Breaking News: WMDs found in Iraq

What the hell are you going to do with 850 Georgian troops, or 863 Romanian troops.

Thanks for dissing on troops who want to defend liberty.

It's like when the Junior Senator from Massachusetts would whine about harming relations with other countries, then went on in the next sentence to diss over half the Coalition as worthless. Back when people cared what he had to say that is.

They may not have the capabilities but they want to help a cause they find just. It's like when Germany had to rent old abandoned rusted planes from the Ukrainian airfields just to participate in Afghanistan.

Actually, let's get some more from the idiot, who quotes an actor:

As Jon Stewart put it,

Stem Cell research is looked at as bad by many of the same people who support the Iraq War. The reason stem cell research is bad is because it takes innocent lives to save lives. The Iraq war is good though, because it takes innocent lives to save lives.

The war is a very unneccessary war. When the entire world tells you not to do it (Except the UK who will stand by the US even if they invaded Canada) you should probably listen.

We had a chance to solve the Saddam problem as a planet, as a world, but we decided to do it on our own and kill 40,000 innocent civilians.

There are differences. Abortion targets innocents. Terrorism targets innocents. I'm indifferent on stem cell research, but you could say it targets innocents as well.

The American military targets "insurgents" and had targeted the regime. Yes, innocents may be harmed, but they are not the targets.

An unneccessary war? You must have skipped my posts...I'll restate some things so you'll get it this time.

If I boast that I have three guns on me, I drop one you find that doesn't work, I claim I destroyed the other two but you have no proof I did. Also, I've attacked you and others before, taken potshots at you for twelve years, and been hanging out with others who want to harm you. Are you going to take me at my word, consider me not a threat and turn your back on me?

...

-Saddam supported and harbored terrorist groups and individual terrorists. His fingerprints were all over the first WTC bombing and Project Bojinka.
-Saddam had in the past had WMD programs, and evidence shows he continued to keep those programs, ready to restart them once sanctions (that he violated anyway) were lifted.
-Saddam invaded two of his neighbors.
-Saddam massacred, tortured, raped and was a jerk to his own citizens. Don't forget his draining of the heart of mesopotamia.
-Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions instead of simply comply with the requirement that he show proof that he ended and destroyed his WMD programs. If he had shown that he did it, he would've stayed in power, as the rest of the world didn't give a shit about anything he did except WMD programs.
-Saddam facilitated the worst scandal in world history with his dealings in the Oil-For-Food program.
-Saddam wore fedoras with an ugly mustache, a terrible fashion faux pas.

Starting the war was necessary to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Finishing the war was necessary to put an end to the regime.

I like how you point to the "entire world" saying no, and how we could've solved it as "a planet." Which just proves your ignorance of the entire situation. Many people in the UN and the world were profiting off Saddam at a personal level. The world's "solution" was to end sanctions, allowing Saddam to bring in more money, more terrorists and restart his weapons programs.

Did you miss when "the world" sat down under the auspice of the UN, found Saddam in violation for a 17th time and approved of enforcing the resolutions. (I.E. removing his regime)

I don't see how it's the United States fault that most of the rest of the world decided not to enforce it's own resolutions. Their lack of spine should not be a blemish on our record.

Let's give you, a disgusting person who thinks US troops have killed 40,000 innocents, when it's been terrorists who have done probably 95% of the killing and if the troops have killed innocents it's been accidents, not intentional. Let's give you the power of the world. What would have your solution been with Saddam. Make sure to read the quote above about the bad things he's done. Because we can really see whether or not your opinions are viable and should be paid attention to based on if you're going to remove or leave a murderous tyrant in power. It'll speak to your character.

Now for someone who at least seems smarter...

ok then why did the Bush administration repeatedly state that Saddam had WMDs in 2003?

Why did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. al. state the same thing for over a decade? Why did France, Britian, the UN as a whole, etc. state the same thing for over a decade?

Because Saddam gave every indication that he possessed them. And the programs to produce them.

I could go into a long debate on Haliburton and oil in Iraq, but I want to keep from doing that.

Because it would make you look like a fool. And a nutcase.

I think what we are doing in Iraq is right to a certain extent. To me, after Sept. 11th, it seems like America has been on a crusade against anything that's "Middle Eastern" or "Arab" or "Muslim", and I don't tihnk it's right for us to go to Iraq and force a democracy and tell them how to live their lives. If we want to keep the peace, that's fine, but we should stick to being peacekeepers

Forcing a democracy is because of the notion that a democracy is the best way to protect liberty. One can argue that point endlessly, but restoring and protecting liberalism in the Muslim world is most important to drying the swamp. Regimes that support terror (Hussein, Assad, The Mullahs, Saudis...in the olden days, the Soviets) are also ones that restrict liberalism.

Global terrorism stems almost exclusively from Muslim groups. (And envirofascists...just to be fair to them.) Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? Clearly not, 98+% probably just want to go about their day, they want food on the table, shelter, safety, etc.

There are only two viable options, one is carpet bombing the Middle East. The other is pushing for liberalism, which if need be, includes assisting in the removal of non-liberal regimes.

If you want to end, or even slow terrorism you have to be pro-active. Are you all not in favor of combating terrorism?

You can't do it defensively. A British embassy is the perfect example of this. They were attacked, so they built a gate, the next time, terrorists rammed through it. So they reinforced it and built a tall fence. Terrorists just threw grenades over the fence. Because of the nature of terrorism, especially suicide terrorism, you cannot just defend against it.

Kill the roots, the tree withers.

As for "peacekeepers" I hope you don't invision it as UN style. Because I'd really hate to see that...

Great post benji

This shit's disgusting. I'm going to go make my own political thread. The topic: Gay Marriage.

Who's coming with me?!

You think it's disgusting that people are discussing war and the discovery of WMD's that people like you criticised George Bush for entering Iraq when they didn't find them? You're nothing more than a pseudo intellectual.

This shit's disgusting. I'm going to go make my own political thread. The topic: Gay Marriage.

Who's coming with me?!

You think it's disgusting that people are discussing war and the discovery of WMD's that people like you criticised George Bush for entering Iraq when they didn't find them? You're nothing more than a pseudo intellectual.

Most of the time you attack a Country when you are 100% sure they have weapons and they have motive to use them against you. They had neither at the time and thats something you really cant guess about. Bush is a vengeful person and im sure the war started because of his personal vendetta. Bush's father was almost killed by Saddam. I find it funny when bush realizes what a bad job he has been doing in Iraq and scapegoats his problems to get the attention off of the war ie.Gay marriage, going to Mars, Illegal Immigrants. You can flame away because you guys are to stubborn to realize im right or at least have some very valid points. End of story.

Most of the time you attack a Country when you are 100% sure they have weapons and they have motive to use them against you. They had neither at the time and thats something you really cant guess about. Bush is a vengeful person and im sure the war started because of his personal vendetta. Bush's father was almost killed by Saddam. I find it funny when bush realizes what a bad job he has been doing in Iraq and scapegoats his problems to get the attention off of the war ie.Gay marriage, going to Mars, Illegal Immigrants. You can flame away because you guys are to stubborn to realize im right or at least have some very valid points. End of story.

Congress passed 17 reasons to go to war with Iraq and WMD's were only one of those. The United Nations agreed with us that Iraq was a threat to the region and that they had nuclear and chemical capabilities. Numerous countries gave out intelligence reports supporting these claims. It wasn't just America who thought Iraq had something to hide, which they did, and at the time it was enough proof.

Plus, I don't know about you but if there is a guy who is torturing, murdering and raping his own people because they speak up against him and his laws then I think he should be taken out. Every human deserves the chance to live free and have a choice. Saddam was a threat to his people, his neighboring countries and in a few years maybe even the rest of the world. I'm glad he is out of power and I'm proud to say my country is helping liberate millions and millions of oppressed people.

Aren't human rights worth fighting for?

Breaking News: WMDs found in Iraq

Breaking news? I thought WMD's were there a long time ago

u want reasons for war on irak? im introducing to u the...

top3 of international terrorism:

2001 - #1- Al-Qaeda (9/11 strike)
#2- Israeli government (selective assasinations, civilians killed often)
#3- Hamas (some strikes against civilians, guerrilla&terrorist war)

2003 - #1- Al-Qaeda (New York, Madrid strikes)
#2- Israeli government (selective assasinations, civilians killed often)
#3- American government(Irak invasion, no MDWs)

2006 - #1- Israeli government (selective assasinations, civilians killed most every day, the wall, using top notch armies to counter pathetic people with stones and home made short range rockets)
#2- American government (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Irak invasion, no MDWs, civilians killed by marines every week, ure improvin a lot!)
#3- Al-Qaeda (New York, Madrid, London strikes, no much improvement)

if u yanks keep workin this way u will achieve #1 soon. i think this is this war about.

Most of the time you attack a Country when you are 100% sure they have weapons and they have motive to use them against you. They had neither at the time and thats something you really cant guess about. Bush is a vengeful person and im sure the war started because of his personal vendetta. Bush's father was almost killed by Saddam. I find it funny when bush realizes what a bad job he has been doing in Iraq and scapegoats his problems to get the attention off of the war ie.Gay marriage, going to Mars, Illegal Immigrants. You can flame away because you guys are to stubborn to realize im right or at least have some very valid points. End of story.

Congress passed 17 reasons to go to war with Iraq and WMD's were only one of those. The United Nations agreed with us that Iraq was a threat to the region and that they had nuclear and chemical capabilities. Numerous countries gave out intelligence reports supporting these claims. It wasn't just America who thought Iraq had something to hide, which they did, and at the time it was enough proof.

Plus, I don't know about you but if there is a guy who is torturing, murdering and raping his own people because they speak up against him and his laws then I think he should be taken out. Every human deserves the chance to live free and have a choice. Saddam was a threat to his people, his neighboring countries and in a few years maybe even the rest of the world. I'm glad he is out of power and I'm proud to say my country is helping liberate millions and millions of oppressed people.

Aren't human rights worth fighting for?

Thats his way of doing things. Why should we be the police? If there people were so oppressed then there would have been a revolution already. I say let them resolve there own problems and stop the U.S from starting so much shit with everyone. What are we still fighting for if Saddam is already gone? THEY WANT THERE OWN GOV'T.

Thats his way of doing things. Why should we be the police?

We are the most powerful nation on the face of this planet and we are the prime example of freedom. We have a responsiblity to protect human rights. I wish more countries would stand up but if they don't so what? Do you think people deserve to die and be tortured for the simple reason that they disagree with their leader? If there is one thing that pisses me off it's violating human rights. There are a lot of innocent lives being slaughtered across the globe. I wish we could help them all but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

If there people were so oppressed then there would have been a revolution already.

It's hard to have a revolution when you are dirt poor and completely out armed and gunned. There was an attempt to kill Saddam near this one town so Saddam and his troops marched into the town and murdered thousands of innocent lives and turned much of their city into an air base. He also cuts off supplies like food and oil if you disobey him. If you stand up against him you will die and your town will suffer.

I say let them resolve there own problems and stop the U.S from starting so much shit with everyone.

If you were getting bullied and pushed around and beat up wouldn't you want the toughest, biggest kid on the block to come and help you out? Or would prefer to have him watch and have you get beat the cement over and over again?

What are we still fighting for if Saddam is already gone? THEY WANT THERE OWN GOV'T.

People who say this obviously have no clue about what the War in Iraq truely is. We beat Saddam and his army and now we are policing the country. The Iraqi's want their own government? That's nice and that's why WE ARE GIVING THEM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. The Iraqi's are in control of their country. We are there to help train the army and their police force and help patrol the streets. There are a lot of insergents out there still that we have to catch. The Iraqi's aren't ready to stand on their own yet but they are getting there thanks to America and our allies.

u talk bout dfendind the same human rights ure violitin with ur illegal prisons and ur killer-marines? u dont have a clue bout this, have u?

u talk bout dfendind the same human rights ure violitin with ur illegal prisons and ur killer-marines? u dont have a clue bout this, have u?

Yes, we have "killer-marines". So because a few marines committing war crimes that makes them all bad? I suppose I can get by with saying all Muslims are terrorists and black people are criminals than too, right?

Honestly, shut the fuck up.

oh i get now. if a little group of marines dfenders of freedom an human rights do something bad we cannot blame them all.i suppose ur government made a little mistake with all those people in Guantanamo, and the CIA covert prisons in Europe with all that people abducted, and another little mistake in Abu Ghraib. what happenned ther?
can i blame government then? then whos the blame, only a few politicians?

Honestly, shut the fuck up.

o yea man, thats the way yanks do the thing, i love it! tell me to shut up, order me, aye sir, im fuckin inferior to u master, beat me, i like it.

honestly kid, better u shut the fuck up. u dont have any idea of the world. the things u say r just shitty policy from brainless patriots. take ur "freedom" and "help" for urselves and let countries resolve their own problems. people just have what they deserve. war is not fun. grow up.

Thats his way of doing things. Why should we be the police? If there people were so oppressed then there would have been a revolution already. I say let them resolve there own problems and stop the U.S from starting so much shit with everyone. What are we still fighting for if Saddam is already gone? THEY WANT THERE OWN GOV'T.

The U.S. is world police because they're the most powerful country in the world, as Riot said. For the 3 and a half centuries Great Britain was the dominant world power, they were the "world police". After WW2, the reigns were handed over to their strongest colony; the U.S. This concept of world police is nothing new.

The reason a revolution would be nearly impossibly in Iraq is because of all the division among the people. You have three groups of people who all have differing viewpoints; Shiite Muslims, Sunnis, and Kurds.

And as Riot said, the US is trying to establish a government in Iraq, but the troops can't just pullout with the place in ruins.

Riot, don't use profanity

oh i get now. if a little group of marines dfenders of freedom an human rights do something bad we cannot blame them all.i suppose ur government made a little mistake with all those people in Guantanamo, and the CIA covert prisons in Europe with all that people abducted, and another little mistake in Abu Ghraib. what happenned ther?
can i blame government then? then whos the blame, only a few politicians?

Honestly, shut the fuck up.

o yea man, thats the way yanks do the thing, i love it! tell me to shut up, order me, aye sir, im fuckin inferior to u master, beat me, i like it.

honestly kid, better u shut the fuck up. u dont have any idea of the world. the things u say r just shitty policy from brainless patriots. take ur "freedom" and "help" for urselves and let countries resolve their own problems. people just have what they deserve. war is not fun. grow up.

Yes, you are absoutely right. You know what? Thanks your enlightening me on so many things. I think I just might go and attack the White House and live an anti-american lifestyle. God damn it, you really changed my life young man.

You're not going to change Riot's mind no matter what we say. We could show him a video of George Bush saying "I am a horrible person and the War in Iraq was a big mistake" and he wouldnt change his mind.

War is never, ever a good thing. Innocent people always die, and people should take every measure they can to avoid it. Going to war with one of the main reasons being that Saddam had WMD's and he was going to use them against people and become a threat to the US, and then having it turn out that those things werent true, is a bad thing.

We jumped the gun on this one.

You're not going to change Riot's mind no matter what we say. We could show him a video of George Bush saying "I am a horrible person and the War in Iraq was a big mistake" and he wouldnt change his mind.

War is never, ever a good thing. Innocent people always die, and people should take every measure they can to avoid it. Going to war with one of the main reasons being that Saddam had WMD's and he was going to use them against people and become a threat to the US, and then having it turn out that those things werent true, is a bad thing.

We jumped the gun on this one.

Well you are right that innocent people dying is back. However you are wrong about the whole jumping the gun and things not being true. We should have taken Saddam out 15 years ago...I would hardly say we jumped the gun.

2006 - #1- Israeli government (selective assasinations, civilians killed most every day, the wall, using top notch armies to counter pathetic people with stones and home made short range rockets)
#2- American government (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Irak invasion, no MDWs, civilians killed by marines every week, ure improvin a lot!)

So a prison where terrorists are treated better than 95% of the world and an isolated incident by a handful of people are "international terrorism"?

I think you need to look at the definition of "international terrorism" before you keep climbing towards 50 diseased posts.

Claiming the Israelis and US Marines are targeting civilians... You'd probably lament the death of Osama bin Laden. And probably lamented the death of Arafat.

What are we still fighting for if Saddam is already gone? THEY WANT THERE OWN GOV'T.

It's called assisting that government in eradicating the "insurgents" that wish to bring the government down.

If there people were so oppressed then there would have been a revolution already

I guess you don't understand the concept of oppression. And the attempted genocide of the Kurds. Do you have any historical references of revolutions? They never come against strong governments that have strangleholds on a people, they come against weak ones that are diverted elsewhere.

if a little group of marines dfenders of freedom an human rights do something bad we cannot blame them all.i suppose ur government made a little mistake with all those people in Guantanamo, and the CIA covert prisons in Europe

Well, I don't blame the entire forum for your eye-vomit causing posts. As for those last two things, those aren't mistakes, those are totally hot and sexy.

honestly kid, better u shut the fuck up. u dont have any idea of the world. the things u say r just shitty policy from brainless patriots.

Riot, may not have any idea of the world, but neither do you. And for all his faults, he at least doesn't have posts that's grammar and maturity levels resemble a heart broken (by her Uncle Gary) nine year old girl.

We could show him a video of George Bush saying "I am a horrible person and the War in Iraq was a big mistake" and he wouldnt change his mind.

Why should that change anyone's mind? Neither George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush's opinion justifies finishing the war in Iraq either way.

Going to war with one of the main reasons being that Saddam had WMD's and he was going to use them against people and become a threat to the US, and then having it turn out that those things werent true, is a bad thing.

We jumped the gun on this one.

You can't say that "[wasn't] true" because it can't be proven either way. As I've said what seems like a hundred fucking times in this thread, Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs as soon as sanctions were lifted. Had the Bush administration not pushed for enforcement of the UN resolutions the sanctions would've been lifted. Saddam would've reacquired WMDs, provided them to terrorists and iniated further attacks.

And you still didn't answer my question. What the hell would you have done? Waited until Saddam acquired further WMDs, let him attack, and then invaded to finally end the decade long war?

If we jumped the gun, what should've been done! Do you keep "negotiating" with someone who has not participated, misled, and gone behind backs for twelve years? What do you do?

And how, do you, as a humantarian, or a liberal (if you consider yourself either) leave someone who's butchered, tortured, raped, pillaged against his own people? Someone who drained the heart of Mesopotamia. Someone who tried to exterminate an entire race of people. Do you allow him to continue to do this?

If so, were you opposed to intervention in the Balkins? In Africa? Were you opposed to removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991?

And what would you do regarding Iran currently? A far more imminent threat. I mean, should I start calling you Neville?

As I've said what seems like a hundred fucking times in this thread, Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs as soon as sanctions were lifted. Had the Bush administration not pushed for enforcement of the UN resolutions the sanctions would've been lifted. Saddam would've reacquired WMDs, provided them to terrorists and iniated further attacks.

Yes, it is true that one of the reasons we went in was because our intelligence said he had intentions of gaining more WMD's, but a bigger
reason is because we believed he had them. How many videos do you want me to find that have Cheney or any other Whitehouse member saying "We believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction"?

And you still didn't answer my question. What the hell would you have done? Waited until Saddam acquired further WMDs, let him attack, and then invaded to finally end the decade long war?

I would have made sure he actually had WMD's before invading

If we jumped the gun, what should've been done! Do you keep "negotiating" with someone who has not participated, misled, and gone behind backs for twelve years? What do you do?

You must take every measure possible to avoid war. I think everyone, including myself, supported the idea of getting rid of Saddam. He is an evil man, but I did not support starting a war over that. There are many people who have done much worse things than Saddam that we havent gone to war against. Should we have invaded the USSR to get rid of Stalin? Should we have invaded China because countless millions have died there? Where does one draw the line?

And what would you do regarding Iran currently? A far more imminent threat.

I would not Invade Iran. It is a more immenant threat. Why havent we invaded Iran to stop them from using their WMD's. Why not Korea? Why did we have to start a war in Iraq when there seem to be similar problems in these nations where we dont have to start a war?

How many videos do you want me to find that have Cheney or any other Whitehouse member saying "We believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction"?

What does that have to do with anything? Saddam wanted the world to believe he possessed WMDs, not just the programs to produce them. That's why Bill Clinton and Al Gore said the same thing for eight years. That's why John Kerry and the UN said the same thing for twelve years.

I would have made sure he actually had WMD's before invading

And how would you do that? By asking him? And if he said no, you'd believe him?

And WMDs is all you care about? Not his terror ties?

I think everyone, including myself, supported the idea of getting rid of Saddam.

So you're only a fairweather liberal? You wanted rid of Saddam, but didn't want to do anything to advance that beyond an idea.

There are many people who have done much worse things than Saddam that we havent gone to war against. Should we have invaded the USSR to get rid of Stalin? Should we have invaded China because countless millions have died there? Where does one draw the line?

At logical and strategic operations. Invading the Soviet Union in the past, and invading China at anytime is not a rational plan. Removing the Hussein regime is something that could be done. Combining Saddam's domestic terror with his association with global terror, in the wake of 9/11, left a state in which leaving him in power was too big of a risk to allow.

I would not Invade Iran.

Then how will you prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons? How will you dry up that terrorist swamp?

Why havent we invaded Iran to stop them from using their WMD's. Why not Korea?

The first one is a very distressing question. The second one, is because they already have the nuke and would attempt to kill 20 million by dropping one on Seoul in response. Of course, it's easy to wait out North Korea, as China is a major deterrent, and the country is starving with a dying leader.

Iran is different, it is not deterred by Israel or India, the two local powers. It is not deterred by us, because it doesn't think we'll invade.

Iran cannot be handled rationally. It's demands are this: Let us acquire nuclear weapons or we'll acquire nuclear weapons.

It's also fighting undeclared war in Iraq, and has been the spawn point of Islamic terrorism for nearly three decades.

How many videos do you want me to find that have Cheney or any other Whitehouse member saying "We believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction"?

What does that have to do with anything? Saddam wanted the world to believe he possessed WMDs, not just the programs to produce them. That's why Bill Clinton and Al Gore said the same thing for eight years. That's why John Kerry and the UN said the same thing for twelve years.

What it has to do with is the fact that our leaders said that one of the main reasons we should invade Iraq is because Saddam had WMD's.

oh i get now. if a little group of marines dfenders of freedom an human rights do something bad we cannot blame them all.i suppose ur government made a little mistake with all those people in Guantanamo, and the CIA covert prisons in Europe with all that people abducted, and another little mistake in Abu Ghraib. what happenned ther?
can i blame government then? then whos the blame, only a few politicians?

Honestly, shut the fuck up.

o yea man, thats the way yanks do the thing, i love it! tell me to shut up, order me, aye sir, im fuckin inferior to u master, beat me, i like it.

honestly kid, better u shut the fuck up. u dont have any idea of the world. the things u say r just shitty policy from brainless patriots. take ur "freedom" and "help" for urselves and let countries resolve their own problems. people just have what they deserve. war is not fun. grow up.

Yes, you are absoutely right. You know what? Thanks your enlightening me on so many things. I think I just might go and attack the White House and live an anti-american lifestyle. God damn it, you really changed my life young man.

Young man? Your 17 arent you, you little prick? How can you say were so righteous when we treat our dogs better than people in other countries and the homeless in our own. Just turn a blind eye and sing yankee doodle dandy. Just because you love something dosnt make it the best or righteous.

Young man? Your 17 arent you, you little prick? How can you say were so righteous when we treat our dogs better than people in other countries and the homeless in our own. Just turn a blind eye and sing yankee doodle dandy. Just because you love something dosnt make it the best or righteous.

So people get upset when we don't give terrorists 3 meals a day and 7 fresh virgins a week? Who gives a flying fuck? These are the same guys who are beheading our soldiers and innocent civilians and putting them on the internet. The same guys who are making pipebombs and other IEDs and placing them in busy markets and on the side of highways.

It amazes me how people get outraged over the littlest things when Americans do something wrong but when the terrorists do something it doesn't get any publicity. You know those two soldiers who were kidnapped in Iraq? They were treated A LOT worse than anything we've done. In fact, their testicles were cut off, their hearts were cut out of their bodies and their penis' were cut off and stuffed into their own mouths. I don't hear anything being mentioned about getting those guys brought to justice. But if one guy says that a few soldiers might be sleep depriving a suspected terrorist then there is a world uproar.

You know what? I don't give a fuck. Most of you guys don't even realize that POWs being held by Americans are treated better sometimes than our own fucking troops. We are losing a lot of guys over there so I don't care how they get information out of these guys as long as they get out of them, quite honestly. Even though the "torture" that these guys are going under is in fact not even close to torture. Those two U.S. Troops were tortured and murdered, cold-blooded. Yeah...we're treating them so bad.

do u really believe war on irak is a matter of "freedom" or dfense of "human rights"? do u really think the states r playin the role of the big fellow kickin bad guys asses who were botherin ur little friend? do u really believe u r the "international police"? who the hell gave u that "job" at first? do u really believe this is a personal "vendetta" of the Bush family against Saddam? do u really believe this world is all bout the party of "good" guys fightin the party of "evil" guys like the shit religion talks all the time bout the fightin of good an evil, darknes and light? who has the right to decide whos "good" or "evil" anyway? do u know how many countries in this world have governments with "evil" people? i know a lot in africa. what the hell are doin the states for "freedom" or "human rights" in those countries? nothin, coz they dont have any profitable interests there, or if they have, they r already there backed by those pro-american "evil" governments. u dont know nothin. so stop writing idiotic things bout good intentions self-protection and more. wake up and just get ur fuckin eyes open. the invasion of irak is bout takin control over the oil, bout stablishin american bases in a strategic hot zone, bout eliminatin an enemy of israel, bout improvin american economy reativatin war industry, bout startin biznes with the american enterprises who have got his feet in there since the invasion, bout changing an anti-american government for a pro-american one... resumin, this is all bout the most important thing in capitalist world: MONEY. if u live in "pussyland" thinkin love and good intentions moves the world u r fools or just as blind as moles. MONEY moves the real world. if u cant understand this then u r nothin better than walkin meatbags.

PD: Riot, if u really believe that "supposed" terrorists in that illegal prisons live like "kings", then do a terrorist act and go live there like a "king".

Benji: im not an english natural speaker if u wanna know, so if u think i have a very bad grammar then show me ur dominion of german or french languages f.e. mr. smarty pants.

Well you're an idiot mercyless and yes I do believe we are out there for good. We do have troops fighting in Africa, as well.

o yea man, thats the way yanks do the thing, i love it! tell me to shut up, order me, aye sir, im fuckin inferior to u master, beat me, i like it.

LOL Imagine his german accent saying this and you gotta appreciate this guy's liberal enthusiasm.