• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

sorry to report, missing GI's found dead

What does this have to do with attention whoring?
 
Tough luck.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.


They went to kill and got killed.
 
The Americans have been dropping Napalm on civilians since 2003.

The Pentagon denied the reports of it by the BBC.

After 2 years of denials, the Pentagon now says, yes, they have been using Napalm.

The changed the name of the bomb.


And people care about these two f*kwits who are 2 amonth tens of thousands?


Give me a break.
 
Cheney & The Dark Side

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

"Frontline" documentary makes case that Cheney used 9/11 to go to war
By Mark Rahner

Seattle Times staff reporter

The title of the "Frontline" documentary comes from Vice President Dick Cheney's own words about the war on terror: "We have to work the dark side, if you will. ... "

Last week's grim milestone of 2,500 American military deaths in Iraq will look even grimmer after tonight's "Frontline" documentary, "The Dark Side."

The damning 90-minute exposé (10 p.m. PBS) stops short of laying those bodies at Vice President Dick Cheney's feet. But it does finger Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ??? through more than 40 interviews with CIA veterans, journalists, politicians and others ??? as the ones who ignored, suppressed and manipulated intelligence after the 9/11 attacks to lead us into war with a country that had nothing to do with our attackers.

And you wonder why the GOP hasn't exactly been a sugar daddy for public television.

Comedians have made countless Darth Vader jokes about Cheney, but the film's title is no joke about The Force. It's from Cheney's own words about America's response to terrorists: "We have to work the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies."

But apparently he didn't use the actual intelligence from the agencies.

The CIA and its then-director, George Tenet, knew immediately that al-Qaida in Afghanistan was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and said so. But author James Bamford says that while the Pentagon was still smoking, Rumsfeld said, "We've got to see, somehow, how we can bring Saddam Hussein into this."

"The Dark Side" claims that 9/11 provided Cheney and Rumsfeld with a pretext for achieving their longstanding ambition to go after the Iraqi dictator and to boost executive power that they'd seen diminish ever since their days as allies in Nixon's administration. As consummate political infighters, they resented and continually undermined Tenet ??? a sports-loving man's man who had become pally with George W. Bush.

The CIA repeatedly insisted that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, and Tenet explicitly warned that invading Iraq would "break the back" of our counterterrorism effort. Tenet even ordered the agency's records scoured 10 years back for links. CIA vet Michael Scheuer, who led that effort, says, "There was no connection between al-Qaida and Saddam."

But Cheney, the chief architect of the war on terror and the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, had made up his mind, according to "The Dark Side." CIA vets say Cheney and his now-indicted chief of staff, Scooter Libby, made unprecedented trips to CIA headquarters to pressure and "harangue" analysts who were compiling the National Intelligence Estimate. Analyst Paul Pillar, one of its primary authors, says he regrets his role in the hastily prepared, fatally flawed document, which was "clearly requested and published for policy-advocacy purposes ... to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public."

The apparent circularity of the pro-war machinations is especially disturbing. Then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller would get off-the-record info from the White House about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, print the claims in Sunday's paper, and then Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and others would cite the articles as evidence on the Sunday talk shows to justify the invasion.

While Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell had strong reservations about Iraq, sources quoted in "The Dark Side" say the two eventually caved in. Tenet, says former weapons inspector David Kay, "traded integrity for access" to power, while Powell was ultimately a team player.

"The Dark Side" is especially timely in light of those who persisted in equating the Iraq war with the fight against terrorism in the debate leading to last Friday's pro-war House resolution.

These are the guys who want our phone records now. If "The Dark Side" is as credible as it looks ??? and it's no cheap Michael Moore job ??? they can't even be trusted to go after the right bad guys when they've got the right intelligence handed to them on a platter.


Source: www.seattletimes.com
 
Mr_Snafu said:
The Americans have been dropping Napalm on civilians since 2003.

The Pentagon denied the reports of it by the BBC.

After 2 years of denials, the Pentagon now says, yes, they have been using Napalm.

The changed the name of the bomb.


And people care about these two f*kwits who are 2 amonth tens of thousands?


Give me a break.

They're Americans, the other were not.
 
Oh I see....that's the way you feel....
 
True Story, but civilians are civilians, even if they have tanish colored skin.
 
IML Gear Cream!
I want our young folks to come home and get on with their life. It's been 3+ years.

Many of them may have problems.

There aren't a lot of good jobs around anymore.
 
The bodies showed signs of "barbaric torture" when they were found by American and Iraqi troops on Monday, a senior Iraqi general told Reuters on Tuesday.


Is their another kind of torture that is not "Barbaric"???
 
ForemanRules said:
The bodies showed signs of "barbaric torture" when they were found by American and Iraqi troops on Monday, a senior Iraqi general told Reuters on Tuesday.


Is their another kind of torture that is not "Barbaric"???


Newspeak, son. We tourture the enemy humanely.
 
True Story, while I'm making my point, I would like that say that this is sad and terrible, and I would destroy people that did this. But I have to acknowledge the loss on both sides.
 
Mr_Snafu said:
Tough luck.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.


They went to kill and got killed.
That is a good point, but to some degree it is sad that stupid children are the one's Governments send to die. If these men were 40+ then I would agree with you but they are just children and don't know better yet. This was is evil and both sides are to blame for it.
 
Foreman is right. Whatever your view of the war, these guys were kids and they were tortured to death. Can't we be sad about that without having to read Snafu's frothing at the mouth?
 
True Story, the guy was my age, plus he looks like a friend. :(
 
I'm not against war by any means. I feel like something had to be done about Iraq, but at the same time, I don't think there will ever be a end to this war. Terrorists have always been around, and they always will be IMO. The thing that pisses me off more than anything: How the hell is Osama Bin Laden still alive??
 
IML Gear Cream!
Interesting little debate here. I see Snafu's side definitely. These people enlisted in the military knowing the risks, while the civilians in Iraq did nothing of the sort. Nonetheless, this is impressionable youth we are talking about here. The military has a very aggressive recruiting campaign out there that makes it seem like an awesome way to go.

I'm pretty disgusted with both Snafu and DOMS. Neither one seems to have much respect for human life; it is lost with their partisan beliefs. Just because one enlisted as a soldier and the other is in a country that is outside of the US, their lives don't matter and shouldn't be mourned? Nonsense. Like BigDyl said (I can't believe I'm saying this), I have to acknowledge the loss on both sides. American lives aren't the only one's that matter, and being a soldier doesn't mean your life is disposable.
 
ForemanRules said:
The bodies showed signs of "barbaric torture" when they were found by American and Iraqi troops on Monday, a senior Iraqi general told Reuters on Tuesday.


Is their another kind of torture that is not "Barbaric"???

There's tickle torture, thats a good one.
 
Watching Congress debate the Iraq War last week reminded me of how many politicians in Washington still don't get it. Some completely miss the lessons of history that teach us how important victory in Iraq is for the United States. Fortunately, the House passed a resolution to "complete the mission" in Iraq and rejected a date certain for withdrawal of our troops. But before House Republicans prevailed on this resolution, we had to sit through a debate in which some members -- amazingly -- suggested that the death of the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by U.S. air strikes means it is a good time to withdraw our troops, completely ignoring the fact that coalition troops, along with the Iraqis, have conducted nearly 500 more raids since killing Zarqawi.

It is difficult for me to convey to you how wrong I believe this cut-and-run attitude is.

The killing of Zarqawi, as I discussed last week, was a substantial win -- a win that should be built upon with greater resolve to finish the job in Iraq. It should not be used as a justification to withdraw before the job is done.

More importantly, our efforts in Iraq have to be understood in a much bigger -- a global -- context. We are engaged in a global, long war with the irreconcilable wing of Islam. In many ways, this is the first war of globalization. Just as globalization lets us send messages all over the world instantaneously via e-mail, use our phones to call people all over the world, transfer cash in and out of stock markets all over the world and travel easily and globally, it also has a downside.

Former CIA Director George Tenet describes this downside of globalization as the "Grey World." It's the world of terrorists who can organize much more effectively and globally, trafficking in human beings for the sex trade and trafficking in drugs, international crime, illegal arms deals and illegal international transportation that is made possible by technological advances. This Grey World is the dark side of the stunning increases in standards of living, communications and transportation that have marked the modern world.

That's why Zarqawi in Baghdad has a relationship with terrorists arrested recently in Britain and Canada. That's why Zarqawi in Baghdad relates directly to what happened in Mogadishu, Somalia, where a group of Islamic extremists took control, creating the potential that Somalia could become a new Afghanistan-like center of opposition to the civilized world. And that's why Zarqawi in Baghdad relates to the developments in Aceh in Sumatra, where a local group made a deal with the central government allowing them to impose sharia, the extremist, medieval Islamic law, on all citizens, including non-Muslims. By acquiescing to the imposition of Islamic law, a new center of militant behavior is being created right in the middle of Indonesia.

Each of these developments is tied together by the fact that in this globalized long war, terrorists reinforce each other's worldview on websites, they study each other, they communicate with each other by e-mail and mobile phones, and they very often travel to many different countries. That's why we have to recognize that while it was right for President Bush to convene a war council on Iraq last week, my hope is that he will convene a council to plan for the long war. And in the months and years ahead, we need to have an open, honest dialogue around the world with those who are willing to defend our civilization. We need to discuss how we're going to make sure that the forces of democracy, the forces of the rule of law and the forces of freedom defeat the forces of terror and tyranny who seek to threaten us in every country in the world. Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


P.S. - The rush to judgment over allegations of military misconduct in Iraq got me thinking about its effect on our fighting men and women. So I asked a former Marine who served two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom how all this talk is effecting morale. His remarkable answer follows:

It should be noted that the Marines on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan are the true embodiment of what America and Democracy are about. They are the 19-year-old young men and women that are making a sacrifice. They are not enjoying rush week at a university or going to the beach for the summer, but rather offering their lives in the defense of each other, their families and their homes. These 19-year-olds are the true tip of America's spear and bear more responsibility each day than most Americans do in lifetimes.

It seems that in this day and age there is more support and misdirected justice for prison inmates than these dedicated young Marines. For any American -- most especially the media -- to condemn or judge them is absurd. They will be investigated and judged by fellow warriors who understand the circumstances and the enemy involved. Rest assured, no one holds their people more accountable than the military, most especially the Marine Corps. "Keep our Honor Clean" isn't just a catch phrase.
 
True Story, everytime we kill the #2 guy whoever it is this week :confused: there will always be another one to step up. How do we even know it's the number 2 guy and not the number 47th guy? I know we haven't gotten the #1 guy.
 
Osama Bin Laden arranged the attack on 9/11, not Zarqawi. Remember GW Bush promised to get him "dead or alive!"?

The attack on Iraq from the outset was/is a mistake...an illegal mistake. Al Qaeda is an organization and not a country. Using military techniques in Iraq to subdue Al Qaeda is wrong headed. "Staying the course" in Iraq perpetuates the mistaken notion that Iraq is THE base for Al Qaeda. We are in the middle of a civil war there.

Fighting them (Al Qaeda) over there (Iraq) instead of here (US) is just as misguided. Tell that to Spain and England.

Iraq was never a player in the 9/11 attack and not a supporter of Al Qaeda. End of story.

Bringing democracy to the middle east, relieving the world of a murderous dictator, losing 9 billion dollars in thin air in Iraq reconstruction are all irrelevant in the US's response to the 9/11 attacks.

It sickens me that soldiers and civilians are dying in Iraq. But it goes without saying that I do not support the troops efforts in Iraq. I don't wish harm upon them--I feel ridiculous having to point that out. In fact I support the armed forces. But legitimizing the US's attack/occupation on/of Iraq is to legitimize the legal rationale for attacking Iraq in the first place and that is something I just cannot do.
 
Decker said:
Al Qaeda is an organization and not a country. Using military techniques in Iraq to subdue Al Qaeda is wrong headed.
Was Zarqawi not OBL's second in command? Was he not in Iraq? It doesn't matter who or where they hide. The fight needs to be where they are. Most of the countries where they hide support them. Do you think that the US, Canada, Britian, Australia or any others would let them take refuge in their country? Absolutely not, because they don't support terrorism. We (the world) cannot let terrorism take a stronghold.
True story!:D
 
dg806 said:
Was Zarqawi not OBL's second in command? Was he not in Iraq? It doesn't matter who or where they hide. The fight needs to be where they are. Most of the countries where they hide support them. Do you think that the US, Canada, Britian, Australia or any others would let them take refuge in their country? Absolutely not, because they don't support terrorism. We (the world) cannot let terrorism take a stronghold.
True story!:D
There was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Some Al Qaeda showed up there to pick off US troops after the invasion.

Hussein and Bin Laden were secular v. religious--more enemy than ally. The 9/11 Commission found that Hussein had no credible ties to Al Qaeda. Terrorism is a tactic. Al Qaeda is an organization that utilizes terrorism. Don't confuse the two. Hussein may reward suicide bombers but that's a far cry from any conceivable connection to the 9/11 terrorists.

It's not a matter of which country would let Al Qaeda in. The 9/11 terrorists trained on US soil, so it's a matter of tracking these people down (like detectives would) and arresting them. Conflating Hussein and his despotic rule w/ the workings of Al Qaeda was a purposeful lie perpetrated by GW Bush and Co. to facilitate an invasion.
 
Decker said:
legitimizing the US's attack/occupation on/of Iraq is to legitimize the legal rationale for attacking Iraq in the first place and that is something I just cannot do.

Your entire post boils down to this and this is where I disagree. Maybe, just maybe we shouldn't have occupied Iraq. That's still up for debate, but is irrelevant to what I'm about to ask. The fact is, we DID invade. What would you have us do now?

My opinion? We're there. Al Qaeda is there. Let's get it on. Are innocent Iraqi civilians going to get caught in the crossfire. Yep, probably. Cold hearted ALBOB here, better innocent Iraqi's get caught in the crossfire while we're fighting THERE than innocent Americans while we're fighting HERE.
 
ALBOB said:
Your entire post boils down to this and this is where I disagree. Maybe, just maybe we shouldn't have occupied Iraq. That's still up for debate, but is irrelevant to what I'm about to ask. The fact is, we DID invade. What would you have us do now?

My opinion? We're there. Al Qaeda is there. Let's get it on. Are innocent Iraqi civilians going to get caught in the crossfire. Yep, probably. Cold hearted ALBOB here, better innocent Iraqi's get caught in the crossfire while we're fighting THERE than innocent Americans while we're fighting HERE.
Hi Al. I would have the US start to withdraw troops immediately.

Here's why:

The longer the US is there, the more dependent the Iraqis will be on our presence. It's the anti-welfare rationale. We provide the Iraqis no incentive to take the reigns of their own country.

Solution: we leave and force them to be responsible.

I mean the US and other foreign 'investors' have already locked up substantial ownership of Iraqi assets through legal wrangling. Why should the Iraqis take on the burdens of police and administrative order of their own country?

Damn Al, you are cold-hearted. Just take a dip in your hot-tub/pool/waterfall--that'll thaw you out. hahahaha
 
I bet I know what would warm Albob's heart, I nice tequilar, say Sauza Tres Generaciones?
 
Back
Top