PDA

View Full Version : Disturbing photos of Iraqi prisoners



stickman
04-30-2004, 09:02 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040430/ts_nm/iraq_pictures_dc
Instances like this won't win friends or influence other countries. It might not be the brutality of Saddam, but it hurts our reputation. Hopefully this is a very isolated situation, and is quickly attended to. Unfortunately, the damage is done to some extent.

eg8r
04-30-2004, 10:41 AM
I did not get a chance to see the video of this but I have heard about it in the last couple days. I hope the video was editted and they are not showing what really happened, but unless someone came out said so, I don't think we will ever know. It is a shame if it is true, I really don't like the idea of torturing them unless we knew for sure they were torturers themselves, at which point I do like the eye-for-an-eye punishment.

eg8r

bigshooter
04-30-2004, 11:16 AM
I am all for the war and believe we are doing the right thing but these soldiers should be courtmartialed.
If these allegations are true its a disgusting abuse of power and cannot be tolerated.
Its a few idiots like this that make the true soldiers trying to do the right thing look bad.
Its a shame!

Nightstalker
04-30-2004, 11:17 AM
Great job guys, give the Q-types more to cry about! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

eg8r
04-30-2004, 01:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Great job guys, give the Q-types more to cry about! <hr /></blockquote> Who are you referring to?

eg8r

Nightstalker
04-30-2004, 01:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Great job guys, give the Q-types more to cry about! <hr /></blockquote> Who are you referring to?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
The men who did that to those people, not any members here.

SpiderMan
04-30-2004, 04:13 PM
Stick,

When I went to that link and clicked on the sideshow, there were no photos of Iraqui prisoners. The text might be "disturbing", though.

SpiderMan

Cueless Joey
04-30-2004, 04:38 PM
I will never watch 60 Minutes II again.
They are just adding fuel to the fire.
Like everyone has a perfect record in wars anyway.
Look out for all of the Arabian world to milk this.
Of course, they would conveniently not know about foreign mades MALE and Female being sexually assaulted all over middle east nations.

stickman
04-30-2004, 08:53 PM
"Look out for all of the Arabian world to milk this."

Just my thoughts. While this should never have occurred, I'm sure many will make more out of this than what actually happened. An isolated instance could be magnified beyond belief.

I think a courtmartial for those involved would be appropiate. They may have thought it was like a harmless college frathouse hazing, but it was indeed more serious.

Qtec
04-30-2004, 09:41 PM
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/04/30/image614954x.jpg

Unfortunately I its true,although I think it looks worse than it is[ if thats possible].
Never the less, this is a major PR disaster and it wont encourage insurgents to give themselves up.
I dont know who is to blame but I heard there were only 8 guards for 300 prisoners.


The whole story is on CBS news.

Q [ there is also a similar story breaking about UK troops]

eg8r
04-30-2004, 10:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I its true,although I think it looks worse than it is[ if thats possible].
<hr /></blockquote> I am definitely a little slow on this one, but what the heck is going on in the picture?

I am pretty upset something like this would have happened, and yes there are bad apples in every bunch.

eg8r

eg8r
04-30-2004, 10:23 PM
Then I agree. I hate to see them add fuel to the fire.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
05-01-2004, 07:50 AM
There is no excuse for this. A court martial is definitely in order. But....

Imagine you are a 20 year-old young stud full of piss and vinegar. You go into the Army and work harder than you ever have in your life training for over a year in the art of killing bad guys.

They send you to the desert. It's 130 degrees in the shade. You sleep on the ground half the time. Your job is to free a country that didn't have the cojones to rise up and kick Saddam out themselves.

Do they appreciate it? Some do but many others are planting bombs that kill your fellow warriors. You get in a firefight with these animals who are trying to kill you for no good reason. You end up capturing some of them.

Now I ask you, how much "respect" will you have for them? Are you going to be inclined to show them "dignity"?

How bad is this compared to the idiots who killed, dragged thru the street, burned and hanged the Americans?

I say the maggots are lucky to be alive in an American prison as opposed to Saddam's prison.

JMO

cheesemouse
05-01-2004, 09:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> There is no excuse for this. A court martial is definitely in order. But....

Imagine you are a 20 year-old young stud full of piss and vinegar. You go into the Army and work harder than you ever have in your life training for over a year in the art of killing bad guys.

They send you to the desert. It's 130 degrees in the shade. You sleep on the ground half the time. Your job is to free a country that didn't have the cojones to rise up and kick Saddam out themselves.

Do they appreciate it? Some do but many others are planting bombs that kill your fellow warriors. You get in a firefight with these animals who are trying to kill you for no good reason. You end up capturing some of them.

Now I ask you, how much "respect" will you have for them? Are you going to be inclined to show them "dignity"?

How bad is this compared to the idiots who killed, dragged thru the street, burned and hanged the Americans?

I say the maggots are lucky to be alive in an American prison as opposed to Saddam's prison.

JMO <hr /></blockquote>

Wally,

BINGO......this could be a first for you and I....I think this is just the mindset these soldiers had, it is wrong of course but human nature knows no boarders. While our troops are probably the best disciplined in the world, it is still a WAR zone and after all "ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR"......Sad but true /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
05-01-2004, 10:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>
...this could be a first for you and I...<hr /></blockquote>

See I'm not an unreasonable guy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

You just have to think things thru sometimes rather than issue a knee-jerk reaction. And a knee-jerk reaction is what the photos elicit.

Just think. These Iraqis were trying to kill their brother soldiers. I'd be pissed too /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

cheesemouse
05-01-2004, 10:16 AM
Wally,

I see that there is some hope for you..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You just have to think things thru sometimes <hr /></blockquote>

...the liberal mind is slowly taking it's effect...congradulations...your shoulder patch is in the mail......hehehehe..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Qtec
05-01-2004, 10:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There is no excuse for this. A court martial is definitely in order. But....

Imagine you are a 20 year-old young stud full of piss and vinegar. You go into the Army and work harder than you ever have in your life training for over a year in the art of killing bad guys.

They send you to the desert. It's 130 degrees in the shade. You sleep on the ground half the time. Your job is to free a country that didn't have the cojones to rise up and kick Saddam out themselves.

Do they appreciate it? Some do but many others are planting bombs that kill your fellow warriors. You get in a firefight with these animals who are trying to kill you for no good reason. You end up capturing some of them.

Now I ask you, how much "respect" will you have for them? Are you going to be inclined to show them "dignity"?
<hr /></blockquote>

The point is Wally, if you invade a country[ they never asked you to] on the pretense that Saddam is a bad man and that he kills and tortures the Iraqi people , you cannot justify the US co-alition doing the same thing.


This kind of attitude,
quote
"killing bad guys-that didn't have the cojones- these animals -the maggots "
is exactly why the US have made such a mess of things.
Isnt the first rule of war, "Know your enemy"?


I dont blame anybody in this scenario except George Bush.

Wasnt he the one who decided POWs werent POWs anymore. Therefor they didnt fall under the Law or the Geneva Con?



Q

Wally_in_Cincy
05-01-2004, 10:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

<font color="blue">Well I knew you would not understand my point. What else is new. </font color>

The point is Wally, if you invade a country[ they never asked you to] on the pretense that Saddam is a bad man and that he kills and tortures the Iraqi people , you cannot justify the US co-alition doing the same thing.

<font color="blue">Not justifying it, just explaining the context. And these guys did nothing comparable to what Saddam did. </font color>


This kind of attitude,
quote
"killing bad guys-that didn't have the cojones- these animals -the maggots "

<font color="blue">I believe my words describe those prisoners pretty well. </font color>

I dont blame anybody in this scenario except George Bush.


Wasnt he the one who decided POWs werent POWs anymore. Therefor they didnt fall under the Law or the Geneva Con?

<font color="blue">LOL. You blame everything on Bush. I guess you're right. I'm sure the boys called the White House to get permission before this happened. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

highsea
05-01-2004, 03:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> ...you cannot justify the US co-alition doing the same thing.
<font color="red"> I agree, though I don't think Wally was justifying the actions of the jailors </font color>

I dont blame anybody in this scenario except George Bush.

<font color="red"> Haha, Q, you are consistent, at least. </font color>

Wasnt he the one who decided POWs werent POWs anymore. Therefor they didnt fall under the Law or the Geneva Con?
<font color="red"> The Iraqi prisoners are classified as POW's, and are entitled to Geneva Convention protections. It is the Al Qaeda in Gitmo that are not POW's. </font color>

Q
<hr /></blockquote>

What I am wondering is this, If this happened back in January, why hasn't the army already resolved it?

They did announce that criminal charges were filed against 6 jailers, but that's it? I would like to know that the General in charge has been relieved of duty, and that court martial proceedings are moving forward.

This is exactly the kind of thing we DON'T need in Iraq. My first thought was that they should turn over these jailors to the Marines stationed outside of Fallujah. Let them ride around in a Humvee for a few days.

-CM

TomBrooklyn
05-01-2004, 04:16 PM
The war in Iraq is a disaster that will probably only get worse before it gets better. There were no terrorists linked to Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We have no right or good reason to be there. The USA is trying to impose its western values and political system onto a country and part of the world that does not share our values or culture.

Western values are not superior, they are just different. Of course all Americans think their values and culture are superior. Guess what, the people who live in the Middle East think theirs are superior to ours. To impose ourselves on them is arrogant, disrespectful and contemptuous; but we declare our intentions are honorable and worthy. It's a sham. And we are doing it all at our own expense in dollars, blood, and reputation.

It is nice that many Americans support their country; but maybe they should take advantage of some of the freedom they have to use it to think about what their country is doing instead of showing blind allegiance. If a person spent some time in the Middle East they would find out that the American way is not the way the whole world likes to be. Who really respects other people and human life, and who just respects other people only as long as they share the same beliefs?

=TomBk

highsea
05-01-2004, 04:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> There were no terrorists linked to Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We have no right or good reason to be there.
=TomBk
<hr /></blockquote>

Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. The State Department lists Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq. The camps of Ansar fighters, who clashed repeatedly with anti-Saddam Kurds, were bombed in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Council on Foreign Relations (http://cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/iraq.html)

-CM

TomBrooklyn
05-01-2004, 07:21 PM
Highsea,

The article you cite is correct. Iraq may have sponsored terrorists acting against the enemies of Iraq, those they are at war with, and those who are the enemies of their allies. It also notes they used poison gas against certain rebelious factions of their own people.

What my statement should have been, and which is confirmed by the same article you cite, is that Iraq has never engaged in terrorism or supported terrorists acting against the U-S-A. The article also correctly stated that the US Administration made unsupported accusations against Iraq vis-a-vis links to Al Quida, has provided no proof, and that virtually all the experts on the subject are in dispute the Administrations accusations. Note also that the US Administration became deafeningly quiet on the subject when the media and the experts requested some proof of the accusations.

Note that I fully supported the invasion into Afghanistan which harbored the terrorists responsible for 9-11. I would have no objection to invading any country that supported or harbored terrorists acting against the United States; in fact I would expect it and encourage it. I would gladly go fight them myself.

= TomBk

bluewolf
05-02-2004, 09:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
The point is Wally, if you invade a country[ they never asked you to] on the pretense that Saddam is a bad man and that he kills and tortures the Iraqi people , you cannot justify the US co-alition doing the same thing.

I dont blame anybody in this scenario except George Bush.

Wasnt he the one who decided POWs werent POWs anymore. Therefor they didnt fall under the Law or the Geneva Con?

Q
<hr /></blockquote>

I am not a Bush fan, but... Richard Clarke, who worked in anti terroist under both bushes and clinton says in his book, that for months before 9-11, he was prevented from having an audience with Bush to present to the president his views and when 9-11 occured, these same officials acted like they had barely heard of alquada.

While, yes, it was a Bush agenda to go after Sadaam, part of what happened in ny on 9-11 and the attack on the pentagon in DC, might have been prevented if these officials had permitted the President to get the facts.

If you really think about it, if Bush had gotten the information and 9-11 was prevented, then even though he had an agenda to get Sadaam, he would not have had the opening to go there, which was to get Bin Laden. So if there were no 9-11, then there would have been no invasion of Iraq.

Presidents usually appoint these officials but it is based on the recommendations of others, who also do not necessarily know the agendas or missing awarenesses of these officials.

Bush, as much as I do not agree with much of what has happened, was a governor with minimal understanding of foreign affairs, so depended on his officials for accurate information, which he obviously did not receive.

A big reason I voted for Gore in the last election was his experience in foreign relations, but then that is neither here nor there, since he did not become the president.

I think that casting blame on the 'Bush regime' is more accurate than casting it on one man.

Laura

Qtec
05-02-2004, 12:11 PM
You need to do better than this Highsea.

Given their recent record, any info provided by the 'intelligence services'is more likley to be wrong than right.

BTW, the Kurds were just as much against Saddam , as Turkey! Or Iran for that matter.

This 'report'is mostly conjecture, not fact.

Q

highsea
05-02-2004, 12:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> You need to do better than this Highsea.

Given their recent record, any info provided by the 'intelligence services'is more likley to be wrong than right.

BTW, the Kurds were just as much against Saddam , as Turkey! Or Iran for that matter.

This 'report'is mostly conjecture, not fact.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Here are the sources provided by the Council on Foreign Relations in that report.

Terrorist groups in Baghdad, U.S. State Department, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” April 2001, www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2441; (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2441;)

Saddam’s aid to Palestinian suicide bombers, Andrea Mitchell, “Suicide Bombers’ Patron: Saddam; Iraqi Leader Reportedly Funnels Millions to Families of Willing,” NBC News, April 1, 2002;

Iraqi fatwa, including quote, “Iraqi Clerics Decree Suicide Bombings Are Virtuous,” Reuters, Apr. 16, 2002;

intelligence official quote, Doyle McManus and Robin Wright, “After Kabul, Should Iraq Be Next?” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 22, 2001;

Atta in Prague, Reuters, “Czechs Learned of Terrorist Plot to Bomb Radio Free Europe,” New York Times, Nov. 10, 2001;

Salman Pak, Chris Hedges, “Defectors Cite Iraqi Training for Terrorism,” New York Times, Nov. 8, 2001;

McCain and Lieberman, Steven Mufson, “10 Leading Lawmakers Urge Targeting of Iraq,” Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2001;

Rice quote, Steve Chapman, “Iraq Not,” Slate, Nov. 29, 2001, slate.msn.com;

Powell quote, Bill Keller, “The World According to Powell,” New York Times Magazine, Nov. 25, 2001;

400,000 Iraqi troops, Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O’Hanlon, “A Tougher Target,” Washington Post, Dec. 26, 2001;

Bay of Pigs analogy, Daniel Byman, Kenneth Pollack, and Gideon Rose, “The Rollback Fantasy,” Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1999;

IAEA 1996 report, Nuclear Control Institute, “Overview of IAEA Nuclear Inspections in Iraq,” June 14, 2001, www.nci.org/new/iraq-ib; (http://www.nci.org/new/iraq-ib;)

Robertson quote and 1996 Iraqi admission, Ralph Begleiter, “The Evidence: What Weapons Does Iraq Have?” CNN.com, Feb. 17, 1998;

weeks or months for chemical weapon production, “Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs,” U.S. Government White Paper, Feb. 13, 1998;

chemical weapons in Iran-Iraq War, Time, Aug. 15, 1988, p. 27;

Halabja, Jonathan C. Randal, “Iraqi Files Point to Mass Deaths,” Washington Post, Feb. 22, 1992;

the Anfal, Human Rights Watch, “Iraq’s Crime of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds,” HRW Report, May 1, 1994, and Gwynne Roberts, “Silent Holocaust of the Kurds,” The Independent, Jan. 11, 1992;

anthrax warheads, 85,000 liters, and other details on Iraqi biowarfare, “Iraq Weapons,” White Paper;

Baker threat, former State Department official, interview, Dec. 7, 2001;


post-9/11 pattern of Iraqi attacks on no-fly zone patrols, Thom Shanker, “Iraq Is Said to Step Up Attacks on Allied Jets,” New York Times, June 6, 2002;

UNICEF and Garfield studies on child mortality in Iraq, cited in David Cortright, “A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions,” The Nation, Dec. 3, 2001.



I know you think Saddam was a great guy and all, but I say he was a meanie. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

Nightstalker
05-02-2004, 02:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Given their recent record, any info provided by the 'intelligence services' is more likley to be wrong than right.<hr /></blockquote>
Pure and shameless speculation here, any actual proof to back these assumptions? I didn't think so. Carry on.

TomBrooklyn
05-12-2004, 02:30 PM
JUST TRUST US
By Paul Krugman
New York Times
May 11, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/opinion/11KRUG.html

Didn't you know, in your gut, that something like Abu Ghraib would
eventually come to light?

When the world first learned about the abuse of prisoners, President Bush
said that it "does not reflect the nature of the American people." He's
right, of course: a great majority of Americans are decent and good. But so
are a great majority of people everywhere. If America's record is better
than that of most countries -- and it is -- it's because of our system: our
tradition of openness, and checks and balances.

Yet Mr. Bush, despite all his talk of good and evil, doesn't believe in that
system. From the day his administration took office, its slogan has been
"just trust us." No administration since Nixon has been so insistent that it
has the right to operate without oversight or accountability, and no
administration since Nixon has shown itself to be so little deserving of
that trust. Out of a misplaced sense of patriotism, Congress has deferred to
the administration's demands. Sooner or later, a moral catastrophe was
inevitable.

Just trust us, John Ashcroft said, as he demanded that Congress pass the
Patriot Act, no questions asked. After two and a half years, during which he
arrested and secretly detained more than a thousand people, Mr. Ashcroft has
yet to convict any actual terrorists. (Look at the actual trials of what
Dahlia Lithwick of Slate calls "disaffected bozos who watch cheesy training
videos," and you'll see what I mean.)

Just trust us, George Bush said, as he insisted that Iraq, which hadn't
attacked us and posed no obvious threat, was the place to go in the war on
terror. When we got there, we found no weapons of mass destruction and no
new evidence of links to Al Qaeda.

Just trust us, Paul Bremer said, as he took over in Iraq. What is the legal
basis for Mr. Bremer's authority? You may imagine that the Coalition
Provisional Authority is an arm of the government, subject to U.S. law. But
it turns out that no law or presidential directive has ever established the
authority's status. Mr. Bremer, as far as we can tell, answers to nobody
except Mr. Bush, which makes Iraq a sort of personal fief. In that fief,
there has been nothing that Americans would recognize as the rule of law.
For example, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon's erstwhile favorite, was allowed
to gain control of Saddam's files ‹ the better to blackmail his potential
rivals.

And finally: Just trust us, Donald Rumsfeld said early in 2002, when he
declared that "enemy combatants" -- a term that turned out to mean anyone,
including American citizens, the administration chose to so designate --
don't have rights under the Geneva Convention. Now people around the world
talk of an "American gulag," and Seymour Hersh is exposing My Lai all over
again.

Did top officials order the use of torture? It depends on the meaning of the
words "order" and "torture." Last August Mr. Rumsfeld's top intelligence
official sent Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the Guantánamo
prison, to Iraq. General Miller recommended that the guards help
interrogators, including private contractors, by handling prisoners in a way
that "sets the conditions" for "successful interrogation and exploitation."
What did he and his superiors think would happen?

To their credit, some supporters of the administration are speaking out.
"This is about system failure," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican
from South Carolina. But do Mr. Graham, John McCain and other appalled
lawmakers understand their own role in that failure? By deferring to the
administration at every step, by blocking every effort to make officials
accountable, they set the nation up for this disaster. You can't prevent any
serious inquiry into why George Bush led us to war to eliminate W.M.D. that
didn't exist and to punish Saddam for imaginary ties to Al Qaeda, then
express shock when Mr. Bush's administration fails to follow the rules on
other matters.

Meanwhile, Abu Ghraib will remain in use, under its new commander: General
Miller of Guantánamo. Donald Rumsfeld has "accepted responsibility" -- an
action that apparently does not mean paying any price at all. And Dick
Cheney says, "Don Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United
States has ever had. . . . People should get off his case and let him do his
job." In other words: Just trust us.

Cueless Joey
05-12-2004, 03:36 PM
This is getting worse by the day.
We need to get out of there.
We are not appreciated.
We are hated.
We are Christians. We could give them food the whole century, they'd still hate us.
I don't hear the Arab-Americans here showing support for the cause.
I don't hear any of them condemning what was done to Berg.
We can't win any more. If we do, what do we get?
I give up. We took down Hitler and the Japanese Empire.
This one, we should quit now.
Sad but our intentions might have been great but are THEY worth saving?

striker_3
05-12-2004, 04:16 PM
I have a hard time reading anything from the NY Times. There was a screw up and people admitted it was their fault. If this was the Clinton administration, people wouldn't know if they were talking out the left side of their mouth or the right side of their ass. Rumsfield may not be reprimanded, but at least he said it was ultimately his fault.

Wally_in_Cincy
05-13-2004, 06:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> This is getting worse by the day.
<font color="blue">The war is not getting worse. The abuse pics are getting worse though. </font color>

We need to get out of there.

<font color="blue">To quote Maggie Thatcher "Now is not the time to go wobbly". We have to see it through or we will look weak and that country will descend into total chaos. </font color>

We are not appreciated.
We are hated.
We are Christians. We could give them food the whole century, they'd still hate us.
<font color="blue">These are nothing new. </font color>
I don't hear the Arab-Americans here showing support for the cause.
<font color="blue">There are some educated Iraqi expatriates who are praising us for going in. </font color>
I don't hear any of them condemning what was done to Berg.
<font color="blue">They didn't condemn 9/11 either. </font color>
We can't win any more. If we do, what do we get?
I give up. We took down Hitler and the Japanese Empire.
This one, we should quit now.
Sad but our intentions might have been great but are THEY worth saving? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Just remember joey, Islam is a religion of peace. Ha Ha Ha Ha.... </font color>

eg8r
05-13-2004, 06:37 AM
I am not sure why Rumsfeld would ever admit to that. He has probably never met these soldiers and he has probably had very little influence on their actions (just like the President of any large corporation has very little to do with the actions of those on the bottom rung). Those guys should be the ones saying sorry, or if they were commanded to do it, then those doing the commanding should say they are sorry.

This crap about forcing Rumsfeld to retire (or at least begging him to) is ridiculous. Did the Chief of Police lose his job over the Rodney King issue? In Orlando/Sanford a few years ago, one of the police officers was found guilty for rape (or something similar) and the Chief of Police in Orlando was never questioned/forced to resign. The Dems are completely stupid for asking Rumsfeld to resign because of 6 troops about of 130,000+ decided to harass some prisoners.

What those soldiers did is nothing near as bad as the beheading that just happened, and I don't see anywhere near the uproar about that. Not to mention that it was Al Qaeda that was responsible for the beheading. What happened to Q saying there were no ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq? Did these guys just show up now?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
05-13-2004, 06:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ... What happened to Q saying there were no ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq? Did these guys just show up now?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

actually they may have. baghdad has become a "mosquito magnet" for terrorists who are itching for a chance to kill americans.

highsea
05-13-2004, 12:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ... What happened to Q saying there were no ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq? Did these guys just show up now?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

actually they may have. baghdad has become a "mosquito magnet" for terrorists who are itching for a chance to kill americans. <hr /></blockquote>

Zaquari (sp?) was in Iraq at least a year before US troops went in. He had traveled back and forth, but relocated there permanently after the Taliban fell in Afghanistan. He was working with and training the Ansar Al Islam groups in the north in poison and chemical attacks.

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
05-13-2004, 12:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>Zaquari (sp?) was in Iraq at least a year before US troops went in. He had traveled back and forth, but relocated there permanently after the Taliban fell in Afghanistan. He was working with and training the Ansar Al Islam groups in the north in poison and chemical attacks.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

I'm sure that fact will be reported on Dan Rather's news tonight.

not.