• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

So who is in charge?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Link below; my emphasis.

"The Bush administration suggested Tuesday that prisons in Iraq where hundreds of detainees apparently were abused were only "nominally" under the control of the central government in Baghdad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051227/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
The statement acknowledged weakness in the Iraqi government, but also credited it with trying to address a problem

Maybe it takes awhile for a person to learn that the way it has been for thier entire life is not acceptable now......but at least the Current Iraqi Goverment is ""trying to address the problem"". And not continueing to dig more Saddam style Mass Graves...

"We are working with the Iraqi government to provide advice and technical assistance" to correct the prison situation, the U.S. spokesman said.

And with our help they will learn to treat each other (including those captured detainees that wish to kill them) better....

(I would even find it hard to be compassionate to a terrorist) but because you love them is seems easier for you?.......

The U.S. military said Sunday it would not hand over detention facilities or individual detainees to Iraqi officials until they have demonstrated higher standards of care.

And until they get better we will continue to guide them through the process......
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
The statement acknowledged weakness in the Iraqi government, but also credited it with trying to address a problem

Maybe it takes awhile for a person to learn that the way it has been for thier entire life is not acceptable now......but at least the Current Iraqi Goverment is ""trying to address the problem"". And not continueing to dig more Saddam style Mass Graves...

Most every day in Iraq, they find several bound, murdered, Iraqis. That they aren't in a "mass" grave doesn't make much difference. That the Shiites killed them instead of Saddam doesn't make much difference. That the milita of a particular religious faction killed them doesn't make much difference. More people are dying every day in Iraq than died during the time Saddam was in power. That's a fact. So who's the mass murderer here, Bush or Saddam?

"We are working with the Iraqi government to provide advice and technical assistance" to correct the prison situation, the U.S. spokesman said.

And with our help they will learn to treat each other (including those captured detainees that wish to kill them) better....[/quote]

Yes, we're working with them. How long will we "work" with them. And what happens when we leave (and we are coming out)? There are hundreds of prisons in Iraq, mostly run by Shiites. We know they are torturing, starving, and abusing prisoners. We can't be everywhere. Donald Rumsfeld even said it wasn't our responsibility to stop the abuse! Thank goodness Gen Pace corrected him in that matter!

(I would even find it hard to be compassionate to a terrorist) but because you love them is seems easier for you?.......

Well, I am a good Christian. And as an American, I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

The U.S. military said Sunday it would not hand over detention facilities or individual detainees to Iraqi officials until they have demonstrated higher standards of care.

And until they get better we will continue to guide them through the process......[/quote]

For how long, Steve? The patience of the American people is running out. The Republicans running for re-election in '06 are starting to get nervous. Our Federal deficit is at record highs; gasoline prices continue to drag on the economy. Thousands of Americans still live in tents on the Gulf Coast while Bush is subsdizing gasoline prices for the Iraqis. Several Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, are backing stem cell research, in spite of Bush's threat to veto. Enough Republicans stood against drilling in the ANWAR to get it removed from the spending bill. And some Conservative groups are saying Bush went too far with his warrantless wiretapping. Tom DeLay is in court. The House is shut down until Jan 23rd because leadership is afraid members will ask for a new election of leaders. Abramhoff is going to tell which politicians took money for what favors. Fitzgerald is still investigating the Valarie Plame outing. And there's still the Scooter Libby trial to grab headlines.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
The patience of the American people is running out.

You complain we are leaving them before (for how long) yet no matter what option is supported you are unwilling to give ....

you have showed no patience....

I say pull out one day after we pull out of Japan..Germany,,,and south Korea...

And by the way...you never answered about Germany letting the Killer of the US Navy Diver and convicted terrorist free.......(and they knew damn well who they had)..

If you could find a piece to speak against Bush you promote it..no matter which side it is on.....

More soldiers, (even though Clinton fired them)

Less soldiers,,,even when whining they will be needing more soldiers...

make up your mind....Oh I know you hate Bush.....and no matter what happens or who has to die your going to keep hating Bush.......SteveC may be Nuts, but your not far from falling over his edge....
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Disagreeable said:
More people are dying every day in Iraq than died during the time Saddam was in power. That's a fact. So who's the mass murderer here, Bush or Saddam?

I think you'd be hard pressed to substantiate that claim with a reliable source, especially since new mass graves keep turning up. Instead of running your mouth like always, back that claim up, Dis. Chances are you'll just ignore this post, though.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I once tried to firgure out how many deaths Saddam is responsible for...

Numbers such as

1,700,000 in the iran Iraq war...
60,000 Kurds,
50,000 Iraqi's
100,000 Shites,
102,300 Kuwait War
100,000 adults, and 560,000 children to sanctions...

add in the 135,000 claimed by annother Shite group. and the ten thousand found in the last mass grave...

Two Million six hundred seventy two thousand three hundred......

another site claimed the number will exceed three million.........lives.....or should I say name less deaths,,,

and the first thing Dis will do is claim the number is wrong or ask for a link.........

even if he only caused the death of one million,,,,it is one million to many.......

Ahmed helped bury 1,500 people in a communal grave after the attack, which killed his father, three sisters and two nephews. Ten years later his mother died of gas-induced nerve disease. Despite losing a brother last year to illness caused by the chemical bombing, 40-year-old carpenter Batyal Hazar expressed rare support for the trial process.

"To see Saddam in front of a judge is the wish of all Kurdish people," he said.

"Of course Kurds are unhappy Saddam should get a trial. But the United States is democratic and looks at guilty people and then gives them a chance. We should be like that."
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
416
Reaction score
0
Location
north eastern new mexico
Off topic I know but I just could not let this statement by Dis pass with out a remark.

Well, I am a good Christian.


From the tone and attitudes taken by Dis in most of its posts I dont think I could ever think that Dis is a GOOD Christian. Your post may well be backed by facts, I have never taken the time to check your rantings. What I take exception to is your attitude and the attitude of several others, who neither here nor there. I am a christian and if I behave and act like you do on this site I would be tarred and feathered by most of the good christian people I know. I have said it before and I will say it again you sound like a washed up, pompus, has been polotician. I might start paying more attention to your posts and ranting if your attitude wasnt such a turnoff.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
Disagreeable said:
More people are dying every day in Iraq than died during the time Saddam was in power. That's a fact. So who's the mass murderer here, Bush or Saddam?

I think you'd be hard pressed to substantiate that claim with a reliable source, especially since new mass graves keep turning up. Instead of running your mouth like always, back that claim up, Dis. Chances are you'll just ignore this post, though.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5033&highlight=iraqis+killed.html
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
nenmrancher said:
Off topic I know but I just could not let this statement by Dis pass with out a remark.

Well, I am a good Christian.


From the tone and attitudes taken by Dis in most of its posts I dont think I could ever think that Dis is a GOOD Christian. Your post may well be backed by facts, I have never taken the time to check your rantings. What I take exception to is your attitude and the attitude of several others, who neither here nor there. I am a christian and if I behave and act like you do on this site I would be tarred and feathered by most of the good christian people I know. I have said it before and I will say it again you sound like a washed up, pompus, has been polotician. I might start paying more attention to your posts and ranting if your attitude wasnt such a turnoff.

Sheep follow blindly, no matter the danger. I take time to read more than one side. You don't like my style, too bad. It says a lot about you that you choose to ignore or ridicule me because of my posting style, rather than what I have to say.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Dis Followed your link,,,

Fuzzy Math

how can you set the Number 300,000 when the actual deaths atributed to Saddam are considered in the Millions?

was Saddam not responsible for the Deaths I pulled from war chronicles sites...

was he not responsible for Killing the Kurds? Shites, Sunnis,,

The Kuwait war?....

The troops that he left in the field to Die?

The Sanctions placed against his country?


you Number is increadibly low making you a lier...................................

in Fact Lier of the Year..........
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
Dis Followed your link,,,

Fuzzy Math

how can you set the Number 300,000 when the actual deaths atributed to Saddam are considered in the Millions?

was Saddam not responsible for the Deaths I pulled from war chronicles sites...

was he not responsible for Killing the Kurds? Shites, Sunnis,,

The Kuwait war?....

The troops that he left in the field to Die?

The Sanctions placed against his country?


you Number is increadibly low making you a lier...................................

in Fact Lier of the Year..........

Cal set the numbers, not me. He said it was a US estimate. Look at the link. I see no links in your posts that show your figures are reliable. So keep on calling names. According to Cal's figures, Bush is a bigger murder than Saddam.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Logic won't work - there's no amount of rationality that can destroy Disagreeable's devotion to Saddam. I remember she even once said that Saddam would end up being voted into the new government.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
10,912
Reaction score
7
You'll probably NEVER know the number of dead in Iraq.....BUT...I do have a valid question.

In basic training for our armed services....no matter what the branch...isn't the training about 6-8 wks...of course specilized fields are longer...on a whole it's less than 6 months. By that time you are considered FULL TRAINED.

Why can't we train these Iraq soldiers, etc in that same time? Why has it taken this long and we still don't have sufficient #'s of their forces under arms?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
kolanuraven said:
You'll probably NEVER know the number of dead in Iraq.....BUT...I do have a valid question.

In basic training for our armed services....no matter what the branch...isn't the training about 6-8 wks...of course specilized fields are longer...on a whole it's less than 6 months. By that time you are considered FULL TRAINED.

Why can't we train these Iraq soldiers, etc in that same time? Why has it taken this long and we still don't have sufficient #'s of their forces under arms?

You're exactly right. Six weeks of basic, two weeks of AIT (depending on their MOS) and they're off to Iraq. We've been training Iraqis for two years to defend their own country. In some cities, half of the police don't show up for work every day! They draw their American paycheck and disappear, maybe going to another city and signing on there, too.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
Logic won't work - there's no amount of rationality that can destroy Disagreeable's devotion to Saddam. I remember she even once said that Saddam would end up being voted into the new government.

If Saddam can stay alive, I wouldn't be surprised to see him back in power.

Logic? You read the link? Where's your argument that Bush is not a worse mass murderer than Saddam?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
In basic training for our armed services....no matter what the branch...isn't the training about 6-8 wks...of course specilized fields are longer...on a whole it's less than 6 months. By that time you are considered FULL TRAINED.

Depending on the Level of training,,operational units can take up to a year to be prepared for deployment......

Starting a new Brigade with new troops in this country has not been done since WWll,

Currently new recruits with 6 to eight months training are intrigated into units with other seasoned soldiers with varying levels of training......then trained as a unit until profeciancy,,,then at larger levels before deployment...

this is a continuing process..and on cycle units can be trained ....deployed and stand down in a two year operational plan because we have fully operational units to start with..........the Iraqis do not have the operational units to start with.....so it will take them longer to build an army...

Had Dis ever served she would not have ignored the fact we do not just deploy boots to the field alone......
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
two weeks of AIT

Not sure where you have your source,,but it struck me how dumb you really are.....or what a big lier you are...

infantry training ( one of the most basic AITs ) takes 13 weeks.......NOT TWO,

Job training for Infantryman requires 13 weeks
source US ARMY
http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=47

even a cook takes eight weeks of AIT......

also according to the Real Army Basic is nine weeks......not six
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Disagreeable said:
mp.freelance said:
Logic won't work - there's no amount of rationality that can destroy Disagreeable's devotion to Saddam. I remember she even once said that Saddam would end up being voted into the new government.

If Saddam can stay alive, I wouldn't be surprised to see him back in power.

Logic? You read the link? Where's your argument that Bush is not a worse mass murderer than Saddam?

Do you have a neurological problem?

If you can't see the difference between today's Iraqi deaths (caused by insurgents, not Bush) and those caused by Saddam, and on top of that claim Saddam will end up back in power (virtually impossible) then I don't think there's any other explanation.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
Disagreeable said:
mp.freelance said:
Logic won't work - there's no amount of rationality that can destroy Disagreeable's devotion to Saddam. I remember she even once said that Saddam would end up being voted into the new government.

If Saddam can stay alive, I wouldn't be surprised to see him back in power.

Logic? You read the link? Where's your argument that Bush is not a worse mass murderer than Saddam?

Do you have a neurological problem?

If you can't see the difference between today's Iraqi deaths (caused by insurgents, not Bush) and those caused by Saddam, and on top of that claim Saddam will end up back in power (virtually impossible) then I don't think there's any other explanation.

Before Bush invaded Iraq, Sec of State Colin Powell warned him that "you break it, you buy it" was in play. That means, for the simple minded here on this board, if Bush chose to invade Iraq he would be responsible for everything that goes on, from supplying the food people eat, the gasoline they need, the medical care, and most of all, security. General Shinseki told Congress it would take several hundred thousand troops to take and secure Iraq. The Bush Bunch immediately claimed he didn't know what he was talking about! A professional soldier! They said it would take approximately 100,000 troops. They didn't send enough men to secure the ammo dumps. That left bomb material laying around for anyone to get their hands on. They didn't send enough men to secure the borders. That allowed terrorists from all over the middle East to come into Iraq for their best opportunity to kill Americans. Looking at the mess in Iraq today, one doesn't have to be a genius to see that Shinseki was right and the Bush Bunch was wrong. Bush is responsible for every death in Iraq because he destroyed all the security forces in the country and, after two years, hasn't been able to replace them. I see a lot of difference in the deaths under Saddam and Bush. Under Saddam I wasn't paying for the slaughter of civilians. Under Bush your tax dollars are supporting the deaths of innocent people every day! Does that make you proud?

BTW, I see that MS Sage is no longer using the Ben Franklin quote, so I've decided too. I think it's very appropriate for this board.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
4,716
Reaction score
1
Location
NW Panhandle Texas
Not sure where you have your source,,but it struck me how dumb you really are.....or what a big lier you are..
Do you have a neurological problem?

I have always said that when "liberals" can not produce facts they resort to personal attacks. Hmmm I guess i was wrong.
Yes you can disagree with someone but use facts and arguee the topic. Get facts to back your stand.
Yes I get agravated at Dis but I do have to say He/She has made me think and to verify my stand on issues.
As for judging someone being a Good Christian based on post on a message board, unless they have said they do not believe in God. You can not nor will you ever be able to judge anothers heart. We have been commanded to love one another and that the only JUDGE is Jesus.
I have been judged based on post to a board and "how I type" in a chat room. Their judgement of me caused alot of issues and a few people have been hurt and lost friends over it. So I can say from experience

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

On the Ben Franklin quote I still agree with it.
I feel one you start down the slippery sloop we all have lost. Yes I can disagree with one thing Bush does and still support him. Yes everyone makes mistakes but that does NOT make them bad.
 

Latest posts

Top