The Axis Of Idiots

[sct1886]

'THE Axis of Idiots
>
> (Too bad we don't have folks on Capitol Hill willing to speak out like this. J.D. Pendry is a retired Marine Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.
> He is eloquent, and as taught by the Marines, he seldom beats around the bush!)
>
> 'THE Axis of Idiots'
>
> Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief.
>
>
> Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S. S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
>
> John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
>
>
> John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily inIraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa, John ? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's butt. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John ..
>
>
> **** Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot , who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See **** run.
>
> Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington
>
>
> Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.
>
>
> American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
>
> You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.
>
> Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
>
> Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.
>
>
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired

[Red_Rage]

No Raegan and Brezinski as fathers of Taliban? He's got Carter in there...

[LineDoggie]

No Raegan and Brezinski as fathers of Taliban? He's got Carter in there... Carter started Aid to the Afghans, Reagan just continued it

[sunsettowner]

ha ha so true as it is from a marine

[Albatross]

dems are bad, pubs are good, etc, etc, etc...... ad nauseum

[KrasotkaJS]

What about lying to the whole world about Iraq's WMD, defying the UN and then sending American troops to die in Iraq because of a lie. Bush should be #1 in the Axis of Idiots.

Because of Bush thousands of soldiers have died and countless Iraqis.

[Albatross]

How about we say every POTUS ever, with the exception of the following:

George Washington ( leaving pot out of this_
Thomas Jefferson (we are leaving slavery out of this)
Teddy Roosevelt
Abe Lincoln
Harry Truman

[gaijinsamurai]

What about lying to the whole world about Iraq's WMD, defying the UN and then sending American troops to die in Iraq because of a lie. Bush should be #1 in the Axis of Idiots.

Because of Bush thousands of soldiers have died and countless Iraqis.

x2. Any deficiencies on the part of Kerry, Clinton, and Carter pale in comparison to the fvckups of the last administration.

[vryhpyammoadded]

How about we say every POTUS ever, with the exception of the following:

George Washington ( leaving pot out of this_
Thomas Jefferson (we are leaving slavery out of this)
Teddy Roosevelt
Abe Lincoln
Harry Truman
Why so strict, give William Henry Harrison a break. Well, then again he did stand in the cold rain yammering on for two hours... p-)

[gaijinsamurai]

One thing I really like about not being in the Marine Corps anymore, is that I don't have to put up with listening to the likes of Sgt. Major Pendry and their right-wing crap, and keep my mouth shut because they happen to outrank me!

[Mackie]

How about we say every POTUS ever, with the exception of the following:

George Washington ( leaving pot out of this_
Thomas Jefferson (we are leaving slavery out of this)
Teddy Roosevelt
Abe Lincoln
Harry Truman


Roosevelt was an excellent pres in war time. But what's about his today so called "Grand Theft Act"?

[philbob]

One thing I really like about not being in the Marine Corps anymore, is that I don't have to put up with listening to the likes of Sgt. Major Pendry and their right-wing crap, and keep my mouth shut because they happen to outrank me!

where were you at becuase my commands were pretty good about all that... C

Carter was a terrible president maybe worse then Bush

[Macs.]

Islamic national socialists... :roll:

[morten]

no, no, the real threat are the communist-islamist-nazis...thats the devil folk! Burn'em all!!!!111

[Kletterbuxe]

Not exactly an intelectual. He should stick to what he´s good at and let others do the thinking...

[Russian_dude]

Regan created the afghan mess, sold weapons to Iran ('dem Ayra-abs) etc. Under Bushes watch, terrorism grew expotentially.

[MaverickCowboy]

"Islamic Nazis" rofl, that's hilarious. Pretty good example why enlisted men should just keep their mouths shut, do what is told and leave thinking to those who can do it.

Your insulting Enlisted men?

[Robbee]

2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20061116041457/http://jdpendry.com/2006/09/04/on-your-hands/) called, hey want their chain email back... :roll:

The actual title of this article is "On Your Hands."

Here's the author's preamble.


What follows is a reposting of a mailing I sent to my private email list on June 24, 2006. I don’t feel a need to explain myself, but I wrote this right after someone sent me pictures of the mutilated bodies of two young American Soldiers. Since the original posting, this letter has made a few laps around the net and been posted in many different places. I can’t even tell you where else because, except for a few Freepers, no one ever asked me if they could repost it. Other than to my private email list, I originally posted it at Free Republic and it’s been posted there several more times and to a Geocities Website that I used to maintain. There’s been some minor editing of my original post and I’ve seen it renamed at least twice, “No Punches Pulled Here” and “Axis of Idiots”, frankly I prefer my title because my title is my point.

It’s been pointed out to me in some “fan” mail that I didn’t mention President Regan’s lack of response following the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, 1983. If Ronald Regan spent his life before, during and after that bombing blaming the United States, belittling American Soldiers and the Administrations that followed his, I would most certainly have had some unkind words to say about him. You see, I’m sort of one dimensional when it comes to the treatment of my country and most particularly when politicians and others disparage the men and women with which I spent half my existence on this planet. I can’t do much in my old, decrepit state to help them with their current mission, but you can bet your butt that I’ll take every opportunity to speak out for them back here where – because of them - we sit safe, fat and happy. They need us to protect their six here at home while they confront our enemies head on.

It was also pointed out to me that it was the first President Bush that got us into Somalia. That statement is true for as far as it goes. President Bush sent U.S. Forces to Somalia on a humanitarian aid mission. Their purpose was to ensure food sent there to aid starving Somalis got to them and not the warlords. It was a President Clinton mission for Army Rangers and Special Operations Soldiers to capture Adid. President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, Les Aspen, refused these units Armor support they requested. Support that would have easily broken and extricated them from the ambush where 18 of them died.

So here’s the original unedited post. Thanks for supporting our Soldiers.

[sct1886]

No matter what your political leanings are there were no false accusations. Both of our parties have utterly failed their Constitutionally mandated duties for many, many years. Both parties are more worried about getting re-elected and lining their pockets than doing a greater good. The US has a very well thought out Constitution and it has been blatantly ignored at every level.

[Behan]

It was kind of chilly this morning.

Not nearly as cold as it was under the Bush administration!!!

[Geezah]

What about lying to the whole world about Iraq's WMD, defying the UN and then sending American troops to die in Iraq because of a lie. Bush should be #1 in the Axis of Idiots.

Because of Bush thousands of soldiers have died and countless Iraqis.


Make sure you include all the Senators and Representatives in there as well because as I remember it, they had access to the same information that President Bush had and the majority voted on going to war with Saddam.

That doesn't include what the UN(Paper Tiger) had been threatening Saddam with because of what he had been doing.

[Gleipnir]

Regan created the afghan mess, sold weapons to Iran ('dem Ayra-abs) etc. Under Bushes watch, terrorism grew expotentially.

Reagan only INHERITED and continued what Carter STARTED under pressure from then National security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Reagan seems to always get the credit, furthermore, for a reason unbeknownst to me- people love to say that Carter never did anything while he was President.
Carter gave the okay to start arming the MUJAHIDEEN in Afghanistan and was sitting in the big chair during the failed rescue during the hostage crisis, they let the hostages go finally the day Reagan became President. (it can be argued that this failure was one of many factors that contributed to Reagan's election over Carter)
The Iranian revolution happened during Mr Carter's Presidency and support of the Shah and the 'influencing' of the Iranian people to support him through American 'dabbling' (remember the coup and Mossadegh?) goes way back before either Carter or Reagan.

The Iran-Contra fiasco did occur under Reagan's watch but people like to say he didn't know what was going down, some confusion started with Israel selling arms to 'moderates' in Iran who opposed the Ayatollah, etc. leading to Mr. Oliver North stepping in and proposing to sell them the weapons without going through Israel and use the proceeds to arm the Contras in Nicaragua- supposedly this was approved and put into action without Reagan being notified. What Reagan did approve and support during this time was all influenced by making deals with Iran to release hostages.
Reagan initially said that he didn't know what was going on and didn't authorize any arms deals but then much later said he did know and did authorize such arms deals.

anyways-

Carter's time as President : 1977-1981
He was also responsible for giving back the Panama canal.

People love to give Reagan all the credit and/or blame for things that were put into motion before he was sworn in, all this amnesia around Carter and incorrect "re-remembering" Reagan has always struck me as questionable and dubious.

[Expert Marksman 126]

What about lying to the whole world about Iraq's WMD, defying the UN and then sending American troops to die in Iraq because of a lie. Bush should be #1 in the Axis of Idiots.

Because of Bush thousands of soldiers have died and countless Iraqis.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in a genocide of the kurdish people in northern iraq. When chemical weapons are deployed against a civilian population they are defined as WMD's.

F*CK the UN

So you think Saddam was better for Iraq?

[Expert Marksman 126]

"Islamic Nazis" rofl, that's hilarious. Pretty good example why enlisted men should just keep their mouths shut, do what is told and leave thinking to those who can do it.

So you are insulting him because he chose to go enlisted instead of OCS? You realize that men like him run any military right?

[Expert Marksman 126]

Not exactly an intelectual. He should stick to what he´s good at and let others do the thinking...

You're not exactly an American. So don't insert youreslf into a discusson of our elected leaders.

[Albatross]

"Islamic Nazis" rofl, that's hilarious. Pretty good example why enlisted men should just keep their mouths shut, do what is told and leave thinking to those who can do it.

You are a fvcking moron. Do you know what turtle fvcking is?

[JKD]

So you think Saddam was better for Iraq?

Is it our job as a nation to send our military around telling the people of sovereign foreign countries which leader is best for them?

[Expert Marksman 126]

Is it our job as a nation to send our military around telling the people of sovereign foreign countries which leader is best for them?

It's our job to stop genocidal maniacs.

[Dinges]

It's our job to stop genocidal maniacs.


Who appointed you?

[Expert Marksman 126]

So you approve of genocide?

[Mr.Flint]

Islamic national socialists... :roll:
Technically its a correct description of the modern Baath party.
And one cannot ignore the fact that Nazi ideology did influence the early Islamic movements, whether it was the religious muslim brotherhood, secular nationalists, or mixture of both.


no, no, the real threat are the communist-islamist-nazis...thats the devil folk! Burn'em all!!!!111

The alliance of Red Army Faction, Japanese Red Army and PLO, FARC and Hezbollah, various white power organisations with hippies and muslims on anti-Israel/Jewish demos make your sarcasm moot.

[Macs.]

The "Axis of Idiot" is very present in this thread.

[Dinges]

So you approve of genocide?


He-He! Answer the question.

[Expert Marksman 126]

First of all no one appointed me to anything.

America is supposed to be a beacon of hope and the protector of the innocent. The fact that no one else was going to stop him gave us the right, and obligation, to take him out.

Your turn.

[Dinges]

Pol Pot , Robert Mugabe , Marcos , Mao zhe Dong , Mobutu , Kambanda etc.

Great success rate.


Your turn.

[Dercius]

First of all no one appointed me to anything.

America is supposed to be a beacon of hope and the protector of the innocent. The fact that no one else was going to stop him gave us the right, and obligation, to take him out.

Your turn.

Very good and noble idea, I respect you believe in it, but IMO is completely out of touch with reality.

Interests are what really drives our goverments, they just wrap them with what you said before when it fits their agenda.

Examples in recent history (lets say last 60 years) are countless (Philipines,Chile,Argentina,Spain etc...)

Lets keep it civilp-)

[Gleipnir]

First of all no one appointed me to anything.

America is supposed to be a beacon of hope and the protector of the innocent. The fact that no one else was going to stop him gave us the right, and obligation, to take him out.

Your turn.

My dear friend, America is supposed to be that and much more and for her citizens it is appropriate but I would suggest that you look into CIA involvement in foreign affairs since the end of World War II and how the USA 'fought' the Cold War on other Nations' soils with the sacrifice of said Nations' people.

Your last point is a good moral and ethical reaction to how Mr Hussein was running his show over there (check it out, he was even supplied weapons by the US and other western countries back in the Eighties) but there are International laws in place and foreign policies that have been violated. I for one believe there was more at stake than simply removing Mr Hussein for his 'style' of leadership- after all, if the USA has secured both Afghanistan and Iraq then Iran will be surrounded.

Removing dictators is all well and good but as Prion pointed out there have been and still are quite a number in power who have been left to their own devices by the USA.
Mugabe is an excellent contemporary example.

I enjoy your enthusiasm but unfortunately as one gets older black and white continuously becomes ever multitudinous shades of gray.
Also, just in case it needs clarification I support the troops and their sacrifices, I love the USA and am not in favour of dictatorships or genocides but the idea of a squeaky clean good guy out saving the world from harm, to me, is an outdated mode of thinking.

[Dinges]

My dear friend, America is supposed to be that and much more and for her citizens it is appropriate but I would suggest that you look into CIA involvement in foreign affairs since the end of World War II and how the USA 'fought' the Cold War on other Nations' soils with the sacrifice of said Nations' people.

Your last point is a good moral and ethical reaction to how Mr Hussein was running his show over there (check it out, he was even supplied weapons by the US and other western countries back in the Eighties) but there are International laws in place and foreign policies that have been violated. I for one believe there was more at stake than simply removing Mr Hussein for his 'style' of leadership- after all, if the USA has secured both Afghanistan and Iraq then Iran will be surrounded.

Removing dictators is all well and good but as Prion pointed out there have been and still are quite a number in power who have been left to their own devices by the USA.
Mugabe is an excellent contemporary example.

I enjoy your enthusiasm but unfortunately as one gets older black and white continuously becomes ever multitudinous shades of gray.
Also, just in case it needs clarification I support the troops and their sacrifices, I love the USA and am not in favour of dictatorships or genocides but the idea of a squeaky clean good guy out saving the world from harm, to me, is an outdated mode of thinking.

Kudos. Excellent post!

[Red_Rage]

First of all no one appointed me to anything.

America is supposed to be a beacon of hope and the protector of the innocent. The fact that no one else was going to stop him gave us the right, and obligation, to take him out.

Your turn.



Abit of a naive view...
CIA put Saddam and Baath party in power in the first place - he transformed from a "useful asset" in checking Iran to a "failed experiment" in a course of 10 years. The man didn't change - he was always a paranoid and homicidal dictator - American official "party line" did. Same story with Bin Laden, who recieved his orders, training, and financing from the Agency for the better part of 1980s...

[LineDoggie]

Regan created the afghan mess, sold weapons to Iran ('dem Ayra-abs) etc. Under Bushes watch, terrorism grew expotentially. Again Jimmy Carter started Aid to the Afghans after the Soviet Invasion. Reagan just continued it and expanded it

Just like Carter was Planning if he had won re-election

[LineDoggie]

Not exactly an intelectual. He should stick to what he´s good at and let others do the thinking...

That would be Intellectual...........lucky I'm thinking for you, huh? p-)

[Expert Marksman 126]

My point is that taking Saddam out was reason enough for the iraq war, without bringing WMD's, oil, or terrorism into the picture.

[Dinges]

My point is that taking Saddam out was reason enough for the iraq war, without bringing WMD's, oil, or terrorism into the picture.


Do not go there!

There be landmines. Tread lightly.

[LineDoggie]

My point is that taking Saddam out was reason enough for the iraq war, without bringing WMD's, oil, or terrorism into the picture.

Didnt you know? the USA is responsible for all evil in the world

It's de Riguer....

If its cold out, it our fault

If someone is a dictator its our fault

If we stop a dictator it's out fault

If we dont stop a dictator it's our fault


Get with the program

[Expert Marksman 126]

Do not go there!

There be landmines. Tread lightly.

Where?

Terrorism- Saddam had no link to Al Queda, but he sure as hell wasn't helping us.

WMD's- he used VX gas against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. When chemical weapons are used against civilians they become WMD's.

Oil- I can't think of a better reason to go to war. Without oil nothing happens.

[JCR]

I've never understood the US fascination with "words from a soldier"
If somebody is good at running a platoon or a squad, it doesn't make him an automatic expert on foreign policy and history, not even for the republican side.
You wouldn't trust a foreign policy expert or a historian with a squad of marines either?

Re the rest, it is just 3 year old propaganda.
What makes you sure it is really from a soldier? Both US parties and pretty much everybody else in the world employ viral methods of propaganda...
Disguising a political statement as a grassroots opinion is one of the oldest tricks in the book and the internet made it very easy.
This could've just as well been written in an air conditioned office of some PR agency.
And if it was, would the meaning change for you?
I mean if you're republican and agree with what is said here, would it be less true if it came from a paid public relations expert and not from a Jarhead?

[Red_Rage]

Where?


Oil- I can't think of a better reason to go to war. Without oil nothing happens.


Here is what you posted earlier:


America is supposed to be a beacon of hope and the protector of the innocent. The fact that no one else was going to stop him gave us the right, and obligation, to take him out.




My point is that taking Saddam out was reason enough for the iraq war, without bringing WMD's, oil, or terrorism into the picture




It's our job to stop genocidal maniacs.


Make up your mind - is it about oil, or protecting a marginalized group noone cares about? Turkey is conducting anti-Kurd activities as well, yet it is a partner and a NATO member. Kurds are not exactly saints either, and they do deserve most of the flak they are getting.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

It's our job to stop genocidal maniacs.Well you have had a few epic fails in the last 40 years. Central and South America spring to mind immediately.

[Gleipnir]

My point is that taking Saddam out was reason enough for the iraq war, without bringing WMD's, oil, or terrorism into the picture.

My friend, the devil is in the details.
and in this case there are an overwhelming number of them.

If this is reason enough how come such charming individuals such as Kim Jong Il and Robert Mugabe are still partying?

Hussein was the USA's old friend when the USA was more concerned with Iran, a nation that the USA once had influence over but lost quite dramatically.

Mr. Rumsfeld was sent in to chat with Mr. Hussein by Reagan and even Mr. Bush (W's Dad) was lending Mr. Hussein a helping hand when Mr. Hussein decided to invade Iran.
The USA wasn't happy with Iran because they had replaced the Shah (He was helped into power during World War II with help from the British and the Russians so that they could secure oil to fight the war against the NAZIS) with a new leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Now the Ayatollah wasn't happy with the USA because in 1953 they had helped the Shah stay in power after a new leader- Mr. Mossadeq-(who was democratically elected by the Iranian people) was overthrown during a coup d'etat (an unconstitutional overthrow of the Government in power) supported by American and British intelligence agents.
The USA liked the Shah because he was pro-Western and because they could now hold influence over the area.
Mr. Khomeini didn't like the fact that the Shah was so into Western ideas and also the fact that the Shah was a dictator who oppressed the people and had his secret police (SAVAK) disappear people who didn't like what he was doing.

Yep, the USA was okay with that style of dictatorship- no reason to take him out.

Anyways, in the 60s and 70s Khomeini (why didn't they disappear him you are asking? well he went into exile in Iraq) was becoming more and more popular with the Shi'a muslims in Iran and long story short in 1979 the Shah left Iran in the face of enormous demonstrations and violence and so Khomeini returned to Iran and became the new leader.

So in Iran some nasty things were being said about the US and some students even went so far as to take over the US embassy and take US citizens hostage!

The US sent in an operation to liberate the hostages but unfortunately and very tragically the operation failed.

There are some other unsavoury details in addition to all this, but for simplicity and to stick to the point I'll just skip over that for now, but I would recommend you check out the Iran-Contra scandal.

Anyhow, in 1980 Iraq invaded Iran and an 8 year war followed.
The US helped Iraq, who was being led by Mr. Hussein, because they were still upset with Iran about all that nasty business that had been going on since 1953. They didn't like the new leader, Mr. Khomeini, so they decided it would be better to help Mr. Hussein by giving him money, intelligence and weapons.
Also, now this is where it really doesn't look so good-
private companies from the US, some European countries, Egypt and Singapore (forgive me if I have left anyone and please post who I did) even gave Mr. Hussein the materials and equipment to make biological weapons which he used in the Iran-Iraq war!

There are plenty more things that I haven't mentioned here and I encourage you to read more about these things to get an idea of some of the complexities involved.

Mr. Hussein was an ally once-
pretty weird isn't it?! But that's foreign policy for you!

[Expert Marksman 126]

Well you have had a few epic fails in the last 40 years. Central and South America spring to mind immediately.

I didn't say we are perfect.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I didn't say we are perfect.And no one expects you to be :)

[Gleipnir]

Where?

Terrorism- Saddam had no link to Al Queda, but he sure as hell wasn't helping us.

WMD's- he used VX gas against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. When chemical weapons are used against civilians they become WMD's.

Oil- I can't think of a better reason to go to war. Without oil nothing happens.

Quick summary-

Terrorism-
Check out the Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan.
They were the guys responsible for the Iranian embassy takeover. (the guys who helped the SAS show the world what they were capable of in such a situation)
Now these guys were Iraqi 's who wanted an area of Iran called Arabistan (also called Khuzestan) to be given autonomy. They also wanted some buddies to be released from jails in Iran.

As for Al Qaeda- nothing to do with Hussein.

WMDs- see my earlier post about the biological weapons foreign countries helped Iraq make. Foreign countries including the USA.

Oil.
To entertain this idea- in this region it has been the reason for it in the past- see my earlier post about why the British and the Soviets helped the Shah come to power in 1941.

[Walter Sobchak]

I've never understood the US fascination with "words from a soldier".
If somebody is good at running a platoon or a squad, it doesn't make him an automatic expert on foreign policy and history, not even for the Republican side.
You wouldn't trust a foreign policy expert or a historian with a squad of Marines either?

I agree with the last sentence. However, let's recast the rest of your statement for perspective:

I've never understood the US fascination with "words from an actor".
If somebody is good at make believe, it doesn't make him or her an automatic expert on foreign policy and history, not even for the Democratic side.
You wouldn't trust a foreign policy expert or a historian with a Hollywood production either?
My point is, I'd trust a soldier, sailor, Marine, zoomie, coastie or even a member of the Civil Air Patrol with foreign policy before I would trust an actor (except Reagan or Fred Thompson), a trial lawyer, Diane Feinstein, or most Democrats. I'd probably trust Charlie Manson ahead of Feinstein!

[Expert Marksman 126]

Quick summary-

Terrorism-
Check out the Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan.
They were the guys responsible for the Iranian embassy takeover. (the guys who helped the SAS show the world what they were capable of in such a situation)
Now these guys were Iraqi 's who wanted an area of Iran called Arabistan (also called Khuzestan) to be given autonomy. They also wanted some buddies to be released from jails in Iran.

As for Al Qaeda- nothing to do with Hussein.

WMDs- see my earlier post about the biological weapons foreign countries helped Iraq make. Foreign countries including the USA.

Oil.
To entertain this idea- in this region it has been the reason for it in the past- see my earlier post about why the British and the Soviets helped the Shah come to power in 1941.

Umm...yeah thats what I said.

[Gleipnir]

okay expertmarksman
I have tried to be a gentleman, but you are just not reading between the lines.
Please read some history books, it will do you and us here at MP.net alot of good.

and to be clear and literal what you said doesn't support any of the points you have made very well. It's not what you said, I was trying to help you but now I am saying to myself, forget it.

[Expert Marksman 126]

I don't read between the lines very well.

I said Saddam had no link to Al-Queda- so did you. You also talk about Iraqi terrorists. I was only referring to the 9/11 attacks.

I said he had WMD's in the past, and he used them- you merely elaborated.

I said oil is a good reason for war- you cite a post about the British helping the shah to power, and say that oil has been a reason for war in the past.

[VEVAK]

Quick summary-

Terrorism-
Check out the Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan.
They were the guys responsible for the Iranian embassy takeover. (the guys who helped the SAS show the world what they were capable of in such a situation)
Now these guys were Iraqi 's who wanted an area of Iran called Arabistan (also called Khuzestan) to be given autonomy. They also wanted some buddies to be released from jails in Iran.



You got it right but backwards. The province is called Khuzestan, but Pan-Arabs like to call it Arabistan.


sold weapons to Iran ('dem Ayra-abs) etc.

Hmm. You Chechens sure know geography! p-)

[Laworkerbee]

My point is that taking Saddam out was reason enough for the iraq war, without bringing WMD's, oil, or terrorism into the picture.

No it wasn't. If our leaders were truly leaders they would have followed the proper ethical and moral path and assassinated Saddam. It is not ethical to wage war against an oppressed nation and kill thousands of people to remove that nations dictator.

[Expert Marksman 126]

^
You make a good point about the assassination, it wouldn't be hard to insert a sniper team by submarine or HALO, but if he was taken out who would have taken over? One of his sons? Or a military leader? Either way Iraq would have still been oppressed.

[Laworkerbee]

^
You make a good point about the assassination, it wouldn't be hard to insert a sniper team by submarine or HALO, but if he was taken out who would have taken over? One of his sons? Or a military leader? Either way Iraq would have still been oppressed.

Which brings it back full circle, why bother taking out a dictator? You just kind of answered your own question.

Oh and sniper teams? sounds like a suicide mission or something out of a really bad movie. Try GPS trackers planted by a traitor or Signal's Intelligence that leads to a missile strike.

[LongShot]

No it wasn't. If our leaders were truly leaders they would have followed the proper ethical and moral path and assassinated Saddam. It is not ethical to wage war against an oppressed nation and kill thousands of people to remove that nations dictator.


I think the Juice offered to do it for us on a few occasions....

[Expert Marksman 126]

Which brings it back full circle, why bother taking out a dictator? You just kind of answered your own question.

Oh and sniper teams? sounds like a suicide mission or something out of a really bad movie. Try GPS trackers planted by a traitor or Signal's Intelligence that leads to a missile strike.

We removed a dictator and installed democracy. THATS the point.

A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

[Pete031]

We removed a dictator and installed democracy. THATS the point.

A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

You are going to need some sort of space optics for that.... All you can see through the spotting scope at 2400m is an outline at most.

What LAWorkerbee said is more realistic

[Red_Rage]

Which brings it back full circle, why bother taking out a dictator? You just kind of answered your own question.

Oh and sniper teams? sounds like a suicide mission or something out of a really bad movie. Try GPS trackers planted by a traitor or Signal's Intelligence that leads to a missile strike.


Phone call and cruise missle seems simpler. Saddam wasn't exactly Pablo Escobar when it came to phone security and changing locations. He was still a public figure, and didn't ride in a convoy at 120 km/h 24/7 until his last days. There are even more creative and delicate ways - look up how Ibn Al-Khattab was recently brought to justice with a simple letter.



Expert Marksman,

HALO jumps, sniper teams? Unlikely. The only really dramatic scenario of "special forces" removing a political figure i can think of is Amin's takedown in '78 - but it took a battalion of KGB spetsnaz coupled with coordinated strikes by paratroopers on vital parts of Kabul. It was pretty much a division level operation as far as manpower was concerned.

Most dictators are usually removed by their own nationals sponsored from countries whose interest it is in to have those leaders removed.

[Expert Marksman 126]

Phone call and cruise missle seems simpler. Saddam wasn't exactly Pablo Escobar when it came to phone security and changing locations. He was still a public figure, and didn't ride in a convoy at 120 km/h 24/7 until his last days. There are even more creative and delicate ways - look up how Ibn Al-Khattab was recently brought to justice with a simple letter.


Expert Marksman,

HALO jumps, sniper teams? Unlikely. The only really dramatic scenario of "special forces" removing a political figure i can think of is Amin's takedown in '78 - but it took a battalion of KGB spetsnaz coupled with coordinated strikes by paratroopers on vital parts of Kabul. It was pretty much a division level operation as far as manpower was concerned.

Most dictators are usually removed by their own nationals sponsored from countries whose interest it is in to have those leaders removed.

Saddam had people get plastic surgery so they would look like him. If that isn't paranoid I dont know what is.

[CG51]

Gas has crept back up to $2 a gallon. Time to bomb some more brown people.

[Expert Marksman 126]

OK then....whatever you say...

[Gleipnir]

We removed a dictator and installed democracy. THATS the point.

A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

Okay, I tried to give you the dots but I will spell it out for you instead.

We removed a dictator to further and secure our interests abroad.

I am not moralizing this by the way, that's how things go down.

In the case of the 1953 coup in Iran:
We removed democracy and installed a dictator.

If you really believe that wars are fought for the good of civilians then I would dare to say that they would be fought quite differently.

As for Saddam's doubles- he wasn't paranoid- he knew what comes with the territory of being a dictator.
Besides having look-alikes to double for him he also had a specialized Republican Presidential guard that was set up in one case to fight any attempted coup against him. The reason he created so many units within the military was to make a united coup against him very difficult to achieve. That is good planning.

I am not trying to say he didn't need to go, he did, but to perceive it a certain way contrary to why I suspect it to be so is just ir-responsible.

[domokun]

We removed a dictator and installed democracy. THATS the point.

A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

I personally agree to fact that it was good to remove Saddam. Bush admin just lied about reasons why to do it. Politicians lying is bad in any democratic nation. I'm bit more cynical in real reasons why war in Iraq was done, business and business, profits. It's far lower on moral scale than removing bloodthirsty motherfvcker who same folks, republicans supported against Iran little over decade before. Dictators aren't problem to western governments if they provide us with reasonably cheap fuel or other goods. They are problem only when they are against our economic interests.

Sniper team to kill major dictator is very hard operation to execute. Pretty much suicide mission.

[gaijinsamurai]

We removed a dictator and installed democracy. THATS the point.

A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

Whether or not we installed democracy remains to be seen. I have my doubts.

I also have my doubts on whether a sniper team, no matter what their training and skill level, could exfil without being caught, let alone make movement to their mission site successfully. Taking out a head-of-state on their own turf is easier said than done, except in the movies.

[Daft Ego]

When Americans get tired of bashing other countries, they start bashing on their own policy makers. Instant classic.

woot

[wilhelm]

We removed a dictator and installed democracy. THATS the point.



Unfortunately, that was not the declared point. And, as has been pointed out by Prion earlier and Gleipnir so eloquently below:


Posred by Gleipnir
We removed a dictator to further and secure our interests abroad.

I am not moralizing this by the way, that's how things go down.

In the case of the 1953 coup in Iran:
We removed democracy and installed a dictator.
This is not about squeaky-clean good guys riding over the hill to the rescue of the down-trodden. It is about politics, power, and influence. Most other consequences are really just side-effects.

Anybody who sells you a different line will be a politician.:)

[Vandervahn]

We removed a dictator and installed democracy. THATS the point. ....

"You" also openly involved yourself in and manipulated a foreign nations interior politics, as well as showing the world how readily "you" are willing to exercise your overwhelming power for economic gains - all the while destroying both the fabric of society in Iraq as well as the power fabric in the Middle East.

THATS the problem. There are lines one simply shouldnt cross, for the sake of a stable system - even if it is corrupted.

The threat of military intervention always was the USAs strongest weapon in foreign manipulation, just like the monster in the horror film is most effective when you see least of it. The posturing up front, the execution and especially the desaster afterwards has shown many despots around the world what to do to prevent american-style attention. The USA, not to forget its lemming-like allies, let the world have a deep peak into its playbook.

Anyway, there have been multiple answers to your posts from different angles, I hope you see the shades of the issue now.

[Baboonass]

A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!


Oh brother, please stop posting.

[Macs.]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!


Oh brother, please stop posting.

What is your deal, you know nothing about tactics or what. Just fly a helicopter into the million-populated city and drop them off a building and let them shoot the target with their fiffy. Dictator is dead = Peace and democracy flash around.


BTW: Hasn't there been a attempt by a opponent party of the Baath together with the Kurs in Iraq to pull off a military coup, but in the end they didn't get any support from the USA/West and were being smashed ? I believe in the mid-90's.

[Cstafford]

What is your deal, you know nothing about tactics or what. Just fly a helicopter into the million-populated city and drop them off a building and let them shoot the target with their fiffy. Dictator is dead = Peace and democracy flash around.


BTW: Hasn't there been a attempt by a opponent party of the Baath together with the Kurs in Iraq to pull off a military coup, but in the end they didn't get any support from the USA/West and were being smashed ? I believe in the mid-90's.
yeah it happened right after the gulf war

[Macs.]

Found it:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D61231F937A25750C0A963958260

[Cstafford]

hmm that wasnt the one i was thinking of

[Laworkerbee]

hmm that wasnt the one i was thinking of

Maybe you were thinking of the Shia uprising in the South?

[Cstafford]

Maybe you were thinking of the Shia uprising in the South?
yeah thats it, didnt the republican guard crush it?

[ggk]

We removed a dictator and installed democracy. THATS the point.

A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

you do realise thats 2.4 kilometers right?

[Laworkerbee]

yeah thats it, didnt the republican guard crush it?

Yeah, they were allowed to use gunships under the no fly zone rules and crushed the uprising fairly quickly. It ended up as an environmental disaster as well due to flooding Saddam ordered.

[IraGlacialis]

It ended up as an environmental disaster as well due to flooding Saddam ordered.
I thought the opposite happened and he drained the marshes (it still being an eco-disaster).

[Laworkerbee]

I thought the opposite happened and he drained the marshes (it still being an eco-disaster).

You're right :cantbeli:

[LineDoggie]

you do realise thats 2.4 kilometers right?


Maximum Range on a .50 Browning cartridge is 6.8Km

For an M2HB Max effective is between 1,800-2000m

for the M82 (M107) 1,820m- for personnel only out to 1k realistically. The main limiting factor is a Optical Sight Unit sophisticated enough to distinguish targets that far out. We were using a Standard Leopold M3A Mildot used in the M24 system on ours.

I wouldnt want to try and take someone out at that long a range, but then my name aint Carlos either.....

Maybe he's got Nuke rounds for it :) (Project Tom Thumb)

[Baboonass]

Maximum Range on a .50 Browning cartridge is 6.8Km

For an M2HB Max effective is between 1,800-2000m

for the M82 (M107) 1,820m- for personnel only out to 1k realistically. The main limiting factor is a Optical Sight Unit sophisticated enough to distinguish targets that far out. We were using a Standard Leopold M3A Mildot used in the M24 system on ours.

I wouldnt want to try and take someone out at that long a range, but then my name aint Carlos either.....

Maybe he's got Nuke rounds for it :) (Project Tom Thumb)


But..but...he's an "Expert Marksman".


Not to mention a statigic and tactical genious.

[Laworkerbee]

Keep in mind Doggie, the kid wants you and your best pal to HALO in with the beast, never mind evading detection and getting to the target rofl

[Geezah]

you do realise thats 2.4 kilometers right?

Which is 1.49 miles, which is in my mind doable, as I know a few that shoot out to 1.14 miles on a regular basis. They have also set targets up at 2200 yards(1.25 miles), so 1.49 miles would not be that far off.

I just spoke to my buddy and he told me that 2,200yrds is the furthest they can shoot out at the range.

[LongShot]

Which is 1.49 miles, which is in my mind doable, as I know a few that shoot out to 1.14 miles on a regular basis. They have also set targets up at 2200 yards(1.25 miles), so 1.49 miles would not be that far off.

I'll come back to you once I've spoken to my buddy on this.


Which is 7867.2 feet, going with the standard muzzle velocity of the .50 cal M33 ball, flight time to target would be (at just under a 3000 FPS) around 2.62 seconds....lets not even figure in wind at origin, wind at destination, temp, humidity, curvature of the earth, what the shooter had for lunch, what the target is doing, etc...Its rare to have someone (awake and outside) stand still for nearly three seconds...of course, you could use the Mark Walhburg method and take the shot when the target is giving a speech...yeah, that'll do it.


It would be easier to poison said person using a local.

[ggk]

Which is 1.49 miles, which is in my mind doable, as I know a few that shoot out to 1.14 miles on a regular basis. They have also set targets up at 2200 yards(1.25 miles), so 1.49 miles would not be that far off.

I'll come back to you once I've spoken to my buddy on this.

is he a combat soldier or a target shooter?

[Geezah]

is he a combat soldier or a target shooter?

Both, check out Thunder Valley and 1,000yrd record holder Tom Sarver.

There are also those that shoot with him on a regular basis at his range.

[Geezah]

Which is 7867.2 feet, going with the standard muzzle velocity of the .50 cal M33 ball, flight time to target would be (at just under a 3000 FPS) around 2.62 seconds....lets not even figure in wind at origin, wind at destination, temp, humidity, curvature of the earth, what the shooter had for lunch, what the target is doing, etc...Its rare to have someone (awake and outside) stand still for nearly three seconds...of course, you could use the Mark Walhburg method and take the shot when the target is giving a speech...yeah, that'll do it.


It would be easier to poison said person using a local.

The shots I'm talking about are by .300 Short Mag and .300 Hulk.

[LongShot]

The shots I'm talking about are by .300 Short Mag and .300 Hulk.


Both rounds have slightly higher muzzle velocity, the "hulk" would be the winner if it performs like the Scenar Lapua at 3400 FPS (if I understand correctly, Mr. Sarver created the hulk from a shortened 30-338 Wildcat), but the idea of a combat shot at this distance for an "assassination" is still ridiculous and best left in Tom Clancy novels....is it possible? sure. Is it advisable? No.

[LineDoggie]

Keep in mind Doggie, the kid wants you and your best pal to HALO in with the beast, never mind evading detection and getting to the target rofl For me, it's less a HALO and more like a LAPES.....

[Laworkerbee]

For me, it's less a HALO and more like a LAPES.....

I can see it now.

A MC-130 flies over the Baghdad - Damascus Highway and LAPES out a fully kitted BMW. Inside are two operators and a cooler full of cold ones for when the mission is complete and the ride back to Kuwait.

I need to get this script started asap.

[Geezah]

Both rounds have slightly higher muzzle velocity, the "hulk" would be the winner if it performs like the Scenar Lapua at 3400 FPS

I'm not entirely sure on specs as I've only met Tom twice, but my buddy is up there all the time and had Tom build his .300 Short for him. Bets place to get the spces wouldbe Sniper Hide.



(if I understand correctly, Mr. Sarver created the hulk from a shortened 30-338 Wildcat)

I know he necks it down a couple of times and he has had offers to purchase the rights to it, if I recall correctly.


, but the idea of a combat shot for an "assassination" is still ridiculous and best left in Tom Clancy novels....is it possible? sure. Is it advisable? No.

I think the biggest point of this coming up was whether or not it could be done, granted it was mentioned with a .50, but there are other rnds that perform allot better in my mind.

[LongShot]

I think the biggest point of this coming up was whether or not it could be done, granted it was mentioned with a .50, but there are other rnds that perform allot better in my mind.


Oh, its certainly doable...combat shots at distances approaching that have been made, CPL Rob Furlongs record shot is 1.5 miles...but that engagement was not planned, and it took him three shots to kill the RPK gunner he was aiming at. (BTW, it was a .50 cal round, some argue he could have performed better with a .408 or a .338 Lapua.)

[Gleipnir]

I thought the opposite happened and he drained the marshes (it still being an eco-disaster).

Yeah, he drained the marshes in the South and re-directed the water for crop irrigation in reprisal for the Shi'ite uprising . After Saddam's overthrow the locals broke the dams and dikes and re-flooded the area, which has actually done further damage to areas that could have been used once again to grow crops.

Lots of water diverting projects were created in Iraq for crop irrigation, but had he stayed in power and had his Grand Mosque Saddam been built (the world's biggest mosque- it was projected to be done in 2015 if I remember correctly) a part of the Tigris river would have been re-directed to create an enormous artificial lake surrounding it- complete with a man-made island of Saddam's thumb with a mosaic of his thumbprint.

He also had an enormous man-made lake created to create a holiday resort for one of his birthdays.

Also, some more elaboration concerning his military.

The Special Republican Guard-
Headed by Qusay

Special security Organization
15 bodyguards, 20 others (relatives) and Saddam's personal assistant, Mahmoud
The only unit allowed to approach Saddam alone

5 Private security units, 1000 soldiers each
Each one would travel in a different direction and according to a different route so that no one would know which unit was moving the real Saddam, his doubles were probably in the other 4 units.

Emergency unit
5000 trained commandos

Palace Guards
5000 soldiers

Republican Guard
40,000 soldiers to protect Saddam's family and his regime
Not 100% sure- this might be the Fedayeen Saddam, maybe they are even separate units. Does anyone know?

Iraqi Army
They are the first line of defence against a civilian uprising

Suicidal Militia
Formed by Uday
mostly kids and teenagers

EACH unit is independent so that if one decides to attack, there will always be another to react and fight them. Organizing serious co-operation amongst units I imagine would have been damned difficult.

Also, children are 'educated' about their role in society since birth and I can imagine that this will instill an unwavering loyalty to Saddam during the time he was in the big chair- the most devoted probably end up in the suicidal militia.

Also a long overdue thank you to VEVAK for the correction!

Some other fun Saddam trivia:
In 1998 when the US were bombing his palaces he invited the Iraqi people to come stay the night in them, inviting the foreign press along so that the bombing would stop.

In 1990 he addressed the population, telling them that the Prophet Mohammed had appeared to him in a dream and told him where to point his missiles.

[Mordoror]

Not 100% sure- this might be the Fedayeen Saddam, maybe they are even separate units. Does anyone know?I am not sure of the meaning of your question here
The Fedayeen of Saddam was a paramilitary organization equiped with small arms and which members were gathered mostly in sunni tribes with a high fidelity to the Saddam's power

the Republican Guard was a full part of the Irakian Amy, heavily equiped (with armored and mechanized units) at least the best equiped units in the Iraki army and the best trained ones
It was a kind of Elite force on which the regime could have relied for squashing internal uprising or as the spearhead of any major military operation because not only of its good equipment and training (at least by Iraki standard) but also because a lot of officers and rank soldiers were also fidels to the regime (coming mainly also from the fidels sunni elements of the Iraki nation and especially,for the officers, from the Saddam Hussein's relatives tribe)

[TR1]

No it wasn't. If our leaders were truly leaders they would have followed the proper ethical and moral path and assassinated Saddam. It is not ethical to wage war against an oppressed nation and kill thousands of people to remove that nations dictator.
x2. I love the naivety that some people exhibit.

[Gambit]

Its okay guys, hes gone :)

[Cstafford]

I am not sure of the meaning of your question here
The Fedayeen of Saddam was a paramilitary organization equiped with small arms and which members were gathered mostly in sunni tribes with a high fidelity to the Saddam's power

the Republican Guard was a full part of the Irakian Amy, heavily equiped (with armored and mechanized units) at least the best equiped units in the Iraki army and the best trained ones
It was a kind of Elite force on which the regime could have relied for squashing internal uprising or as the spearhead of any major military operation because not only of its good equipment and training (at least by Iraki standard) but also because a lot of officers and rank soldiers were also fidels to the regime (coming mainly also from the fidels sunni elements of the Iraki nation and especially,for the officers, from the Saddam Hussein's relatives tribe)
Basically the RG was like the SS. i love how the thread got to this point, surprised it hasnt been locked

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

Awesome fecal fingerpainting via your keyboard.

[CG51]

Maximum Range on a .50 Browning cartridge is 6.8Km

For an M2HB Max effective is between 1,800-2000m

for the M82 (M107) 1,820m- for personnel only out to 1k realistically. The main limiting factor is a Optical Sight Unit sophisticated enough to distinguish targets that far out. We were using a Standard Leopold M3A Mildot used in the M24 system on ours.

I wouldnt want to try and take someone out at that long a range, but then my name aint Carlos either.....

Maybe he's got Nuke rounds for it :) (Project Tom Thumb)

When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos from a thousand yards out. It was a rifle shot in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that shot. It's the only thing I was ever good at. Well, see ya tomorrow.

[Jacknola]

RE: KrasotkaJS et. al. "What about lying to the whole world about Iraq's WMD, defying the UN and then sending American troops to die in Iraq because of a lie. Bush should be #1 in the Axis of Idiots.

Because of Bush thousands of soldiers have died and countless Iraqis."

This is for all those who rue the US taking out Saddaam and his sons... all the hand wringers, whiners, appoligizers, appeasers... you know who you are. ... I wish someone would tell me what it was about Saddaam Hussein that you people adored so much that you wish he and his raping, murdering sons were still in power in Iraq.

Was it the three wars he started killing literally millions? Was it the use of poison gas against the Iranians, Kurds, and his own people? Or did you particularly like the looting and rape of Kuwait, the blowing up of 600 oil wells polluting the atmosphere of the entire world? Maybe you admired him for pumping 10 million barrels of oil into the ocean?

I would like to know how you and your aping friends had the inside information on Saddaam, knew the truth about Saddam and his regime back in 2003. Somehow, you seem now to calim that you had better inside information than any of the world's intelligence services, all the newspapers and reporters world-wide, the politicians of both/all parties, the UN, all news networks.

You (and George Bush) apparently were the only people in the world who knew Saddaam was bluffing about nukes and therefore there was no reason to bother that harmless patriot, Saddaam, except to benefit Halliburton. Do you mind tellling us how you "knew" all this back in 2003?

And tell me... how is it you "know" that George Bush “lied” to get the United States to depose Hussain... and why are you so upset about his disposal? The logical conclusion is that you loved Saddam and his regime. Well, I ask again...tell me what it was about Hussain that causes you to wish with all your heart we hadn’t done it. What is it about Saddaam that makes people like you want to try George Bush for war crimes against Saddaam Hussain? … PLEASE tell me what you loved about Hussain that you would adopt such a view?

You say… “Saddaam was no threat to the US.” Remind me again about the three wars he started including one with the US. Remind me of the millions he killed, his multiple attempts to produce nuclear weapons, his indiscriminate use of poison gas his attacks on all of his neighbors, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi, Jordan.

Isn't it amazing that no Arabs, no Persians, no Turks, no Kurds morn the passing of Saddaam... but you and your like minded fools are now the main appologists for one of the worst despotic killers of the last 100 years? Help me... How is it that you KNEW in 2003 that Saddaam and sons were just misunderstood Islamic patriots and were not a threat to anyone?

Please explain how when oil hit $130/bbl, Saddam was going to channel the windfall wealth to his people rather than immediately buy nukes, more poison gas. If you hate it that the US paid a price to rid the world of a mad man who killed millions and was capable of killing millions more, then there MUST be something you especially loved about Saddaam. Please share it with us.

The US lost 4,500 soldiers remaking Iraq. Do you realize that since 9-11, more Americans have been killed by gunfire in NEW YORK CITY alone, than have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq put together?

Unfortunately you and your chirping kin cannot really deal with these questions. You cannot deal with the fact that the US Congress knowingly declared war on Saddaam, but when the going got tough, you and many democratic congressmen wimped out and resorted to undercutting the committed policy of the United States. Help me understand how that is not cowardly treason?

You and your ilk are the same sit-at-homes who cheered when Pol Pot was killing millions and the NVA was sending millions to reeducation camps if not the firing squads. I suggest wringing your pitiful hands and addling your minds with whatever substance de jour you enjoy somewhere else, where people give a rats about those UFO beliefs of yours.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos from a thousand yards out. It was a rifle shot in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that shot. It's the only thing I was ever good at. Well, see ya tomorrow.


Ah, those shadow companie pussies...

[Pete031]

Which is 1.49 miles, which is in my mind doable, as I know a few that shoot out to 1.14 miles on a regular basis. They have also set targets up at 2200 yards(1.25 miles), so 1.49 miles would not be that far off.

I just spoke to my buddy and he told me that 2,200yrds is the furthest they can shoot out at the range.

Of course it can be done.... It has been done.... 3PPCLI did it in Afghanistan....

You want to take out a target at 2.4km you can do it.... Can you determine if it is the target you want? No.

If you have a go at all fighting age males or something like that, you can make those shots.
This link discusses a little bit about the shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2knT8RwxKA



What you people are talking about is pure fantasy.

[Geezah]

Of course it can be done.... It has been done.... 3PPCLI did it in Afghanistan....

You want to take out a target at 2.4km you can do it.... Can you determine if it is the target you want? No.

If you have a go at all fighting age males or something like that, you can make those shots.
This link discusses a little bit about the shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2knT8RwxKA



What you people are talking about is pure fantasy.


I dunno what type of scopes you're purchasing but when my buddy puts $3,000 to $4,000 in a rifle that will reach out and touch you every time at 2,200yrds, he's spending the money on the glass to put on top of it.

Hell, Tom Sarver if I remember correctly had a Leica spotting scope that you could see the contrails off the rnd through as thy went through the air out to a mile.

They shoot bloody rocks at 2,200yrds, so I can only imagine they can make out the targets they are shooting at at that distance.


Here's the link to my post after going out to Thunder Valley for the first time last year. In a few of the pics you can see the target at a mile on the right hand side.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=131052

[gaijinsamurai]

RE: KrasotkaJS et. al. "What about lying to the whole world about Iraq's WMD, defying the UN and then sending American troops to die in Iraq because of a lie. Bush should be #1 in the Axis of Idiots.

Because of Bush thousands of soldiers have died and countless Iraqis."

This is for all those who rue the US taking out Saddaam and his sons... all the hand wringers, whiners, appoligizers, appeasers... you know who you are. I wish someone would tell me what it was about Saddaam Hussein that you people adored so much that you wish he and his raping, murdering sons were still in power in Iraq.

Was it the three wars he started killing literally millions? Was it the use of poison gas against the Iranians, Kurds, and his own people? Or did you particularly like the looting and rape of Kuwait, the blowing up of 600 oil wells polluting the atmosphere of the entire world? Maybe you admired him for pumping 10 MILLION BARRALS of oil into the ocean?

I would like to know how you and your aping friends have the inside information on Saddaam. You knew the truth about Saddam and his regime in 2003. You had better inside information than every single one of the world's intelligence services, the newspapers and reporters, politicians of both/all parties, the UN, all news networks. You apparently knew he was bluffing about nukes and therefore there was no reason to remove him. Do you mind tellling us how you "knew?"

And tell me... how are you so positive that George Bush “lied” to get the United States to depose Hussain... and why do you even care? Do you have a reason that he would do that? Oh that is right, you loved Saddam and his regime and really thought we should just leave them alone. Well, I ask again...tell me what it was about Hussain you loved so much you wish we hadn’t done it… PLEASE tell me?

You say… “Saddaam was no threat to the US.” Remind me again about the three wars he started including one with the US. Remind me of the hundreds of thousands, millions he killed, his multiple attempts to produce nuclear weapons, his indiscriminate use of poison gas his attacks on all of his neighbors, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi, Jordan. Isn't it amazing that no Arabs, no Persians, no Turks, no Kurds morn the passing of Saddaam... but you and your like minded fools do? But of course you and your baaaaing parrots are the only ones who are in the know, with true knowledge… you KNOW he was not threat to anyone. Is that right?

Please explain how when oil hit $130/bbl, Saddam was going to channel the windfall wealth to his people rather than immediately buy nukes, more poison gas. If you hate it that the US took the lunatic on and paid a price to rid the world of a mad man who killed millions and was capable of killing millions more, then there MUST be something you especially loved about Saddaam. Please share it with us.

The US lost 4,500 soldiers remaking Iraq. Do you realize that since 9-11, more Americans have been killed by gunfire in NEW YORK CITY alone, than have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq put together?

Unfortunately you and your chirping kin cannot really deal with these questions. You cannot deal with the fact that the US Congress knowingly declared war on Saddaam, but when the going got tough, you and many democratic congressmen wimped out and resorted to undercutting the committed policy of the United States. Help me understand how that is not cowardly treason? Well here is your chance... please explaing your love Saddaam and why you morn his passing.

You and your ilk are the same sit-at-homes who cheered when Pol Pot was killing millions and the NVA was sending millions to reeducation camps if not the firing squads. I suggest wringing your pitiful hands and addling your minds with whatever substance de jour you enjoy somewhere else, where people give a rats about those UFO beliefs of yours.



Okay, I really can't let this go unanswered.

At what point did Krasotka or any of the other posters who have criticized the invasion of Iraq say they love Sadaam Hussein or even supported his policies? Yeah, we all know he was a terrible dictator, and the Iraqi people, as well as a lot of Iranians, Kuwaitis, and others suffered because of him, his Baath party loyalists, and his demonic sons.

But this so-called moral highground you think you are standing on is bullsh*t. You think we don't know about Pol Pot, or that we cheered when he did his deeds? You think we are the types who sit at home like a bunch of pussies and let people get slaughtered? Tell you what: there are people suffering in Darfur, Zimbabwe, and North Korea right now, due to evil dictators. Put your money where your mouth is and go liberate them! I'm sure you can get some financing from **** Cheney if you convince him there's money to be made! Go ahead! We'll cheer you on!

[Pete031]

As the longest kill is from a Soldier... THey have a standard 16x scope and 40x spotting scope.

They fired from a Mountain side in Afghanistan, not a shooting mat. At an elevation higher then 10000ft, not someones private range....

It took them 3 rounds to kill an enemy mortarmen, while surrounding forces were under contact.

calculating wind in the Mountains of Afghanistan 2.4 km's away with all the valley's and high features is no small feat.

But hey.... You're the expert, obviously.

[Geezah]

But hey.... You're the expert, obviously.

I think we're like ywo ships passing in the night, you need to reread my posts.

Research Tom Sarver as well that might help you out.

I never said I was an expert, just passing on what I have personally witnessed.

[Robbee]

You make a good point about the assassination, it wouldn't be hard to insert a sniper team by submarine or HALO, but if he was taken out who would have taken over? One of his sons? Or a military leader? Either way Iraq would have still been oppressed.


A properly placed sniper team could nail him from 2400m with an M82, and exfil without being caught. There are other options, but thats what comes to mind for me personally.

Just so we're all on the right page, a 17 year old high school student with the user name "Expert Marksman" suggested that Saddam Hussein could have been assassinated by a sniper team traveling to Iraq and taking him out with a M82 @ 2400 meters (2625 yards) and you think that's conceivable?

There's something prophetic about the thread title... p-)

[Mackie]

Just so we're all on the right page, a 17 year old high school student with the user name "Expert Marksman" suggested that Saddam Hussein could have been assassinated by a sniper team traveling to Iraq and taking him out with a M82 @ 2400 meters (2625 yards) and you think that's conceivable?

*Stick for next Chuck Norris movie*

[Jacknola]

to gaijinsamurai: "You think we are the types who sit at home like a bunch of pussies and let people get slaughtered?" ... Well, yes I do...

Look, a** h***... the US Congress authorized the war against Saddaam, backed up by UN resolutions. Saddaam had plenty of chances to avoid the war, ... he invited it.

Many of your intellectual kin, sunshine patriots from the previous generation, not only dodged the draft in Vietnam, but actively supported the enemy. The result? ... Pol Pot, the four horsemen and the reeducation camps. The crime of the “anti-war” element of the '60s was that it was actually “anti-US” and therefore “pro-Pol Pot." You cannot avoid the fact that actions have consequences.

And today, you cannot wiggle, waffle, or weave your way out of this simple moral truth. The result of not fighting Saddaam in 2003 would have been Saddaam and Sons in power in 2009.

You and your latte sipping friends can purse your lips, tut tut with head shake while talking lied-died dribble, and declare that you didn’t “support” the US taking Saddaam out all you want. All that means is that you must have wanted Saddaam to stay in power in Iraq. And that must mean you didn’t find his wars against Iran, Kuwait Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kurds, Shiitis, poison gas, scorched earth, murder, torture to be objectionable enough to warrant action.

No... don’t obfuscate, don’t change the subject to Darfar, or Korea... the truth is, if you opposed the US action in Iraq to remove-Saddaam and sons, then you SUPPORTED SADDAAM STAYING IN POWER. It is that simple... Com’on Mr. lied-died ... show some backbone, have the courage to face up to the consequences that would have been the result of your cowardness, if not for Bush administration.

You can’t do it can you? ... you cannot accept that to "oppose" the US action, makes you a Saddaam Hussain toady and an apologist for the Islamic terrorists? Ok, let me set you and your draft dodging lineage straight. When the US Congress acted, that was basically a declaration of war on Hussain and sons. That meant the troops and flag of the US were committed. When that happens, it is not supposed to be “me,” or “you sitting on the sidelines cheering.” It is supposed to be “us,” "we," the United States.

But, apparently to you “us” excludes you and your latte drinking, coffee shop commando friends...again. You all apparently think you are somehow exempt from sacrifice and service. You apparently think you can make up some BS, declare any national effort to be immoral, and be excused from service to your country... like faking a note from your mother in grammar school.

What did you and your like minded sheep think about Granada? How about Panama? What was your position on Gulf War I? How about Serbia? My guess is that every single time the US government has committed troops into harms way, you and your parents, friends and relatives have stood on the sidelines and opted out.

Dafour? Korea? If it is in the national interest of the US to do something, then the US President will ask the US Congress to authorize the committment of forces. But of course you and your sit-on-the-sidelines-and-cheer draft dodging parasite family will then do what you always have done.... get a free ride.

Spare me and my family, the US military your ironic “cheers” from the sidelines. I don’t expect you or your kin to suddenly grow a pair. But at least do “us” a favor... the next time the flag is committed and you and your ilk are looking for an excuse for your personal cowardness, please just hunker down, shut the f* up and try not to help the enemy too much.

At least John Walker Lynd had enough moxie to actually go fight against us. You and yours? have another latte and take some more laxatives.....

[California Joe]

Jack, gaijinsamurai is former military, not a Abby Hoffman.


This thread is stuck on stupid.

Look, I know for a fact that there were assets in Iraq 5 months before the war started. There were loads of Iraqi officers who told them point blank that Sadaam had and would use WMD. That intel was all reported back. It was valid. Did the administration ramp up the threat and the urgency? Sure they did. Did they attempt to take advantage of the general ignorance of the populace that figures all Arabs/Persians/Muslims are in it together? Yep. Did Bush and Cheney and the Neocons have a particular hardon for Saddam? Definitely.

People love these types of chain emails because they're black and white in their assessments. Like Toby Keith songs telling people how to be patriotic.

And as Robbee pointed out, retard high school wannabee snipers should sh*t the f*ck up while the adults are speaking.

[Gleipnir]

Wow, is all I can say.
I admire your patriotism and enthusiasm, but I feel that you are un-necessarily categorizing some of the posters here into your us vs. them idea of draft dodgers and soldiers.

I love the USA and I support the troops, there is no question about that. I don't love Mr. Hussein and I am fully aware of the fear, intimidation and powerlessness of the populace living under his reign. I don't think anyone here is really saying that they support that regime.

What we are saying is that what congress approved and what Mr. Bush used as reasoning to invade Iraq were obfuscations of the truth.
We all know that Saddam had some serious and unsavoury practices and weapons at his disposal but I dare to say that the reason the USA invaded was not PRIMARILY for the benefits of the civilian population, although it definitely was ONE of MANY reasons.

I personally feel that the USA invaded PRIMARILY (as I have stated earlier) to FURTHER and SECURE its interests abroad.
Nothing wrong with that, the USA has done so before in the past- I am not moralizing that and people who feel the need to defend this because they are afraid that it makes the USA less than a rather naive and outdated vision of a shining white knight of liberation (a fantasy that doesn't differ in my mind to any other creation of a propaganda office) need to understand that this is how politics and warfare play out.

Why can't we just be honest about that?

I am not a leftie, I don't think the troops are baby killers, I stand behind the decisions of the President and my taxes have gone and go towards those efforts. I have thanked Vietnam veterans for their service when I meet them and I can tell you without any doubt in my mind that my sympathies and support go out to every man that steps up to serve for his country.

and just for the record- Personally, I don't like hippies.

[Indiana Jones]

[...]
Sancta simplicitas ! And why does "Latte" always plays such an eminent role in these puerile rants ? Help me out- is this some American cultural chiffre ?

[Hollis]

Sancta simplicitas ! And why does "Latte" always plays such an eminent role in these puerile rants ? Help me out- is this some American cultural chiffre ?


Yes it is, so kindly move on.

[California Joe]

I would just like to point out for the record, that I don't believe I have ever had a "latte", although I have been known to wear scarves occasionally.

Don't judge me.

[Red_Rage]

Did someone say "latte"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYQyvA6501A

[CG51]

It's good to be the World Police.

[Laworkerbee]

Jesus H Christ now Latte's are a violation of man law? That's it! I'm moving to Big Gay Al's island.

[CG51]

That's just thuper!

[Netzach]

Not just a man law violation - it would seem.

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/19/lashes-and-lattes-saudi-religious-police-defend-their-arrest-of-american-woman-who-sat-next-to-a-man-at-a-starbucks/

[Laworkerbee]

Not just a man law violation - it would seem.

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/19/lashes-and-lattes-saudi-religious-police-defend-their-arrest-of-american-woman-who-sat-next-to-a-man-at-a-starbucks/

Pfft! You can't pass gas there without someone freaking out.

[gaijinsamurai]

to gaijinsamurai: "You think we are the types who sit at home like a bunch of pussies and let people get slaughtered?" ... Well, yes I do...

Look, a** h***... the US Congress authorized the war against Saddaam, backed up by UN resolutions. Saddaam had plenty of chances to avoid the war, ... he invited it.

Many of your intellectual kin, sunshine patriots from the previous generation, not only dodged the draft in Vietnam, but actively supported the enemy. The result? ... Pol Pot, the four horsemen and the reeducation camps. The crime of the “anti-war” element of the '60s was that it was actually “anti-US” and therefore “pro-Pol Pot." You cannot avoid the fact that actions have consequences.

And today, you cannot wiggle, waffle, or weave your way out of this simple moral truth. The result of not fighting Saddaam in 2003 would have been Saddaam and Sons in power in 2009.

You and your latte sipping friends can purse your lips, tut tut with head shake while talking lied-died dribble, and declare that you didn’t “support” the US taking Saddaam out all you want. All that means is that you must have wanted Saddaam to stay in power in Iraq. And that must mean you didn’t find his wars against Iran, Kuwait Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kurds, Shiitis, poison gas, scorched earth, murder, torture to be objectionable enough to warrant action.

No... don’t obfuscate, don’t change the subject to Darfar, or Korea... the truth is, if you opposed the US action in Iraq to remove-Saddaam and sons, then you SUPPORTED SADDAAM STAYING IN POWER. It is that simple... Com’on Mr. lied-died ... show some backbone, have the courage to face up to the consequences that would have been the result of your cowardness, if not for Bush administration.

You can’t do it can you? ... you cannot accept that to "oppose" the US action, makes you a Saddaam Hussain toady and an apologist for the Islamic terrorists? Ok, let me set you and your draft dodging lineage straight. When the US Congress acted, that was basically a declaration of war on Hussain and sons. That meant the troops and flag of the US were committed. When that happens, it is not supposed to be “me,” or “you sitting on the sidelines cheering.” It is supposed to be “us,” "we," the United States.

But, apparently to you “us” excludes you and your latte drinking, coffee shop commando friends...again. You all apparently think you are somehow exempt from sacrifice and service. You apparently think you can make up some BS, declare any national effort to be immoral, and be excused from service to your country... like faking a note from your mother in grammar school.

What did you and your like minded sheep think about Granada? How about Panama? What was your position on Gulf War I? How about Serbia? My guess is that every single time the US government has committed troops into harms way, you and your parents, friends and relatives have stood on the sidelines and opted out.

Dafour? Korea? If it is in the national interest of the US to do something, then the US President will ask the US Congress to authorize the committment of forces. But of course you and your sit-on-the-sidelines-and-cheer draft dodging parasite family will then do what you always have done.... get a free ride.

Spare me and my family, the US military your ironic “cheers” from the sidelines. I don’t expect you or your kin to suddenly grow a pair. But at least do “us” a favor... the next time the flag is committed and you and your ilk are looking for an excuse for your personal cowardness, please just hunker down, shut the f* up and try not to help the enemy too much.

At least John Walker Lynd had enough moxie to actually go fight against us. You and yours? have another latte and take some more laxatives.....

Hey, ****head! First of all, let me tell you something: You don't know jacksh*t about me! You want to know my position on Gulf War I? Besides the fact that I approve of what Bush Sr. did, I was there, serving on the front lines with the 2nd Marine Division. And no, my buddies and I did NOT drink lattes over there!

Serbia? From the beginning, I was a proponent for US intervention in the former Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and while in the Oregon National Guard, volunteered for service in Bosnia. Too bad a lot of the same people in government who supported the Iraq invasion fought against our involvement in Bosnia, where we could have stopped a lot of the genocide before it happened.

You obviously want to ignore my questions on whether or not you are for us intervening to stop other dictators, but it is a legitimate question. By the way, knowing that Mao Tse Dung was such a tyrant, should US forces have invaded China, as MacArthur and others urged? Was Truman a latte-sipping traitor for wanting to limit the war in 1950-54 to the Korean Peninsula? Should we, in fact, go to war everytime there is a tyrant who committs mass murder? These are legitimate questions, and MP.net should be a place where people can exchange ideas and views freely, without having to worry about some self-important blowhard accusing them of being a coward and a traitor. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their gang of neo-cons used this tactic with great success in the months before the war in Iraq, to silence those who should have been asking the important questions, but as a veteran and a patriotic American who has served two tours in the Middle East, I won't let you do it and get away with it.

[Laworkerbee]

****ing A Gaijin!

[California Joe]

Now that we're all on the same page....

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Well played, Sir.

[Gleipnir]

GaijinSamurai, I would just like to say thank you for your service and for your post. Thank you.

[Baboonass]

Should we, in fact, go to war everytime there is a tyrant who committs mass murder? .


Nope, only if there is a vested capitol interest in it.

Otherwise it's pointless.

For example, lets' say we march troops into Dafur, expell the dictators causing the genocide, restore order.

O.k., now what?

Stay there?

Install a puppet government and dump money on the problem?

To what end?

Unless there is some sort of return in investment, we would be broke financially and morally in no time.

Yeh, the facts kinda suck, not quite the "white horse" we make ourselves out to be.

I'm cool with it, things are never quite as black and white as it may seem.

[Jacknola]

Thanks for your efforts overseas. Look, my original response was to a post which denigrated the removal of Saddam Hussein and sons, and which to accused George Bush, the US Government, and the UN of being lying idiots for doing it.

Here is what the provaceur posted exactly:

"What about lying to the whole world about Iraq's WMD, defying the UN and then sending American troops to die in Iraq because of a lie. Bush should be #1 in the Axis of Idiots.

Because of Bush thousands of soldiers have died and countless Iraqis."


How and why you came down on the side of the equation represented by the above troll-like post is a mystery to me... perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.

Unfortunately, to me sometime things really are black and white. Re: the Iraq invasion, war, reconstruction... there are about four realistic alternatives, but in actuality only two philosophical positions.

(1) You supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq by military force, however reluctantly. That was the objective outlined by the President, approved by vote of Congress, in accordance to multiple UN resolutions. Implicit in that objective was the reconstruction of Iraq into a viable, more modern state. NO ONE SAID IT WOULD BE EASY and it has nothing to do with China, Darfor, or Mars.

(Note: doubting the methods or tactical approaches used to "reconstruct" Iraq is not the same as opposing the objective of the war. I don’t like the bureaucratic mess in Afghanistan one bit... but instead of whining, I’ve posted an alternative for comment).

(2) You think the world and the US would have been better off leaving Saddam and sons in power in Iraq, and the world would be better of if the US policy of removing Saddam and reconstructing Iraq fails.

(3) In 2003, you were for removing Saddam, until the going got a little sticky about 2006. Now you think it all was a mistake and George Bush lied and tricked the country. Advocating giving up is not really the same as supporting the goals of the Islamic terrorists, its just their goals and those in door #3 happen to be identical.

(4) You were for removing Saddam militarily, but then immediately withdrawing letting Iraq go the civil war hell, possibly letting the Iranians take over after unbelievably murderous social unrest.

Re: #2 above: After the vote and committment of troops to the war, adopting door #2 is in my opinion shameful and inevitably aligns with the goals of the Baathists and terrorists.

If you are not a US citizen I suppose one can make a case for picking door #2. How one would justify preferring Saddam’s regime to the current situation in Iraq would seem difficult to me. So don’t expect others to roll over and accept that idea. Do expect to be asked to explain what it was you liked so much about Saddam’s regime.

Adopting door #3 is the worst position of all. It is defeatist, feckless, and supercilious to suddenly lose heart in the midst of a declared war when the cost to the nation has been so miniscule. Why most of the US is at the mall, not at war! Adopting door #3 is the same as adopting door #2, just far, far, worse.

Re: door #4: That position may be acceptable, but it requires being cold blooded enough to remove a government and then stand by while gruesome events unfold for the strategic benefit of your country. BUT... if one believes this position, you should have held it before the commitment of troops. And you should be bold enough to defend the position that it was not our business what comes next once the issue with Saddam was settled.

Sorry gentlemen, it looks to be pretty darn black and white. You (1) either thought Saddam and sons should go and are glad they are gone, or (2) you wish the war that removed them and their party had never happened.... which very simply means you think the world was better off with them running Iraq.

If you want to talk errors in the accomplishment of the goals, that is a different matter. Just don’t say the policy of removing Saddam was idiotic. You will be asked to explain what it was about Saddam you loved best.

Re: Lattes, several perceptions are at work here:

(1) Coffee shop culture, represented by latte drinking, is arm-chair, not action oriented. Hence “coffee ship socialists,” someone who talks a game but when the going get tough out in the streets, he digs in... in the easy chair with another frilly drink.

(2) Coffee shop culture, represented by latte drinking, is usually associated with upper-middle class, feckless, graduated student, mommy’s boy, daddies money, me-generation lack of serious purpose or intent.

(3) A person who routinely orders some $5.00, whip-cream topped, multiple flavor concoction that takes several special machines and 10 minutes to prepare must be suspected as to their priorities in life...

(4) Anyone who uses more than ten words to order their morning drink (example: I want a large cup of dark roast, to go), or spends more than 9 seconds adding things to it (example: add cream, sugar, mocoa, coconut, stir, sip, purse lips, smack, look at ceiling, add a bit more mocoa, stir, taste, repeat, etc.) while blocking access to the cream is a certified member of the me-me-generation whose priorities are confused, and who is therefore unlikely to ever accomplish anything difficult.

[Laworkerbee]

So let me get this straight.

If I go into coffee shop and order anything but "Coffee, Black" I'm a screaming Homo****** who lives off daddy's money and will never amount to anything?

You're cutting man, cutting deep.

[Red_Rage]

So let me get this straight.

If I go into coffee shop and order anything but "Coffee, Black" I'm a screaming Homo****** who lives off daddy's money and will never amount to anything?

You're cutting man, cutting deep.


Yep. Here is a composite photo of an average latte drinking deviant:

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2463/modelsqz1.jpg

[Laworkerbee]

That Poofter isn't drinking no God damned latte. FAIL!!!

[TR1]

Actually, for once i agree. I can't ****ing tolerate all my fellow Reedies who spend half their damn time sipping coffee in the multitude of coffee shops around Portland.

[Red_Rage]

That Poofter isn't drinking no God damned latte. FAIL!!!


Oh, but it is a latte...


Thing with latte-drinking deviants is that they try to confuse you with 100 varieties of latte, in different colours. However, latte is still a latte, even if they call it mocca frappucino, and person that drinks it is still a deviant homo****** with ties to communist party.

[Laworkerbee]

Oh, but it is a latte...


Thing with latte-drinking deviants is that they try to confuse you with 100 varieties of latte, in different colours. However, latte is still a latte, even if they call it mocca frappucino, and person that drinks it is still a deviant homo****** with ties to communist party.

You're dead to me, DEAD!!!

[Gleipnir]

Hey Jacknola
we removed Saddam so that Iraqis could drink Lattes too!
What's your beef with lattes? Don't men go to war to protect the freedom for those at home to buy and consume lattes?

I recall visiting the Imperial War Museum in London and after several hours of being overwhelmed by the complexities of the long history and amounts of weaponry employed in numerous wars thought to myself- Gee, all that just so that we can buy a latte.

and LAworkerbee, have you ever noticed that in LA it's always the Gs and SAs who order the fruity, mocha-latte-caramel frappaccinos or those pink ones.

[Laworkerbee]

and LAworkerbee, have you ever noticed that in LA it's always the Gs and SAs who order the fruity, mocha-latte-caramel frappaccinos or those pink ones.

I live in a fruit bowl man, I don't notice those things.

I also enjoy Cosmopolitans from time to time. p-)

[Red_Rage]

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/16/lattecoveroj1.jpg

[Laworkerbee]

Awesome work man! rofl

[Jacknola]

OMG... I've been to the Imperial War Museum. I've looked at the awesome model array of ships that fought at Jutland. I've walked through the model trench WW I display with "shells" lighting the horizon.

One thing I didn't see... lattes being served on the bridge of the Queen Elizabeth, or lattes being consumed by the troops in the trenches. Please tell me it ain't so...

Hummm... rereading some famous quotes, perhaps with minor editing liberties an understanding can be reached.... i.e.:

Patrick Henry:
"Give me lattes or give me death."

Voltaire:
"I do not agree with what you have to drink, lattes, but I'll defend to the death your right to drink them."

Or perhaps Emily ****inson,
"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see—
But lattes are prudent
In an Emergency."

[Laworkerbee]

Much better Jack, one of the best Latte's I've ever had was in New Orleans at that powdered sugar donut type place whose name I can't recall right now.

[IraGlacialis]

Was Truman a latte-sipping traitor for wanting to limit the war in 1950-54 to the Korean Peninsula?He was a Democrat so it must be true. p-)

Now back on topic...
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/9226/42048051fa8.jpg

[Macs.]

Re: Lattes, several perceptions are at work here:

(1) Coffee shop culture, represented by latte drinking, is arm-chair, not action oriented. Hence “coffee ship socialists,” someone who talks a game but when the going get tough out in the streets, he digs in... in the easy chair with another frilly drink.

(2) Coffee shop culture, represented by latte drinking, is usually associated with upper-middle class, feckless, graduated student, mommy’s boy, daddies money, me-generation lack of serious purpose or intent.

(3) A person who routinely orders some $5.00, whip-cream topped, multiple flavor concoction that takes several special machines and 10 minutes to prepare must be suspected as to their priorities in life...

(4) Anyone who uses more than ten words to order their morning drink (example: I want a large cup of dark roast, to go), or spends more than 9 seconds adding things to it (example: add cream, sugar, mocoa, coconut, stir, sip, purse lips, smack, look at ceiling, add a bit more mocoa, stir, taste, repeat, etc.) while blocking access to the cream is a certified member of the me-me-generation whose priorities are confused, and who is therefore unlikely to ever accomplish anything difficult.

The Axis of Idiots.

Right here !

[Gleipnir]

Osama Bin Latte!

[budgie]

Make sure you include all the Senators and Representatives in there as well because as I remember it, they had access to the same information that President Bush had and the majority voted on going to war with Saddam.

That doesn't include what the UN(Paper Tiger) had been threatening Saddam with because of what he had been doing.

They had access to the doctored, sexed up and carefully edited information Bush gave them. And they didn't have the balls to fact check him so yeah, you can blame them too. But remember it was the Bush administration that cooked up the idea of invading Iraq, and they shoulder far more blame than any other countries and politicians they roped into going along with it.

[Hollis]

They had access to the doctored, sexed up and carefully edited information Bush gave them. And they didn't have the balls to fact check him so yeah, you can blame them too. But remember it was the Bush administration that cooked up the idea of invading Iraq, and they shoulder far more blame than any other countries and politicians they roped into going along with it.


BS: Find a Bush doctored up anything here.



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently ****e to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Expert Marksman 126]

Budgie- I believe the term is PWNED:)

[Gleipnir]

@marksman
Kid, you need to refrain from posting these kinds of worthless provocations. Where were you 10 posts ago?

[Expert Marksman 126]

@marksman
Kid, you need to refrain from posting these kinds of worthless provocations. Where were you 10 posts ago?

Your obsession with me is sad. Do you have nothing better to do?

[Geezah]

OI budgie, this is for you..........

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v326/Geezah/461_1143664693_ohsnapcard.jpg

Fcuking stewardess........ once again you need to read before you write!

[Red_Rage]

Your obsession with me is sad. Do you have nothing better to do?


You will get gang raped on those forums posting the garbage that you currently post.

Unlike your provocative one-liners, Gleipnir's posts contained valuable on-topic input.

[Expert Marksman 126]

You will get gang raped on those forums posting the garbage that you currently post.

Unlike your provocative one-liners, Gleipnir's posts contained valuable on-topic input.

I notice you refrain from making the same remarks about Geezahs post. Strange.

[Red_Rage]

I notice you refrain from making the same remarks about Geezahs post. Strange.


****** favors man.... the go a long way :hug:

[Expert Marksman 126]

****** favors man.... the go a long way :hug:

Wow....more than a little wrong :)

[Laworkerbee]

I notice you refrain from making the same remarks about Geezahs post. Strange.

Geezah is double your age and has 10,000+ posts. Please don't compare yourself to him. He also doesn't advocate having ninja snipers HALO from an MC-130 into Iraq to take out Saddam.

Lurk more.

[Walter Sobchak]

Re: Lattes, several perceptions are at work here:

(1) Coffee shop culture, represented by latte drinking, is arm-chair, not action oriented. Hence “coffee ship socialists,” someone who talks a game but when the going get tough out in the streets, he digs in... in the easy chair with another frilly drink.

(2) Coffee shop culture, represented by latte drinking, is usually associated with upper-middle class, feckless, graduated student, mommy’s boy, daddies money, me-generation lack of serious purpose or intent.

(3) A person who routinely orders some $5.00, whip-cream topped, multiple flavor concoction that takes several special machines and 10 minutes to prepare must be suspected as to their priorities in life...

(4) Anyone who uses more than ten words to order their morning drink (example: I want a large cup of dark roast, to go), or spends more than 9 seconds adding things to it (example: add cream, sugar, mocoa, coconut, stir, sip, purse lips, smack, look at ceiling, add a bit more mocoa, stir, taste, repeat, etc.) while blocking access to the cream is a certified member of the me-me-generation whose priorities are confused, and who is therefore unlikely to ever accomplish anything difficult.

From one curmudgeon to another: Brilliant!! I'm printing this out and putting it in my car, and the next time my kids want to "run by Staaaaaarbuck's", I'll hand it to 'em!

[Expert Marksman 126]

I made one post about inserting a sniper team to remove Saddam. I talked to my rifle coach who was a ranger sniper and he said that plan would accomplish the objective.

I was pointing out that Red Rage is only mocking me because of my age, and he is afraid to do the same to others.

[gaz]

I made one post about inserting a sniper team to remove Saddam. I talked to my rifle coach who was a ranger sniper and he said that plan would accomplish the objective.

I was pointing out that Red Rage is only mocking me because of my age, and he is afraid to do the same to others.

Other people here seem to be far politer and more patient than me so I'm just going to ask that you shut the f*ck up.

[Pete031]

I made one post about inserting a sniper team to remove Saddam. I talked to my rifle coach who was a ranger sniper and he said that plan would accomplish the objective.

I was pointing out that Red Rage is only mocking me because of my age, and he is afraid to do the same to others.

Your Ranger Sniper shooting coach eh? Does he HALO in before each lesson too?

[Red_Rage]

From one curmudgeon to another: Brilliant!! I'm printing this out and putting it in my car, and the next time my kids want to "run by Staaaaaarbuck's", I'll hand it to 'em!


Imagine actually memorizing it word-for-word and then dropping that load in local coffee shop on that guy in front of you whose taking 10 mins to place his order (has to be done in Edward Norton's narration voice from "Fight Club" devoid of any emotion for maximum effect).

[Red_Rage]

I made one post about inserting a sniper team to remove Saddam. I talked to my rifle coach who was a ranger sniper and he said that plan would accomplish the objective.

I was pointing out that Red Rage is only mocking me because of my age, and he is afraid to do the same to others.


I haven't mentioned your age once...

[Expert Marksman 126]

Your Ranger Sniper shooting coach eh? Does he HALO in before each lesson too?

Seeing as how he's 63, no he doesn't.

[Expert Marksman 126]

I haven't mentioned your age once...

You don't need to mention it.

[Pete031]

You have an answer for everything eh? You plan on joining the military?

[Gleipnir]

What's wrong Marksman? Mommy and Daddy don't give you enough attention?

[Expert Marksman 126]

You have an answer for everything eh? You plan on joining the military?

I already DEP'd in the USMC. I can keep my mouth shut when I want to. I simply see no reason to do so on an internet forum.

[Expert Marksman 126]

What's wrong Marksman? Mommy and Daddy don't give you enough attention?

Don't know where that came from but OK...

[Pete031]

So you know better don't ya..... Some DI is going to knock you around if you don't change that cocky attitude, if your peers don't do it first.

[Gleipnir]

It came from you HIJACKING threads.
Entertaining sure, but useless. Let's talk about you some more, maybe it will help you through this hard time.

[California Joe]

I already DEP'd in the USMC. I can keep my mouth shut when I want to. I simply see no reason to do so on an internet forum.


I can give you a reason.

[Laworkerbee]

^ reminds me of

Stop that crying before I come in there and give you something to cry about!

[Expert Marksman 126]

I can give you a reason.

Shutting up sir.

[ggk]

I made one post about inserting a sniper team to remove Saddam. I talked to my rifle coach who was a ranger sniper and he said that plan would accomplish the objective..


they call them trainer coach now? didnt know that

[Expert Marksman 126]

they call them trainer coach now? didnt know that

He coaches me on my shooting, points out errors, and helps me correct them. So yes, coach.

[Gleipnir]

I can give you a reason.

Hierarchy & Dominance Displays Among the 50 or so members of a chimpanzee community, one adult male is recognized as the highest-ranking or "alpha" male. While several males may exercise dominance over other males, the alpha male is dominant over all the members of the community, male and female. He attains his high-ranking position through intimidation, strength, and intelligence, often exhibited in "dominance displays."

I am not saying you are a chimpanzee, but it reminded me of dominance displays in primate societies.
A very classy one too, might I add.

[wildcat]

^ nice knowing you, very dumb thing to say.

I made one post about inserting a sniper team to remove Saddam. I talked to my rifle coach who was a ranger sniper and he said that plan would accomplish the objective.

I was pointing out that Red Rage is only mocking me because of my age, and he is afraid to do the same to others.
sure it would work, seeing we could not even bomb him, or his decoys. sounds like fan-boy armchair ranger too me.

[Expert Marksman 126]

^ nice knowing you, very dumb thing to say.

sure it would work, seeing we could not even bomb him, or his decoys. sounds like fan-boy armchair ranger too me.

The british had a sniper team that had a shot at hitler. It could be done. My coach was a Ranger sniper for 3 years. He was in Vietnam and Laos. He knows his stuff.

[Robbee]

The british had a sniper team that had a shot at hitler. It could be done. My coach was a Ranger sniper for 3 years. He was in Vietnam and Laos. He knows his stuff.

It's pretty much common knowledge that Operation Foxley was never carried out.

Where did idea for the 2400m M82 shot come from, yourself or your coach?

[Expert Marksman 126]

It's pretty much common knowledge that Operation Foxley was never carried out.

Where did idea for the 2400m M82 shot come from, yourself or your coach?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=70927

[wildcat]

The british had a sniper team that had a shot at hitler. It could be done. My coach was a Ranger sniper for 3 years. He was in Vietnam and Laos. He knows his stuff.
well if you think about it, to drop a ranger sniper team (don't now why a ranger team and not an SF) behind enemy lines with little chance for extraction, have them blend into with the locals with out them recognizing then finding a place to take a shot, be able to move from place to place, because Saddam used decoys and move around a lot. One the ranger are not trained for these kinds of deep behind energy lines, they don't blend in, they are an elite infantry unit, not hit men.

But the British team being anglo saxon, has a much better chance in Germany, blending in, also Hilter was a lot easier to follow.

[Cstafford]

What I mean by that, sir, is if you was to put me and this here sniper rifle anywhere up to and including one mile from Saddam Hussein... with a clean line of sight... Pack your bags, fellas. War's over.
basically what he is saying....

[Dling]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=70927


You do realize that took 3 shots right?

[Expert Marksman 126]

well if you think about it, to drop a ranger sniper team (don't now why a ranger team and not an SF) behind enemy lines with little chance for extraction, have them blend into with the locals with out them recognizing then finding a place to take a shot, be able to move from place to place, because Saddam used decoys and move around a lot. One the ranger are not trained for these kinds of deep behind energy lines, they don't blend in.

But the British team being anglo saxon, has a much better chance in Germany, blending in, also Hilter was a lot easier to follow.

I meant an SF team, Delta maybe, that are good at blending in. Its a mute point now anyway.

[kuttless]

I meant an SF team, Delta maybe, that are good at blending in. Its a mute point now anyway.

Delta? Who are they? Sounds highspeed.

[LaoSexMachine]

I meant an SF team, Delta maybe, that are good at blending in. Its a mute point now anyway.

Word .

[wildcat]

I meant an SF team, Delta maybe, that are good at blending in. Its a mute point now anyway.
what is with I meant SF Team, you were talking with you RANGER Coach that about dropping a RANGER sniper team. As I said, fan-boy arm chair rangers, this is what it sounds like.

BTW I agree it a mute dumb point.

[Expert Marksman 126]

basically what he is saying....

Saving private ryan, very original.

[Expert Marksman 126]

what is with I meant SF Team, you were talking with you RANGER Coach that about dropping a RANGER sniper team. As I said, fan-boy arm chair rangers, this is what it sounds like.

BTW I agree it a mute dumb point.

I never wrote that I would drop a ranger sniper team, sorry for the confusion.

[Cstafford]

Saving private ryan, very original.
thanks, it took a lot of thought and time to come up with it. glad you liked it

[Laworkerbee]

Shutting up sir.

Since this you have posted six more times in this thread. :|

[Expert Marksman 126]

Since this you have posted six more times in this thread. :|

I may be wrong, but I think the problem was the stupid quibbling, not actual comments. I stopped with the BS.

[Expert Marksman 126]

You do realize that took 3 shots right?

Yeah. I didn't say my plan was perfect.

[Laworkerbee]

Now you're up to eight.

[Gleipnir]

I don't read between the lines very well.



I think that this just about sums it up, Laworkerbee.

[Pete031]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=70927

Just to clear this up.... It was a MacMillan Tac .50... with US ammo.... Not a Barette.

[Red_Rage]

Geez, 14 pages in less than half a day people? This beats even the sauciest of Russia hating threads.

[Alpheus]

Geez, 14 pages in less than half a day people? This beats even the sauciest of Russia hating threads.

http://www.craphound.com/images/xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg

[Pete031]

http://www.craphound.com/images/xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg

ha... LOL... nice.

[Walter Sobchak]

So, this is how some of you get to 47,000 posts before the age of 80! :)

[California Joe]

Hierarchy & Dominance Displays Among the 50 or so members of a chimpanzee community, one adult male is recognized as the highest-ranking or "alpha" male. While several males may exercise dominance over other males, the alpha male is dominant over all the members of the community, male and female. He attains his high-ranking position through intimidation, strength, and intelligence, often exhibited in "dominance displays."

I am not saying you are a chimpanzee, but it reminded me of dominance displays in primate societies.
A very classy one too, might I add.

Simply a case of having 2 teenage kids...

[Jacknola]

They had access to the doctored, sexed up and carefully edited information Bush gave them. And they didn't have the balls to fact check him so yeah, you can blame them too. But remember it was the Bush administration that cooked up the idea of invading Iraq, and they shoulder far more blame than any other countries and politicians they roped into going along with it.

Budgie... apparently you don't learn so good. So....

...why don't you tell us just what the Bush administration is being "blamed" for?" While you are at it, please tell us why you loved the Saddam regime so much that you think its demise at the hands of George Bush et. al. was a tragedy for the world?

Help me... why is Bush being "blamed" for deposing a government that
- had used poison gas against women and kids over and over again,
- attacked all of their neighbors starting three terrible wars that killed millons,
-blew up 600 oil wells destroying a billion barrells and polluting the world's air,
-dumped 420 million gallons of crude in the ocean,
-starved murdered, raped millions in grusome ways,
-and repeatedly threatened the peace and stability of the region with attempts to take over the bulk of the world's oil supply?

Is Bush being "blamed" for taking out a man who tried multiple times to develop nukes, and proved over and over that he would use any means or weapon?

Budgie...you must be intelletually kin to the worst of the SS to "blame" Bush '43. So...again.. please share with us what it is you liked best about Saddam Husssain and his sons. What techniques of torture and murder that Saddam used that particularly suit your fancy?

By the way.... have you ever stopped to think how STUPID your adherence to a conspiracy theory is, not to mention your incredible foolish position on the Iraq war?

Do you really think it would have been just fine to let ole' Saddam and sons continue the same internationally lawless behavior they had exhibited the previous 25 years?

What is it about the UN, the US Congress, multiple statements from several administrations, and a pile of gassed dead bodies that you do not understand? WHY ARE YOU SO COMMITTED TO THE BLESSEDLY LOST CAUSE OF SADDAM HUSSAIN?

[Cstafford]

Budgie... apparently you don't learn so good. So....

...why don't you tell us just what the Bush administration is being "blamed" for?" While you are at it, please tell us why you loved the Saddam regime so much that you think its demise at the hands of George Bush et. al. was a tragedy for the world?

Help me... why is Bush being "blamed" for deposing a government that had used poison gas against women and kids over and over again, attacked all of their neighbors starting three terrible wars that killed millons, blew up 600 oil wells destroying a billion barrells and polluting the world's air, dumped 420 million gallons of crude in the ocean, starved murdered, raped millions in grusome ways, and repeatedly threatened the peace and stability of the region with attempts to take over the bulk of the world's oil supply?

Is Bush being "blamed" for taking out a man who tried multiple times to develop nukes, and proved over and over that he would use any means or weapon?

Budgie...you must be intelletually kin to the worst of the SS to "blame" Bush '43. So...again.. please share with us what it is you liked best about Saddam Husssain and his sons. What techniques of torture and murder that Saddam used that particularly suit your fancy?

By the way.... have you ever stopped to think how STUPID your position on the Iraq war is?
jack man just let it go, they are never going to get over that "BUSHED LIED so the war isnt justified", you cant change some people views.

[Walter Sobchak]

What is it about the UN, the US Congress, multiple statements from several administrations, and a pile of gassed dead bodies that you do not understand?

How quickly the Democrats forgot about an important piece of legislation passed by President Clinton and the US Congress: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338), codified into a note appended to 22 USCS § 2151, is a Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. It is the freaking law of the land!

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Iraq+Liberation+Act

[Dinges]

How quickly the Democrats forgot about an important piece of legislation passed by President Clinton and the US Congress: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338), codified into a note appended to 22 USCS § 2151, is a Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. It is the freaking law of the land!

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Iraq+Liberation+Act


No argument there. But it is not the law of the world.

[Walter Sobchak]

No argument there. But it is not the law of the world.

No one said it applies to the World. It just made it the official policy of the United States government. However, the UN Resolution authorizing military action made it, in a defacto sense, "the law of the World".

[Atlantic Friend]

A chain e-mail with every possible cliché in it, and 11 pages of "yes he's right !", "no he isn't !" to follow. Le yawn.