PDA

View Full Version : Very disturbing news indeed!!!


tlr online
03-05-04, 10:29
Morning all.

Thought I'd take a few minutes to air some thoughts on this new claim that BRITISH troops were also responsible for collecting "trophy photographs" from Iraqi captives. One very prominent radio broadcaster said yesterday that several senior military officials have rubbished the photographs, published by the Daily Mirror, as false. Apparently the troops in the pics were using the wrong kind of guns (weapons that had NOT been issued to our troops), also the military vans in use were also NOT the vehicles issued to our troops. Also, the captives did NOT appear beaten, as the paper claimed - in fact the Iraqi football shirts (curiously sporting the Iraqi flag) appeared in pristine condition.

Now here's the sickening part. Several of our broadcasters are claiming that the U.S. army is responsible for forging pics of our troops in order to dilute the impact their own behaviour has had around the world. Military officials in Britain are also criticising the U.S. army for pounding into regions with all guns blazing while the British have been arguing to use more caution.

I don't suppose we'll ever know the truth... just one faction's version of events. But one thing is for sure. This is starting to leave a very unpleasant aftertaste in my mouth... and I believe British troops ARE NOT the type to collect - or participate in - war trophies.

I have never distrusted America, or her motives for war, more than I do today, and I will never forgive Tony Blair for not having a backbone! If my voice could be heard, I would vote to follow suit with Spain and withdraw our troops from Iraq, or steadfastly push for U.N intervention. We shouldn’t be shooting up Iraq… and neither should America. Our countries should be putting our own houses in order instead of parading the planet like we rule the world!

Tony Blair could have weathered anything. He's a personable guy. The U.K would have probably even dismissed an intern on her knees rather than boot him from office... But his actions in Iraq and his contempt for the British voter over Europe will seal his fate. Thank God!

Draco
03-05-04, 11:49
British troops being higher moral calibre overall is an absurd assumption and I attribute that to ignorance.

I haven't seen one of the alleged pictures that look real yet. From any nation's troops...

It's great that you want to follow Spain's mistake, makes my job all the harder.

tlr online
03-05-04, 12:44
References:

Reprimands for US senior officers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3680025.stm)
Doubt cast on Iraq torture photos (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3677311.stm)
7 More U.S. Soldiers Reprimanded for Abuse (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20040503/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_abuse_reprimand)
Six US officers reprimanded in prison scandal (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040503/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_us_prisoners_040503111409&e=3)

All this will do is increase the level of violence and hatred against our countries.

Scottlee
03-05-04, 14:13
I agree with you with all the way, tlr. The presence of our troops in Iraq makes me sick. I've never hated a government as much I do our current one. There's just no democracy in England anymore, and that applies to most of our domestic issues as well as the one talked about here. It seems that no matter what the people vote for, Labour go off and do what they want anyway, claiming its for our own good. The invasion of Iraq might as well be remembered as the dictatorship that was toppled by a dictatorship. And those stories about there having supposedly been weapons of mass destruction all over the place just cracks me up now they haven't actually found any. "But despite that" Bush/Blair claim, "it's still good we invaded just to end the brutality and the regime". Yeah, that's quite funny given what we've discovered this week. I don't care which side (us or uk) carried out the beatings. They're both as bad as each other.

[ 03. May 2004, 15:18: Message edited by: Scottlee ]

ELEN
03-05-04, 14:20
I watched that on news the other day and I was really shocked. What they did was terrible!!

Neteru
03-05-04, 15:23
What these soldiers of whatever nationality have apparently done, in no way compares to what Saddam did to his own people (including the Kurds) and those of other countries.

Specifically regarding the actions of these soldiers. I, like everyone else, am disgusted. But I am not in the least bit surprised. In fact, these things are to be expected. Don't get me wrong, I am no appologist. They are WRONG. But such actions are a KNOWN phenomenon. It is text book psychology. History is littered with such examples. Think of the Berlin women raped by the Russian soldiers in the final days of WW2, more recently think of the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Whilst the Geneva Convention is a noble idea, it can do little or nothing to change what IS human nature.

tlr online
03-05-04, 15:28
Countries must be allowed to evolve naturally, as Britain and the United States have done. No country has the right to police the world. It’s hardly surprising the U.S. and the U.K. are under constant threat of attack – because of our arrogant actions. The U.S. won’t always be “top dog” – someday someone will come along and kick its ass.

Edit. America has charged into the world arena and toppled a foreign government – again, interfering with the natural evolution of that region and creating chaos. (The irony there is that America armed Sadam in the first place!!!) By doing so, her head-of-state (Bush) has weakened her own national security for years to come. While no country may not have the power to take the U.S. on directly, indirectly all her enemies will plot and take calculated shots at her from all quarters. We’re already seeing this unfold. Innocent citizens will die. The U.S. (and U.K) MUST be held accountable for their actions and get the hell out of regions that do not fall under their authority.

[ 03. May 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: tlr online ]

tlr online
03-05-04, 16:10
Apologies if I'm banging on about this, but I've been searching for a document I'd like those interested in these issues to read. It's by Jacob G. Hornberger and was published on www.punditman.com (http://www.punditman.com) on 13th December, 2003. Some data is now out-of-date, but I think you'll get the idea... As follows:

In his official statement celebrating the capture of Saddam Hussein, President Bush announced that "the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions." Notably lacking from the president's statement, however, was whether the U.S. government would agree to relinquish control over Hussein's trial to the Iraqi government or to an international tribunal consisting of independent judges.

Why wouldn't U.S. officials readily agree to relinquish jurisdiction over Hussein's trial? Because of their need to closely guard the secrets that Saddam Hussein has in his possession - secrets that would cause no small amount of embarrassment to the U.S. government, including former president Ronald Reagan, former vice-president and former president George H.W. Bush (the president's father), and Donald Rumsfeld, the president's secretary of defense.

One of those secrets is the extent of the relationship that existed between the Reagan and Bush I administrations and Saddam Hussein, the details of which have never been fully disclosed by U.S. officials. There is, of course, the famous photograph on the Internet in which Rumsfeld and Hussein are shaking hands and making conversation in Baghdad in 1983. How did that meeting get set up? Who was involved in the decision-making process? What was discussed? What agreements were entered into?

Saddam's testimony at trial could provide some of the answers. And that prospect - of Saddam Hussein testifying freely, openly, and publicly about his relationship with Ronald Reagan, President Bush I, and Donald Rumsfeld - would undoubtedly strike terror into the hearts and minds of many U.S. officials.

Imagine if the exact nature of the relationship between Reagan-Bush and Saddam Hussein were to hit the front pages of newspapers all over the world on a daily basis, as Hussein filled in his side of the details during his public testimony at trial.

And there's a bigger secret, whose details would undoubtedly terrify U.S. officials even more - that it was the Reagan-Bush administration that furnished Saddam Hussein with the weapons of mass destruction (1) that he employed against the Iranian and Iraqi people, and (2) that U.S. and UN officials used as the excuse for imposing the brutal 12-year embargo against Iraq, whose resulting deaths of Iraqi children arguably were a principal motivating factor behind the September 11 attacks, and (3) that President Bush ultimately relied upon as his principal justification for invading Iraq.

Consider the following excerpt from an article entitled "How Iraq Built Its Weapons Programs" in the March 16, 2003, issue of the St. Petersburg Times: U.N. inspectors are working against the clock to figure out if Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons, the systems to deliver them, and the capacity to manufacture them. And here's the strange part, easily forgotten in the barrage of recent rhetoric: It was Western governments and businesses that helped build that capacity in the first place. From anthrax to high-speed computers to artillery ammunition cases, the militarily useful products of a long list of Western democracies flowed into Iraq in the decade before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

In that same article, former U.S. Sen. Donald Riegle is quoted as saying, "What is absolutely crystal clear is this: That if Saddam Hussein today has a large arsenal of biological weapons, partly it was the United States that provided the very live viruses that he needed to create those weapons."

As ABC News put it in an article entitled "A Tortured Relationship," Indeed, even as President Bush castigates Saddam's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," it's important to remember that the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weapons that administration officials are now citing as justification for Saddam's forcible removal from power.

That same article made a pointed observation about President George H.W. Bush (the president's father): In 1988, the same year the Iran-Iraq war ended, a new U.S. president was elected. George Herbert Walker Bush came into office determined to pursue a policy of engagement with Saddam. In fact, his first year in office, President Bush signed a secret executive order, National Security Directive Number 26. It called for even closer ties between the United States and Iraq.

In a September 25, 2002, article entitled "Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail," author Robert Novak wrote, An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

Why did Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush enter into a close relationship with Saddam Hussein? Why did they furnish him with weapons of mass destruction? It's impossible to know for sure but the most likely reason was that U.S. officials intended for Hussein to use such weapons against the Iranian people during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

Were U.S. officials aware of Saddam Hussein's brutal nature when they entered into their pact with him and furnished him with weapons of mass destruction? According to the St. Petersburg Times article, U.S. officials continued sending weapons of mass destruction to Hussein even after hearing that Iraqi forces had used such weapons in the Iraqi town of Halabja in March 1988. In a February 3, 2003, article entitled "Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown" in the Sydney Morning Herald, author Anne Summers cites a Washington Post report stating that after Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein in 1983 as President Reagan's special envoy, "U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses" despite express warnings from the U.S. State Department that Iraq was engaged in "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" against Iran in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

Citing a critical New York Times report in a August 18, 2000, MSNBC article entitled "Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift," author Robert Windrem wrote, The New York Times reported Sunday that United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan - even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons. The covert program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency who helped Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran by providing detailed information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments, the Times said. The Times said it based its report on comments by senior U.S. military officers with direct knowledge of the program, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.

Given that these things have been buried and forgotten in the wake of President Bush's invasion of Iraq, to have it all drudged up again, especially by the worldwide press covering Saddam Hussein's trial, would undoubtedly be one great big nightmare for President Bush, his father, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and other U.S. officials. The reluctance to delve into this uncomfortable subject was recently confirmed by two episodes:
The first episode involved Rumsfeld's claim of a memory lapse regarding the matter, as reported by the Associated Press: Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" [U.S. Senator Robert] Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers. "I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it," Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.

The second episode involved Saddam Hussein's delivery of his weapons report to the United Nations shortly before President Bush invaded Iraq. U.S. officials hijacked the report before it could be released to the public and excised the parts in which Hussein detailed who exactly had furnished him with the WMD. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article by Anne Summers: What is known is that the 10 non-permanent members had to be content with an edited, scaled-down version. According to the German news agency DPA, instead of the 12,000 pages, these nations - including Germany, which this month became president of the Security Council - were given only 3,000 pages. So what was missing? The Guardian reported that the nine-page table of contents included chapters on "procurements" in Iraq's nuclear program and "relations with companies, representatives and individuals" for its chemical weapons program. This information was not included in the edited version.
If U.S. officials insist on retaining control over Hussein's case, what are they going to charge him with - "misleading President Bush into mistakenly believing that he still possessed the weapons of mass destruction that the president's father gave him"? Given that Iraq never attacked or threatened to attack the United States and given that Hussein and Reagan-Bush were allies during the entire 1980s, what other offense against the United States could they conceivably charge him with during that period of time?

If U.S. officials relinquish control over Hussein's case to the Iraqis or to an international tribunal of independent (i.e., non-U.S. or British) judges, there's a good possibility that Hussein will be charged with employing chemical weapons both against Iran and his own people. But how do they explain the failure to indict the U.S. officials who furnished him with those weapons in the first place? How do U.S. officials prevent the tribunal from permitting Hussein to testify to the world about such matters in an open (i.e., non-secret) proceeding?

If U.S. officials retain control over the case in order to charge Hussein with war crimes against the United States arising out of the resistance to the U.S. occupation, that would enable Hussein to argue that the invasion itself violated the war-of-aggression principle enunciated at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, especially given that Bush's principle justification for invading - that is, the continued existence of the weapons of mass destruction that Reagan-Bush had furnished Hussein in the 1980s - was groundless.

Moreover, who can doubt that Hussein will use his trial to charge the United States and the United Nations with crimes against humanity arising out of the brutal 12-year economic embargo against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people - an embargo that U.S. officials continually justified on the claim that Iraq still possessed the weapons of mass destruction that U.S. officials had delivered to him during the 1980s? After all, don't forget that two high UN officials resigned their positions on moral grounds arising out of the massive number of deaths that the sanctions were producing year after year.

If they charge Hussein with the mass graves arising out of the post-Persian Gulf War rebellion in the southern part of Iraq, won't Hussein and his legal staff defend by arguing that the killings were necessary to suppress an illegal rebellion against the Iraqi government that had been inspired by the president's father?

How likely is it that U.S. officials will permit Saddam Hussein to be delivered to a tribunal whose judges they are unable to control - to judges who would permit Hussein to testify freely, openly, and publicly about the details of his relationship with Reagan-Bush officials to a transfixed world. Indeed, the real question is: Will President Bush permit Saddam Hussein to be put on trial for anything? As U.S. officials begin to reflect upon the legal quandary that Hussein's capture has put them in, they will undoubtedly come to rue the day that U.S. soldiers treated his capture differently than the way they treated the capture of his two sons.

Neteru
03-05-04, 17:39
These facts are well known. As is the fact that the Reagan administration also armed Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. As well as arming, and training in the use of arms, Al Quaida effectively, during the USSR (as it was then) occupation of Afganistan.

One thing that was quickly (it seems) covered up, or hushed up however. Before invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was told by the US administration that he could go right ahead for they had no concerns and would take no action. I distinctly remember this being widely reported at the onset of the Gulf War. That is, widely reported one day, then never heard again!

Of course they don't want a public trial, and one out of their control.

Celli
03-05-04, 21:37
I saw a few of the pictures on GMA this morning, and all I could think was we're no better than Saddam if we're doing something this atrocious.

There are reports of mutilation, bondage, and the prisoners being tied up naked.

Trinity34
04-05-04, 01:03
I just wanted to pop in a say a few things in the defense of the US...

I know that war is a disturbing subject and its something people don't want to discuss because it shows the reality of human nature. To say that ANY human (regardless of nationality) will never perform abominable war acts is not being realistic about war. When one's life is in danger what would one do to survive? Not a pleasant thought. :(

Its easy to sit there and criticise the US for the war but until you have acutally lived here and experienced the privileges and freedoms we have I think you have no right to judge. I for one enjoy living here in the US and am willing to fight for it. The US is not just a government its a nation of people, when you attack the government you attack the people too. Tlr you hope the US gets its "ass kicked" some day? Do you realize what you are saying? The only way for this to happen is for terrorists to set off bombs or poison our water/food supply, etc... Do you think that is going to solve the problem?

The article posted above reminds me of another article I read about the Anthrax scare and I have always wondered what happened to the story. I read that the anthrax sent to people in the Capitol building in Washington DC was traced back to originating from one of the US military bases. At first I didn't understand how a military person could ever send anthrax to the Capitol building without anyone knowing but from reading the article posted above maybe the anthrax was given to Iraq and then a terrorist.... I never could find a follow-up article about it. I think Saadam was given ample warning war was coming if he did not comply with the UN. Enough said. :(

Draco
04-05-04, 01:04
So why is it only US troops? Or am I mistaken to think that the US isnt the majority over there...

That 'torture' pics looks so staged I cant believe they were even published.

PS: Before Britain gets too ****y, remember the Thuggees...

Iraq may be wrong, but pulling out now is worse than plowing ahead.

Be cowards and hide in yer mason and wood caves.

Frankly this socalled torture is pathetic at best, you get treated worse in a mexican drunk tank...

Too bad I believe in Humanity, or I'd say just ignore the rest of the world.

PPS: You cant blame this on Bush http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif they have been deployed longer than 60 days, blame all of us or none of us, there is no other option.

[ 04. May 2004, 02:05: Message edited by: Draco ]

Draco
04-05-04, 01:15
Another thing, why isn't there a big call to go to Africa from Brits? If yall are so much better, you should be the first there.

Gavman
04-05-04, 01:26
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-3.gif

laracroft8290
04-05-04, 01:33
Originally posted by Gavman:
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-3.gif My sentiments exactly.

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-3.gif

TheEveningStar
04-05-04, 01:40
Originally posted by tlr online:
Countries must be allowed to evolve naturally, as Britain and the United States have done. No country has the right to police the world. It’s hardly surprising the U.S. and the U.K. are under constant threat of attack – because of our arrogant actions. The U.S. won’t always be “top dog” – someday someone will come along and kick its ass.

Edit. America has charged into the world arena and toppled a foreign government – again, interfering with the natural evolution of that region and creating chaos. (The irony there is that America armed Sadam in the first place!!!) By doing so, her head-of-state (Bush) has weakened her own national security for years to come. While no country may not have the power to take the U.S. on directly, indirectly all her enemies will plot and take calculated shots at her from all quarters. We’re already seeing this unfold. Innocent citizens will die. The U.S. (and U.K) MUST be held accountable for their actions and get the hell out of regions that do not fall under their authority.First I want to say that I can't believe that you are thinking this way tlr, I thought you knew better than this. What we (Americans) are doing is trying to save other people from dying, saving the world from becoming this whole mess, all of this hatred in the world has to stop someday, and that's what we are trying to acomplish. Then you say that America someday will get its ass kicked. I live in America and I'm proud of having all the freedom that I have right now, don't you think that other people should have that too, instead of just having to recieve orders from a person who you wish was dead. Tlr, like Trinity said "Tlr you hope the US gets its "ass kicked" some day? Do you realize what you are saying? The only way for this to happen is for terrorists to set off bombs or poison our water/food supply, etc... Do you think that is going to solve the problem?" People deserve FREEDOM not slavery, did you see the pics from Saddam's mansion, palaces? did you compare them with what the people were living in? He should have been a better "president" and lead his people to greatness not to worstness. I'm really sad right now from what i read. What would you do if you knew that some terrorist were trying to kill your FAMILY. You would defend them or let tem kill them. I know I would defend my family with my life. You hurt my very deep feelings. :(

[ 04. May 2004, 02:42: Message edited by: TheEveningStar ]

Gavman
04-05-04, 01:58
Heavy Stuff TES and I can see your point, and I don't agree with you either tlr... but thats what I love about forums, you get to air your opinions http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
Each to their own.

I'm glad the british troops are still in action across there, and i'm also glad (as tlr puts it) that the troops are policing Iraq. What makes me uncomfortable is what's going to happen if they are left to their own devices...
I don't agree with troops still getting killed, but Iraq is seriously messed up,,, when we help they tell us to get out of their country, when we leave they're begging for supplies or medial aid and intervention because of the other rebels!

To me it doesn't look like they know what they want. Can that be simply left?

I love the alliance that the US and UK have right now, we make a great combination of superpower, and a good example of how countries should be... its a shame some parts of the world don't see how good theirs could be if they bothered to put the effort in, and stopped ars!ng about throwing stones at each other and bombing childrens school buses for fun... what the hells up with em!

We're a truly interesting species on this planet, and one of the stupidist for wanting to kill our own kind.

ok, that about as deep as I'm goin for tonight cause i've been typing a document up all day http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

tazmine
04-05-04, 02:12
Unfortunately, bad things happen in times of war. Atrocities are committed by all sides. For you to say that British troops are incapable of this is just an unrealistic attitude: we don't like it, but it's not only American troops who carry things too far: everyone does.
It's a cost of war. Not saying any of this is right; in fact, it's very wrong, but OMG, am I ever glad I'm not a soldier in the field.
It is so easy for us to sit back & judge them, but I sure don't want to be where they are. Don't point fingers.

Hi, Nat.

TheEveningStar
04-05-04, 02:17
IMO...
Taz, you are right about pointing fingers.
You too Gav.

BTW. taz are you looking for Nat? because she left the forums forever. :( She said she is not coming back. :(

bumb1ebee
04-05-04, 04:55
Originally posted by TheEveningStar:

First I want to say that I can't believe that you are thinking this way tlr, I thought you knew better than this. What we (Americans) are doing is trying to save other people from dying, saving the world from becoming this whole mess, all of this hatred in the world has to stop someday, and that's what we are trying to acomplish. [/QB]Hmm... very noble sounding, yet very suspicious.

For you say that TLR doesn't know any better is unfair. You may think there's a heroic cause behind the war but some people don't see it that way, including me.

Draco
04-05-04, 05:10
There will always be the people who can only see the glass half empty...

tlr online
04-05-04, 07:10
Alas Draco, that simply isn't the case. Even your own diplomatic country-men are turning against their native land.

US diplomats launch Bush attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681641.stm)

"Around 50 retired US diplomats have written to US President George Bush to complain about America's policy towards the Middle East. The letter is similar to one written by 52 former British diplomats to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair last week. The former US diplomats complained that President Bush's approach is losing the US "credibility, prestige and friends". They criticised what they say is Washington's unabashed support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The American diplomats said they were deeply concerned by Mr Bush's endorsement last month of Mr Sharon's plan to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza.

"The signatories praised their British counterparts who went public over their concerns last month. "We former diplomats applaud our 52 British colleagues who recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy and calling on Britain to exert more influence over the United States," the US letter begins."

tlr online
04-05-04, 07:25
Ann. I’m not advocating an attack on the U.S. I’m simply being a realist. This will be the natural order of things because of the precarious postition your country now finds herself in. Regarding freedom, indeed we do enjoy liberty (just the same as you) – in our own country! Iraq and the Middle East must be allowed to evolve naturally – to liberate themselves. Men are a powerful force to be reckoned with if their passions can be harnessed – whatever nation’s turf you stand upon.

Evening Star. Can you see the hypocrisy in your argument? My right to defend MY family – on my land, in my country. You example your argument using the worn out “schoolyard bully” analogy, yet you fail to accept that the U.S. is the one who armed the school bully in the first place.

The whole thing stinks!

SpArKy
04-05-04, 09:31
Well i should hope that the British do have better Morals than that.

Draco
04-05-04, 11:16
Iraq was an overstep, it can be idealized, criticized, or glamourized, but it remains what it is: forward momentum.

You can delude yerself with little things about being better or more moral, but what it comes down to is what you believe.

I would rather we invaded Iraq than left the mid east altogether. Unlike Spain, we wont be coerced by a terrorist attack to 'go away'. Every major conflict in our history started the same way: Some stupid fool decided we looked good in red.

It happened fter Boston when the Brits couldnt control themselves. It happened after Pearl Harbor. And now its happening after the World Trade Center.

The only difference is this enemy is too scared to fight, but rather hides and waits till your civilians are unprotected and then strikes.

We cant draw lines on this map, because the enemy would use them against us.

Any country or nation that willing harbors any of these cowards is an enemy of the US. Iraq may have been a mistake, but we wont know for years to come.

History is writing itself whether one is proud or embarassed...

PS: I'd wager that some people thought the same about the Crusades.

[ 04. May 2004, 12:18: Message edited by: Draco ]

Scottlee
04-05-04, 11:25
Personally I'm not bothered bickering about who's more at fault, the UK or the USA. They're both on the same hypocritical side, a side which has just invaded a region it is has no right to. The USA in particular have insulted the whole of Europe by ignoring the UN wishes and protocols when it comes to gaining permission to go ahead with this sort of thing. In short, they've basically said "We don't care how many other countries vote against this. We're the mighty USA, and we're going to do what we like". Almost sounds like a Saddam speech when commenting on the Middle East.

At the end of the day, though, the USA is just one nation the same as Costa Rica or Latvia. They've got to learn they're not the masters of the world, or the ruling body of the world, or as tlr put it, the country with the right to police the world. It's pretty ruddy obvious to even people who aren't interested in politics that the war in Iraq was just a hot-blooded act of testosterone in retaliation to 9/11. All this rubbish about weapons of mass destruction and the regime is just laughable. In case of the latter, that sort of stuff happens pretty much all over the world to some extent. It's horrible and it's disgusting, but at the end of the day it will rise up again long after America have gone back home. These things happen in circles.

As a guy who lives in England who voted against that war, and won that vote quite handsomely, I'm disgusted our participation went ahead anyway. I don't appreciate the thought of having to live the rest of my life knowing that retribution of a terrorist attack on England could happen on any day I least expect it. Americans should feel the same. To be honest, if we do get bombed or anthranxed pretty soon, our governments can hardly say they didn't tempt it with their own irresponsible actions.

[ 04. May 2004, 12:27: Message edited by: Scottlee ]

Draco
04-05-04, 11:41
Scottlee, until that last paragraph I was agreeing with you, you can turn the other cheek all you like, but Im knock out the fool that hits me...

Trinity34
04-05-04, 12:04
Tlr you are a realist? Well here are the realisms I see..

1. Anyone who attacks the US and its citizens, domestically or internationally, for no reason will be attacked back.

2. Any country who is oppressed and wants our help will get help, whether in the aid of troops or food, etc..

Yes we did give Iraq weapons and technology but there was a reason for that. I think people forget how things were with Iran in the 1980's. Yes we did give Afghanistan weapons but there was a reason for that. Do people forget what Russia was doing back then? http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-1.gif

tlr online
04-05-04, 14:28
Originally posted by Trinity34:
Anyone who attacks the US and its citizens, domestically or internationally, for no reason will be attacked back.Your country was attached because of her continued meddling in foreign affairs! And still you haven't learned your lesson. Goodness me, what do they teach you in school!? If only you could step outside yourself for one moment and see how narrow-minded, arrogant, one dimensional and hypocritical your argument is.

Who gives the U.S. the right to arm and dictate foreign policy?! How about giving nations the right to natural evolution, a liberty both the U.S. and U.K. have enjoyed. I’m just astounded at how arrogant the United States is. Your country needs to be pulled down a peg or two.. for the sake of the planet!

Bokkie
07-05-04, 10:56
I totally agree with tlr online http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

I have tasted US "democracy" on my own skin as other people of Serbia, during the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. What I did wrong to burrow in vaults, to have no electricity for several days, lack of food and to change the place several times per week to stay alive? The town where I live has been bombed over 20 times, it was terrible. Lot of innocent people died - for what? Now we have the situation that there is even more crime at Kosovo which was the official reason to bomb the Serbia.

US did and still do bad mistakes because they can - they are strong enough to rule the world

Draco
07-05-04, 12:35
Click and believe what you will (http://www.911hoax.com/)

The above is simply a passing along of something I ran across.

The reason the US is so fond of bombing is we arent as willing to get ourselves shot up as everyone else seems to be. Bombs are messy, but dont kill many of us.

To be honest, our biggest problem is the emphasis we place on ourselves over others, 200+ Spaniards dying is only newsworthy on Tuesday. But if even 1 was an American, it will be run across every channel with a newsanchor.

We don't pay attention to what doesn't hurt us, we ignore everyone till they mess with us. We didn't care much about you people during World War II till we got punched by Japan.

Sure we sent supplies, but that is what we do best. Spend trillions on get well packages and flush our money down the toilet in an ultimately meaningless effort.

Our foreign policy is centered on oil at the moment, the more we get the happier we are.

Wanting our downfall is tantamount to wanting World War III.

You start it, I'm ready.

[ 07. May 2004, 13:36: Message edited by: Draco ]

Neteru
07-05-04, 13:18
Originally posted by Trinity34:
Yes we did give Iraq weapons and technology but there was a reason for that. I think people forget how things were with Iran in the 1980's. Yes we did give Afghanistan weapons but there was a reason for that. Do people forget what Russia was doing back then? http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-1.gif What was happening with Iran in the 80's? Er, they were being armed by Reagan? Have you forgotten the arms to Iran affair? Iran AND Iraq, both armed by America. So what's the reason for that, apart from hypocrisy?

I've already mentioned Afghanistan and USSR. AND pointed out that they [America] were effectively training Al Quaida.

TheEveningStar
07-05-04, 14:27
Originally posted by bumb1ebee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheEveningStar:

First I want to say that I can't believe that you are thinking this way tlr, I thought you knew better than this. What we (Americans) are doing is trying to save other people from dying, saving the world from becoming this whole mess, all of this hatred in the world has to stop someday, and that's what we are trying to acomplish. Hmm... very noble sounding, yet very suspicious.

For you say that TLR doesn't know any better is unfair. You may think there's a heroic cause behind the war but some people don't see it that way, including me.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]What I meant about it, is that he is expressing his feelings towards Americans, and he is practicly insulting them, and that is supposed not to be permited here. He has banned people who have insulted other and he has talked about not insulting other people, but he is insulting Americans.

tlr online
07-05-04, 14:38
The Evening Star. I'm debating American policy and the behaviour of those controlling her strings. Be sure to understand my comments completely before presuming to insinuate my intension is to attack America's population.

Trinity34
07-05-04, 14:51
But you started it! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-2.gif http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-2.gif http://www.tombraiderforums.com/m/i/animatedsmilies/bootyshake.gif http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-2.gif

laracroft8290
07-05-04, 16:15
Play nicely http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-3.gif

In fact you've done very well so far http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

[ 07. May 2004, 17:16: Message edited by: laracroft8290 ]

TheEveningStar
07-05-04, 20:28
Originally posted by tlr online:
The Evening Star. I'm debating American policy and the behaviour of those controlling her strings. Be sure to understand my comments completely before presuming to insinuate my intension is to attack America's population.Then if you are talking about the government, then I agree with what you have said, but is just that there were some words that made me understand that you were insulting the people and the government.

so, tlr, are we are cool??

[ 07. May 2004, 21:29: Message edited by: TheEveningStar ]

tlr online
07-05-04, 20:31
The Evening Star. I value your opinion as much as anyone elses. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

TheEveningStar
07-05-04, 20:34
:D

[ 07. May 2004, 22:31: Message edited by: TheEveningStar ]

tlr online
07-05-04, 20:36
You can PM me if you like.