Get a club like a caveman and bonk someone on the head.

Now that's old-school.

Well MadJohnny is right...sort of.

Does it matter if you bomb or shoot someone? They're still dead and become a nice lunch for the worms.

Anyway, to be PC with war is about as stupid as literally trying to stick your dick into your harddrive --- It's fucking retarded. A better analogy is to tie your hands around your back, and then you're ordered to jack off.

Hell, that's a point that even the great masterpiece APOCALYPSE NOW, a creative collaboration that the very libertarian, gun-nutty conservative screenwriter John Milius and the liberal-friendly director/producer Francis Ford Coppola, agree upon. What does that tell you?

It's not a good idea. I learned the hard way that the correct term is "disk drive."

I'm pretty sure that people with AK's and no tanks are weaker than the American army, Apple. Unless you know where they're hiding all their divisions, submarines and fighter jets...

What I meant was war is war, killing is killing. Calling a war "conventional" is silly. A conventional war used to be line up 100 yards apart and blow each other to hell. Its not how the killing is done, its the quantity in which its done that puts one side ahead of the other.

And Americans have the quantity part down, they just need to be more tactful about where those bombs are falling.

Well obviously you really do not know the true meaning of the term 'Conventional War' in regards to the context that we are talking about here because your definition is totally wrong.

Conventional, in this context, is just another term for traditional. And it has not been the tradition of this military over the last several wars to just "line up 100 yards apart and blow each other to hell."


Don Cardi

Your a few days late with that one DonT, several have already beat you to it. That joke is now and old one.

And speaking of jokes, why do you find this so amusing. You think that it was so amusing for the troops who had to risk their lives capturing this pig? And please, don't bother with the "lighten up" reply.

With people like you the troops are dmaned if they do and damned if they don't. I just don't know what you want from those fighting in this war.

Way to add to the discussion!




Don Cardi [/b][/quote]DC read the book "Fiasco" and perhaps you will get a clue.

What is that? A compilation of your political posts? :p


Don Cardi

What is that? A compilation of your political posts? :p


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]
No DC, its a book using sources from inside the military about the US "policy" in Iraq.

Wow Don Cardi, I was merely making fun of the term "conventional" being applied to killing people, but some how you took that wrong way

Note the "used" in that post

And btw, since when is there a "traditional" way to kill some one?

Johnny Johnny Johnny. What's the matter with you? Why do you twist words around and continue to act foolishly? No one said anything about there being a 'traditional' way of killing someone. But let me take you by the hand and explain to you that I merely said that fighting a war in the traditional style is not the way that I think this war should be fought. I never said anything about 'killing' someone in the traditional way. I talked about the strategy of fighting this war in the traditional manner that we've used in fighting the past several wars as not being the correct way. There's a difference.

Yes, killing is killing. You gotta get up close and BADA BING! All over your nice ivy league suit. You're taking this very personal.


Don Cardi

"Fiasco" is a book about the Channel Dash, when the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen went from Brest, in France, to their home ports in Germany through the English Channel during WW 2.

And DC, I'm just being silly

Senate: No Prewar Saddam-al-Qaida Ties

Sep 8, 1:06 PM (ET)

By JIM ABRAMS

WASHINGTON (AP) - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

White House press secretary Tony Snow played down the report as "nothing new."

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe - contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time - that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war.

web page

Well, the 9/11 Commission Report itself earlier had agreed with this new investigation.

In other words, again I am verified from my own research, that Iraq had NO obvious, nor known, involvement with 9/11, despite the push that the Bush administration had made in 2002/2003 with this claim.

Nope. Iraq had absolutely no involvement with the attacks on 9/11. Didn't support it, didn't cheer for it. As a matter of fact Saddam was outraged that someone would do such a thing to the United States Of America and it's people.

Saddam was minding his own business and tending to the people of Iraq's needs. He was taking care of his country and his people. The nation of Iraq was flowing with milk and honey when he was in power. The people were much better off.

Saddam never would have ever posed a threat to any nation on earth. As a matter of fact why would anyone think that he would pose a threat to the rest of the world? After all it's not as though he had some kind of a history or a track record of ever attacking or even threatening any other nation. It's not as though the man had a history of using weapons like nerve or mustard gas to hurt another human being. Not like this man would have killed thousands of children and created hundreds of mass graves. This man was protecting and coddling the children of Iraq. He made sure that no harm would ever come to them.


How in the world could anyone ever think that Saddam had any ill feelings toward the United States or that he would ever have the ability, resources or funds to support a terrorist organization? After all it's not as though Saddam ever was known to finance any kind of terrorism or terrorists. Not as though the man had a history of ever paying families to sacrafice their sons to become suicide bombers. And it's not as though his underlings in his government ever did anything as outrageous like hosting a jihadist seminar.

You know something? This administration really had some nerve thinking that this man had the ability or had the resources to ever attack or even finance and support an attack on any other nation. Some nerve removing such a humanitarian from power. What the hell was this government thinking?

Whoever made up these false stories about Saddam should be brought to justice. As a matter of fact Saddam should be given the opportunity to file a complaint with the ACLU! Whoever made up these fairytales that this man used nerve gas or mustard gases to attack another nation should be held accountable for making up such lies Where do these people get these stories from?

I am shocked and appalled that our government, from the democrats to the republicans decided that this man posed a threat to America and the rest of the world.

They had some nerve removing such a good man like Saddam from power.

We should impeach our whole government.


Don Cardi

Mein fuhrer! I can walk!

Probably those same crazies that cooked up that bullshit Holocaust idea...we all know Hitler loved Jews.

Wow, DC saying that two studies, with the 9/11 Commission with several prominent Republicans, and the latest Senate study, from a friggin committee run by the GOP....are full of shit.

If you want to play fantasy, fine. But this aint football, where bad logic is only rewarded with bad standings within your league.

Saddam was a bastard, but unless there is more credible evidence, I can't sign on to the belief that he was involved with 9/11.

Sadly DC, you remind me of those Eurotrash scum that still post their bullshit about how the Americans or Israelis or whatever the fuck really launched the 9/11 attacks, and not those mother fucking terrorists from Egypt and Saudia Arabia. You know, the sorts I wiped my ass with whenever they pop up on BB.Net.

As in, get over it.

P.S. - nice Kubrick touch, DJ.

And where did I say that theose commissions were full of shit?


And truthfully, I didn't realize that you learned to wipe your own ass. I figured, by how you act on here, that your mommy was still changing your diapers. Hey, congratualtions! Learning to wipe your own ass and not having to depend on mommy to do it is a big step for someone like you!


Don Cardi

Ugh oh...

*copied from the Iran ignores UN deadline thread* Ronnie care to enlighten us with which MOVIE DIRECTORS( :rolleyes: ) believe Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with it :rolleyes:

Sure DMC.

I refered to those silly Eurotrash theories that somehow the Americans or Jews/Israelis had "staged" the 9/11 attacks and them, unbelievably, blamed it on the Arabs. You know, stupid shit.

Besides, look at that thread again DMC boy, did I say anything about Saddam and 9/11 in that post? NO.

Again, check out Paul Greengrass' interview at the CHUD website. Don't be lazy. Really, he put out a rational and logical argument as to why the "conspiracy" theories in regards to 9/11, that is with the whole "America/Jews really behind it", are total hogwash.

Anyway Don Cardi.....whats your obsession with my ass all of a sudden?

Senate: Saddam Saw al-Qaida As Threat

Sep 8, 4:48 PM (ET)

By JIM ABRAMS


WASHINGTON (AP) - Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq. The report also newly faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Democrats contended that the administration continues to use faulty intelligence, including assertions of a link between Saddam's government and the recently killed al-Zarqawi, to justify the war in Iraq.

They also said, in remarks attached to Friday's Senate Intelligence Committee document, that former CIA Director George Tenet had modified his position on the terrorist link at the request of administration policymakers.

Republicans said the document, which compares prewar intelligence with post-invasion findings on Iraq's weapons and on terrorist groups, broke little new ground. And they said Democrats were distorting it for political purposes.

A previous report in 2004 made clear the intelligence agencies'"massive failures," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a member of the committee. "Yet to make a giant leap in logic to claim that the Bush administration intentionally misled the nation or manipulated intelligence is simply not warranted."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."

A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq.

It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories.

The report also said that in 2002 the National Security Council directed that funding for the INC should continue "despite warnings from both the CIA, which terminated its relationship with the INC in December 1996, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including the Iranians."

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.

The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

"The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee.

Levin and Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, said Tenet told the committee last July that in 2002 he had complied with an administration request "to say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said" about the Saddam-terrorist link.

They said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Bush gave a speech speaking of such a link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.

They said Tenet acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint was "the wrong thing to do."

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the mistakes of prewar intelligence have long been known and "the additional views of the committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase had been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how far the committee should delve into the question of whether policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he planned to ask for an investigation into the amount of information remaining classified. He said, "I am particularly concerned it appears that information may have been classified to shield individuals from accountability.

Stalin and Hitler weren't working together?

Oh, that Stalin, he was such a kindly old loving grandfather. Let's all give him a hug!

Nah, Stalin was too busy ass-raping his portion of Poland to want to play with that German wanker.

Though I'm sure Stalin didn't care for him when that German wanker invaded his country.

"DMC BOY" :rolleyes:

I just find it very funny how you use a movie director's opinion as some way to try and prove a point or back up your argument. Since he directs movies, that to you somehow makes him a credible source Read my post again, did I ever say you said anything about Saddam, I was just wondering since you had a director to back up your other theory, maybe another movie director could back up this argument.

Just a simple question, no need to get all pissy.

There was no Poland, no invasion. It was a lie concocted by the vast right-wing conspirators in Washington.

There was no Poland, no invasion. It was a lie concocted by the vast right-wing conspirators in Washington. [/b][/quote]Oh really?

Damn, they're good!

"DMC BOY" :rolleyes:

I just find it very funny how you use a movie director's opinion as some way to try and prove a point or back up your argument. Since he directs movies, that to you somehow makes him a credible source Read my post again, did I ever say you said anything about Saddam, I was just wondering since you had a director to back up your other theory, maybe another movie director could back up this argument.

Just a simple question, no need to get all pissy. [/b][/quote]First off, in case you don't realize it, I'm an asshole. Surprise, right?

Second, use a director to proof my point? Is this Patrick trying to shoe-horn Oliver Stone? No.

I just agreed with what Greengrass had said. That's it. Nothing more deep than that. He had made a logical argument for the 9/11 events that happened, and I think its good points. It's like DoubleJ in his posts attacking the silly historians of WW2 that continue to have some insepid theories...like that the Hiroshima nuke bombing was unnecessary, or that Japan was about to surrender(which as DoubleJ pointed out, is bullshit).

Fact was, Double J said some stuff that I agreed with, and I praised him for kicking ass against stupidity.

That's it DMC. Anyway, check out the 9/11 Commission report in its entirety. Take time, get some drinks, maybe some nice pasta, and take it all in. Really, thats where I was convinced that the silly arguments from the right in regards to Saddam and 9/11 was hogwash, along with the equally cartoonish European mentality-fueled 9/11 theories where either the Americans or Israelis, not the evil terrorists of Al Qaeda, were really behind it.

P.S. - Would you be pissed if I said "DMC Man"? Then again, its like when I say nicely to like Omar or DV in the old BB.Net chat, where I would go "Vercetti, my boy!" or whatever. If you're offended by that, fine. But I didn't intend to anyway.

Did he have grandchildren?

And yes, I realize my irrelevance.

This is awkward DC. Normally you tend to use the government/intelligence reports as evidence for your believes. And now, when the reports don't suite your believes, you do this.

You don't want anyone to think that you are hypocritical in your use of evidence, do you? That's the first step to become a liberal, so watch out for that.