Hey it's me.

CP3S said:

Harumph! Hey look just because I'm not entirely pro immigration and aren't exactly enamored with the extreme side of Hispanic society here in Texas, doesn't make me akin to some raincoat wearing, pompous, ignorant Londoner from Southwark. Don't label me in that way.

 

Fair enough. But if you would both be so kind as to keep the quaking to a minimum... ;)

My post wasn't a pop at American stereotypes C3PS. You did say I sound like some racist hillbilly. Why the sudden hostility? I'm not racist, I'm not homophobic. This is I have quite clearly stated. Why the sudden hostility from you?

Harumph! Hey look just because I'm not entirely pro immigration and aren't exactly enamoured with the extreme side of Muslim society here in London, doesn't make me akin to some dungaree wearing, inbred, dumb hillbilly from the southern backwoods of America. Don't label me in that way. 

*gets of soapbox* (nod to warbler) :)

TV's Frink said:

you're

Sorry.

Your still funny (not a put down) 

Bingowings said:

Member of the political class recants his accidentally candid moment SHOCK HORROR PROBE!.

Meanwhile normality resumes.

Lol!! 

Warbler said:

I am not gone, I am just done talking with imperialscum.    

Apologies I thought FOAD was a definite statement? Cool. 

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Or do you consider multiple chemical attacks on his own Kurdish citizens to be the actions of a responsible leader?

Do you remember what was happening to Native Americans throughout your country's history? That makes Saddam look like a good boy.

yeah, over 100 years ago.  America has changed since then.

I do not see the change.

that is because you are a douche.  I am done talking with you.   FOAD!

Oh. Warblers gone again. Maybe he'll return tomorrow with an apology but with his soapbox tucked firmly under his arm to resume the debate? But I like Warbler. He's funny. And that's genuine, not a sarcastic put down Warbler btw :-)

Me too

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

He was networking with actual players in that war not speculating on the sidelines. Yeah he isn't at risk of being arrested for War Crimes but a lot of people who aren't are still peddling the same old "We are did it for freedom" crap.

I can't help but doubt they'd be sharing that sort of information with him.  Loose lips sink ships, and I see no real benefit to cluing him in on those sorts of details.

Your saying that this man was a nobody? I don't think so. So your saying everything he alludes to is unfounded and a product of a fevered imagination? This isn't some beleaguered journo looking to make a name for himself with a contentious article. Shit, get your head out of the sand.

The excitement level has definitely gone up a couple of notches.

Ender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

Fuck the oil fields. The aim is to overthrow Saddam and free the people. 

Doesn't it annoy you when Americans try pulling out that ol' chestnut. 

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

We're talking 20 years ago. There's only so much of the stuff. The fact remains if there was no oil in Iraq, beyond '91 Saddam would still be in power or the country would now be in the midst of an Arab spring uprising.

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

Davnes007 said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Interesting article. Particularly the last paragraph.

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/buzzkill-why-todays-big-star-wars-episode-vii-rumours-are-complete-nonsense

Link Fail

No clue why it redirects (if that's whats happened to you) just scroll down the homepage and the article is there under the headline in the link.

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

George Bush and Tony Blair are war criminals and should be tried as such. Saddam should've been taken care of at the end of Gulf War when we had the chance to. The SAS had him in their sights, but the order came through to not shoot. Intriguing.

Such a cool looking bounty hunter. If Disney do a Fett spin off, praying he's in it.

Interesting article. Particularly the last paragraph.

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/buzzkill-why-todays-big-star-wars-episode-vii-rumours-are-complete-nonsense

CP3S said:

Perhaps I am just a bit dense, but I am having a difficult time figuring out exactly what you are trying to say. So I am going to break it down into tiny bites, to try to digest it.

 

No I'm not reading too much into it as you say. The shallowly,media driven world means next to fuck all regarding what the military gets up to.

Okay, so I guess this is still regarding the conference room photo. Its existence seems to indicate to you that the whole death of Bin Laden has something fishy going on behind it, or did I misread that?

Yes, the shallow media driven world does mean fuck all next to what the military actually gets up to. We don't even know the half of it. But a historic event like the death of Bin Laden is to become public information, and is going to sell a lot of papers and generate a lot of buzz, a picture for the occasion seems reasonable enough. I don't see the issue?

I am sure you are trying to make some kind of a point here, but it is going way over my head. :(  Some smaller words perhaps, or better yet, some bigger ones.

 

This isn't/wasn't a Hollywood motion picture, or tabloid press exclusive. This was a Military operation. Give me an example of a relative Military op where I can gauge some kind of relation to it. 

I am having a hard time deciphering that last sentence. You want an example of a related military operation so that you can measure some kind of relation to it???

Are seriously asking for a similar military operation where the press took staged photos in order to have something to print in the papers along with the story, as if this is something ridiculous and unheard of? That is probably not at all what you are asking, like I said, I am having some difficulties here.

Okay the gauge/relation line was stoopid, you got me on that one. The point I was trying to make was that it all seemed too contrived. His apparent death and sea burial, (no need for proof of that, you just take our word for it) where was the obligatory photo of the wrapped carcass going overboard and cheesy smiles and thumbs up from Navy personnel? I dunno, something about the whole thing just didnt seem kosher. Maybe its just me.

TV's Frink said:

Bingowings said:

These 2 unrelated pictures are about as funny as getting an arrow through the neck..and then realising there's a gas bill tied to it.

No I'm not reading too much into it as you say. The shallowly,media driven world means next to fuck all regarding what the military gets up to. This isn't/wasn't a Hollywood motion picture, or tabloid press exclusive. This was a Military operation. Give me an example of a relative Military op where I can gauge some kind of relation to it. 

CP3S said:

Hey, it's me. said:

So something as momentous as that operation is only worthy of a conference room? Was the the actual Situation Room busy at the time with something more important? 

I agree with a lot of what you and Bingo have been saying. First, Bin Laden was a has been, and I feel like at that point he served his cause better as a martyr than as a living breathing bag of bones. Second, the whole thing is a bit sketchy. As a naturally very skeptical sort of person, I need more than Obama getting in front of the TV cameras and essentially saying, "Who's a badass? THIS GUY!"

So where is he? Oh, we killed him! Where's the body? Oh, yeah, um, we gave him a proper burial at sea, in accordance with his religious beliefs. So, do we have photographs of him being detained by US forces? No, we killed him straight away, he resisted. So, do we have photographs of the body? Eww! No! That's disgusting and inappropriate, you sick bastard! Okay then, that settles it, clearly we got him! USA, USA, USA!!!

 

However, I can't for the living life of me figure out what point you are trying to make with this situation room thing. I'm not even sure if you know what point you are trying to make with it. The situation room Obama and Biden are in looks like an HR office, rather than some crazy badass room I'd expect to see in movies, therefore I smell something fishy... Oh, well it is one of the situation room's conference rooms. Ah ha! If they really got Bin Laden, surely they would have used the real situation room rather than one of its conference rooms!

As if Obama and Biden wouldn't be allowed to use the real situation room for a staged fake. Sorry guys, we've got real government stuff going on in here at the moment, if you want to fake this thing to help you win the next election you guys can setup in-- here, let me check my clipboard and see what's open-- Ah, yeah, you can setup in conference room seven over there."

The point clearly is its a secret government/military operation. Where's the need for a picture of the President et al looking involved and concerned? Surely that shit would just be taken for granted anyway? Sources say the President and (whoever) beared witness to the operation via live feed in the White House Situation Room. That's all anyone needed to know. It was staged bullshit and no one (to my knowledge) has questioned why the fuck it was necessary? 

darth_ender said:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/313.php

Most Iranians were not fond of him.

According the following link, it looks like he maintained a limited working relationship...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Jews.2C_Christians.2C_and_Shia_Muslims

...but he certainly considered them heretical, and I doubt he would have been content to live among them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Beliefs_and_ideology

And in spite of the official stance of the Iranian government, many Iranians are pro-US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Divide_between_public_opinion_and_state_policy

Yes I am listening to Darth Ender but the issue your avoiding is no matter the conflict between the two divisions of the Muslim faith, America and the West is the common enemy. IF many Iranians are pro-US as you put it (hard to believe considering Israel) Bin Laden being amongst them would've been refuted by ALL due to him being a MUSLIM despite all else. You seem to underestimate the sheer hatred these people have of the West.