Iraqi recordings?
 

Anyone know where online i can get streaming audio of them or transcripts? I missed it.....

True Lies the movie

Transcript:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/spr...ipt/index.html

*bowl*

It doesn't really matter. I think the boys from the 81st Airborne in Ft. Bragg are already whistling. Oh when the tanks come marchin in, oh when the tanks come marching in. hehehe

Grab your popcorn, we're about to have another war folks.

you seem to enjoy watching people die

does that make you a psychopath?

or at *best* a sociopath?

please explain to me why this isn't the case

You might be able to find it here. http://www.c-span.org/

The Iraqi people will be much better off when Saddam is gone. A sociopath would more likely want to let Saddam keep starving, torturing, and murdering his people.

Do you support the sanctions?

Would you prefer to see the sanctions go on for another decade or two?

Where are the people that were screaming about the sanctions killing 10's of thousands of children a month?

please read my post again

I wasn't commenting either way about iraq

I was commenting about (what appeared to me) bloodlust

very disturbing

it'll be interesting to read more about the personality traits of people who actually *enjoy* war

jammyjenkins,
I agree with you fully, anyone who wants to "enjoy" a war is a FUCKING MORON!!

But it is not to you to decide .... Otherwise, I think Americans would be much better without Bush...

See the point?

No. I don't see your point at all. It would be wrong to sit by and say "Oh well it's none of our business" while Saddam starves, tortures, and murders his people. I guess you could have said the same about Hitler. It's none of our business let him take over europe and commit genocide. I suppose you would support doing away with the no fly zone and let Saddam finish killing all the kurds because it's none of our business.

Yes war will likely cause some sufferring and death but doing nothing will cause much more sufferring and death.

If Americans decide we don't want Bush to be our president we will have a chance to vote him out. Bush doesn't starve, torture, or murder.

Sadam Hussein has attacked the Kurds after an attempt by them, helped by the CIA, to overturn his government. The CIA ran out of Nothern Iraq and left the Kurds to be massacred... This doesn;t make Sadam a good guy, but it is not the only instance in the world that this type of situation has occured and still is occuring... Rwanda was one of them. This I think you cannot deny that a genocide was commited? Did the US go in to save these oil less people????

Your reference to Hitler is of the map. Hitler invaded countries ( numerous before anybody did anything, and the US did nothing till Japan bombed P.H. ) abit like Sadam when he invaded Kuwait. Actions were taken by the world community at that time ( Gulf War). Now Iraq has invaded nobody .

Onthe Bush issue, you are right:

quote: " If Americans decide we don't want Bush to be our president we will have a chance to vote him out " end of quote

In your statment, I do not see other countries ousting Bush. It is to the americans to decide who they want as their leader. Even , if the americans want to get him for a third mandate ( normally impossible), if they wish to change their constitution, then let it be.
So, it is not to the Americans or any other countries to decide who is going to govern the Iraquis. If so, they you will decide who will govern Russia because they massacre the Chechens????

Quote:
"Bush doesn't starve, torture, or murder"

No, not yet. But previous US presidents did:

Killed Salvatore Allende, installed Pinochet and killed thousands of Chileans.

Nicaraga with Somoza

Guatemala to the profit of United Fruits Brand

Cuba: numerous assasination tentatives and Blockout of the island ( tend to increase starvation....)

and so on.

The only thing I said is that it is not to the US to decide who governs Iraq. You added the same ol shit in your answer.

Now, should Iraq comply to resolutions.: YES

Did they do so up to now: NOT COMPLETELY

If they do not comply, should their be sanctions ( blockus, war, etc...) : YES

Who decides: not the US, but the UN with the support of all countries.

"Sadam Hussein has attacked the Kurds after an attempt by them, helped by the CIA, to overturn his government."

Thats fine, but nobody twisted his arm to use chemical weapons to kill thousands of women and children.


"Your reference to Hitler is of the map."

I would say its a good comparison. If Europe didnt have such a lazy attitude, they would have stopped hitler before he was able to create a war machine that was so powerful, that it took several countries to defeat him.


"So, it is not to the Americans or any other countries to decide who is going to govern the Iraquis."


Because they are an oppressed starving people ruled by a bloody fist. If we are the protectors of freedom and democracy, it is our job to end their opression.

Who decides: not the US, but the UN with the support of all countries.
/quote

They did. They called it 1441.

You are not!
Tried in South America, Vietnam against the "evil" of the time: communism.

Who voted the US as "protector of...." .

I think that countries created the UN for exactly that purpose, and NATO for North America...

The US will never allow the UN to veto action it considers necessary. If the UN wants to be a bunch of irrelevant pussies who don't enforce their own resolutions fuck em. We don't need em.

You know whats funny, you never hear anyone bitching when wars break out in africa or other less-well known places, but when america needs to straighten out some motherfuckers everyone starts crying.

Everyone roots for the underdog & i understand that, but damn, saddaam's going out one way or another, just flow with it!

The whole situation is nothing more then the top secert plan to take all the oil. Nevermind the billion dollar investment plans to develope hydrogen based fuel. All the news media and information reguarding the issue is designed by the evil americans to fool the entire world. Saying there is a biological/chemical threat by a dictator with ties to a terrorist organization such as Al Queda is like trying to say planes will run into buildings or something. I mean seriously...

Further more president Bush is the anti-chirst who wants to become king of the world, That is all

You are so full of shit. It's not about the oil as much as you would like to believe that. Oh I suppose that we fought Hitler to take over his sausage and beer and the sweet ass vw beetle. It is about a mad man who has proven that he will attack another country and since we helped defend Kuwait he wants to take the USA down bad. As a matter of fact the US has sites that contain much more oil than all of IRAQ. I will tell you this though we will use everyones oil before we drill our own.:BangBang: :ak47:

Really!!!!

Where? How much?

Numbers will be OK....

We did. What are you going to do about it??

No the UN was created after WWII because the League of Nations was a joke. Kind of like the UN is becomming.

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Orgnization. It is NOT North America you idiot!

Moreover, it was created to protect Europe specifically with Article 5.

What a jerk.

I think it is more of a anti-terror, national security issue. In case you didnt notice my post was complete sarcasm.

I wish I was american.... I could not answer and call people idiot.
Do your fucking war and leave us out of it.

Your next :ak47: :ak47: :ak47:

It will benifit your country as well, big brother US looks out for you:winkwink:

Hey Kenny,
I was'nt sure if it was sarcasm or not. Sorry man. I'm just sick of people talking about a war over oil.

don't be naive

every country is completely selfishly motivated

just like people (even if they're being charitable, it's to make themselves feel better)

but rather in america's case, they always want something in return, or will benefit in some way

the US is not a charity. Never has been. Never will be. If you can't see that, well...

America is the United States, Mexico & Canada

You seem to assume that what will replace him will be so much better.

Remember it took hundreds of years to establish "democracy" in "The West" do not think that it will be done in a few weeks in Iraq.

You want proof? Look at Afghanistan.

The problem is too many assume the simple answer is going to win through. Unfortunately this is not always the case.

You should read ... moron :glugglug . Article 5 is NOT to protect Europe. but the other way round!
What a dumbass...

quote:

Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".

By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.



http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

Afghanistan is still being redeveloped. Like you said it takes time.

Who the FUCK NEEDS YOU??

Normal reaction when you left your brain home...


:glugglug

Listen moron I'm only going to say this once.

Article 5 WAS put into the NATO Alliance incase the USSR (that was Russia incase your 22) attacked any of the European Allies.


However, it was only envoked once. That was after Sept 11th 2001.

The US had already bankrupted the USSR. So it was never envoked because the USSR never attacked any of our allies.

But the FACT remains that it was put into the NATO treaty as a protection clause.

Go get yourself a nickle and buy yourself a fucking clue! :321GFY

This from someone that thought the "NA" in NATO stood for North American... :1orglaugh

Your too stupid to be funny :1orglaugh

pedant

actually, wouldn't that be north america?

then there's south america, whereas 'america' is the whole continent?

now, why don't you try posting something constrcute? :)

My point is dont think that they arent tight with one another:winkwink:

How's the US deficit going....

Nice answer... nothing to back it up, but this is lately the style of the Americans. Too bad presidents like JFK ( you should remember unless your 22) are no more....

==================
ARTICLE 5:

What does Article 5 mean?
Article 5 is at the basis of a fundamental principle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

This is the principle of collective defence


==========

No where it says as you so claimed that it was a one-way to "defend Europe". You take too much credit. It is a "collective defense"...

Have other things to do .. so I will let you at you Marvel Comics reading


:321GFY :321GFY :321GFY

Your right. It was put in there so France could protect the USA if we were attacked.

Your denial doesn't change the facts pal. Just like the 37,000 troops on the DMZ. There there to protect S. Korea. You can spin it anyway you like.

yea got to watch some of it before class... we got to watch out for mobile bioweapond makers on 18 wheelers, and ones that fit on three train freight cars. nice little thing to everyone feel safe at nights while you get to curl up next to blowup dolls and porta pussy's .. well at least i get to