Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click here to visit Classifieds

Refugees from Iraq # 1 foreign criminals in Germany (more...)

H+E Stoeckl Sep 09, 2004 09:37 AM

According to the German Home Secretary the rate of foreigners in organized crime and in committing major crime in Germany is 77 %. I am sure that the figures in other European countries are similar.

The Home Secretary informed that citizens from Iray pose the major part of the foreign criminals.

And here comes the best part:

The Home Secretary also informed that there is a huge increase of offenders from Iraq since the U.S. occupied this country.

My conclusion is that Saddam kept the lid on the kettle and a bunch of fools from overseas meddled with the fragile stability in the Middle East.

The result is chaos in Iraq, a huge increase in price of crude oil, more than 1000 dead U.S. soldiers, 10 hostages per week (as it were) and a rush of young muslems in the Middle East to become terrorists.

The most dismal fact is, that apparently still some dimwits think that this war was a good idea.

To cite Kerry: Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.

Maybe Kerry is a fool too (I really don't care which one becomes the next president as long as his name isn't Bush) but this statement is correct.

Replies (6)

Fred Albury Sep 10, 2004 04:13 PM

Right you are Hermann. Both Kerry and Bush are fols and controlled(Or owned outright) by the large corporations of this country. Puppets. But watching Bush go will be a great thing...a person that sat out the Vietnam War, aided by a person that had 5 (FIVE?) deferments(Cheney) sending OUR young men and women in uniform to fight a unecessary war whilst ignoring Bin Ladens obiviously free status.(I thought his captire was THE main objective originally?) Heard any more about Bin Laden lately? Bet you havent. Funny how we forgot all about him, what he masterminded and what it cost us.Iraq doesnt tundo or prevent what was done, it merely fuels Bin Ladens militia with more WILLING and hatefull recruits than before....

Bush....fake pampered war hero.
Cheney.....Draft dodger and deferrment expert par excellance, who stated that he "Had better things to do than going to Vietnam during that era"

Mebbe like rising to the top of Halliburtons hierarchy?

Mmmm I smell something rotten and it currently resided in the white house, clothes in religous fervor and false patriotism.

It is time for spring cleaning...

Everyone get out and vote...lets get a fresh new batch of garbage, at least it wont stink as bad as the old one DOES.

Sincerely,

Fred Albury

rodmalm Sep 10, 2004 04:59 PM

You don't think the fact the Saddam released all the convicts from all the prisons in Iraq to cause chaos during our invasion has anything to do with it do you? Most criminals are cowards. You don't think a lot of them left Iraq when the bombing started do you?

Nah!

Maybe if the Germans would have helped, like when they voted for resolution 1441, or when they told Colon Powell they supported the US in this matter, this would be less of a problem for them.

Ironic isn't it! Getting bit on the butt becauses they wouldn't help enforce a resolution they voted for. Poetic justice if you ask me.

And who else is having a problem? Soviets being attacked by muslim terrorists, attempted attacks on the French, etc. and they voted for the resolution and wouldn't enforce it either. More poetic justice?

Rodney

H+E Stoeckl Sep 10, 2004 07:15 PM

you are confusing cause and effect.

I don't know if Saddam released the prisoners. But let us suppose your informations are correct. Why does he release the prisoners?

BECAUSE THE US STARTED THIS STUPID WAR

Why french hostages?

BECAUSE THE US STARTED THIS STUPID WAR

Why does the muslim terrorists get bags of new recruits?

BECAUSE THE US STARTED THIS STUPID WAR

Why is the number of terrorist attacks increasing every month?

BECAUSE THE US STARTED THIS STUPID WAR

I have read here in this forum half a year ago that the world is a safer place now because of this war. Time has told that this statement was downright ridiculous. Spain and Russia were just the beginning. I am convinced that we just faced the beginning of still more cruel terrorist attacks. Why?

BECAUSE THE US STARTED THIS STUPID WAR

On top of that the regions where the US are losing control in Iraq is increasing.

"You can not win this war, US soldier!" the US soldiers were told via PA system by propaganda officers in the battle of Hue/Vietnam about 35 years ago. Right they were.

Same applies in Iraq. Your government brought misery on the people of Iraq, on the US soldiers and all other countries who has to suffer from increasing muslim terrorism and a high price for crude oil.

With this war you did Al Quaida a great favour. You stomped into the trap like a big stupid bear...

lilroach56 Sep 11, 2004 10:34 AM

I don't know if Saddam released the prisoners. But let us suppose your informations are correct. Why does he release the prisoners?

Because the UN agreed on a war (do you really think the dire consequences meant anything else???) and the US was the only country to enforce LAW.

Why french hostages?

Because the UN agreed on a war (do you really think the dire consequences meant anything else???) and the US was the only country to enforce LAW.

Why does the muslim terrorists get bags of new recruits?

Because the UN agreed on a war (do you really think the dire consequences meant anything else???) and the US was the only country to enforce LAW.

Why is the number of terrorist attacks increasing every month?

Because the UN agreed on a war (do you really think the dire consequences meant anything else???) and the US was the only country to enforce LAW.

I have read here in this forum half a year ago that the world is a safer place now because of this war. Time has told that this statement was downright ridiculous. Spain and Russia were just the beginning. I am convinced that we just faced the beginning of still more cruel terrorist attacks. Why?

Because the UN agreed on a war (do you really think the dire consequences meant anything else???) and the US was the only country to enforce LAW.

Also IMO spain was attacked by terrorists because they knew they (the terrorists) would be able to control the election (and they did quite well actually).

On top of that the regions where the US are losing control in Iraq is increasing.

"You can not win this war, US soldier!" the US soldiers were told via PA system by propaganda officers in the battle of Hue/Vietnam about 35 years ago. Right they were.

Same applies in Iraq. Your government brought misery on the people of Iraq, on the US soldiers and all other countries who has to suffer from increasing muslim terrorism and a high price for crude oil.

Misery to the people of Iraq? how did you come up with that? with the medical, school, and government systems being renovated to a new higher standard? is that why they are miserable? or is it becuase their old dictator and sons are dead and the Iraqis no longer have to worry about if their opinion will hurt their lives and families lives? or is it because the Iraqi olympic teams (Iraq is now my favorite soccer team) no longer have to worry about if they mess up what kind of torture they will be put into?

With this war you did Al Quaida a great favour. You stomped into the trap like a big stupid bear...
trap? so now defending our country is a trap? If anyone fell into a trap it was the Spanish, they were attacked by terrorists and did what the terrorists wanted, vote for the people who would get them out of the middle east. Now terrorists KNOW that if you attack before a major election you will be able to control the way people vote. Because of the SPANISH i now feel unsafe, will they attack again before November? if so what will be the outcome? Kerry? Bush (let us hope)? who?
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

My image Gallery

H+E Stoeckl Sep 11, 2004 02:22 PM

We both know that the corresponding UN resolution was not enough to justify the war. "Dire consequences" is diplomatic language and can be interpreted widely.

Most of the nations in and outside of the UN security council were against this war.

This is the reason why the U.S. avoided to bring in a new resolution that would explicitly allow the war. As a matter of fact Bush and his companions feared a new poll in the UN security council like the devil feares holy water.

Bush rushed the war because UN chief inspector Hans Blix even started to commend Iraq. Bush was afraid like hell that his already flimsy justification for the war would have been completely worthless soon.

In the first war on Iraq all the nations in the UN meant war and said war. They haven't said "dire consequences". They said: WAR!

But let us follow your also flimsy reasoning and say that the resolution meant war.

Did Hans Blix, the chief weapon inspector say that his means are exhausted? No! He even asked for more time.
French asked for more time, Germany asked for more time.

The only nation who pressed for a war was the U.S.

So please don't declare this as an UN war. This was an US war.

You went into this war to defend your country? From whom? From a nation already defeated by a first war and suffering 12 years of embargo? A nation of camel drivers?

You went into this war in order to do your friends in Israel a favour and to secure the oil (which is now as insecure as never before). The fairy-tales of WMD are already blown up, so please don't try this again.

I agree with you that your soldiers are willing to help this country, but the willingness doesn't help the people.

The outcome is what counts. And what is the outcome?

Dead Iraqi toddlers and babies after bombing Iraqi towns as a sign of deep helplessness of the US troops.

Ask the people in Iraq whether their life is better now. What will they answer?

No electricity, riot everywhere, nightly bombing by the Americans, attacks by islamic terrorists, no jobs and a huge pollution resulting from the weapons that had been applied during the war.

So please don't write such an downright nonsense again.

lilroach56 Sep 11, 2004 07:06 PM

We both know that the corresponding UN resolution was not enough to justify the war. "Dire consequences" is diplomatic language and can be interpreted widely.
What else would it have meant? more sanctions? if we imposed more sanctions Iraq would die, litterally. Ever person would end up dieying (sp?). An invasion is the only thing it could have meant.

Most of the nations in and outside of the UN security council were against this war.
what did the dire consequences in 1441 mean then?

This is the reason why the U.S. avoided to bring in a new resolution that would explicitly allow the war. As a matter of fact Bush and his companions feared a new poll in the UN security council like the devil feares holy water.

Bush rushed the war because UN chief inspector Hans Blix even started to commend Iraq. Bush was afraid like hell that his already flimsy justification for the war would have been completely worthless soon.
How would it have been worthless? inspectors found banned weapons. Then Banned weapons (Scuds in the invasion, and WMD's later) were used on US troops. Hans Blix would have eventually found something.

In the first war on Iraq all the nations in the UN meant war and said war. They haven't said "dire consequences". They said: WAR!

But let us follow your also flimsy reasoning and say that the resolution meant war.

Did Hans Blix, the chief weapon inspector say that his means are exhausted? No! He even asked for more time.
French asked for more time, Germany asked for more time.

More time for what? finding more VIOLATIONS? what would the UN have done if he found even more violations? one violation of one resolution should be enough, but for some reason the UN loves Saddam. They gave him leeway when fireing on US plains in a safe zone, they gave him leeway when he kicked the Weapons inspectors our, they gave him leeway when Al Samoud 2's were found, they gave him leeway when he was torturing innocents.

The only nation who pressed for a war was the U.S.

So please don't declare this as an UN war. This was an US war.

You went into this war to defend your country? From whom? From a nation already defeated by a first war and suffering 12 years of embargo? A nation of camel drivers?
So if a nation loses a war they are allowed to fire on whomever they choose? even if they said they would not fire on plains in a certain area? We lost the Vietnam War, how come you wont let us Attack Iraq?

You went into this war in order to do your friends in Israel a favour and to secure the oil (which is now as insecure as never before). The fairy-tales of WMD are already blown up, so please don't try this again.
By getting rid of Saddam we did THE WORLD a favor. Saddam is an Evil < expletive > who should have been sent straight to hell when USA soldiers found him. OIL???? you are STILL going on about oil that we care nothing about??? i thought you were smarter than the average brainwashed Bush Hater, but i guess i was wrong. The FIRST gulf war was about Oil, the Second one has nothing to do with oil. We obviously haven't taken Iraqs oil like everyone was saying we were.

I agree with you that your soldiers are willing to help this country, but the willingness doesn't help the people.

The outcome is what counts. And what is the outcome?

Dead Iraqi toddlers and babies after bombing Iraqi towns as a sign of deep helplessness of the US troops.
HAHAHA. Iraqi towns? we bomb buildings, not towns. You should really look up "Tomahawk Cruise Missile" and "Smartbombs".

Ask the people in Iraq whether their life is better now. What will they answer?

No electricity, riot everywhere, nightly bombing by the Americans, attacks by islamic terrorists, no jobs and a huge pollution resulting from the weapons that had been applied during the war.

There was no electricity 6 months ago because of Saddams Troops setting fire to oil fields. Now there is more electricity. riot everywhere? where? the only "riot" is the protests about troops. Attacks by islamic terrorists, at least they have a cause. I would rather die by a terrorist attack than by being tortured to death. Pollution? which weapons pollute iraq?
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

My image Gallery

Site Tools