unfortunately, it was wrong in 91

So if it was up to you, Saddam would not only still be in power in Iraq, he would also be in control of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Good plan.

So if it was up to you, Saddam would not only still be in power in Iraq, he would also be in control of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Good plan.

nuttin like good ol neocon spin,,,distort the other side's view....no, what i said was...

Schwartzkoff and Powell and every other military expert warned against going beyond kuwait and into a "hornet's nest." a few people disagreed, like cheney, rummy and wolfie...


in other words....like the military experts, I and bush's father agreed that the gulf war I went as far as it could go without creating a backlash in the arab world.

we were right then, and we're right now

nice try on distorting our view tho,,,but you really should be ashamed of yourself in that attempt. defaming Schwartzkoff, Powell and the rest of the military? Twisting former President Bush's policy stance? for shame island dog.

and for the record,,,we probably would be better having a hussein who was pinned down (by saudi arabia on one side, iran on the other and the kurds / turkey on the north, kuwait in the south.) with a no fly zone preventing further atrocities on his own people than the absolute disaster these chicken hawks brought us.

and no, "the whole world" DID NOT believe saddam posed the imminent and grave danger this administration and their portable pundits claim. the intel was cherry picked, selective and was a "make the case fit the hypothesis, and to hell with all the facts" job. i didn't believe it as ALL the inspection data known AT THE TIME said he was no threat (the same inspectors BUSH threw out of the country so he could start his vendetta). the IAEA knew he had NO nuclear capability (and was called liars by this administration) and a whole host of other dissenting views were out there. we were used by chalabi and his cronies who were lying and telling the administration everything they wanted to hear. the administration AT THE TIME ignored any and all warning s that both the info and people involved were not even close to being credible.

as time goes on, we will eventually learn how negligent this administration has been with our military, our constitution and their overall performance while in power. i am more than confident in that and encouraged every day as the dam begins to break on their awful job.

ya want more support for this war? then get some people who are competent to fight it. people who aren't just "all hat, no cattle" cowboys who lack any credibility or have shown any competence up to this point. that won't happen, as this administration fears dissent and anyone outside their lil club having any meaningful say...so, i'll probably just keep not supporting this wasted effort in Iraq. you feel free in your continuing support of these bozos....good luck with that.

hope the kool-aid tasted good at least.

and no, "the whole world" DID NOT believe saddam posed the imminent and grave danger this administration and their portable pundits claim.

Most did.  Along with most major intelligence agencies in the world.  However, most democrats believed saddam had WMD's and was a direct threat to this country.  Although they seem to forget that now.  Typical.

in other words....like the military experts, I and bush's father agreed that the gulf war I went as far as it could go without creating a backlash in the arab world.

Everything causes a backlash in the arab world.  Just being non-muslim does that, so you still have no point.  You are basically advocating what most euros and liberals say, don't "offend" anybody and the problem might go away.

nuttin like good ol neocon spin,,,distort the other side's view....no, what i said was...

You can spin in all you want.  Although you didn't answer, if it were up to you would Saddam still be in power of Iraq and Kuwait?

Bush wants to rewrite the Geneva Conventions to suit US foreign policy. Perhaps then China will do the same when dealing with Tibetan dissenters. Perhaps then Lebanon will do the same to suit its needs with respect to Israeli "detainees". Its a can of worms that doesn't need opening. As McCain said

Am I missing something? I didn't know Al-Qaida and Hezbollah were signatories of the Geneva Convention. I do wonder what safeguards they give our captured troops or civilians. I'm all for the Geneva Convention, but as long as these groups do not represent (directly) an accountable nation, they should not expect to be treated better they the people they claim to represent. The US is not beheading the insurgents (or civilians for that matter). Where is the outrage over these actions? US interrogation of prisoners is a party compared to what a US soldier can expect from these enemies. I'm not suggesting tit-for-tat, but they shouldn't be coddled either.

Am I missing something? I didn't know Al-Qaida and Hezbollah were signatories of the Geneva Convention. I do wonder what safeguards they give our captured troops or civilians. I'm all for the Geneva Convention, but as long as these groups do not represent (directly) an accountable nation, they should not expect to be treated better they the people they claim to represent. The US is not beheading the insurgents (or civilians for that matter). Where is the outrage over these actions? US interrogation of prisoners is a party compared to what a US soldier can expect from these enemies. I'm not suggesting tit-for-tat, but they shouldn't be coddled either.

Standing Ovation!

There is nothing left to be said by any rational people. Thank you.

Most did. Along with most major intelligence agencies in the world. However, most democrats believed saddam had WMD's and was a direct threat to this country. Although they seem to forget that now. Typical.

like i said...not everyone did,,,including ME!!! you idiot...did you read my post? and furthermore, many congressman and senators voted against the authorization of force,,,,and in case you haven't been paying attention I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT MORON, so what does that have to do with me? besides, was it a prerequisite to be a democrat to oppose the war or is that just an assumption of someone who drank the kool aid and listens to comedians like limbaugh and hannity?
most of the world ofpposed this war dolt,,,,the only people who supported it in the whole world were the right wing of the GOP and everyone they could scare into giving support....so what's your point?


Everything causes a backlash in the arab world. Just being non-muslim does that, so you still have no point.

yes i do,,,in reality vs. your neocon theory,,,we went into kuwait, kicked out saddam, and respected the limits of the arab leaders at the time...the only backlashes have come from AL QUAEDA who this war should be fully against,,,THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT !!!!

You can spin in all you want. Although you didn't answer, if it were up to you would Saddam still be in power of Iraq and Kuwait?

I HAVE SPUN NOTHING,,,BUT NICE TRY,,,LMFAO!!!! and i did answer,,,within the boundries of reality,,,i supported our actions by bush's father in kuwait,,,so your nonsense of "saddam in kuwait" has been CLEARLY answered...and him pinned down the way he was was certainly better than the pile of shit this administration lied and mislead us into.


give up,,,the walls are closing in,,,America will be victorious in the end,,,but this line of crap that the chicken hawks have spun will never float,,,,period...think what you want of me, but history always has a way of sorting out the facts,,,and sorted out they will be...maybe you should stop wasting your energy in trying to argue with good americans like me and start demanding accountability from this administration? we will never win any war against anything as long as stubborn, pig headed , narrow minded fools like you refuse to just let the testosterone go and realize that just maybe somebody other than these dozen or so neocons in power can do a better job in winning this war on islamists who use terrorism as a tactic than they have shown.

stop your rhetoric and really start fighting the good fight buddy...

have a nice day:)

Am I missing something? I didn't know Al-Qaida and Hezbollah were signatories of the Geneva Convention.

yeah, you are...according to the supreme court of the united states of america, that is irrelevant. we signed on , and therefore are obligated to upholding our responsibilities. take your pick, good guy or amoral bully,,,cause ya can't be both.

How interesting how you go out of your way to defend the rights of terrorists. Pathetic.

stop your rhetoric and really start fighting the good fight buddy...

I have no problem "fighting the fight". I'm not the one here advocating rights for our enemies. Your whole posts are filled with references to "neocons", so that shows you are a full fledged member of the looney left, which is no surprise since you are here defending terrorist rights. Sad.

How interesting how you go out of your way to defend the rights of terrorists. Pathetic.

what is pathetic is your bullshit.

i am not a "leftie"...i am a libertarian...tucker carlson is libertarian and most people consider him a conservative, in fact, he calls himself that. personally, i would consider myself a little more progressive than tucker's views, but conservative or liberal rarely come into my thought process as i don't throw things out due to preconceived predjudices as many , including yourself, obviously, do....and before you go digging to find some libertarian position that you want me to defend, let me say i don't agree with everything they stand for...so that's moot. but my political leanings are pale in the comparison that i am an AMERICAN. and this is just another example of the administration loyalists (the kool aid drinkers) trying to drive wedges in between americans. FOR SHAME!

what you are doing, like what the administration and it's portable pundits are doing is exacly what the terrorists want...you are being PLAYED son. as is this administration and the better part of this country. terrorism doesn't win by attacking over and over again like the pres. would like you to believe. they stop when they have gotten their desired effect. and they got that in 2001-2003. now they are just watchin us. watching us destroy ourselves with paranoia, distrust and turning on our own. you and many in this country need to wake up to the fact that the tactiv of terrorism is effective when we start changing who we are, and forgetting how we got here. attacking me will never beat osama bin laden or al quaeda, it only EMBOLDENS them.


wake up!!! the geneva convention is a reflection of who WE are, it has nothing to do with the overspun "defending the terrorists" rhetoric you are spewing. it is far larger and far more important than anything you have suggested.

terrorism wins if we change our principles and values. if we are "america" in name only, without the ideals that got us here, then we are defeated. and son, i don't like to lose...so, i'll ask you again nicely, stop this crap and start fightin the good fight....for real.

they stop when they have gotten their desired effect. and they got that in 2001-2003. now they are just watchin us. watching us destroy ourselves with paranoia, distrust and turning on our own.

If you want to talk about BS read that over again. 

wake up!!! the geneva convention is a reflection of who WE are, it has nothing to do with the overspun "defending the terrorists" rhetoric you are spewing. it is far larger and far more important than anything you have suggested.

It's not rhetoric at all.  You and others here go out of your way to make sure terrorists have rights.  Do you want terrorists to be read miranda rights when they are caught?  Should they be supplied with a lawyer?

terrorism wins if we change our principles and values. if we are "america" in name only, without the ideals that got us here, then we are defeated. and son, i don't like to lose...so, i'll ask you again nicely, stop this crap and start fightin the good fight....for real.

Wrong.  This terrorism wins when we are all converted to islam or killed.  There is no in-between here.  Islamic leaders/terrorists have stated they will accept no less than world domination by islam.  People like you that keep thinking we can talk to and negotiate with these people have no clue.  You either fight hard, or give up now and choose your islamic name.

 

Islamic leaders/terrorists have stated they will accept no less than world domination by islam.

that was 1 statement made by some previously unknown group after the pope's diatribe against islam. osama's goals, as he has stated is to rid his holy lands of us imperialist zionists and capatalist pigs and all that mumbo jumbo he spews. no, he hasn't been exacly consistant all these years, but the world domination thing didn't come from al quaeda leaders last week. but that is really neither here nor there

as far as the rest of it goes...the "do i want this or that" crap is just that. what i want is for us to adhere to our obligations under the geneva convention. please stop trying to cheaply twist my words and take me out of context.

we can disagree on whether the geneva convention is a reflection of our values or not,,,ya wanna disagree with me , fine. i'm comfortable being on the same side as distinguished war veterans, republican senators, former JAG lawyers, a general that is considered one of our, if not our finest general in modern history and the supreme court on this one. you have said nothing that could persuade me or the forementioned distinguished ladies and gentlemen to be on the side of torture and ignoring our geneva convention agreements.

america is only as good as it's word. and unfortunately, our leader's words whave lost credibility around the world and continue to. redefining geneva to suit our short term purpose is a long term loser. fortunately, people in better positions than i see that and can do something about it.

do you think there's a big insurgency in Iraq? what do you think would happen if someone actually tried to invade us? ya wanna talk insurgency? this country is armed to the teeth, pal, thanks to the NRA (for better or worse, it's just a fact) and i guarantee you i will never need an islamic name, unless i choose one of my own freewill,,,after all, this is america. ...and i simply don't believe that any army or invasion could defeat our ideals. ..we are more a danger to ourselves than any outside force.

that was 1 statement made by some previously unknown group after the pope's diatribe against islam. osama's goals, as he has stated is to rid his holy lands of us imperialist zionists and capatalist pigs and all that mumbo jumbo he spews. no, he hasn't been exacly consistant all these years, but the world domination thing didn't come from al quaeda leaders last week. but that is really neither here nor there

One statement?  The president of Iran has said it, hamas and palestinian leaders have said it, al-aqaeda has said.  I can keep going.

america is only as good as it's word. and unfortunately, our leader's words whave lost credibility around the world and continue to. redefining geneva to suit our short term purpose is a long term loser. fortunately, people in better positions than i see that and can do something about it.

Once again here we go with the world doesn't love us bs.  You could give miranda rights, and lawyers to captured terrorists and it would not change how the world views us.  The "world" which you care so much about what they think of you, really doesn't care at all about you. 

what do you think would happen if someone actually tried to invade us? ya wanna talk insurgency? this country is armed to the teeth, pal, thanks to the NRA (for better or worse, it's just a fact) and i guarantee you i will never need an islamic name, unless i choose one of my own freewill,,,after all, this is america. ...and i simply don't believe that any army or invasion could defeat our ideals. ..we are more a danger to ourselves than any outside force.

If they could actually do it or not isn't the point.  The point is islam wants to turn the west and the rest of world into islamic law.  They will not stop until that happens or they are defeated.  Talking to them like you and the euros want will not work with these people. 

go here...Link

If your trying to post a link to something that supports what you're talking....it's best not to use your own "blog"!

Schwartzkoff and Powell and every other military expert warned against going beyond kuwait and into a "hornet's nest." a few people disagreed, like cheney, rummy and wolfie...

And your little buddy, "Slick Willie". And don't try ducking this one. In the end the go/no go decision belongs "only" to the president!

many congressman and senators voted against the authorization of force

Not as many as you'd like to believe:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

Fully 2/3rds of the house and 3/4's of the senate voted for "not" against.

This is a brand new public domain 9/11 Truth documentary about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center complex.

video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

Fully 2/3rds of the house and 3/4's of the senate voted for "not" against

so what? my point was not EVERYONE bought into this bs,,,we were right then, we're right today. in what other part of life do you gibve full faith and credit to people who are wrong about almost everything over a 5 year period? if your broker missed on stocks for 5 years straight,,,doubt he'd have a job.

thank you for reinforcing my point.

And your little buddy, "Slick Willie". And don't try ducking this one. In the end the go/no go decision belongs "only" to the president!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

george bush 41 was president when we invaded kuwait, he was the one these generals were advising,,,btw, he was also president in 91 when our covert agents encouraged the shiites in the south to rise up against saddam, promising our help to over throw saddam...then we turned our back on em,,,leaving them to be slaughtered....read your history pal, and get your facts straight. bill clinton was barely running for president when all this unfolded. bill was gov. of arkansas at the time.

and why is "slick willie" (not showing any predisposed biases there, are we?) my buddy? assuming i'm a democrat or a leftie? wrong.

your hate and blindness to truth become more obvious with each post. i suggest ya crawl back into your hole dr.

and island dog,,,stop just throwing out crap without backing it up,,,you go around trying to make everyone else prove everything to you to the "inth" degree, yet you never back up anything you say,,,just be quiet troll.

have a nice day:)

If your trying to post a link to something that supports what you're talking....it's best not to use your own "blog"!

i'm sorry, was i breaching your "blog ettiquette?" sorry lil boy, i'll do things the way i see fit, and there, i didn't feel like repeating an entiire article i just wrote. much easier to do that, and doesn't flood someone else's replies with a whole new, multi page article. i've done it before, and i'll do it again. and i could care less what you think, as most of what you write on these pages are just coded hate and nonsense. if you don't like it,,, tough. sue me.

your hate and blindness to truth become more obvious with each post. i suggest ya crawl back into your hole dr.

And "I" suggest you "bite me"! So "blow"!

Your a funny guy Sean. You express yourself as if you were a well educated man then you call people names like "lil boy", "troll", "the kool aid drinkers", "pundits", "idiots", etc. What a childish mentality, how anyone could take you serious is beyond me.

Keep doing a good job defending those terrorist. It's nice to know that we can all lose loved ones and the terrorist get 3 meals a day, hot showers, Directv and respect from the guards while they wait for trials. It's nice to know that when ever they capture one of our people and torture, hurt and in many cases kill them by beheading that people like you go silent and do not say anything towards their actions. I am so proud to be an American now a days knowing people like you are part of this nation. Accuse your own Gov't, ignore the rest. Good job. The terrorist have already one, no need to keep fighting.

Accuse your own Gov't, ignore the rest

that's just bullshit. and as far as my education goes,,,you can rest assured, it's a good one.

and as far as taking me serious goes,,,,you feel free to draw your own conclusions in your own head. i'm not here to impress ya chuck, sorry. but the attention you give my blurbs is far more evidence that you "take me seriously" than anything you can claim here.

1st they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. (ghandi)


btw,,,was And "I" suggest you "bite me"! So "blow"! overflowing with maturity to you? talk about ignoring one side and attacking the other chuckles....

did ya notice that was all he could say after it was shown how clueless he was with facts presented by me? so now all ya'll can do is go after my "style" as you define it? LMFAOROFL!!!!!!!!!!

have a nice day charlie brown:)

someday, maybe ya'll will stop fighting me and start joining the majority in this country who are against this administrations policies. not for political gain, but because their policies are bad for America.

you wanna call me names, fine,,,i can take it...but i wonder if the alleged dr. would like Sen John Warner, Gen. Colin Powell, former Sec. of State George Shultz, Sen. Susan Collins and the supreme court to bite him and blow him as well? kinky and horny lil doctor there, lmao!

This is a brand new public domain 9/11 Truth documentary about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center complex.



1st off, it's not new...2ndly,,,it's as much bullshit as anything else.

get over the conspiracy theories folks,,,it gives people WAY too much credit usually.

these nutjobs spewing this crap out only does a dis-service to everyone who seriously cares about this nation and it's future. on one hand there's the conspiracy theorists who want so much to believe that bush is really an evil guy set out to destroy america...he is not. as much as i disagree with his policies, i do believe he thinks he's right and i don't believe for a second that anyone could pull off a conspiracy like that. do you know how many people would have to be involved in something like that? it's like the wacky theories about our lunar landing in 69...just too many people involved in the project who have nothing to gain and everything to lose in being involved with such a plot...plus it's just stupid.

then on the other hand the administration loyalists who fear any dissent whatsoever when it comes to this administration. they attack it with an undue fervor that screams fear and ignorance, let alone a lack of knowledge of what america is about...and it's not about blind obedience, esp when it's concerfning people who have just been plain wrong about so much over such a long period of time.

and it would be nice if ya'll on the far ends would join us all in the middle so we could all make america a better place for all of us. but it prob. won't happen.

.

did ya notice that was all he could say after it was shown how clueless he was with facts presented by me?

That's because I didn't feel like wasting my time on "your" version of the facts!

btw,,,was And "I" suggest you "bite me"! So "blow"! overflowing with maturity to you? talk about ignoring one side and attacking the other chuckles....

Nope, no better than yours.

your hate and blindness to truth become more obvious with each post. i suggest ya crawl back into your hole dr.

www.stoplying.ca/media/bowman.wmv

I would not normally post on these subjects as I reserve my own ideas on this. But I have to ask a few questions of both parties onthis conversation.

1. What is torture? Not the book definition but yours.

2. Can you think of any time that torture (real physical pain, break bones, etc.. type torture), would be OK or necessary? What if the person you had in custody you knew had knowledge of a nuclear device that was to be set off in a major US city and would kill hundereds of thousands or more, and that you needed the information they had to try and stop it or save the lives of those people? Would it be OK then?

3. Who should be afforded the POW status? Is a non-uniformed non-nationally associated fighter a POW when captured, or a terrorist?

4. Should our armed forces be required to limit the actions they take based on location of the enemy? Example being if the enemy is firing at you from a church or mosque does that become a fair target then? Or are they immune from return fire?

5. If your enemy does not follw any type of rules of war (treatment of prisoners, treatment of the wounded, torture or death without trial) should you be required to treat them with the rules of war, or could you sentence them to death upon capture?

I am just curious how some of you that posted would answer those questions. Personally I think that what we do is not torture. And I think in some cases where lives of US Forces or US Civilians may be saved, real physical torture would be permissible. I also think that combatants that do not follow the rules of war themselves should not be afforded the same. I also feel our armed forces sould have the right and should be required to return fire at all times regardless of location or danger.

What do you think??