Sign in to follow this  
[FF5]Knix

I get dibs on his cave!

Recommended Posts

:-" Ding, dong, the bastard's gone, ding, dong, the wicked bastard's gone! :-"

 

Thank God for 500 lb bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only time I can remember reacting to the news of a person's death with a contented "yay!". Good news for the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao. Nothing like some 20/20 hindsight eh Goo-boy? There are a littany of cases for leaders all over the world, where leaders of every country...shoulda done this, or coulda done that. We don't know what this situations were at hand at the time this is going down. So a couple of disgruntled people with contact to the President at one time, want to toss around accusations of GWB dropping the ball eh? Please get in line boys, but you may have to wait as the BS line is mighty loooong in goverment.

 

Bottom line this guy tried to F*ck with the bull....and we gave him the horns. :)

 

I know you are probably all depressed with the loss of this poor soul, as you can't use "Why is he still alive?". Don't worry bud, you'll find something else to point out how poor the US is doing in one thing or another right?

 

Smoked Terrorists...

 

IPB Image

IPB ImageIPB ImageIPB Image

 

Terrorists who are carefull not to drop the soap in the shower....

 

IPB ImageIPB ImageIPB Image

 

Oh yeah...and this guy...

 

IPB Image

 

 

Yes so we say

 

 

And finally for those of you scoring at home...

 

This list needs a little updating after today ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What a joke! Even if those numbers weren't ridiculously inflated, Saddam used to kill that many before breakfast, and no one made any freaking websites lamenting it.

 

Sonic Goo' date='Jun 8 2006, 03:23 PM' post='59600']

So... why the pic of the guy who let him go in the first place?

 

 

OK, according to that story, there were WMDs in Iraq. Are you ready to take back all the crap your side has said to the contrary the last 3 years, or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knix' date='Jun 8 2006, 04:36 PM' post='59602']

 

 

Oh yeah...and this guy...

 

IPB Image

Yes so we say

 

 

Saddam called, and asked that we please use this publicity photo instead:

 

IPB Image

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but sometimes you, guys, just crack me up. Not that I don't take the death of that bastard as a vistory, don't misunderstand me. But waving THIS as some kind of justification for the whole lotta mess that's still going on in Irak is kinda poor. Trying to shove it into Goo's arse is even more childish. Who would consider the loss of people like this guy as a defeat for peace?? Sure, it's one, little, victory. There is more to do than to show photos of dead people. What we'd love to see is promises taken seriously, which would mean a rebuilt nation.

 

Do you forget so easily that this was the original justification for the loss of your troops?

 

For you Indie, I would say that maintaining a laboratory and being able to strike with effective weapons of mass destruction are two different things. But, the main point is that you seem to consider Al Qaida as part of the pre-occuaption regime, which is wrong. I don't say that terrorist groups didn't try to develop bacteriologic weapons, I just say that until you'll show me the proof that it was supported by the pro-Saddam Iraqi regime, I will consider it as terrorism but not as an attempt to build a country's defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I remind you, Indie, that for the last 3 years, there were more prooves of the ABSENCE of WMDs in Irak than prooves of their PRESENCE? Despite the multiple, independent studies that were made here and there, you choose to consider that the last one was, definetely, the one and only?

 

 

You completely missed my point, Gen. Goo proved himself a hippocrite, and I was pointing it out. The left just rants and rants "Bush lied, Bush lied, no WMDs!" Fine, we've been over that -- the entire freaking world was 100% certain Iraq had WMDs. Bush did not come up with that idea. Anyway, how can a big lefty cite a URL that talks about WMDs *being* in Iraq prior to the war just because it suits his fancy on some other topic? So I replied -- if he counts the source as credible, that must mean he believes in Iraqi WMDs now, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Indie, I edited my post while you quoted it. I didn't read the whiole story before that. But, no, contrary to what you say, 100% of the world didn't KNOW that the Iraqi regime had WDS. We're still waiting for a solid proof. And, as I said above, you're talking about the government while this article is about terrorist movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two different things here. Terrorism, which this was supposed to be about and which was completely glossed over and WMDs which this was supposed to be about but which still haven't shown up. The war in Iraq was supposed to be about the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to have, not the WMDs that some (then) smalltime terrorist, completely unrelated to Saddam, in the US controlled no fly zone was working on. One was a problem that didn't exist, the other was one that did and should've been handled.

 

All this will prove is that Iraq was not about terrorism and is not about terrorism. The trouble in Iraq is not being cause by bogeyman Zarqawi and the few percent of the insurgency he represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news gets even better! Zarqawi didn't die in the bombing, he was alive when Iraqi soldiers got him and put him on a stretcher to take to the hospital. That's when a humvee of US troops arrived and the guy actually tried to roll off the stretcher with a mortal wound in an attempt to escape he was so freaked out. He didn't, of course, and died a short time later. No matter what you want to argue about in regards to politics, I think most agree this is one man who certainly deserved to be eliminated from the face of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I think most agree this is one man who certainly deserved to be eliminated from the face of the earth.

 

 

Sorry, Bella, but I doubt Goo will agree with that. After all -- "The trouble in Iraq is not being cause by bogeyman Zarqawi..." poor old Zarq was just a misunderstood scamp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would certainly hope folks from both the right and the wrong (:P) side of the political spectrum can agree that al-Zarqawi has long been intentionally and successfully stirring the pot of brewing civil war in Iraq. While I fear that the catalyst al-Zarqawi is no longer needed to keep the secterian violence going, his death can only help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goo even though I am used to your American hating, rebel supporting bluster, your last post takes the cake. It's like you are a impudent child running around the room yelling LALALALALA, with your hands over your ears, while your Mother tells you its time to go to bed...

 

Sonic Goo' date='Jun 9 2006, 02:59 AM' post='59611']

There are two different things here. Terrorism, which this was supposed to be about and which was completely glossed over and WMDs which this was supposed to be about but which still haven't shown up. The war in Iraq was supposed to be about the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to have, not the WMDs that some (then) smalltime terrorist, completely unrelated to Saddam, in the US controlled no fly zone was working on. One was a problem that didn't exist, the other was one that did and should've been handled.

 

All this will prove is that Iraq was not about terrorism and is not about terrorism. The trouble in Iraq is not being cause by bogeyman Zarqawi and the few percent of the insurgency he represented.

 

Tell that to Nick Berg's family...

 

Here is some back ground about him...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg

 

 

And here is what Zarqawi PERSONALY did to him...

 

http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/religionofpeace.jpg

 

Any more of your wisdom for us unenlightened Goo?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it sure didn't take long for the Dems to change the focus to something that suits them better...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...41042-9038r.htm

 

"Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war."

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."

 

Gag me with a spoon! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good that the evil guy died, that is true.

 

I guess it must just be hard for normal, decent, hardworking people to imagine there is anything motivating the political elite other than the desire to do good. But before any of you waste one more breath on me let me assure you that I am done with political discussions in forums before I even get started. I would rather go try to sell broadband to the Amish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush (and those who identify with his cause) taking credit for this is like someone setting your house on fire, then putting it out and expecting you to be grateful.

 

By saying that Zarqawi wasn't responsible for the trouble in Iraq I was just stating a fact - that he and his followers comprise only a very small percentage of all the criminals walking around there. I do not sympathise with Zarqawi or his cause (incredible you have to actually spell that out), in fact those who prefer to focus on small photogenetic successes and ignore the big structural problems are the ones who are helping the terrorist cause. I am for a democratic Iraq which respects human rights - but the reality on the ground is that Iraq is no closer to that now than it was a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to make it short, I agree with both points made up there ^^^^^^

 

Once more, saying that you disagree with one side is not like saying that you support the other one, Knix. We have the right to disagree with both, hopefuly!

 

Here's my opinion, I don't expect it to be taken as "the Truth", it's just a subjective point of view like others :

 

- The occupation of Iraq "woke up" terrorist cells and raised, among the population, mixed emotions made of hate toward the USA, nationalist pride, anti-occidental thoughts, and religious extremism. There used to be a good soil for those seeds to grow on, sure. But war accelerated the process.

 

- These cells, although related to Al-Qaida, were apparently not related to, nor financed by the former Iraqi government. Contrary to what was the case in Afghanistan, for example. i.e., this is why there still are french troops in afghanistan and not in Iraq : evidences of a corelation on one side, no real evidence on the other.

 

- Now, do I support such actions from the US troops? Yes. Now that they're in Iraq, cleaning the place is definitely one good thing to do. But I won't take such victories as a justification for going there first place. Small commandos or air strikes could have done this better, with less human casualties among your troops and among the civilian population.

 

- As for what makes our points of view diverge from the start, allow me to sum up : I'm part of the people who believe that the UNO should have taken care of the job. Saddam Hussein accepted visits from the inspectors, opening all suspect sites in order to avoid american occupation. No-one even had the time to go there before the occupation started... Well, I don't believe that the UNO is some kind of universal solution. They lack the power, sometimes the money, etc, and I have no proof that they'd have done better than the US.

BUT : It's (the UNO) supposed to act as some global authority for countries that are part of the Security Counsil. Going to war without the majority's conscent was a mistake, as it showed the whole world that the Bush administration didn't really want to try peaceful alternatives. That's where the anti-american feeling that inflated in the Middle-East comes from.

 

- What I regret now is not the death of one bad guy, I do regret the loss of many innocents : young american troopers, Iraqi civilians, journalists or other occidental people captured and killed by terrorist cells, etc.

 

- About this very point, there's another confusion running between the few identified terrorist cells that actually captured and killed people and independent groups of people that did the same for money. Since the Iraqi economy is down in flames, no wonder why it's dangerous for any occidental to wander the streets even by day. Most cases of abductions were not related to active terrorist cells, and abduction is different from terrorism. I know, it's just a matter of words, but I'm tired of reading "terrorist" every two lines in some posts. So, let's try to clear things up a bit : abduction can be a terrorist activity if performed by an identified terrorist cell. Otherwise, and even if the person abducted is threatened physically, it's just a case of... abduction. For example, this is a "traditionnal" mafiosi activity, and as far as I'm concerned, I rarely heard about cases in the which mafiosi were compared to terrorists. Sometimes the methods are the same, but the goals are different.

 

I now : LOOONG POST - BORING. Sorry. I hope some of you will at least try to read it 'til the end - and will not fall of their chairs every two words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, perhaps one of the reasons the UN didn't want to support the US decision to invade Iraq had something to do with the millions of dollars being made illicitly with the Oil for Food program? ;)

 

It's funny how we debate this war over and over with the same old info each time. This is a topic about Zarqawi being finally killed. I don't recall KNIX saying that it was a sign that Bush/US is doing a great job, that it validates anything or that things are going to get better with the war because of it. He and others were simply pleased to see a brutal madman is now out of the picture and there is one less wacko to worry about. Just like we were glad when Saddam was finally captured. Iraq and the world are better off without them around. Now if only we could get Osama.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't recall KNIX saying that it was a sign that Bush/US is doing a great job, that it validates anything or that things are going to get better with the war because of it.

 

You must be using that old Lynx browser then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BUT : It's (the UNO) supposed to act as some global authority for countries that are part of the Security Counsil. Going to war without the majority's conscent was a mistake, as it showed the whole world that the Bush administration didn't really want to try peaceful alternatives. That's where the anti-american feeling that inflated in the Middle-East comes from.

 

-

 

Kinda hard for us to get UN support when half of the Security Council members were taking billions in kickbacks from Saddam via the Oil-for-Food program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the old oil for food talking point has been trotted out twice, maybe it's time to point out that a. the companies responsible for that were for the most part American and b. the amount of money involved in oil for food pales in insignificance to the amounts of money (and goods) going 'missing' in Iraq right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonic Goo' date='Jun 11 2006, 04:36 AM' post='59801']

Now that the old oil for food talking point has been trotted out twice, maybe it's time to point out that a. the companies responsible for that were for the most part American and b. the amount of money involved in oil for food pales in insignificance to the amounts of money (and goods) going 'missing' in Iraq right now.

 

Pales in significance (maybe insignificance)? When I was in school, they taught us that billions are greater than millions. Also, responsibility falls on the UN to oversee how oil for food is administered - which directly involves Kofi Annan.

 

 

Myth: Saddam Hussein's regime raised over $21.3 billion in illicit revenue by subverting the Oil-for-Food Program (OFFP).

 

Fact: This figure was initially provided on November 15, 2004 at a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations that is conducting one of the five congressional inquiries into the OFFP. The Subcommittee distributed a chart that showed that while Iraq was under UN Sanctions, between 1991 - 2003, the Saddam Hussein regime obtained illicit revenues of $21.3 billion. The chart clearly indicates that the OFFP was responsible for a small share of this total and that most of the illicit revenue came from other sources.

 

Since then, the $21.3 billion figure has been used inaccurately by Members of Congress, the media, and even President Bush. All have said at various times that it represents what the Hussein regime obtained by circumventing the OFFP. Most notably, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations, has used the figure incorrectly multiple times, without being challenged. In his December 1, 2004, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Sen. Coleman wrote, "At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food Program and UN sanctions." Yet Sen. Coleman has linked the entire $21 billion number to Oil-for-Food during various interviews with FOX News, CNN, and CNBC.

 

Attributing the whole $21.3 billion to circumvention of the OFFP is incorrect on its face. First, the OFFP did not begin until 1996, fully 5 years after the beginning of sanctions on Iraq. Second, the same chart used by the Subcommittee to graphically represent the number shows that only $6.5 billion was related to the OFFP, as only three of the categories in the chart can be directly attributed to the OFFP. They are:

 

Kickbacks on Humanitarian goods-- $4.4 billion

Oil surcharges-- $241 million

Substandard Goods--$2.1 billion

The other categories in the chart, including oil smuggling, fall outside the purview of the Office of the Iraq Program, the UN entity that administered the OFFP. Of particular note is the $13.6 billion the chart attributes to oil smuggling. There has been a wide misperception that the UN was in charge of policing for the regime's oil smuggling. This is incorrect. The responsibility for preventing smuggling into and from Iraq rested with Member States, specifically with the Multinational Interception Force, mandated by the Security Council in 1991 and led by and predominantly made up of the Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy. Additionally, the category the subcommittee calls "substandard goods" is a new category that has not been included in previous estimates of Saddam's illicit revenue, and might warrant further scrutiny.

 

Furthermore, the recent report issued by the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer notes that nearly ¾ of the illicit revenue (or $8 billion) obtained by the Hussein regime during the sanctions period came from illegal trading with its neighbors (see chart). A third source, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), reached the same conclusion. The GAO, in its "Observations on the Oil for Food Program" report highlights (submitted as testimony to the Committee on Foreign Relations on April 7, 2004), noted that the 661 Committee did not have oversight of the majority of missing revenues ($5.7 billion) that were attributed to smuggling. Instead, the GAO found that investigations concerning 661 Committee responsibility should focus on the remaining $4.4 billion attributable to kickbacks on humanitarian aid contracts and surcharges on oil sales.

 

More OFFP Facts here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this