have been targeted to frighten the Iraqi populace.  That is terrorism.  Not an insurgancy.

Now, I am in favor of the US pulling out when the Iraqi govement and military show themselves to be up to the challange of defending itself and providing for its own security.  The Iraqi army has been getting better and better, and taking over more duties from American troops.  But Democrats want it done NOWNOWNOWNOW.  It took decades to get this kind of thing done in Germany and in Japan; welcome to the impatient generation.  And if you look at old newspapers, the reconstuction in those countries did not go exactly smoothly.

The problem is that politicians do not care about truth.  They care about power.  getting elected.  Politicians do not care about you as a people, other that finding some heartstring to pull on to get your vote so they can get into power.  Note I did not say which side from which.  This is a universal truth. 

There is no perfect solution, or perfect world.
The real world is ugly.
You are not always right.
Your opponant is not always wrong.
Nobody tells the exact truth.

smtt686 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

And it matters to Ireland why?

Why does it matter to you what I think? Why does anything matter to anyone? Why does your mother matter to you? Why do you express pity (I don't know maybe you don't) when a US serviceman you never met dies? Your question is relatively pointless. I protest what I see as injustice and what I believe to be imperialism. That's all. USA is not the only country I criticise. I am critical of France, the UK, Israel, my own government, Russia, various nations. We live in a GLOBAL COMMUNITY now usmarine - learn to deal with it.

completely contrary to everything camperon poe says,  we do live in a GLOBAL COMMUNITY and if we feel threatened on a global scale, where real, implied or whatever, we are going to get in YOUR BUSINESS, end of story no matter what some poe dunk hillbilly thinks, believes or posts.

Mr big man from the u.s. I bet you think global warming does not affect you right ? bet you think u.s.a is the center of the world ?

usmarine2005 wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Shouldn't u be off raping some kids ?

Where are you from?

UK, why do you want to call me a terrorist ? don't believe iam old enough to be state my opinion ?

CameronPoe wrote:

jonnykill wrote:

Dude: Don't shave for a month. Go to your nearest Mosque. Covert to Islam. GTFO out of your country. Go to Iraq and join the Muslim extremists and go fight the USA and coalition troops and get your head blown off. In that order. / transmission over.

I really expected more from the intellectual BF2s luminary that is jonnykill. Come to think of it actually, I didn't.

Owned.

imortal wrote:

The really fun point is that the Bush admistration never stated there was a link between Hussein and Bin Laden.  The Democrats SAID that he said it, and the media never questioned that, but kept repeating it until it was heard so many times it was thought to be true.  It is called "the big lie."

The FIRST official reason for going into Iraq was to eliminate the danger of Weapons of Mass Destruction from an unstable person who may use them against us, or turn them over to those who will.  Remember, Hussein at this time was giving 10,000 dollars to the family of suicide bombers.

Ok, we took out the country and everything has happened since.  I will grant that the bush administration has been jumping back and forth about the reasons for the war, and I dissaprove of him doing that.

Oh, and as little as 5 years before, DEMOCRATS (the ones yelling that it was evil of us to get rid of hussein) were calling for deposing saddam.  They are on record in 1998 saying he is a danger to the United States and should be removed.  What changed?

Okay, now the country is in shambles.  Whould the would want us to pull out and leave it in turmoil, or try to restore peace, or at least civility to the region?  WE managed to rebuild Japan and Germany after all, and most would say we did a pretty good job.

Now, most of you are yelling "But you should never have gone in in the first place!!" at your monitors.  Ok, maybe, maybe not.  The fact is we did, and you cannot change that.  The question now is what do we do from here?  The fact is, if America pulled out right away, there would be an orgy of violence as a power struggle ensued, almost certainly to be one by Iran, since they already have a lot of proxies in place. 

Then violence started breaking out.  At first it was the 'specail troops' saddam had, who went into civilian clothes and hid among the populace.  Resistance or illeagal combantants, judge for yourselves.  But most of them got themselves caught or killed, and US troops started to find more people from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Eqypt and elsewhere fighting US troops in Iraq, and killing Iraqis.  Now, you think these people simply want Peace in Iraq and leave Iraqis in peace?  The vast majority of Iraqi deaths have been caused by these people, and not as collateral damage, or to accompish a military objective.  Iraqi civialins have been targeted to frighten the Iraqi populace.  That is terrorism.  Not an insurgancy.

Now, I am in favor of the US pulling out when the Iraqi govement and military show themselves to be up to the challange of defending itself and providing for its own security.  The Iraqi army has been getting better and better, and taking over more duties from American troops.  But Democrats want it done NOWNOWNOWNOW.  It took decades to get this kind of thing done in Germany and in Japan; welcome to the impatient generation.  And if you look at old newspapers, the reconstuction in those countries did not go exactly smoothly.

The problem is that politicians do not care about truth.  They care about power.  getting elected.  Politicians do not care about you as a people, other that finding some heartstring to pull on to get your vote so they can get into power.  Note I did not say which side from which.  This is a universal truth. 

There is no perfect solution, or perfect world.
The real world is ugly.
You are not always right.
Your opponant is not always wrong.
Nobody tells the exact truth.

The thing is right when ever ww2 was declared over, I don't recall ever hearing about Nazi Resistance still attacking the allies several years later, did you? and you did win the war in Iraq remember? -


I don't seem to remember either former members of the SS being drafted into the new German police force, or a former Nazi being in the new German government organising death squads round Berlin? do you?

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-09-08 17:12:23)

IRONCHEF wrote:

Prosecuted for:
Invading a sovereign nation

using depleted uranium (which is against us military practice, geneva conventions, and several other accords he's bound to)
telling lies where the result was death
going AWOL in 1973 (should be shot for that)

invading a sovereign nation how else is a war or dissagreement between two groups supposed to be fought??

depleated uranium?? if you think their is anything wrong there tell me how because i'm just lost

telling lies that resulted in death have you ever talked to a doctor??

going awol in 73?? wasn't he already jailed for that?? or did the military just go alright go on your merry

i'm not pro bush in anyway but if your going to debate do it right

Last edited by manitobapaintballa (2006-09-08 17:25:56)