What Do You Think Of George Bush Going To Iraq Today?

[Lil' Timmy]

pHATE1982: not to support the pro-war in iraq side, since i'm basically of the opinion that bush is a criminal that should be tried in an international court (and you thought i was 'liberal' before!), but there is a qualitative difference between iraq, and the countries you listed. namely, the US has had a hand in creating the iraq of today, and it could then be argued that we have a responsibility to that country. with the possible exception of columbia, the war-torn regions you mentioned are primarily the end result of french and british imperialism gone awry (to put it kindly). within the context of the western powers "helping" the places they ruined in the past, france and the uk should be "liberating" congo, kashmir, etc..

of course, the way in which we're raping iraq doesn't amount ot much of a liberation, and i believe that in 20 years iraq will be a fundamentalist state that hates us as much as the rest of the region (not that they already don't). but i just wanted to point out that iraq is a different case than far-away people dying other far-away places.

p.s. phate1982, what does your name mean?

 

[pat_thetic]

The board seems to be made up of solely far left liberals who love porn... We need some diversity...

 

[Lil' Timmy]

that's why you're here pat..

 

[Korgoth]

Sorry to revive this thread but...

Allow me to quote myself real fast...
[q] I find it funny that every time a debate about Bush, and his administration pops up around here this always happens. Us "left wing liberals" attack Bush's policies foreign and domestic for very legitimate reasons, and then a "right wing conservative" steps in and attacks the person attacking Bush's policies. Why is this? How come these "right wing" people can't debate what we said without an attack on our person or character, especially considering we are debating over the internet and not face to face it really makes your arguments pretty lame. So if our way of thinking is so wrong then please by all means point us in the right direction and don't try to change our minds by calling us "poo heads" because frankly it isn't working [/q]

and now...

[q] Rrriigghhtt....

I'm sorry to inform you but this thread was practically a room for liberals to smear republicans. If you mistook it for a debate I would recommend lubing your asshole so you can pull your massive head out. Your liberal elitist attitude is pathetic. [/q]

Now, if you read my first quote and then compared it with the second quote written above you will see the irony. He mentioned he was "just stooping to the level we had already went to" but you can read back through all my posts in this thread and never once did I put anyone down, or attack someone personally (with maybe the exception of George Bush, but that is what this thread is about ) So yes thank you he really did prove my point. Oh and lol @ my liberal elitist attitude. If you knew me personally you would understand that none of this is about politics to me, its about human lives, and although they may not be important to you they sure are to me.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Re: Sorry to revive this thread but...

"its about human lives, and although they may not be important to you they sure are to me." = Liberal Politics!

ha.

 

[SIGbastard]

He mentioned he was "just stooping to the level we had already went to" but you can read back through all my posts in this thread and never once did I put anyone down, or attack someone personally (with maybe the exception of George Bush, but that is what this thread is about )

Actually the thread was supposed to about what you think of Bush going to Iraq. Instead it turned into a thread for the purpose of attacking George Bush. For the most part the attacks didn't even focus on the topic in question. It is possible to talk about whether you agree with someones actions or not without attacking the person. If this had happened I would have never had to stoop down to your level.

Once again....

I would recommend lubing your asshole so you can pull your massive head out. Your liberal elitist attitude is pathetic.

 

[SIGbastard]

Innervision961,
I know that you have not been hurling many attacks. I just found your post that I first replied to ridiculous. When I say stooping down to your level I really just mean all those who have been hurling attacks. If you can't admit that the liberals in here were attacking more than just policy then you really do have your head stuck in your ass.

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by SIGbastard
Innervision961,
I know that you have not been hurling many attacks. I just found your post that I first replied to ridiculous. When I say stooping down to your level I really just mean all those who have been hurling attacks. If you can't admit that the liberals in here were attacking more than just policy then you really do have your head stuck in your ass.

....and how is it any differant for conservatives?

Its like the pot calling the kettle black......

 

[SIGbastard]

....and how is it any differant for conservatives?

I never said that conservatives were innocent. He was claiming that all the libs were just having a nice debate without using personal attacks and I called him on his bullshit. You never once see me claiming to be innocent, or claiming the right wingers in this "debate" are innocent. In fact I admit I am not when I said I was stooping down to his level. I just hate it when people think their shit doesn't stink....

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Originally posted by SIGbastard
Innervision961,
I know that you have not been hurling many attacks. I just found your post that I first replied to ridiculous. When I say stooping down to your level I really just mean all those who have been hurling attacks. If you can't admit that the liberals in here were attacking more than just policy then you really do have your head stuck in your ass.

i'm not him, as you can see, but i will take up innervisions case, b/c i feel like it, and no one can stop me!!

it went down like this:

q: what do you think of bush going to iraq?
pro: good political move, i love him.
anti: good political move, but bush sucks.
pro: he doesn't suck!
anti: yes he does!
pro: you and your whole team sucks!
pro: **** you bitch!
anti: ballocks!

it's not as if the "liberals" were the only ones taking part in the free-for-all. pat-thetic had as much a hand in things going OT as anyone. i'm not slamming him, because honestly, where else would a thread like this go? i mean, either you think bush going to iraq is good or not, and you have reasons for your opinion. this thread became about the reasons, quite naturally.

the interesting thing is that the anti-bushies were being called names by the pro-bushies (e.g. waedoe and yes, you SIGbastard), while the anti-bushies were calling bush names (as someone else has already pointed out i think). the attack hurling was coming from one side really, with maybe one exception (kadayi polokovs post.. sort of). review the thread if you don't believe me (i was actually surprised by this myself).

so, i think i should revise my outline:

q: what do you think of bush going to iraq?
pro: good political move, i love him.
anti: good political move, but bush sucks.
pro: he doesn't suck!
anti: yes he does!
pro: you and your whole team sucks!
anti: no we don't!
pro: dick in your ass!!!
anti: well, anyway, bush still sucks, and you should grow up.
pro: "i'm only stooping to the level you guys had already went to"
anti: lol.

btw: normal peoples feces smells kinda like gingerbread, maybe you should see a doctor.. :angel:

 

[Korgoth]

well its true then, i really do have my head stuck up my ass, thank you sir for informing me of this. They should make a 'direct to tv movie about me', having your head up your ass, and typing at the same time is a monumental achievment. You know what, sorry if I think or feel differently than you on certain topics, but you really don't have to talk down to me to get your point across. Thanks again, see you later.

EDIT: Well said, lil' Timmy... And I never said there weren't exceptions to the rule, name calling and mud slinging comes from both sides of the fence. But to me it seems to be coming from the right a little more than the left.
But again everthing I say is really personal opinion/belief so take it how you will.

 

[SIGbastard]

it's not as if the "liberals" were the only ones taking part in the free-for-all.

Do you know how to read??? If you do look at my last post. I just got done saying that I was not claiming the "conservatives" were innocent.

the interesting thing is that the anti-bushies were being called names by the pro-bushies (e.g. waedoe and yes, you SIGbastard), while the anti-bushies were calling bush names (as someone else has already pointed out i think). the attack hurling was coming from one side really, with maybe one exception (kadayi polokovs post.. sort of). review the thread if you don't believe me (i was actually surprised by this myself).

This is true, but for a reason. In case you haven't noticed Bush is not here to defend himself. Hurling insults at him is no better than me hurling an insult at anyone in here. It makes no difference who you target.

i'm not him, as you can see, but i will take up innervisions case, b/c i feel like it, and no one can stop me!!

I'm "borrowing" your quote now. Here's my version:
i'm not him, as you can see, but i will take up Bush's case, b/c i feel like it, and no one can stop me!!

 

[Korgoth]

True SIG but... The decisions I make don't affect the lives of millions of people, and, I'm sitting right here, Bush will never read or visit these forums to stick up for himself personally so you can take up for him by name calling to others but what good is it going to do really? I mean if someone says "Bush sucks because he lied about the war in Iraq" does the reply "well your heads up your ass so get over it" really do any good? Most of the attacks on Bush are either about his polocies, or his manor, and when your leader and represent millions of people these things are important, very important. I don't think anywhere in this thread have I attacked Bush on a personal level. I don't know him personally. But I will attack his polocies and his actions because I believe its right and justified.

 

[SIGbastard]

I know that you have not been hurling many attacks. I just found your post that I first replied to ridiculous. When I say stooping down to your level I really just mean all those who have been hurling attacks. If you can't admit that the liberals in here were attacking more than just policy then you really do have your head stuck in your ass.

I tried to make it a point to mention that I know you have not been very involved in the "name calling". The only reason I targeted you was because of your post about how free from mud slinging the "libs" were.
Quotes like: "Bush sucks because he lied about the war in Iraq" don't bother me. What bothers me is stuff like: "Bush is Dumb", "Bush paid his way through Harvard", or "He's such an obvious fraud!". Nothing productive comes from this crap.

Oh and uhhh.... If my sentence structure or grammar sucks, It's probably a combination of me not caring and me never being great at English.

 

[Korgoth]

hehe I didn't say anything about your sentence structure or grammer.. Personally it doesn't bother me, and I'm sure mine isn't perfect either. And I see what you mean. Not all liberal posts are productive either. So really no hard feelings man. I was just trying to make a point earlier. It just seemed there were more personal attacks than political ones, but I can see where your coming from aswell. But I was trying to express that when some one says "bush is dumb" its a lot different than someone saying "your dumb, because you said bush is dumb" my reasoning here is because i believe a person who holds the office of president of the united states wether he be democrat or republican, should be held under a different light than the rest of us. Simply because his job is to represent us, so if I say "bush is dumb" its because it is actually affecting me, and how people view us americans around the world. But anyways, I don't mean to rant or argue so sorry if i've caused any conflict.

 

[SIGbastard]

a person who holds the office of president of the united states wether he be democrat or republican, should be held under a different light than the rest of us

You do have a good point.

So really no hard feelings man

None taken, and likewise no hard feelings I hope.
Sorry about the comment about lubing your butt and all :cheese:. I was a little intoxicated the first time I posted that, and although I still think it to be kinda funny I must admit it was out of line.

Now I just need to focus on my term paper for Japenese History and Culture. I'm at a loss as to how to talk about Sumo wrestling for 10 pages.

 

[pHATE1982]

Originally posted by Lil' Timmy
pHATE1982: not to support the pro-war in iraq side, since i'm basically of the opinion that bush is a criminal that should be tried in an international court (and you thought i was 'liberal' before!), but there is a qualitative difference between iraq, and the countries you listed. namely, the US has had a hand in creating the iraq of today, and it could then be argued that we have a responsibility to that country. with the possible exception of columbia, the war-torn regions you mentioned are primarily the end result of french and british imperialism gone awry (to put it kindly). within the context of the western powers "helping" the places they ruined in the past, france and the uk should be "liberating" congo, kashmir, etc..

of course, the way in which we're raping iraq doesn't amount ot much of a liberation, and i believe that in 20 years iraq will be a fundamentalist state that hates us as much as the rest of the region (not that they already don't). but i just wanted to point out that iraq is a different case than far-away people dying other far-away places.

p.s. phate1982, what does your name mean?

I'm sorry? Was this actually a structured argument?
No name calling, or personal bashing... what has this thread come to?
lol, no seriously, good points!

I don't deny what you are saying, but the pro bush amoungst us don't seem to realise this. And I was just pointing out that they weren't doing it for the humanity... there is always something to gain, whether it be money, image or power (and image and power directly relate to money - booming economy etc). I was simply using money as an example.

I would however like to pick a couple of faults, and further examples :cheese: :

Congo - The US gave them 1.5 billion dollars of weapons and training during the cold war. I'd say it should be the US who should sort it out. But you hear nothing about it, why? Well the answer to that is because US news channels don't feel it has anything to do with the american people, so don't cover it... therefore, even if the US did have a hand in making the country as it is they would have nothing to gain by attacking it. They wouldn't gain much power or image because people would be ignorant

Afgahnistan - The US gave them billions of dollars in arms during the cold war, and helped form the country. Then there was a civil war, when the good old taliban took charge. Why didn't the USA step in until over 20 years later? Because there was nothing to gain until then. And people please don't say "We have got no money from afgahnistan!"... because that was about image and power. Did you realise that over 1 million people lost their lives in the afghan civil war, and over 4.5 million were made refugees? Then as soon as it would look good for the Americans to free the poor people of Afghanistan they charged in...

There is always something to gain by going to war for the attacking country... they don't do it for humanity, or the good of the people. It's always about wealth. Image and power DO INDEED bring wealth. This can be proven historically as during/after war time economys usually boom. So all you people saying that bush has brought a better economy with him, do you realise at what price? The deaths of thousands... nice......


*tired*

 

[Element Alpha]

Well, I guess some points have been made.

Since I believe this war has the potential to end up in a semi-apocalyps, I'd like to add a little something to talk about:

How do extremistic arab nations feel about all this, and if how they feel about the freeing/invasion in Iraq is rather bad, would they be able to retaliate/seek revenge, and how, according to you?

In your answer, try to consider that:
-Iraq is located in the heart of the Islamic world.
-Iraq is the 2nd biggest source of oil in the Middle-East.
-The opposition (civilian & terrorist) are scared to have to give up their natural oil resources, land and way of life.
-Most of the extremistic terrorists have lost everything(wife/kids/family/house/will to live) before they joined terrorist organisations, and are "very very" motivated to just die for their cause.
-If they have nothing to lose, they may consider the use of nuclear/biological warfare, should they possess it.
-also, ask yourself how it would be if some random nation was to remove Bush from power(for being on the "axis of evil") and claim texas resources (to pay for costs), while making sure there is not enough food for everybody and making everyone unemployed unless they joined the invader, so you could be "freed". Would the US "fighters" try to seek revenge, and how? Would it be considered to use nuclear bombs to wipe out the home of this invader? What if those nukes came in the wrong hands?

I really think this could end up much worse than it already is, but I guess the above made that obvious. I would like to say the maddest of the "terrorists" aren't crazy/stupid enough to use nuclear bombs, but are they?

PS:I do think bush is a fraud, since he murders in the name of good(seek in historybook: witchhunt), and has made the tension increase to an enormous amount on the international scene, while broadcasting wave after wave of propaganda to his own people.

 

[Baal]

imagine if Al Gore got elected instead. Wonder where we would be....?

A lot more people would be alive probably.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

good points pHATE. now this thread is getting somewhere! :cheese: it's interesting you should bring up afghanistan, b/c i'd guess i'm one of the only people on these forums to have actually seen where the majority of those afghan refugees went. i lived in peshwar, pakistan (close to afghanistan, near the khyber pass). one of the "neighborhoods" of peshawar is an afghan refugee 'mud city'. i've somehow managed to forget the name of it (it's not an official neighborhood), but i passed it on a bus several times. it was a strange sight to say the least, b/c the buildings weren't shanties or anything, they had doors, windows with panes, tv antennas, etc. some even had garages with pull-down doors. th structures were earthen though. the town had been there for some 20 years. considering that the pakistanis weren't overjoyed with few millions refugees in their already unstable country, the afghans just made a new neighbor hood from the ground up (literally). i can't believe i've forgotten the name of that place.. does anyone here know?? it's not shamshatu, i never went there..

anyway, afghanistan has a history with the british empire (a rather bloody one), but it's hard to decide who has original claim to ****ing it up the most . it's a complex issue, but basically you're right .

edit: in case anyone is wondering, i was there before 9/11. in fact i left at the beginning of january 2001. definitely glad i got a chance to go there before it basically became off limits. spent most of my time in lahore, peshawar, and the northern regions (gilgit/karimabad). i'd highly recomend that you people check out at least lahore and the northern mountain regions in, say, 50 years or whenever you can go . some advice: get tan and grow a looong beard.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Originally posted by SIGbastard
Now I just need to focus on my term paper for Japenese History and Culture. I'm at a loss as to how to talk about Sumo wrestling for 10 pages.

write a paper about how we bombed the shit out of them in ww2. their history and culture went up in ****ing flames! or maybe that's not a good idea.. i'm tired.

 

[pHATE1982]

Originally posted by Lil' Timmy
...anyway, afghanistan has a history with the british empire (a rather bloody one), but it's hard to decide who has original claim to ****ing it up the most . it's a complex issue, but basically you're right

Well, us British (and the French and Spanish for that matter) have alot to answer for... We've screwed over a hell of alot of countries over the years. Hell, we've even screwed over our own nations... Scotland being the perfect example.

So I think we should take our share of the blame. It's a common mistake though, a country gets too big for it's boots and begins acting like a bully

Modern day America anyone?

The point about Afgahnistan pre 9/11 was that America actually helped the Taliban and gave them money because they were anti-russian. A similar story to Iraq actually... America gives country guns, country gets more powerful, america attacks country, americans die...

Basically war sucks, and it's all done for the wrong reasons ;(

 

[waedoe]

Originally posted by pHATE1982
Well, us British (and the French and Spanish for that matter) have alot to answer for... We've screwed over a hell of alot of countries over the years. Hell, we've even screwed over our own nations... Scotland being the perfect example.

So I think we should take our share of the blame. It's a common mistake though, a country gets too big for it's boots and begins acting like a bully

Modern day America anyone?

The point about Afgahnistan pre 9/11 was that America actually helped the Taliban and gave them money because they were anti-russian. A similar story to Iraq actually... America gives country guns, country gets more powerful, america attacks country, americans die...

Basically war sucks, and it's all done for the wrong reasons ;(

Are you saying the war against terrorism is bad?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Originally posted by waedoe
Are you saying the war against terrorism is bad?

it's a self-fulfilling cycle. the US created the taliban, that's a fact. ask the CIA, they'll tell you themselves. the afghan mujahadin were trained by CIA in northern pakistan to thwart the advance of communism. we didn't give a shit about the afghans themselves. this is clearly evidenced by what happened after the soviets pulled out in the late 80s. in 1992, what was left of the afghan government crumbled and the mujahadin we trained took over forming a military government, this would eventually lead to the friendly taliban we all know and love. afghanistan was laid to waste. 1 million afghans dead, 5 million refugees.

the soviets we're the main cause, but to think the US had nothing to do with this atrocity is simply ignorance. and we couldn't have given two shits about afghanistan untill 9/11. but anyone with half a brain could have told you what monster we were creating in the first place, 20 years ago.

this exact type of short-sighted give-them-weapons "solution" created saddam hussein. we gave weapons to him to fight the iranians. a secular bathist causing trouble was better than a shia-dominated middle east in our estimation. all of this is serving the short-term interests of the US, with no regard for the people of these places (or the future of americans, as it would happen).

we built saddam into the horrible monster. when he gased his own people, we didn’t care because he was our ally. we didn’t care that he was a monster because he was our monster. but once our monster stepped out of our line (1st iraq war) we punished the iraqis, not saddam. it's only my supposition, but i think we left him there b/c we thought we could still use him to destabilize the region. would it be right to have kept hitler around to counterbalance to the soviets?

you'd be right in thinking this adds up to a "let's remove saddam" arguement. as is said repeatedly by everyone, we're all glad saddam is gone. he should have been gone a long time ago (when he was our friend..). the problem is the way it's being done. the bush corporation can run a good war, no doubt. their post-war admittedly needs work, but the real problem is that bush inc. has no idea how to "nation build". but it's ok, b/c we're not really rebuilding iraq (the way we helped rebuild germany), nor do we want to. the more instability in the region, the better. except, 20 or 30 years from now, a new taliban will run the place and we get to do this all over again.

alternatively, you can buy the company line coming from fox news and think we're "spreading democracy" and that "old europe" is a bunch of terrorist-enablers.

 

[waedoe]

Originally posted by Lil' Timmy
it's a self-fulfilling cycle. the US created the taliban, that's a fact. ask the CIA, they'll tell you themselves. the afghan mujahadin were trained by CIA in northern pakistan to thwart the advance of communism. we didn't give a shit about the afghans themselves. this is clearly evidenced by what happened after the soviets pulled out in the late 80s. in 1992, what was left of the afghan government crumbled and the mujahadin we trained took over forming a military government, this would eventually lead to the friendly taliban we all know and love. afghanistan was laid to waste. 1 million afghans dead, 5 million refugees.

the soviets we're the main cause, but to think the US had nothing to do with this atrocity is simply ignorance. and we couldn't have given two shits about afghanistan untill 9/11. but anyone with half a brain could have told you what monster we were creating in the first place, 20 years ago.

this exact type of short-sighted give-them-weapons "solution" created saddam hussein. we gave weapons to him to fight the iranians. a secular bathist causing trouble was better than a shia-dominated middle east in our estimation. all of this is serving the short-term interests of the US, with no regard for the people of these places (or the future of americans, as it would happen).

we built saddam into the horrible monster. when he gased his own people, we didn’t care because he was our ally. we didn’t care that he was a monster because he was our monster. but once our monster stepped out of our line (1st iraq war) we punished the iraqis, not saddam. it's only my supposition, but i think we left him there b/c we thought we could still use him to destabilize the region. would it be right to have kept hitler around to counterbalance to the soviets?

you'd be right in thinking this adds up to a "let's remove saddam" arguement. as is said repeatedly by everyone, we're all glad saddam is gone. he should have been gone a long time ago (when he was our friend..). the problem is the way it's being done. the bush corporation can run a good war, no doubt. their post-war admittedly needs work, but the real problem is that bush inc. has no idea how to "nation build". but it's ok, b/c we're not really rebuilding iraq (the way we helped rebuild germany), nor do we want to. the more instability in the region, the better. except, 20 or 30 years from now, a new taliban will run the place and we get to do this all over again.

alternatively, you can buy the company line coming from fox news and think we're "spreading democracy" and that "old europe" is a bunch of terrorist-enablers.

LIL'Timmy i wont deny the CIA made the Taliban. For a fact i did know that they created the taliban. The premise though is they didnt create them to cause terrorism to the freeworld. they created them to fight and defend afganistan from the Russian Communism. What im getting at here is that the U.S. isnt responsible for the talibans actions today. Thats like saying a mother and father are responsible for everything a child does intill the mother and father die.

Its easy to look back on somthing and point blame, but at that time im sure they had to make quick decisions. I mean its not like we had any knowledge that these events would take place 20-30 years later. HERES THE PRESIDENTS THROUGH THE COLD WAR I.E. TALIBAN BEGININGS

Lyndon B. Johnson 1963 - 1969 D
Richard M. Nixon 1969 - 1974 R
Gerald R. Ford 1974 - 1977 R
Jimmy Carter 1977 - 1981 D
Ronald Reagan 1981 - 1989 R

 

[pHATE1982]

Originally posted by waedoe
Thats like saying a mother and father are responsible for everything a child does intill the mother and father die.

Parents generally don't give there kids lots of guns and train them to be fighting machines though do they?

And as for you previous comments... No I don't think a war on terrorism is bad, if thats what it is. I'm sorry, but where was the terror coming from Iraq? Hmmmm.... Saddams moustache perhaps?

Plus war an terror roughly tanslates to "image and power machine"... which hell yeah will create a fast buck in the economy... but just how much more terrorism will it create in the long run?

And perhaps we should be looking at why america and other parts of the developed world are the target of terrorism and try and solve that problem. Cause really dropping bombs on them isn't gonna make all the other terror groups in the world turn around and go "Gee wizz, looks like america is really trying to change, lets all be happy and share cake"... the problem will only escalate. These wars are only fueling the terrorist propaganda, recruiting more to the cause... Just how long can extra security at airports keep them out?

And mister trigger happy bush aint helping that situation. He thinks he can destroy all the terror groups and save the world... but then again he probably thinks the world is the size of an eggcup. After all he did think Africa was a country...

 

[Korgoth]

Read this story- it'll change your life hehe

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546287.shtml

 

[pHATE1982]

Originally posted by Innervision961
Read this story- it'll change your life hehe

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546287.shtml

Even Saddam has a heart, lol...

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

georgy has some smart press people, unlike valve sadly

and yes the u.s created the taliban as with most terrorist that actually pose a threat....

lil timmy your probably the most educated forum goer ive ever met, jesus man btw I agree with you on this

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Originally posted by waedoe
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963 - 1969 D
Richard M. Nixon 1969 - 1974 R
Gerald R. Ford 1974 - 1977 R
Jimmy Carter 1977 - 1981 D
Ronald Reagan 1981 - 1989 R

right, good point. it should be made clear that this is a matter of past and continuing US foreign policy. bush is not the only guilty party. however, he is the president now, and he was when 9/11 happened. the reaction to 9/11 is necessary, this discussion should be about how we reacted. the real problem i see is the short-term, quick-fix mentality, which still runs the show. bush can use catch-phrases like 'spreading democracy', b/c it get votes and indicates nearly nothing about a long-term strategy to create a self-sufficient country out of iraq. i firmly believe if you asked bush right now how exactly he plans to accomplish a 'free' iraq that is a model of democracy, he'd have no clue. of course, that's true with a lot of things you could ask him .

and it's not like it's a easy question. how do you create a democracy out of a former tyrannical dictatorship, with a fractured, tribablistic demographic, and little recent history except war? it's a horribly complex, difficult issue. the type of complexity that obviates some thought before the "shock and awe". i'm against bush, b/c at best, he and his administration are incapable this level of understanding. most of europe sees the US as an adolescent precisely b/c we react with infantile determination and lack of forethought. at worst, this administration is actively pursuing a policy of subjugating those regions of the world we think are a threat to our SUVs and starbucks. it's this perception of a decadent and malicious US that's prevalent in the middle-east. furthermore, this is the view that creates terrorists in the first place. does destroying iraq with a military flourish help our case? we'll see, but i expect not.

babyheadcrab: thanks, but all you got to do is type with confidence. if you sound like you believe what you're saying, it doesn't matter how much crap you spew. believe me, i should know :thumbs:

 

[Blair]

Wow... These are some long post's. I guess everyones a politician here. :dozey:

I consider myself the most avarage type of American. I live my life day to day, leave politics to the slim balls. If you're not careful, it can consume everything within you.

When I first wake up in the morning, I don't think to myself, "Gee that economic spending debt yadda blah is too big". I'm usually more worried about whether theres enough orange juice left and what section of the paper I want to read first.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Originally posted by Sn7
Wow... These are some long post's. I guess everyones a politician here. :dozey:

I consider myself the most avarage type of American. I live my life day to day, leave politics to the slim balls. If you're not careful, it can consume everything within you.

When I first wake up in the morning, I don't think to myself, "Gee that economic spending debt yadda blah is too big". I'm usually more worried about whether theres enough orange juice left and what section of the paper I want to read first.

lol

 

[pHATE1982]

This is my entry in the photoshop competition this week... thought it was relevent :cheese:

 

[waedoe]

Originally posted by pHATE1982
Even Saddam has a heart, lol...

heres what a great heart he has you sick ****!

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hrdossier.pdf

Saddam Hussein’s Regime’s Methods of Torture
The following methods of torture have all been reported to international human rights groups, such
as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, by the victims of torture or their families.
Eye gouging
Amnesty International reported the case of a Kurdish businessman in Baghdad who was executed
in 1997. When his family retrieved his body, the eyes had been gouged out and the empty eye
sockets stuffed with paper.
Piercing of hands with electric drill
A common method of torture for political detainees. Amnesty International reported one victim
who then had acid poured into his open wounds.
Suspension from the ceiling
Victims are blindfolded, stripped and suspended for hours by their wrists, often with their hands
tied behind their backs. This causes dislocation of shoulders and tearing of muscles and ligaments.
Electric shock
A common torture method. Shocks are applied to various parts of the body, including the genitals,
ears, tongue and fingers.
Sexual abuse
Victims, particularly women, have been raped and sexually abused, including reports of broken
bottles being forced into the victim’s anus.
"Falaqa"
Victims are forced to lie face down and are then beaten on the soles of their feet with a cable, often
losing consciousness.
Other physical torture
Extinguishing cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of fingernails and toenails and
beatings with canes, whips, hose pipes and metal rods are common.
Mock executions
Victims are told that they are to be executed by firing squad and a mock execution is staged.
Victims are hooded and brought before a firing squad, who then fire blank rounds.
Acid baths
David Scheffer, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, reported that photographic evidence
showed that Iraq had used acid baths during the invasion of Kuwait. Victims were hung by their
wrists and gradually lowered into the acid.

 

[pHATE1982]

Originally posted by waedoe
heres what a great heart he has you sick ****!

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hrdossier.pdf

Saddam Hussein’s Regime’s Methods of Torture
The following methods of torture have all been reported to international human rights groups, such
as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, by the victims of torture or their families.
Eye gouging
Amnesty International reported the case of a Kurdish businessman in Baghdad who was executed
in 1997. When his family retrieved his body, the eyes had been gouged out and the empty eye
sockets stuffed with paper.
Piercing of hands with electric drill
A common method of torture for political detainees. Amnesty International reported one victim
who then had acid poured into his open wounds.
Suspension from the ceiling
Victims are blindfolded, stripped and suspended for hours by their wrists, often with their hands
tied behind their backs. This causes dislocation of shoulders and tearing of muscles and ligaments.
Electric shock
A common torture method. Shocks are applied to various parts of the body, including the genitals,
ears, tongue and fingers.
Sexual abuse
Victims, particularly women, have been raped and sexually abused, including reports of broken
bottles being forced into the victim’s anus.
"Falaqa"
Victims are forced to lie face down and are then beaten on the soles of their feet with a cable, often
losing consciousness.
Other physical torture
Extinguishing cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of fingernails and toenails and
beatings with canes, whips, hose pipes and metal rods are common.
Mock executions
Victims are told that they are to be executed by firing squad and a mock execution is staged.
Victims are hooded and brought before a firing squad, who then fire blank rounds.
Acid baths
David Scheffer, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, reported that photographic evidence
showed that Iraq had used acid baths during the invasion of Kuwait. Victims were hung by their
wrists and gradually lowered into the acid.

Um? Did u actually read the news story? It was funny. My comment was sarcastic humour based upon the church's comments.

Are you really so desperate to jump at the chance to attack us anti-bush types, that you will take a tiny comment based on humour and try and make us look bad? You are indeed a sad man...

No-one has ever said Saddam wasn't a bad man, so go and actually get some facts to back up your case before you start ridiculous personal attacks. If you can't argue against us don't bother.

 

[Brian Damage]

Yeah, I thought you were being sarcastic...

Onya.

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

The turkey wasn't real!