Bush-Iraq

We've seen it on the cover of magazines, on the main page of thousands of pro-"peace" websites, of course we've seen it on FOX news. Brave little soldiers came face to face with a statue of Saddam and toppled him over. [Let's not forget when they wrapped his face up with the American flag]

"gee golly that's swell!" must've thought everyone watching their propaganda box. "I guess our troops are there to help after all."

Exactly at that time, Iraqis were practicing their newfound freedom of stealing historical artifacts from a museum.

Where were the troops? oh yeah, they were smiling for the cameras, kissing liberated Iraqi baies and giving us the false sense that everything was going a-ok under their authority when a few blocks away chaos and anarchy were the authority.

"Don't be a hypocrite! Those damn Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction hidden in their third-world country tents" one might argue.

I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------
In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited bureaucratic reasons for focusing on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of the interview.
------------------------------------------------------
In otber words, everyone had their own reasons to invade Iraq. I'm sorry, "liberate" Iraq like they did with Afghanistan. By the way, isn't it strange how the media doesn't care about Ossama Bin Laden or the future of the Afghan people? Things must be horrible there because if they weren't you'd be sure that there would be plenty of Afghan Success Stories on your 6o'clock news.

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

Listen, you unimformed hippie:

We came to Iraq to liberate them from a regime which killed a million (or more) of it's own people as the main reason. Saddam tutored thousands, and they will now live normal lives. Obviously, he lied to the U.N. He said he haid no S.C.U.D.s, and on day two, he launches them at Kuwait. The museums were looted when the pussy Saddam followers were fleeing from Baghdad. The fall of Saddam's statue was symbolic to the liberation. War is hell but it liberates and protects. Securing Iraq will take a long time, and "anarchy" woudn't be the right word. People are murdered here in tht US every day. So rethink your view hippie.

[nitroxide]

At 5/30/03 04:12 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: Listen, you unimformed hippie:

We came to Iraq to liberate them from a regime which killed a million (or more) of it's own people as the main reason. Saddam tutored thousands, and they will now live normal lives. Obviously, he lied to the U.N. He said he haid no S.C.U.D.s, and on day two, he launches them at Kuwait. The museums were looted when the pussy Saddam followers were fleeing from Baghdad. The fall of Saddam's statue was symbolic to the liberation. War is hell but it liberates and protects. Securing Iraq will take a long time, and "anarchy" woudn't be the right word. People are murdered here in tht US every day. So rethink your view hippie.

::SMACKS SpEeDFiReSrFr::
Your views are highly emotional and have no substance,please listen to someone before classifying them as a hippie.Whats wrong with the message of love?

[bumcheekcity]

We've toppled the statues, but we havent found Saddam yet.

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

First off, I'm a newbie and I have no idea what ::smacks SpEeDfIrEsRfr:: means. Does it mean your "virtually" hitting me. That's very gay.

Second off, I WANT peace. But all threats must be removed.

Third, it doesn't matter if we find Osama or Saddam. It would be nice to see them punished, but Saddam no longer are a threat. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is regrouping. Are they as bg of a threat as others? No way. Osama additionally has lost leadership communication if he's hiding alive.

[Jimsween]

At 5/30/03 04:20 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: We've toppled the statues, but we havent found Saddam yet.

We should hire one of those classmates websites. But seriously, the guy has billions of dollars, millions of followers, and anywhere to go. Could you find him?

[nitroxide]

At 5/30/03 04:31 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: First off, I'm a newbie and I have no idea what ::smacks SpEeDfIrEsRfr:: means. Does it mean your "virtually" hitting me. That's very gay.

::Virtually shkes head at your ignorance::
Did you know you could get banned for calling someone gay?

Second off, I WANT peace. But all threats must be removed.

"That's very gay"-Not very peaceful words.
I take that as a threat therefore,you should be removed.

::ignores the rest of SpEeDFiReSrFr::

"But if any man be ignorant,
let him be ignorant."

1 Corinthians 14:38

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 5/30/03 04:40 PM, nitroxide wrote:

ignores the rest of SpEeDFiReSrFr::

"But if any man be ignorant,
let him be ignorant."

1 Corinthians 14:38

Haha, beautiful. :)

It's funny how those WMD's haven't shown their faces. I disagree with why the war was started, but I'm very glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power.

There's a chance that the Iraqi people MIGHT have a normal exsistance eventually, with him out of power. I've been over and over my opinions about UN resolution 1441 and how it was broken, but that doesn't matter now. Or at least, it's not the issue. Not as much.

More people might die, yes. If Saddam Hussein was still in control, it's a GUARANTEE that more people would perish. Leaving him in power wouldn't have promoted peace in Iraq.

But I'll be damned if there weren't some bad consequences. All we can do now is hope that the worst is behind us.

[RoboTripper]

At 5/30/03 04:12 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: Listen, you unimformed hippie:

Speaking of "unimformed"

We came to Iraq to liberate them from a regime which killed a million (or more) of it's own people as the main reason.

Wrong.

Saddam tutored thousands, and they will now live normal lives.

No, they will live as dirt-cheap near-slave-labor for American corporations.

Obviously, he lied to the U.N. He said he haid no S.C.U.D.s, and on day two, he launches them at Kuwait.

Wrong.

The museums were looted when the pussy Saddam followers were fleeing from Baghdad.

Wrong.

The fall of Saddam's statue was symbolic to the liberation.

Or a beautiful piece of propaganda. I wonder where the people got those American flags they were waving?

War is hell but it liberates and protects.

Since when was that the goal of war?

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

I didn't even call you gay, I called one of your actions gay. If you're offended by that, you really have a problem.

[Jimsween]

I dont agree with eitehr of you but I wasnt going to let crack smoker go on talking unless someone was going to debate him.

At 5/30/03 05:20 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote:

At 5/30/03 04:12 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: Listen, you unimformed hippie:

Speaking of "unimformed"

Defense is a much better strategy than offense crack, it's apllied the same in life.

We came to Iraq to liberate them from a regime which killed a million (or more) of it's own people as the main reason.

Wrong.

First, there was no main reason, if tehre was it would be clear to everyone.

Saddam tutored thousands, and they will now live normal lives.

No, they will live as dirt-cheap near-slave-labor for American corporations.

*rolls eyes* Yeah, cause we have a history of doing that to nations we fight wars with, no wait... We dont...

Obviously, he lied to the U.N. He said he haid no S.C.U.D.s, and on day two, he launches them at Kuwait.

Wrong.

I dont remember him saying he had no scuds, but he did say he had no scuds of that range, which was a lie.

The museums were looted when the pussy Saddam followers were fleeing from Baghdad.

Wrong.

He may be wrong but there is a bit of hiocracy on the "average" anti warers part here. They say that they dont want to kill innocent civilians, but they also say we need to do something about the lootings. Considering there war at least a few looters (if not more) with weapons trying to stop them would cause a firefight and make even more hostilities between the two. So you end up with more causalties. And there would be no way to control riots because tear gas and mace are consiered chemical weapons and are illegal.

The fall of Saddam's statue was symbolic to the liberation.

Or a beautiful piece of propaganda. I wonder where the people got those American flags they were waving?

It may be proporganda but do you really think the citizens werent at all happy?

War is hell but it liberates and protects.

Since when was that the goal of war?

Since the begining of the 1900's, I cant think of a war that wasnt for that, and he didnt say it was the goal. He said it was something it did.

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

At 5/30/03 05:20 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote:

At 5/30/03 04:12 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: Listen, you unimformed hippie:

Speaking of "unimformed"

We came to Iraq to liberate them from a regime which killed a million (or more) of it's own people as the main reason.

Wrong.

Right, actually. Ever here the story of the 1990 Shi'ite muslim uprising? AT LEAST one million were killed.

Saddam tutored thousands, and they will now live normal lives.

No, they will live as dirt-cheap near-slave-labor for American corporations.

If they were at the same level as Mexicans, it would still be a million times improvment than unemployment.

Obviously, he lied to the U.N. He said he haid no S.C.U.D.s, and on day two, he launches them at Kuwait.

Wrong.

Actually, right. Chech the news.

The museums were looted when the pussy Saddam followers were fleeing from Baghdad.

Wrong.

Right and wrong. Security can never be 1oo percent and I may have been inaccurate here. However, MOST looting happened while war was in progress.

The fall of Saddam's statue was symbolic to the liberation.

Or a beautiful piece of propaganda. I wonder where the people got those American flags they were waving?

As far as I saw, there were no American flags, just handmade posters with "Thank you Bush" and Iraqi flags.

War is hell but it liberates and protects.

Since when was that the goal of war?

Since America, this great nation, came to be. Every war we've fought was for those reasons.

[nitroxide]

At 5/30/03 05:21 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: I didn't even call you gay, I called one of your actions gay. If you're offended by that, you really have a problem.

Ones actions defines a gay man,a gay man ACTS upon his urges.To get a piece of action.

Im not offended by being called gay,im offended by your ignorance.I do have a problem...you.

"You want to step outside"
::realizes SpEeDFiReSrFr is a 14 year old kid::
::Nitro rips SpEeDFiReSrFr pokemon cards::
::apoligizes,hands SpEeDFiReSrFr a lollypop::

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

First off, who cares if I'm only 14? Half the people here are probably ten and fake registered. Don't let this get personal. This is a political debate not a personal debate. And I like lollypops :)

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

And how am I ignorant?

[nitroxide]

At 5/30/03 06:32 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: First off, who cares if I'm only 14? Half the people here are probably ten and fake registered. Don't let this get personal. This is a political debate not a personal debate. And I like lollypops :)

Glad you enjoyed...
::Smiles::
::Pats sSpEeDFiReSrFr on the head::

Ignorance for classifying him as a hippie.
Ignorance of not realizing that the hippie view is highly discredited yet,beautiful.

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

:: :: Is starting to freak me out...

All views are discredited. It is beautiful in your opinion.

[cylon]

Maybe I'm forgetting the order of events,
but it seemed to me that any talk of liberation was a complete non-issue and was not even being spoke of much, if at all, until the US actually went in to Iraq.

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

At 5/30/03 07:19 PM, benu wrote: Maybe I'm forgetting the order of events,
but it seemed to me that any talk of liberation was a complete non-issue and was not even being spoke of much, if at all, until the US actually went in to Iraq.

It has beeen a concern since he came into power.

[cylon]

At 5/30/03 07:28 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote:

At 5/30/03 07:19 PM, benu wrote: Maybe I'm forgetting the order of events,
but it seemed to me that any talk of liberation was a complete non-issue and was not even being spoke of much, if at all, until the US actually went in to Iraq.

It has beeen a concern since he came into power.

I must have missed those 12 years of major US news coverage over the liberation of Iraq.

At 5/30/03 07:28 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: It has beeen a concern since he came into power.

Actually, between the first and the second gulf war, the US government was busy directing charitable donations to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. But then it backfired on 9-11.

At 5/30/03 07:19 PM, benu wrote: Maybe I'm forgetting the order of events,
but it seemed to me that any talk of liberation was a complete non-issue and was not even being spoke of much, if at all, until the US actually went in to Iraq.

Bush: YOU ARE HIDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. LET THE UN INSPECTORS IN YOUR COUNTRY OR WE WILL ATTACK!
Saddam: Very well
UN Inspectors: I don't see any WMDs here
Bush:...uuhhhIT IS TIME TO LIBERATE IRAQ!

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid".

September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.

[TheTio]

At 5/30/03 04:31 PM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote: Second off, I WANT peace. But all threats must be removed.

This sounds vaguely similair to one of those new ideas of the american government, what was it, something like this...

We will make a preemptive strike against any PERCEIVED threat, to our nation, our people, and our way of life

Yeah, that sounds like something a bigot would say, should be about right

PERCEIVED threat? Fuck that with a rotten stick
more like CONCEIVED threat, goddamn, the greatest thing is that the spoonfed american public will quite probably reelect this beady eyed sodomite so he can keep on pushing the world around with his hall monitor status

The only kind of peace that will be brought about under this way of thinking will be the occupation and nullification of all opposiing ideas, there is no negotiation here, their not even going after the real threats, their still juicing september 11th for all its worth

And the voters are still lapping it up, quite appaling really

[TheTio]

Ah nailbomb, your great grasp of the historical timeline often shuts down an argument, bravo

Keep up the good work

[Alejandro1]

At 5/30/03 11:02 PM, nailbomb wrote: a timeline of the US undermining other governments in the world.

I sense your meaning behind these events, give it a rest. The US is only trying to move ahead of other nations in knowledge and power; any other country that doesn't try to do this is putting itself in potental danger in the future.

One more thing, you must accept the fact that innocent people die in every war, that's to be expected; in other words, grow up. I see you didn't mention anything about the 50,000 American GI's and draftees who were killed in Vietnam; most of them didn't want to be in Vietnam.

[mrpopenfresh]

Nailbomb is touching a very important subject by talking about Americans policing Iraqis (well, more of a LACK of policing).

When Iraqi civilians wer'e out pillaging priceless pieces of Iraqi history, american soldiers wer'e littarely turning a blind eye. The official explanation for this lack of help was that they wewr'e too tight on soldiers and they couldn't spare a couple of the couple thousands in Iraq. Meanwhile, vigilantes, pretty vicious ones might I add, were deciding to take the law into their own hands. Finnally soldiers started to stop all the raiders they saw, but helas, it was too late, many houses and many pieces of Iraqs rich history had been pilfered.

And why the hell is everyone that isn't pro american considered a hippie? It just pisses me off.

[Alejandro1]

At 5/31/03 12:08 AM, mrpopenfresh wrote: When Iraqi civilians wer'e out pillaging priceless pieces of Iraqi history, american soldiers wer'e littarely turning a blind eye.

Unfortunately, the US soldiers were not ordered to collect fine art pieces, they were ordered to take out Saddam's followers and to keep order in Iraq. Its not easy to carry 2 large Persian pots, a rifle, and countless other supplies at the same time while being shot at. It's actually a shame that the pieces of art got destroyed though; they are priceless relics of the past.

[RoboTripper]

At 5/30/03 05:46 PM, jimsween wrote:

We came to Iraq to liberate them from a regime which killed a million (or more) of it's own people as the main reason.

Wrong.

First, there was no main reason, if tehre was it would be clear to everyone.

I thought that our national security was the reason for the war. We didn't want the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Liberation of Iraq was added in since the Bush administration knew it was taking a chance that an extensive WoMD program didn't exist. That's what happens when you make up intelligence reports. But don't ask me, ask our allies in the war who are now feeling extremely deceived.

Saddam tutored thousands, and they will now live normal lives.

No, they will live as dirt-cheap near-slave-labor for American corporations.

*rolls eyes* Yeah, cause we have a history of doing that to nations we fight wars with, no wait... We dont...

But we also don't have a history of preemptively attacking and taking over countries, then moving in our oil companies and corporations to rebuild it. Times change.

Obviously, he lied to the U.N. He said he haid no S.C.U.D.s, and on day two, he launches them at Kuwait.

Wrong.

I dont remember him saying he had no scuds, but he did say he had no scuds of that range, which was a lie.

I was talking about the launching of scud missiles at U.S. forces, which was reported as having happened but later corrected. As far as his possession of scuds, I haven't heard anything other than those early reports which the military later admitted were incorrect.

The museums were looted when the pussy Saddam followers were fleeing from Baghdad.

Wrong.

He may be wrong but there is a bit of hiocracy on the "average" anti warers part here. They say that they dont want to kill innocent civilians, but they also say we need to do something about the lootings. Considering there war at least a few looters (if not more) with weapons trying to stop them would cause a firefight and make even more hostilities between the two. So you end up with more causalties. And there would be no way to control riots because tear gas and mace are consiered chemical weapons and are illegal.

I doubt there would've been an uproar about the tear gassing of looters when protesters in the US were having it used on them at the same time. I agree with you for the most part though, I was just disagreeing with him implying that the major looting took place when Saddam's forces were on their way out - the US forces were there, just look at the Oil Ministry which was unscathed.

The fall of Saddam's statue was symbolic to the liberation.

Or a beautiful piece of propaganda. I wonder where the people got those American flags they were waving?

It may be proporganda but do you really think the citizens werent at all happy?

I think many citizens were happy. But a picture of a few hundred people in a huge city like Baghdad was misleading... I saw very limited coverage of the deadly riots that came shortly thereafter.

[Jimsween]

At 5/31/03 12:08 AM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Nailbomb is touching a very important subject by talking about Americans policing Iraqis (well, more of a LACK of policing).

This was important a month ago, nobobdy talks about Iraq in the news anymore because they have water and police and food so basically were just beating an issue into the ground.

When Iraqi civilians wer'e out pillaging priceless pieces of Iraqi history, american soldiers wer'e littarely turning a blind eye. The official explanation for this lack of help was that they wewr'e too tight on soldiers and they couldn't spare a couple of the couple thousands in Iraq. Meanwhile, vigilantes, pretty vicious ones might I add, were deciding to take the law into their own hands. Finnally soldiers started to stop all the raiders they saw, but helas, it was too late, many houses and many pieces of Iraqs rich history had been pilfered.

Ok, I'm pretty sure you made up the "official explaination" unless you have some sources which you never have had. And the vigilantes in Iraq were not vicious, I don't call defending hospitals viscious. And it's a tad hipocritical of you to say that we arent policing them enough when you were the one who was so defensive of Iraqi life, and I suppose occupation isnt so bad now either. The was no one reason that they didnt start policing the citizens, there were many reasons. First, there was no official surrender so any policing enforcing of the law would be somewhat criminal (I belive the Iraqi general's reason that he couldnt surrender was because there was people holding his daughter hostage), None of the traditional equipment for stopping rioting could be used because mace and tear gas are considered chemical weapons and we didnt exactly have nightsticks so all they would be able to use is thier guns, and most of all I would thin getting them water would come before stopping some looters (espescially when there is no place they can go with the stuff and they will jsut get it back eventually).

And why the hell is everyone that isn't pro american considered a hippie? It just pisses me off.

Just because someone calls a person a hippie doesnt mean everyone consideres them a hippy, Your making generalization based upon one person which is the lowest form of debate possible. Well, second to calling someone gay.