We must fuck saddam hussein and protect people of Iraq because our way is the right way.
FUCK IRAQ
1,940 Views | 38 Replies
At 1/6/03 04:54 PM, calmius wrote: We must fuck saddam hussein and protect people of Iraq because our way is the right way.
And Americans wonder why most of the world hates them? I present to you the arrogant arse that is "calmius" and all the people like him.
Saddam's not going to use nuclear (if he has them) or chemical weapons on the U.S. If the U.S. does attack, and Saddam is close do being removed from power, he could very well not hesitate at all to use these weapons. Saddam should be removed from power, but can it be done without catastrophic consequences?
At 1/6/03 04:54 PM, calmius wrote: We must fuck saddam hussein and protect people of Iraq because our way is the right way.
I haven't heard the latest news about Iraq but is there proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical)? As far as I know there is no clear proof that Iraq has them. For the weapons report that Iraq has given, it has gone into the hands of US. Iraq has said that US will modify the report so that it appears that they have the weapons of mass desturction. That is fully probable. Considering that US is eager to attack Iraq, US could change the report so that it is to their advantage. So US doesn't really have proof about attacking Iraq. The only proof they have is that Second Gulf War will be happening if Saddam doesn't get removed from the leadership.
Protecting the Iraqi people? I am quite sure that there would be at least one civilian getting killed if there is a military operation (which is going in right now, US and UK aircrafts are bombarding the "No-Fly zone" in Iraq). If you are talking about sending special forces like Delta Force, SEAL, or SAS, then Saddam might be killed, but there would be a lot of ardent patriots in Iraq. Those people would weep for their leader and would want revenge upon US. In that case, when there are thousands of riots going around and is impossible to keep the order, firepower would be used, and rioters (civilians) will get killed. If that happens, then they failed to protect the civilians because they have just killed them.
At 1/6/03 04:54 PM, calmius wrote: We must fuck saddam hussein and protect people of Iraq because our way is the right way.
Focus on "because our way is the right way". That's a a statement that is very arrogant and you're full of yourself. Not open to debate or opposition, a black and white world.
"Our way is the right way" is something that would be said by those who had not thoroughly studied other ways. From the point of view of Iraq's people, Saddam may be a great leader. We have no right to suddenly invade and toss him out because we think he has weapons of mass distruction.
So what? The US has 2000 of them. Maybe the US should invade itself and throw out George Bush.
They have as much right as the US does to have Nuclear weapons.
The issue is not about weapons of mass destruction. The weapons of mass destruction are a ploy to gain public support. The issue is that Iraq, Iran, et al. are a threat to national security as a result of their support of terrorism. They want to kill us, remember that, if they have the opportunity and a reason(not to hard for them to find one) they will kill americans.
You criticise Bush for his "overeaction" against Iraq, but I think that you ignore the fact that he is barely doing anything. compare the amount of moblization today to that of the mobilization of the cold war or of world war 2. There is sufficient threat to warrant full scale mobilization, and it would likely cost many lives. You should all be counting your lucky stars that Bush isn't going all out, he's doing it diplomatically and getting UN support.
The problem with all you anti war people is that you don't understand the full spectrum of war. You see it as A: Peace, B: War. Reality is that there's a whole spectrum of states from
A:Peace.
B:Trade embargoes
C:Special Ops teams
D: Undeclared War
E:Declared War
F: Full scale War
G: Nuclear strikes
H: Uncondiitonal commmittment to destruction.
We are somewhere between C and D, moving our way up to a spot between D and E. I think that the attacks on our country warrant at least E, perhaps a little F. I think it's time to grow up, and face reality, when someone attacks us, we cannot allow them to exist.
But Iraq hasn't attacked us. They've never attacked us. They've never done anything serious enough to warrant an invasion. Suspected threat to country's security, but no one has threatened America. Bush is war-mongering. Trying to blow on the embers of september eleventh to spark a fire in Iraq.
Just because YOU don't know that there's a connection between Iraq and terrorism doesn't mean there isn't one.
If Bush is doing what I think he's doing, Iraq is just step one. Next comes Iran, the real bad boy.
I think that North Korea is a little different, as using political and social manipulation might be easier. North Korea has a southern neighbor that thinks the US is really awesome (teens wear shirts with english phrases on them, just like we wear shirts with japanese phrases on them).
The middle east is a lot harder for us to puncture socially. They don't have TV, they have religious reasons to hate us and tradition has a big role in things.
At 1/8/03 01:26 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I think that North Korea is a little different, as using political and social manipulation might be easier. North Korea has a southern neighbor that thinks the US is really awesome (teens wear shirts with english phrases on them, just like we wear shirts with japanese phrases on them).
If you are talking about South Korea thinking that US is awesome, then I'm afraid that was way back in 60's and 70's. Right now, as you might have noticed, there are a lot of anti-US feeling going on in South Korea. There are still many people going to city square with candles to protest against US. Some of the radical people have thrown eggs at US embassy and US army camps. The university students doesn't think US is cool anymore. Instead, they are sparked by the death of two middle school girls and rallying against the US. Some of the universities have openly put up anti-US slogans in their campus. There are some South Koreans that are living in US and other nations who might think that US is very cool. However, they are minorities compared to Koreans living in their country. Also, the newly elected presidential candidate, Roh Moo Hyun, is one of the people who have spread the anti-US feelings in the 80's. Thus, it is very likely that the link between US and South Korea will wither. Already the course that Roh Moo Hyun will take for North Korea is different from Bush. Trust me I'm from South Korea.
For North Korea, I believe Bush is not attacking North Korea because if he did so, then it could result a catastrophe. North Korea has disabled the IAEA security cameras, which means that they are likely to reactivate the facility to make nuclear weapons. Bush probably already knows this fact. Because of this, if he attacked North Korea, then North Korea might attack South Korea or Japan with its nuclear weapon. We already know that North Korea has Skud missiles, so all North Korea has to do is to arm the Skud missiles with nuclear warheads and target major cities in South Korea or Japan. That is obviously very bad, as once it hits a major city around 1 million civilians instantly die. By taking out North Korea, US had paid the price of killing 1 million civilians. To prevent this, Bush is trying to solve this issue by using diplomatics.
Scaletail, the key is that North Korea doesn't have the oil that Iraq has. The greater threat comes from the Middle East, largely cintralized in Iraq/Iran. If they have the weapons and the technology, they have the oil and fuel to launch them. They are the biggest threat to the United States. At the moment, the cituation with North Korea isn't going to heat-up into anything more than political battles. The terrorist sects are unpredictable. It'd be best to take affirmative action now against them, than to wait for them to give us another September 11th wake-up call.
At 1/6/03 09:34 PM, TheNewAuk wrote: Saddam's not going to use nuclear (if he has them) or chemical weapons on the U.S. If the U.S. does attack, and Saddam is close do being removed from power, he could very well not hesitate at all to use these weapons. Saddam should be removed from power, but can it be done without catastrophic consequences?
Assassination, except done without creating a repeat of world war one.
What's a little odd is that the US will start a war based only on suspicion when it's own legal documents say a person is innocent util proven guilty.
But a country can't invade another country just because they're suspicious. Then we'd have wars going on everywhere. What Saddam does in Iraq is his buisness as long as there aren't international consequences or Human Rights violations.
If he's supporting suspected terrorist groups, then he has every right to do so. Just because he isn't freezing their banks accounts like many countries in the US's war on terror doesn't mean the US can invade him.
At 1/8/03 03:54 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Well, I'm sure the south koreans like us more than the middle east does.
I believe they do. I have seen too many hypocrites. For example, there is this one university student (my cousin's friend) who wanted to boycott US goods. However, the next day, that same student went to McDonalds and bought himself a Big Mac. So even though they are speaking out against US, many of them are hypocrites that doesn't take their word into action. For middle east, it's united under a religion, so when they hate US they mean it in their heart.
here's a perspective on the Iraq subject from someone who's in the military(might be a little far fetched for some of you, but a lot of soldiers think the same way) G.W. Bush is doing nothing more than attempting to out do his father by starting another war over there. which in my perspective sucks because, he's putting millions of servicemen in harms way, just to see if he can finish the job his dad started. but, since my unit has been ordered to go, im gonna go over there and fuck some towel heads up!
At 1/6/03 07:41 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Iran is a much better target for fucking than Iraq. Iran is the source of the fundamentalist Islam (they have the ayatolla khomehmnhehihehmmhhihmmhihniminimi (sp?) which is the backbone of terror against western civilization.
Ayatollah Komeini died in the 80's man. The Iranians are no more fundamentalist than most middle eastern Muslims. They are Shiat muslims where as most muslims are Sunni muslim. Most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis. What we need to do is find a way to reform the Muslim church. If the damn Mullahs there weren't telling their followers to kill the infidel then many Muslims wouldn't be the extremists they are.
At 1/8/03 04:53 AM, The_Raven wrote:
Assassination, except done without creating a repeat of world war one.
Right On! Shoot the mother fucker! If we could shoot that bitch in the head and then support a Democratic movement in Iraq then we could have a government in place that would actually be popular with the people and possibly viewed by other Islamic nations as something more than and American puppet.
Iraq is a soverign nation, If we can fuck them for fundamentalism, which our pathetic phrase "a christian nation" proves we are weak to, If we can fuck them for weapons of mass destruction we are about as guilty as fuck there. If that's all we really don't have much to fuck THEM for, however they should be allowed, if the above is truth and justice, to fuck us for our hoarding of global resources for selfish and from their views frankly terrorist whims. Don't fuck IRAQ, fix Iraq
At 1/9/03 06:56 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Or think if they really are "corrupt" ornot. Perhaps only different. What right do we have to oust them?
What right do they have to fly fucking airplanes into our god damned skyscrapers? Islam is a thousand years out of date....even the Catholic church has adapted a little with the times but Islam hasn't. If Islamic teaching about destroying the infidels leads them to kill thousands of innocent people then we westerners have the right to protect ourselves.
Hitler was "different" perhaps would should have left him alone too.....
