Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Iran

Iran
05:13:24 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Leo:

    Iran takes 15 Brits hostage, serious doo doo, or cry for help?


05:25:05 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Lelouch The Black Prince:

Western society have too long surpressed the wild will of the eternally victoious islamic nation, it is timefor change.


06:00:34 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. EW Its Crusty:

A big WTF to the above post.


08:26:31 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Shinkin V:

im with lelouch so wat y is america and england in iraq


09:45:25 Mar 30th 07 - Ms. Akasha The Queen of Pain:

america and england are ghey.  They accused Iraq of having WMD.  And im sure they knew all along that they have none.  So they attack.

While here is North Korea and Iran announcing to the world that they have Nuclear weapons.  Did america and the rest of the so-called free nations did anything.  yes, they did.  "You will face stiff sanctions"  Lol.  the only one stiff around here is Hungrier Horse.


10:41:25 Mar 30th 07 - Lord Senturu The Sweet Guru:

Akasha. *beep*. we all make mistakes. but how do you know they had none?. taking a leif outa BoW book.

we made a pre-emptive strike. against an enemy. (oh were sorry. our information was bad. good luck)

*beep*


13:04:54 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Imperator:

Hostage!

They are no hostages, they are prisoners of war under the convention of geneva. The americans like to call the people there terrorists; I call them freedom fighters! They call it hostage, I call it prisoner of war.

The media has a way of spinning things around. The winning side is always made look like the 'good' guys, the enemy is called terrorist while in the eyes of the others, they are mere freedom fighters.

Just look at the 2nd world war, the dutch resistance fought the germans, sabotaged, planted bombs. The germans called us terrorists, while we were only fighting back to the germans; freedom fighters.

What is the difference with the Dutch resistance in world war II and the 'terrorists' that fight for their freedom in Iraq etc.

Also read the treaties; you are no terrorist if you attack enemy soldiers. The americans arrest people because they plan to attack their soldiers, and call them terrorists. In a war people are allowed to do that and it is not called terrorism but mere combat, actions of war.

-Rob


13:42:14 Mar 30th 07 - General Mika:

The mere difference here being we are not planning to take control over that nation and absorb it into our own... penis


13:53:59 Mar 30th 07 - Ms. Mind:

--S
a--T
a---F
a----U

mofo
"we are there for their own sake"
BS!

650.000 iraqis dead during the war (the lancet)
500.000 iraqi CHILDREN dead out of easily cured diseases because of no medicine during the blockade (UN)

don't even try to justify it. take action against the imprialist regimes of US, UK and ZOG!


14:07:22 Mar 30th 07 - Lord Osiris:

you can come attack us if you want we would only bomb you back ten fold :)


14:08:25 Mar 30th 07 - Sir RA Enlightens You:

lol senturu ... you must have been asleep during the last 4 years ... or just unwilling to see the truth.

and what imperator says is right aswell.


(Edited by Sir RA Enlightens You 3/30/2007 2:09:42 PM)


14:14:06 Mar 30th 07 - Sir Venomz The Naked:

Oh, not that i mean all iranian kiddies are bad kiddies.

I just say Peace, but shoot them not willing peace.. or whatever.


14:19:13 Mar 30th 07 - Ms. Mind:

How about shooting those responsable for the violence!

Smash imperialism!
Venceremos!


14:52:01 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. EW Its Crusty:

You are all pot smoking hippies (who are probably a tad too conservative to smoke pot) who need an education about world politics and the middle east.


14:53:40 Mar 30th 07 - Ms. Minerva:

ok i understand that we (english and american troops) have no right to be in iraq but that don't make it right for iran to take 15 of our troops and make that poor woman wear a head scarf. although i don't believe war is right they start it!!! so lets kick their ass!!!


14:57:04 Mar 30th 07 - Ms. Mind:

I smoke regular cigarettes if you want to talk about that...

But how about you explain to us what is so good about travelling across the globe to kill, torture, starve and opress innocent people instead of calling those who oppose that names.


15:00:54 Mar 30th 07 - Ms. Mind:

@Minerva: What gives armed brittish troops the right to be in Iran without Iran's admission? And how did the iraqi people that are now suffering start "it"? And the soliers are doing far more than kicking...


15:37:45 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Roxbury:

I think President Ahjaminedad and George Bush need eachother to stay in power. When things with Iran calmed down, Iran took 15 hostages from Britain, which gave Bush some relief from the democrats who are destroying him in the media atm. With Bush a little stronger, and more aggressive against Iran, President Ahjaminineded (who was already in trouble in his country) saw the citizens rally around him against the Great Satan.

Basically there is a military industrial complex and their representatives in each country who crave war and profit from war. If there is no war, the warmongers lose power, because the people generally are against war. So Bush and his Iranian counterpart are two parts of the same disease, really.


16:18:25 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Mugger:

Why can't we just all live in peace?


18:02:04 Mar 30th 07 - Lord Oya:

Iran are just trying to stir bad blood between us, but as im just a lowly socialist i don't share the ideals of bomb the *beep* out of a country because i can.....so when people say down with america and uk for being imperialist your just being a hypocrit, because like in your country not everyone believes the same philosphies....so if anything you should be opposed to the goverments not the country.


18:15:47 Mar 30th 07 - Ms. Mind:

That is exactly what i am saying. Down with the imperialist regimes! The people and soldiers of US and UK are not responsable for what is happening, it's the leaders that are criminals. As Hugo Chavez said: "I saw on the television your(Bush's) soldiers killing five iraqi children yesterday, what have they done to you? And it is not your soldiers that are assassins, it is you, mr. danger!"


20:42:41 Mar 30th 07 - Lady Spooky:

@ Mind and Imperator.  I think you've failed geography and politics 101 here.

It's Iraq that we had a war with.  It's Iraq that we still have our troops in.

It's Iran that's taken our troops hostage.  We aren't and haven't recently been at war with them so they cannot be POWs and there are no "armed British troops" in Iran unless you believe their government's obvious lies about where the boats were when they took the troops hostage. 

I know it's probably difficult for you to understand the difference when there's only one letter not the same (Iran / Iraq) but try a bit harder please.

(what ARE they teaching these kids in school these days?) 


21:14:04 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Jamkel IX:

Idk.  I really hate how stupid people can be now adays.  I will agree with some comments about how retarted America can be, but sometimes i really just wanna strangle people for bunching 300 million Americans with someone as stupid as Bush.  I do NOT spport Bush's policies and i never have.  I do not like the conservative mindset of America, but i do not like the religious fervor of many islamic nations.  I think everyone should live as they want, but when it comes to disrupting how i wanna live my life by causing me anguish cuz some prik thinks that cuz America protected their sorry ass 20 years ago and now that we have let it get to our heads that gives them the right to criticize my country that is when i get annoyed.  World politics is messed up at the moment, cuz you have a schoolyard full fo little kids running our countries with a few of the bigger kids running everything and some smaller mouthier ones thinking that they can replace the larger ones.  America is a bully with Bush as president, but we had to play policeman when there were other bullies during world war II and after for the next 30 years.  America doesn't need to be the policeman anymore cuz there are no other bullies aside from us left, so we should just sit back and help when asked for, but leave everyone else alone.  I know this is a rant, but i just really hate when some people think they have the balls to take on America when for the moment, not saying its gonna stay like this forever, but no other military force in the world can take on the whole of the American Military in a straight one on one match up.


21:18:01 Mar 30th 07 - Ms. Mind:

Are you suggesting that Iran, completely unprovoked, kidnapped 15 brittish soldiers that were on a picknick on international waters? I must tell you, I was not there when it happened so I don't know the exact details, but it doesn't sound reasonable in my ears. And you are calling me uneducated and misinformed because I oppose the war in Iraq? And do you think the imprisonment of 15 brittish soldiers is not connected to UK being part of the illegal occupation of Iraq? My question is, why were they there from the beginning? Why was it so crucial to send an invasion?(actually 80% of the worlds dictatures recive military support(!) from the US, not sanctions or war) Like the colonialism, that the britts were so succesful with, they are now sending soldiers to Iraq to teach the savages democracy (and liberate the women, so they can live in equality like in Europe << sarcasm). Oh that white man's burden must be heavy to bear! And the people in this country are uneducated and misinformed to belive that killing of their family members, torturing their neighbors and starving them is wrong! And soon perhaps it doesn't matter if you end the contry's name with an n or a q, since these imperialists seem to be about to be preparing an invasion on Iran aswell...


22:01:59 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Onawin Swift:

To be fair to America and the accompanying coalition nations, Saddam Hussein stated on video that he had the desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction and use them.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html

Does this mean the Iraq incident is justified? I don't know. Don't really care, either. But there it is. Take it for what you will.


23:11:51 Mar 30th 07 - Lady Spooky:

@ Mind.  No I'm suggesting that Iran captured British sailors that were enforcing a lawful UN mandate in Iraqi waters.  Nothing about soldiers, picnics or international waters.  Do you actually read the news? 

I'm not calling you uneducated and misinformed because you oppose the war in Iraq - you're quite entitled to that point of view, which is not an uneducated one.  I'm calling you uneducated and misinformed because as you've just proved above you don't really understand what happened in this incident and seem in your previous posts to be confusing Iran with Iraq.  You said "What gives armed brittish troops the right to be in Iran without Iran's admission?" - well, um, let me see - they aren't in Iran are theyThat last letter is actually quite an important one....

As to whether the capture of the troops is connected to the war in Iraq - well duh! - of course it is.  If the war in Iraq hadn't happened they wouldn't be there in the first place to BE captured.  I'm not going to continue the argument, since you've now changed the subject from "should Iran have captured British troops enforcing a UN mandate" to something totally different.


23:37:48 Mar 30th 07 - Mr. Roxbury:

Spooky, its not as simple as that. The 15 soldiers borded and inspected an Iraqi cargo ship that was travelling down the river that separates Iran and Iraq. This is the only waterway that leads down to the gulf between Iran and Iraq. Saddam claimed the river and the entire gulf as Iraqi territory, which led to the Iraq/Iran war 20 years ago.

In other words, Iran doesnt acknowledge Iraqs right to claim those waterways as their own territory. Also, does Britain really have a UN mandate to govern Iraq? I was under the impression that they went to war without UN approval.

The US recently seized 5 Iranians at an Irani embassy in northern Iraq, and accused them of aiding terrorists. Noone is saying that the US cant take Iranians captive. I guess its all a matter of perspective eh?


00:41:36 Mar 31st 07 - Lord Senturu The Sweet Guru:

thats right rox. it is a matter of perspective.

i personally dont want someone to hurt my people. do you? do you want someone to come to your country and crash planes into your buildings? we didnt start this. but we will fini*beep*. we wont take this lying down. yes im sure our president has been looking for a reason to attack em. because of the oil issue. but i dont care about that. i can walk to where ever iwant if i have to.

your probably pissed off cuz you know we can kick your ass too. US missile defence is at 100% as of a few months ago. booyaa


01:50:04 Mar 31st 07 - Mr. Imperator:

Definitions of hostage on the Web:

  • a prisoner who is held by one party to insure that another party will meet specified terms
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • A hostage is an entity which is held by a captor in order to compel another party to act or refrain from acting in a particular way. Frequently the entity held is a person. Hostage taking is often politically motivated or motivated by a desire for ransom.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage
  • Hostage is a 2005 action/thriller movie, written by Doug Richardson (based on the novel by Robert Crais) and directed by Florent Emilio Siri.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage_(movie)
  • A person held as a pledge that certain terms or agreements will be kept. (The taking of hostages is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, 1949.)
    www.aiipowmia.com/histories/histdef.html

  • ----------

    Definitions of prisoner of war on the Web:

  • notes issued for use in POW camps.
    www.atsnotes.com/other/glossary.html
  • A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy.
    www.aiipowmia.com/histories/histdef.html
  • soldier captured by the enemy and placed in an enemy camp
    www.geocities.com/43rdpa/cwterms.html
  • A person captured in war, especially a member of the armed forces of a nation who is taken by the enemy during combat. Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2003
    www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/homeless/firststep/content/glossaryp.html
  • a person who surrenders to (or is taken by) the enemy in time of war
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war


  • ----------

    what part of  detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy. Do you not understand. They are no hostages, they are prisoners of war. If they go into irani terretory while bearing arms, it is seen as an action of war, and hence they are no hostages.

    A hostage is something a criminal does and then wants to trade for money!

    ----------

    Definitions of terrorist on the Web:

  • One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
    www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm
  • Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
    www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html
  • a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

  • And on the other hand:

    Definitions of freedom fighter on the Web:

  • insurgent: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • Freedom fighter is a relativistic local term for those engaged in rebellion against an established government that is held to be oppressive and illegitimate. The terms "freedom" and "rebellion" are often controversial, as often both sides in armed conflict claim to represent the popular cause of "freedom". While external intervening parties, even oppressors, almost always claim to be "liberators", 'freedom fighters' also often become oppressors in the eyes of civilians.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fighter

  • omething a criminal does and then wants to trade for money!

    ----------

    When asked "who does the 'allied' forces fight in the middle east, half the world yells "terrorists" but WHY! Americans arrest people and claim they can be tried and have no rights because they are terrorists. WHY!

    If I decide to lay a bomb on the street and let it go of when an american tank rides over it, I am no terrorist! I attack the military faction that tries to dominate my home country. if I were to attack a civilian target I am a terrorist.

    Why do so few people know the definitions and just ignorantly call out "Kill the terrorists!"

    If only people would not just blindly follow propaganda! They say the germans were good at spreading propaganda during WOII, I say the Americans are divine compared to that!

    -Rob


    02:07:10 Mar 31st 07 - Mr. Hungrier Horse:

    Given the number of obvious grammatical errors in the letters the British woman has supposedly written, I wouldn't be surprised if she had been given a transcript by he Iranians for her to write out, as a means of humiliating the British government. They don't seem at all genuine to me, for instance:

    "For this, I am deeply sorry. I understand that this has caused even more distrust for the people of Iran and the whole area in the British.

    The Iranian people have treated me well and have proved themselves to be caring, compassionate, hospitable and friendly. For this I am thankful."

    (Edited by Mr. Hungrier Horse 3/31/2007 2:07:48 AM)


    06:07:53 Mar 31st 07 - Mr. Charcoal:

    Wow this is pathetic. I can't believe anyone here sides with the country that still uses stoning as a method of capital punishment. One of the few left where you can be killed for 'moral' offenses like adultery or homosexuality. Iran is so conservative they make the US seem socialist.

    This kidnapping has nothing to do with the Iraq war at all - it was done in retaliation for the Iranian nuclear sanctions. Iran is seeing how how other nations will react to counter-aggression.

    Hungrier it's probably her own bad (yet coerced) writing, or a poor translation. I would think someone in Iran's government could write a more convincing letter in English. However it is blatent propaganda for sure, meant to rile up the Iranian masses.


    06:56:59 Mar 31st 07 - Sir Salaraca:

    Relations between Iran and the United States have been disrupted since the revolution in Iran. Iran does not maintain diplomatic relations with either the United States or Israel, and it views the Middle East peace process with skepticism. Relations between Iran on the one hand and the European Union and its member states on the other hand are slowly but surely increasing in importance, a fact underscored by President Seyed Mohammad Khatami's visits to Italy, France and Germany in July 2000 and to Austria and Greece in March 2002, as well as by reciprocal visits of European heads of state and government to Tehran and a lively exchange at ministerial levels. In 2002, the European Union launched negotiations on a Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA) with Iran. Parallel to these negotiations, the EU voiced its expectation that the political dialogue with Iran must lead to concrete results in the areas of human rights, efforts to counter terrorism, Iranís stance on the Middle East peace process and issues associated with the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. During a joint visit to Tehran in October 2003, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom successfully prompted the Iranian government to sign an additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and commit itself to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and voluntarily suspend its uranium enrichment and processing activities.

    After the Revolution of Iran in 1979, Britain suspended all diplomatic relations with Iran. Britain did not have an embassy until it was reopened in 1988.

    During the Iran-Iraq war, the British supplied Saddam Hussein with military technology and hardware. The infamous supergun of Project Babylon is a prime example that comes to mind in this regard. All of the required metal tubes for the barrels were purchased from firms in the United Kingdom. The Arms-to-Iraq scandal is thought to have been an element in John Major's defeat by Tony Blair.

    A year after the re-establishment of the British embassy in Tehran, Ayatollah Khomeini issued the infamous Rushdie fatwa, ordering Muslims across the world to kill British author Salman Rushdie. Diplomatic ties with London were broken off only to be resumed at a charge d'affaires level in 1990.

    Relations normalised in 1998 during President Mohammad Khatami's reformist administration, and Jack Straw became the first high ranking British politician to visit Tehran in 2001 since the revolution.

    Relations suffered a setback in 2002 when David Reddaway was rejected by Tehran as London's ambassador, on charges of being a spy, and further deteriorated when Iran arrested eight British sailors after their vessel apparently strayed into Iranian waters near the border with Iraq. They were released later.

    On July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus A300B2 on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in 290 civilian fatalities from six nations, including 66 children. On February 22, 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown. The United States has not compensated Iran for the airplane itself to date. The aircraft was worth more than $30 million.

    There are serious obstacles to improved relations between the two countries. A possible list of concerns of the U.S. Government:

    i dont know why the US is complaining about loosing what 4,000, 10,000 soliders because iran or iraq (i forget which) has lost way more like 700,000s and more too.

    this is an interveiw with a sergant marine in the US ARMY  thing

    Q: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq?

    A: I went to Kuwait around Jan. 17. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And I was involved in the initial invasion.

    Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?

    A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn't see any humanitarian support.

    Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?

    A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.

    Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?

    A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks.

    Q: He spoke English?

    A: Oh, yeah.

    Q: Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out, right?

    A: Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons." That's what they were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in uniform. We never found any weapons.

    Q: You got to see the bodies and casualties?

    A: Yeah, firsthand. I helped throw them in a ditch.

    Q: Over what period did all this take place?

    A: During the invasion of Baghdad.

    'We lit him up pretty good'

    Q: How many times were you involved in checkpoint "light-ups"?

    A: Five times. There was [the city of] Rekha. The gentleman was driving a stolen work utility van. He didn't stop. With us being trigger happy, we didn't really give this guy much of a chance. We lit him up pretty good. Then we inspected the back of the van. We found nothing. No explosives.

    Q: The reports said the cars were loaded with explosives. In all the incidents did you find that to be the case?

    A: Never. Not once. There were no secondary explosions. As a matter of fact, we lit up a rally after we heard a stray gunshot.

    Q: A demonstration? Where?

    A: On the outskirts of Baghdad. Near a military compound. There were demonstrators at the end of the street. They were young and they had no weapons. And when we rolled onto the scene, there was already a tank that was parked on the side of the road. If the Iraqis wanted to do something, they could have blown up the tank. But they didn't. They were only holding a demonstration. Down at the end of the road, we saw some RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) lined up against the wall. That put us at ease because we thought: "Wow, if they were going to blow us up, they would have done it."

    Q: Were the protest signs in English or Arabic?

    A: Both.

    Q: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?

    A: Higher command. We were told to be on the lookout for the civilians because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command. The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials, including intelligence communities within the military and the U.S. government.

    Q: What kind of firepower was employed?

    A: M-16s, 50-cal. machine guns.

    Q: You fired into six or ten kids? Were they all taken out?

    A: Oh, yeah. Well, I had a "mercy" on one guy. When we rolled up, he was hiding behind a concrete pillar. I saw him and raised my weapon up, and he put up his hands. He ran off. I told everybody, "Don't shoot." Half of his foot was trailing behind him. So he was running with half of his foot cut off.

    Q: After you lit up the demonstration, how long before the next incident?

    A: Probably about one or two hours. This is another thing, too. I am so glad I am talking with you, because I suppressed all of this.

    Q: Well, I appreciate you giving me the information, as hard as it must be to recall the painful details.

    A: That's all right. It's kind of therapy for me. Because it's something that I had repressed for a long time.

    Q: And the incident?

    A: There was an incident with one of the cars. We shot an individual with his hands up. He got out of the car. He was badly shot. We lit him up. I don't know who started shooting first. One of the Marines came running over to where we were and said: "You all just shot a guy with his hands up." Man, I forgot about this.

    Depleted uranium and cluster bombs

    Q: You mention machine guns. What can you tell me about cluster bombs, or depleted uranium?

    A: Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year-old.

    Q: Were you in the vicinity of of depleted uranium?

    A: Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If you hit a tank, there's dust.

    Q: Did you breath any dust?

    A: Yeah.

    Q: And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's impacting Iraqi civilians.

    A: Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.

    Q: Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?

    A: Not that I know of. Well, if a tank get*beep*, crews are detained for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms. American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle get*beep*, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said "Holy s---!"

    Q: Cluster bombs are also controversial. U.N. commissions have called for a ban. Were you acquainted with cluster bombs?

    A: I had one of my Marines in my battalion who lost his leg from an ICBM.

    Q: What's an ICBM?

    A: A multi-purpose cluster bomb.

    Q: What happened?

    A: He stepped on it. We didn't get to training about clusters until about a month before I left.

    Q: What kind of training?

    A: They told us what they looked like, and not to step on them.

    Q: Were you in any areas where they were dropped?

    A: Oh, yeah. They were everywhere.

    Q: Dropped from the air?

    A: From the air as well as artillery.

    Q: Are they dropped far away from cities, or inside the cities?

    A: They are used everywhere. Now if you talked to a Marine artillery officer, he would give you the runaround, the politically correct answer. But for an average grunt, they're everywhere.

    Q: Including inside the towns and cities?

    A: Yes, if you were going into a city, you knew there were going to be ICBMs.

    Q: Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons. They are not precise. They don't injure buildings, or hurt tanks. Only people and living things. There are a lot of undetonated duds and they go off after the battles are over.

    A: Once the round leaves the tube, the cluster bomb has a mind of its own. There's always human error. I'm going to tell you: The armed forces are in a tight spot over there. It's starting to leak out about the civilian casualties that are taking place. The Iraqis know. I keep hearing reports from my Marine buddies inside that there were 200-something civilians killed in Fallujah. The military is scrambling right now to keep the raps on that. My understanding is Fallujah is just littered with civilian bodies.

    Embedded reporters

    Q: How are the embedded reporters responding?

    A: I had embedded reporters in my unit, not my platoon. One we had was a South African reporter. He was scared s---less. We had an incident where one of them wanted to go home.

    Q: Why?

    A: It was when we started going into Baghdad. When he started seeing the civilian casualties, he started wigging out a little bit. It didn't start until we got on the outskirts of Baghdad and started taking civilian casualties.

    Q: I would like to go back to the first incident, when the survivor asked why did you kill his brother. Was that the incident that pushed you over the edge, as you put it?

    A: Oh, yeah. Later on I found out that was a typical day. I talked with my commanding officer after the incident. He came up to me and says: "Are you OK?" I said: "No, today is not a good day. We killed a bunch of civilians." He goes: "No, today was a good day." And when he said that, I said "Oh, my goodness, what the hell am I into?"

    Q: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of mind before the invasion?

    A: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the whole thing.

    Q: What changed you?

    A: The civilian casualties taking place. That was what made the difference. That was when I changed.

    Q: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for war affect the troops?

    A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just feel embarrassed, ashamed about it.

    Showdown with superiors

    Q: I understand that all the incidents - killing civilians at checkpoints, itchy fingers at the rally - weigh on you. What happened with your commanding officers? How did you deal with them?

    A: There was an incident. It was right after the fall of Baghdad, when we went back down south. On the outskirts of Karbala, we had a morning meeting on the battle plan. I was not in a good mindset. All these things were going through my head - about what we were doing over there. About some of the things my troops were asking. I was holding it all inside. My lieutenant and I got into a conversation. The conversation was striking me wrong. And I lashed out. I looked at him and told him: "You know, I honestly feel that what we're doing is wrong over here. We're committing genocide."

    He asked me something and I said that with the killing of civilians and the depleted uranium we're leaving over here, we're not going to have to worry about terrorists. He didn't like that. He got up and stormed off. And I knew right then and there that my career was over. I was talking to my commanding officer.

    Q: What happened then?

    A: After I talked to the top commander, I was kind of scurried away. I was basically put on house arrest. I didn't talk to other troops. I didn't want to hurt them. I didn't want to jeopardize them.

    I want to help people. I felt strongly about it. I had to say something. When I was sent back to stateside, I went in front of the sergeant major. He's in charge of 3,500-plus Marines. "Sir," I told him, "I don't want your money. I don't want your benefits. What you did was wrong."

    It was just a personal conviction with me. I've had an impeccable career. I chose to get out. And you know who I blame? I blame the president of the U.S. It's not the grunt. I blame the president because he said they had weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie.





    07:03:35 Mar 31st 07 - Sir Verteccio:

    The War on Terror was staged. 9/11 was staged. The Bin Laden Confession Tape was staged.

    It was all the United States plan to gain billions upon trillions of dollars off of Iraq among other things.

    Coincidence that millions of dollars worth of gold left the World Trade Center Towers the day of 9/11? Coincidence that 2 of the buildings capsized without ever being hit by airplanes? Coincidence that after 9/11, Bush was given loads of power, given the ability to wage war, issue the Patriot Act, among other empowering things.


    The world is corrupt, what can we do?



    Love is what is missing.
    Love is power. For when you love, the power you have is in not wanting the power in the first place.

    Sad thing is that those who do not love anyone but themselves are the ones who want power the most, but they never get it without causing problems.

    -Verteccio, son of Vertencio


    07:24:42 Mar 31st 07 - Mr. Dead OR Dying:


    Mr Imperator, what part of  detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy. Do you not understand.

    They are hostages, by your own admission they are not prisoners of war because a state of war does NOT exist between Iran and the UK. Iran isn't an enemy of the UK therefore they are hostages. The British were patrolling there under a UN mandate.The UK issued the GPS co-ordinates of where the boat was in IRAQI waters, the Iranians said they were at  different co-ordinates , which when the British checked was ALSO in IRAQI waters (schoolboy error).  When the British pointed this out to the Iranians the Iranians quickly withdrew from talks and later issued yet another set of co-ordinates which was less than 50metres inside Iranian waters but more than 1700metres from the point they originally said.


     Iran doesn't have a leg to stand on in this matter and has orchestrated the entire event to exploit the anti-western propaganda it has generated. This is further perpetrated by the uninformed ramblings of some of the less intelligent people both on this forum and across the worldwide media.

    Mr. Dead or Dying

    Oh and by the way rather than cutting and pasting an entire webpage, why not just post the link.


    Edited to add - If they were prisoners of war then Iran have broken the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war by parading them in front of the TV cameras.

    (Edited by Mr. Dead OR Dying 3/31/2007 7:26:55 AM)


    07:38:24 Mar 31st 07 - Overlord Dvsmasta:

    Sir Verteccio


    3/31/2007 12:03:35 AM

    It was all the United States plan to gain billions upon trillions of dollars off of Iraq among other things.


    You can't be serious that you think the US made any money on this war at all, not to mention trying to say billions or trillions.  If anyone is making money, it is the contractors "rebuilding" Iraq and the soldiers over there getting paid ridiculous wages who are making money.  I can already see when the next poor Pres. takes over, there will be many fiscal improvements that will hurt the American taxpayers for sure, as someone has to pay for this little fight at some time.

    (Edited by Overlord Dvsmasta 3/31/2007 7:39:04 AM)


    08:55:46 Mar 31st 07 - Sir Salaraca:

    the soliders might be getting paid but the US goverment is using little of its finance towards its little "war on terror" if it wanted to the US could end the war now it just doesnt want to change the "ameriacan way of life" one bit!
    thats why its blameing others for not helping


    10:17:23 Mar 31st 07 - Mr. Architect:

    A large portion of everyone who has posted here has absolutely no idea what is actually going on in this world we live in.  Your reading whats written....sometimes, and then reacting in a way that makes you feel like you have contributed, well congrats in your accomplishment, but you have gained nothing.

    To be able to get any real answers in any debate the speaker must be able to see the problem from both sides, and must attempt to be un-biased.  Most of what I am reading is heavily biased in one way or the other, and therefore it can not hold any real value in this type of debate.

    Therefore I will attempt to the best of my ability to explain a few of these things.

    1.  Americas Attack on Iraq

    America is in Iraq among other places right now and many say we have no reason for being there.  This may be true or not, but what we do know is why we went into Iraq.  America went into Iraq on the suspicion of them having WMDs.  We had no concrete or tangible evidence, however what we did have was intel from our side telling us that WMDs were in Iraq as well as a tape stating that the Iraqi government was interested in obtaining WMDs and may already be in possession of them.  At this point a country is left with 2 decisions:

           1. Go into the country of suspect and search for supposed WMDs
           2. Stay on guard on the Home Front and wait for a possible attack on our lands....again.

    Prior to the "war", tensions between America and the Middle East as a whole had been high, however more then usual in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a some of Iran because of the rogue terrorist groups present in those countries and some attacks that had been made around the world.  America wanted to shut down these groups pernamently and when it was found that WMDs could also be present, the option of a 2 for 1 deal presented itself as a juicy steak, meaning America would be able to both oust Saddam which has been a goal for America for a while, dispose of any WMDs that are found, and make a dent if not destroy the terrorist groups.  This option was too good to pass up and so it was taken.

    Now, the alternative would have been to sit at home and do nothing.  While this sounds good now, go back about 4 years to when America was freaking out because all of us thought that Iraq had WMDs and could attack at any moment.  Go back to that time and tell us not to go in and make a preemptive strike to defend ourselves from what could be.  4 years ago everyone was in a frenzy and roughly 83% of America backed the war effort in the interests of finding WMDs that could be used against us as well as getting back at what was percieved to have been the birthplace of the attacks on our homeland.  When this thing started, a huge majority was in support of the war and this was why we went to war.

    ...................anyways, I'll write more later, I've been working over 90 hours a week out of 168 (thats how many hours are in a week), that including school, and work and its now 1:10am here.  I am tired and want to go to bed but I chose to write this for some stupid reason, and now I'm gonna get locked in a debate with someone who cant spell or even get a coherent thought out onto the page who is going to tell me they are right and I am wrong even though they dont know why.  I'm going to be mad on my side of the computer but all you will see is me trying to be as calm as possible so that I can be understood and come across a middle person trying to show both sides equally.  However that same person who cant spell is going to skip over everything I said at the beginning of this post, and read one sentence, be pissed at me and write some huge long rebuttal somehow linking easy cheese to Saddams golden toilet seats, and then we will all say together, "...like, WTF mate?", mostly because we will all realise that whoever chooses to reply to this is in all likelihood going to be exactly like I described them, unless I get lucky and someone worth listening to comes by, but I highly doubt that....

    ok, I'm done with my rant now.

    ~The Architect~


    10:46:55 Mar 31st 07 - Mr. Charcoal:

    Archi some people are just anti-American. I would say it borders on racist, for lack of a better term ("American" doesn't really qualify as a race). Insofar as to back a country like Iran who is living in the 6th century simply because they oppose the USA.

    I also love people who believe in some grand conspiracy. If it was so easy to stage one terrorist attack why hasn't another occured to keep public support up? The US Army could sure use it, they need more "overpaid" soldiers.

    If the USA is so powerful that the Iraq war isn't costing much, then why don't they simply steamroll every third-world dictatorship that doesn't agree with US policies?


    12:39:02 Mar 31st 07 - Lady Spooky:

    Thanks Dead or Dying - you posting the above saved me the trouble of explaing to Imperator that his whole argument on POWs fails since Britain is not at war with Iran.

    @ Rox.  I didn't say there was a mandate for the original war (that's a whole different argument) - however there is one now for the multinational force and that's what British forces are operating under at the request of the current Iraqi government.  Whatever the previous rights and wrongs of this conflict, the existence of this mandate is a fact and the Iranians have acted against the interests of the UN as well as Britain, a fact borne out by the UN statement yesterday.

    Whatever your perspective on this I don't believe that anyone can approve of the parading of the captured sailors on Iranian TV along with the publication of the letters obviously written under duress and the obviously edited "confessions".  And now Iran says they are going to "put them on trial", it's just not the behaviour of a civilised country.

    Before anyone mentions Gunatanamo Bay let me just say I don't approve of that either but two wrongs don't make a right.


    (Edited by Lady Spooky 3/31/2007 12:40:11 PM)


    17:13:22 Mar 31st 07 - Sir Verteccio:

    @ Charcoal.

    I don't believe the government, nor do I believe the conspiracy theories.

    The evidence for both is astounding if you look into it.

    I just don't believe humanity.

    Humans are *beep*gots.


    19:42:49 Apr 1st 07 - Mr. Dreadlord The Dressed:

    lol agree with verteccion

    and charoal there is no need for another set up since they are already doing everything they wanted without anyone opposing them seriously.
    i dont need to sum each one


    12:03:30 Apr 2nd 07 - Mr. Smuff The Death Dealer:

    i think that people MUST realise is that England as a nation never supported a war in Iraq, however Saddam needed to be held accountable for his crimes against the people of Iraq and its bordering nations. the government went in following the US (a BIG mistake)

    and to call these terrorist 'freedom fighters' makes me sick. they fight for thier freedom while the rest of the country and the whole world lives in fear of when the next bomb, and countless lices lost becasue of it, will go off.

    there is no way to justify what these people are doing, no way at all.

    now for these Brits being held in Iran. i feel that the whole situation is a bit extream, if some french sailers were in UK waters then this whole prison detention thing would never happen. Iran is making a mountain out of a mole hill and should just let them go. POW or no POW this situation is completely rediculas, and people supporting this action are only suppoting the terrorists and thier actions as well, which is doing NO ONE any good.


    13:44:06 Apr 2nd 07 - Mr. Dreadlord The Dressed:

    crossing those waters with military is officialy a declaration of war and iran has international rights to attack the UK.
    Not that they should but even that is a more legimite couse then a million lies from tony blair to attack iraq.


    16:00:54 Apr 2nd 07 - Sir Salaraca:

    okay every body has a point of veiw, but we all think its bad!
    so lets stop saying "no your wrong" and discusse what we can doto helpp


    16:17:10 Apr 2nd 07 - Mr. Manuel Marulanda Velez:

    I know a few american soldiers, and believe me there aren't many overpaid soldiers...(if any).

    Oh and they are terrorists not freedom fighters. As someone said before they are not only targetting the military, but civilians aswell.


    20:10:16 Apr 2nd 07 - Mr. Soccerplaya:

    architect, wonderful. i was posting the same exact thing as i was reading, then i got to urs and erased it. i do have one thing to add though:

    back when all this started, i did my research to see if it was actually a valid war. it was after we knew there was no WMD. i knew bush was trying to find some reason, so i didnt find this conclusion biased in any way. i did it for myself, to see if getting saddam out of there was worth it. i found (at the time) that there had been about 300,000 iraqi and US deaths from this war. i thought, "sh*t that is a lot! this war is stupid!" i continued searching, and wondered how bad saddam had been as a leader. i found that during his regime he had killed well over 3 million people. based solely on the numbers, i justified the war for myself. i felt (and still feel) that this war (maybe not for the reasons the us gov has stated) has bettered iran. ending that regime helped save lives, based solely on the numbers. BUT, other than the numbers, saddam didnt just kill lots of people. to him, it was more common to torture them (yes, i know the us has supposed tortures too, but nothing to this account) by cutting off various body parts, drilling holes into their bodies, fire, and other things. these deaths are worse (in my view) than a gunshot, or explosion from a bomb. and the thing that really set me off, many victims of saddam's regime were held in terrible conditions in the prisons. then he brought their families in to see the prisoner. after the happiness in his eyes of seeing his family, saddam had the family killed (and tortured) in front of the prisoner. that is my view........... do as u please with it


    20:26:25 Apr 2nd 07 - Lord Osiris:

    crossing those waters with military is officialy a declaration of war and iran has international rights to attack the UK.
    Not that they should but even that is a more legimite couse then a million lies from tony blair to attack iraq.
    <--- who says they crossed into Iranian Waters so its not a declaration of war because they wernt in Iranian territory


    20:57:17 Apr 2nd 07 - Mr. Dreadlord The Dressed:


    @ manual

    yes and the CIA is curently the biggest terror organisation with mo*beep*nd who bye far killed or coused the largest amount of civialian deaths.


    @ osi
    President of iran.
    the people who crossed it also say it.

    tony is saying otherwise and i think he lost his creadability a long time ago :D/


    21:04:46 Apr 2nd 07 - Lord Osiris:

    Dreadlord. The Indian merchant ship Confirms the british position the iraqi govt confirms the british position and finally the first Iranian position was inside iraqi water ffs! when it was pointed out they changed it ffs it doesnt get more obvious then that


    21:08:19 Apr 2nd 07 - Mr. Dreadlord The Dressed:

    @ architect
    ''to be able to get any real answers in any debate the speaker must be able to see the problem from both sides,''

    listen to yourself pls
    all you do is repeat what most western media is saying.


    Dont read everything again
    i disagree with the following

    A large portion of everyone who has posted here has absolutely no idea what is actually going on in this world we live in.  Your reading whats written....sometimes, and then reacting in a way that makes you feel like you have contributed, well congrats in your accomplishment, but you have gained nothing.

    To be able to get any real answers in any debate the speaker must be able to see the problem from both sides, and must attempt to be un-biased.  Most of what I am reading is heavily biased in one way or the other, and therefore it can not hold any real value in this type of debate.

    Therefore I will attempt to the best of my ability to explain a few of these things.

    1.  America Attack on Iraq

    America is in Iraq among other places right now and many say we have no reason for being there.  This may be true or not, but what we do know is why we went into Iraq.  America went into Iraq on the suspicion of them having WMDs.  We had no concrete or tangible evidence, however what we did have was intel from our side telling us that WMDs were in Iraq as well as a tape stating that the Iraqi government was interested in obtaining WMDs and may already be in possession of them.  At this point a country is left with 2 decisions:

           1. Go into the country of suspect and search for supposed WMDs
           2. Stay on guard on the Home Front and wait for a possible attack on our lands....again.

    Prior to the "war", tensions between America and the Middle East as a whole had been high, however more then usual in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a some of Iran because of the rogue terrorist groups present in those countries and some attacks that had been made around the world.  America wanted to shut down these groups pernamently and when it was found that WMDs could also be present, the option of a 2 for 1 deal presented itself as a juicy steak, meaning America would be able to both oust Saddam which has been a goal for America for a while, dispose of any WMDs that are found, and make a dent if not destroy the terrorist groups.  This option was too good to pass up and so it was taken.

    Now, the alternative would have been to sit at home and do nothing.  While this sounds good now, go back about 4 years to when America was freaking out because all of us thought that Iraq had WMDs and could attack at any moment.  Go back to that time and tell us not to go in and make a preemptive strike to defend ourselves from what could be.  4 years ago everyone was in a frenzy and roughly 83% of America backed the war effort in the interests of finding WMDs that could be used against us as well as getting back at what was percieved to have been the birthplace of the attacks on our homeland.  When this thing started, a huge majority was in support of the war and this was why we went to war.


    The rest is one sided fact or suspitions that could be eighter.




    [Top]  Pages:   1 2 3 (next)

    Login
    Username: Don't have an account - Sign up!
    Password: Forgot your password - Retrive it!

    My bookmarksOld forum design


    - close -
      Copyright © 1999-2018 Visual Utopia. All rights reserved. Page loaded in 0.02 seconds. Server time: 3:14:12 AM