L
- Forums
- Archives
- Archive
- General Discussion archive (read-only)
- General Discussion 1999-2009 archive (read-only)
- General Discussion archive 2003 (read-only)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
C
Chill
Guest
Wow. They caught Saddam. Amazing. Too bad we know that Saddam offered to comply with all of Bush's terms for avoiding war including his own surrender, but Bush had to have his war anyway. Kind of puts this into perspective (for everyone but the retards who eat up every bit of pro-war propaganda even the stuff that's been proven to be lies, er I mean, honest mistakes).
(And for the record, I do think Saddam is repugnant. Too bad Bush is too.)
Additionally, I really like how a lot of reports I've read have mentioned how this gives us renewed hope of capturing Osama. Excuse me, but I don't see the connection. Wait a minute. This couldn't possibly be yet another lame attempt to link Saddam with 9/11, could it?
I agree. Bush is a pussy. And Lil Rob, are you looking forward to the campaign commercials of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier all patriotic-like? I know I am.
(And for the record, I do think Saddam is repugnant. Too bad Bush is too.)
Additionally, I really like how a lot of reports I've read have mentioned how this gives us renewed hope of capturing Osama. Excuse me, but I don't see the connection. Wait a minute. This couldn't possibly be yet another lame attempt to link Saddam with 9/11, could it?
I agree. Bush is a pussy. And Lil Rob, are you looking forward to the campaign commercials of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier all patriotic-like? I know I am.
L
Lil' Rob ... Free Saddam!!!!
Guest
> I agree. Bush is a pussy. And Lil Rob, are you looking forward to the
> campaign commercials of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier all
> patriotic-like? I know I am.
Yeah as well as commercials heralding his couragious Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad.
> campaign commercials of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier all
> patriotic-like? I know I am.
Yeah as well as commercials heralding his couragious Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad.
F
Futbol Hooligan
Guest
the facts of life
Most of your statements were factually correct, but not profound to anyone who was thinking for him/herself (and most Americans, quite frankly, were not!) I thought about saying the same, but I did not think I would be telling anyone anything they did not already know to be true, which runs entirely in contradiction to what I just said above.
"Too bad we know that Saddam offered to comply with all of Bush's terms for avoiding war including his own surrender, but Bush had to have his war anyway."
This statement in quotes by you is not accurate. Saddam never agreed to surrender. Of course, you will not be dissuaded from your position, however, the facts are that Cowboy George repeatedly asked Saddam to step down and he refused.
In fact, much to Rancher Dubbyya's credit, he repeatedly asked Saddam to go, even giving him a "final" warning, before the bombs dropped and shock turned into awe turned into a lot of innocent dead human beings.
The PRETENSE for going to war were the lies that they had WOMD (weapons of mass destruction), which they did not have as you know.
The REAL REASONS we went were:
1) Oil.
2) Establish a Puppet Government in Iraq...because...after 9/11, Muslims are bad people & most are terrorists...and somehow this makes us have more control in that region...and helps safeguard Israel???????
3) Get rid of Saddam, because Daddy Bush never finished the job.
Anyway, I see you've been reading too much left wing propaganda via the Internet, again, and believing everything your liberal professors say, hook, line, & sinker.
Most of your statements were factually correct, but not profound to anyone who was thinking for him/herself (and most Americans, quite frankly, were not!) I thought about saying the same, but I did not think I would be telling anyone anything they did not already know to be true, which runs entirely in contradiction to what I just said above.
"Too bad we know that Saddam offered to comply with all of Bush's terms for avoiding war including his own surrender, but Bush had to have his war anyway."
This statement in quotes by you is not accurate. Saddam never agreed to surrender. Of course, you will not be dissuaded from your position, however, the facts are that Cowboy George repeatedly asked Saddam to step down and he refused.
In fact, much to Rancher Dubbyya's credit, he repeatedly asked Saddam to go, even giving him a "final" warning, before the bombs dropped and shock turned into awe turned into a lot of innocent dead human beings.
The PRETENSE for going to war were the lies that they had WOMD (weapons of mass destruction), which they did not have as you know.
The REAL REASONS we went were:
1) Oil.
2) Establish a Puppet Government in Iraq...because...after 9/11, Muslims are bad people & most are terrorists...and somehow this makes us have more control in that region...and helps safeguard Israel???????
3) Get rid of Saddam, because Daddy Bush never finished the job.
Anyway, I see you've been reading too much left wing propaganda via the Internet, again, and believing everything your liberal professors say, hook, line, & sinker.
T
The Walk
Guest
Re: the facts of life
>>>The REAL REASONS we went were:
1) Oil.
2) Establish a Puppet Government in Iraq...because...after 9/11, Muslims are bad people & most are terrorists...and somehow this makes us have more control in that region...and helps safeguard Israel???????
3) Get rid of Saddam, because Daddy Bush never finished the job.
Anyway, I see you've been reading too much left wing propaganda via the Internet, again, and believing everything your liberal professors say, hook, line, & sinker.
>>>The REAL REASONS we went were:
1) Oil.
2) Establish a Puppet Government in Iraq...because...after 9/11, Muslims are bad people & most are terrorists...and somehow this makes us have more control in that region...and helps safeguard Israel???????
3) Get rid of Saddam, because Daddy Bush never finished the job.
Anyway, I see you've been reading too much left wing propaganda via the Internet, again, and believing everything your liberal professors say, hook, line, & sinker.
F
Futbol Hooligan
Guest
Re: the facts of life
As the World's greatest military & the World's greatest intelligence gathering agencies have not found any weapons of mass destruction by now, anything that may be found in the future, is highly suspect and will have likely been planted by the CIA and/or American Military Operatives.
As the World's greatest military & the World's greatest intelligence gathering agencies have not found any weapons of mass destruction by now, anything that may be found in the future, is highly suspect and will have likely been planted by the CIA and/or American Military Operatives.
C
Chill
Guest
Re: the facts of life
I didn't realize the New York Times (where I first read about Saddam's attempts to comply with all of Bush's demands) was now considered liberal propaganda. Thanks for the newsflash!
I didn't realize the New York Times (where I first read about Saddam's attempts to comply with all of Bush's demands) was now considered liberal propaganda. Thanks for the newsflash!
B
Boy in the Bush
Guest
Mindy, your politics scream "stinky hippy" but your picture gives me a woody everytime!
A
anonnymouse
Guest
A HUGE woody!
She is very,very hot!
She is very,very hot!
D
davidtwigg
Guest
Re: the facts of life
> The reason we went to Iraq is because we felt we had enough evidence to
> prove that they were actively pursuing WMD's. WHEN WE FIND THE WEAPONS, I
> CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR WHAT YOU LIBERAL FRUIT CAKES WILL COME UP WITH NEXT.
You utter twat. You're a right wing nutjob.
> The reason we went to Iraq is because we felt we had enough evidence to
> prove that they were actively pursuing WMD's. WHEN WE FIND THE WEAPONS, I
> CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR WHAT YOU LIBERAL FRUIT CAKES WILL COME UP WITH NEXT.
You utter twat. You're a right wing nutjob.
S
Shawkenaw
Guest
Re: Bush's glorious victory
> Wow. They caught Saddam. Amazing.
We know you never cared if Saddam stayed in power or not. You're just another
American isolationist too caught up in yourself (see thread above where Chill
talks about her teeth, for example) to care about the fate of 25 million
people living amongst genocide, torture, state-inflicted murder, state-inflicted rape, and so on and so forth, all to be discussed thoroughly at Saddam's
televised trial.
>Too bad we know that Saddam offered to
> comply with all of Bush's terms for avoiding war including his own
> surrender, but Bush had to have his war anyway.
Saddam did nothing of the kind, as someone has already pointed
out to you. You cite the NY Times. I think I might have the article
you're referring to clipped (Nov. 6?), and one thing you should know is that different people write the headlines as write the content of an article. I suspect you only read the headline.
When you read the article you find that members of Iraq's secret police (all of whom are war criminals), were pooping in their pantyhose so much over the massed Coalition forces ready to bum rush their show that they reportedly made some last-second offers to the USA, with or without the consent of Saddam (who knows?).
The first thing one notices is that the only reason any of the war criminal SOBs in Iraq were panicked enough to even think about making any concessions was because America, Great Britain, and Australia massed troops on Iraq's border.
Now lets look at the offer. These Iraqi secret police dudes reportedly tried to say that Iraq would finally, at long last, invite experts in to see proof that Iraq no longer had WMD.
Gee, Chill, I thought that's what UN Resolution 1441 had required Iraq to do from the get-go. In other words, this NY Times story contains an admission by Iraq that they were in full breach of their "final opportunity to comply", which of course everyone already knew (and only some of us cared about). If Saddam had sincerely wanted to avoid the country he was enslaving from being lbierated, my suggestion to him would've been to simply do what 1441 commanded, which was very simple and straightforward. A last minute offer from Iraqi secret police war criminals through back channels that we could bring in 2,000 FBI agents is rather amusing to me when all they had to do from the beginning (and what they chose not to do) was submit a full, accurate up to date declaration to the UN and allow inspectors to go where they pleased and talk with whatever sicentists they wanted without any tape recorders and whatnot.
The NY Times article also says that these Iraqi secret police f***wads offered to hand over Abdul Rahman Yasin, a terrorist in Iraq who helped with the first WTC bombing. Gee, Chill, wouldn't that be an admission that Iraq is linked with, and has harbored, international terrorists who attacked the USA? Of course everyone already knew that, except for thick people like yourself.
The reported offer included support for the USA's proposals for solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, rather than the then current Iraq policy of funding suicide-homicide bombing terrorists. This both underscores the fact that Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East who was helping increase violence between Israelis and Palestinians, and that Saddam was involved in terrorism, and also it is an admission that this helping to increase violence in the Israel-Palestinian conflict was not at all for idealistic reasons on Iraq's part, but rather for Saddam's own self-serving reasons.
The offer, furthermore, seeks to grant the USA first priority with respect to the exploitation of Iraq's oil and mineral rights. Gee, Chill, if this war was "all about oil," and this reported offer was something the USA ought to have taken seriously (according to you, not me), then it seems to me the USA could've gotten that oil without war. I guess you didn't think this through very well, did ya. LOL
Finally, this offer said that Iraqis could vote in an actual election in 2 years. Gee, how nice of them.
So, yes, Chill, Bush liberated Iraq anyway. This back channel offer only serves to back up the rightness of most of the pro-invasion arguments.
Anyway, it is a great and glorious week for the American-led Coalition and for the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples.
One can think of how things would have gone if people such as Chill had been listened to. Saddam would have held on to power for many more years. With sanctions lifted, he'd have total victory and be able to use Iraq's resources for his evil plans. With the no-fly zones lifted, he'd crack down hard on the Kurds. And the Marsh Arabs would not today be rebuilding their way of life that Saddam tried to snuff out. There would be no new, emerging democracy in the Middle East to offer light and hope to those suffering under Saudi Royals and Iranisn fundamentalist freaks and so forth. Also, the millions of dollars Saddam sent to North Korea shortly before America liberated Iraq would have succeeded in purchasing the illegal missiles Saddam sought.
His love of al Quaeda terrorist attacks on America, and this arms dealing with North Korea, would have brought a most fightening scenerio upon the world, precisely the sort of threat leaders such as Bush and Blair have a duty to protect us from. Eventually, people like Chill would have allowed Saddam to become much like the dictator of North Korea: able to hold the world hostage with nuclear weaponry. Most likely, sooner or later we would have had to go to war with this rebuilt, re-militarized, and terrorist-supporting Saddam, and that war would have been far worse. Or, sooner or later Saddam's Baath Party would inevtiably have fallen at the hands of Iraqis themselves...but only after another generation of genocide and hell, as outside of this great and victorious international Coalition led by America, there was no near-term hope in sight for the ouster of Saddam. When the Baath Party would eventually fall, of course, all the problems within Iraq in building a new country would be there as they are today, only far more chaotically and with far more civil war, and no international Coalition to help out.
>Kind of puts this into
> perspective (for everyone but the retards who eat up every bit of pro-war
> propaganda even the stuff that's been proven to be lies, er I mean, honest
> mistakes).
> (And for the record, I do think Saddam is repugnant. Too bad Bush is too.)
> Additionally, I really like how a lot of reports I've read have mentioned
> how this gives us renewed hope of capturing Osama. Excuse me, but I don't
> see the connection. Wait a minute. This couldn't possibly be yet another
> lame attempt to link Saddam with 9/11, could it?
Bin Laden, in my opinion, is already dead. You let me know next time you hear from him.
> I agree. Bush is a pussy. And Lil Rob, are you looking forward to the
> campaign commercials of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier all
> patriotic-like? I know I am.
Support it or not, but a president was certainly not a "pussy" for having the balls to finish the war with Iraq. It was a tremendous political risk he didn't have to take. Few presidents have ever been as courageous as Bush in foreign policy. But I understand your anger, you being on the wrong side of history and all. You see, even if Bush lost the next election, every single Demcorat who has a chance at winning the nomination has stated that they would finish the job in Iraq. Therefore, we will finish the job in Iraq. Therefore, Iraq will be a better country than it ever has before. Therefore, history will recognize this and praise Iraq's liberation. IMHO, as always.
> Wow. They caught Saddam. Amazing.
We know you never cared if Saddam stayed in power or not. You're just another
American isolationist too caught up in yourself (see thread above where Chill
talks about her teeth, for example) to care about the fate of 25 million
people living amongst genocide, torture, state-inflicted murder, state-inflicted rape, and so on and so forth, all to be discussed thoroughly at Saddam's
televised trial.
>Too bad we know that Saddam offered to
> comply with all of Bush's terms for avoiding war including his own
> surrender, but Bush had to have his war anyway.
Saddam did nothing of the kind, as someone has already pointed
out to you. You cite the NY Times. I think I might have the article
you're referring to clipped (Nov. 6?), and one thing you should know is that different people write the headlines as write the content of an article. I suspect you only read the headline.
When you read the article you find that members of Iraq's secret police (all of whom are war criminals), were pooping in their pantyhose so much over the massed Coalition forces ready to bum rush their show that they reportedly made some last-second offers to the USA, with or without the consent of Saddam (who knows?).
The first thing one notices is that the only reason any of the war criminal SOBs in Iraq were panicked enough to even think about making any concessions was because America, Great Britain, and Australia massed troops on Iraq's border.
Now lets look at the offer. These Iraqi secret police dudes reportedly tried to say that Iraq would finally, at long last, invite experts in to see proof that Iraq no longer had WMD.
Gee, Chill, I thought that's what UN Resolution 1441 had required Iraq to do from the get-go. In other words, this NY Times story contains an admission by Iraq that they were in full breach of their "final opportunity to comply", which of course everyone already knew (and only some of us cared about). If Saddam had sincerely wanted to avoid the country he was enslaving from being lbierated, my suggestion to him would've been to simply do what 1441 commanded, which was very simple and straightforward. A last minute offer from Iraqi secret police war criminals through back channels that we could bring in 2,000 FBI agents is rather amusing to me when all they had to do from the beginning (and what they chose not to do) was submit a full, accurate up to date declaration to the UN and allow inspectors to go where they pleased and talk with whatever sicentists they wanted without any tape recorders and whatnot.
The NY Times article also says that these Iraqi secret police f***wads offered to hand over Abdul Rahman Yasin, a terrorist in Iraq who helped with the first WTC bombing. Gee, Chill, wouldn't that be an admission that Iraq is linked with, and has harbored, international terrorists who attacked the USA? Of course everyone already knew that, except for thick people like yourself.
The reported offer included support for the USA's proposals for solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, rather than the then current Iraq policy of funding suicide-homicide bombing terrorists. This both underscores the fact that Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East who was helping increase violence between Israelis and Palestinians, and that Saddam was involved in terrorism, and also it is an admission that this helping to increase violence in the Israel-Palestinian conflict was not at all for idealistic reasons on Iraq's part, but rather for Saddam's own self-serving reasons.
The offer, furthermore, seeks to grant the USA first priority with respect to the exploitation of Iraq's oil and mineral rights. Gee, Chill, if this war was "all about oil," and this reported offer was something the USA ought to have taken seriously (according to you, not me), then it seems to me the USA could've gotten that oil without war. I guess you didn't think this through very well, did ya. LOL
Finally, this offer said that Iraqis could vote in an actual election in 2 years. Gee, how nice of them.
So, yes, Chill, Bush liberated Iraq anyway. This back channel offer only serves to back up the rightness of most of the pro-invasion arguments.
Anyway, it is a great and glorious week for the American-led Coalition and for the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples.
One can think of how things would have gone if people such as Chill had been listened to. Saddam would have held on to power for many more years. With sanctions lifted, he'd have total victory and be able to use Iraq's resources for his evil plans. With the no-fly zones lifted, he'd crack down hard on the Kurds. And the Marsh Arabs would not today be rebuilding their way of life that Saddam tried to snuff out. There would be no new, emerging democracy in the Middle East to offer light and hope to those suffering under Saudi Royals and Iranisn fundamentalist freaks and so forth. Also, the millions of dollars Saddam sent to North Korea shortly before America liberated Iraq would have succeeded in purchasing the illegal missiles Saddam sought.
His love of al Quaeda terrorist attacks on America, and this arms dealing with North Korea, would have brought a most fightening scenerio upon the world, precisely the sort of threat leaders such as Bush and Blair have a duty to protect us from. Eventually, people like Chill would have allowed Saddam to become much like the dictator of North Korea: able to hold the world hostage with nuclear weaponry. Most likely, sooner or later we would have had to go to war with this rebuilt, re-militarized, and terrorist-supporting Saddam, and that war would have been far worse. Or, sooner or later Saddam's Baath Party would inevtiably have fallen at the hands of Iraqis themselves...but only after another generation of genocide and hell, as outside of this great and victorious international Coalition led by America, there was no near-term hope in sight for the ouster of Saddam. When the Baath Party would eventually fall, of course, all the problems within Iraq in building a new country would be there as they are today, only far more chaotically and with far more civil war, and no international Coalition to help out.
>Kind of puts this into
> perspective (for everyone but the retards who eat up every bit of pro-war
> propaganda even the stuff that's been proven to be lies, er I mean, honest
> mistakes).
> (And for the record, I do think Saddam is repugnant. Too bad Bush is too.)
> Additionally, I really like how a lot of reports I've read have mentioned
> how this gives us renewed hope of capturing Osama. Excuse me, but I don't
> see the connection. Wait a minute. This couldn't possibly be yet another
> lame attempt to link Saddam with 9/11, could it?
Bin Laden, in my opinion, is already dead. You let me know next time you hear from him.
> I agree. Bush is a pussy. And Lil Rob, are you looking forward to the
> campaign commercials of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier all
> patriotic-like? I know I am.
Support it or not, but a president was certainly not a "pussy" for having the balls to finish the war with Iraq. It was a tremendous political risk he didn't have to take. Few presidents have ever been as courageous as Bush in foreign policy. But I understand your anger, you being on the wrong side of history and all. You see, even if Bush lost the next election, every single Demcorat who has a chance at winning the nomination has stated that they would finish the job in Iraq. Therefore, we will finish the job in Iraq. Therefore, Iraq will be a better country than it ever has before. Therefore, history will recognize this and praise Iraq's liberation. IMHO, as always.
S
Shawkenaw
Guest
Re: the facts of life
> The REAL REASONS we went were:
> 1) Oil.
*yawn*
Way to back up your arguments.
> The REAL REASONS we went were:
> 1) Oil.
*yawn*
Way to back up your arguments.
Similar threads
A
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 2K
A
S
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 1K
D
B
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 890
L
Share:
- Forums
- Archives
- Archive
- General Discussion archive (read-only)
- General Discussion 1999-2009 archive (read-only)
- General Discussion archive 2003 (read-only)
