Anti-War? Screw you. (1917 hits)
Category: Politics -> IraqRating: -0.22 on 86 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Eric Kinneary <eric_d_crackpot.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-04-19 18:45:48 EDT
Seriously, I can get really pissed off at you anti-war people.
On 9/11 the WTC was attacked and destroyed. Another plane hit the Pentagon, and a final plane was brought down in a field by the heroic passengers on board. It took us a few days to learn what happened, but eventually we did. Terrorists. The planes were hijacked and used to destroy our symbols of economic prosperity and military power. Thousands of innocents died. Think about it, Billy Bob went to work one day. He got up, put a pop-tart in the toaster, kissed Mary Sue and his daughter, then went off to work. He was at his desk and doing his job when suddenly his entire world crumbled around him. Imagine that happening to you. You go to school one day, a day just like any other. And then it's over, just like that. Maybe the roof collapses and crushes you, maybe the room around you is engulfed in flames and you burn to death, or maybe you're one of the lucky ones that died and are simply instantly incinerated by the intense heat.
Now it's a year and a half later and we're just as stupid and ignorant as we were back then. What the hell is wrong with you people? We declared war. This war was not against Afghanistan alone. It was not against any one country alone. It was against terrorism. You may ask yourself what Iraq has to do with Osama, which is what a lot of anti-war protesters do. But, jack ass, this war isn't just about Osama. It's about all of terrorism. Because attacks like this aren't going to stop by taking out one violent regime that recruits it's young people to kill themselves. We have to go to the source and one-by-one take out all of these oppresive regimes that kill and murder their own people. We have to take out these 'governments', which are little more than mobs, and stop their funding of terrorists. Saddam sent thousands to families of suicide bombers to thank them for their loyalty. Saddam supports terrorism. He supports murdering of children, of innocents, of people who are just like you. Let me say that again. PEOPLE. JUST. LIKE. YOU.
What do you want out of life? You want to be able to go to school, get your education, get a job and have a good life. You want to get married and maybe even have kids. You want that white-picket fence and a cute little cat or dog. Well imagine you have it. You've worked the last thirty years of your life off, putting in good hours and being a good person. You're in the local cafe having coffee with a friend when the door opens. And that's the last thing you hear. You're dead now. And do you want to know why? For no reason. For absolutely no mother fucking reason except your religion. Or because Sam the Suicide Bomber doesn't like your government. That's what is going on in countries all around the world. Not just America.
So you know what? It's over. We're done playing around. We've gone for years with terrorist attacks. The original WTC bombing, embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole. But now it's over. Do you want us to leave Saddam alone? Why? Because you think this is a war for oil? Yeah, I'm sure it's a factor. I'm not going to lie. I certainly believe that it's a factor in why we went after Iraq so early. But I do NOT believe it's the only reason, and certainly not the biggest reason, we went after Saddam. Saddam is a violent man. He kills his own people, he tortures them, he rapes them, he abuses them, he robs them, and he gasses them. He's spent years on ethnic cleansing. He's used chemical weapons during the war against Iran. And he supports terrorists. This is not a war to free the Iraqi people. That's a load of bullshit and I know it. Our government was never going to go to war to save the Iraqi people. If we were we would have had this war over and done a long time ago. This is a war to save our own asses, and it's a war I damn well agree with.
Because when we did take out Afghanistan, maybe we did scare the terrorists. Maybe now they won't attack us for a while. But they'll still attack other countries. Britain has been the target of terrorists attacks for years. Asian and African countries have taken the brunt of a lot of the hostilities. We have to save this god damned world. America, the meddler of Earth, has to step in and take down these regimes that support terrorism. Iraq supports them. Iraq has a fucking nuclear weapons program that's been uncovered. Iraq is the site of mass graves. There was a bunker found of thousands of pictures of people shot in the head, and hundreds of bodies stacked in cardboard crates. Iraq is one of the richest countries in the world because of it's oil, but the people there live in poverty. Saddam takes the riches of Iraq and squanders them for himself.
I've heard people compare Bush to Hitler. Are you out of your fucking minds? Saddam is a hell of a lot closer. Hitler and Saddam are both racists who engage in ethnic cleansing. Hitler and Saddam both tried to invade their neighbors for land. Hitler and Saddam both kill citizens by thousands. Both killed any who opposed their government. But at least there is one difference. Hitler never raped anyone. Saddam on the other hand....
You say talks should have continued. We tried that. We tried that for 12 god damn years. We told Saddam to disarm. We asked inspectors be allowed into the country. We asked for interviews with nuclear experts in Iraq. He told us to fuck off. What the hell do you think an extra month of talks was going to do? We already tried that. We tried that especially hard before the war started. But Saddam wasn't going for it. What do you expect to have been accomplished? Do you think someone who has spent billions in weapons development would destroy the fruits of his labor just because America asked nicely? Do you think someone who would kill millions of his own people would honor any sort of agreement made? If you do, then you're severly impaired and I suggest you go to a doctor right away. Don't forget to wear a helmet in case you start bumping into things on your way there.
I didn't want Bush to be the president. I wanted Gore. I'm not Republican, but neither am I a Democrat. I'm not of the Green party or the liberal. I'm neutral. I'm for whatever candidate does what I support. And right now Bush is that man. If I could have voted in 2000 my vote would have gone for Gore. If I could vote in 2004 my vote would go right to Bush. Because he isn't bullshitting. We got attacked. We got fucking attacked in New York city. Thousands of American citizens were killed. Osama bent us over and shoved his cock right up our ass. And Bush is going to make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't want another 9/11. I don't want my children growing up in a world where they have to be scared to go to school. I want them to grow up when the biggest news story that we have to cover is J-Lo and Ben getting a divorce. I want them to grow up in a world like 9/10 was. And I support anyone who can take out these terrorists.
What the hell is wrong with you people? It's as if you think this country is in some sort of bubble. It's like you think we can't be touched. 9/11 is so far forgotten that you don't even realize what's going on. You're so stuck in the daily grind of complaining and bitching about every other thing that you don't want your life changed. This country is not immune. This country has to protect itself. All of you anti-war protesters are completly ignorant to the facts. You sicken me. You disgust me. Go away.
User Reviews
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-09-02 21:12:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-19 19:24:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>you said it right here:
>>"Look, I understand wanting to stick by Bush because he's a Republican like you."
I'm a Green you fucking twit. I just went back and read what I wrote, just in cast I genuinely did stick my foot in my mouth, and I've come to one conclusion: I'm so bored that I'm arguing with you.
>>It's alright, if your from alabama you have an excuse!
>>SSSSTTTTTTUUUUUPPPPPIIIIIIDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have I just walked into that mental ward from Amadeus or something?
>>"Well, yes. Bush has repeatedly stated that the reconstruction of Iraq would be paid for by >>Iraq's oil."
>>WHAT AN IDIOT!!! SO DOES THAT MEAN THE OIL MUST FIRST BE SHIPPED TO THE US??????
>>YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS, AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA, WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!
Oil must be refined, whereupon it becomes any one of the numerous commercial or other raw products, such as plastic, gasoline, and benzene, to name a few. Finally, these products must find a market, meaning people who will pay for them. That's why Exxon may buy a barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia for, say, $30 instead of $100 (or however much it then is). Raw mineral ores are frequently mined and produced (such as iron, aluminum, and tin) in one place and sold to another, whereupon the refined and finished product may be sold right back to them. That's not to say that Saudi Arabia doesn't necessarily refine their own oil (I honestly don't know), but in order to make $$, the end product must be sold to people who have said money. That's us, (Canada uses oil too, I hear). It is the profits from these sales that end up paying for things, such as cars, computers, vegetables, and the reconstruction of small, bombed-back-to-the-stone-ages countries like Iraq.
>>LIKE I SAID THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. FOR THREE DIFFERENT REASONS, GO BACK AND READ.
Oh, nevermind what I just wrote, then. You convinced me.
Submitted by Flapjacksupreme (user info) at 2003-06-19 19:12:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Everything worth putting down has been put down, so I'll -2 the facist asshole and fade back into that bianary junk that is the internet.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 19:05:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Well, yes. Bush has repeatedly stated that the reconstruction of Iraq would be paid for by Iraq's oil."
WHAT AN IDIOT!!! SO DOES THAT MEAN THE OIL MUST FIRST BE SHIPPED TO THE US??????
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS, AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA, WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!
LIKE I SAID THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. FOR THREE DIFFERENT REASONS, GO BACK AND READ.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 19:02:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
redneck-
you said it right here:
"Look, I understand wanting to stick by Bush because he's a Republican like you."
It's alright, if your from alabama you have an excuse!
SSSSTTTTTTUUUUUPPPPPIIIIIIDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:59:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"While India got their Nuke technology from Russia, Pakistan got theirs from the US of A."
AHHHAHAHAHAHA WRONG!! They got their ROCKETS, (not the missle the part that moves the missle) from us. Why? go talk to motorola, those dumb fucks made the same mistake with china, now they have the same technology. Bullshit
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:56:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"hace"
There's a difference between a grammatical error, and a fucking typo. Take a quick look at your keyboard, notice that "c" and "v" and right next to each other. I just MIGHT have missed "V" and hit"c", just MIGHT!
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:40:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>"Republican like you."
>>Hilarious, so in order for you to be a patriot, you need to be a republican??!!??!!
That's so inane that I have no idea how to respond. When did I say anything like that?
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:34:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I base my views on facts..." -Berz
I don't want to be dickhole here, but where exactly are these facts coming from?
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:33:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
nice to live in a dream world. While India got their Nuke technology from Russia, Pakistan got theirs from the US of A. Not to mention the fact that you've been selling chemical & Bio technologies that are potentialy as destructive as nukes. Dude, there is no excuse. there is no sense - there are field expedients & chemical weapons were one such used to contain the Shia madness in Iran. I really don't feel like discussing this again , especially since ther are so many posts about these issues that are already there. Suffice it to say, that no one except you wants you to be the world policeman. Those are mighty big shoes to fill & i think that even you aren't up to it - we saw that when N. Korea, a tiny hemmorhoid of a country was telling US statre department to go fuck themselves & firing their homemade midrange missiles OVER japan. The US is big, but you'd need to have an army 4-6 times the size of your present strenght just to take on 2 such adventures at once. You can't afford what you have now, you've spent yourselves into a budget deficit from a surplus AND into a recession - and all you had to deal with were 2 countries, one of which did not have an organized army, the other was starved half to death by sanctions.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:33:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Now I will admit I could be wrong, BUT, I have FACTS to back my claims with, YOU hace NONE. "
first dont smash people for grammer and then spell like shit yourself.
(for the record my grammer is crap but i am not claiming its otherwise)
Didnt I cite and quote a CIA report and provide links to documents? I showed proof that the CIA informed Bush in 2002 that there was no WMD or nukes. So dont give me "YOU hace NONE".... Dude were you sleeping? Now let me say one thing. I think saddam is an evil fuck. I have no doubt of that. I have no doubt that the country is better off without him. My problem is that we gave false reasons for this war. Dont look at me like I am the only one saying this. The WORLD is screaming it. Just look around you. Everyday new articled show up demanding proof of WMD and condemming the faked evidence that was used to start this war. We cant go killing people because they had weapons in the 70's. That shit doesnt float. Even if they did have nukes... SO WHAT? Koreas has em... many countries have em... And you know who has more Nukes (by far!) than any other country?
Thats right bitch.
hipocite
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:31:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>REALLY- SO, there must be dozens of frieghters loaded with oil heading back to the U.S. right??
Well, yes. Bush has repeatedly stated that the reconstruction of Iraq would be paid for by Iraq's oil. (By the way, whatever euphemism you decide on, invading a country and using its resources to pay for it is, well, plundering). And remember that Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves. I guess that in a year or two, depending on how much money is directed towards the reconstruction effort, oil may begin flowing to the U.S. Or maybe I'm being incredibly naive and it'll be in a few months. Ask Mr. Cheney. He know the details better.
>>HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU!!!!!!
This is a rhetorical question, right?
>>LIKE THE INTERNATION COMMUNITY WOULD EVER PUT UP WITH THAT!!!
If memory serves, the international community, to its own loss (dimplomatically), opposed the war. Europes leaders, who were the most outspoken, also knew about the Project for the New American Century, so they had a somewhat clearer view of Bush's motives.
>>INEPT, IGNORANT MOTHA FUCKAS!!!
Eloquent
>>Bush would NEVER do that, reason 1: democrates would punk his ass right out of office for it!!
At first I was about to say that you give Democrats far more credit than they deserve, but then I just remembered that the democrats DID just try to start an investigation on the falsifying of WMD evidence. The Republicans, with their narrow majority, killed it. That was expected, though. Ex-governor Dean of Vermont is pushing for an independent investigation. Hopefully he'll have better luck.
>>Reason 2- we would lose ALL our allies.
Insert punchline here.
>>Including the brits!!
Too late. An investigation is gearing up against Blair for falsifying the evidence of WMD's.
>> Reason 3- fanatical terrorist would fuck america to the point bush either was impeached or >>asassinated(sp?) or quit stealing the oil!
Terrorists would strike? Here? That could never happen here! No, but seriously, exactly what have we done to decrease the number of potential terrorists? I mean, I know about this beefing up on security here, and I know about the erosion of our civil liberties, but have you been to any airport lately? How about our reservoirs and electrical plants? They practically have signs on the entrances that say, "What, me worry?"
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Republican like you."
Hilarious, so in order for you to be a patriot, you need to be a republican??!!??!!
Don't be stupid, oh wait, you are.
I'm not a democrate, i'm not a republican, shit im not even fucking registered. I base my views on facts, and then make my own independant judegment, based on those facts.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:17:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"whoa! really? And where did we get or nukes from ? from you! what about Pakistan? isn't that a third world country? where did they get their nukes? "
First off I have no idea what your first statement is refering to. Explain.
Second, if you're trying to say that since we didn't allow iraq to have nuclear weapons, then why did we allow pakistan, AND INDIA to have nukes? When our policy is to not let anyone else have nukes that doesn't already have them. Well there are a few reasons. first- they didn't make them to use against us. They were more deterrance, like ours and YOURS arsenals. Not to mention, they baught them from the soviets, modified them to fit into their medium range missles, and had a working bomb and delivery system in under two years. so, in reality we didn't know they had them, until they declared they did and starting testing them! Besides, it's hard to tell a nations with a army of roughly 6 million to just get rid of the shit they want. Especially when you have to do EVERYTHING ALONE!! The world wants us to baby sit them, yet at the same time they don't want us to exercise our power. LOL.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:04:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"But if said empire takes over the natural resources of other nations through military force...well, can you appreciate why that would make other nations...any nation at all...just a bit nervous?"
REALLY- SO, there must be dozens of frieghters loaded with oil heading back to the U.S. right??
HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU!!!!!!
LIKE THE INTERNATION COMMUNITY WOULD EVER PUT UP WITH THAT!!! INEPT, IGNORANT MOTHA FUCKAS!!!
Bush would NEVER do that, reason 1: democrates would punk his ass right out of office for it!! Reason 2- we would lose ALL our allies. Including the brits!! Reason 3- fanatical terrorist would fuck america to the point bush either was impeached or asassinated(sp?) or quit stealing the oil!
THINK OR ATLEAST TRY!!
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-19 18:00:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
whoa! really? And where did we get or nukes from ? from you! what about Pakistan? isn't that a third world country? where did they get their nukes? Like I said, trying to explain US foreing policy in any light other than profiteering & expediency & is like putting butt-floss on an rhino - pointless & bound to end badly
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 17:57:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Trying to explain US foreign policy in any consistent framework other than plain ol' greed &"
So I guess the U.S. saving the worlds ass in world war two was for greed, right? over 500,000 of our people killed for what again?? GREED, you, NOT us would be speaking a different language right now. Oh wait, I almost forgot, you claimed to be and israeli correct? well then, I guess you wouldn't be speaking another language, considering your grand parents would have been gassed along with 6,000,000 other jew.
Ungrateful bastard! Go to school, and learn some of your history!
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-06-19 17:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1056058135670018937
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-19 17:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Berz. Shh.
Everybody gets a shot at Empire now and then. That's not the issue. And sure, yeah, nobody likes said empire. That's natural. But if said empire takes over the natural resources of other nations through military force...well, can you appreciate why that would make other nations...any nation at all...just a bit nervous? Even our allies? We kind of lose the moral high ground that way.
Americans are way shittier with history than the average bored goldfish. But wait! France (and much of the rest of the world) goes against the war in Iraq and suddenly we're all history Ph-fucking-D's! Suddenly EVERYBODY knows how we saved whoever's ass from somebody else (if it's relevant). But you wanna know something? It doesn't mean shit. The U.S. of today bears as much resemblance to the U.S. of 1942 as...well, any other two things that bear no resemblance to each other whatsoever. The America of yore had the New Deal and a budding, domestic manufacturing economy. It had safety nets for the poorest classes. It gave a crap about the concerns of our allies (more or less), had hundreds and hundreds of independent media outlets, and even during a war, even during WWII, politicians were regularly calling for the head of the sitting president. Does this sound familiar? Okay, it wasn't a Bacchanalia all the time. Afterall we rounded up every single U.S. citizen of Japanese descent because some other Japanese people decided to bomb one of our ports, and we sure learned our lessons from that, didn't we? Look, the point is that the U.S. has lost so much of the moral highground that it no longer has the right to remind its allies what it did for them over half a century ago.
Also, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing Bush's apologists rationalize the war by showing us how mean Saddam was. We know how bad he was. Everybody knows. We were not surprised by this. I'd also like Republicans to stop smirking just because the U.S. won the war. I don't think there is anybody on earth who doubted the military outcome. I'd like to stop hearing "we freed the Iraqi people." Bullshit. They are not free. It is absolute chaos over there. There is rampant famine, disease, and looting. Sure, a whole of native Iraqis were waving American flags (where did they get those?) when we entered a few of their cities but life is still utter shit. I no longer want to hear that the war was not about weapons of mass destruction. We have not only discovered the printing press, but we have a somewhat efficient record-keeping and database system as well. It is not too terribly difficult to bring up (as I did a few posts down) countless examples of the Bush administration swearing by a stack of bibles that Saddam had definitive (not "potential") and deliverable chemical and biological weapons, and that he was several months away from having The Bomb. It would take me two minutes to provide ample evidence that all previous proof of WMD's were FORGERIES. Not mistaken or misunderstood documentation, but all-out forgeries.
It would take me a full three minutes to get enough evidence to show you that the first (and for several days, only) sites that our soldiers secured were oil wells and the ministry of oil. Everything else was, as Rumsfeld noted, "just some old vases."
I have to say that I would have been a hell of a lot more on board with the Iraq War if Bush had said, "Saddam is an asshole. We need to take him out." Instead we get bullshit about WMD's, bringing democracy to the Iraqi people (sure, Bush is going to let a nation of Shi-ites vote all shi-ite, the Islamic sect of Iran), and cites 9/11 and the one-size-fits-all War on Terror. Sure, none of the 9/11 bombers were Iraqi, but rather Egyptian and Saudi Arabian, and sure, Osama has refused to have anything to do with the secularist Husseins (that one is tougher - that might take me 4.5 minutes to dig up), but that's not important.
Look, I understand wanting to stick by Bush because he's a Republican like you. Before I pulled my head out of my ass, I stuck by Clinton just because he, too, said he was a democrat. I mean, how retarded is that?? But really, how can you keep ignoring every single one of his mind-numbingly obvious lies. Doesn't it get a little embarassing after a while?
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 17:47:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"the whole world, including the US condemned us."
You obviously know nothing of politics. We had to "PUBLICALLY" condem it, WHY?? Because saddam was our friend at the time!! You didn't know this?? Behind "closed doors", we supported their effort entirely, the U.S. policy is to keep nuclear arms out of ANYONE elses hands, that doesn't already have them; especially a third world coutry!!
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-19 17:33:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, well, mr. Patriot, I remember when Israel bobmed Osirak ( the reactor complex built for the Iraqis by the French) the whole world, including the US condemned us. Trying to explain US foreign policy in any consistent framework other than plain ol' greed & expediency is like trying to fuck a rattlesnake with a seizure - Stupid, pointless, dangerous & likely to cause harm to both parties.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 17:11:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"are you ignorant or stupid? both maybe? Iraq had zero nukes... a big FAT zero."
We might NEVER know the extent of their recent nuclear attempts. BUT, do not be so myopic and ignorant to believe that this isn't plausible. I cannot remember the year, it must have been late 70's early 80's when the isrealies bombed his NUCLEAR REACTOR, and thoroughly destroyed it! That right there shows the guy had intentions to have nuclear weapons. On top of that, he had numerous centerfuige containers, which are used to process plutonium, and uranium for NULEAR WEAPONS, all these things where taken after the first gulf war. Showing again how he continued his nuclear ambitions. Then in 97-98 right before he kicked the inpectors out(which by the way UNDER A UN RESOLUTION is an act of WAR!)the inspectors had found trucks with large circular magnets, which are used to seperate isotopes IN CENTERFUIGES!! He wasn't supposed to have that sh!t!! they where checked for radiation and guess what, they where all tested positive for rediation exposure. Now tell me, this happens right before the inspectors are kicked out, what the fuck do you think this guy is doing with not inspectors in his coutry for five fucking years!! Do people not understand that these weapons and materials can easily be hidden someplace in the middle of their desert! Now I will admit I could be wrong, BUT, I have FACTS to back my claims with, YOU hace NONE.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-06-19 17:04:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is pretty funny in the cool light of day.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 16:54:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"agreeing on things with other world leading partys,"
This guy NEVER ceases to amaze me! So in your perfect world everyone has an equal say? So in that regard, we all(world) would of needed to agree to take out saddam? Say we do, another 12 years go by, and more INNOCENT "REAL" people get murdered by saddam? Would you like that? Say we don't, and you get the same result you have now.
Here's your problem- You live in a country that WISHES they could have the opportunity on world affairs. BUT THIS IS NOT REALITY, plain and simple, we are the worlds watch dog, we are the worlds "parents"/"daddy", we have the balls to step to the plate and handle the worlds problems! Your country is too feeble to accomplish this. Why is it that so many of you ignorant bastards hate us? Is it that we provide 73% OF THE WORLDS HUMANITARIAN AID?? Is it because we are always there to save our WEAK AS FUCK alies when they need us? Is it because we stopped germany and russia from world domination?? WHERE THE FUCK WOULD YOUR ASS BE WITHOUT US???
TIME TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF. Your whole value system is flawed! You hate us because WE MAKE THE DECISIONS. While you must take a seat and watch. Sorry, but who the fuck else is going to do it? The brits- not alone, the eu? DON'T MAKE ME START LAUGHING! The chinese? Please. The russian(who like you believe in a utopia, that doesn't work!, can't feed their OWN people! Now what country has the structure, the money, and the WILL, to protect this world??? WHO?
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-06-19 16:35:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I read about two paragraphs of this. Saddam has nothing to do with 911, Mr. Shitforbrains. Than you managed to ramble on for four more paragraphs saying war prostesters suck. Pull your head out of your ass and get in touch with the international news."
You sir are a fucking idiot, in every regard. You manage to call someone an idiot, then fuck your grammar in very next sentence!
If you had any sign of intelligence you would know that the point wasn't, fuck the anti-war protesters, he was making the VALID, and TRUE point that like you these people are ignorant. Wake up son, and get in touch with reality.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2003-06-19 16:01:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"raq has a fucking nuclear weapons program that's been uncovered."
are you ignorant or stupid? both maybe? Iraq had zero nukes... a big FAT zero. Even the official UN nuke expert agrees to this effect and told bush as much. The fucking CIA told Bush in 2002 that " Iraqi missiles were found to contain conventional warheads... there is no reliable information that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons."
doesnt it bother that the USA funded and trained both osama bin laden AND Saddam? No... that would require intelligent thought.
does it not bother you that the president AND the vice president are both X-oul executives, who now are attacking OIL RICH countries and nobody else? And that the vice presidents company is making billions of dollars off of all this? What? Didnt know that?
Thought so
dumbass
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2970064.stm
http://www.jordansplace.net/homepage/handshake.html
http://www.jordansplace.net/homepage/handshake.html
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-19 15:39:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
DP, your sincerity is genuine, but somewhat misinformed. The entire basis of the war in Iraq was WMD's. The following site catalogues this pretty nicely: http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html
Also, as somebody already said to one degree, the objectives of The War On Terrorism(C)is too vague, both its goals and its targets. To want to attack any country that MAY attack you could initially sound noble. Unfortunately, that includes everybody, including, technically, Canada. And its objectives are no more clearly defined that that of the War On Drugs(C), unless, that is, the objective is to throw everybody's ass in prison, in which case it may very well be a stunning success.
The War On Terror(C) is marketing. It is intended to be sold, and it is as clearly defined as The War On Bad Breath.
On another note, have you heard of the Project for the New American Century? Very many Europeans know of it, but I haven't met anybody here who does. Have a look. It's good bedtime reading. http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
I gave this a +2 because it lead to something intelligent.
Submitted by Michael Kinneary <michael.kinneary.at.northsafety.c> at 2003-06-19 13:52:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting piece. Your writing has improved greatly. Try not to use the foul language. Let the message move the people - the language takes away. Proud of ya!
Submitted by skitty (user info) at 2003-05-13 20:06:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by TwEE (user info) at 2003-05-13 19:30:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dose Bush pay you to ramble on like a loon? He must, I mean there cant be people this stupid!
Is this a joke?..Oh God you're not joking are you?
I like how you portray America as a kindly sleeping giant, being dragged into a fight it has nothing to do with, as a Country innocent of any wrong doings, that's so sweet, really it is, and I bet you believe in unicorns too?
Why do you think these people hate America? I bet you think its because they know they (terrorists) are evil and America is heroic and good and thus they (terrorists) have to play their role as evil doers. Or maybe they hate America's freedoms, of course wouldn't they be after Canada or other free countries as well?
You know what I bet it is? I bet when America uses the poverty and instability in poor countries to make a profit it pisses people off. Just a hunch. When America takes over a poor country and puts in a puppet government they have a tendency to not give a fuck about the civilians as long as the puppet government is pro American (very heroic indeed). You know America put Saddam in power don't you, and didn't give a fuck what he did to the Kurds as long as he was still serving American interests.
More innocent civilians have died in Gulf war II (not to mention Afghanistan) then 9/11, so that should be enough right?....You wanted your revenge and you got it, happy now? Of coarse their just collateral right, the unfortunate victims of Americans war on terror.
Your the sad pathetic result of two much American media. American journalists ask the hard-hitting questions don't they? (was the war a success or a real big success) and they report only the most important stories as long as it portrays the bush administration in the best way possible...
So I guess what I'm really trying to get at is don't breed, the less people like you in the world the better everyone will be..
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-05-13 17:11:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't know. Why don't you tell me? And then proceed to tell me how the death of 3,000 people during peace time who didn't give a flying fuck about world politics (and who most likely disagreed with everything that our government did in the first place) is justified? How about I shoot your mom because we dropped a bomb in Vietnamn 30 years ago?
Submitted by SarGasm (user info) at 2003-05-13 14:29:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Eric, if you can manage to pull your head out of your ass for long enough, go watch Bowling for Columbine.
the 9-11 attacks were brought on by America. America has given the world ample cause to hate its politics and leaders, and now you're whining about how a mere 3,000 people lost their lives in 9-11. how many people lose their lives to American politics, oil interests, and real-estate concerns every day?
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-04-27 12:17:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bush has been claiming this has been about WMD the entire time. He hasn't changed his stance to terrorism. But I, and many people, believe that it has to do with terrorists. We've suspected Saddam's weapons programs existed for years. We weren't going to war exclusively because of them, at least not at this point in time. But once 9/11 happened America took a double take. We realize that we can't allow anti-America dictatorships to proceed. Supporting terrorism is just one of the faults Iraq is guilty of. WMD programs are another. The focus has never been spotlighted on their terrorist ties. It's always been on their WMD.
And yes, the Patriot Act is stupid. It's one of the most ridiculous acts that have ever been proposed. I definately don't agree with it and my approval of Bush went way down when I heard of it. But something like that can at least be rectified later. Bush has another year in office, then he's gone. The next president, if he's a democrat (and he probably will be), will put this War on Terrorism to an incredibly slow lurch. Then we'll turn to domestic affairs instead of off-shore problems. At which point most of the damage done by Bush on our own land will be rectified.
I can't vote because I'm not 18 yet. I still have a year to go.
Submitted by DeadBabies <killkillkill.at.buybuybuy.com> at 2003-04-27 01:15:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You say we started the war
because Saddam supports terrorism? Doesn't anybody remember Bush's reason? He claimed
that this whole thing is about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Does anybody
remember that part? I think the emphasis has switch to terrorism because there is no proof
of chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq and Bush needs something to justify World War W.
the "War On Terrorism" is an excuse for Bush to justify just about anything. Just look at the
Patriot Act. I don't know about the rest of you but I enjoy my privacy. Bush is an idiot. That's all there is to it. He has got to be the dumbest son of a bitch
ever, which leads me to believe that there is no possible way a man like that
could have been voted for by anybody but Rednecks. By the way Eric, Why can't you vote?????????????????
Oh yeah. I hate Texas. I have never been there but there are a lot of people from Texas in my town
and they are all really stupid. Maybe its something in the bud light.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-04-25 21:28:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
very well thought out, and an intelligent point. i'm tired of hearing about the subject, but you get a +2 from me for this one because it wasn't ignorant rambling.
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-04-25 21:11:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The world was a much different place when we provided weapons to the middle east. Then the world lay on the brink of destruction, the threat of nuclear apocolypse more real than it has ever been since. Only through arming our allies against our enemies could we maintain a balance that at least partially secured the safety of not only ourselves, but everyone else in the world.
I have never heard Bush accuse Saddam of giving WMD to terrorists. If you can show me a source, please do so.
Submitted by Partholon (user info) at 2003-04-25 07:02:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Interesting, very interesting. Your faith would be sweet if it weren't so fucking blind and naive.
Even if the war was launched for the reason you claim--because Iraq offered bounties to families of suicide bombers and therefore supports terrorism--even if that were the case, it would still not justify the war.
I understand how easy it is to get lost in the flow when the administration keeps lying to you right and left and keeps changing its story. Perhaps they may have actually made the claim you do at some point.
However, the "ultimatum" Bush issues was because of WMD and violating UN resolutions, together with the silly argument that Saddam might give WMD to terrorists.
As if the US hasn't supportted "terrorists" and given them weapons! Ha!
And let's hope that this "War on Terror" is a damn sight more successful than the "War on Drugs," or we're all fucked.
Submitted by DP <eric_d_crackpot.at.yahoo.com> at 2003-04-25 06:43:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wrong you ass. This isn't about him giving WMD to terrorists. I haven't seen a single article or a single broadcast saying that he was going to. This was about him supporting terrorist. For example, he sent out thousands to the families of suicide bombers to thank them for their loyalty. That's supporting terrorism.
And you ass, you can't go directly to war with terrorism. The War on Terrorism is more of a saying. Like the War on Drugs. We can't actually go to war with drugs, or terrorism, but we can do everything we can to get out people who support it. It's the same with terrorism. The idea now is to oust everyone who finances terrorism, who harbors terrorists, or who is a terrorist. And Saddam easily fits into that catagory.
Submitted by Partholon (user info) at 2003-04-25 00:12:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No, you twat, I read your steaming pile of crap.
We are not "at war with ALL terrorism." In case you haven't noticed, Congress never declared war. It is impossible to go to war against "terrorism," anyway. Individual terrorist groups--LIKE AL-QAEDA--, yes. Terrorism itself, no.
The war against Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Bush kept changing the justification, but it either had something to do with enforcing UN resolutions or preventing Saddam from giving weapons of mass destruction--which we couldn't prove he had--to terrorist groups in the future--which no one could explain why he would.
If anyone is the dip, missy, it's you.
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-04-24 21:51:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Perhaps you didn't read my post. I bet you just came in here, read the title and started shooting your mouth off. It doesn't matter if Saddam can be tied to 9/11. That was never the point. America is in a war against ALL terrorism, and Saddam has been linked to that. And, I also said in my post that this was a war to defend America, and almost nothing else played a factor. But apparently you can't get your head out of your ass to read something before you start acting like a dip.
Submitted by Partholon (user info) at 2003-04-24 00:13:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
DP--"So, exactly how haven't we found illegal weapons in Iraq?"
Um, because we haven't found any?
And, furthermore, the legitimacy of the war had nothing to do with whether or not Saddam had chemical or biological weapons. I myself figured is was probably a 50-50 shot. However, why didn't he use them if he had them?
No, the problem with this war was that it was not about illegal weapons or the suffering of the Iraqi people. It was billed as a pre-emptive war to defend America, but America was under no direct or credible threat from Iraq. Even if Saddam gave chemical and biological weapons to terrorists, deposing him would do us any good if the terrorists already had the weapons. Plus, we couldn't prove any of it.
Afghanistan was different, because the terrorist group that attacked us on September 11th clearly and openly had bases and training camps there, which were sheltered and funded--together with its leaders--by the Taliban regime. The Taliban, thus, we accessories to 9/11 and we were justified in removing them.
Saddam, evil as he is/was, was not a threat, could not be linked in any way to Al-Qaeda or 9/11, and we did not have the grounds or authority or right or legitimacy to unilaterally invade Iraq.
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-04-23 21:54:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, we've found ingredients that could be used to make chemical weapons. We've had interviews with chemical experts there who were told to hide suspicous chemicals in their houses and cars. We've found barrells of a substance that could be a chemical agent, but we're not sure yet. Before the war even started we found dozens of missles that were supposed to be destroyed years ago.
So, exactly how haven't we found illegal weapons in Iraq?
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-04-23 20:23:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
surely by attacking these places because of suspicions of terrorism you are alienating, and poltically radicalising millions of young arabs and muslims that will see this aggression as American imperialism. What you want is a progressive public diplomacy initiative that will communicate with these people to avoid this kind of reaction. Just think how annoyed you were after the attacks, well these people see death and destruction all around from American bombing. Do you think there reaction will be disimiliar? Of course not. the only retribution they can get is by hitting America back by non-conventional means, i.e. terrorism.
I am not opposed to military action if it is going to do some good in the end, i believe the current wars will, its just that as terrorism is such an amorpheous threat its much harder to pin down. As of such the American government can use it as an effective casus belli do do what they want. Its all so complex and its 1.23am in England now so i am going to bed as i can't think!
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-04-23 20:18:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, we steadfastly held sure that there were weapons of mass destruction in there, and that we did have evidence.
No one believed us.
Then, a couple of weeks into the war, they launch Scuds at us, effectively confirming our accusations.
Further more, we have found links to Al-Quaeda in Iraq after the take over.
Submitted by Flatuloso (user info) at 2003-04-23 19:55:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
By protecting yourself, you don't have to "make an example" out of every other nation that you feel is a mild threat. Let's face it, even if good does come out of the war, it is for the wrong reasons. This is what many people are choosing to ignore, and this is why president Bush, a lieing, corrupt, and unfortunately savvy politician, will get elected to another term. We claimed we were going after weapons of mass destruction- yet we didn't find any. Yet for whatever reason this is unimportant. How is that logical? So I can blow up my neighbors house if I think he has chemical weapons. Then my neighbor dies. He had no chemical weapons, but he did turn out to be a bank robber- by happenstance. Yeah I got rid of a menace to society, but I did though for reasons that were completely unfounded. This misguided way of making decisions is resulting in us losing many world allies and is creating even more terrorism in other countries by forcing western culture on the middle east. Then there's more threat, and we do it again, and the same thing happens. It's a vicious cycle, and that is why other industrialized nations do not take part in it.
Let's face it, everyone is a threat to the U.S. I am, my neighbor is, the mailman is. Any guy who wants to go grab a bomb and put it in a briefcase is a threat. Everyone is connected somehow. Piss off one guy and you'll piss off his friend. Make a friend of someone and his friend becomes yours. Therefore, attacking our enemies only causes more to come out of the woodwork. Whereas countries that actually recieve foreign aid from the U.S. are very cordial toward us. I know it's idealistic to expect being nice to everyone will solve our problem; but it's a hell of a lot better than convincing the entire middle east that a Jihad is the only way to remove our heavy hand in the area.
War is a cop-out. It's the worst way to fix a problem. You are essentially declaring that the only possible way to solve a problem is to use violence. Frankly there were other alternatives to use against Iraq, but we merely chose the easier path. Even if good things result, remember why we went in and if we actually accomplished out original goal.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan is falling apart. Our act of attacking them removed the Taliban, the only ruling body, from power. As such the country is becoming decrepit and people are becoming upset. Do not be surprised to see terrorist cells springing up in a few years, as the country reverts to fundamentalist values in order to create order. We need to provide these nations with the things they need to survive without fundamentalist beliefs. I don't think that military presence along with urban warfare is that commodity.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2003-04-23 18:01:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Eric Kinneary's contributions to intelligent political discussion are somewhat comparable to that of Cheeze Wiz's importance to the world of gourmet cuisine."
God, that's great. Ahem.
OK, let's break this down, plain and simple. Bush is a whackjob. This war is stupid.
Let me elaborate:
Although political discussion is not exactly my foray, mostly because I am just a semi-informed 20 year old, I still feel that Bush is doing the worst possible job running the country of any President, ever. It's been said before, but I'll say it again: He's a moron. He's a cowboy, a cokehead, and he's got the attitude of every ignorant motherfucking American out there.
This war is bullshit. He's doing it because in his little mind, war boosts approval ratings when they are succesful. Everyone's just so god damn happy to get our soliders back home, alive, they're just fucking ecstatic and they're cool with anything else the President wants. Anyone catch that The Onion article?
"U.S. uncovers documents that prove Iraq has chemical weapons from U.S. companies that sold them."?
How fucked up is that? For most of my opinions, Partholon seems to have me covered, already. That guy seems like a political science major. Anyhow, in closing:
Georgie porgie pudding pie,
I don't give a fuck how high your approval ratings are
you still look like a confused muppet,
and that's no lie.
Submitted by dpcoe (user info) at 2003-04-22 10:55:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thank Fuck for that a post worth reading and a real debate going on!
I have nothing to add by the way, it was just so nice to see I had to rate.
Submitted by Partholon (user info) at 2003-04-22 10:20:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree. Political debate is necessary and important, and sometimes fun.
What passes for political debate nowadays is usually something like this:
A: I disagree with President Bush's foreign polic--
B: HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE OUR PRESIDENT WHEN OUR TROOPS ARE PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS?! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST US! GO TO IRAQ, SINCE YOU LOVE SADDAM SO MUCH! TRAITOR! COMMIE! TERRORIST! DIE! DIE! DIE!!!
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-04-22 09:47:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
How refreshing it is to see a politcal debate.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-04-21 04:24:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Holy shit, did you guys check out this link, (bart posted it): http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58326,00.html
That's just sick. Think about that. Think about how extremely FUCKED UP your government is, if it is allowed to make people FUCKING disappear without charging them or giving out any evidence at all.
There's your fucking gestapo unit alright.
Submitted by Partholon (user info) at 2003-04-20 12:58:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
More ignorant bullshit. It's obviously that American schools are failing our children in history and political science.
Every nation, like every person, has the right to defend itself. But, in order to defend oneself, one has to be under threat first. Iraq posed no clear, present, or believable threat to the United States. Their military, as we saw in this war and the previous one, was pathetic. Even if they had "weapons of mass destruction," they had no means of delivering said weapons to the US. No evidence has ever been discovered indicating that Saddam Hussein supported and funded Al-Qaeda, and there is ample evidence that Saddam would never have supported an organization like Al-Qaeda nor would Al-Qaeda support him.
To defend America, we don't have to go invading countries and changing regimes, and acting like some global imperialist power. All we have to do is bring our troops home and secure our borders. Divert all this wasted funding to customs inspections and border, port, and airport security. Toughen th INS. All of this is perfectly within our power, and we wouldn't need to compromise our civil liberties with fascistic trash like USA/PATRIOT and "PATRIOT 2."
God, it's disturbing when nutjobs like Pat Buchanan start to make sense: stop the global empire-building, the foolish moral crusades. Bring home our troops, defend our borders, and let's have a republic, not an empire.
Submitted by nemo (user info) at 2003-04-20 08:29:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Ruckas-
"But, then you go on to say that in no way can France/Russia be involved."
I realize that I was unclear, but what I was trying to say was that one cannot accuse France and Russia for being against the war for economic reasons, but deny the fact that the United States is guilty of that.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2003-04-20 04:51:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58326,00.html
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-04-20 04:16:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
JTBER ARE YOU INSANE? I don't believe we had many terrorists groups gunning for us after WW2, as most countries were glad we ended the war. Where did you take HIstory? Retard, Ohio? Oh, and Bart. I do'nt think we'll be speaking Chinese by 2006. It's a very hard language to learn. 2010 at the earliest.
ON a humourous note, however, i do believe you're exaggerating the story a little bit. I haven't heard anything about American Citizens being detained for no reason. That doesnt' mean it's not happening, but I"ve heard nothing in the media about it. The only people being questioned are Foreign visitors, most of which happen to be ARab in descent.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2003-04-20 04:04:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh man, I didn't even read all of this because it was just so fucking stupid. I feel stupider for reading three paragraphs. Hey fucktard what about the people just like us that live in those countries? Sitting at home then bam hit by a missle. Is their life worth less than the people who died in 9/11? Hell no! America is full of fat shit lazy ass selfish wankers, and as far as i'm concerned anyone that would vote for Bush deserves to be hit by a plane. The world has enough stupid people. And no I don't think the people deserved to die in 9/11.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-04-20 03:49:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
We'll see. I hope to God no further consequences will come of this war; but they probably will. An Iraqi revolt? Afghan revolt? Breeding hate between America and some of Europe's largest country? Terrorist attacks? Dismissal of the constitution? Witholding of the right of free speech? America turning into a totalitarian military regime?
For every action there is a reaction.
I hope no more lives will be lost over this, but seeing a country as America is involved, that's pretty much a lost cause.
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-04-20 01:46:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Does that mean I'm not getting a Christmas card?
Submitted by Ruckas (user info) at 2003-04-20 01:44:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nemo, everything that you say has no base information and is no where near the arugement at hand. Yes, I can admit that this war indirectly is helping our economy. But, then you go on to say that in no way can France/Russia be involved. Fuck that. All we hear from France now is how much they want to "help" aid the Iraqi people. Not at all mentioning that we were the ones having to spill blood, when the "help" they would be provided would sky rocket their economy.
"But Saddam was a secular leader, and had no established link to Al Quaeda (sp?) or other terrorist organizations" You know as well as I do(or at least I hope so) that Iraq was providing money to terrorist origanizations. But if you wanna keep denying the facts, why dont you go and teach some Al Quaeda how to fly planes yourself.
You say we shouldnt go and liberate people who have been living in fear for the past decades? Well the way you propose it, yes it sounds good that we don't give the Iraqi people any decisions. Maybe we should just let another dictator run the country. You believe that it is "America's Democracy." Yet all it is doing is giving the decisions to the Iraqi people.
"Today a oppressed Iraq, tommorow a free Iraq where the people make their own decisions"
Also, Fuck the idea of a Patriot Act II. The Government has come no where near censoring anyone. The only "censoring" going on is people giving there opinion. If Anti-War protesters say that they should be able to have the right to give their opinon and prade around. Well, then shouldnt I be given the right to tell them to shut the fuck up. Or is that some new kind of double standard that was devolped. So I am going to keep using my right to tell ever War protestor I see to "Fuck off and go to France" Because these are the rights that our soldiers are out protecting at this very moment.
Submitted by GenocideTickles (user info) at 2003-04-20 01:43:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Eric Kinneary's contributions to intelligent political discussion are somewhat comparable to that of Cheeze Wiz's importance to the world of gourmet cuisine.
Submitted by jtber (user info) at 2003-04-20 01:17:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with the action that is being taken right now, but we cant fuck up with the new government were going to put in, and we cant be pussy's about taking control of Iraq. I dont really support having to take over Iraq, but we need to be strict to keep things in line. We can't let them off the hook fast either. We did that to Germany, and began giving them relief funds after WWI and it just created the Nazi's. We have to do a complete job on the war on terror, or else someone crazier will rise up again.
We messed up after WWII, TAKING land and giving it to the jews, when we should have stayed the the hell out of their business. Now were paying for it, because these terrorist groups hate us for taking thier land, they attacked us, and now were forced to attack them.
We messed up after WWI, and brought on nazi's
We messed up after WWII, brought on these terrorist groups, and the general hatred of America
Like Twee said, we aided Iraq, and had to pay for it.
We can't make poor decisions anymore.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2003-04-19 23:27:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
chipolatte, I agree with you that Bush isn't very smart. However, Congress is weak and his administration is getting laws put in place that attempt to legitimize unconstitutional government conduct. The executive branch is taking full advantage of the fact that they are currently operating without any Congressional or judicial supervision.
What happens if the next president isn't so stupid? The whole idea of "checks and balances" is that even if we somehow elect a psychotic president, he can't do that much damage because of the redundancy built into the system. Now that there is no accountability, if the next president turned out to be someone like Joseph McCarthy or John Ashcroft, people would just start disappearing off the streets without trial or even a public record. Sure, right now it's only "terrorists" being detained indefinitely, but you realize that the next people labelled as "terrorists" will be drug dealers, political dissidents, copyright infringers, homosexuals, and anyone else who could possibly be considered an enemy of the state.
I'm not saying that's where we are now, but Bush is definitely creating a scenario where our nation is now more susceptible to an "attack from within" than it ever has been in the past. He is an idiot and he is running the US as an idiot would. He's destroyed countless international alliances, done nothing for the economy, and dragged us into the Middle East quagmire in what could turn out to be WWIII.
My prediction: if Bush is reelected in 2004, we'll all be speaking Chinese by 2006.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2003-04-19 22:57:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Next five years, I hope to god its only one more.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-04-19 22:52:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oye! shut up Bart. Bush...isn't very smart. And he said we should have "limit's on freedom". But that doesn't mean he's smart enough to actually implement those freedom oppressing schemes? We know that Laura, Carl, and Dick are keeping him in check. So where's the harm in letting him pretend he's president for the next 5 years?
Submitted by oddzandendz (user info) at 2003-04-19 22:51:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh relax.....have a cream egg
Submitted by HeavensWalls (user info) at 2003-04-19 22:43:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 just because of the heated debate going on...
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2003-04-19 21:52:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You are correct about one thing: your children won't have to be scared of terrorists.
They'll have to be scared of their own government.
Just imagine... Patriot Act II gets passed, Ubersite gets flagged as a terrorist organization without any judicial review allowed, and you, yes YOU, could be detained indefinitely without trial for associating with this terrorist organization.
All you have to do is vote for Bush in 2004!
Submitted by nemo (user info) at 2003-04-19 21:43:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You absolutely cannot say that US is not in this for oil/economic reasons and then go on to hint that France and Russia are. Many of the reasons for this war are in fact political and not at all related to the safety of the American or Iraqi people. Where were we years ago when we were helping Saddam into power, even knowing the extent of his brutality?
Certaintly terrorist organizations are a threat to the United States. But Saddam was a secular leader, and had no established link to Al Quaeda (sp?) or other terrorist organizations. By lumping together Middle Eastern nations and terrorist factions, we have alienated potential allies in that area. Additionally, by taking action without UN consent, we have alienated ourselves from fellow democratic nations.
The American government cannot and should not take upon itself the role of a 'paternalist' nation; we have no right to go into Middle Eastern countries and establish an American democracy there.
"Today Iraq.... tomorrow the world! Mwahahahaha!"
That having been said, I'm not particularly for or against the war, although I suppose I lean toward the anti-war stance. Anyway, the war has for the most part ended, and all I can do is hope for the best.
Submitted by LordVicious (user info) at 2003-04-19 21:24:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
PS- i didnt even read the whole thing... why would spend all that time just to tell people what to think... when they arn't going to beleive you?
Submitted by LordVicious (user info) at 2003-04-19 21:23:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ok... all those people died in 9/11. And as darth said... that has nothing to do with Iraq.
But that isn't my point.
My point is: All those people died, so we start a war about it. When, because of all the money we spend on military, thousands of people die from starvation and disease that we could be spending that money to prevent. So why didnt we start a war with ourselfs yet. O... wait... we should start a war with a country that only had an effect on us years ago.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-04-19 21:21:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
if yo'ure going to be clever, at least be clever. so im gay? wellyou're also gay, if i'm catching your load. Good grief, to quote Charlie Brown
Submitted by TwEE (user info) at 2003-04-19 21:15:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good post, but Im confused How did Saddam come into power..? Which wise and all powerful Country helped get him that power...um....oh crap, I forget...Canada! .. no that's not it. It began with an A , I think...
Hey remember When good ol Saddamy gassed those kurds, this country, (who's name eludes me at the moment), gave him money,! I mean that seemed like the right thing to do right?.....
Oh yeah and that religious nut Osama? What a fucking loon he was. DP wouldn't you like to get your hands on the country that trained him and gave him money, you know liberate their ass shock and awe style. Hmmm but who could it be? What country would stoop so low as to side with the likes of Osama..What country would use such an obviously dangerous man to do their dirty work. Hmmm , somebody should look into this! Go DP Im sure Fox News mentioned it before, ....their such a fair and unbiased bunch. Oh, while your up, try finding info on this Israel thing I keep hearing about.
Submitted by oddzandendz (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:43:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
chipolatte.....you seem to be....how you say....catching my load
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:42:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
For you Darth: Iraq is one of the richest countries in the world despite it's sanctions. If Saddam wanted he could have fed his people. Don't blame starving children on America. If money was still coming into Iraq as it was before you'd still see people starving.
Nator: I completely agree that evidence must be brought against a country before it can be warred upon. But look at the evidence. Saddam pushed away inspectors for years upon years. He didn't submit to inspections until he was weeks away from war. He still didn't, even then, allow full interviews with his nuclear experts. And then we found illegal weapons in his country. Weapons he said he didn't have. But the UN didn't do anything about it except say "Get rid of them." And there have been thousands given to the famlies of suicide bombers by Saddam. Which is just another link to terrorism.
As far as attacking Iraq without UN support... We don't need it. I'm not saying that as an arrogant American, I literally mean we don't need it. Russia and France have both used military action against other countries without UN support. It's not necessary to get it. And in the long run, it's better that we didn't. Because now that we've discovered Russia was training Iraqi spys to infiltrate America, it's painfully obvious why they didn't cooperate. We know that France may have also had shady business dealings with Iraq, which is why they wouldn't want us in. Plus Russia and France were both owed billions by Saddam, which wouldn't get paid back if he was taken out. Which is yet another reason why they didn't want us to go in. So opposing war for economic gain... Doesn't that make you evil as well?
And as I've said, this war was not about oil. It may have been a factor in deciding to go after Iraq first instead of Syria or Iran, but Iraq was going down one way or the other.
There were no alternatives. Do you honestly think someone who spent billions in weapons development was going to destroy his arsenel just because America asked nicely? Do you honestly think that's true? We tried negotiations. We tried sanctions. It still didn't do anything to further his dis-arming. 12 years didn't provide any fruits, but one month of war sure as hell did.
My example up there of the cafe... That wasn't just about America. That was about all countries were terrorism takes place. I know that the people in the Middle East are real. Which is why this war, and more, are going to have to take place. The governments in power in the Middle East now largely support this sort of violence. And in the short term we may experience an increase in bombings and attacks, but in ten years let's take another look. I'll damn well bet you that the Middle East will have become a decent place to live, and no more will people be afraid to go out and actually live. Terrorism is bred by desperate and hate filled people. Countries in the Middle East don't show much compassion to their citizens, so what do you expect back? These people grew up in a world where violence was the norm. Putting peaceful democracies in place is the best way to end this terrorism. Because I can sure as hell tell you that little if anything was being done to stop it by the regimes in control.
And I never said I supported everything Bush is doing. I think that some of our rights are being crushed by him and his administration. I think that's horrible. I'm for the American people. And right now the best way to protect Americans, and people everywhere, is to try and end this global terrorism network. This war is about the long term. Not the short term.
As far as our economy is concerned... There are always recessions in a capatalist country. It's inevitable. The reason the one we're in now has put us so low though is because of the WTC attacks. It's not too hard to cripple someone's economy when you destroy one of their major business centers. Our economy will get back on its feet, though it may take some time.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:37:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hmmmm...oddznendz...you seem to be..how do you say... a retard.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:25:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We killed more with economic sanctions than Saddam did with chemical weapons, and he used them in retalliation against chemical weapons during a war.
Submitted by oddzandendz (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:23:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh my god im cumming.....somebody pull the trigger,,,,,oh fuck ya thats it baby, find the g spot
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:21:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Your world sounds pretty easy. Whenever a country sees fit, or dubs another country a 'terrorist funder', they may unscrupulously invade that country. I think that's a bad idea. I think there should be some universal laws, and the right to invade another country should be earned - say, by proving something, agreeing on things with other world leading partys, not taken.
I have no doubt Saddam did some pretty fucked up shit. Well, so did a million other countries. Including America. Even my own shitty little country does some fucked up things. The government of America - by invading Iraq with no U.N. support - lowered the threshold, nay, annihalated it. Speaking in terms of international law; Holland has as much right to 'invade' America as America had to invade Iraq. Because, and I keep stressing this: They didn't provide any evidence or proof.
You know how easy it is to say "They give money to Al Quaida. We kill.", and not provide any evidence, AND get away with it? Apparently, pretty easy.
Sure, I think it's a good thing Saddam is down. But, invading a country with all the political, economical and social consequences that has for said country, other countries, global relations, even PARTIALLY to enrich yourself... that's as corrupt as the Saddam regime.
Because, your government, like that of many other countries you want to invade, is very corrupt. Does this affect the question if you should be in favor, or against this war, though? I think it does. I think corrupt governments will stretch and break their set of ethics and morals, if they want. I think corrupt governments may do some pretty unhuman, demoralising things.
Actually, I think they have.
There _were_ alternatives to war. The fact that you can't think of any, doesn't mean shit, your not afucking world politician. The fact that America didn't even in the slightest pursue these things, rather wanted to go to war immediately, is a pretty good reason to believe the American government has other reasons then the ones provided by almighty Bush.
Oh, and by the way, how is destabilizing the entire Arabic world, and Islamic world gonna bring back terrorism?? If at all, your gonna have more crazed extremists doing crazy extremist things. Killing real people. Hurting real people. Because, and here comes the shocker; Guess what? All those Iraqi people are REAL PEOPLE as well. All those military folk are REAL PEOPLE. Fuck it, even Saddam was/is (?) a REAL PERSON (be it a despicable one). I even heard someone say Bush was a REAL PERSON, but I hesitate.
I wonder, who do you stand for. The American people, or the American Government. Because they are not the same anymore, they are changing... Look at our own country, look inside your own borders. The Constitution slowly being crushed, your personal rights slowly being infringed upon. Government corruptancy, financial and economical corruptancy, a media lobotimizing (that's a great word) it's people - controlled by the government.
If there should be a country devoted to ridding the world of 'terrorism' - whatever the fuck this word is starting to mean - it shouldn't be America. I know, they have most of the firepower, the biggest army and most developed weaponry available - and look where that got them. A national deby of Quazillions, an economy, slowly declining to an all-time low, a corrupt government,a xenophobic, vengeful people.
I apologize for offending any Americans. I know the generalisation I make do not apply to all Americans.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:19:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Your ignorance has made me a less intelligent man, no lie. I took an IQ test, used to be 156, now 148
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:15:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, my opinion is biased. That's because it's an opinion. I'm tired of hearing shit about how America is going into Iraq for oil and economic gain. It just baffles me that people still believe this war is about anything other than American protection. Like I said, this war isn't about the Iraqi people, and it never was. We would have saved them a long time ago if our government gave two shits about them. This is a war to protect America. And in the process, there are benefits. Such as taking out a tyrannical dictator. Also, there are brain dead anti-war protestors who call for the death and defeat of our military. There are those who compare Bush to Hitler. There are those who call America an imperialistic country. There are those who claim war isn't the way, but have no other alternative for us to follow. The ignorance of this country's mass is astounding me daily.
Submitted by oddzandendz (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:12:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
....masturbating rapidly with grenade pin dangling from lips, m16 barrel in my ass
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:11:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Sorry, the whole fucking post was so watered down with your biased opinions that I couldn't get that far.
Submitted by DP (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:04:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Darth, you jack ass, I went on to say that he had nothing to do with 9/11. Now pull your head out of your ass and read something before you make some sort of ignorant statement.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2003-04-19 19:03:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"This country has to protect itself. All of you anti-war protesters are completly ignorant to the facts. You sicken me. You disgust me. Go away."
Im not completly against war, but, you make me want to pick up a peace picket and march around washington.
Submitted by oddzandendz (user info) at 2003-04-19 18:59:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
NOW GO OUT AND GET YOUR KILL ON !!!!
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2003-04-19 18:53:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I read about two paragraphs of this. Saddam has nothing to do with 911, Mr. Shitforbrains. Than you managed to ramble on for four more paragraphs saying war prostesters suck. Pull your head out of your ass and get in touch with the international news.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-04-19 18:51:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I read the first line, and I was gone. It was so idiotic I knew i couldn't read the rest. Part of the reason we're the greatest country in the world is because we have freedom of speech, and thus the right to be anti-war. I'm pro-war myself, but I don't hate anti-war protestors, because everyone is entitled to their opinion.
dipshit.