[Stellite]

Well, the dirt is comming out.

It seems that the Iraqi's are not following Geneva convention. Al Jazeera showed a tape of US prisoners of War some of which were dead and others being questioned on Iraqi TV. Those wonderfull Humanitarian Iraqis (Government) :devil:

AND those Humanitarian RUSSIANS, gee, I guess they figured that the Iraqis needed some help, so they have been giving the Iraqi's Electronic Jamming equipment, weapons, and night vision. What wonderfull government. I guess the Chechens were right about the Russians. :devil:

Now we need to wait to see what dirt comes out about the French and the Germans, those great humanitarians. Gee, I wonder if they have been trying to hide something by not letting the US enter Iraq. Could it be that maybe the vast underground networks of Tunnels will say "Made in Germany?" or maybe the ingredients used to make WMD will say "Made in France?", or maybe visa versa. Conjecture for now, and hopefully not true at all.:devil:

:angry:

 

[Serial Midget]

Iraq has never abided by the Geneva Covention... no reason for them to start now. It is war. So far casualties and captures seem pretty low on the Iraqi side.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Iraq has never abided by the Geneva Covention... no reason for them to start now. It is war. So far casualties and captures seem pretty low on the Iraqi side.

Gee, I must have forgot about that

Here is something interesting..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 21, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


There are any one of a dozen reasons that explain the obstructionist tactics of the Germans and the French in recent weeks (and the Belgians, for no discernible reason whatsoever, apart from reminding everybody they were still there).

One can understand German reluctance to back the United States in a war against Saddam Hussein. The Germans explain it this way, and some people seem to think it makes a kind of sense: One German official drew himself to his full height and snapped, "We know about dictatorships."

What kind of circular logic is that? If the Germans know about dictatorships, (and they do) why haven't they sent both tanks rumbling toward Baghdad at the head of the column?

Maybe it's because the Germans know what weapons of mass destruction that Saddam actually has. Quite probably, because it was the Germans who sold them most of the stuff they needed to build them. And they would be just as happy if nobody went poking around in Saddam's purchasing department files.

The Germans know about dictatorships. I.G. Farben proved that there's big money in them.

Money might have something to do with France's seeming indifference to the threat posed it directly by Saddam Hussein's regime. France stands to make a tidy profit from oil deals it cut with Saddam Hussein – deals that highly favor the French.

To get these fat oil contracts, Paris did some "favors" for Saddam throughout the 90's when Iraq was under sanctions. King Jacques of Europe (I mean, President Chirac of France) would rather the Americans weren't sifting through the French sales slips in Saddam's bookkeeper's office, either.

Paris pontificated long and loud about "honor" and about being an "old country" at the U.N. as it blocked every effort to get the United Nations to uphold its own honor, having passed 18 resolutions over 12 years in an effort to get Saddam to do what he was supposed to do within 90 days of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire – disarm.

When asked if France's unwillingness to meet its NATO commitment to Turkey as well was due to an aversion to war, Chirac snapped, "France is not a pacifist."

It's true. The French are more than happy to go to war. They do it all the time. They've spent the last 50 years at war with little countries throughout Africa, propping up and then knocking down dictatorships that failed to "behave" according to French dictates.

Germany admits it is pacifist, but that isn't the reason it opposes war with Iraq. Germany supported the 1991 Gulf War with troops and materiel.

Actually, most of the world supports removing Saddam. A handful of important countries oppose it. It isn't idealism, or concern for the Iraqi people, or fear of destabilizing the region or even anti-Americanism that is behind it.

It's oil. As of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from Russia, France and China.

Deutsche Bank estimates some $38 billion total profit on new fields. With the potential production capacity of 4.7 million barrels per day if all the deals come to fruition.

The oil companies reportedly having signed deals with Iraq are Lukoil and Tatneft from Russia, TotalFinaElf from France, China National Petroleum Corp from China.

The plot thickens.

France has a separate deal with Saddam worth more than $50 billion – a deal that heavily favors the French, thanks to U.N. sanctions.

A post-Saddam government would not be obliged to keep existing contracts. And no legitimate Iraqi government would let the French deal stand. A legitimate Iraqi government could sell that oil on the open market, instead of the black market prices France was offering.

Paris and Germany would prefer to keep Saddam right where he is. Not in the interests of peace. Not in the interest of the suffering Iraqis. They are suffering more under Saddam.

It's about the oil.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[Stellite]

NEWS FLASH*****

US Troops find a HUGE CHEMICAL WEAPONS factory in NAJAF.

But wait, Iraqi wasn't given a chance to disarm, they where going to disarm, weren't they?

Yes, I guess All of europe was right, Talking was going to solve things

Thank GOD that the US and UK didn't listen to the worthless UN and it's greedy, self serving, hypocritical council members

 

[LoboDelFuego]

First of all, I haven't heard that.

Secondly, if anyone were to conduct inspections in the US, people would be scared out of their minds. We have more chemical, biological and nuclear weapons than anybody. It's not like Saddam Hussein was using the stuff he had.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
It's not like Saddam Hussein was using the stuff he had.

During what time frame? Saddam has used chemical weapons before.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
First of all, I haven't heard that.

Secondly, if anyone were to conduct inspections in the US, people would be scared out of their minds. We have more chemical, biological and nuclear weapons than anybody. It's not like Saddam Hussein was using the stuff he had.

ROTFLMAO

Then watch some news so you can hear that.

Secondly, what cave have you been hiding in? Have you ever heard of the Kurds and what Saddam did to them as in mass killings of entire towns using chemical weapons.

What planet are you from?

Winter is almost over you can come out now :devil:

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
First of all, I haven't heard that.

Secondly, if anyone were to conduct inspections in the US, people would be scared out of their minds. We have more chemical, biological and nuclear weapons than anybody. It's not like Saddam Hussein was using the stuff he had.

No they wouldn't. The US has no biological weapons. The military decided long ago that they were uncontrollable. Virtually same with the chemical weapons. Any remaining chemical weapons have to be destoryed by 2004 by congressional mandate. As for there use, in a tactical sense, a simple shift in the wind turns those weapons against you.

On top of that it was realized that our nuclear arsenal was more than sufficient to deter anyone (USSR and China) from going that route. Especially with the development of the Trident system. No enemy could see it, find it or kill it. Regardless of what WMD attack that was proscuted against the US, those subs would be available for a second and completely devistating strike. That weapons system was the main reason behind the collapse of the USSR.

And don't give me that crap about well you don't know or they wouldn't let you know... The US simply does not need those types of weapons.

Additionally, what the US has is tightly controlled in a few arsenals under security and containment conditions that rival the CDC.

As for using his chemical weapons, how sadly mistaken you are. All of the Chemical and Biological weapons that Saddam has ever used (see below) or ever been found to have were based on either Soviet design (chemical) or Soviet strain (biological). As for the use of them here is a short chronology for you.

1982 - Began to use CS (tear) gas on the battlefield
1983 - Used Mustard Gas to repel Iranian human wave attacks in at least 15 separate incidents.
1984 - March used Tabun (nerve agent) against Iranian attacks. This was the first time that a nerve agent had been used on ANY battlefield. It is hard to tell but conservatively between 6000 and 7000 Iranians were killed with nerve gas between 1984-5. Over 16000 were killed by mustard gas. Untold numbers were injured.
1985 - 6 - Nerve and blister agents were used to stop virtually every Iranian attack. Expanded the nerve agents to Sarin and VX gas has well.
1986 - Iraq began to use chemical weapons to strike at Iranian bases. In addition a number of Iranian cities close to the border were also struck with chemical weapons.
1988 - Used chemical weapons on an offensive basis. Eventually led to the cease fire. Same year used mustard, tabun, sarin and vx against the Kurdish city of Halabja. City was home to almost 80000 civilians. In excess of 7000 of them died immediately due to these attacks.

In more than a few of these cases, a simple wind shift brought those gases back to the Iraqis.

As late as 1995, Iraq was known to have stores of chemical weapons. There are still discrepancies, reported by UN inspectors in the latest round of inspections, between those amounts and what Iraq claimed to have destroyed.

Now please note in a number of these incidents they weren't against military targets but civilian targets.

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by DRB


1982 - Began to use CS (tear) gas on the battlefield
1983 - Used Mustard Gas to repel Iranian human wave attacks in at least 15 separate incidents.
1984 - March used Tabun (nerve agent) against Iranian attacks. This was the first time that a nerve agent had been used on ANY battlefield. It is hard to tell but conservatively between 6000 and 7000 Iranians were killed with nerve gas between 1984-5. Over 16000 were killed by mustard gas. Untold numbers were injured.
1985 - 6 - Nerve and blister agents were used to stop virtually every Iranian attack. Expanded the nerve agents to Sarin and VX gas has well.
1986 - Iraq began to use chemical weapons to strike at Iranian bases. In addition a number of Iranian cities close to the border were also struck with chemical weapons.
1988 - Used chemical weapons on an offensive basis. Eventually led to the cease fire. Same year used mustard, tabun, sarin and vx against the Kurdish city of Halabja. City was home to almost 80000 civilians. In excess of 7000 of them died immediately due to these attacks.

if im not mistaken u.s intelligence knew that saddam had chemical weapons and still supported him in the war against iran.

 

[Trond]

Originally posted by Stellite
Well, the dirt is comming out.

It seems that the Iraqi's are not following Geneva convention. Al Jazeera showed a tape of US prisoners of War some of which were dead and others being questioned on Iraqi TV. Those wonderfull Humanitarian Iraqis (Government) :devil:

And this is treatment according to the Geneva convention?? (see pic below from Guantanamo Bay)

The US can certainly tell the UN - the highest international organ - to fvck off, but when somebody shows a prisoner on TV it gets out of hand...oh yeah, and Israel, which the US blindly supports shows prisoners all the time, blindfolded and tied up.

Mow your own lawn

 

[fluff]

As a point of debate, I have also seen TV footage of captured Iraqi soldiers (and dead ones). Does this also constitute a contravention of the Geneva convention?

 

[slein]

the tunneling equipment was stolen from Austrians who were forced to leave Iraq many moons ago.

the French Connection is still unknown at this point, yet they have the best intel on Iraq.

i'd like to wish the US (and Britain) luck in dealing with their choice on Iraq. Get to Bahgdad quickly, for Pete's sake.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by rbx
if im not mistaken u.s intelligence knew that saddam had chemical weapons and still supported him in the war against iran.

And your point is? Everyone knew he was using them, the Soviets (as they had help supply him with them), the French whom provided the majority of the chemical suits and masks, and even the UN. But no one did anything. That was a mistake in judgement. At that time, he should have been dealt with in the manner that he is now.

However, my point was to make it clear to Lobo blah blah that Saddam as in fact used the weapons on numerous occassions.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Trond
And this is treatment according to the Geneva convention?? (see pic below from Guantanamo Bay)

The US can certainly tell the UN - the highest international organ - to fvck off, but when somebody shows a prisoner on TV it gets out of hand...oh yeah, and Israel, which the US blindly supports shows prisoners all the time, blindfolded and tied up.

Mow your own lawn

Yeah if you look closely you will see the detainees in the background that have been shot in the back of the head execution style. Oh wait that was the coverage from Al Jazeera on the dead American soldiers. To be honest I think that its a good idea for them to show any and all prisoners on TV. That we know they are alive and have a good idea who was with them and who is responsible for them. Makes it more difficult for them to show up dead later on.

But as for following the Geneva convention, that has gotten a number of US soldiers killed already, especially the one about not firing on surrendering troops. In case your media forgot to mention it. A group of Iraqis faked a surrender and then attacked the Marines they were surrendering to killing 8 before they were subdued.

What is going to happen in the near future is that another column of Iraqis are going to surrender legitmately but one them will do something innocently maybe sneeze and some 19 year old kid maining a machine gun (remembering what happened to the Marines) mistakes the noise for a gun shot and what do you get, a massacre. FOR which the US will take a beating in the world press.

So please do go on about the Geneva convention.

 

[fluff]

I think that if we are realistic about this we have to accept that there will be actions taken on both sides which contravene the Geneva convention. This is a war (in effect if not in name) and I very much doubt there has ever been any war where both sides have not broken the 'rules'.

War is an issue of him or me, emotions run high and there will be much confusion.

I would hope and expect the coalition forces to be more morally respectable but no one is perfect.

There are many shades of grey in this situation in many areas, it is not at all black and white.

 

[Trond]

DRB,

that's a good post, and I have read about the iraqies who surrended and then went to attack. It's sad - and the lowest form of war, no doubt.

My post was merely so state that the US is not following the Geneva convention rules either, and support countries that break them almost all the time. It's like saying "we can break them, but you can't" when the bush administration now protests.

Please don't misinterpret my post with lack of sympathy for fallen and/or Pow's.

Trond.

 

[Trond]

A good friend of mine, who is not registered here on RM wanted to add some comments to this discussion. Thus the information that follows is not by me:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am amazed of the knowledge contained by some americans.

First the US has a list of friends in the "coalition of the willing"
This is from the state department http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2924.htm

Uzbekistan does not have a free press, and it does not have a democracy.
Political opponents have been driven from office. Many have fled, and
others have been arrested. Some have been murdered in detention.
The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine
investigation technique.

Not only does the US tolerate this brutal repressive regime, but it proudly lists it as an "ally".

And Secondly
The US is really starting to lose the propaganda war, as everything it says turns out to be lies.

Witness:
Saddam is dead! Ok, no he's not.
Iraq fired a Scud at Kuwait! Ok, no it wasn't.
Umm Qasr is taken! Ok, no it's not.
The Iraqi 51st Division surrendered en masse! Ok, no it hasn't.
Republican Guard commanders will surrender! Ok, no they won't.
Basra is taken! Ok, no it's not.
We found a chemical weapons factory! Ok, maybe it isn't.

Sigh. The fact that these efforts to weaken Saddam's regime can
be attributed to several reasons -- perhaps the regime wasn't as
despised as claimed. Perhaps command and control is fully intact
(they could've laid an underground fiberoptic lines impervious to
US jamming or easy location and destruction).
Perhaps the Iraqi people don't give a damn. It's their country,
and damn it, they'll defend it against anyone who dares invade it.
It's too bad, really. The early propaganda efforts ("RG generals
will surrender") were actually quite good. But they didn't buy it.
At this point the US propaganda machine is too discredited to be of much use.

And thirdly.
Do you really know the Geneva convention, if you dont
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/texts.html here it says it all.
It doesnt say any where that showing prisoners on TV is illegal.
If the Iraqis had thrown eggs, tomatoes the it would be, because it would be
humiliating. Of course being taken prisoners by an enemy could be considered
a severe face loss, but it must be taken into consideration by all waring parties
that being taken as a prisoner might actually happen. (d*mn a long sentence )


Here are some links that might prove a bit more interesting than CNN

The President Himself: No Saddam-Osama Link
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

These two links are written by people like you and me, and will make an interesting read.
http://www.warblogging.com/
http://www.warblogs.cc/

And the last little note, only 8 percent of USA citizens have a passport. Can this be true???
http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php

"some of the things written here have allso been posted here and where not written by me.
I only wanted you to see them as they are intelligently written and might be more interesting
than the black ops you are reading every day.
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002126.html
http://www.nowarblog.org

Tomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Trond
A And thirdly.
Do you really know the Geneva convention, if you dont
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/texts.html here it says it all.
It doesnt say any where that showing prisoners on TV is illegal.
If the Iraqis had thrown eggs, tomatoes the it would be, because it would be
humiliating. Of course being taken prisoners by an enemy could be considered
a severe face loss, but it must be taken into consideration by all waring parties
that being taken as a prisoner might actually happen. (d*mn a long sentence )

And I quote, International Committee of the Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani said "....the showing of the prisoners on TV violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity."

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Trond

And the last little note, only 8 percent of USA citizens have a passport. Can this be true???

1. Passports traditionally have not been necessary for travel to and from Canada and Mexico.
2. International flights are not cheap.
3. The US is geographically enormous, additionally inhibiting international travel... hell, inhibiting interstate travel.

So please don't be too quick to draw conclusions from that statistic (assuming it is accurate).

 

[KFulch]

Originally posted by Trond
And this is treatment according to the Geneva convention?? (see pic below from Guantanamo Bay)

The US can certainly tell the UN - the highest international organ - to fvck off, but when somebody shows a prisoner on TV it gets out of hand...oh yeah, and Israel, which the US blindly supports shows prisoners all the time, blindfolded and tied up.

Mow your own lawn

Considering "Guantanamo Bay"; the prisoners were taken during a campaign, not war. Certain restrictions; laws apply

 

[Trond]

Originally posted by KFulch
Considering "Guantanamo Bay"; the prisoners were taken during a campaign, not war. Certain restrictions; laws apply

Then I find it interesting that General Tommy Franks is calling the Iraqi war a campaign as he did when adressing live on CNN a few days ago.

 

[Trond]

Originally posted by ohio
1. Passports traditionally have not been necessary for travel to and from Canada and Mexico.
2. International flights are not cheap.
3. The US is geographically enormous, additionally inhibiting international travel... hell, inhibiting interstate travel.

So please don't be too quick to draw conclusions from that statistic (assuming it is accurate).

No conclusions at all, more of a curiosity and question. We're obliged to keep a passport over here a bugger sometimes when you lose it

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by rbx
if im not mistaken u.s intelligence knew that saddam had chemical weapons and still supported him in the war against iran.

Yes, everyone did, including the French, who in some way profited from it along with the Ruskies and Germaniacs.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by Trond
And this is treatment according to the Geneva convention?? (see pic below from Guantanamo Bay)

The US can certainly tell the UN - the highest international organ - to fvck off, but when somebody shows a prisoner on TV it gets out of hand...oh yeah, and Israel, which the US blindly supports shows prisoners all the time, blindfolded and tied up.

Mow your own lawn

Just to let you in it. The reason for their being tied up was that they where considered dangerous. Those guys weren't friendly prisoners, they would kill anyone given the chance, see the prison attack in Pakistan that killed the CIA officer. So think before you react. They where ties up for everyones safety. None were killed and all were fed well. If you heard any different, it is lies. Unlike what they Iraqis just did to our military.

Hey TROND, how about you have a terrorist group start bombing your shops and stores and busses and killing innocent people. Let's see how quickly you start reacting to it and what you do. The Israelis are under constant attack and do what they can. The palestinians are also being hurt by these attacks. If the attacks would stop and peace talks would begin maybe they could resolve their problems, but until then, nothing will stop.

Why does the US have to do something about it, TROND.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by fluff
As a point of debate, I have also seen TV footage of captured Iraqi soldiers (and dead ones). Does this also constitute a contravention of the Geneva convention?

That is not against Geneva Convention

It is the Treatment part. Also consider that Iraqi Soldiers waving white flags are passed up by US military. Then these soldiers raise their small arms firing at a columm of troop carriers and killing several coalition soldiers. This just happened. Again, against Geneva convention.

 

[fourgivn1]

No, our showing footage of Iraqi soldiers is NOT the same as them showing footage of U.S. soldiers. The Geneva Convention states something to the effect that POWs are not supposed to be shown or reported on any type of media for the purpose of exploitation. I've seen plenty of pictures of Iraqi POWs and none of them sought to do anything other than simply show that we had them. None of their pants were pulled down and none of them had bullets in the head. As a matter of fact, more than a few pictures I've seen show them receiving water, food, etc.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Stellite
That is not against Geneva Convention

It is the Treatment part. Also consider that Iraqi Soldiers waving white flags are passed up by US military. Then these soldiers raise their small arms firing at a columm of troop carriers and killing several coalition soldiers. This just happened. Again, against Geneva convention.

But we were talking about showing captured prisoners on TV, not false surrender (or anything else). What have the Iraqi's done with regard to showing prisoners on TV that contravenes the Geneva convention that the coalition have not done (I have seen footage of captured Iraqi troops which clearly showed some of their faces.

Changing the subject of discussion to a different point does not address the original point. The treatment part is also conjecture at this point.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by fluff
There are many shades of grey in this situation in many areas, it is not at all black and white.

...the all-to-familiar calling card of the moral relativist.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...the all-to-familiar calling card of the moral relativist.

I guess that's supposed to be an insult?

Do you thinks it's black and white then?

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by fluff
But we were talking about showing captured prisoners on TV, not false surrender (or anything else). What have the Iraqi's done with regard to showing prisoners on TV that contravenes the Geneva convention that the coalition have not done (I have seen footage of captured Iraqi troops which clearly showed some of their faces.

Changing the subject of discussion to a different point does not address the original point. The treatment part is also conjecture at this point.

I had the exact same question.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
And I quote, International Committee of the Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani said "....the showing of the prisoners on TV violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity."

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by fluff
I guess that's supposed to be an insult?

Do you thinks it's black and white then?

The events are black and white; the interpretations are what introduce shades of gray.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
The events are black and white; the interpretations are what introduce shades of gray.

Fair enough, I guess where I am coming from is that there can be more than two positions on the 'You're either with us or against us' & 'My enemy's enemy is my friend' and 'If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem' postulations.

No insult taken...

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by DRB
And I quote, International Committee of the Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani said "....the showing of the prisoners on TV violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity."

From the wire services:

Anyone care to bet that there are Delta Force dudes somewhere in Iraq in civilian clothes?

I'm not casting judgement, but the black and white thing is problematic.

 

[Damn True]

The Geneva convention provides profound differences between the treatment of uniformed soldiers (regulars) and un-uniformed, guerilla, or other irregular forces. The terrorists being held at Guantanamo fall under the latter category.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Spud
From the wire services:

Anyone care to bet that there are Delta Force dudes somewhere in Iraq in civilian clothes?

I'm not casting judgement, but the black and white thing is problematic.

The difference here is that in these photos the news agencies are supplying the photos. In the case of the downed pilots and tank maint. crew the Iraqi govt. supplied and distributed the images/video to Al Jazzerah and Abu Dahbi TV.

Somewhat semantic in that unit commanders have control over what imbedded journalists can broacast. However, it is clear that the surrendering Iraqi prisoners have not been the recipeints of butt-swipes.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Damn True
The difference here is that in these photos the news agencies are supplying the photos. In the case of the downed pilots and tank maint. crew the Iraqi govt. supplied and distributed the images/video to Al Jazzerah and Abu Dahbi TV.

Somewhat semantic in that unit commanders have control over what imbedded journalists can broacast. However, it is clear that the surrendering Iraqi prisoners have not been the recipeints of butt-swipes.

Or bullets to the back of the head.

 

[nicklin]

Umm...We are in their country, bombing the **** of them, and trying to remove their their president. What the f**k did you expect the Iraqis to do? Treat us to a camel BBQ?

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by Trond
Then I find it interesting that General Tommy Franks is calling the Iraqi war a campaign as he did when adressing live on CNN a few days ago.

All wars are campaigns... not all campaigns are wars

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by nicklin
Umm...We are in their country, bombing the **** of them, and trying to remove their their president. What the f**k did you expect the Iraqis to do? Treat us to a camel BBQ?

MMM..... CAMEL