quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:


A history lesson, very recent mind you, is that Saddam attempted to asassinate Bush Sr.

---

Joe! If you�re still around, fill me in on this!

FoxLeonard

RejectJC and punkrawkerstonershit, please go die. More Bush-bashing huh?

The man has leadership and he takes care of festering sores of the Clinton regime. He is a clumsy fool and wrong on some points, but he is right on Iraq and he is a leader.

You obviously don't know shit about Saddam's history. Clinton should have taken his ass out.

BTW, I hope you don't think we need democracy. Imagine, all the socialist moms, crackheads, cops, leftists, and ignorant people of America making all decisions. Mob rule is quite scary. Get a job working with the general public and you will realize that you don't want all those idiots, fat fucks, and jackasses making laws.

If Bush stages a coup and becomes a dictator, which is almost likely at this point, I doubt I'd back down for him. Your applying liberal stereotypes to someone that isn't liberal is getting really annoying.

And Bush wouldn't be intelligent enough to completely brainwash the public, and justify or cover up war crimes as bad as Sadam's. I doubt he could even justify and cover up war crimes as bad as Kissinger's. Fucking Kissinger was three times as intelligent as Dubya.

And do you actually believe they're still keeping POWs in Vietnam? That's the biggest load of propaghanda I've ever heard. I've yet to see any evidence to support it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
RejectJC and punkrawkerstonershit, please go die. More Bush-bashing huh?

The man has leadership and he takes care of festering sores of the Clinton regime. He is a clumsy fool and wrong on some points, but he is right on Iraq and he is a leader.

You obviously don't know shit about Saddam's history. Clinton should have taken his ass out.

BTW, I hope you don't think we need democracy. Imagine, all the socialist moms, crackheads, cops, leftists, and ignorant people of America making all decisions. Mob rule is quite scary. Get a job working with the general public and you will realize that you don't want all those idiots, fat fucks, and jackasses making laws.

---

What the hell is the matter with you?
I agree with some of the things you say, but you are a slight bit too patriotic if you ask me.
There are reasons we bash Bush.
1)He is stupid
2)He is a warmonger, wishing for war alone, in the name of peace and human rights no less
3)He has no respect for the international community. One REALLY GOOD reason that clinton never took Saddam out is because of the outrage that it would cause in the middle east and everywhere else.

I am not saying that I was, at any point, a Gore supporter. He is also an idiot, just the opposite kind as Bush. I wanted that other republican to be president, or for that matter, that other democrat. Either would have been a fine choice, but the choices were made for who would run before the primaries even started.

I have NO respect for this country, and most likely I never will.

If we attacked Sadaam you know how many people would get pissed off in iraq, there are people there that will willingly fight for their country and "die for their country" just like we have in the united states. If we attack them they will come right back and sadaam will use his chemical and bio warfare on us because we were dumbasses in the first place to tell him how he should handle it. Becuase of this its most likely just pissing off saadam more and more and one day he is gonna tick and use the mass destruction weapons we want him to get rid of and get rid of them on us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
If Bush stages a coup and becomes a dictator, which is almost likely at this point, I doubt I'd back down for him. Your applying liberal stereotypes to someone that isn't liberal is getting really annoying.

And Bush wouldn't be intelligent enough to completely brainwash the public, and justify or cover up war crimes as bad as Sadam's. I doubt he could even justify and cover up war crimes as bad as Kissinger's. Fucking Kissinger was three times as intelligent as Dubya.

And do you actually believe they're still keeping POWs in Vietnam? That's the biggest load of propaghanda I've ever heard. I've yet to see any evidence to support it.

---

White Chocolate, you are as liberal as they come.

Reperations for decendants of slaves, Banning firearms, and the other shit you spout, sounds like liberalism to me.

If i wasn't leaving for four months today, I have several websites of evidence. Look up the names "Bat 21" and "Henry Serex" to start out. Look at the evidence Speicher is still being held by Iraq. You and your ilk only like to hear what you want to hear, without even looking at the evidence. Several websites have translated documents the NVA and the Soviets held POWs after the wars end.


Bush has a business degree from Harvard. I can promise you that You cannot get a degree from there and be half as dumb as you claim him to be.

Didn't Bush go to Yale? No matter where he went, you actually believe that his intelligence was what put him through college? It's daddy and his money - even most conservatives acknowledge this.

And I'm not by any means a liberal. I don't believe in reparations, nor do I believe in banning guns. I believe in a socialist welfare system based on income, not race. And I believe in outlawing carrying concealed weapons, not banning guns. According to you, a "liberal" everyone who doesn't love Bush and Reagan.

bush only went to a nice college because his dad had alot of money. Bush even admitted he made C's in school........ So people saying he is intelligant because of a college he went to is bullshit because there are alot of dumbasses who go to good colleges cause there parents have alot of money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Joe! If you�re still around, fill me in on this!

FoxLeonard

---

Short version (I think Joe is gone), Saddam had a plot to kill Bush Sr. a few years ago when Bush Sr. was on a trip to the Middle East.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by RejectJC:
If we attacked Sadaam you know how many people would get pissed off in iraq

---

Not one more than already is.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by RejectJC:
If we attacked Sadaam you know how many people would get pissed off in iraq, there are people there that will willingly fight for their country and "die for their country" just like we have in the united states. If we attack them they will come right back and sadaam will use his chemical and bio warfare on us because we were dumbasses in the first place to tell him how he should handle it. Becuase of this its most likely just pissing off saadam more and more and one day he is gonna tick and use the mass destruction weapons we want him to get rid of and get rid of them on us.

---

Well what do you propose that we do? Weapons inspectors does not work. You said yourself that he is ready and willing to use his chem. and bio. weapons, so if we let him go or play the weapons inspector games again then he will get nukes. He is a madman with nothing to lose. He will use nukes if he gets them. Stop the madness.

And as far as the people of Iraq, they are brainwashed. Saddam Hussein has ruled as long as most of them have been alive. Do you think they know about his theft of the Food for Oil program and every other way that he is screwing them? Hell no. They are raised to hate the US just like the Islamic Jihadists. They don't know what the US is.

We were on the verge of war in 1998, and I didn't hear all this crap then.

See my post in War on Iraq. I laid out the facts there.

If you people refuse to learn the facts, then take it to the Bitch and Moan section. Otherwise, I would love to see some facts as to why we should not do it that are worth a damn. Anti-war people always go on emotions, assumptions, and conspiracy theories.

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-21-2002).]

I know that we can get attacked if we wait, but theres still the chance that if we wait we wont. If we attack them they will retaliate because you are right sadaam is a mad man and if we attack him he will go crazy on us, and it would just be all out war and killing. Its a confusing question to answer. But if bush takes iraqs mass destruction weapons what is gonna stop them from making more? And for the fact that the people of Iraq dont know anything about USA your wrong, becasue they still listen to our music, buy our dvds and videos, and they know what we are doing to. I am sure alot more people from Iraq has been to the united states than people from the united states have been to iraq.

Nox!

Thanks for the info!

If Saddam attempted to assasinate Bush Sr, I find it even more plausible that Saddam have continued trying to get his revenge. If not through killing Bush Sr, so through striking US targets.

One way to do that would be to infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups and let them do the work and take the blame.

Some of the terrorist attacks in the 1990ies could very likely have been initiated by Saddam. And so could the 9/11 attacks!

If so, Bush Jr�s "eagerness" to attack Iraq is even more easy to explain.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by RejectJC:
But if bush takes iraqs mass destruction weapons what is gonna stop them from making more?

---

U.N. tried this and it didn't work. Saddam fudged the system didn't take it seriously. They gave him room to fuck around and he still produced his shit. The solution is regime change.

Look, if its anything like the Gulf War, then the soldiers don't really like Saddam that much when they are getting shot at. Back then they all surrendered. We captured like 50,000 of them. They aren't fanatics like the Taliban, who are willing to die for their stupid cause. The ones who are not loyal to Saddam could even serve in the new governments army.

The best way to keep Saddam from getting weapons...eliminate Saddam. Weapons inspections is laughable at this point. I seriously hope Bush doesn't give in at this point and try to act like "regime change" really means "weapons inspectors".

The U.N. is laughable too. They are a feel-good puppet coalition of cowardly nations who band together to justify inaction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RejectJC:


well Iraq has a democracy goverment too

---

LMAO!

I don't think it's such a question of disagreeing with you, as the fact that people are simply going to disregard (or deride) such an uninformed post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RejectJC:
Yea that is wrong, but do you call us democracy when gore got more votes than bush but yet bush still won?

---

Yeah, smellier than a can of sardines, that was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RejectJC:
People in Iraq have nothing against sadaam or sadaam wouldnt be in power for 20 years. I think thats a pretty good president the people must like him. USA are the only people that have anything against sadaam when he hasnt done anything to us. I can not think of one thing he has done to us that has affected us i can only remember us blaming them for stupid shit just so we can bomb them.

---

WTF? Are you insane? Have you ever heard about what Stalin did to His own people???
Ever heard of Fascism?
Please get your facts straight in future, before posting such blatantly ignorant statements.

Do you know our 'Priminister' is now trying to exploit what happened in Bali? He's trying to start a catch phrase, to keep up with Bush.....
'October 12th'. It's sick. It's not even how we say it. We say; '12th of October'.
Erk. Al Gore was a helluva lot more impressive than our only alternative at the last elections; Kim Beasley.
Double erk. You Americans should all get out there and register to vote. It should be compulsory, like here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:

The electoral college was inserted into the Constitution on purpose. It was to keep the larger states (Virginia and New York) from overpowering the smaller states.

Nox

---

But isn't this part of the problem? I lived in US during the Jessie Jackson campaign. This seemed to be one of the big questions at the time.
Shouldn't the vote count be on a per head/individual basis, instead of a statewide win? After all, the united states is one nation.
The other big debate, was the low percentage of people who actually bother to vote.

My view on that is, if you can't be bothered to sign up to the register, you have no right to complain about your circumstances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
[B]

I am not saying that I was, at any point, a Gore supporter. He is also an idiot, just the opposite kind as Bush. I wanted that other republican to be president, or for that matter, that other democrat. Either would have been a fine choice, but the choices were made for who would run before the primaries even started.
B]

---

McCain..? McCain is an idiot!!! (other republican)

I don't think Gore had any "worth-a-damn" challengers. Not to say that Gore, or any other Democrat, is worth a damn.

im not just going to shut up about the subject cause "i dont have my facts right." I didnt say they were facts its a matter of opinion, cause none of what we say can all be true because we just say what we here which could be lies, but ill just shut up since i dont have my facts straight.

The first bush had a damn good reason to attack Iraq, and he would have had a damn good reason to have 2 put in Saddam's head, but he "did not want a martyr."
The second bush does not have a good reason to touch Iraq, so I think that we should wait until we do to attack that towelheaded fucker.
With Saddam it is impossible to go without doing something that would make normal people vomit, and if we wait until that happens, then we can go in without the internationl community hating our guts as much as the mid-east does

Homer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Have you been paying attention to the news lately? There has been a small item about the recent Iraqi presidential election. Do you call this democracy?

Nox

---

so wait r u suggesting that its okay to bomb Iraq?
why why would agree with that?!!!
i mean why?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Yes I do. It's called read the Constitution, especially the part about the electoral college.

The electoral college was inserted into the Constitution on purpose. It was to keep the larger states (Virginia and New York) from overpowering the smaller states.

Nox

---

ofcourse because we have a constitution must mean we are a democracy, right! lets explore sum problems i have.
popular vote means -- crap!
lobbying organizations give too much power to certain groups,
half the time ppl don't even know wat goverment does especially abroad, no referendums to vote much on foriegn policy.
big corporate interests dominate political agenda because of campaign financing and because both parties pretty much take the middle road, so person w/ more for campaign $$ usually money wins, person w/ more money usually also person with corporate financing hence corportaions get what they want.
and while the big motto i was always fed was "majority rules- minority rights" umm..lets see majority does not rule (eg. labor class), and minority (eg's native americans) get skrewed alot!
bye bye idea of democracy!

know the worst freaking part of all of this!

most ppl i talk to, ppl on this site on this thread, even those responding to questionaires, are against war on IRAQ,
how come after all that - and more (protests, international disapproval etc) did congress approve of an attack, and how come after all that the president is still supporting and promoting war when clearly most ppl, i would think, want otherwise.
Nox tell me how democracy works again.

thank you foxleonard!

yup the US gave money to the talibans as well- so they would clean up the opium farms - did htey give a shit that the governement was screwing its ppl - umm noo that is not part of our foriegn policy.
well its high time it should be.
the masses are left ignorant.
read about the U.S.S liberty, yea yea there were loads of attacks on U.S ships but what makes the U.S.S liberty freaky as hell for me atleast is the fact that it was covered up that U.S soldiers were told to shut up and take it!

well i have to say i don't think 9/11 ties with Iraq although i do wonder.. now that u mention it fox..

i think war in Iraq is clearly for oil, its not public support for re-election, that would have to a pretty dumb strategy and with all the money i am sure busch is investing into those poitical strategists ( ok so maybe i made that word up ..and!!) i doubt they would come up with that.
its for oil, its a bargaining chip, give us oil and we let u keep your screwed up regime and palaces.
they will never let iraq be a democracy, look wat happened in Iran, look at ICJ website u see so much more, the int'l community agreed that the Irani government was not responisble for the hostage taking, which mean those ppl in that country were mad pissed,anyway so they came up with thier governemnet incredibly anti-US, and do u think they will ever let the US decide how much money it want to pay for thier oil nope!
but the US called them an axis of evil and its hard for them to sell plus most of OPEC is autocracies which works very well for the US because this way US only has to control the autocrats (kings etc) who are scared shitless of thier populations anyway and need US support to keep them oppressed and to keep that money flowing only into thier pockets.
O! its not just the mid-east.. ever pay attention to those little signs in the protests in latin America yea they hate AMerica too, dependency theory came out of there, n its all out and out war on the US. same reason different natural resource, ok so no kings they have puppet presidents instead
everyone hates the US, and why b/ the goverment has CIA, so really while the government changes cia doesn't, n to make thier $$$ the CIA conspires tells u what u want, keeps u quite, its is soo anti-democratic to have a CIA ,
O! yea the cold war - big plan by CIA also to make more weapons create more fear and hence more sale of weapons and more $$$$$ for them.
the cold war was too conveniently lucrative for this country oh and yea none knew the bad shape Russia was in until after -right!, thats why US supported Afghanistan and trained its millitants so that Russia would never get to hte water they so desperaattelly needed. they knew russia was broke but kept up the facade terroriszing russia and the rest of the world including ppl here, why? - the dough from the weapon sale!
screwed up hungh? see --- i tell u evil governement!!
i hate politics, but don't fret - loads of ppl out there trying to fight for good stuff, yes evil exists but so does good so keep up the fight and your best weapon - knowledge!
spread the word!
i must go eat food b4 i pass out n freak everyone.

farwah!

You�re talking about so many issues at the same time that I had to put on my protective glasses (as you can see above).

But if we stick to the subject of this thread:

USA has for sure done a lot of strange things in the Middle East through the years, but they did not "invent" or start most, if any, of the conflicts there. I wonder in what "condition" the Middle East had been today without USA�s actions.

It could be true that USA exclusively protects its own interests in the oil, but even if they do, they happen to protect the supply of oil for the rest of the world in the same time. Oil that (unfortunately) is needed to keep all and everything working.

I think a vast majority of people are against war, including Bush Jr and his administration! I don�t believe they are doing all this "for fun", nor "for profit".
They are most likely planning to attack Iraq because they see no other options.

This far the threat in itself has worked to speed up the actions of the UN, to give it a new and hopefully more effective try with the weapons inspectors. The reason Saddam decided to let them in again was also the threat of a full scale war in Iraq. I doubt that this new round of inspections will give better results than the earlier. But let�s hope for it. And IF it happens to work, it was actually because Bush Jr threatened Saddam (and the UN if you like) with a full scale war.

As for the last part of you post, I couldn�t agree more:

What liberates us is the knowledge of who we were and what we became!

FoxLeonard

I agree Bush does have a reason to attack. But then if we do attack will it danger people in USA, you have to consider the peoples safety. I feel if we do bomb iraq we better to a damn good job and make sure we get rid of all their weapons which wont happen, because right when we bomb them they are going to retaliate in defense, which will hurt us. From reading these responses ive changed my viewpoints i believe now bush has a reason to attack and that he should do soemthing about Iraq, but i think he should handle it very carefully and try not to get innocent people in the USA involved, and if possible innocent people in Iraq.

RejectJC

To paraphrase Dirty Harry: You�ve made my day! And probably buttthrax�s and a few other�s as well. At least and at last someone read and understood our arguments...

I agree on your concerns about the dangers for innocent people, but:

As long as people like Saddam and Bin Laden are free to do what they want, the people of the USA, and the rest of the western world, are in danger. The 9/11 attacks prove that without a doubt.

During the Gulf War, when Saddam had better military and strategic resources than what he has now, Saddam choose to retaliate (of sorts) by using Scud missiles on Israel. Strategically as irrational as it was effective. USA got big problems with Israel on their hands, in the middle of fighting the war.

The same or something similar will most likely be Saddam�s answer if it comes to a war this time. He has no strategic weapons or airplanes or anything like that to strike directly at the USA. This is not to say that he hasn�t already made plans and preparations for terror attacks withing the USA. But if he has, he will as likely use that even if it doesn�t come to a war.

There will for sure be civilian casualities in Iraq, wich of course is very unfortunate. On the other hand the Iraqi people suffer as it is, under a crazy leader and opressor, and under the effects of the UN sanctions. The Kurds within Iraq suffer even more.

Care is also needed to avoid total havoc in the Middle East as a whole. But what happened during the Gulf War shows that it can be done. The situation is even more unstable now, but most of the leaders in the area are as threatened by Saddam as we in the western world are. With that in mind, I believe they�ll support USA.

At the moment we could still hope it doesn�t have to come to a full scale war; that the UN�s new efforts will work, but I doubt it.

Sero venientibus ossa! FoxLeonard




[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-23-2002).]

Look, Iraq will be a decisive victory. The administration is not telling much now because they are playing dumb to fool Saddam. After the elections, we will go in with Britain and whoever else has got balls and clean up.

At first, Saddam will bullshit and say all kinds of civilians are dead. After a while, he will have no communications and no power. There is way to tell what after that, because that is sensitive as fuck information.

This shit is real, so get used to it. Saddam's days are numbered. This one man election ploy was to get civilians pissed for no reason. He wants them to create total chaos and hell after he is gone. The man doesn't want anything good for 'his' people.

And BTW, the reason we need to take the oil is because it gives Saddam too much power. We will take it and continue to export it the same way, but use the $$$ to get humanitarian help like food and shit for the people and rebuild the country. It is not like we will go in and take the oil and stab the people in the back. We dont do that.

P.S. I will make this post a new thread, "Iraq after Saddam"

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-23-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Not one more than already is.

Nox

---

ahhh.. i would disagree, shitload more then already are, and it would be a whole new level of "hate america" too. so yea lets not console ourselves that ppl are already pisssed so wat the heck lets attack it will not make a difference, cuz it will, i am certain dead bodies would bring a whole new level of rage.

this is in response to foxleanord
ok, yea i ramble its more like free writting, in very little time.
yea sumtimes when i start seeing the big bad world, i scare me too..

man!
but as for the middle east - i think they would! be in better shape without US intervention absolutely, but is it entirely the US' fault htat things r screwey there?! nope! - this applies to rest of third world too.

as for war on iraq for oil - ahh.. okay yeaa the rest of the world needs oil,
i could use alot of money does that mean if i cum over and cap your ass for it, it makes it okay, well i would hope not.
yea the world needs oil, and the mid-east opec sells it for pennies almost,oil in this ocuntry is cheaper then water, and that is after the incredible surcharges that the government and oil companies like exxon put on them.
Lets not make the US goverment a saint or sane for that matter.
explain if the Kuwaiti's and the other countries don't give a shit, why the overwhelming need by the US to hurt Iraq.
I think in the words of my most favorite genius F.F Martens, "power of state is culture not millions of bayonets" god! does that just not make u sigh - c good ppl in the world do exist - yeeeaa!!!
evil corporate warmonger busch government, screwing its ppl also for corporate profits.
O! n 4 all those that think republicans defend americans, liars!
helllo wonderfull pay increase for defense 11% raise, w/ 4.1% raise in milliatry ppls salary thats right, direct from CNN!
ahhh bastards!
peace we need peace for a better world 4 all.

farwah!

I believe you got it right the first time, but let me say this anyway:

Each and all of your arguments make sense to me and I agree on many of your points. Especially in a more philosophic perspective if you excuse the term. I�ve also happened to work with Poetry Art and Poetry Art Festivals for more than a decade now, so "free-flow writing" is neither new nor confusing to me. The "problem" is that I want, but can�t, answer each and all of your points...

That said, I�ll try a few of them:

If I controlled a vast amount of the money that the rest of the world needs, and if I was "unreliable" in every possible aspect of that word, I would say that you WOULD have a right to "cap my ass" to get to that money. Especially if you had tried every other, more peaceful option first, without any (positive and reliable) response from me.

Yes the oil-business in itself stinks in many ways. Still, it�s much better now, especially for the Arab world, than it was 30 years ago, before the Arabic members of OPEC decided that they had "had enough" and went on a kind of strike, to get the right payment for their oil. A small example that things can actually change for the better.

I�m not trying to saintify the Bush Jr administration or any US government, but I don�t believe in making demons out of them them either. If they are sane?! As people, yes! As a government: as sane as world politics go!

I�m not so sure that the Kuwaitis "don�t give a shit" (about toppling Saddam I guess you mean?!). The Kuwaiti government were the actual initiators of the Gulf War, so I guess they are not excactly on friendly terms with Saddam.

The people of the Middle East are very suspicious, and more, towards the western world, for a lot of good reasons. Being under British colonial rule is only one of them. The "hi-jacking" of Palestina by the UN is another. This "stolen" land is now Israel and USA is Israels mightiest and most loyal supporter. This has been used by religious and religio-political leaders (mostly Shiits), to build what is now refered to as "hatred towards USA".

As I have stated elsewhere ("Iraq after Saddam") I very much believe that the Iraqi people, and also the rest of the Arabic world, would prefer a coup from within Iraq. More or less similar to the revolution in Iran, without the Shiit fundamentalism. this is probably also what could or will happen in a near future. Unfortunately this is likely to lead to something worse than a US intervention. Worse for the Iraqi people and their neighbours. Worse for the Middle East and for the rest of the World...

In a sense I actually wish that I could agree that Bush Jr and his government are "evil warmongers". Had it been that simple... Neither do I believe they do it for (corporate or US) profit.

The world had not been a better place today if Hitler, Napoleon and others hadn�t been stopped by force (as there were no other options). Saddam might not seem like one of those guys, but as the world looks today; globalised economy and communications that make every corner accessable within hours, he is a potential threat of the same proportions...

He is also actually one of the few left, so we might come a little closer to that peaceful world you wish for, if we get rid of him.

The world might be nasty, but it hasn�t gotten nastier! Nor is there an indication that it will in the near future...

The human being is the highest self-regulating system.

All that we are is the result of all that we have thought,. It is founded on thought. It is based on thought.

The future exists, first in imagination, then in will, then in reality.

Every man and every woman is a Star.

Wiecny kwiat wtadza! FoxLeonard


[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-23-2002).]

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-24-2002).]