Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-07 05:06am

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast ... index.html

To summarise: Iraq was gunning for Iran, Iran is gunning for no one, the US is gunning for Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, so and and so forth.

Who again shouldn't be allowed WMDs? As far as I can see, the Axis of Evil is the United States. The United States, the biggest shit stirrer. The United States, quick to go to war. The United States.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-10-07 05:22am

That's quite a tremendous leap in logic, from Iraq hating Iran to the US being an evil rogue nation. Quite what we've come to expect from the "biggest shit stirrer" on this political landscape.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-07 05:27am

Howedar wrote:That's quite a tremendous leap in logic, from Iraq hating Iran to the US being an evil rogue nation.

You should learn to read properly. I didn't connect Saddams hate for Iran to the United State being the real axis of evil.

Quite what we've come to expect from the "biggest shit stirrer" on this political landscape.

Dude, learn to read.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-10-07 07:50am

That's quite a tremendous leap in logic, from Iraq hating Iran to the US being an evil rogue nation. Quite what we've come to expect from the "biggest shit stirrer" on this political landscape.

So you deny that the Administration (which I think is a better way of referring to it, we are not Iraq, our leaders will eventually change) is a bit happy on the trigger? They have clearly been starting on the road to conflict, if not outright war, with Iran and Syria...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-10-07 08:45am

BoredShirtless wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast ... index.html

To summarise: Iraq was gunning for Iran, Iran is gunning for no one, the US is gunning for Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, so and and so forth.

Who again shouldn't be allowed WMDs? As far as I can see, the Axis of Evil is the United States. The United States, the biggest shit stirrer. The United States, quick to go to war. The United States.

Wow, I honestly can't think of a reply to such an idiotic statement.

So, you're advocating that we're not the ones that should have any sort of nuclear weapons, a nation that is democratically elected that follows the rules of war and is hardly a 'rogue' nation, but it would be OK for nations such as Iraq and Iran to have them? Are you on crack?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-07 09:04am

Nathan F wrote:Are you on crack?

No. Crack would imply that he was sane enough to use it. No, he's freebasing PCP.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-07 09:18am

I think people are managing to overlook the link that BoredShirtless posted due to him following it up by his own dumbfuckery.

Ignoring BS' moronitude, can we talk about the content of the article he posted? You know, about Saddam being obsessed with Iran even as the US was closing it and how he cared much more about his status in the Arab world than attacking the United States (that being somewhat of an issue in this election)?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-07 09:32am

Nathan F wrote:Wow, I honestly can't think of a reply to such an idiotic statement.

So, you're advocating that we're not the ones that should have any sort of nuclear weapons, a nation that is democratically elected that follows the rules of war

You break the law to create war, but you follow it during it? One of us is putting the cart in front of the horse, and it isn't me.

and is hardly a 'rogue' nation,

Wrong, your country is out of control. Just look at Iraq. Everyone knew there weren't any WMDs, that you were lying in your desperation to invade and make a buck out of Iraq.

What country has Iran invaded again? The only crime Iran has done is a lot of hot air about Israel. But anybody with a brain knows that MAD prevents Iran from ever doing anything.

but it would be OK for nations such as Iraq and Iran to have them?

No, I'd rather no one have them.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-07 10:00am

While I am the first to admit my country makes some mistakes and has some stupid leaders who make stupid decisions, to say that the entire country as a political unit is "out of control" is a massive overstatement. The United States is controlable if countires wanted to do something about it. The case is that the United States isn't too terribly bad/wild enough to consider a credible threat to the world.

The US probably exibits a lighter version. What degree of "out of control" do you mean? It's not black and white/on off.

No, I'd rather no one have them.

What do you think will happen when major nations get rid of Nukes? What will they use for defense? More troops? More conventional weapons? Militaries won't disappear.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-07 10:43am

Nathan F wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Who again shouldn't be allowed WMDs? As far as I can see, the Axis of Evil is the United States. The United States, the biggest shit stirrer. The United States, quick to go to war. The United States.
Wow, I honestly can't think of a reply to such an idiotic statement.

That often means you don't actually have a good answer. He was over-using his rhetorical flourishes, but buried in the rhetoric is a point: if the possession of WMDs should be restricted to countries which obey international law and the Geneva Convention, then the United States should not be allowed to have them.

So, you're advocating that we're not the ones that should have any sort of nuclear weapons, a nation that is democratically elected that follows the rules of war and is hardly a 'rogue' nation, but it would be OK for nations such as Iraq and Iran to have them? Are you on crack?

The US follows the rules of war and is "hardly a rogue nation"? Who's the one who's smoking crack, Nathan? The US ignores the Geneva Convention when convenient, proudly ignores international consensus when making decisions about actions on the international stage (George W. Bush even makes this one of his main campaign platforms and brags about it to cheering crowds), and violated international law with its invasion of Iraq. You can retort with the oh-so-predictable "but we're not as bad as Iraq!" line, but it hardly changes the fact that the US's claim to moral leadership is a joke if it must compare itself to the world's most corrupt regimes in order to make this claim look feasible. It also fails to change the fact that your own "rogue nation = no WMD" logic would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the US should not have WMDs.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-07 11:00am

Darth Wong wrote:The US ignores the Geneva Convention when convenient

Illegal combatants aren't covered in Geneva, We could shoot them all right
then and there, and instead they gain weight and grow fat at Gitmo.

Tranan · Post by **Tranan** » 2004-10-07 11:11am

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The US ignores the Geneva Convention when convenient
Illegal combatants aren't covered in Geneva, We could shoot them all right
then and there, and instead they gain weight and grow fat at Gitmo.

Illegal combatants is a term invented by a dum and coward person so they can do wathever they want. There are no rigth to keep a person fore yeares witot any judment.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-07 11:12am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:While I am the first to admit my country makes some mistakes and has some stupid leaders who make stupid decisions, to say that the entire country as a political unit is "out of control" is a massive overstatement.

if you say that about the US you have to say the same about iran and irak.

The United States is controlable if countires wanted to do something about it. The case is that the United States isn't too terribly bad/wild enough to consider a credible threat to the world.

well, the whole world though that iraq wasn´t too terribly bad enough to consider it a credible threat to the world. only the US and it´s few lakeies.
and, no the entire wold was NOT able to do anything against it because the US is the only remaining superpower and can therefore do what the fuck it wants to. the US IS out of control.
any other country which is not controlled by a self destructive, lunatic dictator could be pressurized into not starting a war if the rest of the world disagreed with them. not the US.[/list]

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-07 11:15am

Darth Wong wrote:George W. Bush even makes this one of his main campaign platforms and brags about it to cheering crowds

To be fair, President Bush's crowds are famously pre-screened to have only fawning Bush sympathizers in the crowd (notice how unprepared and hesitant he looked when he was debating Senator Kerry, in front of a neutral crowd not prepared to necessarily take everything he was saying at face value).

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2004-10-07 11:21am

Iceberg wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:George W. Bush even makes this one of his main campaign platforms and brags about it to cheering crowds
To be fair, President Bush's crowds are famously pre-screened to have only fawning Bush sympathizers in the crowd (notice how unprepared and hesitant he looked when he was debating Senator Kerry, in front of a neutral crowd not prepared to necessarily take everything he was saying at face value).

Isn't the upcoming second debate involve questions from the audience?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-07 11:34am

Loner wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:George W. Bush even makes this one of his main campaign platforms and brags about it to cheering crowds
To be fair, President Bush's crowds are famously pre-screened to have only fawning Bush sympathizers in the crowd (notice how unprepared and hesitant he looked when he was debating Senator Kerry, in front of a neutral crowd not prepared to necessarily take everything he was saying at face value).
Isn't the upcoming second debate involve questions from the audience?

Yes. I'm hoping for the sound and sight of President Bush's head exploding.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-10-07 01:02pm

MKSheppard wrote: Illegal combatants aren't covered in Geneva, We could shoot them all right
then and there, and instead they gain weight and grow fat at Gitmo.

Unfortunately, illegal combatents are to be held under civil authority if they're not slated to be executed. By imprisoning them in a military facillity, placing them under the aegis of the military and her judical system, you ARE making them prisoners of war.

Pray tell what other label can you attach to them, to justify their imprisonment by the military?

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-10-07 03:37pm

I wonder though, if Iraq hadn't iinvaded Kuwait, Saddam's narcissm and hatred for Iran, and given today's climate in the Gulf.. I wonder, would the US and Iraq be great allies then? Or would Israel stand in the way?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-07 05:12pm

That often means you don't actually have a good answer. He was over-using his rhetorical flourishes, but buried in the rhetoric is a point: if the possession of WMDs should be restricted to countries which obey international law and the Geneva Convention, then the United States should not be allowed to have them.

Think about who you're defending, Wong. Bored Shirtless claimed that Iran isn't causing trouble. If you believe that to, what the fuck do you call the Jerusalem Force? He also said the same for North Korea. Yeah; poor Kim Jong-Il.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-07 05:33pm

Another law Uncle Sam flouts is the one about declaring war before attacking another country. Congress (the only ones with the authority to do so) hasn't declared war since 1942.

As for Shep's "illegal combatant" bullshit. Not only do summary shootings violate U.S. law, international law

Geneva Convention wrote:Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

and the UCMJ, but by Shep's twisted

logic, the "contractors" who were burned and strung up from a bridge by an Iraqi mob got their just desserts, since the mob was justified in doing the deed.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-10-07 05:44pm

BoredShirtless wrote:What country has Iran invaded again? The only crime Iran has done is a lot of hot air about Israel. But anybody with a brain knows that MAD prevents Iran from ever doing anything.

MAD is not policy, it never was with the Soviets, and never was.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-07 08:28pm

and the UCMJ, but by Shep's twisted logic, the "contractors" who were burned and strung up from a bridge by an Iraqi mob got their just desserts, since the mob was justified in doing the deed.

Actually, the contractors - mercenaries - deployed with American forces are uniformed combatants.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-07 08:43pm

Axis Kast wrote:
and the UCMJ, but by Shep's twisted logic, the "contractors" who were burned and strung up from a bridge by an Iraqi mob got their just desserts, since the mob was justified in doing the deed.
Actually, the contractors - mercenaries - deployed with American forces are uniformed combatants.

The guys strung up on the bridge appeared to be wearing civilian clothes. If so, then according to the Shepster, they had it coming to them.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-07 08:49pm

Geneva Convention, Article 4, section 4:

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

So if the mercs didn't have their I.D., or insignia displayed, they got a well-deserved neck-stretching. Do you see how absolutely demented that sounds?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.

Re: Interrogators: Saddam obsessed with Iran, not U.S.