The True Face of Iraq

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Lets stay on the subject. He used WMDs to get rid of that problem. The fact that we left them high and dry is not the topic at hand.

I am on subject. That's what happened right. He used WMDs to finish off the Kurds and we did nothing but watch when we said we would defend them. But, now, WMDs are a big deal when there is no evidence of any. That is the scenario right.


If they are trying to get onto a military base without authorization we will use lethal force.

So a cabdriver was driving his cab to try to get on a military base, right? Is that what you're telling me?

Originally posted by Colonel

I am on subject. That's what happened right. He used WMDs to finish off the Kurds and we did nothing but watch when we said we would defend them. But, now, WMDs are a big deal when there is no evidence of any. That is the scenario right.

That was international politics in action. Our "allies" were content to let him be (since it wasn't a threat to them).

If they are trying to get onto a military base without authorization we will use lethal force.

So a cabdriver was driving his cab to try to get on a military base, right? Is that what you're telling me?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Second, you made a threat. It may have been done in a humorous way, but it is still a threat. BTW this isn't the first time that I have seen you threaten people.

Was there any questions that I did not answer for you yet? If so restate, and I will answer them.

I am still waiting for a couple from you.

Originally posted by Colonel
In reponse, point made, this isn't the mudpit. Secondly, I threatened no one. I was imitating the persona that i see on screen. I just got an u2u from a member who can see my point and agrees. (You repugnants are so busy trying to trap the Colonel) If I come out and threaten, I will say it in terms that are understandable to everyone.

You are going to say that you did not threaten anyone, that is was just semantics? Word play maybe?

Now, what's your problem? Can't handle my mide of speech? Can't handle my abrasiveness? Looks like you can't. Looks like you're having some difficulties...but you so love to engage me. What's the problem, COOL HAND?

[Edited on 29-4-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
That was international politics in action. Our "allies" were content to let him be (since it wasn't a threat to them).

No. Don't lie. That was the US making a promise to protect, knowing that Saddam had WMDs, and turning our backs on the people we made a promise to. But, now, these mysterious WMDs are an issue.

No, you asked if that situation could ever happen here. Stop being reading selectively and read the entire post. In the US, if someone attempted to gain access to a base without authorization we would use lethal force to stop them.

In that case, the cab driver ran a roadblock (for whatever reason) and the troops there saw that as a threat to them and acted within the ROEs (Rules of Engagement). .

So, when one runs a roadblack, you gotta kill hiim under the ROE b/c he might be a threat, right? That is what you said, right?

Originally posted by Colonel
No. Don't lie. That was the US making a promise to protect, knowing that Saddam had WMDs, and turning our backs on the people we made a promise to. But,
now, these mysterious WMDs are an issue.

We didn't turn our backs, if so then why did we continue to patrol the no fly zones and launch periodic strikes on him? If our allies would have allowed it (they did not) we would have sent more troops over there and resolved the problem years ago. Since everyone over there is solely concerned with what happens in their borders, they only react to an external threat. At that time there was no external threat to them. Saddam was too busy trying to regain control of his country to try his hand at invading again.

So, when one runs a roadblack, you gotta kill hiim under the ROE b/c he might be a threat, right? That is what you said, right?

Originally posted by Colonel
Essentially, from the responses I'm getting from COOL HAND, we just gotta kill whatever moves because it might pose a threat. That's why you see so much bloodshed going on in Iraq.

[Edited on 29-4-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by Colonel



In reponse, point made, this isn't the mudpit. Secondly, I threatened no one. I was imitating the persona that i see on screen. I just got an u2u from a member who can see my point and agrees. (You repugnants are so busy trying to trap the Colonel) If I come out and threaten, I will say it in terms that are understandable to everyone.

Now, what's your problem? Can't handle my mide of speech? Can't handle my abrasiveness? Looks like you can't. Looks like you're having some difficulties...but you so love to engage me. What's the problem, COOL HAND?

[Edited on 29-4-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by falcon
I will be making giving more pictures here to ats soon it is time for people to see whats really going on. And I am going to give ats a story in the future as to where the weapons of mass distruction are now. Yes it is true that they were moved into syria before the war but thats not where they are now.

Stay Tuned.

Falcon

Give me about 1 more week for lot's more pictures.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

We didn't turn our backs, if so then why did we continue to patrol the no fly zones and launch periodic strikes on him?

So, I guess all those Kurds decided to rebel because "it felt good." They didn't rely on any words from the US? Lie some more here.


We can't sit here and second guess those guys since we weren't there at the time. Could you just let someone drive at you at a high rate of speed and do nothing?

No, but I'm not a cop who deal with that kind of stuff and neither are you.

[Edited on 29-4-2004 by Colonel]