Morrissey Is For The War

[Neal C.]

My sister ran into the mozzer at The Blue Coast Cafe in west LA shit of course told him how much she loved and making small talk she asked him his opinion on the war. Morrissey said that Saddam is a "brutal man who should have been removed long ago". I think so too! Its good to know that someone I admire and idolize to death thinks the same way I do!

 

[Duncan D Shammy]

> My sister ran into the mozzer at The Blue Coast Cafe in west LA shit of
> course told him how much she loved and making small talk she asked him his
> opinion on the war. Morrissey said that Saddam is a "brutal man who
> should have been removed long ago". I think so too! Its good to know
> that someone I admire and idolize to death thinks the same way I do!

It's excellent that we now have a definitive view from the great man on this issue, coming from a reliable source.

My only regret is that his fans may now feel obliged to get behind him on this one, and we may no longer be able to look forward to a continuation of the fascinating debate on the issue that's added so much to this board in recent weeks.

 

[Punchdrunk]

Its only left wing dickheads who line in a bubble who cant see SADDAM needs to Gooooooo!!

If the Frence and the LOOPY LEFT had there it would take years to disarm a c*** who has been foxing everyone for years.Saddam has been laughing at the US for years and i think its time to sort him out.

Its survival of the fittest and THE FRENCE are so weak and fibble its untrue.Its in there nature to be slimey f***ers and if SO so so WRONG if you think those bastards are shitting it cos there bothered about the people of Iraq.

Imagine if he invaided Kuwait in 5 years time and he was armed to the teeth with weapons?????????????????????????????????????Even then LEFT WING DICKHEADS would say BACK OFF NO WAR ETC ETC ETC

If Bin Laden was arrested tommorow there would be left wing idiots who would want him on trial in an Arab or muslim country.

THE US and UK needs to sort these bastards out!!!

he Blue Coast Cafe in west LA shit of
> course told him how much she loved and making small talk she asked him his
> opinion on the war. Morrissey said that Saddam is a "brutal man who
> should have been removed long ago". I think so too! Its good to know
> that someone I admire and idolize to death thinks the same way I do!

 

[StephanieMoves]

> My sister ran into the mozzer at The Blue Coast Cafe in west LA shit of
> course told him how much she loved and making small talk she asked him his
> opinion on the war. Morrissey said that Saddam is a "brutal man who
> should have been removed long ago". I think so too! Its good to know
> that someone I admire and idolize to death thinks the same way I do!

I agree with this. A lot of folks are opposing the war, but there really is no logic in letting Saddam continue to build up weapons that could have a highly dangerous potential.

This is something that needed to be done, the UN just always seems to turn their back when it's time to step up, and actually resolve some "Dirty work."

 

[suzanne]

> I agree with this. A lot of folks are opposing the war, but there really
> is no logic in letting Saddam continue to build up weapons that could have
> a highly dangerous potential.

> This is something that needed to be done, the UN just always seems to turn
> their back when it's time to step up, and actually resolve some
> "Dirty work."

ok, yeah, people might think he's "bad" but what exactly is going to happen after this war is over?

let's say if some massive army came marching in tomorrow and removed GW and everyone else from power. no senators. no congress people. no supreme court. nothing. they've all either been exiled or murdered and there is no chance of them coming back into power. how do you start over? who makes that decision of what leadership is going to take over in that situation?

does the invading army make that decision? do you want a leader that some other outside group said "we hated your government and we're giving you a new one that we like." would you be enthusiastic?

i think that we have our sights set on two things: one, the oil that we can get from this. two, bringing a bandaid only big enough to temporarily patch up a gaping wound to distract everyone else in the world and make them feel warm and fuzzy about the "good" that we've done long enough until they lose interest like they did with afghanistan.

 

[LoafingOaf - The Great Satan]

> ok, yeah, people might think he's "bad" but what exactly is
> going to happen after this war is over?

The only thing we know for certain is, after this war, the doomed regime of Saddam Hussein will no longer enslave Iraq.

> let's say if some massive army came marching in tomorrow and removed GW
> and everyone else from power...do you want a leader that some
> other outside group said "we hated your government and we're giving
> you a new one that we like." would you be enthusiastic?

Your mistake is imagining how you'd feel if an army invaded *America* and removed *America's* government. What you should be doing is imagining how you'd feel if you lived in a fascist, Orwellian dictatorship where you are forced to worship a sicko as your God, a man who regularly has taken your acquaintances, friends, and family members away to be tortured and murdered and if you so much as try and complain about it you will be tortured or murdered too.

I find it very hard to put myself in an Iraqis shoes. I can't begin to imagine or relate to the nightmare they're suffering through. And I would never presume to know how the average Iraqi will feel about all this, but I do know they will have far more interesting and complicated things to say than the anti-war marchers, and I look forward to hearing from them. And we must insist that the Coalition of the Willing lives up to its promises after the war. We're only partially living up to our promises in Afghanistan.

 

[CrushingBore]

> My sister ran into the mozzer at The Blue Coast Cafe in west LA shit of
> course told him how much she loved and making small talk she asked him his
> opinion on the war. Morrissey said that Saddam is a "brutal man who
> should have been removed long ago". I think so too! Its good to know
> that someone I admire and idolize to death thinks the same way I do!

Ummmmmmm - 'scuse me, but even if this is true, which I doubt (how many people have posted 'I met Moz' messages here of late?) and what you say is accurate HE DOESN'T SAY HE SUPPORTS THE WAR!

> Saddam is a "brutal man who
> should have been removed long ago".

Well, I agree with this - but I am against the war (at least at this stage in proceedings), so perhaps it was a cleverly noncommital response.

 

[LoafingOaf - The Great Satan]

>> Saddam is a "brutal man who
>> should have been removed long ago".
> Well, I agree with this - but I am against the war (at least at this stage
> in proceedings), so perhaps it was a cleverly noncommital response.

How can you be for the removal of Saddam when you're opposing the removal of Saddam? Eh?

Oh, yeah, I'm assuming you'll say you had a better idea for how to remove Saddam. We just haven't heard it yet.

And um....you're against the war at this stage in the proceeding. But I don't see masses of civilians being bombed. I saw Saddam himself being bombed.

At this stage, thus far, based on all news reports and what limited info we can find out, it appears to be a 100% justly fought war. I hope it continues that way.

In fact, a best case possibility is still possible: Saddam and his leadership may have been knocked out in the first two minutes. Maybe that's overly optimistic.

But um, check out this report (which I do not know the accuracy of, but if true, it's wonderful!):

====
More Bad News for Daschle
Taking out terror of all nationalities.

The vision-challenged opponents of the war against the terror masters, those who have been saying that you can't fight Saddam and terrorism at the same time, got bad news today from Baghdad. It turns out that our surgical strike on Wednesday night — the one aimed at the "top leadership" of Saddam's little hell-between-two-rivers — got an unexpected bonus: a terrorist from the Palestine Liberation Front. And the good news comes not from the Pentagon but from the PLF itself.

According to UPI, the Palestine Liberation Front said Thursday one of its guerrillas was killed during the U.S. missile strikes on Iraq. A PLF statement released in the southern city of Sidon (Syrian-occupied Lebanon) identified the slain guerrilla as 1st Lieutenant Ahmed Walid Raguib al-Baz who was killed early Thursday "while confronting the treacherous U.S. air bombardment on Iraq."

I don't know anything about the late Mr. Al-Baz, but I know all too much about the PLF and its evil leader, Abu Abbas. This was the group that organized the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro back in the mid-1980s. They segregated the American passengers from the rest, and then courageously pushed an American Jewish paraplegic in his wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, into the Mediterranean. We tried to have Abu Abbas arrested in Italy, but he escaped through Yugoslavia to Yemen.

The PLF has long been one of the most lethal Palestinian terrorist groups, and achieved notoriety for its high-tech killings. Recently, Abu Abbas had come to live in the Palestinian Authority, but when Israel moved against the terrorists there he ran away — to Baghdad. The PLF has been one of the main conduits for Iraqi money to Palestinian suicide bombers.

So, in a single stroke, we have demonstrated the rightness of our cause and the wisdom of President Bush. It makes no sense to distinguish between the terrorists and the regimes that support them, for they are one and the same. We targeted a high-level meeting of top Iraqi officials, and willy-nilly eliminated a member of the terror network. Time will tell just how good and how lucky we were in the opening salvo of the Second Gulf War. But there is already cause for satisfaction.

Somebody should tell Daschle and Byrd.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen, Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, can be reached through Benador Associates.
====

 

[StephanieMoves]

> ok, yeah, people might think he's "bad" but what exactly is
> going to happen after this war is over?

> let's say if some massive army came marching in tomorrow and removed GW
> and everyone else from power. no senators. no congress people. no supreme
> court. nothing. they've all either been exiled or murdered and there is no
> chance of them coming back into power. how do you start over? who makes
> that decision of what leadership is going to take over in that situation?

> does the invading army make that decision? do you want a leader that some
> other outside group said "we hated your government and we're giving
> you a new one that we like." would you be enthusiastic?

> i think that we have our sights set on two things: one, the oil that we
> can get from this. two, bringing a bandaid only big enough to temporarily
> patch up a gaping wound to distract everyone else in the world and make
> them feel warm and fuzzy about the "good" that we've done long
> enough until they lose interest like they did with afghanistan.

Have a wee bit of faith in your American government.. that's what tax money is for.

Looks like we won't be having to worry about this scenario will it

 

[suzanne]

> Have a wee bit of faith in your American government.. that's what tax
> money is for.

you know...there are so many things wrong with that statement that i could be here all day....

> Looks like we won't be having to worry about this scenario will it

yeah, we won't have to worry about iraq because everyone will be dead...

oh, you meant that happening to america....hell, you never really know do you? i'm sure Rome never thought it would fall.

 

[anyone...]

Morrissey Is A Pacifist!!!!!!!!!

 

[suzanne]

> The only thing we know for certain is, after this war, the doomed regime
> of Saddam Hussein will no longer enslave Iraq.

> Your mistake is imagining how you'd feel if an army invaded *America* and
> removed *America's* government. What you should be doing is imagining how
> you'd feel if you lived in a fascist, Orwellian dictatorship where you are
> forced to worship a sicko as your God,

you know, i recently started reading 1984 and i'm finding more parallels on our side of the fence.

the Two Minute Hate: John Walker Lindh. Yes, hate this man for being a traitor to our cause.
The re-writing of history: "we put Saddam into power and turned a blind eye to his atrocities for years.....no wait, we didn't do that. he was an evil man all along."
The slogan: War is Peace. "we must declare war on terrorism to have peace at home"

not to mention the overall war that conceivably has no end and whose enemies change at the drop of a hat.

Newspeak: Homeland security. Shock and Awe. Terror alert.

Big Brother: The INS who is currently out interviewing every Iraqi living here, legally or not, to check their background. the FBI who can tap your cellphone calls. the FBI who can go into a library and see what books you've checked out. and my new favorite: the idea of planting a small microchip on you for identification purposes.

>a man who regularly has taken your
> acquaintances, friends, and family members away to be tortured and
> murdered and if you so much as try and complain about it you will be
> tortured or murdered too.

or an administration that turns a blind eye to corporate greed as thousands of people lose their live savings to people who are already insanely rich.

> I find it very hard to put myself in an Iraqis shoes. I can't begin to
> imagine or relate to the nightmare they're suffering through. And I would
> never presume to know how the average Iraqi will feel about all this, but
> I do know they will have far more interesting and complicated things to
> say than the anti-war marchers, and I look forward to hearing from them.
> And we must insist that the Coalition of the Willing lives up to its
> promises after the war. We're only partially living up to our promises in
> Afghanistan.

"only partially"?

Look, if you think about it, our foreign policy is run in the same way as a kid wanting a puppy.

"look, i'll take care of it! i have a house and chew toys and i'll take him out walking every day!" and the parents are worn down and say, "ok, since you will be responsible about it..." because the kid really acts like he cares and really wants it, but as soon as the kid gets the puppy, they play with it for a while, but the puppy grows older and its not as much fun so they lose interest.

"Coalition of the Willing" is another good newspeak term. But not as truthful as "coalition of those with financial interest"

 

[LoafingOaf - The Great Satan]

> you know, i recently started reading 1984 and i'm finding more parallels
> on our side of the fence.

You can find parallels in all governments! Of course! But you're finding "more" parallels in American than in *Iraq*? What poppycock.
It's full-blown, complete "1984" in Iraq.

 

[CrushingBore]

> How can you be for the removal of Saddam when you're opposing the removal
> of Saddam? Eh?

> Oh, yeah, I'm assuming you'll say you had a better idea for how to remove
> Saddam. We just haven't heard it yet.

I would simply have given the inspectors more time - there was no need to go to war whilst the Chief Weapons Inspector was saying the process could produce results.

> And um....you're against the war at this stage in the proceeding. But I
> don't see masses of civilians being bombed. I saw Saddam himself being
> bombed.

I was talking about the diplomatic proceedings.

> At this stage, thus far, based on all news reports and what limited info
> we can find out, it appears to be a 100% justly fought war. I hope it
> continues that way.

Perhaps, but 100% justiFIED? I think not.

And that article you posted is ridiculous. Because the US happened (without any planning) to accidentally kill a terrorist fighting with the Iraqis is a fairly tenuous means of linking this military campaign to any programmatic war on terror.