Dean sez, "We're no safer now...

[NoCalMike 0]

It also doesn't help when you are on a mission to "kill terrorists" yet you end up killing a lot of innocent people too. Now I know this wasn't done on purpose, nor was it the intent of the mission to do so, however regardless these types of things are what fuels the next generation of terrorism.

[Guest MikeSC]

Thats nice.

 

Do you like balls, Mike?

 

::hands Mike a teeball set::

 

::smacks ball into BX's nuts::

 

::stands over him laughing::

 

Not really much of a baseball fan, actually.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

All I'll say is, I was for the war not on the WMD bull but because I knew if the US said the real reason we were going in then no one in this country would have supported. We really don't care if an mass murdering punk is killing his own people, we only care when he kills our people and usually the response of our people has been very "RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!" which angers me greatly. I'm not a Dean backer in any sense of the word.

 

With that out of the way, I support Dean having his own brain and having the balls to stand on all he has said. I may not agree with him, but I can admire he is sticking to his guns. And Joe scares me more than Bush-Dean combined with his insane views on video games and television. I need to hear the Dean views on that before I judge him completely.

 

As for the killing innocent people...it was already happening there so it's not like we are touching new ground. What pissed off the first wave of terrorists was we left them to fight Hussein on their own cause we didn't see a need to continue fighting cause an evil monster who kills his own people wasn't our problem and they got slaughtered.

 

But I am getting out of this because I've come to realize neither side ever wants to admit they are right or wrong so what is even the point.

[Guest Cerebus]

It also doesn't help when you are on a mission to "kill terrorists" yet you end up killing a lot of innocent people too. Now I know this wasn't done on purpose, nor was it the intent of the mission to do so, however regardless these types of things are what fuels the next generation of terrorism.

I always thought it was radical Wahabbism spread via Arab gov't propaganda and Saudi funded Madrassas, supression of individual rights, jailing, extrajudicial execution, and expulsion of dissenting elements, and the greed of oil rich leaders to keep the money while giving out as little as possible to their people...but what do I know?

[Guest MD2020]

It also doesn't help when you are on a mission to "kill terrorists" yet you end up killing a lot of innocent people too.  Now I know this wasn't done on purpose, nor was it the intent of the mission to do so, however regardless these types of things are what fuels the next generation of terrorism.

I always thought it was radical Wahabbism spread via Arab gov't propaganda and Saudi funded Madrassas, supression of individual rights, jailing, extrajudicial execution, and expulsion of dissenting elements, and the greed of oil rich leaders to keep the money while giving out as little as possible to their people...but what do I know?

Dude, you're an idiot. We're being attacked because Bush doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.

 

 

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

RoyalBlue and BX offer a billion criticisms. Let's hear some actual alternative solutions.

[Firestarter 0]

In many foreigners eyes, especialy those who were never pro-USA, America is hated more now than before 9/11. Mainly because thay went into Iraq withought a UN sanction, and without finding WMDs, and haven't stabilised the region.

Excellent.

[k thx 0]

RoyalBlue and BX offer a billion criticisms. Let's hear some actual alternative solutions.

Stabilise the region. Let terrorists realise that their actions wont be worth the consequences. If you show the world that by going into Iraq you've improved the quality of life for people there (which they haven't done yet) then people in that part of the world will be less anti-USA.

 

Also, it would help if they stopped all these embarrassing stories about people still being able to smuggle stuff onto planes. That just shows possible terrorists that it's possible to carry out annother 9/11.

 

Also, capture Bin-Ladin.

Edited December 19, 2003 by RoyalBlue

[k thx 0]

BX, please stop the flamingbaiting. You are just gonna get yourself banned if you just flame Mike wherever he posts. I only say this as a friendly warning.

 

On Topic:

 

So, your response to terrorism is to kill all terrorists? That doesn't work: it'll only make terrorists out of their relatives.

 

That's way too general a statement. What if their relatives disagreed with them? Only a very small amount of people will become terrorists because of our actions, and it was likely that they would have become terrorists anyways. Another question: If killing terrorists only creates more terrorists, why fight them? Are you suggesting that we just stop fighting them?

 

And I completely disagree with your statement on the War on Terror: They thought we were after them long before Bush declared the War on Terror. To simply think that they are coming in force now is because we are embroiled in a War on Terror is naive; it's more a result of our foreign policy and action being strictly centered around the Middle East, creating more openings for Terrorist attacks on our troops that is occuring.

 

Terrorists aren't sub-human: they're ordinary people driven to extra-ordinary measures.

 

They may HAVE been normal people, but once one makes the jump to killing people to complete a political objective they have fallen outside the norm. A serial killer could be a normal person before, but once he starts summarily murdering people we don't call him normal again, now do we?

 

Yes, you've gotta show that terrorism will not be tolerated and that you'll kill anyne who plots or carries out those deeds.

 

... But that contradicts what you said above saying that killing more terrorists will only create more. Should we only kill the ones without families or something?

 

However, going into Iraq for no justified reason (at least when compared to other nations which need our help more) when there is widespread anti-US feeling in the Middle Esast isn't gonna help.

 

The reason behind invading Iraq has NO BEARING on these people attacking us. If we had gone in because we said "Saddam is evil", they would have dismissed that just as heartily. Terrorists don't look at our reasons; they choose to make those up for us to further their own causes.

 

Going into Iraq certainly didn't hurt, either: it shows that we are now making an effort to root out the evil in the Middle East and attack those who have supported them in the past. A more aggressive stance puts the terrorist on the defensive rather than the offensive. Think of it this way: if the Al-Qaida All-Stars are filtering across the border into Iraq to attack armed Marines, that means they can't try to get into the US and attack our civilians. By doing so we protect our people while drawing them into the open where we can engage them on our terms (Even engaging them in a guerilla war is far more advantageous to us than trying to find them in our own country).

 

It's just gonna increase anti-US sentiment, and thus increase terrorism.

 

Of course freeing the people of Iraq helped increase Pro-US sentiment in that country. Of course it polarized terrorists in the area, the good far outweighs the bad here.

 

From your second post:

 

The key to stopping terrorism is to make it not worth taking place. We haven't got to that stage yet, but likewise annother 9/11 wouldn't cause complete outrage among anti-US people.

 

We haven't done this yet? We've shown that we will come to your area, kill off your suppliers, take your supporters out of power, and find and kill you like the rats you are. How do you not make something like 9/11 not worth it without what we've done already?

 

And finally, your first post:

 

The only reason I can see that there would be no repeat of 9/11 is that there's no need to do it anymore. Anti-US terrorists have got to know that to do something like that again would only piss of the US and achieve nothing. It was a publicity exercise, and they don't need to repeat it again.

 

B.S. 9/11 was not just about publicity, it was trying to hurt us as much as possible. They don't care about pissing us off anymore: These people are doing open battle with tanks and Marines right now. Do you think they care about pissing the US off anymore? 9/11 is the epitomy of what a terrorist attack should be and they are, without doubt, going to try and stage another one. Killing 3,000 infidels with 19 men is DEFINITELY a tasty prospect to them.

1) History has shown numerous times that ordinary people are willing to die for a cause. If it's a worthy cause, they become heroes, if it's not that they, rightly, become villains. However, if you believe that you are fighting for what is right, then you will be willing to die.

 

2) Yes, you should kill (or at least punish) terrorists for their actions, but killing all terrorists wont rid the world or terrorism, not unless you take away their reason.

 

3) Invading Iraq (for seemingly different reasons to those given by Bush) at a time when terrorists think the US is plotting a wat against the Arab world is not gonna stop terrorsim. Hussein's link with the terrorists wasn't vital, and it's unlikely that all of Al-Qaida's followers are gonna go into Iraq to fight US troops, especially when they know it's a losing battle. They may try isolated attacks, but they aren't gonna be on the defensive. If anything, they are the attacking forces, and the US troops are the sitting ducks.

 

4) The people of Iraq haven't been freed. And their quality of life hasn't improved yet to the point where it justifies the means. Yes, going into Iraq and liberating the people there was the right thing to do, but that hasn't been done yet, and until it is done, the good wont outweigh the bad.

 

5) At the moment, the US hasn't made carrying out terrorism completely un-worthwhile. The people who the US are capturing at the moment are, by and large, the pawns. They are people who are willing to die for this cause and who are willing to risk capture. It will take the capture of Bin-Ladin, or someone like him, to show that the US will punish those in charge and not just the supporters.

 

6) 9/11 was a publicity exercise. They weren't trying to kill as many people as possible, they were trying to take out landmarks. I forget how many people were killed in 9/11, but if they had done that in smaller, isolated attacks over a period of time, people wouldn't have taken as much notice as 9/11. That's the point of terrorism, especially on a large scale.. There's no point in killing civilians unless it's going to draw publicity to your cause: if you do that too often, ypur people will end up empathising with the dead, and turn against your cause. 9/11 turned Al-Qaida from a group few American civillians knew or cared about to the worlds most famous terrorist group, all at the cost of a few dozen lives. That was the point of it. And that happened because they took out the WTC on international live television, not because they killed a few thousand civillians.

[k thx 0]

In many foreigners eyes, especialy those who were never pro-USA, America is hated more now than before 9/11. Mainly because thay went into Iraq withought a UN sanction, and without finding WMDs, and haven't stabilised the region.

Excellent.

Why?

[Firestarter 0]

RoyalBlue and BX offer a billion criticisms. Let's hear some actual alternative solutions.

Stabilise the region.

OH! <smacks herself in the forehead> That's what we should be doing?! Well thank God we have you around to clue us in! Where's the President? I need to tell him that we should be stabilising the region!!! My God what a fucking revelation! I'M BLINDED BY THE LIGHT OF TRUTH

 

Let terrorists realise that their actions wont be worth the consequences.

Well, fuck me, but I thought that's exactly what we WERE doing by killing, capturing, and hunting them. But no! Obviously we should be doing something else entirely! Will you enlighten us, O great bodhisattva of wisdom?

 

If you show the world that by going into Iraq you've improved the quality of life for people there (which they haven't done yet)

Shit! You're right! You're SO RIGHT! Not living under the lash of a sadistic tyrant doesn't improve anyone's quality of life! I mean who cares about the freedom to speak your mind without being tortured, raped, and shot in the head? The Iraqi people sure don't! We need to start handing out welfare cheques to them instead of hunting down the Ba'athists! That should improve their quality of life!

 

then people in that part of the world will be less anti-USA.

Yay! And then we'll win a big fucking prize for being the Best Loved Country In The Whole Wide Wide World! YAAAAAYYYYY

 

Also, it would help if they stopped all these embarrassing stories about people still being able to smuggle stuff onto planes.

Yeah! Stop those embarrassing stories, who gives a shit about the First Amendment!

 

That just shows possible terrorists that it's possible to carry out annother 9/11.

And I'll bet they aren't bothering to plan anything of the sort on their own! They're waiting for college kids in the States to come up with ideas and write about them in the papers so they can figure out what to do! Damn those cunning Al-Qaeda bastards!

 

Also, capture Bin-Ladin.

Where's the President?!!!

[k thx 0]

RoyalBlue and BX offer a billion criticisms. Let's hear some actual alternative solutions.

Stabilise the region.

OH! <smacks herself in the forehead> That's what we should be doing?! Well thank God we have you around to clue us in! Where's the President? I need to tell him that we should be stabilising the region!!! My God what a fucking revelation! I'M BLINDED BY THE LIGHT OF TRUTH

 

Let terrorists realise that their actions wont be worth the consequences.

Well, fuck me, but I thought that's exactly what we WERE doing by killing, capturing, and hunting them. But no! Obviously we should be doing something else entirely! Will you enlighten us, O great bodhisattva of wisdom?

 

If you show the world that by going into Iraq you've improved the quality of life for people there (which they haven't done yet)

Shit! You're right! You're SO RIGHT! Not living under the lash of a sadistic tyrant doesn't improve anyone's quality of life! I mean who cares about the freedom to speak your mind without being tortured, raped, and shot in the head? The Iraqi people sure don't! We need to start handing out welfare cheques to them instead of hunting down the Ba'athists! That should improve their quality of life!

 

then people in that part of the world will be less anti-USA.

Yay! And then we'll win a big fucking prize for being the Best Loved Country In The Whole Wide Wide World! YAAAAAYYYYY

 

Also, it would help if they stopped all these embarrassing stories about people still being able to smuggle stuff onto planes.

Yeah! Stop those embarrassing stories, who gives a shit about the First Amendment!

 

That just shows possible terrorists that it's possible to carry out annother 9/11.

And I'll bet they aren't bothering to plan anything of the sort on their own! They're waiting for college kids in the States to come up with ideas and write about them in the papers so they can figure out what to do! Damn those cunning Al-Qaeda bastards!

 

Also, capture Bin-Ladin.

Where's the President?!!!

Yeah, it's all obvious, but it's also not happening. Iraqis are rebelling, and more and more are turning to Saddams side. Airport security is still shit, and poor enough for people around the world to notice it. Bin Ladin is still on the loose, and seemingly an afterthought to many people. America is not endearing itself to the rest of the world, and when something bites you, you don't keep teasing it.

 

What would your solution be Marney. Do you think America's safe from terrorism, and if not, how would you change that?

[Firestarter 0]

Yeah, it's all obvious, but it's also not happening

It's a process. That process is ongoing.

 

Iraqis are rebelling, and more and more are turning to Saddams side.

Really? Have you taken a poll?

 

Airport security is still shit

Really? I haven't noticed many successful terrorist operations in the recent past.

 

Bin Ladin is still on the loose

For the moment.

 

and seemingly an afterthought to many people.

I'll pass that on to the special forces in Afghanistan and the FBI agents in Pakistan.

 

America is not endearing itself to the rest of the world, and when something bites you, you don't keep teasing it.

Nope. You don't. If it's rabid, like Moslem terrorism, you shoot it. And that's what we're doing.

 

What would your solution be Marney.

On the whole, what we're doing already.

 

Do you think America's safe from terrorism

Nope. But we're making America safer.

 

and if not, how would you change that?

What security clearances do you have?

 

I forget how many people were killed in 9/11

And that, right there, is why my contempt for you cannot be fully put into words.

[Firestarter 0]

If you show the world that by going into Iraq you've improved the quality of life for people there (which they haven't done yet) then people in that part of the world will be less anti-USA.

Iraqis are rebelling, and more and more are turning to Saddams side.

 

The discovery of Saddam Hussein in a crypt-like hole, hidden by bricks and dirt, in a farmhouse in a small town near Tikrit brings to mind the story of another Iraqi who also hid from the authorities by literally going underground.

That Iraqi is Jawad Amir Sayyid, 45, of Karada, a town southeast of Baghdad. He dwelt for an astonishing 21 years in a cell below his family's kitchen, entering it on December 2, 1981, and not once emerging from it until April 10, 2003, a day after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Sayyid disappeared from the world because he had deserted from Saddam's army and supported dissident views. Fearing execution, he built a concrete one by one-and-a-half meter subterranean room...

His mother tended to him during all those years through a trap-door entrance; he kept up with world events by listening closely through headphones to the BBC's Arabic Service. His first hope of release came right after 9/11, when US President George W. Bush gave a speech declaring that terrorists of the world would be hunted down. "The next time my mother brought me food I told her of my conviction that [saddam Hussein] would not last." Sayyid waited only one day after Saddam's fall to abandon his hiding place...

Sayyid said of himself to London's Daily Telegraph, which described his bent and birdlike frame as quivering with excitement, "I was a fit young man when I first took refuge. Now I am withered and old. But I feel I have the energy of a young boy once again and there is not a second of the day when I do not taste the fruits of freedom."

...to quote Jawad Amir Sayyid back in the spring, soon after he left the crypt: "I believe that Allah worked through Mr. Bush to make this happen. If I met Mr. Bush, I would say, 'Thank you, thank you, you are a good human, you returned me from the dead.'"

- America Makes Life Worse for Iraqis, Who Are Increasingly Siding with Saddam Hussein

[k thx 0]

I earn your contempt because I can't remember exactly how many people died on 9/11? Well, that just goes to show what happens when you place more importance on numbers than common sense. IIRC, it was between 3 and 4,000, but I couldn't be more exact than that, and may be wrong. How many was it?

 

Yes, the process is ongoing, but you have to make it seem like it's ongoing. America hasn't made a big deal recently about Bin Ladin, and his capture has put on hold (at least as being of upmost importance) with the war in Iraq.

 

To say airport security isn't shit because you " haven't noticed many successful terrorist operations in the recent past." is like saying that airport security is only bad on the days terrorist activities take place. There have been reports of people smuggling stuff onto planes, if they were terrorists, we'd have annother disaster on our hands.

 

And as for "shooting Moslem terrorism", I take it you're also from the school of thought that you can kill terrorism? I can't be bothered to look it up, but I'm sure you can. What other instances have there been of widescale terrorism, a la the IRA or Basque seperatists. How have they been prevented? Has terrorism ever been stopped by killing all terrorists?

 

America is not safer. All your doing is turning the rest of the world against you. After 9/11, worldwide sympathy for America was at a major high. Now it's at a major low.

 

And as for your link, one case study of a (seemingly paranoid) Iraqi who thanks America, as reported in a pro-US source, does not disprove my point. Especially when it occured when the USA first entered the country on a wave of jubilation as opposed to the relative chaos it's in now.

[Justice 0]

[1) History has shown numerous times that ordinary people are willing to die for a cause. If it's a worthy cause, they become heroes, if it's not that they, rightly, become villains. However, if you believe that you are fighting for what is right, then you will be willing to die.

They are no longer normal people, though. Despite extraordinary circumstances they've crossed over from being ordinary people that do ordinary things into sub-human monkeys who want to kill for their causes. To compare them to the average Joe is idiotic: While they may have started as ordinary people they are no longer ordinary people and likely will never be ordinary people again.

 

2) Yes, you should kill (or at least punish) terrorists for their actions, but killing all terrorists wont rid the world or terrorism, not unless you take away their reason.

 

But... that makes no sense. It is indirect contradiction to your assertion that killing terrorists only makes more terrorists. Hell, arguably imprisioning one's family members could turn one to terrorism if he were so inclined. Should we stop doing that as well? And another question: If we don't kill all we know about, how do we know which ones to let go and which ones to kill? This argument lacks logic or basic common sense, man.

 

3) Invading Iraq (for seemingly different reasons to those given by Bush) at a time when terrorists think the US is plotting a wat against the Arab world is not gonna stop terrorsim. Hussein's link with the terrorists wasn't vital, and it's unlikely that all of Al-Qaida's followers are gonna go into Iraq to fight US troops, especially when they know it's a losing battle. They may try isolated attacks, but they aren't gonna be on the defensive. If anything, they are the attacking forces, and the US troops are the sitting ducks.

 

They think? Dude, they've known that the US has been at war with the Arab world for a while. Their ideology doesn't base their reasons on assumptions, but twisted facts and heresay. To say that we are giving them a justification is completely ignoring the fact that they have long justified themselves against us anyways. And just to tell you: Sitting back from a distance and telling them "Don't do that" won't stop terrorism much either.

 

In all honesty, Al-Qaida isn't doing so good anyways. Most of their command structure, believe it or not, was destroyed when we invaded Afganistan, along with their group cohesion. They are pretty much scattered and alone in small groups now. I'm really not worried about them.

 

And we WANT them to go into Iraq. Would you rather them attack US Civilians or US Marines with better weapons, training, and vehicles? Seriously, the All-Qaida All Stars will get their asses handed to them like they did at Samarra. And I'd define our troops more like a "Viper's nest" rather than sitting ducks, and I'm sure the guys in the M1A2s would agree with me.

 

4) The people of Iraq haven't been freed. And their quality of life hasn't improved yet to the point where it justifies the means. Yes, going into Iraq and liberating the people there was the right thing to do, but that hasn't been done yet, and until it is done, the good wont outweigh the bad.

 

... Uh, its only been 9 months, dude. It took a while to rebuild Europe. It took a while to rebuild Japan. But to say the good doesn't outweigh the bad is idiotic: They are still where they were in terms of their current living status, but they don't have a government that will come into their house and take their family off to be tortured or raped. The eleviation of that fear alone is good enough to justify this war.

 

5) At the moment, the US hasn't made carrying out terrorism completely un-worthwhile. The people who the US are capturing at the moment are, by and large, the pawns. They are people who are willing to die for this cause and who are willing to risk capture. It will take the capture of Bin-Ladin, or someone like him, to show that the US will punish those in charge and not just the supporters.

 

...

...

... To those carrying it out, terrorism will NEVER be completely un-worthwhile. That's almost impossible to do.

 

We've captured almost the entire Iraqi deck plus most of the Al-Qaida command structure (I believe we have #2 and #3 at the moment). To say we haven't captured those in commands is an uninformed statement. I'd take that back.

 

And we will capture Bin Laden. Give us time.

 

6) 9/11 was a publicity exercise. They weren't trying to kill as many people as possible, they were trying to take out landmarks. I forget how many people were killed in 9/11, but if they had done that in smaller, isolated attacks over a period of time, people wouldn't have taken as much notice as 9/11. That's the point of terrorism, especially on a large scale.. There's no point in killing civilians unless it's going to draw publicity to your cause: if you do that too often, ypur people will end up empathising with the dead, and turn against your cause. 9/11 turned Al-Qaida from a group few American civillians knew or cared about to the worlds most famous terrorist group, all at the cost of a few dozen lives. That was the point of it. And that happened because they took out the WTC on international live television, not because they killed a few thousand civillians.

 

... Okay, you are just dumb to think the idea behind 9/11 in New York was to kill as many people as possible. I'm not even going to put effort to try and stop this one.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What humiliation?

 

Showing him getting picked at for lice? Showing them checking his not-so-pearly whites?

So, in an imaginary scenario, GW was taken capture and was checked for lice, you wouldn't be offended in the slightest?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I think that the US could have all the security in the world, but I dont think that would be enough to stop a terrorist who is hell bent on attacking America to the point where they would give up their lives to pull off such an act.

 

I don't think that is something that most Americans really understand.

 

I think that we feel safer now, but there is a difference between feeling safer and actually being safer. I could have my house broken into and be robbed, and then decide its time to install a security system. The security system would make me feel safer (unless I was in a bad neighborhood or something) but it wouldn't completely eliminate all chances of my house being broken into again.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What humiliation?

 

Showing him getting picked at for lice? Showing them checking his not-so-pearly whites?

It could have been worse.

 

They could have caught Saddam during Ramadan...

[Styles 0]

What humiliation?

 

Showing him getting picked at for lice?  Showing them checking his not-so-pearly whites?

It could have been worse.

 

They could have caught Saddam during Ramadan...

BUT WHAT ABOUT CULTURAL SENSITIVITY!?!?!

 

As for the completely assinine statement that the goal was not to kill as many people as possible, why didn't they destroy the statue of liberty? Or the washington monument? That would have gotten our attention. They wanted to make a statement true, but they wanted to kill as many people as possible in the process. To deny that is just denying the nature of our enemy.

[Firestarter 0]

So, in an imaginary scenario, GW was taken capture and was checked for lice, you wouldn't be offended in the slightest?

Jesus CHRIST, who the fucking hell cares if we offended a few goddamn Iraqis by humiliating Saddam Hussein? I don't need a fucking ridiculous analogy to MY President being captured in an inane hypothetical that will never happen to get the fucking obvious. Congratulations, you've made your point and it's utterly fucking worthless. Iraqis who were offended by Saddam Hussein's humiliation are the Iraqis we want to capture or kill, so offending them means approximately shit to me. The vast majority of Iraqis were overjoyed that we captured him and they don't give a shit about their former torturer being humiliated either. In fact they were probably happy about it. And yes, filming him like that WAS meant to humiliate, infantilise, and ridicule him. Yes. Yes it was. We did it deliberately and we did it well. He'd built up a grand mythology about himself over decades of oppressing his people, a culture of fear and awe and terror, and it had to be destroyed. This was a good first step. The next will be the trial, and yes, the outcome is predetermined. Saddam Hussein will not be found innocent. He has NO chance. Not one. And he doesn't deserve one. I'm fucking sick of apologising for our actions. We're the angels here assholes, and you fucking sit down and shut the fuck up if you can't appreciate that fact. Do we humiliate, incarcerate, hunt, and kill evil people? Do we make their worlds a living hell? Do we blow up their houses, hurl down their power structures, and rip apart their organisations? Yes we fucking well do and I'm fucking proud of it. If you think we need to apologise for any of that or consider their fucking feelings or their oh so precious religious sensibilities while we're destroying them you're a fucking idiot.

[Styles 0]

DO YOU HAVE NO CULTURAL SENSITIVITY!?!?!?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

DO YOU HAVE NO CULTURAL SENSITIVITY!?!?!?

apparently not..

 

and some people wonder why Americans are hated in other parts of the world...

[Styles 0]

DO YOU HAVE NO CULTURAL SENSITIVITY!?!?!?

apparently not..

 

and some people wonder why Americans are hated in other parts of the world...

DO YOU HAVE NO SARCASM?!

 

Geez...I guess I have no choice but to overload with smiles every time I say something...

 

KKK's got to teach me how he brings the sarcasm without people actually misinterpreting him...

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

DO YOU HAVE NO CULTURAL SENSITIVITY!?!?!?

apparently not..

 

and some people wonder why Americans are hated in other parts of the world...

DO YOU HAVE NO SARCASM?!

 

Geez...I guess I have no choice but to overload with smiles every time I say something...

 

KKK's got to teach me how he brings the sarcasm without people actually misinterpreting him...

I pretty much take everything he says as sarcasm.

 

He needs a Lance Storm "Could I be serious for a moment" icon sometimes.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

RoyalBlue and BX offer a billion criticisms. Let's hear some actual alternative solutions.

Stabilise the region.

How?

 

How do you stabilize a region where insane people beyond reason blow themselves up to further a cause?

 

How do you stabilize a region that has the complete destruction of America and every one of its citizens as the terrorists' stated goal?

 

How do you stabilize a region that hates you because your culture's women are free, you can think and speak freely, and you can freely believe in your own religion?

 

How, how, how?

 

These people can't be pacified. They need the shit scared out of them. Here's to hoping the Iraqis put Hussein to death and then smear pig feces all over his rotting carcass. Hopefully, you'll get that reference.

 

 

So, in an imaginary scenario, GW was taken capture and was checked for lice, you wouldn't be offended in the slightest?

Equating the President with Saddam now, are we?

[Cartman 0]

So, in an imaginary scenario, GW was taken capture and was checked for lice, you wouldn't be offended in the slightest?

Equating the President with Saddam now, are we?

Yea that's not fair to Saddam.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The next will be the trial, and yes, the outcome is predetermined.

Indeed.

 

 

[Firestarter 0]

And it's precisely that sort of patronising garbage that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the left is not only hypocritical almost beyond belief but deeply racist itself. Dr Condoleezza Rice said it best: "We must never indulge the condescending voices who allege that some people in Africa or in the Middle East are just not interested in freedom, that they're culturally just not ready for freedom, or that they just aren't ready for freedom's responsibilities. That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham, and it is wrong in 2003 in Baghdad."

 

Freedom and justice are absolutely universal. Saddam Hussein will be tried by Iraqis, yes. But the Iraqi people, no less than any other people anywhere in the world, hate oppression and love freedom. They've been given back their freedom by President Bush. They will not reject it in favour of more decades of torture, murder, and subjugation under Saddam Hussein. The fact that you posted those absurd caricatures proves once and for all that you and everyone like you, with your cloying multiculturalist ideals and supposedly complex nuanced sensitivity, are the bigots. And the President you oppose and deride as an obtuse blunderer is the one who exemplies courage, wisdom, fairness, vision, and foresight.

Edited December 19, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Do not let anyone fool you as to why we went to war. Do not let anyone fool you with rape rooms. Do not let anyone confuse you with "Ah-HA! We got a BAD GUY! This is why we invade countries!"

 

We invaded because:

1. Saddam and the Iraqi government had ties to Osama bin-Laden and Al Qaeda. The people who attacked us.

2. The Bush Administration was telling us that we were under imminent attack and weapons could be launched any second. They couldn't tell us about them, they couldn't tell the U.N. about them, we had to go and stop them from killing us all.

 

Yes, Saddam is a bad guy. Yes, I think he should be put to death. Do I think the right thing is going to happen, in a country where the democracy that's going to try him does not even exist yet? I hope so, but I'm not assured of it.