Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/2/04 05:14 PM, Raptorman wrote:
1. There would be one more murderous dictator in the world, and one that really doesn't like us to boot.

There's plenty of those around that the US aren't interested in (ie, Mugabe), or installed (Pinochet). Of course, the latter liked the US for assassinating the previous President, but do you want to be popular with someone that "disappeared" several thousand of their own people?

2. The psycotic towel heads of the world would not be able to conserve their resources for another strike at the belly of the West instead of spending most of it futilly throwing themselves at our fangs and generating a lot of bad will by killing a lot of their fellow Muslims.

I'm ignoring this for use of the phrase "towel heads."

3. We would continue indefinitely with the steady cash and life drain of enforcing no fly zones ect. While some of our dubious allies continued to profit from clandestine deals made with the Bathists.

So, either way, the Us would be haemorraging cash to Iraq? It's just the minor question over which is preferable - losing it and keeping things ticking along, or losing cash AND lives by wading in like a Joel Schumacher film?

4. The people and infrastructure of Iraq would contine to falter under the ruinous and ineffective UN sanctions.

And I wonder why Saddam wasn't pro-America?

5. Most importantly, we would never correct our calllous betrayal of the Shia' and the Kurds by forrmenting inserection and then abbandoning them to the tender mercies of Saddam.

Oh yes, you've made up for those, haven't you?

I think Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power from a humanitarian standpoint. However, it wasn't an urgent and dangerous problem. There shouldn't have been nearly so much of an emphasis on WMD's, and action only should have been taken if the UN fully agreed on it.

Africa has loads of materials like oil, gas, diamonds and gold and that's why I don't think Bush attacked Iraq for the oil. Bush did it for Israel who are at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and I'm sure than within a decade the Israeli military will move in on Iraq for "peacekeeping".

At 7/4/04 02:16 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: ... I'm sure than within a decade the Israeli military will move in on Iraq for "peacekeeping".

I don't see that happening.

At 7/4/04 02:16 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: Africa has loads of materials like oil, gas, diamonds and gold and that's why I don't think Bush attacked Iraq for the oil. Bush did it for Israel who are at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and I'm sure than within a decade the Israeli military will move in on Iraq for "peacekeeping".

I was unaware that Isreal was currently in an active war. The Isralies being moved in for peacekeeping purposes won't happen, the Iraqi people won't let it happen.

At 7/4/04 02:16 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: Africa has loads of materials like oil, gas, diamonds and gold and that's why I don't think Bush attacked Iraq for the oil. Bush did it for Israel who are at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and I'm sure than within a decade the Israeli military will move in on Iraq for "peacekeeping".

The thing is, can you name on African dictator with such a panto villain reaction ("Boo! Hiss!") as Saddam - with the obvious exception of Idi Amin, who was long gone? With a portrayal somewhere between Satan and Michael Moore he already had, it made it just that little bit easier to justify going to war with Iraq, as well as how to handle facts and figures (emotive, and play to the yee-haw sensibilities of the average voter-cum-psychopath.)

Yes, Israel would've been in range of a Weapon of Mass Destruction if Iraq launched one, but there's still the minor question of what weapon was there to launch?

Also, it isn't as PC to move into Africa for such lame-assed reasons. After all, we hear phrases like "towel heads" and "dune coons" on this very board, but what would the derogitary term for the population of, say, Nigeria be? Remember, people: Arabs = BAD!!!

At 7/4/04 10:28 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/4/04 02:16 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: Africa has loads of materials like oil, gas, diamonds and gold and that's why I don't think Bush attacked Iraq for the oil. Bush did it for Israel who are at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and I'm sure than within a decade the Israeli military will move in on Iraq for "peacekeeping".

I was unaware that Isreal was currently in an active war. The Isralies being moved in for peacekeeping purposes won't happen, the Iraqi people won't let it happen.

Yeh they're currently at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria officialy. These wars started years ago but neither nation revoked there declarations of war so technically they're all at a stalemate untill Israel got America to attack Iraq.

At 7/4/04 11:42 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 7/2/04 05:14 PM, Raptorman wrote:

There's plenty of those around that the US aren't interested in

Yeah, there are it would be nice if we had the resources to take out every damn one of them. We can only do so much.

I'm ignoring this for use of the phrase "towel heads."

I stand by my statement of towel head as opposed to a few far less printable tearms I would prefur. Yeah, I will call anyone who wants to kill me, my familly, and you mearly because of the nation you are living in or the religion your parents taught you (and are willing to slaughter hundreds of thier fellow Muslims to do it) a lot of things, towlel head is one of the more generous tearms.

So, either way, the Us would be haemorraging cash to Iraq? It's just the minor question over which is preferable - losing it and keeping things ticking along, or losing cash AND lives by wading in like a Joel Schumacher film?

The staus quo was a lose lose proposition that would run indefinitly. Getting proactive, while expensive, has the best prospects for the long term intrests of the US and Iraq, oh, and Europe as well.

4. The people and infrastructure of Iraq would contine to falter under the ruinous and ineffective UN sanctions.

And I wonder why Saddam wasn't pro-America?

What the hell has that got to do with anything? The removal of the Baathist government allowed the removal of sanctions. Everone wins (unless you were one those countries that had clandestine deals with the government of Saddam).

5. Most importantly, we would never correct our calllous betrayal of the Shia' and the Kurds by forrmenting inserection and then abbandoning them to the tender mercies of Saddam.

Oh yes, you've made up for those, haven't you?

We are working on it. BTW in both opinion polls of Iraqis and and in US reports on most things, Iraqis are better off now than before. Notable exeptions include sercurity and electricity around Bagdahd.

At 7/5/04 06:38 PM, Raptorman wrote:
Yeah, there are it would be nice if we had the resources to take out every damn one of them. We can only do so much.

You use the same resources to put, or keep, them IN power, so why not just turn the tanks around 180 degrees? It's not that difficult - just move the lever to one side, and hit the throttle. After all, you can't castigate one dictator while accomodating another (Sharon) without looking a bit stupid.

I'm ignoring this for use of the phrase "towel heads."

I stand by my statement of towel head as opposed to a few far less printable tearms I would prefur. Yeah, I will call anyone who wants to kill me, my familly, and you mearly because of the nation you are living in or the religion your parents taught you (and are willing to slaughter hundreds of thier fellow Muslims to do it) a lot of things, towlel head is one of the more generous tearms.

I've got plenty of white people wanting to kill me, kick the shit out of me, and whatever, and I'm white. All it takes is not looking like a townie clone and walking through Croydon at chucking out time is more like Shaun of the Dead.

Trying to justify your use of a derogitary term with generalised opinion doesn't help a cause, either. I'm sure there's plenty of Russians, Serbians, Mexicans, Chileans, Indonesians (the list will go on, BTW) who hold a grudge for various reasons, usually involving the US fucking around with their country, fucking it up, and fucking over the people that live there. So, how will you describe these people?

The staus quo was a lose lose proposition that would run indefinitly. Getting proactive, while expensive, has the best prospects for the long term intrests of the US and Iraq, oh, and Europe as well.

Yes, because everything is looking real rosy now, isn't it? And what proof do you have that it won't be an indefinate period needed to clean up and restabilise Iraq now? Although I find it interesting you place the US as the first most likely nation to benefit ahead of the so-called "liberated" country, and a continent you castigated half of for not agreeing with you, before freezing them out.

What the hell has that got to do with anything? The removal of the Baathist government allowed the removal of sanctions. Everone wins (unless you were one those countries that had clandestine deals with the government of Saddam).

So, placing those sanctions there in the first place didn't cause ill-feeling, which gave Saddam a hook to join people together in hating America? And, yes, the UK had clandestine dealings with Saddam (Arms to Iraq, anyone?), just like the US.

Removing a government will not remove the seed which led to the feeling - worst case scenario it will make it worse, as one insult replaces another. Scars run deep in these cases - most conflicts in the modern world are the result of long-standing hostile feelings. You have to look at the former Yugoslavia for a very good example of this. How many Governments, monarchies - even borders and identities - have been removed, yet still the region is shaky?

Hey, let's make a conspiracy theory: In removing a leader, is that a good way to wash your hands of any dealings, as you can bury the evidence underneath showy ceremonies of "handing over Sovereignity"? If not, boy was it a waste of time...

We are working on it. BTW in both opinion polls of Iraqis and and in US reports on most things, Iraqis are better off now than before. Notable exeptions include sercurity and electricity around Bagdahd.

Do you think that there would be an opinion poll shown to the US where Iraqis said they didn't think they were better off now? Then, of course, there is the question of who they were asking, where, and what was being done for them - not to them - for them. Forget about Bagdhad and Basra, where the US and UK armies are stationed, what about Fallujah, um-Quasr, Tikrit and all the other cities? Are they better off, left hanging in the breeze, or somewhere inbetween?

At 7/2/04 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 7/2/04 10:54 AM, gem1 wrote: Where would we be now if we had not invaded Iraq. By the end of the 90's it was costing us $40 billion a year just to mainain the status in Iraq.
1. How far would that have escaladed

Probably not as high as, say, funding a full scale invasion (for reasons unproven), and the costs that go with increasing security when the locals don't happen to be very happy to have an army there under false pretences. Oh, and then there's the Court Marshalls for the abused prisoners...

Locals not happy? WTF is wrong with you? Previous to our army being there under "false preteneses" they were having weapons of mass destruction used on them by they own government. They were being mass murdered and tortured. They don't care why we are there, they are just damn happy we came. And if you don't agree, I think you should go live in North Korea- I bet you would be pretty damn happy if someone overturned their government then.

At 7/11/04 05:17 PM, secondmessiah wrote:

At 7/2/04 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 7/2/04 10:54 AM, gem1 wrote: Where would we be now if we had not invaded Iraq. By the end of the 90's it was costing us $40 billion a year just to mainain the status in Iraq.
1. How far would that have escaladed

Probably not as high as, say, funding a full scale invasion (for reasons unproven), and the costs that go with increasing security when the locals don't happen to be very happy to have an army there under false pretences. Oh, and then there's the Court Marshalls for the abused prisoners...

Locals not happy? WTF is wrong with you? Previous to our army being there under "false preteneses" they were having weapons of mass destruction used on them by they own government. They were being mass murdered and tortured. They don't care why we are there, they are just damn happy we came. And if you don't agree, I think you should go live in North Korea- I bet you would be pretty damn happy if someone overturned their government then.

We're not talking about North Korea its got no relevance at all. And there was no WMDs so how could they be used on their people? America has done more damage to its civillians than you think. You can't single out Iraq for doing so without looking at what Americas own government has done to its people.

i say

fuck saddam fuck iraq, bomb iraq and kill everyone inside, then divide it onto wat? 5-10 parts and turn it into the USA part2? with like 7 states inside

At 7/11/04 05:17 PM, secondmessiah wrote:
Locals not happy? WTF is wrong with you? Previous to our army being there under "false preteneses" they were having weapons of mass destruction used on them by they own government. They were being mass murdered and tortured. They don't care why we are there, they are just damn happy we came. And if you don't agree, I think you should go live in North Korea- I bet you would be pretty damn happy if someone overturned their government then.

I know, what a waste - Saddam having all these WMD, and not having the good sense to use them to generally wipe out the people he didn't like in one go. Or those invading.

WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!

Do you know how pathetic, in an admittedly funny way, it is to see people backpeddling and say the US invaded for "humanitarian" reasons, while at the same time carpet bombing cities because they were there?

"Weapons of mass destruction used on them by they own government"? BULLSHIT. If the US Senate says the pre-war intelligence was a pile of horseshit, and MI6 withdrew their "evidence", doesn't that speak volumes to you? Here's a hint - there were no WMD to use on Iraqis to begin with.
Backpeddling to being murdered and tortured doesn't work, as there are plenty of governments around the world that do just that, but the US doesn't bat an eyelid. Unless they're cutting a cheque for them, anyway. It's the same as Bush's lamest attempt yet - they found fertilizer bombs in Bagdhad. FERTILIZER?!? I can go to a garden centre and find the apparatus to build a fertilizer bomb, so when will there be a full-scale invasion of Blooms of Bressingham?

As for living in North Korea - why should I live there? You're the gung-ho type, so why don't you borrow a tank and invade for yourself? After all, the people will be happy if you liberated them all by yourself, right? Why don't you just charter a flight out to Iraq, preferably not sneaking in at night with the landing lights off (like Bush and Blair do), and gauge public opinion. Preferably without a camera crew, who have access to editing facilities. Better take an interpreter, unless you want to guess what they're saying. Which, probably, will be the exact opposite of what they are saying.

Happy the US came. Oh, thank you America! Thank you for casually bombing and shoting innocent civillians by the truckload, then acting all upset when one or two of your troops get shot back at. Same goes for the UK and anyone else that joined in Bush's Bash at the Beach. What, expecting a little bias? The only regeime change that will happen that won't be staged for the cameras and operated like a puppet show will be the one in the US this November. As for Blair, he won't be calling for a General Election just yet, but by-elections should give him a hint. A few million, to be exact.