.

i feel bad for those who have died BUT i have to admit that i'm not as upset as others. it's war and there will be casualties. was it messed up for them to air it? maybe, but if the iraqis are as "bad" as bush says why would we expect anything less from them?

on both sides.

they didn't have sense enough to present this like it would be a real war...they were sooooo sure they'd go in and iraq would lie down and take it.

now they know differently

and now these people's families have to pay a terrible, terrible price.

my heart goes out to all the people who are losing their lives in this senseless, unecessary conflict.

_____________________________
peace.
wisdom.
sanity.
clarity.
justice.

"The best way to support 'our boys' is to create enough dissent that will pressure the leadership of this country to end this illegal and immoral war." ~okp HoChiGrimm

www.poetsagainstthewar.org

agreed, but i don't think they really believed iraq was going to lay down and give up. they knew this was going to be a long battle.

peace.

against the war... death and destruction is evil... whether in a Christian or Muslim context... anything outside of that is merely a racist double standard disguised as liberation and freedom... since when did freedom equate to war????

good point. yo, i been looking for your posts but you been like ghost face in the past few weeks. whats up?

freedom and war are relative.

to a devil they are...
to a human they are not...
when men and women go to war that proves animals are superior...
when is the last time you saw a million rabbits vs a million bears... searching for freedom? Under the laws of Satan you must die to be free...

agreed. aqua, isn't it interesting how human beings consider themselves more intelligent than animals but are unable to maintain peace. i think human beings are too dumb to be intelligent. we have only created memorable wars and weapons.

peace.

It's good to see some intelligent people on these boards it's shocking how many ignorant people are on the Okayplayer boards, one would think conscious hip-hop would attract conscious people.


"Peace is not a 4 letter word Bush is"

nm

>to a devil they are...
>to a human they are not...

HUH? did you speak to the devil yourself to get that answer?

>when men and women go to war that proves animals are
>superior...
>when is the last time you saw a million rabbits vs a million
>bears... searching for freedom?

huh? did you ask your local rabbit? they my not go to war in the human sense, but they do kill each other to survive. a lions freedom is relative to itself. to be free it must kill antelope. without food, it dies.

Under the laws of Satan you
>must die to be free...

huh?

... war and freedom became the same about eleven minutes after that cross-eyed buck-toothed retard took office.

It's not like he can READ. I'm sure he just got the two definititions confused... we'll get hima good home learning tutor to help him along...

this is going to take a devastating toll on both sides and it seems like it's all for shit. ultimately, what's going to be the end result?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Why the fuck is Bush telling Saddam he broke international convention with the POW's when they desyroyed the United Nations????? WHAT THE FUCK!

peace.

Exactly!!!! He has violated the UN with this invasion and has the nerve to flip it... he is the master of illusion...
think Episode II.

even the POW's was a act of sabatoge... to rally up US support for the troops... it was a coup of sorts set up by the US in conjunction with key Iraqi's...
this will rally the public behind Bush... yet another clever scheme...
Waddup BARTEK Good to see you around!!! PEACE...

Yes, I agree. They are following the standard PROPOGANDA WAR MANUAL. Fucking CNN did a report on a captured minority who was a U.S. soldier and interviewed his mom. Nice way to rally the minorities in the United States and break the hearts of Bush loving citizans. The scary shit is people are actually falling for this.

Yo, i've been trying to keep my sanity mang. how bout you??

it's ill... but when you understand that peace is what wins against all things evil... it's easier to rest... it's hard to rest thinking of all the Iraqi's and Americans who will suffer cause of some rich man's quest for more power, money, and oil...
ya know? Thing is... they are one in the same... Sadam puts up statues... Bush invades the media which is like a daily statue being erected every day... have faith... the peace of God and his/her people will prevail... it always has... ya dig? Peace.

yah mang, i have been thinkin bout that a lot latley. god and how the entity of god fits into this mess. thanks for the words yo. imma try and keep my chin up.

peace.

please do... we need intelligent brothers and sisters of all walks of life... to stand together in peace and unity... it can be done... but some people don't want that... but it WILL be done... you see... love is greater than any missile... Peace.

>even the POW's was a act of sabatoge... to rally up US
>support for the troops... it was a coup of sorts set up by
>the US in conjunction with key Iraqi's...

ok, somebody's gotta say it...give proof. I have heard some pretty ridiculous arguments regarding this war, but this one has gotta be the stupidest I have ever heard. Give me proof, or shut up with this nonsense. Prove me wrong and I'll admit that I am wrong and start protesting too.

--rhombus

give me proof we should even be there in the first place. Give me ironclad proof that the WMDs were not destroyed(not forged pictures). Give me ironclad proof to the link between Hussein and al-qaeda. Give me ironclad proof that this is not about oil, considering that the first measure taken to set up post-war Iraq was a contract to Halliburton(not any talks about how the statecraft is gonna go. . .who we're gonna pay to clean the damn mess up). Then we'll prove the Propagandist tactics of King George I.

>give me proof we should even be there in the first place.
>Give me ironclad proof that the WMDs were not destroyed(not
>forged pictures). Give me ironclad proof to the link
>between Hussein and al-qaeda. Give me ironclad proof that
>this is not about oil, considering that the first measure
>taken to set up post-war Iraq was a contract to
>Halliburton(not any talks about how the statecraft is gonna
>go. . .who we're gonna pay to clean the damn mess up). Then
>we'll prove the Propagandist tactics of King George I.

I never argued in favor of the war. I happen to be against this war. I simply asked for proof regarding something that is clearly made up. I don't think people should be able to say things like this unless they have the proof to back it up.

And by the way magilla, you want to support aqua here by picking a fight like a 4th grader? If you support his claims, then YOU please defend them with proof instead of the "Well what about..." routine. I am not here for a fight, but I will call out people who spew this kind of fiction and cannot back it up.

I am prepared to disagree, ad I am prepared to be proven wrong. So do it...Aqua, Magilla, or BarTek (who agreed with the original post)...let's here what you have to say.

--rhombus

I'll begin with Propagandist tactics, and one simple example. After the October 4th disaster in Somalia, Americans have been quite put off by knowledge that their troops might happen to be suffering. This lead, as you know, to US ignorance to the Rwandan genocide. It also sets the stage for a quite unbalanced tactic in US coverage of Gulf II. While even other coalition nations are displaying POWs on their news programs, the US 24-hour coverage fails to do so. The idea, apparently, is that if we don't see it, it's not there.

Before this started, Bush had a chance to bolster his case. He was asked a question about why he was continuing on despite the massive protest efforts. Here was George's chance to get some true support, and not just dispense some kool-aid for the followers to drink. What does he say? "Sometimes a leader has to think of the best interests of his people, whether they agree with him or not." I don't know about you, but I'd think that any proof he had that would justify his case should be shared, to get the American people fully behind you.

Last but not least, let's not forget the FINE work of the Dept. of Homeland Security during all of this. If you work in the duct tape business, you should send Tom Ridge a Christmas card.

I've gotten the feeling that through this administration, Bush has suffered through needing fear in American eyes in order to stay afloat. The legitimacy of his presidency was debated up until the attacks on New York and Washington. Since then, through the DHS and other organizations, he's been trying to instill xenophobia in the American people, in order to justify his foreign policy actions. Meanwhile, he ignores the unemployment rate at home, carrying out Reaganomics in hope that if people are too worried about their next meal, they won't think twice about their leaders. It's been a sad 3 years to me, and this is the pinnacle.

when is the proof for the planning of POW's with high Iraqi officials coming? I'm still waiting. None of this is relevant to that discussion.

--rhombus

AMERICAN SOLDIER SUPPORT.

Painful as the circumstances may be,the soldiers are acting under their oath of allegiance,duty to serve and protect whenever ordered by the Presidency and Military Commanders.

War is always atrocious and for the soldiers it leave scared memories,but it is their life,or the enemy.
Plus,prevent as many military,civilian casualties as possible.

God Bless The Soldiers-Civilians In Jesus Name.My Faith.

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/13787.html

while its still around

the chain is set up so that they are not supposed to do things violating international law - which they are

and they can be tried for war crimes regardless of if they were following orders

"I guess I can say that I too support the troops,but not in the way that.................,flag wavers intend.

>and they can be tried for war crimes regardless of if they
>were following orders

Given American refusal to allow her military personnel to be subject to the war crimes court (http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16666/story.htm), some claim that it's a hypocritical position to then posit those responsible for denigrating these American PoWs before a war crimes tribunal...

I offer no solutions, just observations...

I have no enemies... and some rich spoiled oil Brat is not going to make me hate people I have never met... (Bush that is...)
foul is foul... murder and destruction if foul..
I place God before America... you do it the other way around and your serving Satan... God loves all his children, Iraqi's and Americans alike... I'm tired of rich old white men telling me who my enemy is... I'll make that decision MYSELF!!!!
Freedom to all!!!

yo aqua, once i read a qoute that went something like this:

"i am tired of old men creating wars for young men to die in" unkown

peace.

"God loves all his children".
Most definitely.

Actually I had written blessings for the Iraqui soldiers forced into this atrocious situation.

But,then I thought about how we once had the draft-same thing.

Expressed,or not I want blessings upon everyone in Jesus Name My Faith.

Just come home soon, everybody. We miss you.

1-2-3-4, What The Hell Are We Fight For???




I just feel digust and fear...

For Your Infa'mation!!!~~>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


****!!!I HEAR THE SOUND OF MUSIC!!!****

Papa was a rolling stone. Wherever he laid his hat was his home,
and when he died, all he left us was a loan.(smile)...
(c)The Temptations

Exactly...
murder in the name of .... something!
crazy... no war.

Oh please. Freedom comes at a cost, look at WW1 or WW2 or so on. What would you like to do with Saddam and his fucked up sons? Ask them nicely to stop killing people? Yeah i am sure they would have done that because they are so interested in peace. That was sarcasm in case ya'll didn't get that shit. So in short you should probably stick up for your troops fighting for all of your rights and freedoms. I imagine if in a couple of years we got nailed with some kind of chemical weapon, then you might want to do something about it. why not prevent future deaths? war is war but you should support your troops if not then go over there and live in a fucking cave with a tyrannical dictator. let's see what you would be posting then.

Please... spare me your big business rhetoric... Sadam is no Hitler, that spot is saved for Bush Jr...
World war I was a propoganda as well... II, well considering the majority of American businesses that did business with Hitler... oh including a One Prescott Bush... and who would that be? He was even investigated for international trade violations for doing business with the Third Reich... these are facts...
oh you were saying something about Freedom? I was too busy watching the Diallo case where the police gunned down a innocent man... I'm sorry you were saying?

i respect your opinion and do sympathize with cases like Diallo and as i am sure millions just like that. dirty cops did bad bad things, so what is the point of just dwelling on it. what are you doing to change any of that? however there are always going to be problems both domestically and foreign. but ignoring things until they blow up in your face is not the right way to go. state governments have to be held responsible for some of this unjust behavior. they hire the cops, postmen and all of that. it is not just federal.
i don't know, i mean neither extreme approach ,right or left wing is very good. people get caught up in the moment and the middle ground has vanished due to heightened opinions. i for one am neither pro war; whatever that crazy statement means, or pro sit around and flash peace signs until the problem goes away.
It is obvious that Saddam is a fucking tyrant as well as his murderous sons. So barring war what would you have done to get rid of him? i mean torturing his own people is pretty fucking wrong. any way you look at it? well thank goodness it is almost 4:20.

the point of just dwelling on it????
so it doesn't happen again...
do you tell the Jews not to dwell on their holocaust?
But you feel comfortable enough to tell blacks that...
and judging from your support of this war I guess we are suppossed to tell our Muslim brothers and sisters... 'hey... nevermind your dying and all your brothers and sisters worldwide nevermind that... don't dwell on it". However, how long has America DWELLED on Pearl Harbor? How long have Americans REENACTED mind you, the Civil War? the Revolutionary War???
How man MOVIES have Americans made about the WWI? WWII?
And you say don't dwell on it... hell I haven't DWELLEED on it ENOUGH!

Sadam and his sons have done nothing to me...
but what about BUSH AND HIS SON... THEY ARE TYRANTS.

Why didn't you want to invade Iraq when he actually used those weapons on his own people, or when he used chemicals on Iran? Because we were on his side, and we sold him the weapons! Before Bush included Iraq in the "Axis of Evil", did you have any inclination or desire to invade Iraq? I didn't think so.

Regardless of how you feel about the war
You are saying that you consider Bush to be more of a tyrant and a closer contrast to Hitler than Saddam Hussein??

No matter how much you dont like Bush how could you say something like that?
while the death of Amadou Diallo was a terrible thing it was a reminder of the corruption and racism that exists within the existing police force
That has nothing to do with the basic principles that make up the foundation of our Democratic system
THAT is what you should be thankful for
sure its not perfect
but what it comes down to
Bush is not a dictator
Saddam Hussein is
and like hitler Saddam has committed mass genocide within the country he rules
Something like that could never happen in the United States
like Churchill said
"Democracy is the worse form of government...except for all the otheres."

Except that Bush got to where he is through the electioneering of his brother and FL's sec. of state Katherine Harris. Thousands of black voters were turned away at the polls because they had a 5% profile match with convicted criminals. Bush wasn't elected. He and Jeb just performed a coup d'etat. And shame on Al Gore for not running a better campaign.

>Oh please. Freedom comes at a cost, look at WW1 or WW2 or so
>on. What would you like to do with Saddam and his fucked up
>sons? Ask them nicely to stop killing people? Yeah i am sure
>they would have done that because they are so interested in
>peace. That was sarcasm in case ya'll didn't get that shit.
>So in short you should probably stick up for your troops
>fighting for all of your rights and freedoms. I imagine if
>in a couple of years we got nailed with some kind of
>chemical weapon, then you might want to do something about
>it. why not prevent future deaths? war is war but you should
>support your troops if not then go over there and live in a
>fucking cave with a tyrannical dictator. let's see what you
>would be posting then.

Give me a tyrannical dictator, I'll give you a onetime friend, protege and agent of your government.

Saddam killed a million Iranians and gassed hundred thousands of Kurds. He got a majority of his supplies(including WMDs used) from the very same people that want to take himout right now. Actually it is believed he attacked Kuwait thinking his masters (the Bush snr admin) would turn the usual blind eye, but he miscalculated, hence the current tragicomedy.

Remember Mobutu Sese Seko, Jonas Savimbi, even the Taliban and Bin Laden ? All of them were financed,propped up and protected by your government only to be dumped and forgotten once the cold war ended. During their reigns of terror, they had committed numerous acts of (bio)terrorism and genocide against their own people in full view of their Washington masters.

Don't come around here acting like you give a shit about tyrannical dictators killing their own people. The whole world does NOT believe you !

This message is specifically for Aquaman:

I was reading how you so adamantly hate President Bush and are so anti-war. My question to you and to everyone else is what other options are there about stopping a ruler that not only ordered an attack on his own people with chemical weapons, but also rejoiced publically after 9-11. Is it your opinion that this man could not very well be the next Hitler if not stopped? If you don't know your history, Hitler started off by capturing surrounding countries. If I do recall Saddam did the same in '91 when he invaded bordering Iran. The Iraqi people themselves are rejoicing to be rid of Saddam. It really bothers me when people are demeaning the purpose of my sister fighting in Iraq. These soldiers are out there defending our country from the threat of futher terrorist attacks. I think that Bush is doing what is best for the country. It has nothing to do with oil or whatever else people are saying. For god sakes, had something been done about Bin Laden when he first bombed the world trade center when Clinton was in office that could have prevented 9-11!!! That being said this war is for prevention of threats to our national security. Sometimes when things happen you have to stand alone, and I'm glad that our president is taking a stand and doing something about a terrorist ruler. I also encourage everyone to wear or post a yellow ribbon in support of the "real heros" out there in Iraq. Oh yeah, about the whole war is of the devil, I don't understand that. If that was the case then why did God help his people fight and win wars in the bible. The whole wall of Jericho and all of the other biblical wars, what about them. Well not to discredit or disrespect anyones religious beliefs but I've read and now I am speaking my mind. I'm tired of hearing people complaining about how wrong war is when they aren't offering any other solutions. True, if we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need war, but we are nowhere near that. Let's be real. 1on1. I'm out.

Dedicated to all the American P.O.W'S and casualties,
and to my sister,
I love you Kris,
Do your job and come home safe.

>This message is specifically for Aquaman:

Sorry, you got me first.

>I was reading how you so adamantly hate President Bush and
>are so anti-war. My question to you and to everyone else is
>what other options are there about stopping a ruler that not
>only ordered an attack on his own people with chemical
>weapons,

There is no question that these attacks against his own people were terrible, so don't think in any way that I am defending them. The fact remains, however, that these were Kurds attempting to kill him and overthrow the government and he was using weapons that the U.S. gave him. It's hard to say that any other leader wouldn't do the same if his life was in jeopardy.

> but also rejoiced publically after 9-11.

Muslims all across the Middle East were rejoicing, not just Saddam. Think of it this way, if you are a Kings fan and you finally see the Lakers fall, you are going to celebrate. If you are a Muslim in the Middle East and you see the country that has been killing your people for years get attacked, well you might celebrate. Again, not saying that its right, but it happens.

Is it
>your opinion that this man could not very well be the next
>Hitler if not stopped? If you don't know your history,
>Hitler started off by capturing surrounding countries. If I
>do recall Saddam did the same in '91 when he invaded
>bordering Iran.

Again, using weapons provided by the U.S. The U.S. wanted to see both nations fall but had to choose to support the lesser of the two evils, and that was Iraq. And oh yeah, what do you think Richard Perle's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is talking about - controlling the Middle East.

The Iraqi people themselves are rejoicing
>to be rid of Saddam.

Those that are still alive. Killing people and destroying their towns is no way to liberate them.

It really bothers me when people are
>demeaning the purpose of my sister fighting in Iraq.

I don't think there is anyone on these boards that want your sister to be harmed in any way. It is possible to not support the reason why she is over there and still hope that she will be safe and come back unharmed.

These
>soldiers are out there defending our country from the threat
>of futher terrorist attacks.

There is no connection between Saddam and al-Queda and he has never made an attempt to attack any Americans except for during war time. If we really wanted to protect this country from terrorist attacks we would start doing something about the connections Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have with al-Queda that are as clear as day.

I think that Bush is doing
>what is best for the country.

I think he is doing what is in the best interests for himself and his administration.

It has nothing to do with oil
>or whatever else people are saying.

Again, check out Richard Perle's report. One of the clear strategies to maintaining global dominance is to control the majority of the world's energy sources.

For god sakes, had
>something been done about Bin Laden when he first bombed the
>world trade center when Clinton was in office that could
>have prevented 9-11!!!

Agree, something does need to be done about him. The connections between the U.S. and bin laden go back to '89. Indeed, Clinton could have done something to stop bin laden, but Bush sr and jr could have as well.

That being said this war is for
>prevention of threats to our national security. Sometimes
>when things happen you have to stand alone, and I'm glad
>that our president is taking a stand and doing something
>about a terrorist ruler.

And as we stand alone, we grow farther apart from the rest of the world, creating anti-American sentiment across the world. I don't know about you, but I'd like to see other parts of the world. I'd prefer if I didn't have to do it while fearing for my life.

I also encourage everyone to wear
>or post a yellow ribbon in support of the "real heros" out
>there in Iraq. Oh yeah, about the whole war is of the
>devil, I don't understand that. If that was the case then
>why did God help his people fight and win wars in the bible.
> The whole wall of Jericho and all of the other biblical
>wars, what about them. Well not to discredit or disrespect
>anyones religious beliefs but I've read and now I am
>speaking my mind.

You got me there. I'm not very religious. I consider myself to be quite spiritual but not religious.

I'm tired of hearing people complaining
>about how wrong war is when they aren't offering any other
>solutions.

There have been many other solutions offered, clearly it doesn't matter though. Bush has already made it widely known that he won't have it any other way.

True, if we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't
>need war, but we are nowhere near that. Let's be real.
>1on1. I'm out.

True indeed, I'm sure we would all like peace. If we are nowhere near a perfect world then that means that we have to get to work. We can't just sit back and say, well, the world is fucked up but there is nothing we can do so we might as well live with it.

The world would definitely be better off without Saddam, war is not the way to get rid of him though. A war in the name of peace is just ridiculous. Remember, being anti-war doesn't mean being pro-Saddam or anti-troops. We all pray that your sister and all of the other troops will get out of there safely and as soon as possible.

Oh yeah, there is one more thing............. it's been emotional

With war imminent, President Bush and others are already discussing plans for a post-Saddam, U.S.-occupied Iraq. What do you think?

"I'm sure there are plenty of ambitious young despots out there who would jump at the chance to rule Iraq."
Andrea Crim
Teacher

"I just hope we don't see a repeat of that mess we made a few years back when we tried to install an American ruler in America."
Bruce Wollensky
Attorney


"Can't we just get CNN to run the place?"
Martin Baines
Systems Analyst

"Whatever happens, someone should be there to film the most touching moments."
Meredith Hall
Psychologist


"We should ask ourselves what we would want if Iraq was occupying the U.S."
Ken Franklin
Bus Driver

"Oh, man, we're not gonna make Iraq the 51st state, are we?"
Dennis Doering
Landscaper

This is to the previous post, I really appreciate your insight. I don't want to come off as mean, but I was really tired of all the complaints. It's good to see someone with insight on the subject and actually making some sense, unlike others. I also want to say that I don't consider protesters "anti-troop" or "pro-Saddam" as you put it. I just wanted to hear someone that had another solution to this problem and not just talk, because talk is cheap. I think that between '91 and '03, if Saddam did not respect the UN weapons inspectors then it's time to do something different. I think that he is a tyrannical dictator that will not comply with anything but force. Look at the way his soldiers are fighting the war, ambushing troops after fake surrenders, killing P.O.W's. I don't think a peaceful outcome would have been possible with him, but you are intitled to your opinion. And concerning these other countries, these are the same countries that American soldiers helped fight to free. That's really ironic don't you think. America is a successful nation and will be hated by someone regardless. Anyway thank you for your insight and write back with your thoughts on this.
I would like to address one last issue and this is message #12 posted by aquaman. You have a lot of nerve don't you? I just read what you said about the P.O.W's being a "staged hoax" to rally support for the troops. How dare you make light of those men and women with husbands, wives and children and don't know if they'll live to see the next day. I took that as really disrespectful. How about you go out to Iraq and ask "Was that bullet that paralyzed you real or staged"? I don't know if you know this, but some have already been killed. Please don't make anymore posts to make me see you as anymore of an inconsiderate jackass. You can hate Bush 'till your death bed, but don't make light of the sacrifices made by our troops. I don't know why I entertained that foolishness with a response but I had to let you know you were wayyyyyyyyyyyy out of line. 1on1. I'm out.

(This message is specifically for Aquaman:
I was reading how you so adamantly hate President Bush and are so anti-war. My question to you and to everyone else is what other options are there about stopping a ruler that not only ordered an attack on his own people with chemical weapons, but also rejoiced publically after 9-11.)
FIRST OF ALL YOUR A LIAR. THE GASSING OF THE KURDS WAS A UPRISING CUT SHORT. SECOND... IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE DID SO, WHO DONATED A 40 MILLION DOLLAR CHECK TO IRAQ? AMERICA... WHO DONATED IT? DONALDS RUMSFELD. SECOND, YOUR LYING ABOUT 9/11... DONT MAKE SHIT UP TO GIVE YOURSELF LEVEERAGE HERE. THIRD... IF YOUR JUST REITERATING HEARSAY NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO LET YOU KNOW... HE, NOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ CELEBRATED PUBLICLY. YOUR REFERENCING THE CNN VIDEO SHOWING PEOPLE DANCING IN THE STREET... BUT GUESS WHAT... THAT VIDEO WAS FROM 1993.

( Is it your opinion that this man could not very well be the next Hitler if not stopped?)
BUSH? YUP.

( If you don't know your history, Hitler started off by capturing surrounding countries. If I do recall Saddam did the same in '91 when he invaded bordering Iran.)
IF YOU KNOW YOUR HISTORY, THEN YOU'LL KNOW PRESCOTT BUSH SR.. MADE MILLIONS OFF OF HITLER AND DIRECTLY INVESTED INTO HIS GOV. AND HELPED HIM RISE TO PROMINANCE. SECOND, EXACTLY HOW MANY COUNTRIES HAVE AMERICA INVADED? AND YOUR WORRIED ABOUT IRAN... A PUPPET GOVERNMENT WITH THE SHAW THAT WE PUT IN POWER????
C'MON. YOUR WAISTING MY TIME AND THE TIME OF FELLOW OKAYPLAYERS.

( The Iraqi people themselves are rejoicing to be rid of Saddam.)
SO NOW YOU HAVE BEEN TO IRAQ TO TALK TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE HUH?
AGAIN, STOP LYING... SPEAK ONLY WHAT YOU KNOW FIRST HAND, NOTHING MORE.. AND WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING.

( It really bothers me when people are demeaning the purpose of my sister fighting in Iraq. These soldiers are out there defending our country from the threat of futher terrorist attacks.)
I'M SORRY ABOUT YOUR SISTER... BUT ISN'T SHE THERE TO KILL PEOPLE???? SO I'M FEELING SORRY FOR WHAT AGAIN?

( I think that Bush is doing what is best for the country.)
I THINK YOUR A BRAINWASHED TWELVE YEAR OLD.

(It has nothing to do with oil or whatever else people are saying.)
BUSH - FAMILY MAKES TRILLIONS IN OIL
IRAQ - WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVE. RIGHT. IF IRAQ HAD ALL THE HAMBURGERS IN THE WORLD AND LAVANE HAWKINS WAS PRESIDENT AND INVADED IRAQ... WOULDN'T PEOPLE JUST CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS?

( For god sakes, had something been done about Bin Laden when he first bombed the world trade center when Clinton was in office that could have prevented 9-11!!!)
YOUR A ASSHOLE. LADEN DID NOTHING. i THINK I'M WAISTING MY TIME TALKING TO THE DUMBEST @#$@# ON HERE.

( That being said this war is for prevention of threats to our national security.)
SAME THING HITLER SAID ABOUT THE JEWS... SO THEY CREATED CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

( Sometimes when things happen you have to stand alone, and I'm glad that our president is taking a stand and doing something about a terrorist ruler.)
SO YOU GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE KURDS HUH?
ANSWER THIS.
WHAT IS THEIR PROMINENT RELIGION?
WHO IS THEIR LEADER?
WHEN DID THEY COME TO POWER?
WHAT COUNTRY ASSISTED THEM?
WHAT IS THEIR PRIMARY RESOURCE?
IF YOU KNOW NONE OF THESE ANSWERS... SHUT THE @#$@ UP WITH THE FAKE ASS RACIST TALK DISGUISED AS HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS.

( I also encourage everyone to wear or post a yellow ribbon in support of the "real heros" out there in Iraq. Oh yeah, about the whole war is of the devil, I don't understand that.)
THAT'S CAUSE YOUR A DEVIL.

( If that was the case then why did God help his people fight and win wars in the bible. The whole wall of Jericho and all of the other biblical wars, what about them. Well not to discredit or disrespect anyones religious beliefs but I've read and now I am speaking my mind. I'm tired of hearing people complaining about how wrong war is when they aren't offering any other solutions. True, if we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need war, but we are nowhere near that. Let's be real. 1on1. I'm out. )
SO WHAT SEPERATES YOU FROM THE TERRORISTS? THEY USE QUOTES FROM THE KORAN... YOU USE QUOTES FROM THE BIBLE... FOOL.

THANKS FOR WAISTING MY TIME AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE.

Let's get something straight, you don't know me so let's not take this to a personal level. You talk about evil and things of the devil, well judging from your comments you seem to be the evil one. I do not use profanity so I won't stoop to your lower level. Let me just tell you a little about the person you called a "brainwashed twelve year old". I am a single black mother of one. I attend Southern University and will be graduating in two years. I am a strong, intellegent black woman raising my child, so I refused to be disrespected by some jerk on the internet. I have every right to speak my mind and by the way you made a comment about speaking what you know? Well I think you need to practice what you preach because a lot of the "claims" that you have posted are biased from your own agenda. And if you think Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9-11 you are just ignorant. I think, no, I know you need to learn some respect. Oh, you don't have to be sorry for my sister. She is living her life and it's sad that she has to fight for ingrates like yourself if and when, America does get attacked. She is well taken care of and who cares about what you think of the military, sounds to me like a personal problem. You can call me racist if you want to but you really need to get over the "white devil" thing. If you really want peace we as blacks need to make peace with all Americans and not hold slavery as a badge to hate. If you really want to talk about double-standards that to me is the biggest one. I think you are just a hateful human being and that was really justified when I read those comments you made about me. I hope you feel really STUPID as you realize that I am a woman that overcame all the statistics. Once again, let's not make this personal because you really don't want to go there, trust me you don't. Oh, and that makes you the childish twelve-year old. 1on1. I'm out.

>(This message is specifically for Aquaman:
>I was reading how you so adamantly hate President Bush and
>are so anti-war. My question to you and to everyone else is
>what other options are there about stopping a ruler that not
>only ordered an attack on his own people with chemical
>weapons, but also rejoiced publically after 9-11.)
(FIRST OF ALL YOUR A LIAR. THE GASSING OF THE KURDS WAS A
UPRISING CUT SHORT. SECOND... IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE DID SO,
WHO DONATED A 40 MILLION DOLLAR CHECK TO IRAQ? AMERICA...
WHO DONATED IT? DONALDS RUMSFELD. SECOND, YOUR LYING ABOUT
9/11... DONT MAKE SHIT UP TO GIVE YOURSELF LEVEERAGE HERE.
THIRD... IF YOUR JUST REITERATING HEARSAY NOW IS A GOOD TIME
TO LET YOU KNOW... HE, NOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ CELEBRATED
PUBLICLY. YOUR REFERENCING THE CNN VIDEO SHOWING PEOPLE
DANCING IN THE STREET... BUT GUESS WHAT... THAT VIDEO WAS
FROM 1993.)

>Alright, but even if they were rebelling against him does that justify him using a chemical weapon against them? Are they not still Iraqi people? Also, Saddam made a speech after 9-11 on Iraqi television basically calling Bin Laden a hero and I know you are smart enough to put two and two together. For him to take the time to do that showed that he had no remorse for the innocent civilians who had died. This was a "pat on the back" for the death of Americans. This is what I consider publically rejoicing. Also, I said nothing about people dancing in the streets. Let's stick to the script, I am strictly talking about Saddam.

>(Is it your opinion that this man could not very well be
>the next Hitler if not stopped?)
>BUSH? YUP.

>Strictly opinion. The fact that you can compare Bush to a man that ordered the slaughter of millions of Jews is disturbing.

>If you don't know your history, Hitler started off by
>capturing surrounding countries. If I do recall Saddam did
>the same in '91 when he invaded bordering Iran.)
(IF YOU KNOW YOUR HISTORY, THEN YOU'LL KNOW PRESCOTT BUSH
SR.. MADE MILLIONS OFF OF HITLER AND DIRECTLY INVESTED INTO
HIS GOV. AND HELPED HIM RISE TO PROMINANCE. SECOND, EXACTLY
HOW MANY COUNTRIES HAVE AMERICA INVADED? AND YOUR WORRIED
ABOUT IRAN... A PUPPET GOVERNMENT WITH THE SHAW THAT WE PUT
IN POWER????
C'MON. YOUR WAISTING MY TIME AND THE TIME OF FELLOW
OKAYPLAYERS.)

>You are leaving out the fact that Hitler ignored the treaties and orders made by the international community and they did nothing. By the time they realized he was a monster out of control his alliances had already bombed Pearl Harbor. Does this remind you of a certain Saddam who has basically ignored the UN for the past god knows how many years.

>(The Iraqi people themselves are rejoicing to be rid of
>Saddam.)
>SO NOW YOU HAVE BEEN TO IRAQ TO TALK TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE
>HUH?
>AGAIN, STOP LYING... SPEAK ONLY WHAT YOU KNOW FIRST HAND,
>NOTHING MORE.. AND WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING.)

>I can pretty much make that assumption when I see the people TEARING DOWN HIS PICTURES!!! You also left out the fact that these people have been forming resistance against his gov., unsuccessfully, for years.

>It really bothers me when people are demeaning the purpose
>of my sister fighting in Iraq. These soldiers are out there >defending our country from the threat of futher terrorist
>attacks.)
(I'M SORRY ABOUT YOUR SISTER... BUT ISN'T SHE THERE TO KILL
>PEOPLE???? SO I'M FEELING SORRY FOR WHAT AGAIN? )

>My sister is not there to kill people. She is not there to kill civilians. Her focus is on the opposing soldiers trying to kill her.

>( I think that Bush is doing what is best for the country.)
>I THINK YOUR A BRAINWASHED TWELVE YEAR OLD.

>Again, refer to message #44 of what I think of that.

> (It has nothing to do with oil or whatever else people are
>saying.)
>BUSH - FAMILY MAKES TRILLIONS IN OIL
>IRAQ - WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVE. RIGHT. IF IRAQ
>HAD ALL THE HAMBURGERS IN THE WORLD AND LAVANE HAWKINS WAS
>PRESIDENT AND INVADED IRAQ... WOULDN'T PEOPLE JUST CALL IT
>FOR WHAT IT IS?

>Again, strictly your opinion, but you are intitled to that. Why don't you just call it what it is, your opinion.

>( For god sakes, had something been done about Bin Laden
>when he first bombed the world trade center when Clinton was
>in office that could have prevented 9-11!!!)
>YOUR A ASSHOLE. LADEN DID NOTHING. i THINK I'M WAISTING MY
>TIME TALKING TO THE DUMBEST @#$@# ON HERE.

>All I can reply to this comment is that this makes you look really immature. A man only curses when he doesn't know the words to say. And we all know Bin Laden was connected to 9-11.

>( That being said this war is for prevention of threats to
>our national security.)
>SAME THING HITLER SAID ABOUT THE JEWS... SO THEY CREATED
>CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

>Okay, who is putting Iraqi people in concentration camps? Again another bad analogy.

>( Sometimes when things happen you have to stand alone, and
>I'm glad that our president is taking a stand and doing
>something about a terrorist ruler.)
>SO YOU GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE KURDS HUH?
>ANSWER THIS.
>WHAT IS THEIR PROMINENT RELIGION?
>WHO IS THEIR LEADER?
>WHEN DID THEY COME TO POWER?
>WHAT COUNTRY ASSISTED THEM?
>WHAT IS THEIR PRIMARY RESOURCE?
>IF YOU KNOW NONE OF THESE ANSWERS... SHUT THE @#$@ UP WITH
>THE FAKE ASS RACIST TALK DISGUISED AS HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS.

>As far as the racist comment, refer to message #44. No I don't know the history of the Kurds, but one does not need to be a historian to state the obvious. One just has to open their eyes.

>( I also encourage everyone to wear or post a yellow ribbon
>in support of the "real heros" out there in Iraq. Oh yeah,
>about the whole war is of the devil, I don't understand
>that.)
>THAT'S CAUSE YOUR A DEVIL.

>Again, strictly your opinion. You can also refer back to message #44.

>( If that was the case then why did God help his people
>fight and win wars in the bible. The whole wall of Jericho
>and all of the other biblical wars, what about them. Well
>not to discredit or disrespect anyones religious beliefs but
>I've read and now I am speaking my mind. I'm tired of
>hearing people complaining about how wrong war is when they
>aren't offering any other solutions. True, if we lived in a
>perfect world we wouldn't need war, but we are nowhere near
>that. Let's be real. 1on1. I'm out. )
>SO WHAT SEPERATES YOU FROM THE TERRORISTS? THEY USE QUOTES
>FROM THE KORAN... YOU USE QUOTES FROM THE BIBLE... FOOL.

>Um, I do believe that what separates me from terrorists is that I don't use religion to justify killing INNOCENT people. The whole biblical reference was to say that war and freedom sometimes go hand-in-hand.

>THANKS FOR WAISTING MY TIME AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE.

Well as for "waisting your time" it was your choice to log onto the net so apparantly you weren't doing anything important anyway. That is all. 1on1. I'm out.

isn't that standard procedure in wartime?

isn't camp david a vacation thing?

and they're approving money to continue the conflict, but i heard that a bill passed/may pass that would cut veteran's benefits in the next few years...any info on that?

i know most va hospitals already have funding/staffing/resource problems...how will they handle the influx from another conflict when they're still dealing w/ fallout from 30+ years ago?


_____________________________
peace.
wisdom.
sanity.
clarity.
justice.

"The best way to support 'our boys' is to create enough dissent that will pressure the leadership of this country to end this illegal and immoral war." ~okp HoChiGrimm

www.poetsagainstthewar.org

hope this is in the right locked post, but..

on the us uproar over the footage of the prisoners, can anyone also say... double standards?

rumsfeld has complained that this breaches art. 13 of the Geneva convention (interesting to see him care about international law). and he's right, it most likely does.

but.

in guantanamo bay, more than that have been broken:

prisoners displayed on tv, kneeling, hands tied, blacked out goggles, and earphones. - art.13
stripped of own clothes and posessions - art. 18
interned in a penitentiary - art. 22
denied proper mess facilities - art. 26
no canteens - art. 28
no religious premises - art. 34
no opportunities for physical exercise - art. 38
no access to text of convention - art. 41
no freedom to write to families - art. 70 & 71
no parcels of food and books - art. 72

not released and repatriated after the cessation of active hostilities - art 118
should only have to give name, rank number and date of birth, instead interrogated, deprived of sleep, in solitary cells and in constant exposure to bright light - art 17

definition 'unlawful combatants' (made up by us), a redefinition which is a breach as they are pows if detained as suspected members of a militia (taliban) or a voluunteer corps (al quaeda) - art 4
doubt over definition? protected until this determined by a competent tribunal, but us not allowing this - art 5

so rumsfeld should be charged as a war criminal as geneva convention is mandatory and be put away.

by the way, saw us ambassador in the uk get interviewed on this on channel 4 news last night (in uk). he was made to look like a fool.

anyway, what does anyone else think? is guantanamo bay style treatment a bit out of order? what if it was practised on the invaders of iraq?

and i lifted the information out of this from a good article that i would recommend reading in full in the guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html

by george monbiot, tuesday march 25 2003.

.

people forget that we condemn saddam and his troops for things that we've been doing for over a year now.



_____________________________
peace.
wisdom.
sanity.
clarity.
justice.

"The best way to support 'our boys' is to create enough dissent that will pressure the leadership of this country to end this illegal and immoral war." ~okp HoChiGrimm

www.poetsagainstthewar.org

against the war and against Bush.

I've heard different reports. One says Iraqi's are faking surrender to kill Americans. The other says Americans are being ambushed, surrendering with hands up, and being murdered (it's murder because it's a war crime to kill a surrendering force.)

But, then again, we ARE invading these people's homeland and we are a bigger, wealthier and "better" trained military. Tactics like these are what make victors out of underdogs. There are no rules when it comes to defending your home. If you have to murder, you'll murder, when your brothers and sisters, fathers, mothers and babies are being killed in order for a invading force to oust your president. It reminds me of the movie "Red Dawn". The invading Russians getting put in there place by these rogue - guerilla tactic weilding high school students called "Wolverines!!!" - really, they were defending their homes and families and they were using whatever means. (Terrorism)

Please discuss, I would like to hear comments on my thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

>
>I've heard different reports. One says Iraqi's are faking
>surrender to kill Americans. The other says Americans are
>being ambushed, surrendering with hands up, and being
>murdered (it's murder because it's a war crime to kill a
>surrendering force.)
>
>But, then again, we ARE invading these people's homeland and
>we are a bigger, wealthier and "better" trained military.
>Tactics like these are what make victors out of underdogs.
>There are no rules when it comes to defending your home. If
>you have to murder, you'll murder, when your brothers and
>sisters, fathers, mothers and babies are being killed in
>order for a invading force to oust your president. It
>reminds me of the movie "Red Dawn". The invading Russians
>getting put in there place by these rogue - guerilla tactic
>weilding high school students called "Wolverines!!!" -
>really, they were defending their homes and families and
>they were using whatever means. (Terrorism)
>
>Please discuss, I would like to hear comments on my
>thoughts.
>
>Thanks in advance.

I understand the underdog analogy, but it is also in violation of the geneva convention which is in place to protect noncombatants and prisoners of war. Once you surrender, you are no longer considered a noncombatant and protected by the geneva convention. Faking surrenders, dressing as noncombatants and firing on soldiers, attacking from hospitals, mosques, etc. are in direct violation and putting other noncombatants in danger. What happens when american soldiers start firing on those targets to protect themselves from those tactics?

Exactly my point.

The U.S. has invaded Iraq which also goes against international treaty, therefore, all bets are off. The U.S. SHOULD go no holds barred if they want to be successful.

>
>Exactly my point.
>
>The U.S. has invaded Iraq which also goes against
>international treaty, therefore, all bets are off. The U.S.
>SHOULD go no holds barred if they want to be successful.

Wrong. the geneva convetion was established as rules of war to again protect noncombatants and make sure prisoners of war are treated humanely, therefore taking precedence. whether you are against or for the war, you cannot condone acts that blatantly put noncombatants in harm's way.

All of the things you have stated can be re-stated on the Iraqi side. Civilians are being killed and thats FACT. Don't try to throw international law at me when this WHOLE thing is against international law!! Read Below... AGAIN

In one breath you're sayin that all bets are off and the U.S. should go "no holds barred" if they want to be successful, then you say that this whole thing is against international law or treaty. What exactly is your position? And what exact international treaty or law are you referring to? You seem like you're against the war but are arguing against following geneva convention laws which protect noncombatants and prisoners of war on BOTH sides.

Because I am sure that American soldiers are doing the same thing to Iraqis but you will never hear about it.




"But I am not tragically colored. There is no great sorrow damned up in my soul, nor lurking behind my eyes. I do not mind at all. I do not belong to the sobbing school of Negrohood who hold that nature somehow has given them a lowdown dirty deal and whose feelings are all hurt about it. Even in the helter-skelter skirmish that is my life, I have seen that the world is to the strong regardless of a little pirmentation more or less. No, I do not weep at the world-I am too busy sharpening my oyster knife."
-Zora Neal Hurston-

>Because I am sure that American soldiers are doing the same
>thing to Iraqis but you will never hear about it.
>
>
Doing what? Posing as noncombatants? Faking surrender? Firing from hospital, mosques, etc? Intentionally firing on noncombatants? What makes you think so?

How ignorant a statement is that. The simple fact is you want to believe that we are doing something evil as them. You want to believe that we are this Evil Empire that you also belong too. If you think that is the case then why not go be human shield for them? I'm sure the Republican Guard would love to have another civilian shield!

why don't you go over there and join saddam's army. i am sure they could use people like you. ignorant.

The Failure of Anti-war Protesters
http://www.progress.org/2003/fold290.htm
The Real Reason for the Iraq War
http://www.progress.org/2003/fold292.htm

I think this guy makes a pretty strong case regarding the stance of protesters vs. military strategy. Not saying the protesters are wrong, but if this guy is right, do you think the protests are ineffective? So yea, looking for some good arguments for or against what this man is saying. And remember he's speaking about the intellectual stance, so I'm not looking for the usual Bush oil greed post, unless it's actually directly speaking on what the articles above are saying.

I think the anti-war protests show the rest of the world that not all of the American people are behind Bush 'THE WARMONGER'. When if ever this war ends, the rest of the world will see that some Americans still have a conscience.

On another note, I have never been able to understand when pro-war folks say that this war is about protecting American freedom. When in actuality the U.S. Government is trying to take away their freedoms with the Homeland act. Please school me

>I think the anti-war protests show the rest of the world
>that not all of the American people are behind Bush 'THE
>WARMONGER'. When if ever this war ends, the rest of the
>world will see that some Americans still have a conscience.

Word

>On another note, I have never been able to understand when
>pro-war folks say that this war is about protecting American
>freedom. When in actuality the U.S. Government is trying to
>take away their freedoms with the Homeland act. Please
>school me

Man, you got me there. Maybe protecting government freedom, as in the freedom to do whatever they please without any of us putting a check on them.

Here is one Hip-Hop Head who is 'gasp' for the war. It is true I said it. To make things worse I'm Black,intelligent and support the President 100 percent. I wish that all of you who are posting sh*t at least have your information correct. I think ya'll are so caught up in the whole Republicans are bad and Democrats are good mess, that you want to see this country fail because George Bush is President. Keep saying that we are in their for oil is ignorant at best. We could have taken the oil in 91' during the first gulf war. The reason Bush is telling them not to burn the oil is because that is their main resource, that is why other countries do business with them. No Oil, No Trading. It humors me when I hear people whining about the war when they think it's about oil and then walk over to their nice Escalade or Denali,whatever the SUV of the month is. If you're so concerned about them maintainng their oil, why not buy one of the Honda Hybrids or something. If their is no high demand for oil in America then it won't be a high demand to go secure it either, correct? If you feel so strong about something then put your MONEY where your MOUTH is!!
The simple fact is, America is doing it's best to free the Iraqi people while at the same time,rid us of a tyrant who if we let keep going unchecked will rid the world of us!!

I agree with your points on saying that if your anti-war you should cease and desist from using gasoline to drive your cars. Well...I don't drive my car. It's my own way of making a statement. I take public transportation or ride my bike. In any case, Escalades are tacky.

For me it's very clear that this is about oil. I think it's naive (oops I used a French word)to think that Bush is concerned about how the Iraqi people will support themselves after this invasion. Basically the government and all of the US oil business wants control over the oil in foreign lands.

Bush doesn't give a fuck about foreign people. It's even more repugnant that he is risking the lives of the American people in the name of greed.

YUCK!

>Bush doesn't give a fuck about foreign people. It's even
>more repugnant that he is risking the lives of the American
>people in the name of greed.
>
word. both sides are taking losses over bullshit

your tacky.

Ahhhh! Don't be that way...

i just was that way. go lay down and block some more traffic or somethin.

Awww...I hurted his widdle feewins.

you know although i am anti-war i understand both sides of the argument fairly well, saddam is an evil evil man (funded by the american gov. for most of his political career), he massacared thousands of kurds (sorry uprising or not, no excuse, but we did sell him those chemicals).
My big problems with all of this are as follows:
to believe that our intentions are good is just naive at this point, to put such a focus on not burning oil fields and to have the first oil company (cheneys former company if i understand correctly) in iraq run by one of cheneys good buddys basicaly snuffs out the debate as to whether oil has anything to do with this. and besides how often do politicians do anything with he best intentions? Why should this be any different?
also as ridiculous as the argument that its a personal vendeta sounds i believe it does play into it. bush is just human, and a rather emotional one at that, if someone plotted to kill your father you'd be pissed to.
and their were alternatives, but bush was on a time line he wanted to go to war and take sadam out he didnt want to play games (which is to an extent admirable but employed at the wrong time)
to say that sadam would give WMD (weapons of mass destruction for the uninformed) to osama or any other extremest islamic group is just not logical. Sadam may be crazy but hes predictable, and smart. muslim extremests hate sadam as well and have attacked his country and interests, why would he risk someone turning his own weapons against him (which would be much easier than trying to smuggle them into the US)
Sadam would never put his power at risk, hell do whatever it takes to keep it, even if it meant slowly and unwillingly disarming.

so thats my little rant, maybe you feel im misguided feel free to let me know. Ill probably have more ranting to add. but if you start spouting vile and ignorance (for either view) i will let you know in very harsh terms.

I don't think Haliburton (Cheneys frmr company) will get the bid...They do just as much business outside this country as they do inside. And foriegn (sp) markets are more against the war than for it. And that is a conflict of interest. It would hurt them too much even if they get billions to help "re-build" Iraq through suffering in other countries. But I agree, also, that Saddam poses a threat, It's only a matter of time before he gets those WMD, and then what kind of neighbor would he be???

how does this hurt Haliburton? i understand that oil prices would drop with the new open source of oil, but if the company thats in control of the oil is the same as the one that lines our "leaders" pockets how does that hurt them? thats more money for them if they're in control. And besides opening up these fields will drop oil prices wich while maybe not necessarily good for the the market is good for britain who gets alot of their oil form the middle east, and for americans who like to drive suv's that guzzle gas.
and while sadam may at some point pose a threat he was neutered pretty effectively by the UN after the first gulf war, and who does he pose a threat to? not the US. the country he poses the bigest threat to is Israel which is a completely seperate depate (which if you want to get into i will but ill just leave it for now). and to be honest if the rest of the middle east feels threated by him let them take care of him. he cant hit us with missles, and as i stated in my post before i dont think the threat of him selling weapons of mass destruction to terrorists is really a big threat (im much more scared by N. Korea who bush seems to like to pretend doesnt exist, and if there is a threat to american security there it is).

this isnt meant to come off nasty as im sure some of it does.. i would really like you to answer these questions for me if you can, im allways looking to gain new knowlege and perspective

>how does this hurt Haliburton? i understand that oil prices
>would drop with the new open source of oil, but if the
>company thats in control of the oil is the same as the one
>that lines our "leaders" pockets how does that hurt them?
>thats more money for them if they're in control. And besides
>opening up these fields will drop oil prices wich while
>maybe not necessarily good for the the market is good for
>britain who gets alot of their oil form the middle east, and
>for americans who like to drive suv's that guzzle gas.
>and while sadam may at some point pose a threat he was
>neutered pretty effectively by the UN after the first gulf
>war, and who does he pose a threat to? not the US. the
>country he poses the bigest threat to is Israel which is a
>completely seperate depate

Man for real I don't want another debate on Isreal, but all I'll say is this, Isreal is an ally of this country, (whether some people want them or not) Now, Lets say Iraq attacks Isreal, We would need to respond to keep Isreal from like flippin the f*ck out nuken muhfuhkas an whatnot. I think once ONE Arab country attacks them then more would surely follow, Multiple fronts combined with an increase in terrorists activity in and around U.S. and our property & provinces, is a dangerous threat to us.

>and to be honest if the
>rest of the middle east feels threated by him let them take
>care of him.
I don't know of a middle eastern country that feels threatened by him, What you talkin about Willis?

he cant hit us with missles, and as i stated in
>my post before i dont think the threat of him selling
>weapons of mass destruction to terrorists is really a big
>threat (im much more scared by N. Korea who bush seems to
>like to pretend doesnt exist, and if there is a threat to
>american security there it is).
>
Anyway terrorist can get wmd's or any kind of support for real is definately a threat. But Yeah, N. Korea is f*ckin scary right now, I think Bush & co. already have plans for them, I mean he singled them out with only 2 other countries in the world, he def. has plans

>this isnt meant to come off nasty as im sure some of it
>does.. i would really like you to answer these questions for
>me if you can, im allways looking to gain new knowlege and
>perspective

I feel ya homie, just a debate, I got nutten but Love for my fellow OKP's.

Now, about Haliburton....I was reading somewhere that Hal. didn't get some of those contracts because of the reasons I stated earlier, but now I can't find the motherf*cker and cannot back that up at all. In fact all I could find is quite the opposite so I was prollally talkin out my ass there, maybe I dreamed that shit

and the consequences for our troops.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/040203E.shtml

The Battle Between Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon
by Seymour M. Hersh
The New Yorker

Monday 31 March 2003

As the ground campaign against Saddam Hussein faltered last week, with attenuated supply lines and a lack of immediate reinforcements, there was anger in the Pentagon. Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle of civilian advisers, who had been chiefly responsible for persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on micromanaging the war’s operational details. Rumsfeld’s team took over crucial aspects of the day-to-day logistical planning—traditionally, an area in which the uniformed military excels—and Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “He thought he knew better,” one senior planner said. “He was the decision-maker at every turn.”

On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his deputies were presented with operational plans—the Iraqi assault was designated Plan 1003—he insisted that the number of ground troops be sharply reduced. Rumsfeld’s faith in precision bombing and his insistence on streamlined military operations has had profound consequences for the ability of the armed forces to fight effectively overseas. “They’ve got no resources,” a former high-level intelligence official said. “He was so focussed on proving his point—that the Iraqis were going to fall apart.”

The critical moment, one planner said, came last fall, during the buildup for the war, when Rumsfeld decided that he would no longer be guided by the Pentagon’s most sophisticated war-planning document, the TPFDL—time-phased forces-deployment list—which is known to planning officers as the tip-fiddle (tip-fid, for short). A TPFDL is a voluminous document describing the inventory of forces that are to be sent into battle, the sequence of their deployment, and the deployment of logistical support. “It’s the complete applecart, with many pieces,” Roger J. Spiller, the George C. Marshall Professor of military history at the U.S. Command and General Staff College, said. “Everybody trains and plans on it. It’s constantly in motion and always adjusted at the last minute. It’s an embedded piece of the bureaucratic and operational culture.” A retired Air Force strategic planner remarked, “This is what we do best—go from A to B—and the tip-fiddle is where you start. It’s how you put together a plan for moving into the theatre.” Another former planner said, “Once you turn on the tip-fid, everything moves in an orderly fashion.” A former intelligence officer added, “When you kill the tip-fiddle, you kill centralized military planning. The military is not like a corporation that can be streamlined. It is the most inefficient machine known to man. It’s the redundancy that saves lives.”

The TPFDL for the war in Iraq ran to forty or more computer-generated spreadsheets, dealing with everything from weapons to toilet paper. When it was initially presented to Rumsfeld last year for his approval, it called for the involvement of a wide range of forces from the different armed services, including four or more Army divisions. Rumsfeld rejected the package, because it was “too big,” the Pentagon planner said. He insisted that a smaller, faster-moving attack force, combined with overwhelming air power, would suffice. Rumsfeld further stunned the Joint Staff by insisting that he would control the timing and flow of Army and Marine troops to the combat zone. Such decisions are known in the military as R.F.F.s—requests for forces. He, and not the generals, would decide which unit would go when and where.

The TPFDL called for the shipment in advance, by sea, of hundreds of tanks and other heavy vehicles—enough for three or four divisions. Rumsfeld ignored this advice. Instead, he relied on the heavy equipment that was already in Kuwait—enough for just one full combat division. The 3rd Infantry Division, from Fort Stewart, Georgia, the only mechanized Army division that was active inside Iraq last week, thus arrived in the Gulf without its own equipment. “Those guys are driving around in tanks that were pre-positioned. Their tanks are sitting in Fort Stewart,” the planner said. “To get more forces there we have to float them. We can’t fly our forces in, because there’s nothing for them to drive. Over the past six months, you could have floated everything in ninety days—enough for four or more divisions.” The planner added, “This is the mess Rumsfeld put himself in, because he didn’t want a heavy footprint on the ground.”

Plan 1003 was repeatedly updated and presented to Rumsfeld, and each time, according to the planner, Rumsfeld said, “‘You’ve got too much ground force—go back and do it again.’” In the planner’s view, Rumsfeld had two goals: to demonstrate the efficacy of precision bombing and to “do the war on the cheap.” Rumsfeld and his two main deputies for war planning, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, “were so enamored of ‘shock and awe’ that victory seemed assured,” the planner said. “They believed that the weather would always be clear, that the enemy would expose itself, and so precision bombings would always work.” (Rumsfeld did not respond to a request for comment.)

Rumsfeld’s personal contempt for many of the senior generals and admirals who were promoted to top jobs during the Clinton Administration is widely known. He was especially critical of the Army, with its insistence on maintaining costly mechanized divisions. In his off-the-cuff memoranda, or “snowflakes,” as they’re called in the Pentagon, he chafed about generals having “the slows”—a reference to Lincoln’s characterization of General George McClellan. “In those conditions—an atmosphere of derision and challenge—the senior officers do not offer their best advice,” a high-ranking general who served for more than a year under Rumsfeld said. One witness to a meeting recalled Rumsfeld confronting General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, in front of many junior officers. “He was looking at the Chief and waving his hand,” the witness said, “saying, ‘Are you getting this yet? Are you getting this yet?’”

Gradually, Rumsfeld succeeded in replacing those officers in senior Joint Staff positions who challenged his view. “All the Joint Staff people now are handpicked, and churn out products to make the Secretary of Defense happy,” the planner said. “They don’t make military judgments—they just respond to his snowflakes.”

In the months leading up to the war, a split developed inside the military, with the planners and their immediate superiors warning that the war plan was dangerously thin on troops and matériel, and the top generals—including General Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, and Air Force General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—supporting Rumsfeld. After Turkey’s parliament astonished the war planners in early March by denying the United States permission to land the 4th Infantry Division in Turkey, Franks initially argued that the war ought to be delayed until the troops could be brought in by another route, a former intelligence official said. “Rummy overruled him.”

Many of the present and former officials I spoke to were critical of Franks for his perceived failure to stand up to his civilian superiors. A former senator told me that Franks was widely seen as a commander who “will do what he’s told.” A former intelligence official asked, “Why didn’t he go to the President?” A Pentagon official recalled that one senior general used to prepare his deputies for meetings with Rumsfeld by saying, “When you go in to talk to him, you’ve got to be prepared to lay your stars on the table and walk out. Otherwise, he’ll walk over you.”

In early February, according to a senior Pentagon official, Rumsfeld appeared at the Army Commanders’ Conference, a biannual business and social gathering of all the four-star generals. Rumsfeld was invited to join the generals for dinner and make a speech. All went well, the official told me, until Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session, was asked about his personal involvement in the deployment of combat units, in some cases with only five or six days’ notice. To the astonishment and anger of the generals, Rumsfeld denied responsibility. “He said, ‘I wasn’t involved,’” the official said. “‘It was the Joint Staff.’”

“We thought it would be fence-mending, but it was a disaster,” the official said of the dinner. “Everybody knew he was looking at these deployment orders. And for him to blame it on the Joint Staff—” The official hesitated a moment, and then said, “It’s all about Rummy and the truth.”

According to a dozen or so military men I spoke to, Rumsfeld simply failed to anticipate the consequences of protracted warfare. He put Army and Marine units in the field with few reserves and an insufficient number of tanks and other armored vehicles. (The military men say that the vehicles that they do have have been pushed too far and are malfunctioning.) Supply lines—inevitably, they say—have become overextended and vulnerable to attack, creating shortages of fuel, water, and ammunition. Pentagon officers spoke contemptuously of the Administration’s optimistic press briefings. “It’s a stalemate now,” the former intelligence official told me. “It’s going to remain one only if we can maintain our supply lines. The carriers are going to run out of jdams”—the satellite-guided bombs that have been striking targets in Baghdad and elsewhere with extraordinary accuracy. Much of the supply of Tomahawk guided missiles has been expended. “The Marines are worried as hell,” the former intelligence official went on. “They’re all committed, with no reserves, and they’ve never run the lavs”—light armored vehicles—“as long and as hard” as they have in Iraq. There are serious maintenance problems as well. “The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements come.”

The 4th Infantry Division—the Army’s most modern mechanized division—whose equipment spent weeks waiting in the Mediterranean before being diverted to the overtaxed American port in Kuwait, is not expected to be operational until the end of April. The 1st Cavalry Division, in Texas, is ready to ship out, the planner said, but by sea it will take twenty-three days to reach Kuwait. “All we have now is front-line positions,” the former intelligence official told me. “Everything else is missing.”

Last week, plans for an assault on Baghdad had stalled, and the six Republican Guard divisions expected to provide the main Iraqi defense had yet to have a significant engagement with American or British soldiers. The shortages forced Central Command to “run around looking for supplies,” the former intelligence official said. The immediate goal, he added, was for the Army and Marine forces “to hold tight and hope that the Republican Guard divisions get chewed up” by bombing. The planner agreed, saying, “The only way out now is back, and to hope for some kind of a miracle—that the Republican Guards commit themselves,” and thus become vulnerable to American air strikes.

“Hope,” a retired four-star general subsequently told me, “is not a course of action.” Last Thursday, the Army’s senior ground commander, Lieutenant General William S. Wallace, said to reporters, “The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against.” (One senior Administration official commented to me, speaking of the Iraqis, “They’re not scared. Ain’t it something? They’re not scared.”) At a press conference the next day, Rumsfeld and Myers were asked about Wallace’s comments, and defended the war plan—Myers called it “brilliant” and “on track.” They pointed out that the war was only a little more than a week old.

Scott Ritter, the former marine and United Nations weapons inspector, who has warned for months that the American “shock and awe” strategy would not work, noted that much of the bombing has had little effect or has been counterproductive. For example, the bombing of Saddam’s palaces has freed up a brigade of special guards who had been assigned to protect them, and who have now been sent home to await further deployment. “Every one of their homes—and they are scattered throughout Baghdad—is stacked with ammunition and supplies,” Ritter told me.

“This is tragic,” one senior planner said bitterly. “American lives are being lost.” The former intelligence official told me, “They all said, ‘We can do it with air power.’ They believed their own propaganda.” The high-ranking former general described Rumsfeld’s approach to the Joint Staff war planning as “McNamara-like intimidation by intervention of a small cell”—a reference to Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and his aides, who were known for their challenges to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Vietnam War. The former high-ranking general compared the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Stepford wives. “They’ve abrogated their responsibility.”

Perhaps the biggest disappointment of last week was the failure of the Shiite factions in southern Iraq to support the American and British invasion. Various branches of the Al Dawa faction, which operate underground, have been carrying out acts of terrorism against the Iraqi regime since the nineteen-eighties. But Al Dawa has also been hostile to American interests. Some in American intelligence have implicated the group in the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which cost the lives of two hundred and forty-one marines. Nevertheless, in the months before the war the Bush Administration courted Al Dawa by including it among the opposition groups that would control postwar Iraq. “Dawa is one group that could kill Saddam,” a former American intelligence official told me. “They hate Saddam because he suppressed the Shiites. They exist to kill Saddam.” He said that their apparent decision to stand with the Iraqi regime now was a “disaster” for us. “They’re like hard-core Vietcong.”

There were reports last week that Iraqi exiles, including fervent Shiites, were crossing into Iraq by car and bus from Jordan and Syria to get into the fight on the side of the Iraqi government. Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. Middle East operative, told me in a telephone call from Jordan, “Everybody wants to fight. The whole nation of Iraq is fighting to defend Iraq. Not Saddam. They’ve been given the high sign, and we are courting disaster. If we take fifty or sixty casualties a day and they die by the thousands, they’re still winning. It’s a jihad, and it’s a good thing to die. This is no longer a secular war.” There were press reports of mujahideen arriving from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Algeria for “martyrdom operations.”

There had been an expectation before the war that Iran, Iraq’s old enemy, would side with the United States in this fight. One Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi, has been in regular contact with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or sciri, an umbrella organization for Shiite groups who oppose Saddam. The organization is based in Iran and has close ties to Iranian intelligence. The Chalabi group set up an office last year in Tehran, with the approval of Chalabi’s supporters in the Pentagon, who include Rumsfeld, his deputies Wolfowitz and Feith, and Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Chalabi has repeatedly predicted that the Tehran government would provide support, including men and arms, if an American invasion of Iraq took place.

Last week, however, this seemed unlikely. In a press conference on Friday, Rumsfeld warned Iranian militants against interfering with American forces and accused Syria of sending military equipment to the Iraqis. A Middle East businessman who has long-standing ties in Jordan and Syria—and whose information I have always found reliable—told me that the religious government in Tehran “is now backing Iraq in the war. There isn’t any Arab fighting group on the ground in Iraq who is with the United States,” he said.

There is also evidence that Turkey has been playing both sides. Turkey and Syria, who traditionally have not had close relations, recently agreed to strengthen their ties, the businessman told me, and early this year Syria sent Major General Ghazi Kanaan, its longtime strongman and power broker in Lebanon, to Turkey. The two nations have begun to share intelligence and to meet, along with Iranian officials, to discuss border issues, in case an independent Kurdistan emerges from the Iraq war. A former U.S. intelligence officer put it this way: “The Syrians are coördinating with the Turks to screw us in the north—to cause us problems.” He added, “Syria and the Iranians agreed that they could not let an American occupation of Iraq stand.”

http://truthout.org/docs_03/040203A.shtml

"One of the dead was Second Lieutenant Fred Pokorney, 31, a marine
artillery officer from Washington state. He was a big guy, whose
ill-fitting uniform was the butt of many jokes. It was supposed to have
been a special day for Pokorney. After 13 years of service, he was to be
promoted to first lieutenant. The men of Charlie company had agreed they
would all shake hands with him to celebrate as soon as they crossed the
second bridge, their mission accomplished.

It didn't happen. Pokorney made it over the second bridge and a few
hundred yards down a highway through dusty flatlands before his vehicle
was ambushed. Pokorney and his men had no chance. Fully loaded with
ammunition, their truck exploded in the middle of the road, its remains
burning for hours. Pokorney was hit in the chest by an RPG.

Another man who died was Fitzgerald Jordan, a staff sergeant from Texas.
I felt numb when I heard this. I had met Jordan 10 days before we moved
into Nasiriya. He was a character, always chewing tobacco and coming up
to pat you on the back. He got me to fetch newspapers for him from Kuwait
City. Later, we shared a bumpy ride across the desert in the back of a
Humvee.

A decorated Gulf war veteran, he used to complain about having to come
back to Iraq. "We should have gone all the way to Baghdad 12 years ago
when we were here and had a real chance of removing Saddam."

Now Pokorney, Jordan and their comrades lay among unspeakable carnage. An
older marine walked by carrying a huge chunk of flesh, so maimed it was
impossible to tell which body part it was. With tears in his eyes and
blood splattered over his flak jacket, he held the remains of his friend
in his arms until someone gave him a poncho to wrap them with."
~~~~

it also talked about a man who always has an ultrasound picture of his unborn daughter with him...

i always said i never wanted to see a war happen because i never wanted to have a generation of little girls growing up with their daddies having gone thru what mine did.

but they're doing it again anyway.

curse those arrogant assholes in washington for exposing these men & women to this mess.