U.S. Military Dumbass

[derBauer]

Some of you may not know this but pictures have just recently been released to the media which show US military prison guards in Iraq doing stupid shit with prisoners. The prisoners were stripped and had bags put over their heads and the guards made them make human pyramids and play games with them. I think its disgusting. Anyway, here is a pic for those who have not seen one. If I knew this lady I would be fucking pissed.
http://www.angelfire.com/il/crunk/funny/pow.jpg

[Daikarin]

That ain't no lady.
Talk about abuse of power, and complete stupidity.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Even_Jin on 2004-04-30 14:02 ]</font>

[_Ted_]

Weren't those guys court marshalled?

[Shattered_weasel]

Psst that never happened. Like 2/3 of the people I know are in Iraq and sayed that was bullshit.

[Pancake]

Yea uh...Those guys look white...and two black people. Are we making our own people prissoners. Your trying to make the US look bad like everyone else right? Other countrys do that and if a soldier was cought doing that they would be shot on the scene

[Deathscythealpha]

On 2004-04-30 16:23, Pancake wrote:
Yea uh...Those guys look white...and two black people. Are we making our own people prissoners. Your trying to make the US look bad like everyone else right? Other countrys do that and if a soldier was cought doing that they would be shot on the scene



No a soldier would not be shot for doing somehting like that, dont be so childish.

There is photographic evidence that soldiers have been doing something morally wrong to prisoners, both breaking rules placed down in the Geneva Convention and the instatution (sp?). Its quite sad that they would go ahead and do this really, and its also fucking stupid seeing how the Iraqis already have a problem with the occupation of Iraq.

And people may say that the Iraqi's were doing this and worse to their prisoners and their own countrymen, but that is not a valid excuse. 'Sadam did so why cant i?', makes them sound like a whining child. Lowering yourself to someone else's standereds just makes you look bad and makes a situation worse as that can now been thrown back at you.

Now i hope the soldiers who were foolish enough to do this do get what they deserve (a court martial and a dismissal from the army i should hope) and sensible soldiers with better morals get posted to that prison.

[Pancake]

I was joking about the shot person. Hey how do we know it's not a British Guy? I am saying this thinking you hate America because most UK people on this site do...

[Subliminalgroove]

Well, we certainly give them more than enough reason to hate us. Our foriegn policy is one of the most abusive, self-rightous, and self-serving of any "civilized" country. Now, every 1st world nation has more dirty laundry than anyone would ever want to see, but let me tell ya... all the laundrymats in the world couldn't wash ours...

[Uncle_bob]

They (Iraqi soldiers) are shitbags anyhow, we should be doing worse things than this to them.

[Hrith]

On 2004-04-30 19:16, Subliminalgroove wrote:
Well, we certainly give them more than enough reason to hate us. Our foriegn policy is one of the most abusive, self-rightous, and self-serving of any "civilized" country. Now, every 1st world nation has more dirty laundry than anyone would ever want to see, but let me tell ya... all the laundrymats in the world couldn't wash ours...
wow, that's one come back http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif
you're the upside down girl from the RL pic thread, IIRC

On topic, I have many reasons to hate USA, but probably as many reasons to hate any other country >_> what makes most people hate USA more is that's bigger, France is too small to be hated that much.

ok... bed time... note to self: don't think at 3:30 am

[_Ted_]

Lets not try to start some sort of argument here over why everybody hates everybody else, ok?

And Kef, GO TO SLEEP!

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-04-30 19:26, Uncle_bob wrote:
They (Iraqi soldiers) are shitbags anyhow, we should be doing worse things than this to them.



And just why is mr joe shmoe iraqi soldier a "$hitbag"?

[_Ted_]

On 2004-04-30 19:45, Subliminalgroove wrote:


On 2004-04-30 19:26, Uncle_bob wrote:
They (Iraqi soldiers) are shitbags anyhow, we should be doing worse things than this to them.



And just why is mr joe shmoe iraqi soldier a "$hitbag"?



I don't know about the soldiers, but the people who mutilate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/) bodies would fall under the "shitbags" area.

[War_Child]

A man tortures another man, and he is evil.
You torture a man, and you are righteous.

See the flaw in the argument there?

Go idiotic soldiers, way to make people hate your country more.

[_Ted_]

On 2004-04-30 19:56, War_Child wrote:
A man tortures another man, and he is evil.
You torture a man, and you are righteous.

See the flaw in the argument there?

Go idiotic soldiers, way to make people hate your country more.



What are you talking about? No one has called any of these soldiers righteous, they really are a bunch of idiots.

[Blitzkommando]

On 2004-04-30 19:54, _Ted_ wrote:


On 2004-04-30 19:45, Subliminalgroove wrote:


On 2004-04-30 19:26, Uncle_bob wrote:
They (Iraqi soldiers) are shitbags anyhow, we should be doing worse things than this to them.



And just why is mr joe shmoe iraqi soldier a "$hitbag"?



I don't know about the soldiers, but the people who mutilate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/) bodies would fall under the "shitbags" area.


Or rape women, kill children, steal from their own people, do genocide, etc. Hmm... Sounds like the standards of much of the Iraqi army to me, under Saddam that is. You people do know that he based most of his policy off of what Stalin did, at least I hope you do. The man was, is, sick. He killed his own family members just to keep power. Hang him, a bullet is too expensive to use on a person like that.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-04-30 19:54, _Ted_ wrote:
I don't know about the soldiers, but the people who mutilate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/) bodies would fall under the "shitbags" area.



And what of the American soldiers who raped and murdered vietnamese women during the vietnam war... or the Korean war. Or any war for that matter?

I do not condone any of this. I did not condone the war... which is obvious if you look at my post history.


Humans in war situations do terrible things. We are talking about people who are TRAINED to kill another being and think nothing of it. Of COURSE attrocities are going to happen. All the more reason to do everything we can to prevent wars from starting.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-04-30 20:01, BLITZKOMMANDO wrote:
Or rape women, kill children, steal from their own people, do genocide, etc. Hmm... Sounds like the standards of much of the Iraqi army to me, under Saddam that is. You people do know that he based most of his policy off of what Stalin did, at least I hope you do. The man was, is, sick. He killed his own family members just to keep power. Hang him, a bullet is too expensive to use on a person like that.



And we the US installed him and secured his power. We also supplied him with chemical weapons with which to kill Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Weapons we ALSO gave to Iran during the SAME war so they could gas Iraq. Seems that our nation has a guilt problem when it comes to Saddam and the things he did with our ordinance and our support...

[Shattered_weasel]

I would like to say. Not all soldiers are like this. Just like all Iraqis are not like the ones that drag people through the streets.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-04-30 20:50, Shattered_weasel wrote:
I would like to say. Not all soldiers are like this. Just like all Iraqis are not like the ones that drag people through the streets.



This is very true. And good show pointing that out. However. strange things can happen to a person in that kind of high stress environment.

For some reason we (civilians and politicians) seem to expect soldiers to just see killing as part of their job. That when you capture the soldier that MAY have killed your best friend two days ago you are just expected to treat them like nothing happend, that it was just buisness. "Ho, ho! Good show, chap! You fought well, but you were caught. Now lets head back to base and have a nice cup'o tea, wot?"

While this doesn't in ANY way excuse the attrocities that happen in a war situation, it does show one tiny way how sick our cultures have become.

[DurakkenX]

did anyone bother to look at the soldier? kahkis and an average looking t-shirt without any kind of insignia. not to mention that kid is so not in any shape that you can tell he hasn't even gone through any kind of boot camp let alone a war. oh and kinda weird how they put bags on their head. Fuggin morons learn to distinguish between fake and real pics

[Mixfortune]

Expert analysis there telling us it's a fake picture. How much time did you spend observing it? Need any special tools to know if it's a fake, or staged? I suppose you're just that damn good.

Khakis and a regular t-shirt? Look again.

[DurakkenX]

dude..it only takes a glance. plus i have two military peeps living with me. you don't wear ANYTHING accept millitary MARKED clothes. There are a few greyish areas on the pants and nothing on the shirt plus the guy if he made it through boot camp... i wouldn't know what to say. thas one scrawny lookin loser right there. Plus the fact that there is a black guy there to which i'm pretty sure is not had in the middle east to much..

[Stingray]

*looks at picture*

I agree with DurakkenX... something is just downright fishy about this picture.

A: as DurakkenX pointed out the soldier doesn't look like anybody that went though bootcamp I mean it doesn't look like he has any muscles.

B: there is a black guy in that group... how do you know this wasn't staged???

I shake my head in shame on how people these days jump to a conclusion so quick to bash our military... heck our country.. I mean did you guys ever give any thought about this being a fake???


Well, we certainly give them more than enough reason to hate us. Our foriegn policy is one of the most abusive, self-rightous, and self-serving of any "civilized" country. Now, every 1st world nation has more dirty laundry than anyone would ever want to see, but let me tell ya... all the laundrymats in the world couldn't wash ours...


You have no idea what you are saying... our country as a whole tries to keep to the war conventions, our country trys to give people like Hussian a fair trail, and we have never used torture in many years... A lot of other countrys don't give a damn about the war conventions, people like hussian are called guilty once they are captured, and result to torture when they feel like it...

I'm sorry but because our freedom of press/speech allows our press to bash us into the ground does not mean we are the worst guys out there since thats all you see (since if people tried this in other country they would be arrested and maybe even killed for it)


And what of the American soldiers who raped and murdered vietnamese women during the vietnam war... or the Korean war. Or any war for that matter?


Our country did not support this and the soldiers who did this where punished if caught... But truthfully Murder and rape is pretty common in war I believe just about every army has its soldiers who did this. But at least America doesn't order troops to rape and murder women like Hussian did.

Simply put that is a dumb statement since just about every country has problems with their troops doing this, but at least our Country shuns it and trys to prevent it.

[Armok]

Any real pictures of iraq prisons getting tortured would never make it to the news. They'd be covered up in a second.

[Ness]

Ummm.... I think that picture was photoshopped. For one thing, there is no such TV show as "60 Minutes II." Second, those soldiers do not look Iraqi, they look American, which makes me think they were a bunch of drunk guys at a party.

As for the war itself, most of you already know what I think about it, but for those that don't here's my opinion: We have no right to impose our government or our will on anyone.

[Kizaragu]

On 2004-04-30 18:50, Pancake wrote:
I was joking about the shot person. Hey how do we know it's not a British Guy? I am saying this thinking you hate America because most UK people on this site do...
Excuse me!? Don't be so bloody childish.

[Deathscythealpha]

On 2004-05-01 04:29, Kizaragu wrote:


On 2004-04-30 18:50, Pancake wrote:
I was joking about the shot person. Hey how do we know it's not a British Guy? I am saying this thinking you hate America because most UK people on this site do...
Excuse me!? Don't be so bloody childish.



Ditto Kiz, ditto.

I dont know where on earth you got this impression that all British people on this site hate americains, and its a bloody stupid impression. Why on earth would i come to a forum that has a larger americain base then british for over 3 years! If i hated all you americains i wouldnt have come back after my first day.

No, im guessing us Brits dont hate americains, we hate childish, stupid people who make comments without even thinking.

I dont know if those soldiers are british, im not really sure what are military fatigues look like, but seeing as the prison was under americain occupation and 17 americain troops have been relieved of duty and i think it was at least five of them are being court martialed, im getting the hint that they were americain soldiers. There is also the US Trooper who is fighting back for being relieved of duty claiming they werent taught to handle prisoners. Evidence is piling up here a bit.

Oh, and btw, i dont hold this incident as a reflection of all americain soldiers. Labeling all americain soldiers as torturors would be a lame stereotype and very wrong. Lets just hope there isnt a serious back lash agaisnt all the other soldiers in Iraq because of the action of a few misguided troops.

[DezoPenguin]

On 2004-05-01 04:02, Ness wrote:
For one thing, there is no such TV show as "60 Minutes II."


I have absolutely no opinion on whether the photo is a load of fake crap or in any way related to the recent (real) incident concerning abuse of prisoners for which actual troops are being court-martialled (which, by the way, is the actual spelling).

However, "60 Minutes II" is on Wednesdays at 8:00 on CBS, as the network's own site will point out: http://www.cbs.com/info/hdtv/index.php

[derBauer]

Here is a website to the 60 minutes II website since some people here seem to think it does not exist:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60II/main3475.shtml

Here is a story about the abust which President Bush has addressed already and said he will punish all those responsible.

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=1de49146-ea60-492f-bb5f-b68c09d22933

If you want to say its not so bad because Saddam mutilated, raped, and killed, hundreds of thousands of his own people I see your point. But we are there to set an example and to hopefully (even though I say it will never happen) make people over there that want to kill us, like us.
I have seen all the videos of Saddam ordering people to be blown to bits, I've seen hands and fingers cut off in interrogations, I've even seen men have their heads cut off with a pocket knife (and there was audio with that one too).
There was a website called ourenemies.org - undoubtedly one of the nastiest non-pornographic sites on the internet. It showed all the videos I am talking about. It has been taken down and that is the only reason I even say the name of it. The images and video from that site will stick with me forever and if you were to compare the US troops goofing off to Iraqi soldiers raping women, there is no comparison. The point is that WE (as in the US) are not supposed to do that shit, and if we do, we have to pay the consequences.

[Mixfortune]

On 2004-05-01 01:04, DurakkenX wrote:
dude..it only takes a glance. plus i have two military peeps living with me. you don't wear ANYTHING accept millitary MARKED clothes. There are a few greyish areas on the pants and nothing on the shirt plus the guy if he made it through boot camp... i wouldn't know what to say. thas one scrawny lookin loser right there. Plus the fact that there is a black guy there to which i'm pretty sure is not had in the middle east to much..



First of all it seems to be a female.
And yeah, they should always wear marked clothes, but considering IF this is a real picture and they are doing shit anyways, would it really matter to them exactly what they are wearing?

Now, I'm not going to sit here and argue all day about whether the photo is fake or not, but considering the fact that an actual incident that did happen could be linked to this actual exact picture or not doesn't completely neutralize and stop the discussion of this thread. The discussion is more about the incidents, not the picture.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mixfortune on 2004-05-01 10:13 ]</font>

[Kizaragu]

Seems like some members of the British army are also guilty to treating POW in the same disrespectful manner.
It's on the front page of most the tabloids over here this morning.

What's the world coming to?

[Uncle_bob]

On 2004-04-30 19:45, Subliminalgroove wrote:


On 2004-04-30 19:26, Uncle_bob wrote:
They (Iraqi soldiers) are shitbags anyhow, we should be doing worse things than this to them.



And just why is mr joe shmoe iraqi soldier a "$hitbag"?



Because you touch yourself at night.

But actually, since they would gladly kill and drag an American body regardless if Saddam is ruling or not is what makes them shitbags. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Ness]

Well then i stand corrected. In that case, I think it was very sutpid for Americans to do such things.

And to those that say," The Iraqis did things alot worse to our soldiers," it still doesn't make the actions performed by our soldiers any less wrong.

[Dangerous55]

If those pictures are real(the pictures are, but it could be a whole different story then what everyone says it is) then the soldier should be punished. I think it is obvious that this was a small group of soldiers who did this and hope everyone has enough sense to understand this is not American policy.

About the whole "Americans were butchers in Vietnam" thing, well I recall the biggest "Rape, murder" event by American troops was put down by other American soldier who were about to fire on the "butchering" American soldier unless they stopped. They did stop.

[Solstis]

Yeah, no matter what, every nation has idiots when it comes to war.

Even countries that consider themselves "honorable" (U.S., Japan, though I imagine every country considers itself that) commits war crimes.

Name a country that hasn't/wouldn't rape and pillage during war or given the opportunity.

http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_confused.gif

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-01 12:55, Solstis wrote:


Name a country that hasn't/wouldn't rape and pillage during war or given the opportunity.

http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_confused.gif




You can't say country or Army, it is the individual will. Some armies are more prone to it, like the German and Japanese Armies in WW2 or the Red Army. That is the past though, no army in the civilized world is going to have pillage or rape as an accepted practice.

[Rich_T]

Brittish Tabloid ( the Mirror) report on UK soldiers abusing prisoners (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14199634%26method=full%26siteid=50143% 26headline=shame%2dof%2dabuse%2dby%2dbrit%2dtroops-name_page.html)

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-01 02:08, Stingray wrote:

You have no idea what you are saying... our country as a whole tries to keep to the war conventions, our country trys to give people like Hussian a fair trail, and we have never used torture in many years... A lot of other countrys don't give a damn about the war conventions, people like hussian are called guilty once they are captured, and result to torture when they feel like it...

Obviously you have no idea what foreign policy means... It is not simply who is shooting whom. Foeign policy is how we interact with other countries. If you boil down our foreign policy, you get one word: exploit. We exploit other countries for monetary gain, political manuevering, and other miscelanious reasons. For example, we "give" monetary aid to countries in order to get them indebted to us. Then if they don't vote our way in the UN, we revoke that aid they have become dependent on. What about all the democratically elected leaders we helped "remove" so we could install a despot who would keep under our thumb. Psst... we did this with saddam. He only became evil once he started cutting strings. Oh, don't let me forget the global gag rule... In which we revoke all moneys given to foriegn helth clinic if they even MENTION abortion, contraception, or safe sex. As a result fo this assinine law, more than 150 million couples are unable to plan their families because their region lacks the tools to do so. "Planned Parenthood used USAID financial assistance to provide 330 million cycles of birth control pills, 1.3 million condoms, 14 million IUDs and provide $92 million in financial assistance to over 439 family planning agencies around the world." As a result tens of thousands of women and childeren die every year.

These are all examples of our foreign policy. Much better examples, in fact, than shooting some guy from another country.



I'm sorry but because our freedom of press/speech allows our press to bash us into the ground does not mean we are the worst guys out there since thats all you see (since if people tried this in other country they would be arrested and maybe even killed for it)

<Sigh> I get so tired of hearing this. The US media is one of the most conservative entities in the WORLD. They largly support bush and his actions. The "Liberal Media" the Bush administration is always talking about DOES NOT EXIST. At least not in the readily available format that 90% of americas couch potatoes can consume. That term was something created by the bush administration to explain away when the media actually DOES get around to reporting things that might make the administration look bad. For example, how many great news have you heard come through the networks about something liberal? Well? How about the 1.15 million people who showed up in DC for the March For Women's Lives, just last week? You hear about that? I certainly didn't hear about it on network news...




Our country did not support this and the soldiers who did this where punished if caught... But truthfully Murder and rape is pretty common in war I believe just about every army has its soldiers who did this. But at least America doesn't order troops to rape and murder women like Hussian did.

Simply put that is a dumb statement since just about every country has problems with their troops doing this, but at least our Country shuns it and trys to prevent it.



It appears you have NOT read my posts. In which case I will quote them for you here:


"Humans in war situations do terrible things. We are talking about people who are TRAINED to kill another being and think nothing of it. Of COURSE attrocities are going to happen. All the more reason to do everything we can to prevent wars from starting."

Notice I said HUMANS and not AMERICANS.

Oh this one too:


"However. strange things can happen to a person in that kind of high stress environment.

For some reason we (civilians and politicians) seem to expect soldiers to just see killing as part of their job. That when you capture the soldier that MAY have killed your best friend two days ago you are just expected to treat them like nothing happend, that it was just buisness. "Ho, ho! Good show, chap! You fought well, but you were caught. Now lets head back to base and have a nice cup'o tea, wot?"

While this doesn't in ANY way excuse the attrocities that happen in a war situation, it does show one tiny way how sick our cultures have become."

YES, this happens in all cultures. But this doesn't excuse the incidents that happen in our army. Just because one human rapes another doesn't mean that it is excusable for all.

And these activities in the Vietnam and Korean war were much more widespread than I feel you have been lead to believe. But that is off topic.

Oh, one more thing, you said:
we have never used torture in many years

Well, that's have a look shall we, hrm... Guant?mo Bay ring a bell: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-070104-action-eng, if that bothers you... what about the systematic genecide and cultural murder we inflicted upon Native Americans. A campaign many would argue is still on going. What? Something a little more recent, you say? What about what we have done to our own citizens during WW2? Do any of you history students recall things called Internment Camps. Places where Asian families were corralled, starved, beaten, and otherwise treated like shit. Hrm, this at the same time we were fighting a group who were using simillar camps for people of Jewish descent. Oh, something more recent, eh? How about the story of one Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. He was taken off of his plane by american officials, taken into custody. Held incommunicado, and finally deported to Syria (not CAnada) where the American officials KNEW he would be tortured, and was... Brutally. http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002829.html If you want more examples, I can give them to you... much more graphic ones too.


A BIG thanks to those who acctually read this... http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_kisses.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Subliminalgroove on 2004-05-01 16:42 ]</font>

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-01 10:44, Uncle_bob wrote:

Because you touch yourself at night.

that's uncalled for. And what I do to my body at night is none of your buisness... and it never will be... http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wink.gif



But actually, since they would gladly kill and drag an American body regardless if Saddam is ruling or not is what makes them shitbags. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Acctually, That was more than likely one of the many gurriella fighters that have begun to join the resistance against the coalition. If you remember your history, this kind of stuff happened all the time in Vietnam. By citizens, not soldiers. The Iraqi people do not want us there, and they are showing us.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-01 16:13, Subliminalgroove wrote:


Acctually, That was more than likely one of the many gurriella fighters that have begun to join the resistance against the coalition. If you remember your history, this kind of stuff happened all the time in Vietnam. By citizens, not soldiers. The Iraqi people do not want us there, and they are showing us.

[/quote]

That's kind of what I think. If the Iraqis had truly wanted to be free, they would have ousted Saddam years ago.

[Uncle_bob]

On 2004-05-01 16:13, Subliminalgroove wrote:


On 2004-05-01 10:44, Uncle_bob wrote:

Because you touch yourself at night.

that's uncalled for. And what I do to my body at night is none of your buisness... and it never will be... http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Aw..That's no fun. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif





But actually, since they would gladly kill and drag an American body regardless if Saddam is ruling or not is what makes them shitbags. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Acctually, That was more than likely one of the many gurriella fighters that have begun to join the resistance against the coalition. If you remember your history, this kind of stuff happened all the time in Vietnam. By citizens, not soldiers. The Iraqi people do not want us there, and they are showing us.



Ok then, screw the (armed) civilians then. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif Let's just pull out and let another dictator rise to power so he can nerve gas everyone.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Uncle_bob on 2004-05-01 18:14 ]</font>

[KodiaX987]

So a few people got killed, and Sargeant Average tortured some POWs, and the new guy had to do push-ups over a fresh turd, and Corporal Whatever got drunk and destroyed the mess hall, and Lieutenant Something thought it would be cool to go hump a goat and drink rat cum. Come on, that sorta stuff happens everyday. You guys just trying to make a hurricane out of a gust of wind...



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: KodiaX987 on 2004-05-01 18:32 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-01 16:42, Ness wrote:


That's kind of what I think. If the Iraqis had truly wanted to be free, they would have ousted Saddam years ago.




U R SO RIGHT


...


You can't just say "oust Saddam" and he will be gone. There are these things Saddam and his followers called, they are called guns. Themselves they are a club but combined with ammunition they are amazing, they can hunt, be used for self-defense or even put down rebellions. More advanced forms of guns can be attached to machines called tanks, helicopters, and planes.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-01 19:01, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2004-05-01 16:42, Ness wrote:


That's kind of what I think. If the Iraqis had truly wanted to be free, they would have ousted Saddam years ago.




U R SO RIGHT


...


You can't just say "oust Saddam" and he will be gone. There are these things Saddam and his followers called, they are called guns. Themselves they are a club but combined with ammunition they are amazing, they can hunt, be used for self-defense or even put down rebellions. More advanced forms of guns can be attached to machines called tanks, helicopters, and planes.



Note I siad years ago, meaning that they would have ousted him before he aquired so much power. Like I said the last time this was borught up, freeing Iraq was a good thing, but it wasn't our job to do so.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-01 20:31, Ness wrote:

Note I siad years ago, meaning that they would have ousted him before he aquired so much power. Like I said the last time this was borught up, freeing Iraq was a good thing, but it wasn't our job to do so.




When he didnt have as much power they had no reason to overthrow him.

Like I said before it was our job.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-01 21:23, Dangerous55 wrote:


When he didnt have as much power they had no reason to overthrow him.

Like I said before it was our job.



Why? Why was it our job? Why is it our duty to impose our "perfect" government on any nation that chooses not to follow it? Why is it that we worry about the internal affairs of other nations when our's has so many problems?

[Shattered_weasel]

On 2004-05-01 21:28, Ness wrote:


On 2004-05-01 21:23, Dangerous55 wrote:


When he didnt have as much power they had no reason to overthrow him.

Like I said before it was our job.



Why? Why was it our job? Why is it our duty to impose our "perfect" government on any nation that chooses not to follow it? Why is it that we worry about the internal affairs of other nations when our's has so many problems?



It is them future people. They Came and took our jerbs.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-01 21:28, Ness wrote:


Why? Why was it our job? Why is it our duty to impose our "perfect" government on any nation that chooses not to follow it? Why is it that we worry about the internal affairs of other nations when our's has so many problems?




You had trouble understanding this in the last thread too. I will put it in caps for you this time.


1. WE DO NOT HAVE TO IMPOSE DEMOCRACY ON THEM. AS LONG AS WHATEVER THEY USE IS A FREE AND OPEN FORM.
2. IT SHOULD NOT BE AMERICA ALONE GETTING RID OF TYRANTS.
3. THEIR INTERNAL PROBLEMS WERE WORSE, WHAT WITH THE RAPE ROOMS AND ALL.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-02 07:56, Dangerous55 wrote:


You had trouble understanding this in the last thread too. I will put it in caps for you this time.


I didn't have trouble understanding anything. Our views on this war are different and that's it.



1. WE DO NOT HAVE TO IMPOSE DEMOCRACY ON THEM. AS LONG AS WHATEVER THEY USE IS A FREE AND OPEN FORM.

In other words, a democracy. Well, i guesxs they could be a republic like us.


2. IT SHOULD NOT BE AMERICA ALONE GETTING RID OF TYRANTS.

It shouldn't be anyone's job to get rid of tyrants unless the citizens of the country with the said tyrant ask for help. And don't give me all that "if anyone were to cry out they would be shot" business because we somehow heard the Albainians' cry for help and also the cries for help of all those persecuted tribes in Africa (which the UN ignored, but that's another story). The word that they need our help does get out, so saying that they wouldn't be able to ask is not a valid assertion.



3. THEIR INTERNAL PROBLEMS WERE WORSE, WHAT WITH THE RAPE ROOMS AND ALL.



I agree with their problems "were worse," but is that any excuse not to take care of the ones here? We've put off our problems for long enough. I think it's time we stop correcting the faults of the world around us and start trying to correct our own.

[Dangerous55]

In other words, a democracy. Well, i guesxs they could be a republic like us.

Fine whatever let them have democracy, call it whatever you want as long as they are free and open.

Is their something wrong with democracy if that is what they choose?





It shouldn't be anyone's job to get rid of tyrants unless the citizens of the country with the said tyrant ask for help. And don't give me all that "if anyone were to cry out they would be shot" business because we somehow heard the Albainians' cry for help and also the cries for help of all those persecuted tribes in Africa (which the UN ignored, but that's another story). The word that they need our help does get out, so saying that they wouldn't be able to ask is not a valid assertion.

How about all the Iraqis who did make it out? And did ask for help?




I agree with their problems "were worse," but is that any excuse not to take care of the ones here? We've put off our problems for long enough. I think it's time we stop correcting the faults of the world around us and start trying to correct our own.



We can do both at the same time.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-02 11:21, Dangerous55 wrote:

Fine whatever let them have democracy, call it whatever you want as long as they are free and open.

Is their something wrong with democracy if that is what they choose?


Oh no, there's nothing wrong with it. I just don't like the idea of things being forced on them. If that's the government they choose then so be it.




How about all the Iraqis who did make it out? And did ask for help?


Yes, but they weren't trying to organize a rebellion. If the Iraqis were to say," We are trying to organize a rebellion against Saddam and his regime so we can establish a democratic government. Will you help us out?" then I would have had no problem with this war. And yes, I know that the Turks did try to rebel once, but I'm talking about a mass rebellion like the French Revolution, but without all the unnecessary bloodshed.




We can do both at the same time.



Someone needs to tell Bush that.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-02 12:11, Ness wrote:


Oh no, there's nothing wrong with it. I just don't like the idea of things being forced on them. If that's the government they choose then so be it.

That is what they did.





Yes, but they weren't trying to organize a rebellion. If the Iraqis were to say," We are trying to organize a rebellion against Saddam and his regime so we can establish a democratic government. Will you help us out?" then I would have had no problem with this war. And yes, I know that the Turks did try to rebel once, but I'm talking about a mass rebellion like the French Revolution, but without all the unnecessary bloodshed.

You want a mass rebellion without bloodshed? Ain't gonna happen, these rebellions are not easy to start either.

I agree they should have did something but just because they didnt doesnt mean they didnt want it.





Someone needs to tell Bush that.



Well I think there is more to it then him just not doing it.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-02 16:05, Dangerous55 wrote:

You want a mass rebellion without bloodshed? Ain't gonna happen, these rebellions are not easy to start either.

I agree they should have did something but just because they didnt doesnt mean they didnt want it.



I didn't say without bloodshed, I said without unnecessary bloodshed. In the French Revolution, the streets were literally read with blood. So many people were executed in it wasn't even funny and the worse part is that nobody even won. Unlike the American Revolution, the French Revolution had no clear winner, just alot of dead bodies.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-02 11:21, Dangerous55 wrote:

Is their something wrong with democracy if that is what they choose?


Sorry, Dangerous... I love ya and all, but they do not have any choice in the matter. That is why we are over there Rebuilging Iraq. Its also one of the reasons we are getting so much resistance from the general populace. We are trying to impose upon them a system of gorvernment and a way of life that is, in many ways in direct conflict with their own.

If we were to do this corectly, what we should have done was gonein, gotten rid of Saddam and then left. Bring the soldiers home to their families and let the UN, who has special task forces and commities TRAINED to deal with setting up a FUNCTIONING infrastructure, delivering aid to where it is needed, amd working in tandem with people from the country.

But no... WE are there... And its like a gory Three Stooges Movie that has gone on WAY too long. And the only reason we are there is to protect the interests of the companies that have the rebuilding contracts (I'm not even going to light the oil fuse right now). Companies who many members of the Bush administration have good amount, or even controling stock in, not to mention, good ole-Dick and Haliburton.

This was not a humanitarian action. Call me a cynic, but I feel that no government does any humanitarian actions. Everything done by a country for another country is for political and economical posturing. This was done for economic reasons and economic reasons alone... for example: Remember tiananmen Square? You know the student who stood in front of the line of tanks to stop them, that picture was on every tv and every newspaper's front page around the world. And then massacre that was world wide news as well. All this to stop oppresive rule in China. Where were we, during all this. The call was there. It was loud and clear. Students and citizens were fighting and dying in the streets at the hands of the army. Why didn't we send in doughboys to rectify the situation? There were protests, by citizens, by the thousands all over the globe. But where was the government, in the kind of capacity that we so readily jumped into in Iraq? The answer is we were at home, watching The Cosby Show. Why? We had much more to gain by "liberating" Iraq, than helping a revolution in China. So, where was our boundless humanitarianism then? It wasn't in our wallets, that's for sure.




edit: sorry, I'm sick, so I jitter and thet makes my typing bad...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Subliminalgroove on 2004-05-02 17:18 ]</font>

[Outrider]

On 2004-05-02 17:12, Subliminalgroove wrote:
If we were to do this corectly, what we should have done was gonein, gotten rid of Saddam and then left. Bring the soldiers home to their families and let the UN, who has special task forces and commities TRAINED to deal with setting up a FUNCTIONING infrastructure, delivering aid to where it is needed, amd working in tandem with people from the country.



I definitely agree that our government is not doing this right, but I would like to state that to just run in, kill their leader, and then leave wouldn't have been a good idea in the least. The turmoil would be ridiculous.

Now, I'm not sure about this, but isn't it true that the UN gets most of their peace-keeping forces from the United States?

But yeah, the vast majority of this has just been bad from the start. I really hope that things miraculously settle down quickly, but that's just not gonna happen.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-02 17:25, Outrider wrote:

I definitely agree that our government is not doing this right, but I would like to state that to just run in, kill their leader, and then leave wouldn't have been a good idea in the least. The turmoil would be ridiculous.

Now, I'm not sure about this, but isn't it true that the UN gets most of their peace-keeping forces from the United States?

But yeah, the vast majority of this has just been bad from the start. I really hope that things miraculously settle down quickly, but that's just not gonna happen.



Well, obvioulsy you would wait for the UN to get settled in, then you leg it.

YEah, the majority of the peacekeepers are ua Yanks. But, the people involved in tha acctual thinking bit have had the training it takes to correctly accomplish what we are failing aso miserably at.

[derBauer]

On 2004-05-02 17:12, Subliminalgroove wrote:
Its also one of the reasons we are getting so much resistance from the general populace.


The resistance is coming from fighters sneaking in from other countries and Saddam loyalists. At least 99% of it is.
That being said 99% isn't resisting at all.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-02 18:03, derBauer wrote:


The resistance is coming from fighters sneaking in from other countries and Saddam loyalists. At least 99% of it is.
That being said 99% isn't resisting at all.



I find it rather hard to believe that such a small contingint of loyalists and Sadam sympathizers from other countries are causing so much trouble all on their own.

But then, I have been wrong before. Stranger things have happened.

[KodiaX987]

Well, you don't really need to be a lot to fight the suicide bomber way. You waste only one life to destroy about 50 of your enemies'.

[Dangerous55]

Alright Ness, read it wrong I guess.





On 2004-05-02 17:12, Subliminalgroove wrote:


Sorry, Dangerous... I love ya and all, but they do not have any choice in the matter. That is why we are over there Rebuilging Iraq. Its also one of the reasons we are getting so much resistance from the general populace. We are trying to impose upon them a system of gorvernment and a way of life that is, in many ways in direct conflict with their own.

If we were to do this corectly, what we should have done was gonein, gotten rid of Saddam and then left. Bring the soldiers home to their families and let the UN, who has special task forces and commities TRAINED to deal with setting up a FUNCTIONING infrastructure, delivering aid to where it is needed, amd working in tandem with people from the country.

But no... WE are there... And its like a gory Three Stooges Movie that has gone on WAY too long. And the only reason we are there is to protect the interests of the companies that have the rebuilding contracts (I'm not even going to light the oil fuse right now). Companies who many members of the Bush administration have good amount, or even controling stock in, not to mention, good ole-Dick and Haliburton.

This was not a humanitarian action. Call me a cynic, but I feel that no government does any humanitarian actions. Everything done by a country for another country is for political and economical posturing. This was done for economic reasons and economic reasons alone... for example: Remember tiananmen Square? You know the student who stood in front of the line of tanks to stop them, that picture was on every tv and every newspaper's front page around the world. And then massacre that was world wide news as well. All this to stop oppresive rule in China. Where were we, during all this. The call was there. It was loud and clear. Students and citizens were fighting and dying in the streets at the hands of the army. Why didn't we send in doughboys to rectify the situation? There were protests, by citizens, by the thousands all over the globe. But where was the government, in the kind of capacity that we so readily jumped into in Iraq? The answer is we were at home, watching The Cosby Show. Why? We had much more to gain by "liberating" Iraq, than helping a revolution in China. So, where was our boundless humanitarianism then? It wasn't in our wallets, that's for sure.




edit: sorry, I'm sick, so I jitter and thet makes my typing bad...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Subliminalgroove on 2004-05-02 17:18 ]</font>



Other than democracy, what do you think they should have?


Well like you said later, we should wait for the UN to come in and get settled. Well, isnt Bush trying now to get the UN or NATO to come in and take over for America so we can get some forces out?


Why are we there? I really dont care, everyone agrees that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. If Bush and Cheney want to get Zillions out of this(which is what some people think, I dont, but whatever) let them. I or anyone I know wouldnt see a cent of the money anyway. We are there, doesnt matter why. Lets just see Iraq become a good place for honest Iraqis too live.


Going to war with Iraq is alot different then going to war with China. That would have been World War 3 and, China would have allies too, especially back then.

For future possible reference to North Korea:


I think we should take that freak out too, it is going to happen eventually though.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-02 19:09, Dangerous55 wrote:

Other than democracy, what do you think they should have?


that is for them to figure out what works for them. Democracy is a shakey, at best, form of government. Don't get me wrong, I think its great... when it is working.



Well, isnt Bush trying now to get the UN or NATO to come in and take over for America so we can get some forces out?

Too little, too late. And I think that is a political manuvre more than anything else, election year and all. He should have had them come in from the begining. They should have been an integral part of the entire action.



For future possible reference to North Korea:


I think we should take that freak out too, it is going to happen eventually though.



Oh, god! That's gonna be a mess. We KNOW that guy has some ordinance. And he is crazier than Saddam. The thought of that confrontation makes me literally shiver.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-02 19:20, Subliminalgroove wrote:

that is for them to figure out what works for them. Democracy is a shakey, at best, form of government. Don't get me wrong, I think its great... when it is working.

Well I really can't think of anything, but whatever. We both agree democracy is a good thing.




Too little, too late. And I think that is a political manuvre more than anything else, election year and all. He should have had them come in from the begining. They should have been an integral part of the entire action.

It has been a year, I do not think it is too late. Should push for it more though.




Oh, god! That's gonna be a mess. We KNOW that guy has some ordinance. And he is crazier than Saddam. The thought of that confrontation makes me literally shiver.



Yeah, I agree. Something should be done though.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-02 19:24, Dangerous55 wrote:

Yeah, I agree. Something should be done though.



Agreed. But that IS going to take a world effort. And the aftermath is going to be horrendous.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-02 19:27, Subliminalgroove wrote:


Agreed. But that IS going to take a world effort. And the aftermath is going to be horrendous.




IF no nukes were used the United States could defeat them conventionally. We wouldnt be alone though. I kinda think some sort of nuclear weapon would be used, which would suck.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-02 19:30, Dangerous55 wrote:



IF no nukes were used the United States could defeat them conventionally. We wouldnt be alone though. I kinda think some sort of nuclear weapon would be used, which would suck.



That guy's hand is itching to press that button. I think he'd do it while having a cup of tea. I bet if we started attacking him he would just start launching indiscriminatly.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-02 19:32, Subliminalgroove wrote:


That guy's hand is itching to press that button. I think he'd do it while having a cup of tea. I bet if we started attacking him he would just start launching indiscriminatly.




Yeah, our Air Force could be possibly take out the launchers. That isnt 100% though.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-02 19:35, Dangerous55 wrote:



Yeah, our Air Force could be possibly take out the launchers. That isnt 100% though.






All he needs is one to cause a whole lotta hell... And we would have to use our stealth bombers, as missle launches are detectable from space. In which case we would have to synchronize it so each bomb dropped by our bombers hits its target at almost exactly the same time. Otherwise there will be time enough for them to order a launch. IT would be pretty dicey...

[Solstis]

On 2004-05-02 19:35, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2004-05-02 19:32, Subliminalgroove wrote:


That guy's hand is itching to press that button. I think he'd do it while having a cup of tea. I bet if we started attacking him he would just start launching indiscriminatly.




Yeah, our Air Force could be possibly take out the launchers. That isnt 100% though.






Not to mention, even if no nukes were used, there would be year-long street fighting.

People are making Iraq-Vietnam comparisons now, Korea would be much worse.

Though there is no forseeable economic benefit from invading North Korea, so we might just try to use diplomacy.

http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_nono.gif

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-02 19:42, Subliminalgroove wrote:


All he needs is one to cause a whole lotta hell... And we would have to use our stealth bombers, as missle launches are detectable from space. In which case we would have to synchronize it so each bomb dropped by our bombers hits its target at almost exactly the same time. Otherwise there will be time enough for them to order a launch. IT would be pretty dicey...




I don't think there response time is instantaneous, would be very risky. That is the best thing you can say, risky

[Subliminalgroove]

The question is: Is that a risk we are willing to take?

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-02 19:47, Subliminalgroove wrote:
The question is: Is that a risk we are willing to take?



That depends on alot of things I suppose.

Tough choice for whoever is in the White House.

[Subliminalgroove]

On 2004-05-02 19:50, Dangerous55 wrote:

Tough choice for whoever is in the White House.


No arguement there...

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-02 19:51, Subliminalgroove wrote:

No arguement there...




Where?


Bwaha...

[Ness]

On 2004-05-02 19:09, Dangerous55 wrote:
Alright Ness, read it wrong I guess.


Damn right you did. J/K




Other than democracy, what do you think they should have?

We aren't saying that they should not have democracy, we are saying that the choice is not ours to make.


Well like you said later, we should wait for the UN to come in and get settled. Well, isnt Bush trying now to get the UN or NATO to come in and take over for America so we can get some forces out?

You see, this is one thing I don't like about Bush. He will disobey the Un and make a huge mess and then he will come crawling back to them and see if they will clean it up.


Why are we there? I really dont care, everyone agrees that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. If Bush and Cheney want to get Zillions out of this(which is what some people think, I dont, but whatever) let them. I or anyone I know wouldnt see a cent of the money anyway. We are there, doesnt matter why. Lets just see Iraq become a good place for honest Iraqis too live.

I think we should get out of there right now. We removed Saddam from power so i think we should let the Iraqis do everything else.




For future possible reference to North Korea:


I think we should take that freak out too, it is going to happen eventually though.



This time last year I would have agree with you 100%. Now I only agree with you about 75%. Why? Because Seoul is a beautiful city.



On 2004-05-02 18:03, derBauer wrote:


The resistance is coming from fighters sneaking in from other countries and Saddam loyalists. At least 99% of it is.
That being said 99% isn't resisting at all.

Woohoo! More made-up bullshit statistics!

[Dangerous55]

Ness I never said they had to have democracy, but no reason why they wouldnt want it. I don't think you can have a free and open society without it though.


Bush is telling the UN to clear it up, he just wants some help. What country do you think will still be supplying the main amount of men even if the Un comes in?


Saying we should pull out right now is very dumb, we would just be giving another war to fight in future.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-03 13:01, Dangerous55 wrote:
Ness I never said they had to have democracy, but no reason why they wouldnt want it.


I didn't say you did.



I don't think you can have a free and open society without it though.

I agree.


Bush is telling the UN to clear it up, he just wants some help. What country do you think will still be supplying the main amount of men even if the Un comes in?


Ours of course, but if he's willing to start something without the UN, then he should be willing to finish something without them too. Quite honestly, I don't like the UN very much either, but I'll get into that at a later date.



Saying we should pull out right now is very dumb, we would just be giving another war to fight in future.

Oh really? Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion. Sure you could say that leaving them in the ruins of their nation will cause the rise of another tyrant, but you could also say that the sun will explode tomorrow and kill us all.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ness on 2004-05-03 13:30 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-03 13:30, Ness wrote:


Oh really? Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion. Sure you could say that leaving them in the ruins of their nation will cause the rise of another tyrant, but you could also say that the sun will explode tomorrow and kill us all.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ness on 2004-05-03 13:30 ]</font>



History.

What started World War Two? World War One. Had we treated the Germans fairly after WW1 there would have been no WW2(eventually yes, but not THAT WW2).

We should have finished the First Gulf War too, no need for a second one then.


Now look at the American Civil War.
The North treated the South fairly and within 10 years relations were fine.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-03 13:36, Dangerous55 wrote:

History.

What started World War Two? World War One. Had we treated the Germans fairly after WW1 there would have been no WW2(eventually yes, but not THAT WW2).


Actaully, we were the ones trying to be fair with the Germans, it was the French and the British that wanted them so suffer.


We should have finished the First Gulf War too, no need for a second one then.

Agreed.



Now look at the American Civil War.
The North treated the South fairly and within 10 years relations were fine.



Actually, that's only because a president signed an agreemnt that ended the Reconstruction, which flopped bigtime.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-03 13:40, Ness wrote:


Actaully, we were the ones trying to be fair with the Germans, it was the French and the British that wanted them so suffer.

When I say we, I meant the Allies.





Actually, that's only because a president signed an agreemnt that ended the Reconstruction, which flopped bigtime.


No, it is because we didn't treat them as conquered nation. Reconstruction failed for black people, overall it was a success.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2004-05-03 13:52 ]</font>

[derBauer]

Bullshit? The only bullshit is you getting pissed off about that number without thinking. If 1% of Iraqis are resisting, that is 270,000 people we are fighting! Do you really think we are fighting that many people? And many have come from other countries like Syria and Iran to fight.





On 2004-05-03 04:16, Ness wrote:



On 2004-05-02 18:03, derBauer wrote:


The resistance is coming from fighters sneaking in from other countries and Saddam loyalists. At least 99% of it is.
That being said 99% isn't resisting at all.

Woohoo! More made-up bullshit statistics!

[Ness]

On 2004-05-03 14:36, derBauer wrote:

Bullshit? The only bullshit is you getting pissed off about that number without thinking. If 1% of Iraqis are resisting, that is 270,000 people we are fighting! Do you really think we are fighting that many people? And many have come from other countries like Syria and Iran to fight.



I know that people have come from other countries, but that still doesn't change the fact that you made up that statistic. Also, just because 1%, assuming that's true, of all the Iraqis are fighting us doesn't mean that 99% of the resistance comes from other countries.

[derBauer]

I didn't make up the goddam statistic. The fact is that we are fighting much less than 270,000 insurgents therefore the fact is that it is no more than 1% of the populace is resisting.

You continuing to think we are fighting more than 270,000 people in Iraq will now fall under the "bullshit" category. That would be more than 2 people fighting us for every 1 coalition soldier.

The point was not bullshit, made up, or opinion.

[Ness]

On 2004-05-03 17:08, derBauer wrote:

You continuing to think we are fighting more than 270,000 people in Iraq will now fall under the "bullshit" category. That would be more than 2 people fighting us for every 1 coalition soldier.

I was not refuting your claim that 270,000 people were aginst us, I was refuting the percentage of Iraqis in the resistance.

[Subliminalgroove]

The stupidity goes so far beyond just the enlisted men... http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/689932.html THIS would be a nightmare.

[DurakkenX]

one thing to say...The French...They need to fuck off. If it were not for us they would not exist. In fact Europe is almost non existant if america had said anything about them being mostly conquered by Germany and then we beat them...Japan we blew up. Mexico is ours...and Canada...well they just suxorz! *damn bastards winning that insignificant war years ago...*

[BogusKun]

My dad thought the whole thing was funny >.< And he's a retired B.Gen.

"It's wrong... but hilarious... Only the Army would do something that stupid"
-Him
">.<"
-Me

[Shigecki]

On 2004-05-06 06:41, DurakkenX wrote:
one thing to say...The French...They need to fuck off. If it were not for us they would not exist.

Really, if it were not for the French going into dept helping us during our(United States)revolution, we would not be here today. I know that we all want to forget how we got here and what it took, but we do owe the French a lot of thanks for our indepenence.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-06 14:02, Shigecki wrote:

Really, if it were not for the French going into dept helping us during our(United States)revolution, we would not be here today. I know that we all want to forget how we got here and what it took, but we do owe the French a lot of thanks for our indepenence.



They shortened the war, without them I think we still would have won. The situation certainly wasnt hopeless.

[Hrith]

On 2004-05-06 06:41, DurakkenX wrote:
one thing to say...The French...They need to fuck off. If it were not for us they would not exist. In fact Europe is almost non existant if america had said anything about them being mostly conquered by Germany and then we beat them...Japan we blew up. Mexico is ours...and Canada...well they just suxorz! *damn bastards winning that insignificant war years ago...*


http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif
those fools ignorant of a world outside their borders, you amuse me

[lain2k3]

On 2004-05-06 06:41, DurakkenX wrote:
one thing to say...The French...They need to fuck off. If it were not for us they would not exist. In fact Europe is almost non existant if america had said anything about them being mostly conquered by Germany and then we beat them...Japan we blew up. Mexico is ours...and Canada...well they just suxorz! *damn bastards winning that insignificant war years ago...*



Dude, Canada>France>USA>Mexico

[Ness]

On 2004-05-06 14:33, lain2k3 wrote:


Dude, USA>Canada>Japan>Mexico>Hell>France




Fixed it for you.

[PJ]

On 2004-05-06 17:33, Ness wrote:


On 2004-05-06 14:33, lain2k3 wrote:


Dude, USA>Canada>Japan>Mexico>Hell>France




Fixed it for you.



Poor Kef http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif

Mexico's cool, it got Salsa =3 *gets beaten*

Anyways, why are we rating countries now? o_O

[KodiaX987]

On 2004-05-06 06:41, DurakkenX wrote:
and Canada...well they just suxorz! *damn bastards winning that insignificant war years ago...*



We 0wned the White House. I don't think any other country can boast of such a thing. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_bondage.gif

[BogusKun]

On 2004-05-06 17:33, Ness wrote:


On 2004-05-06 14:33, lain2k3 wrote:


Dude, My House>Japan>Mexico>USA>France>Canada>Hell




Fixed it for you.



Updated...

If you wanna see some different pictures view the gallery at...

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=prison+abuse+gallery&page=1&offset=2&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D3 ea5e6cf4aaf7fdc%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery% 3Dprison%2Babuse%2Bgallery%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp %253A%252F%252Fwww.usatoday.com%252Fnews%252Fworld %252Firaq%252F2004-05-03-us-prisoners_x.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPResults%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2F world%2Firaq%2F2004-05-03-us-prisoners_x.htm

[Dangerous55]

Oh gee, who would have guessed. Someone put JAPAN at the top!

[BogusKun]

My House> Japan

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-05-07 12:45, BogusKun wrote:
My House> Japan




Your house isnt a country.


Or is it....

[Uncle_bob]

They all suck.

[Bradicus]

On 2004-05-06 17:57, KodiaX987 wrote:


On 2004-05-06 06:41, DurakkenX wrote:
and Canada...well they just suxorz! *damn bastards winning that insignificant war years ago...*



We 0wned the White House. I don't think any other country can boast of such a thing. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_bondage.gif


We're sneaky that way.