Just so you know what you're voting for...

[Guest Cerebus]

But now we have both! NAZIBUSHLOL2004~!!

[Guest MikeSC]

Don't let stuff like rape rooms and whatnot cloud your view of this war. Most Iraqis never saw those things.

WOW.

 

Hands down the most cold, heartless comment I've EVER seen on these boards.

What does threaten a lot of Iraqis, every day, is how their country is suddently hot new place for terrorists to convene and blow shit up. Yeah, it's pretty frightening to go to the fruit stand when it could be blown up by a car bomb or stay at the hotel that could be hit by a rocket.

You REALLY have no clue what Iraq was like before, do you? Saddam could have you killed on a whim. CHILDREN WERE IMPRISONED FOR NOT BEING PART OF THE BA'ATH PARTY.

 

But, because you have this irrational hard-on for Saddam, you overlook ALL of this because giving them freedom and a Constitution doesn't matter to you. You want Saddam back in power, for whatever reason.

Will a democratic Iraq be an improvement for the world, if/when it's accomplished? Yes. Will a democratic Iraq be better than Saddam's Iraq? Yes.

 

Is Iraq, right now, a better place to live than when Saddam was in power? No. In fact, I'd actually say it's worse, because constant terrorist strikes taking lives ARE worse than a dictatorship.

On this issue, you are a complete moron.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Yeah, it's pretty frightening to go to the fruit stand when it could be blown up by a car bomb or stay at the hotel that could be hit by a rocket.

So, are you at last willing to say that Palestinian terrorists and terrorist sympathisers are complete wastes of skin and should be exterminated posthaste?

 

Because you just inadvertently gave a pretty fair description of Israel.

 

Don't let stuff like rape rooms and whatnot cloud your view of this war. Most Iraqis never saw those things.

 

WOW.

 

Hands down the most cold, heartless comment I've EVER seen on these boards.

Seconded. You're a sick, disgusting piece of shit, Jobber. How many Iraqis would have had to have seen the inside of "stuff like rape rooms and whatnot" for you to finally acquiesce to the removal of Saddam Hussein? How many Kurds gassed? How many people shot in the back of the head and thrown into charnel pits? How many women should've been systematically raped to turn you on, so to speak? What's the magic number? How many people needed to die to satisfy you? Four million rather than two? Five? How about six million, do you like that number?

 

Thank God we don't listen to your brand of solipsistic horseshit anymore. Fewer people are dying and the world's a better place. Keep longing for the good old days of Auschwitz and Treblinka if you wish, but I won't shed any tears for a sadistic mass murderer and a tyrant. Nor, I suspect, will the vast majority of Americans.

[Guest MikeSC]

Don't let stuff like rape rooms and whatnot cloud your view of this war. Most Iraqis never saw those things.

 

WOW.

 

Hands down the most cold, heartless comment I've EVER seen on these boards.

Seconded. You're a sick, disgusting piece of shit, Jobber. How many Iraqis would have had to have seen the inside of "stuff like rape rooms and whatnot" for you to finally acquiesce to the removal of Saddam Hussein? How many Kurds gassed? How many people shot in the back of the head and thrown into charnel pits? How many women should've been systematically raped to turn you on, so to speak? What's the magic number? How many people needed to die to satisfy you? Four million rather than two? Five? How about six million, do you like that number?

 

Thank God we don't listen to your brand of solipsistic horseshit anymore. Fewer people are dying and the world's a better place. Keep longing for the good old days of Auschwitz and Treblinka if you wish, but I won't shed any tears for a sadistic mass murderer and a tyrant. Nor, I suspect, will the vast majority of Americans.

Marney, the death camps weren't that bad. The vast majority of non-Jewish Germans who were part of the Nazi Party never saw them.

 

Heck, the world should have SUPPORTED Hitler.

 

But, look at the bright side --- we'll never have to listen to JOTW blathering about cruel treatment of people, since obviously, he doesn't give a damn about that.

Yeah, it's pretty frightening to go to the fruit stand when it could be blown up by a car bomb or stay at the hotel that could be hit by a rocket.

So, are you at last willing to say that Palestinian terrorists and terrorist sympathisers are complete wastes of skin and should be exterminated posthaste?

 

Because you just inadvertently gave a pretty fair description of Israel.

Israel probably has it coming. The int'l left isn't terribly sympathetic towards, you know, democracies.

-=Mike

...Sadly, if he were alive today, a lot of the world WOULD support Hitler. Gotta love that int'l left

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, are you at last willing to say that Palestinian terrorists and terrorist sympathisers are complete wastes of skin and should be exterminated posthaste?

Yes, I do. As long as you don't consider a kid chucking a rock at an armored tank to be a terrorist.

 

How many Iraqis would have had to have seen the inside of "stuff like rape rooms and whatnot" for you to finally acquiesce to the removal of Saddam Hussein?

 

Hey, I said it's a good thing. It'll be a good thing all around when enough time, money, and unfortunately lives are paid to stabilize the region. Assuming, of course, that they don't institute a government similar to the last one.

 

But hey, having your country become Terrorist Haven. That's not good, either.

 

What I said was that Saddam Iraq was SAFER, in my mind, than Terrorist Haven Iraq, but I'd probably live in Terrorist Haven Iraq than Saddam Iraq if I had a choice for the reasons you just mentioned.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, are you at last willing to say that Palestinian terrorists and terrorist sympathisers are complete wastes of skin and should be exterminated posthaste?

Yes, I do. As long as you don't consider a kid chucking a rock at an armored tank to be a terrorist.

 

How many Iraqis would have had to have seen the inside of "stuff like rape rooms and whatnot" for you to finally acquiesce to the removal of Saddam Hussein?

 

Hey, I said it's a good thing. It'll be a good thing all around when enough time, money, and unfortunately lives are paid to stabilize the region. Assuming, of course, that they don't institute a government similar to the last one.

 

But hey, having your country become Terrorist Haven. That's not good, either.

 

What I said was that Saddam Iraq was SAFER, in my mind, than Terrorist Haven Iraq, but I'd probably live in Terrorist Haven Iraq than Saddam Iraq if I had a choice for the reasons you just mentioned.

You still have NO clue what you're talking about.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

Yes, it's much better to live in a country where if you disagree you get shot in the back of the head or raped.

 

Terrorist were always there, now that the country is trying to be changed they are placed into a position where they are trying to drive us out. And from what I have learned from logic, the US is hanging around to set up the government and try to drive the terrorist out of the country.

 

The Army knew the terrorist were there, it was never a question. The only question was would the American people and the World understand that this stuff was going to take us time. Apparently, that answer is NO.

 

I think it's about time we stopped acting like a self-centered country and just did something because it needed to be done. And if Junior is cleaning up Daddy's mess? So what, good. It wouldn't have been a mess if we didn't just pack up and leave the first time.

[Guest Cerebus]

I posted a good article not too long ago from TCS about this. The int'l community (in general) is much more accepting of dictators so long as they keep the lid on things. Nobody cared about Aristad between Operation Uphold Democracy in 94 to a few months ago despite huge evidence that he polluted the 2000 elections to the point that virtually no human rights organiztion could call it free or fair. But when things started deteroiating in Haiti all of a sudden people began to become concerned about what was going on in. Stability, not democracy or human rights, is what matters. Surely, Iraq was more stable with Hussien clamping down on Shi'ites and Kurds not bugging anybody else. Reagan should be blamed for helping prop Saddam up and Bush I and Clinton are surely to blame for allowing Saddam to remain in power after 91 (Hell, the main reason they went in to defend Kuwait is because it really would destabilize the region) all for the sake of "stability." Despite shady motives, poor planning, and all the diplomacy and tact of a rampaging bull, Bush II deserves credit for sacrificing "stability" in exchange for toppling an evil madman and planting the seeds of democracy in a war torn country.

[tommytomlin 0]

Ok. Jobber says that RIGHT NOW, Iraq with terrorist attacks occuring weekly, destroying marketplaces, the Red Cross and all manner of heavily populated areas, is more dangerous for the average Iraqi than having Saddam still running the show.

 

Now. How does that make him a 'disgusting piece of shit' and a Nazi Sympathiser?

 

He said he SUPPORTED getting rid of Saddam. He said that yes, EVENTUALLY Iraq would be a better, and safer place. All he said was that right now, Iraq is just as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous, than when Saddam was running wild over the country. It's a valid statement. For the everyday Iraqi, who managed to escape the grip of Saddam, having their local marketplace exploded by a terrorist nutjob has made their life more dangerous. It doesn't mean Jobber has a hard-on for Saddam.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ok. Jobber says that RIGHT NOW, Iraq with terrorist attacks occuring weekly, destroying marketplaces, the Red Cross and all manner of heavily populated areas, is more dangerous for the average Iraqi than having Saddam still running the show.

 

Now. How does that make him a 'disgusting piece of shit' and a Nazi Sympathiser?

No, it makes him a moron on this issue.

 

His comment that the torture rooms weren't that bad "because most Iraqis never saw them" made him a "disgusting piece of shit" (I just called him "cold" and "heartless").

He said he SUPPORTED getting rid of Saddam. He said that yes, EVENTUALLY Iraq would be a better, and safer place. All he said was that right now, Iraq is just as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous, than when Saddam was running wild over the country. It's a valid statement. For the everyday Iraqi, who managed to escape the grip of Saddam, having their local marketplace exploded by a terrorist nutjob has made their life more dangerous. It doesn't mean Jobber has a hard-on for Saddam.

His comments most assuredly do present that image --- as does the actions and statements of the left worldwide.

-=Mike

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

My point was that an effective response to the first WTC bombing might have prevented the two US Embassy bombings.

He caught the guy doing it, and he's rotting in jail. That's not effective?

Again he treated it like a law enforcement issue, the actual perpetrator was jailed but the larger group of those just like him remained at large and planning larger attacks. We need to stay on offense and destroy the whole infrastructure of terroism, not just cherry pick after the fact.

As opposed to Bush's plan of attacking a country that is not responsible for the attacks against the U.S.?

I'd rather attack first than sit back and wait for it, yes.

Let's attack those people in the Congo! In 500 years they might be a threat to us!

[Guest MikeSC]

My point was that an effective response to the first WTC bombing might have prevented the two US Embassy bombings.

He caught the guy doing it, and he's rotting in jail. That's not effective?

Again he treated it like a law enforcement issue, the actual perpetrator was jailed but the larger group of those just like him remained at large and planning larger attacks. We need to stay on offense and destroy the whole infrastructure of terroism, not just cherry pick after the fact.

As opposed to Bush's plan of attacking a country that is not responsible for the attacks against the U.S.?

I'd rather attack first than sit back and wait for it, yes.

Let's attack those people in the Congo! In 500 years they might be a threat to us!

Oh lord, another one joins us.

-=Mike

...We need to give the terrorists HUGS, darn it!

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Wow. Just wow.

 

I had thought I had seen some bickering, but this takes the cake.

 

In my humble opinion:

 

Is the Iraqi Conflict 2 legitimized now? It is with the targets being terrorism and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

 

Was the Iraqi Conflict justified when looked under the scope of the originally announced intentions? We've been over it before: probably not.

 

Is Iraq a safer place today? It is and it isn't. It is in that there is no longer a ruthless dictator who was known to use weapons of mass destruction against his own people. However, on the same token, there is more strife and conflict among the people. It will take time for things to settle down, it will take time for the Constitution to take effect, and it should take time for a coalition prescence to leave. We're there now, might as well do things right.

 

We don't need another Afghanistan to come back and bite us in the ass like it did before.

 

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

  So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

 

--JFK Inaugural Address, 1960

[Guest MD2020]

My point was that an effective response to the first WTC bombing might have prevented the two US Embassy bombings.

He caught the guy doing it, and he's rotting in jail. That's not effective?

Again he treated it like a law enforcement issue, the actual perpetrator was jailed but the larger group of those just like him remained at large and planning larger attacks. We need to stay on offense and destroy the whole infrastructure of terroism, not just cherry pick after the fact.

As opposed to Bush's plan of attacking a country that is not responsible for the attacks against the U.S.?

I'd rather attack first than sit back and wait for it, yes.

Let's attack those people in the Congo! In 500 years they might be a threat to us!

Oh lord, another one joins us.

-=Mike

...We need to give the terrorists HUGS, darn it!

You can't hug your kids with NUCLEAR arms...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow. Just wow.

 

I had thought I had seen some bickering, but this takes the cake.

*snicker*

 

Oh, wait. You're new here -- nevermind (this thread is rather minor-league, imo)...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yes, it's much better to live in a country where if you disagree you get shot in the back of the head or raped.

 

Terrorist were always there, now that the country is trying to be changed they are placed into a position where they are trying to drive us out. And from what I have learned from logic, the US is hanging around to set up the government and try to drive the terrorist out of the country.

You think people aren't being shot in the head now? You think it's impossible they'll go back to that?

 

I expect the violence in Iraq to jump up to a new standard the minute we leave. Tim Russert asked Bush what kind of plan he has if the Iraqi people reject the government he puts in place for something fundamentalist. He just grinned like an idiot and said he knew that wasn't going to happen.

 

What? It's simple:

 

You put man in charge.

You leave.

Citizens shoot man left in charge, form more radical government.

Life goes downhill.

 

 

I didn't support going into Iraq, but I support rebuilding it if we do. But I also support more thought being put into the process than what the President showed in that interview bit above.

 

I just have an issue of the rallying cry of the right when negative news comes out of Iraq, which is "WELL AT LEAST IT'S BETTER THAN WHEN SADDAM WAS RUNNING THINGS, HUH?" I just have to look at the circumstances to say "Well, I don't really agree 100% with that" and get the predicted response: Being called a dictator lover.

[Guest MikeSC]

You think people aren't being shot in the head now? You think it's impossible they'll go back to that?

So screw trying to fix anything as, well, it could be worse.

 

Heck, let's disband all social programs here, too. The logic works quite well for that.

I expect the violence in Iraq to jump up to a new standard the minute we leave. Tim Russert asked Bush what kind of plan he has if the Iraqi people reject the government he puts in place for something fundamentalist. He just grinned like an idiot and said he knew that wasn't going to happen.

Because UNTIL IT WON'T HAPPEN, WE WON'T LEAVE.

 

And you call him an idiot?

What? It's simple:

 

You put man in charge.

You leave.

Citizens shoot man left in charge, form more radical government.

Life goes downhill.

Life goes downhill?

 

As opposed to the days of wine and roses under Saddam?

I didn't support going into Iraq, but I support rebuilding it if we do. But I also support more thought being put into the process than what the President showed in that interview bit above.

Hmm, if he said we'll stay until it's not an issue, you'd bitch.

If he says we'll leave now, you'd bitch.

If he says nothing, you'd bitch.

I just have an issue of the rallying cry of the right when negative news comes out of Iraq, which is "WELL AT LEAST IT'S BETTER THAN WHEN SADDAM WAS RUNNING THINGS, HUH?" I just have to look at the circumstances to say "Well, I don't really agree 100% with that" and get the predicted response: Being called a dictator lover.

Jobber --- the mere fact that NEWS COMES OUT OF IRAQ PERIOD shows that things are better.

 

When the heck did the left abandon the notion of giving a damn about rights and liberty?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Life goes downhill?

 

As opposed to the days of wine and roses under Saddam?

No, it returns pretty close to Saddam levels.

 

Hmm, if he said we'll stay until it's not an issue, you'd bitch.

If he says we'll leave now, you'd bitch.

If he says nothing, you'd bitch.

 

Actually, if he said we and other nations would stay and share the burden until it's no longer an issue, I wouldn't bitch. That's what I'd like to hear.

[Guest thebigjig]

come to think of it... during that russert interview, thats pretty much all Bush did... grin like an idiot and repeat "terrorism" about 45 times

 

Going into Iraq the way we did was a horrible decision... we basically took a very unstable region and made it 500 X worse than it has been in quite some time. You cannot take a country that has not known democracy and expect to teach it to them like grade schoolers, leave a year and a half later, and expect everything to be hunky dory. This was a very ineptly planned invasion and what's funny is that ALOT of people predicted all of this before we went in there

 

The way I see it... is that Bush fucked the world up alot worse than it was before he got into office and thats a MAJOR reason I turned against him

 

Bush and his entire goddamn staff remind me of the generals you always see in the movies that are always wanting to take military action, even without thinking things through... and now that I think of it, it reminds me of the JCOS that were encouraging Kennedy to attack the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which would've triggered WWIII and we likely wouldn't be arguing anything right now because we wouldn't be here

 

christ... what if someone like Bush would've been president in '62? THAT is a scary thought

[Guest thebigjig]

We bitch about how he got us into the mess... how he went about doing it, and we question the motives

 

NO sane democrat welcomes the notion of packing up and getting out of there now with the situation like it is

 

I think it would be safe to assume that by the time this entire mess is over... and believe me, that wont be ANY time soon, more Iraqis will have died because of the war and the aftermath, than did under the rule of Saddam

[Cartman 0]

Well some day people will get a rude awakening and realize that no matter how hard anyone tries Terrorism will never go away.

 

People can fight it, people can pretend to know where the next threat comes from, people can stop some planned attacks, but the fact is it will never go away. There are just way too many radical fundamentalists in different parts of this world that hate what someone else believes in, thus dibbing them EVIL.

 

Middle East countries have been fighting with each other since the beginning of time, and it inly hurts America to get involved because now they ALL want us to die. They look at Americans like greedy powermonger's that only have themselves in their best interests. Sad part is, it's true.

 

Religious and cultural difference has fueld hatred and death in that part of the country for longer than any of us could ever know about, and it's not going to just go away.

 

Here's a little frightening tidbit I heard the other day from my father. He was in vermont about 2 weeks ago staying overnight in a hotel. As he walked through the main lobby of said hotel, he heard a woman sitting in a chair say something to him. This woman was of Arab decent, and he stopped and asked her what she said. She repeated, and I quote, "I hope you are enjoying our Nuclear Holocaust". Whatever she meant by that I will never know, but there is a Nuclear Power Plant not far from this area.

[Guest MikeSC]

Life goes downhill?

 

As opposed to the days of wine and roses under Saddam?

No, it returns pretty close to Saddam levels.

So, it's down to Saddam levels (which seems odd, as mass graves aren't being dug at present) --- but the people have the chance to determine who their leader is.

Hmm, if he said we'll stay until it's not an issue, you'd bitch.

If he says we'll leave now, you'd bitch.

If he says nothing, you'd bitch.

 

Actually, if he said we and other nations would stay and share the burden until it's no longer an issue, I wouldn't bitch. That's what I'd like to hear.

He doesn't need to SAY it as he is actively DOING it.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

We bitch about how he got us into the mess... how he went about doing it, and we question the motives

 

NO sane democrat welcomes the notion of packing up and getting out of there now with the situation like it is

 

I think it would be safe to assume that by the time this entire mess is over... and believe me, that wont be ANY time soon, more Iraqis will have died because of the war and the aftermath, than did under the rule of Saddam

You really have no clue how bad it was, do you?

 

Mass graves, jig. Mass graves.

 

They were dug for a reason, ya know.

 

The kurds were gassed and killed en masse by SOMEBODY.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I think it would be safe to assume that by the time this entire mess is over... and believe me, that wont be ANY time soon, more Iraqis will have died because of the war and the aftermath, than did under the rule of Saddam

My GOD you are a moron.

 

A complete and utter moron.

 

You have absolutely no concept of who Saddam was or what he did to his people.

 

I mean, Christ, go watch a fucking History channel special on Hussein.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think it would be safe to assume that by the time this entire mess is over... and believe me, that wont be ANY time soon, more Iraqis will have died because of the war and the aftermath, than did under the rule of Saddam

My GOD you are a moron.

 

A complete and utter moron.

 

You have absolutely no concept of who Saddam was or what he did to his people.

 

I mean, Christ, go watch a fucking History channel special on Hussein.

Come on, everyone knows the History Channel is just a historic version of OMGFAUXNEWS2004LOL!

-=Mike

...I mean, ALL those specials about World War II --- TOTALLY Republican

[Styles 0]

Middle East countries have been fighting with each other since the beginning of time, and it [o]nly hurts America to get involved.

Gee, ignoring it worked so well that our planes were hijacked and used to murder 3,000 plus people and cause mass chaos.

Moral obligations as world superpower aside, they struck US first. Staying out doesn't work. As you said, they hate us and will continue to kill us, so we need to get them first, terrorists and those that harbor them alike...

[Styles 0]

come to think of it... during that russert interview, thats pretty much all Bush did... grin like an idiot and repeat "terrorism" about 45 times

What do you mean "come to think of it?" You've only posted this in every one of your threads since the interview. It's not like terrorism is actually a pressing issue that greatly effects America or anything...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, it's down to Saddam levels (which seems odd, as mass graves aren't being dug at present) --- but the people have the chance to determine who their leader is.

In that situation, no, because the power struggle after the US leaves results in a bunch of fighting between the sunni, shiites, and others and the end result is some religious wacko at the top who's very likely to be violent and murderous about it. Welcome to where you started.

 

He doesn't need to SAY it as he is actively DOING it.

 

Now that his original plan didn't work. Good job.

[Cartman 0]

Middle East countries have been fighting with each other since the beginning of time, and it [o]nly hurts America to get involved.

Gee, ignoring it worked so well that our planes were hijacked and used to murder 3,000 plus people and cause mass chaos.

Moral obligations as world superpower aside, they struck US first. Staying out doesn't work. As you said, they hate us and will continue to kill us, so we need to get them first, terrorists and those that harbor them alike...

I guess we're forgetting about the Gulf War.

 

 

some religious wacko at the top

 

Why does that sound familiar?

[Guest thebigjig]

I think it would be safe to assume that by the time this entire mess is over... and believe me, that wont be ANY time soon, more Iraqis will have died because of the war and the aftermath, than did under the rule of Saddam

My GOD you are a moron.

 

A complete and utter moron.

 

You have absolutely no concept of who Saddam was or what he did to his people.

 

I mean, Christ, go watch a fucking History channel special on Hussein.

thanks for flaming me... asshole

 

I challenge you to actually read my post a little more accurately...

 

I'll give you some time

 

....

 

finished yet?

 

....

 

 

hurry up, it wasn't that long

 

...

 

okay, done yet? no?! Well too bad, I'm at work and I dont have all day

 

I did not, anywhere in that post, say that Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad guy and that he didnt kill alot of people and that there weren't mass graves and that he was a wonderful man who enjoys walks on the beach and cute cuddley kittens. I KNOW HE KILLED ALOT OF PEOPLE you stupid fuck. I just dont know if all of this was worth it, or that we made the middle east a better place than it was before... time is going to show that we made it worse