US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:29 pm
Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Things just keep getting more interesting...
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wirq102.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/02/ixnewstop.html
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$LC3M0JFDWOL1PQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2003/02/28/wirq228.xml
Thats all made up, the US Govt. will gas the Kurds and blame it on Saddam. As for the General, a CIA agent snuck into his home and poisoned his water. You Americans are so easily fooled.....hahahahahhahahaha stupid little Americans
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:47 pm
Originally posted by COL.BUKKAKE
Thats all made up, the US Govt. will gas the Kurds and blame it on Saddam. As for the General, a CIA agent snuck into his home and poisoned his water. You Americans are so easily fooled.....hahahahahhahahaha stupid little Americans
Sorry, I meant to post this from a far more reputable source.
http://halcyondays.home.attbi.com/index/saddamjob.html
- MeatShield
by MeatShield » Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:14 am
If war comes to Iraq, the Kurds of Kifri will be right in the line of fire. Iraqi officials have threatened that the moment the first American bomb lands, they will reply with a chemical assault on the town.
Oh now come on Doug... we all know that Saddam has said that he does not have any chemical weapons!! Now him being a man of his word, I have to take this a line of crap!!
btw.. good to see you post again bukkake..
since the little merger, you have been pretty quiet.- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Tue Mar 04, 2003 9:53 am
Originally posted by MeatShield
Oh now come on Doug... we all know that Saddam has said that he does not have any chemical weapons!! Now him being a man of his word, I have to take this a line of crap!!
Oops, I forgot that Hussein is more trustworthy than anyone here in the US. Thanks for reminding me.
- Anton
by Anton » Tue Mar 04, 2003 8:39 pm
Rule of Wrist writes (sarcastically),
"Anton has figured it all out"...
No Wristie baby......just a hell of a lot more than you home-boys....(Now you're faulting me 'cause I know so much...Geez, I guy just can't win....)
As for, "....Nobody should have anything different than anyone else..."
I never said that ...or anything remotely resembling it.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily you guys find some diversion - any diversion - from the topic at hand.
Clearly what Rule of Wrist is *projecting* is communist / socialist ideology onto my little narratives here. In fact, I'm rather opposed to labels (in part, since not one in a hundred thousand know what they actually mean...and because, my views are both complex and taken from across a wide spectrum of political ideologies and thought).
...I remember once being in a spirited 'discussion' with a 'young liberal' politico...Getting the worst of it he finally resorted to ad hominem attack,
"Just who *are* you anyway?"
Reply: (as it is to Wrist of Rule)...to general applause,
"Forget about who I am. Just stick to the argument. Just answer to the argument."
For in point of fact, though it is, of course, human nature to fall all too readily into a Manichean duality, I personally, do not see our little squabbles here in terms of 'bad guys vs good guys'....but in terms of those with Power vs those without . This has no (intrinsic) nationality, ethinicity or whatever to it (...though, of course, it does involve 'class').
Indeed, that those with Power should seek to project that power and do so under whatever ideological guise is most conveniant for the times (the 'war on terror', 'humanitarian intervention', 'anti-communism', 'the war on drugs', 'lebensraum', etc.) is, I would assert, an entirely reasonable, an entirely sensible (and, I proffer, an historically irrefutable) hypothesis....
...Quite frankly, I am at a 'loss' to understand what all the fuss is about, i.e. why it should be considered such a 'radical', let alone 'lunatic' idea.
I've always found it ironic in the extreme that political orthodoxy would posit that the world is constantly going up in flames as a result of the poor, the powerless, and the downtrodden pushing the wealthy, the mighty, and the ascendant around......rather than vice versa.
..And if you wish to be complicit with the depredations of Power, so be it ....but don't try and rationalize it as some sort of reasonable, ethical or moral position....
Anton
Allister Fiend mumbled,
"You keep proving my point....protests are not all about anti-war....they're about anti-capitalilsm.....anti-Bush...."
Bingo! Herr Fiend.
I never claimed they weren't. What you seem to be missing is the fact (a fundamental point here) is that capitlism and Bush & Gang ....in other words, *imperialism* by any other name....are quintessentially structurally linked to war.
You can't really oppose one without opposing the others.
"Anton has figured it all out"...
No Wristie baby......just a hell of a lot more than you home-boys....(Now you're faulting me 'cause I know so much...Geez, I guy just can't win....)
As for, "....Nobody should have anything different than anyone else..."
I never said that ...or anything remotely resembling it.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily you guys find some diversion - any diversion - from the topic at hand.
Clearly what Rule of Wrist is *projecting* is communist / socialist ideology onto my little narratives here. In fact, I'm rather opposed to labels (in part, since not one in a hundred thousand know what they actually mean...and because, my views are both complex and taken from across a wide spectrum of political ideologies and thought).
...I remember once being in a spirited 'discussion' with a 'young liberal' politico...Getting the worst of it he finally resorted to ad hominem attack,
"Just who *are* you anyway?"
Reply: (as it is to Wrist of Rule)...to general applause,
"Forget about who I am. Just stick to the argument. Just answer to the argument."
For in point of fact, though it is, of course, human nature to fall all too readily into a Manichean duality, I personally, do not see our little squabbles here in terms of 'bad guys vs good guys'....but in terms of those with Power vs those without . This has no (intrinsic) nationality, ethinicity or whatever to it (...though, of course, it does involve 'class').
Indeed, that those with Power should seek to project that power and do so under whatever ideological guise is most conveniant for the times (the 'war on terror', 'humanitarian intervention', 'anti-communism', 'the war on drugs', 'lebensraum', etc.) is, I would assert, an entirely reasonable, an entirely sensible (and, I proffer, an historically irrefutable) hypothesis....
...Quite frankly, I am at a 'loss' to understand what all the fuss is about, i.e. why it should be considered such a 'radical', let alone 'lunatic' idea.
I've always found it ironic in the extreme that political orthodoxy would posit that the world is constantly going up in flames as a result of the poor, the powerless, and the downtrodden pushing the wealthy, the mighty, and the ascendant around......rather than vice versa.
..And if you wish to be complicit with the depredations of Power, so be it ....but don't try and rationalize it as some sort of reasonable, ethical or moral position....
Anton
Allister Fiend mumbled,
"You keep proving my point....protests are not all about anti-war....they're about anti-capitalilsm.....anti-Bush...."
Bingo! Herr Fiend.
I never claimed they weren't. What you seem to be missing is the fact (a fundamental point here) is that capitlism and Bush & Gang ....in other words, *imperialism* by any other name....are quintessentially structurally linked to war.
You can't really oppose one without opposing the others.
by Kristov » Tue Mar 04, 2003 9:57 pm
Huh...Anton makes a long and rather boring post about..absolutely nothing. Same as Keekano's last post before the one liner.
You two oppose the action against Iraq based on arguements that Iraq has no WMD, etc. Then we find out, hey, they DO have them, they ARE destroying a few publically, and they stopped.
And, oddly enough(sarcism so thick you can cut it with a chainsaw) neither of them respond to this 'new' aspect of the thread. You know, the simple fact that we, the imperialist lackeys who support Bush and Company, we're correct all along and that Iraq actually IS in the wrong.
Go figure.
You two oppose the action against Iraq based on arguements that Iraq has no WMD, etc. Then we find out, hey, they DO have them, they ARE destroying a few publically, and they stopped.
And, oddly enough(sarcism so thick you can cut it with a chainsaw) neither of them respond to this 'new' aspect of the thread. You know, the simple fact that we, the imperialist lackeys who support Bush and Company, we're correct all along and that Iraq actually IS in the wrong.
Go figure.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Wed Mar 05, 2003 2:43 am
Kristov said... "neither of them respond to this 'new' aspect of the thread. You know, the simple fact that we, the imperialist lackeys who support Bush and Company, we're correct all along and that Iraq actually IS in the wrong."
Kristov, I didn't respond to this for several reasons. First, and most importantly, anyone who latches on to this bizarre distraction from the actual real machinations going on is beyond hope. Anyone who would A., forget the fact that the missiles were originally allowed under the first draft of the weapons inspections criteria, and further over look the fact that the criteria were re-vamped to include them, is obviously completely willing to latch on to ANY tiny infintisemal smidgeon of proof. Whatever. If that's what your conscience needs so you can sleep at night, all the power to you.
And *gasp* so friggin' what? So Saddam has a few missiles that go an extra 50 km. The states has, and USES missiles that go an extra 10,000 km. BUt that's ok. Right? Because they're doing it to help establish democracy. They're killing thousands of civilians to establish democracy. How does that work again? Lets see...I'm going to help you by killing you.
But but but....*splutter* Saddam l-l-l-liieed! Oh no. He'll go down in history as being the first gov't official who lied. Lets use that as an excuse to wipe out his country.
I really don't want to get into stats and such. I've tried EVER so hard not to include them. But here's one. In Saddams scud attacks on Israel a decade ago guess how many were killed. 2. THat's right. Count 'em. Two. 2. One plus one. Guess how many Israelies died from suffocating in gas masks they'd put on incorrectly. FOUR. 4. Lets see...in just one friendly fire incident....where the States wiped out some 100 British soldiers in one fell swoop--that would be the equivelant of FIFTY scud missiles.
But but but....if he lied about the missiles (which they were aware of and he declared the presence of--what IS contestable is the range)...he could lie about the chemical war-heads. Lets see....they still don't have ONE shred of proof that he HAS any chemical weapons. THis is your own security stating this. AND the inspecting team.
Gentlemen, all ye have is smoke and mirrors and, infinitely more dangerous, the machismo ignorance to blast down on a virtually defenseless country in patriotic fervor.
I gotta to move to the States. You guys are unbelievably gullible down there.
Kristov, I didn't respond to this for several reasons. First, and most importantly, anyone who latches on to this bizarre distraction from the actual real machinations going on is beyond hope. Anyone who would A., forget the fact that the missiles were originally allowed under the first draft of the weapons inspections criteria, and further over look the fact that the criteria were re-vamped to include them, is obviously completely willing to latch on to ANY tiny infintisemal smidgeon of proof. Whatever. If that's what your conscience needs so you can sleep at night, all the power to you.
And *gasp* so friggin' what? So Saddam has a few missiles that go an extra 50 km. The states has, and USES missiles that go an extra 10,000 km. BUt that's ok. Right? Because they're doing it to help establish democracy. They're killing thousands of civilians to establish democracy. How does that work again? Lets see...I'm going to help you by killing you.
But but but....*splutter* Saddam l-l-l-liieed! Oh no. He'll go down in history as being the first gov't official who lied. Lets use that as an excuse to wipe out his country.
I really don't want to get into stats and such. I've tried EVER so hard not to include them. But here's one. In Saddams scud attacks on Israel a decade ago guess how many were killed. 2. THat's right. Count 'em. Two. 2. One plus one. Guess how many Israelies died from suffocating in gas masks they'd put on incorrectly. FOUR. 4. Lets see...in just one friendly fire incident....where the States wiped out some 100 British soldiers in one fell swoop--that would be the equivelant of FIFTY scud missiles.
But but but....if he lied about the missiles (which they were aware of and he declared the presence of--what IS contestable is the range)...he could lie about the chemical war-heads. Lets see....they still don't have ONE shred of proof that he HAS any chemical weapons. THis is your own security stating this. AND the inspecting team.
Gentlemen, all ye have is smoke and mirrors and, infinitely more dangerous, the machismo ignorance to blast down on a virtually defenseless country in patriotic fervor.
I gotta to move to the States. You guys are unbelievably gullible down there.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 33 guests