At least we're not arrogant

[mburbank]

U.S. Plans Heavy Bombing Campaign in Iraq

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a strategy Pentagon officials are calling "shock and awe," U.S. forces plan to drop 10 times the bombs in the opening days of the air campaign in Iraq than they did in the first Persian Gulf war , officials said Wednesday.





Shocking, sure, but 'Awe'? Is 'Awe' really a good word to decribe the reaction to really effectively blowing up lots of things and people? Shouldn't 'Awe' be reserved for Sunsets and the Grand Canyon and Tornadoes and you know, God? Is man made destruction really Awesome?

[Anonymous]

awe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ô)
n.
A mixed emotion of reverence, respect, dread, and wonder inspired by authority, genius, great beauty, sublimity, or might: We felt awe when contemplating the works of Bach. The observers were in awe of the destructive power of the new weapon. ,
Archaic.
The power to inspire dread.
Dread.

tr.v. awed, aw·ing, awes
To inspire with awe.


Looks proper to me. Let's bomb the fuck out of them and get our asses over to N. Korea.

[mburbank]

Was that Websters, the O.E.D. or the Official Pentagon Dictionary?

[sspadowsky]

The Head Nigga may be right in the strictest sense, but I'm still inclined to agree with Burbank. I think we mostly use the word "awe" in a positive context.

For instance, compare these two conversations:

Steve: "I just got a $10,000 raise."
Jim: "Oh, man, that's AWEsome!"

Steve: "We're going to massacre about 100,000 innocent people!"
Jim: "AWEsome!"

They don't have quite the same ring. Like I said, I see what HNIC is saying, but that's one of those "letter of the law/spirit of the law" things.
________
Vaporizerinfo.com (http://johan-luis.tumblr.com/)

[Anonymous]

Awe can and should be used to describe anything that would appear extraordinary.

In much the same way that a volcano destroying an entire city would be an awesome site, I'm sure the display of might the United States military displays is a fairly "awesome" sight.

Destruction, nature, life, death... anything can be an awe inspiring site.

[mburbank]

Arguably, but this is self describe awesomeness

As in

STEVE
Hey, Jim, when I kill your family and set fire to your house, you'll just stand there in Awe.

JIM
Wow, Steve. I always knew you were a fucking sack of crap.


STEVE
NO, Man, you're in AWE of the stuff I'm doing to you.

JIM
I guess how much I hate you is awesome.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

JIM
Wow, Steve. I always knew you were a fucking sack of crap.

:lol

[Anonymous]

Although we clearly disagree on the politics of the war, I don't understand how you can argue with the fact that the site of the United States military could be considered awesome.

"Te power of the Germans during the years prior to WWII was truly awesome. Their might far exceeded that of any other force in Europe."

Although Hitler was a lunatic, and one of the most evil dictators to ever rise in modern history, he put together an "awesome" force.

We clearly needed to go show them who was boss too :lol

In the end, the world will come to understand... we say who does what... period. Thank God we have the frredom to be as spoiled and as arrogant as we are .

[mburbank]

"we say who does what" is our national policy. As a stragtegy it's worked out really well for all the other powers who've tried it.

And you're right, I'll back off, the use of the word 'Awe' for man made destruction is legitame.

I think my objection is WE are using them word to describe OURSELVES destroying things.

It's not enough to do it. We have to brag about how big it's going to be. We can't say, "we will defeat you", we have to say "You will hold us in Awe". I think it's a poor choice of words. I think if our actions inspire awe at all it will be short lived.

A better name for this startegy would be "Shock and Murderous Rage". It describes what we're doing and what the reaction will almost certainly be.

[Anonymous]

A large part of our strategy, since Vietnam, has been to puff out our chests and spread the word of our stregnth, much like the largest animal in a pack, or the head nigga of a gang.

Our "talking shit" is what causes Iraqis to carry white flags in their pants, and feed us info when captured. Our "talking shit" helps tremendously when reestablishing government after a regime change.

And, on a somewhat related subject...

When it comes down to it, we are the most civilized military on the planet (barring our tactics in the Revolution - but the British were asking for it). What military drops an equal amount of food, supplies and medicine, as it does artillery, besides the United States? Who else cares about establishing a new regime in the interest of the people of that country? What other country would HOLD the oil for when the new regime is in place. Screw that, EVERYONE else would take it.

[slavemason]

Living in the south, I often hear "Awe, Shit!". It seems applicable in this situation as well.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

When it comes down to it, we are the most civilized military on the planet (barring our tactics in the Revolution - but the British were asking for it).

It isn't the good, inate nature of our military that makes them that way. The military, thank God, abides by certain mores and regulations because it is demanded by the people of America.

But see, this is why we'll gladly allow an "enemy combatant" to be held for questioning in Pakistan, or caged up in Cuba. THESE actions reflect the true wishes of our military leaders, not their forced civility.


What military drops an equal amount of food, supplies and medicine, as it does artillery, besides the United States? Who else cares about establishing a new regime in the interest of the people of that country?

Yeah, the Afghanis are lining up to thank us. :/


What other country would HOLD the oil for when the new regime is in place. Screw that, EVERYONE else would take it.

What is this in reference to? Do you think the U.S. won't turn Iraqi oil into its own little project, ESPECIALLY if we attack with no UN support...? :lol

[Protoclown]

Living in the south, I often hear "Awe, Shit!". It seems applicable in this situation as well.

No, what you're hearing is "Aww, shit!" unless the person who said it is surfing from the bathroom on a fecal tide.

[Anonymous]

Hey... Herbivore Bitch...

Yeah, the Afghanis are lining up to thank us.

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030225-2105526.htm

A national communications network? Better than eating rocks and beating women to death? hmmmmmm??? mayyyyybe

http://www.irna.com/en/head/030305165740.ehe.shtml

Afghan Transit trade..... better than riding the camel to the local tent for some opium and grain???? hmmmmmm? Mayyyyybe

http://www.paknews.com/flash.php?id=23&date1=2003-03-05


Billions and billions to build a country...... or praying Rambo films its next sequel there for $85,000 (USD) fee?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/603127

Returning home to your home country after fleeing for fear of persecution..... nahhh.... who cares? shitting in a hole in the ground was much better

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=32640&SelectRegion=Central_Asia&SelectCountry=AFGHANISTAN

[Anonymous]

What is this in reference to? Do you think the U.S. won't turn Iraqi oil into its own little project, ESPECIALLY if we attack with no UN support...?

__________________________________

Reuters 01/23/03

Original Link: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2090281

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that a U.S. military occupation would hold Iraq's oilfields "in trust" for the Iraqi people.

In an interview with U.S. newspapers on Tuesday, released by the State Department on Wednesday, Powell said the Bush administration was studying different models for managing the Iraqi oil industry if the United States invades.

"If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people," he said.

"How will we operate it? How best to do that? We are studying different models. But the one thing I can assure you of is that it will be held in trust for the Iraqi people, to benefit the Iraqi people. That is a legal obligation that the occupying power will have," he added.

Powell said the U.S. military would not want to run Iraq for long after a possible invasion but he declined to speculate how long U.S. troops would stay in the country.

"There is no desire for the United States armed forces to remain in charge or to run a country for any length of time beyond that which is necessary to make sure that there is an appropriate form of government to take over from the initial military occupation," he said.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Hey Pantitude bitch....

I'm glad your citation source is Colin Powell, of COURSE he'd saying anything to the contrary. :rolleyes Not to mention it's a dated article.....

You think it's solely (if even at all) the U.S. spearheading those reforms?????

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=1170

What about child molestation in Kandahar?
What about the increase in heroin?
What about Karzai BEGGING us to stay???

Keep your retarded ass in the General Blabber board.

[Anonymous]

Get your fucking retarded ass back in General Blabber moron. We provide the foundation. Now they are like every other country on this fucking planet and want MORE.

It is not the United States' responsibility to hold their hand while they get a grip on their own society. What we did do is oust the Taliban control, which was the force holding them down. Nor was it our responsibility to be over there in the first place. It is however our responsibility to provide national security and a safe home for generations ahead.

The regime formerly in control of Afghanistan harbored terrorists, period. Granted, terrorists exist in every country, but not every countries controlling pseudeo-government funds them.

By planting the seeds of democracy in Afghanastan and iraq, which were both under extremely unstable dictatorships, we place pressure on other key countries in the Middle East, which is, in the end, the primary reason for our involvement.

The problem countries in the region are not, nor have they ever been Iraq, or Afghanistan, outside of the money and resources they provide in a pathetic "holy" war. The countries, again... are not even theocracies (so people that claim this is an anti-muslim war... think again).

The theocracies in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, and more importantly, Iran. These countries will collapse in upon themselves, as we, in your thoughts, so unjustly force a changed regime in Iraq.

The entire region is not stable enough to withstand our presence there, and is therefore, very pliable at this point.


Read this... your spoiled American ass might learn something...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 3, 2003
By Nick Robertson

PORTLAND, Oregon, 3 March 2003 — Suppose Islam lost a great war. What would the consequences be? Some believe it will cause terrorism to erupt, disrupt the globe’s largest reserves of oil — the life-blood of the modern age — and plunge the Arab world into an age of fanaticism and darkness. But as we verge on a controversial war with Iraq, there is a fascinating — and surprising — lesson to be learned from another great battle in history.

On May 28, 1453, two of the greatest armies in the world ended an epic 52-day battle on the border of Europe and Asia. On one side the 100,000-man army of Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire and the forces of Islam were attempting to capture one of the world’s greatest cities — Constantinople (now Istanbul). On the other side, behind the supposedly impenetrable walls of the city, were the defensive forces of the west — the 10,000 man force led by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI.

Dragases. The battle for Constantinople is considered one of the greatest and most important confrontations in history.

Constantinople was one of the most vital possessions of the Christian world. The city was the capital of the East Roman — or Byzantine — Empire ever since the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great selected it as his new capital in 324 AD. Constantinople was the gateway between Europe and Asia, Christianity and Islam.

The city rested by the Bosporus, a watery straight which was the most important artery of international trade. Trade ships from Venice, Genoa, England, France, and much of Europe traveled past Constantinople to the eastern Black Sea ports which connected the European continent to the major trade centers of India and China. The wealth that traveled on this route built the economic power of the Western world — a 15th century version of today’s globalization of trade.

As the battle for Constantinople began, the Ottomans unleashed man’s newest weapon, artillery, to breach the city’s massive walls. Shortly after the shocking breakthrough, the Ottomans accomplished what had been deemed impossible for over a millennium — the fall of Constantinople. There was horror and disbelief as the forces of Islam routed the Western army. Panic swept across Europe. The vital trade routes to the East were now under enemy control, and an alien army with strange beliefs threatened to march through Europe.

Was this the end of the Western world? Quite the opposite. What seemed at the moment a knockout punch to Europe ended up causing great change. It literally forced the discovery of a new world.

Constantinople had been Europe’s center for intellectual studies for centuries. Its leaders promoted and encouraged classical studies and art. Many who lived inside the city’s walls devoted their lives to studying and preserving history’s classical past. When the Ottomans conquered the city, many of these intellectuals fled to Italy. This flight from war was directly responsible for the acceleration of one of the most important periods in Europe’s history, the Renaissance.

Classic ideas, locked inside the walls of Constantinople for centuries, broke free and spread out across Europe. Isolated city-states began to gradually dissolve. For the first time in history, nation states — like Spain and Portugal — emerged. The Renaissance brought Europe into an age of light after an age of darkness.

It also changed the shape of the world.

Since Constantinople’s fall blocked overland trade routes to the spice markets of South and East Asia, the emerging nation states needed new routes to the riches of the East. The Great Age of Exploration began. Brave men such as Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, and Magellan circumnavigated the globe to find new routes across vast, unknown oceans. In the process they discovered the world — and many of its secrets, treasures and mysteries.

Now we face another important battle. Hopefully it can be avoided. But in the long run the result of a victory for the US and its allies may not cause havoc and a new dark age in the Arab world as many fear. As with the battle for Constantinople, it may in fact cause the opposite.

If liberated from their intellectual and physical imprisonment, the Iraqi people may well take full advantage of their new-found freedom. Iraq has the potential to become the center of a Renaissance for the Middle East. With a new regime focused on human rights and freedom, and with the financial security of 100 billion barrels of oil beneath their desert, a new Iraq can lead the Islamic world into an age of cultural and intellectual renewal. From repression can emerge an age of ingenuity and invention worthy of a country that was once the cradle of civilization.

Repression creates anger. Anger with little hope of change creates radicalism. Radicalism can destroy civilizations. The liberation of Iraq could break this dangerous cycle. Like the movement of Constantinople’s intellectuals coming into Italy in 1453, a liberated Iraq’s influence on the people throughout the region could be tremendous.

As with Europe in the 15th century Renaissance, Iraq’s people could begin to focus on the freedom, dignity and worth of the individual, man or woman. These ideals would spread through the Arab world.

The fall of Constantinople triggered some of the greatest changes in human history. Though both sides suffered great human loses, defeat at the hands of the Ottomans ushered in Europe’s great age of reason and the exploration of the world. The same might well occur in the Middle East as a post-Saddam Iraq leads the exploration of a brave new world of human freedom.

[Vibecrewangel]

If liberated from their intellectual and physical imprisonment, the Iraqi people may well take full advantage of their new-found freedom. Iraq has the potential to become the center of a Renaissance for the Middle East. With a new regime focused on human rights and freedom, and with the financial security of 100 billion barrels of oil beneath their desert, a new Iraq can lead the Islamic world into an age of cultural and intellectual renewal. From repression can emerge an age of ingenuity and invention worthy of a country that was once the cradle of civilization.

I like this section. I like to believe this may be true.
I am hopefull.

[FS]

By planting the seeds of democracy in Afghanastan and iraq

You mean "dropping the bombs of democracy", right?

[Anonymous]

As opposed to little one-liners FatSatan... tell me, what would YOU propose we do to remove dictators who finance terrorism against our country, (and I know your Scottish, or French, or some shit), but, in this instance, I refer to the United States.

We could wait until someone can implement the delivery of a dirty bomb, or bio/chem.

So, you are telling me, in your opinion, that; 1) Saddam is not, nor has he ever supported financially, or provided other resources to Al Qaueda, or any other terrorist group?, 2) He does not practice mass genocide within his own country to his own people, 3) He has lived up to the very simple, and minimal ruleset provided him by a very cooperative United Nations (whom I think is a bullshit organization) - but nevertheless - he broke evry aspect of 1441.

So, in my estimation, your argument states that the big, bad United States is attacking preemptively and without cause???

Or, am I missing your lackluster sarcastic point?

[mburbank]

Pantydude.... whoah. Is your niche here going to be a slightly more articulate Naldo?

A few quick points;
"Our "talking shit" helps tremendously when reestablishing government after a regime change. "
-Have we done this since the Marshal Plan?

Here's the lead on the story you linked to under your comment
"Billions and billions to build a country......"

"KABUL (Reuters) - The Afghan government said on Wednesday it would launch a new bid this month to raise more international financial assistance, saying it had received far less than several other countries recovering from conflict."

Hey! Pantydude? Can I have a billion Dollars? Look now I'm a Billionaire. Oh, crap, I forgot that 'launching a bid' and 'getting money' were different. Check the article I posted in Whoops! Afghansitan may indeed get money from us, but W. forgot to budget ANYTHING AT ALL for his 'Marshall Plan'.

"It is not the United States' responsibility to hold their hand while they get a grip on their own society."

Actually, it would be not only enlightened but in our own interest to 'Hold their hand' as you put it or as I think of it 'Do what we can to keep their country from slipping into the sort of anarchy that made it ripe for takeover by the Taliban in the first place'. It would also be the decent, American thing to do, seeing as while overthrowing the Taliban we killed a whole bunch of civillians, interupted a very nice wedding and destroyed what little was left of their infrastructure.

"By planting the seeds of democracy in Afghanastan"

I assume you are refering to our round the clock bodygaurds for Karzi. 'Cause aside from keeping him alive, I'm kind of missing the 'seeds'. Although I'm not sure we should plant any Democracy their. Democracy is majority rules kind of deal, and a whole lot of those folks hate us. Oh, wait! I be5t you mean a deomcracy like Turkey, where 90% of the people don't want us there, but the leadership will probably invite us anyway becuase we're payimng them a lot of money and we might give them Northern Iraq.

As for Powells process that the oil in Iraq will belong to and be run by the Iraqi people, I'll believe it IF I see it. Since we haven't even invaded yet, this seems a little premature. Here's the thing though, just in case it goes down? Haliburton? Not an Iraqi company. You never know though. I'd be happier than you can imagine to eat those words.

Here's the lead from your link on Afghans lining up to thank us.
" An Afghan dentist and professional cyclist who rode across the Mideast and Europe in the past 10 months arrived in Washington yesterday to meet with his nation's ambassador to the United States."

Dude. This isn't even four out of five Afghan Dentists. I'm guessing he wasn't a guest at that wedding we blew up.

Your link under them getting a national communications network is about what INDIA says they'll do for them. INDIA! Plus the article is bout talks, not actions or even commitments. AND its the largess and self interest of INDIA, not us. Maybe the ouster of the Taliban made this possible, or maybe the Taliban would have made a similar deal with Pakistan. Your argument, such as it is, works better for the Opium trade, which has doubled since the Taliban fell.

Speaking of Pakistan, that's what your article linked under Trade is all about. Not us, PAKISTAN. Pakistan active trade with Afghanistan under the Taliban. The only way for it to grow will be if Karzi gets some money from Congress, becuase Bush forgot to give him any.

Your basic argument that our war machine is way nicer than other war machines... I find that like saying "You're grateful I didn't kill you, though, right?" as I bandage you up and spoon feed you soup after breaking your nose. We're SUPPOSED to be the good guys, that's what America is all about and patting ourselves on the back for being less brutal than other people falls way short.

[FS]

Well, I've heard of a picture saying thousand words, but a single remark?

Pants, hold your horses. Though I'm not exactly waving my miniature American flag at the current state of affairs in your country, I'm not burning it either. I don't hate Americans as a whole, but I'm pretty sure I hate Bush and most of his administration.

All I'm saying is, maybe you need to let go of the fantastic myth that American soldiers spread joy and happiness wherever they go, which lights up their surroundings with a glow of warmth that lasts for centuries to come. "Collateral damage" is just a hip phrase for "sorry we bombed your hospital".

A while ago, I nearly got into a heated debate with Helm because he was reading into my remarks about Afghanistan wrongly. GRANTED, the removal of the Taliban has already done a lot of good over there, but half the battle is yet to come. Everyone's far too eager to forget about the Afghanis who are now walking through a country that was already outdated, and now crushed and mined on top of it. You can pat yourself on the back for the few pennies that people now fob at them, but I believe that taking the liberty of bombing them automatically demands you fix them up again. And no shit about the bombings on Afghanistan being nothing more than "sending a message" to the Taliban for harboring terrorists. We're supposed to be the civilized ones.

Lastly, I need to add that I'm not just bashing the US here. The UN and other such international organizations are still doing far too less on their own accord for my taste.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Get your fucking retarded ass back in General Blabber moron. We provide the foundation. Now they are like every other country on this fucking planet and want MORE.

Even if this were true, which it isn't, it still doesn't support your ASSumption that "WE" are the sole facilitators of democracy around the world. The fact of the matter is that Great Britain has played a MUCH more key, hands on role in the restoration of Afghanistan.


It is not the United States' responsibility to hold their hand while they get a grip on their own society. What we did do is oust the Taliban control, which was the force holding them down. Nor was it our responsibility to be over there in the first place. It is however our responsibility to provide national security and a safe home for generations ahead.

Fine, but this isn't the same thing as being the puritan crusaders that you have made us out to be. I'm glad you pulled your head out of you ass long enough to admit that EVEN the saintly U.S. acts out of its own self-interest on an international scale.

The regime formerly in control of Afghanistan harbored terrorists, period. Granted, terrorists exist in every country, but not every countries controlling pseudeo-government funds them.

What about Qatar and Saudi Arabia? Don't even start this, it's off topic, and you're a moron.

By planting the seeds of democracy in Afghanastan and iraq, which were both under extremely unstable dictatorships, we place pressure on other key countries in the Middle East, which is, in the end, the primary reason for our involvement.

1. What did we do to instill "democracy" in Afghanistan?
2. How democratic and free will the Kurds be if we bow to Turkey?
3. If you think are main reason for invading Iraq right now is to instill democracy, than please, find me a trained chimp to hold a conversation with. It'll go better.

The problem countries in the region are not, nor have they ever been Iraq, or Afghanistan, outside of the money and resources they provide in a pathetic "holy" war. The countries, again... are not even theocracies (so people that claim this is an anti-muslim war... think again).

Barely coherent, not the point, la-ditty-frickin-da. The argument was whether or not the U.S. Military is an army of white knights, why, and is any other military/government similar? England and Canada have already answered "yes" to that question. Your comic book perspective of the world is incorrect.

The theocracies in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, and more importantly, Iran. These countries will collapse in upon themselves, as we, in your thoughts, so unjustly force a changed regime in Iraq.

Again, maybe I agree or disagree with this statement, not the point, lay off the drugs.

Even NOW, after the Gulf War, and DESPITE Hussein being a son of a bitch, Iraq HAS been, and CONTINUES to be rated as one of the most progressive Arab states.

Before 1991, women attended college, they had more rights than in many other overly-Islamic states, Iraq had a water/sewage system that made even Europe envious. If our main goal in the Middle East was to bring freedom and civility, we maybe should've focused on some of our "allies," such Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and even Kuwait.

Read this... your spoiled American ass might learn something...

Wah, wah, wah, Pantitudde thought the world was the never ending fight against Cobra and got upset when his dreams were crushed. :wah

I am proud of America. I'm glad to live in America. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and be a mindless droid such as yourself.

THE ARTICLE:

Great piece on why America should be Rome....

Was this the end of the Western world? Quite the opposite. What seemed at the moment a knockout punch to Europe ended up causing great change. It literally forced the discovery of a new world.

If liberated from their intellectual and physical imprisonment, the Iraqi people may well take full advantage of their new-found freedom. Iraq has the potential to become the center of a Renaissance for the Middle East.

Do you know anything about Baghdad? Have you ever talked to anybody who has been there? Ever spoken to an Iraqi?? Do you REALLY think that Baghdad is culturally polarized from the rest of the world?? You're a dolt.

Baghdad has a blossoming art society, films, people in Iraq read the NY Times and watch CNN. Your article only proves that you are a xenophobic fool who would rather take a guy from Portland's opinion on Iraq over an actual Iraqi, or at least someone who has spent time there.

new regime focused on human rights and freedom, and with the financial security of 100 billion barrels of oil beneath their desert, a new Iraq can lead the Islamic world into an age of cultural and intellectual renewal. From repression can emerge an age of ingenuity and invention worthy of a country that was once the cradle of civilization.

Funny, as I already mentioned, Iraq was closer to this in 1990 than they are now, or will be after this war....

Why have we opened up markets with an oppressive nation like China? Has it been for reasons similar to this? Do you think SANCTIONS for a decade help create an "Islamic renaissance"??? I'm interested in your thoughts on these matters, Panty waiste.

ion creates anger. Anger with little hope of change creates radicalism. Radicalism can destroy civilizations. The liberation of Iraq could break this dangerous cycle. Like the movement of Constantinople’s intellectuals coming into Italy in 1453, a liberated Iraq’s influence on the people throughout the region could be tremendous.

Somewhere, Thomas Friedman is crying. :tear

I wonder what Khabul's art houses are like these days.....

The rest was sanctimonious bullshit. Thanks for wasting my time, jackass.

[GAsux]

I agree actually that the U.S. does make considerable efforts to avoid unnecessary damage, in spite what it may seem to some of you. Given the nature and sophisticaion of our weapons systems, they could easily wreak heaps more havoc than they do.

So on that point, I do agree with Max that to some degree that's not much to be proud of. But it depends on your point of view. From a non-military standpoint, it's true that perhaps there isn't much honor in saying our bombs are "nicer" than most peoples bombs. But from a soldiers standpoint, there is some honor in the fact that FOR THE MOST PART, every attempt is made to keep from abusing the lethality of those weapons.

It's probably a seperate issue entirely but I suppose we could have a discussion as to WHY military tactics employed by the U.S. these days is what it is. In my opinion, since Vietnam, military tactics are dictated far less by strategy than by politics.

The Allied Force air campaign was a perfect example. Since Vietnam, we've been deathly afraid of military casualties. Politicians and military leaders alike learned that the American public would not long stand for protracted campaigns that cost lots of American lives. Every war we've fought since has been planned around a minimal risk strategy.

In Bosnia, we were flying at 30,000 feet to avoid the extensive air defense network to protect our fliers. However, flying at such heights made accurate and effective bombing of individual targets like tanks, tracked vehicles, etc virtually impossible. Particularly when they were well placed by Milosovic.

In my opinion, the "shock and awe" strategy is another direct reflection of the attitude. The administration knows that public opinion will not support war for long. Therefore, war must be fought quickly, decisively, and in such a way that ensures minimal risk for U.S. forces.

In their mind, the public would much rather see 500 cruise missiles an hour fired at a long, far away country, than see their friends, neighbors, and co-workers come home in body bags.

Unfortunately war is ugly business and sometimes you just can't have it all. You can't effectively fight a risky battle, and do it right (ie. not indiscriminate bombing)without placing your own forces at risk.

But I dunno, that's just me.

EDIT: Stupid spelling. Grammar sucks.

[AChimp]

I think by "awesome" they mean that it'll be a wicked explosion to watch from outer space. :)

[mburbank]

Listen, if our foreign policy is awesome enough for a bycycling Afghani Dentist and creates economic opportunity for India, I'm all for it.

[Anonymous]

Baghdad was at one time a progressive region of the Middle East. Currently there is no sign of progression anywhere. It is run by a power hungry lunatic whoi is in his last moments of control and is desparate.

"Iraq under Saddam’s regime has become a land of hopelessness, sadness, and fear. A country where people are ethnically cleansed; prisoners are tortured in more than 300 prisons in Iraq. Rape is systematic . . . congenital malformation, birth defects, infertility, cancer, and various disorders are the results of Saddam’s gassing of his own people. . . the killing and torturing of husbands in front of their wives and children . . . Iraq under Saddam has become a hell and a museum of crimes."

Iraqi Safia Al Souhail, Advocacy Director of the International Alliance for Justice

As for carrying on a consitent argument, Herbivore, I was addressing many previous points in the thread.

On other related subjects:

Do I believe our military is perfect and is only out to save the people?

Absolutely not. However, I do believe that, overall, as a country, the United States makes a very conscientious effort to remain as civil as one can in times of war. The reality of the situation is that no war is going to be a smooth operation performed with the surgical precision that opponents seem to believe is attainable in their eutopian visions.

Do I believe we are going into Iraq, with the primary goal of liberating the country and establishing a democracy?

Yes and no. Yes, I believe we do indeed wish to establish a democratic (even remotely democratic) government. Do I believe it is to help the Iraqi people? Somewhat, perhaps. I do not believe we wish them further suffering. However, that is absolutely not our goal. Our goal, as I have earlier stated, and will now reiterate is IMO to create a widespread pressure throughout the region which will motivate and encourage the people throughout the Middle East to rise up and force progression. Theocracy is NOT an answer, and these countries will never be able to function in the world to come, let alone the current world economy. It is critical that this region is stabilized and move forth with the rest of the world. Basic human rights, enhanced education, and international trade outside of oil will clearly set them on a path to a better life, which in turn, will provide stability throughout the region and give the U.S and other countries room to breathe and not worry about isolated terrorist cells and religious movements being funded by oil-rich governments.

Do I believe the UN is acting in anyone's best interest?

Absolutely not. The United Nations has always been filled with alterior motives and money driven decisions. Current unrelated situations drive opposition to anything the United States wants.

Here are some fun facts:

France

According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.

French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.

In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner.
Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.

France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.

Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq’s Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s reserves.

France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.

From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.

Germany

Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.

It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.

During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.

In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.

German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.

Russia

According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.

Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.

According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.

Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.
Russia’s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.

In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.

In April 2001, Russia’s Zaruezhneft company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.
A future $40 billion Iraqi–Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.

The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.

Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.

China

According to the CIA World Factbook, China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.

China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.

In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import–Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell “meteorological satellite” and “surface observation” equipment to Iraq. This contract was approved by the U.N. oil-for-food program.

CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.

According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.

Just some fun reading..... more to come throughout the day

[mburbank]

Hey, do me a quick favor, will you? Check the CIA factbook for Turkey Pakistan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

[sspadowsky]

Let's check the CIA fact book for all our Middle East information needs. Because, Lord knows, the CIA is the place to go for concrete truth. No disinformation there, ever, nosiree.

Now, Pantydude, lest you get your undies in a twist, I happily concede that France and Russia and Germany have vested interests in the current regime. That's been public knowledge for a while. I'm not silly enough to think that these countries are protesting war out of concern for the Iraqi people any more than I think we're really going in there to 'liberate' them. They're just on the opposite side of the bullshit spectrum. We want what Iraq has. These other countries are making money off Iraq, and we're going to fuck up their profits.

My point is, the only people that are truly concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, are the Iraqi people.
________
DIGITAL VAPORIZERS (http://digitalvaporizers.info)

[Anonymous]

Correction:

We do not want, not do we need anything Iraq has. Rather, it is in our best interest to ensure that what Iraq has is not used for malice toward the United States.

[Anonymous]

Just to let you know kids.... a VERY small percentage of thos facts was from the CIA World Factbook - so why don't you get started on discrediting ALL of these sources -

[1]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[2]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle”, The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[3]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle,” The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[4]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[5]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[6]Evelyn Iritani, “Hussein’s Government Signs Lucrative Contracts, Especially with Nations that Oppose the U.S. Led Effort to Oust the Regime,” The Los Angeles Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, November 11, 2002.

[7]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPORTS_1982-2001.pdf.

[8]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[9]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[10]“Africa Analysis—Trade Points Way to Peace”, The Financial Verdana,Arial,Helvetica: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, November 19, 2002.

[11]Faye Bowers, “Driving Forces in War-Wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China Are Colored by Economic and National Interests,” Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.

[12]“Helping Saddam Rearm,” The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2002.

[13]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[14]Testimony provided by Ariel Cohen to the House International Relations Committee, “Russia and the Axis of Evil: Money, Ambition and U.S. Interests,” February 26, 2003.

[15]Nelli Sharushkina, “Russia Plays the Field in Iraq—Mixed Signals Worry Baghdad,” Energy Intelligence Briefing, February 5, 2003.

[16]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[17]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[18]Scott Peterson, “Russia’s Newest Tie to Iraq: Moscow Is Set to Sign a $40 billion Economic Pact with Baghdad Next Month,” Christian Science Monitor, August 20, 2002.

[19]“Mideast Tensions to Delay Iraq Iraqi–Russian Signing,” Energy Compass, April 19, 2002.

[20]Dmitry Zhdannikov, “Russian’s Grim About Working Under Saddam,” The Houston Chronicle, April 14, 2002.

[21]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPORTS_1982-2001.pdf.

[22]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[23]Trish Saywell, “Oil: The Danger of Deals with Iraq,” Far Eastern Economic Review, March 6, 2003.

[24]Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam,” Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[25]Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam,” Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[26]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPORTS_1982-2001.pdf.

[sspadowsky]

Correction:

We do not want, not do we need anything Iraq has. Rather, it is in our best interest to ensure that what Iraq has is not used for malice toward the United States.

I can sum up a reply to that in two words: "BULL" and "SHIT." This can't be emphasized enough. I don't think the fact that we're the biggest oil consumers in the world by far, we have an oil man in the White House, and the fact that Iraq has the world's second largest oil deposits, are all just a big happy coincidence. Iraq is not a fuckin' threat to us AT ALL, and hasn't been, definitely since 1991, and probably ever. Those missiles they're destroying? Maximum range, 120 miles. They can barely get outside of their own country. This whole thing is a lie, a fuckin' scam, and guys like you are swallowing the whole thing.
________
Weed Vaporizer (http://weedvaporizers.org/)

[Anonymous]

What a display of blind ignorance. That is the most pathetic party-line hard stance i have seen on this board yet.

1.) We are already working with multiple other sources for oil. We have a large supply ourselves, and currently pull a very heavy load from Venezuela and Nigeria. There is always more oil. If Bush is such a heavy "Oil Man" - then explain this to me. How, in your infinite wisdom, do you suppose saturating the market with such a large amount of oil will benefit the top secret oil connections Bush has? Do you understand the theory of supply and demand. The supply is more than being met currently. The demand is not growing at any abnormal pace. So how can oversaturation of the oil market benefit American companies?

2.) Saddam is not, nor has he ever been a threat??? Where are your facts. Show me even a shred of evidence or a theory by a valid source that this statement is true. He is clearly connected to terrorism against this country. Read jayna Davis for starters then I will move onto more specific sources which VERY CLEARLY verify this. Perhaps your source is Dan Rather and his puppet "translator" or do you prefer Chrissy Hynde... or maybe Sean Penn? What is the foundation for your argument?

[sspadowsky]

I'm going to say this one more time, since you just started coming to this particular forum: I HAVE NO FUCKING PARTY AFFILIATION. NONE. But I think the Bush administration is lying to us.

Saddam is not, nor has he ever been a threat??? Where are your facts. Show me even a shred of evidence or a theory by a valid source that this statement is true. He is clearly connected to terrorism against this country. Read jayna Davis for starters then I will move onto more specific sources which VERY CLEARLY verify this. Perhaps your source is Dan Rather and his puppet "translator" or do you prefer Chrissy Hynde... or maybe Sean Penn? What is the foundation for your argument?

Where are the facts that he is a threat? Inconclusive satellite photos? What about CIA director George Tenet's repeated statements that there is NO EVIDENCE of ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?

Here's a little breakdown of how I've seen it play out........

BUSH: We need to attack Iraq.
REST OF WORLD WITH COMMON SENSE: Why?

BUSH: He has weapons of mass destruction.
R.O.W.: We should have some inspectors go in and find the weapons first.

BUSH: Listen, we really need to attack these guys.
R.O.W.: Look, they're searching for the weapons. What's the problem?
BUSH: Well, he used those weapons against his own people.
R.O.W.: Yeah, well, that was a long time ago, and you turned a blind eye to it. Let them find the weapons.

BUSH: Hey, we can attck them now! They have ties to Al-Qaeda!
ROW: When did this happen? Where's the evidence?
BUSH: Well, we don't have any. But we have good reason to think so.
ROW: OK, get back to us with some evidence.

BUSH: OK, we found something! Can we attack now?
R.O.W.: What now?
BUSH: Well, some missiles that can go 120 miles.
R.O.W.: Oh, so he might be able to bomb Kuwait or something. Big fuckin' deal.
BUSH: But they violate the UN resolution!
R.O.W.: Your gov't violated shitloads of them, and no one ever bombed you.
BUSH: But he gassed his own people!
R.O.W.: You already said that.
BUSH: Oh yeah. Well, he has ties to Al-Qaeda.
R.O.W.: You already said that too. Evidence?
BUSH: Well, we still don't have any.

This is how it has been for the last eight fucking months or so. They can't garner support for this war because it's a bullshit effort, and anyone who's paid even casual attention can see that. They are lying to us.

I'll check the sources you've cited here. Until I see something that concretely demonstrates we have a reason to be over there, while in the meantime N Korea is saying, "We have nukes, motherfuckers! And we'll use 'em!" and intercepting commercial airliners, and basically saying "Come and get it, you cracker bitches!" then I say you've swallowed another load of Grade-A Government Brand Bullshit (TM).

EDIT: By the way, what the fuck is wrong with Chrissie Hynde or Sean Penn having opinions? Does their status as celebrities automatically invalidate their beliefs? I'll bet they probably have internet access too, you know. They're probably just as capable of looking up nifty links as you are. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you're more intelligent or more informed than these people just because they're famous and you're not? What a load of shit.

While I don't know much about Penn's politics, and would tend to reflexively disagree with Chrissie Hynde because she's an ardent supporter of PETA, but I applaud them both for voicing opposition to an administration that is currently up to a lot of harmful shit, both domestically and internationally.
________
ZX14 VS HAYABUSA (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_bike_is_quicker_kawasaki_zx_-14_or_suzuki_hayabusa)

[Protoclown]

To steal from Burbank here...

ROW: Wow, I always knew that Bush was a fucking sack of crap.

[mburbank]

I don't know Panty. Last time I checked your sources I found a byscycling Afghani dentists and India. Would it be more worth my while this time?

"There is always more oil."
Actually, it's a finite resource. Aside from the fact that we use more than anyone, everyone ele on the planet needs it too. Controlling a big chunk of it is a very powerful thing. I'm pleased you beleiev the "Iraqi People" will get to decidee who gts it and where the profits end up. I'm kinda thinking we're going to decide which Iraqi People make those decisions. Do you think that once we get through throwing down over there if the Iraqi oil industry (like there will be one) said "We have decided to give all our business to the French." We'd let that fly? The cool thing about this question is, time will almost certainly tell.

[Anonymous]

1. You can not argue the fact that intelligence exists, which, in the interest of national security, we are not, nor should we be privy to.

2. We have plenty of support. 18 countries in Europe, Australia, and a majority of Asia could be considered support.

3. The U.N. is one organization we should not be listening to. The U.N. is so polluted with political maneuverings, it is impossible to get a clear, decisive call from them on any issue.

4. I never said you had a party affiliation. I claimed you took a party line hard stance. Whether or not that be for a specific party or because you are against one is irrelevant. I am merely stating that your argument that this is all about oil is cliche.

5. Your view of what has gone down in the past few months, IMO, is primarily from mainstream sources. Dig deeper, and you may or may not see it differently. What the United states presents publicly to the U.N. is utterly incomplete. You stated you would check the sources. I would recommend reading http://www.jaynadavis.com to everyone who at least wants to read both sides of the connections argument. She is a reporter and she has put together one hell of a case over the last decade.


As for North Korea, they are clearly a problem. I would hope we are preventing another North Korea from emerging with the removal of threat in the Middle East, not only in Iran, but in Iraq as well.

In addition, I don't swallow what the government tells me. I form my opinions by thinking through, and litening to all sides of the story from hundreds of sources. My opinions are formulated only after extensive reading and understanding of all the data that is readily available to me. By looking at not only that, but judging Saddam Hussein on historical patterns, I would bet everything on the fact that he is in fact a threat. Without being inside his head, that is the best anyone can do, be it right or wrong - Make a call and act on it.

[Protoclown]

MY GOD, YOU'RE RIGHT!!! IRAQ IS A THREAT! WHY, I THINK I SEE THEIR NAVY COMING OVER THE HORIZON NOW!! :rolleyes

[Anonymous]

Their navy disguises itself in the form of container ships concealing dirty nukes and other pleasant forms of attack..... or didn't NPR fill you in on that?

[Helm]

The US has weapons of mass destruction too, but now, they're not in the Axis of Evul, are they?

[Anonymous]

The proper spelling is Evil.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Baghdad was at one time a progressive region of the Middle East. Currently there is no sign of progression anywhere. It is run by a power hungry lunatic whoi is in his last moments of control and is desparate.

Do his people have more freedom than those in Qatar? How about the women in Saudi Arabia? Jordan? When do we over throw these regimes for the sake of democracy???

"Iraq under Saddam’s regime has become a land of hopelessness, sadness, and fear. A country where people are ethnically cleansed; prisoners are tortured in more than 300 prisons in Iraq. Rape is systematic . . . congenital malformation, birth defects, infertility, cancer, and various disorders are the results of Saddam’s gassing of his own people. . . the killing and torturing of husbands in front of their wives and children . . . Iraq under Saddam has become a hell and a museum of crimes."

Iraqi Safia Al Souhail, Advocacy Director of the International Alliance for Justice

Did he gas his own people? Were they Kurds? Were they enemy guerillas during the Iran-Iraq war?? Can you even BEGIN to answer any of these questions??


Do I believe our military is perfect and is only out to save the people?

Absolutely not. However, I do believe that, overall, as a country, the United States makes a very conscientious effort to remain as civil as one can in times of war. The reality of the situation is that no war is going to be a smooth operation performed with the surgical precision that opponents seem to believe is attainable in their eutopian visions.

Fine, and what I argued is that it is the American PEOPLE, whom the military works for as stated in the U.S. Constitution, are the reason for this. Our soldiers have proven in the past to be just as ruthless as anybody else, but it is the mores and rules of the American populous that keeps those occurences exceptional.

Do I believe we are going into Iraq, with the primary goal of liberating the country and establishing a democracy?

Yes and no. Yes, I believe we do indeed wish to establish a democratic (even remotely democratic) government. Do I believe it is to help the Iraqi people? Somewhat, perhaps. I do not believe we wish them further suffering.

Over 10 years of misguided sanctions argue otherwise.

However, that is absolutely not our goal. Our goal, as I have earlier stated, and will now reiterate is IMO to create a widespread pressure throughout the region which will motivate and encourage the people throughout the Middle East to rise up and force progression. Theocracy is NOT an answer, and these countries will never be able to function in the world to come, let alone the current world economy.

Do you not see at all how slightly elitist and arrogant it is to assume that the U.S. has the global cure for every other nation in the world...?

I don't like Saddam. I don't want him in power. Although I know Iraq isn't all the unsubstantiated things you say it is (running off a list of essays and boks you haven't read doesn't impress me), I too want life to improve there. But this goesback to my question: Why have we reacted in a completely contrary fashion in Red China? Why has the solution for China, AND Iran for the matter, been the "democratic market," as opposed to sanctions and war...?


It is critical that this region is stabilized and move forth with the rest of the world. Basic human rights, enhanced education, and international trade outside of oil will clearly set them on a path to a better life, which in turn, will provide stability throughout the region and give the U.S and other countries room to breathe and not worry about isolated terrorist cells and religious movements being funded by oil-rich governments.

Where is the "rest" of the world? Over 40 million AMERICANS have little or no health coverage, we have the highest child poverty rate out of ANY of the industrialized nations, and we have more people in prison than many of these horrible regimes you have mentioned. Are we truly worth emulating, or should they perhaps advance and develope on their OWN terms...? With an open market, transparency, and free information, do you think the Iraqi people will still choose Saddam...?


Here are some fun facts:

On the French investment: Certainly, the French have economic reasons to avoid this war, much like we have economic reasons to PERPETUATE this war, and see, that's where your problem lies. You hate France, so you can see their hypocrisy. But you could NEVER imagine the U.S. of A. EVER doing something out of economic interest.

AND, you have incorrectly stated that the U.S. has no economic interest in Iraq. Haliburton, which was then run by DICK CHENEY, sold oil drilling equipment to Iraq, and made millions. They did this THROUGH a French subsidiary of theirs. So you see, some of the investment you are citing against big, bad France has ALSO benefited American corporations.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly, Iraq is STILL one of the top 10 sources of American oil, and one reason we get more oil from places like Russia and Venezuela is that Iraq controls so much of their plenty. When we take out the Saddam regime, the largest untapped oil reserve in the world will be free for all (especially those who helped "liberate" it).



On German investment: Germany supported the war on terror in Afghanistan. Germany has repeatedly said they will continue to do so, but they don't see the connection with Iraq (with good reason). A big reason Germany has turned completely against war is the influence of the Green Party in their government. This Party opposes oil dependency, and likewise isn't in the pockets of the oil and automobile firms. It isn't ALL about the oil.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.

Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.

According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.

A free Iraq, with control of ALL its oil, would undoubtedly benefit Russia, still. Russia, as I have said, also gives us oil. Why not support war then?

The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.

Was the war in Afghanistan about an oil pipeline? If you say absolutely not, then you are a hypocrite, and you've sabotaged your own argument.

Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.

Again, Americans are invested in Iraq as well, and we likewise sold them some naughty stuff during that war. There isn't a corporate conspiracy against this war, no more than there is one in FAVOR of this war.

[Anonymous]

EDIT: By the way, what the fuck is wrong with Chrissie Hynde or Sean Penn having opinions? Does their status as celebrities automatically invalidate their beliefs? I'll bet they probably have internet access too, you know. They're probably just as capable of looking up nifty links as you are. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you're more intelligent or more informed than these people just because they're famous and you're not? What a load of shit.

While I don't know much about Penn's politics, and would tend to reflexively disagree with Chrissie Hynde because she's an ardent supporter of PETA, but I applaud them both for voicing opposition to an administration that is currently up to a lot of harmful shit, both domestically and internationally.

Hmmmm.....

When did I say there was something wrong with them having opinions?

[FS]

2. We have plenty of support. 18 countries in Europe, Australia, and a majority of Asia could be considered support.

I wasn't clear on whether you meant 18 countries in Europe, or 18 countries in total - but it's 8 countries in Europe, no more at this time.

3. The U.N. is one organization we should not be listening to. The U.N. is so polluted with political maneuverings, it is impossible to get a clear, decisive call from them on any issue.

Better yet, why not cut contact alltogether with non-America. Why not build a wall around the edges and line the harbors with armed vessels. Safety and freedom for all! You're an idiot. The UN is often not as effective as it should be, but America is just as much to blame for that as any other major country. To spit in the face of the UN now would be the greatest crime against national security in the US ever, because as much as you'd like to think so, you can't take on the entire world by yourself.

5. Your view of what has gone down in the past few months, IMO, is primarily from mainstream sources. Dig deeper, and you may or may not see it differently. What the United states presents publicly to the U.N. is utterly incomplete.

Uh, yeah, why is that? The US seems rather bent on getting this war through, so why don't they just show this ground-breaking, rock solid evidence to the UN and get their permission slip? Oh, let me guess. "Safety reasons". "National security". "Bullshit".

[sspadowsky]

Your tone plainly implies that these people's opinions are somehow worth less than others, and you know it. Quit playing dumb. It's not much of a stretch.
________
The Cigar Boss (http://thecigarboss.com/)

[Anonymous]

No FS,

Primarily because we don't want countries to know we have that intelligence, nor do we want them to know how we obtain it.

Secondly, if the rest of the world wants to be represented equally by the United Nations, a.k.a. (Please America, give us your money), then each and EVERY country involved should put in the EXACT same amount of money, and EVERY country should commit the EXACT same amount of resources to each and EVERY one of the socialistic organizations efforts. Additionally, if you listen to Blix, and value the United Nations, you would know that Iraq is CLEARLY in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 adn by the UN not reatcting appropriately, they, by default, diminish their own value. like a parent never reprimanding their child.

Dont do that again or youll be grounded.

Child does it again.

Ok, dont do that again, or you'll REALLY be grounded

Child does it again.

Ok, this is it this time, get ready.

The reality of the situation is that if the rest of the world doesnt have the balls to step up and deal with it as an authoritative force, then the United States has the responsibility to take care of it, in the best interest of not only world peace, but safety of it's own citizens.

Oh, by the way, if all Europeans share that attitude - next time the assholes on your side of the Atlantic decide to start a World War, don't come crying to us to bail your pansy asses out of it.

[FS]

Yeah, what I said. "Safety reasons". "National security." "Bullshit".

Oh, by the way, if all Europeans share that attitude - next time the assholes on your side of the Atlantic decide to start a World War, don't come crying to us to bail your pansy asses out of it.

You pathetic chauvinist.

[Anonymous]

Chauvinist... no.

Realist... yes.

Not everyone can be scared of war. There are times when it is necessary. There are countries bent on destroying not only the United States, but European and Asian countries as well.

When cooperation and negotiation are no longer an option, and there is a blatant disregard for international peacekeeping efforts, then war becomes more and more appropriate.

This asshole has had 11 years to clean up his act. Rather, he continues his same patterns over and over again.

[sspadowsky]

This guy has been so far under our thumb for the last 12 years, he hasn't been able to wipe without us knowing about it. I guarant-fucking-tee you the CIA has been watching him so closely, he hasn't done anything substantial without us knowing about it. That's why the inspectors can't seem to find anything- because there's nothing to be found. A handful of minor weapons- misslies that violate the UN maximum range limit by about 20 miles. That's it. We are being lied to.
________
Essential vaaapp (http://essentialvaaappvaporizer.com)

[BombsBurstingInAir]

ohhh the bitter.

[Anonymous]

Incorrect SSpadowsky. Even Saddam has admitted to much more than he has come forward and said he destroyed. Where is the Sarin? We know he has it. We know because he told us. But he hasn't been able to tell us when it was destroyed, has he?

The list goes on and on.

Staged car accidents whilst inspectors approach, false leads, games, lies.... it al comes down to this - he wants to play - it a game? - lets play

[sspadowsky]

EDIT: Directed at bombs.....

Try debating, you puss. You know, facts, arguments..... stuff that requires typing more than one sentence. I don't know if it's because you're scared, or uninformed, or simply not competent enough to type more than that, but just give it a try. :) Jerkoff.
________
MEXICO HOTELS (http://mexicohoteles.org)

[mburbank]

Okay, I have kids, and I have to say your parent child analogy is patronizing, is not at all paralell and shallow. East analogies always suck, but try this one on for size. W. and Sadam as petulant toddlers duking it out at a poorly supervised daycare.

See, it's fun, but then you realize yoiu never had mass deaths or the third world war coming from a spat between anklebiters.

Your theory about Iraq using cargo ships to put a nuke into america is based on what... The fact that they could do it if they had one and didn't get caught? This makes them different from other big chunks of the world that hate us more each day, how? Oh, yeah, I forgot. some of those folks actually have nuclear weapons. I think your right, the UN will almost certainly prove useless in our war to preempt everyone.

Your idea that everyone should pay equally into the UN is very nice. I like it. It goes hand in glove with MY idea that everyone on earth should split the resources evenly.

" Oh, by the way, if all Europeans share that attitude - next time the assholes on your side of the Atlantic decide to start a World War, don't come crying to us to bail your pansy asses out of it"

Okay, John Wayne, take a deep breath. I know a rugged combat vet like you could explode at any moment. Where do you want to draw the line in hostory about who owes what to whom? 'Cause it's fairly unlikely we'd have won the revolutionary war without their support, so maybe we should listen to them. I'm not really sure if it would have been a good idea to let the Nazis keep France though, even if we'd known they be so ungrateful. Yeah, next time we'll do the smart thing and let e'm go. Oh, and before you think I'm a frankophile, I fucking hate the French. Especially the arab french who are every bit as hateful and arrogant as the american negro.

[BombsBurstingInAir]

directed at spad:

what do you consider to be good sources for facts? :) numbnuts

[sspadowsky]

That technically qualifies as more than one sentence. You're off to a good start. :)
________
PRILOSEC SICKNESS (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/prilosec/)

[BombsBurstingInAir]

thanks.

[sspadowsky]

D'OH! You were on a roll, and you JUST BLEW IT! :tear
________
JAILBROKEN (http://jailbroken.org/)

[Anonymous]

Listen there Peidko - I was merely making a point. That point being, rather than argue BECAUSE of unrelated issues, such as who controls the Euro, how about assisting us in arresting terrorists, and encouraging the United Nations to grow a pair of balls and act on it's own accords. I don't believe in the United Nations, never have. Why should we be the police when they deem it necessary, but not be allowed to police when the action is our own. There are plenty of countries whom support us in this action.

Answer me this question, and try to be honest rather than argumentative. If Iraq had an ICBM, do you believe it would fire it on America, or at least be more predisposed to than other civilized countries? If not fire it at us, how about strong arm the rest of the world with threats and God knows what else.... and, pleeeeease spare me the analogy spinning in your head right now that America does the same thing, because that is BULLSHIT. We do nothing to provoke terror, etc. If that was the case, we would have followed patton's advice or MacArthur's and continued straight through to Moscow, China, etc.

So, being that France, Germany, Russia, and China are not our strongest allies, doesn't it stand to reason that they may have alterior motives in their opposition?

[FS]

You know, I absolutely do not buy into this idea that Hussein would drop the first nuke he could get his hands on on America. For one thing, he's got much more important issues with the surrounding countries (not to mention that evoking an all-out war with the world's last superpower - America - would be very bad for business, to say it lightly), and for another, does current technology even ALLOW a missile or nuclear weapon to reach the US, when launched from Iraq?

[mburbank]

IF it had an ICBM and IF I had some concrete evidence that it intended to use it agressively and not just for deterence like everybody else, than YES, I'd probably feel different.

But yhou can play stupid ass games like that all day and its pretty useless.

What IF sadam has no weapons of mass destruction at all, what IF all US clims to the conttrary are lies, What IF sadam has had a mjor change of heart and spend all day now painting unicorns and rainbows.

Oh, and I forgot to answer your statemnt aabout governments having secrets they couldn't reveal that we had to trust them about.

I don't agree. I can think of tons of historical ezamples to the contrary, and since actual transperancy has NEVER been attempted, I don't think there's any way to argue the counter case. I do NOT trust my government blindly, I think it is my duty as an American not to and I think the founding fathers worked very hard to build the ASSUMPTION that tgovernment should not be trusted blindly into the concept of divided powers. I concider it my patriotic mduty to demand that whoever the President is, he is rigorously questioned. That's what freedom of the press is for, that is tyhe responsability every administreation tries to subvert and it's wht CNN is giving away like Logo T-shirts. TRUST my ass! Trust is anti-american.

[Anonymous]

It was a hypothetical situation. I am demonstrating my assumption that he "could" in fact be a major threat. Whereas you say we have no definitive evidence that he has WMA, I say you have none that he doesn't. In a situation of such magnitude, I do not believe that you are innocent until proven guilty... particularly when you won't even cooperate with those working to prove your innocence. If he doesn't have them, then he needs to quit playing games. Although no one wants to see a war, his actions are limiting our reactions. In the end, there will be no other choice.

[Anonymous]

Who would say to blindly trust them?

The Constitution deliberately dispersed powers to states for that very reason... so they would not grow overly powerful and become a force that is to be blindly trusted by their own volition.

However, the Constitution, when interpreted literally does in fact call for the federal government to provide defense and roads. Part of providing adequate defense in our modern culture is to maintain a "database" of intelligence and covert findings. Leaks are not an option, as they do, in fact, lower that security.

Lets not forget, we are a representative democracy. We are not supposed to "trust" our elected officials decisions, we are our elected officials decisions. The electoral college is there specifically for that reason.

There are numerous checks and balances throughout the system which could stop Bush dead in his tracks, and you KNOW that Burbank.

The fact is that not only does the administration agree with it, but so does the former administration, as does congress overwhelmingly.

[BombsBurstingInAir]

Whatever you do Pantitude, don't use the word "republic" in arguements of this fashion. It is a time bomb.

[mburbank]

Only cause they're all a bunch of weiners.


Seriously though, here's my hypothetical situation, okay? Bush is actually religous fanatic convinced God speaks to him. He's been told we are rappidly approaching armageddon, Saddam is the anti Christ and he is required BY THE LORD GOD to escalate the conflcit to Nuclear as soon as we go in. He's the commander in chief, no one cn stop him once we're militarily commited and you DON'T say NO TO GOD!!

You know. Hypothetically. I mean, you have no proof this ISN'T what he's planning. In a situation of such magnitude, I do not believe that you are innocent until proven guilty.

[Abcdxxxx]

I have to wonder if expecting the Iraqi people to take to democracy is a bit like expecting an only child to know how to share and play nice with others. I'm not sure bombing them really makes sense. I hate to agree with dimwit Herbivore, but there are far bigger offendors we're calling allies who would make for much better targets if we're going to make anyone a target at all.

That said - what purpose does this nonsense about talking up Hussein's good points serve????? Yeah they have a great sewage and garbage system... because he's a crazed maniac with fucked up priorities. Iraq IS oppressive.

- Hussein DID gas the kurds,
- he was involved with wiping out an entire Jewish community
-he did attack neighboring countrys unprovoked,
- he has financially rewarded the families of Palestinians that commit suicide, and funded groups on our most wanted terrorist list
- he was involved in the first WTC bombing!!!!
- he has harbored terrorists such as abu nidal and allowed refuge for al qaeda training camps on occassion.
- he has actively created and USED chemicals on innocents
- he has kept prisoners of war
- and finally... he has violated UN resolutions, only it's the least of his sins.

To say he provides free education, or even free haircuts for that matter means very little. Women are allowed to school in Iraq? How many female doctors, lawyers, politicians, scientists etc. are there in Iraq???? You can call him a moderate and compare the worser of two evils, but evil is still evil. You can be anti war without being pro Saddam. Try it.

[sspadowsky]

Abcd, you miss the point; at least you miss mine. I don't think Saddam is a good guy, OK? I don't want to have him over for dinner, I'm not inviting him to join Kiwanis, get it?

He's a scapegoat in this case. A handy target. My contention is that, yes, we're going in there and taking him out, but we're not being told the truth about WHY we're really going over there. That is what pisses me off. Is he a bad guy? Certainly. Are there a whole shitload of dictators the world over who are probably just as bad? You better believe it. So I guess we better start bombing them, too.
________
Cheap airsoft tactical vest (http://airsoft-shop.info/tag/tactical-vest)

[BombsBurstingInAir]

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Incorrect SSpadowsky. Even Saddam has admitted to much more than he has come forward and said he destroyed. Where is the Sarin? We know he has it. We know because he told us. But he hasn't been able to tell us when it was destroyed, has he?

During the 90s, when Scott Ritter was the head inspector during the inspections in which these posessions were stated, yes, Saddam said he had these things. Some have argued though that he was lying then, among other reasons, in order to posture himself (this is common during arms agreements, you need to give SOMETHING up, so why not lie and say you have something?).

Now, when reviewing the dossier, The U.S. is saying "where is THIS!!??" We knew then he was probably full of shit. Now we want him to be honest, because it furthers our war aims.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I hate to agree with dimwit Herbivore, but there are far bigger offendors we're calling allies who would make for much better targets if we're going to make anyone a target at all.

You and I are going to be hanging out and stuff really soon, just like close "buds." :love

That said - what purpose does this nonsense about talking up Hussein's good points serve????? Yeah they have a great sewage and garbage system... because he's a crazed maniac with fucked up priorities. Iraq IS oppressive.

Agreed. But you miss the point, and by doing so you perpetuate this same black/white reality that panties perpetuates.

Neither myself, nor anybody else I know of, uses the "good points" of Iraq to defend his actions. To say otherwise means your taking it out of context.

For example, I mainly brought up the "advanced" status of Iraq when Panty ass started talking about how us "modern" Americans will "modernize" the rest of the Arab world, and how they will love us for it.

To say he provides free education, or even free haircuts for that matter means very little. Women are allowed to school in Iraq? How many female doctors, lawyers, politicians, scientists etc. are there in Iraq???? You can call him a moderate and compare the worser of two evils, but evil is still evil.

No one is calling HIM moderate. You gave an accurate criticism of Hussein, and I agree with you. But talking of Iraq in a context that isn't true (ie. panties over his head) just to further his war hopes is wrong. I'll use your logic: Why say that sanctions are a myth, that they hurt nobody, and that Saddam could make everyone in Iraq rich if he wanted??? Why not stick to relevant criticisms??

You can be anti war without being pro Saddam. Try it.

NOTE TO SELF: Cancel annual subscrition to "Saddamy whammy," the annual pin-up magazine/fan club for lovers of Iraqi dictators. Don't be so naive. People on these boards don't support Hussein, and to imply otherwise is just silly. We do believe in looking at the whole picture, which includes looking at relations with Iraq prior to 1990, the status of Iraqi civilization prior to 1990, etc. Just some random examples.

[Vibecrewangel]

NOTE TO SELF: Cancel annual subscrition to "Saddamy whammy," the annual pin-up magazine/fan club for lovers of Iraqi dictators.


OMG...... :imock

[Abcdxxxx]

"People on these boards don't support Hussein, and to imply otherwise is just silly. We do believe in looking at the whole picture, which includes looking at relations with Iraq prior to 1990, the status of Iraqi civilization prior to 1990, etc. Just some random examples."

Say what? Point me where all this talk of pre-1990 Iraq's been going on. Maybe you're getting the board confused with those little Mockery jamborees you all hold at the local TGIF Fridays Happy Hour??

You yourself mentioned Iraq's sewage system. Why? Is it really consequential? Does it really paint the various shades missing from your underwear friends argument? Nopers.


Spads - I vaguely agree, and my comments weren't directed towards you. Saddam has his fingers in a lot of pockets so I'm not sure we're really scapegoating him... but we are ignoring a lot of other like minded dictators who are someones problem... I'm just not sure it should be ours.

[Abcdxxxx]

"People on these boards don't support Hussein, and to imply otherwise is just silly. We do believe in looking at the whole picture, which includes looking at relations with Iraq prior to 1990, the status of Iraqi civilization prior to 1990, etc. Just some random examples."

Say what? Point me where all this talk of pre-1990 Iraq's been going on. Maybe you're getting the board confused with those little Mockery jamborees you all hold at the local TGIF Fridays Happy Hour??

You yourself mentioned Iraq's sewage system. Why? Is it really consequential? Does it really paint the various shades missing from your underwear friends argument? Nopers.


Spads - I vaguely agree, and my comments weren't directed towards you. Saddam has his fingers in a lot of pockets so I'm not sure we're really scapegoating him... but we are ignoring a lot of other like minded dictators who are someones problem... I'm just not sure it should be ours.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Say what? Point me where all this talk of pre-1990 Iraq's been going on.

Read below.

You yourself mentioned Iraq's sewage system. Why? Is it really consequential? Does it really paint the various shades missing from your underwear friends argument? Nopers.

Hmm, you wonder where the pre-Gulf War conversations are, but then when it's brought up you call it inconsequential...?

And aside from my underwear, I don't see how talking about the status of Iraq before it was blown to kingdom come, and then sanctioned, isn't relevant to conversation.

Maybe you're getting the board confused with those little Mockery jamborees you all hold at the local TGIF Fridays Happy Hour??

Look, you were sent a invitation, and I don't buy that bull about the dog rubbing it's ass all over the mail and rubbing out the words....try again.

[Protoclown]

EDIT: GOD DAMMIT >:

I KNOW THERE WAS AN APOSTRAPHE AND A "T" IN THAT STATEMENT >:






IN MY HEAD :(

[Pub Lover]

Proto, take a second & look closer. :/
He is saying something stupid, but not what you think he is.

[Abcdxxxx]

Yeah pre-Gulf conversation about their sewage system sounds real meaty. Are you on Saddam's payroll? if so, shouldn't it be your turn to blow yourself up pretty soon?

It's just sad the way you keep hugging that television set of yours pretending to be a human shield everytime the nightly news comes on.

[FS]

Kev, you're forgetting, "If you're not with us, you're against us."

SADDAM IS A BIG FAT DOODYHEAD :rave

I BET HE'S GAY AND SLEEPS WITH CAMELS TOO :rave

[mburbank]

FS; you make stromng argument, but I'm not sure it's simplistci enough to be valuable as policy. Could you pair it down?

I'm thinking something like

"Friend Good, fire bad."

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah pre-Gulf conversation about their sewage system sounds real meaty. Are you on Saddam's payroll? if so, shouldn't it be your turn to blow yourself up pretty soon?

Well when does your 101st bomber gas up to kill some kids, huh shitface? Oh, wait, I forgot "you can be against war" "duh! You can hate Iraq, love sanctions, and in fact kill lots of people, and STILL be against war!!!" When you show some introspection I'll consider taking your jabs seriously. Until then, fuck off.

It's just sad the way you keep hugging that television set of yours pretending to be a human shield everytime the nightly news comes on.

When have I ever said being a human shield was effective? Have you read me saying that somewhere? "Well, you can BE a pseudo-intellectual against the war who belittles everyone against the war, and supports sanctions, but STILL be against the war, right!!?"

HERE, WAIT, HERE WE GO: SADDAM IS A FAG, HIS PEOPLE ARE SAVAGES WHO LIVE IN MUD HUTS, AND THEY'RE TOO IGNORANT AND POOR TO KNOW HOW BAD HE IS. THEY DON'T READ PAPERS, THEY ONLY HAVE TOILET PAPER AND DRY CRAYONS. IRAQ HAS NO CULTURE, AND HAS NEVER HAD ANY INFRASTRUCTURE, IN FACT, ALL THEY DO IS WORSHIP THE CRAB GOD, THE DIRTY SHELL FISH CREATURE THAT CRAWLS OUT OF THE RIVERS IN IRAQ EVERY 2 MONTHS. SADDAM NEVER DID ANYTHING FOR THEM, SO THEY WERE FORCED TO REVERTING TO THE CRAB AS A LEADER. BUT IF YOU EVER! HEAR SOMEONE SAY THE HATE AMERICA AND LOVE SADDAM, IT'S CUZ THEY ARE TOO IGNORANT AND BACKWARD, AND THEY KNOW SADDAM IS WATCHING THEM WITH HIS GIANT EYE! THESE PEOPLE ARE COMPLETE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL, INEPT RETARDS!!!! oh, im against war though.

There, is that a more "balanced" perspective for you? What if I say it's ok to bomb him and kill only a FEW savages???? That's still anti-war right?? I mean, 7 dead backward Iraqis is only like 1/2 an American or Israeli, right bud??? ;) :lol

[KevinTheOmnivore]

HEY, ABCDEFG.., COME ON, LETS BE "ANTI-WAR" TOGETHER!!! WE NEED TO GET IN THEIR AND BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF THESE MUTANTS, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THESE WRETCHED, HELPLESS, BACKWARD PEOPLE, RIGHT!!!?? I KNOW YOU'RE PICKIN' UP WHAT I'M THROWIN' DOWN, GOOD BUDDIE. :WINK :WINK

[FS]

AS A MATTER OF FACT I WOULD TAKE THIS WHOLE SHINDIG ONE STEP FURTHER BY INSINUATING THAT THOSE WRETCHED MORLOCKS OVER IN IRAQISTAN ARE BEYOND REDEMPTION

THEREFORE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MISTER TONY BLAIR TO SEND 60,000 SOLDIERS TO STATION THEMSELVES AROUND IRAQ AND SHOOT EVERYTHING THAT TRIES TO GET OUT IN ORDER TO PREVENT IT FROM TURNING INTO THAT GUY IN THAT MOVIE WHERE THEY UNFREEZE A CAVEMAN AND HE RIDES A SKATEBOARD.

[Abcdxxxx]

Wow, that was interesting to say the least. It might be funny if my family didn't come from a pre-Saddam Iraq. I don't see people in mudd huts, I see people that look and talk like my own father. Can you fathom that? Know what else I see? A lot of dumb ass american kids saying some really stupid shit . It makes me embaressed to live here. You sure have loads of sensitivity, compassion and respect don't you? Filled with humanity...for anyone who agrees with you maybe.

Go talk about the sewage system some more you trite little bitch...and stop thinking your racist rants make for charming humor. Bet you sure had to wrap your head around that one huh?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Wow, that was interesting to say the least. It might be funny if my family didn't come from a pre-Saddam Iraq. I don't see people in mudd huts, I see people that look and talk like my own father. Can you fathom that? Know what else I see? A lot of dumb ass american kids saying some really stupid shit . It makes me embaressed to live here. You sure have loads of sensitivity, compassion and respect don't you? Filled with humanity...for anyone who agrees with you maybe.

You're a complete moron, and everything that has previously been said went right over your head. Get some comprehension skills....

Go talk about the sewage system some more you trite little bitch...and stop thinking your racist rants make for charming humor. Bet you sure had to wrap your head around that one huh?

:wah Get a clue and come back, bitch.

[Abcdxxxx]

Oh I have a clue, and I never left...


And I'm still waiting for you to defend your stance on Zionism.

Who's the bitch?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Oh I have a clue, and I never left...

No, you really have no clue. And you're creepy.


And I'm still waiting for you to defend your stance on Zionism.

lol, in what respect? When have you posed the question and had it gone unanswered? Last I recall we ended our discussion on a disagreement, I said that Zionism as defined by Herzl and others was greatly enforced by nationalism. You disagree. What would you like me to say otherwise...? Way to stay on topic, too. I'm glad you've proven once again that you don't really care about the substance of the thread, you merely look for reasons to assault me, because once again, you're creepy.

Who's the bitch?

YOUR MOM!!!! OOOOOOHHH!!! :eek

[Abcdxxxx]

On point - you have way too much confidence in the books you read, and the things your teachers tell you. When YOU spit bigoted nonesense you're too in the dark to even realize it. Just the same way everything you say goes back to some reference that I hate "darkies" or something of that context. Yawwwwn. I wish I creeped out more ignorant fucks like yourself... cause you really shouldn't sleep well at night with your mindset. It's a fright.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If you still can't understand the context of those posts, I pity you.

I'll be back to answer your diatribe on Zionism later. For now I'm off to take confidence in my books and teachers....cheerio!