What I learned from Dubya tonight...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 7, 2003, 4:51 pm

Nothing irritates me more than brainwashed college students trying to fit in with some trendy stance on policies.

"Dubya, he sucks and stuff. yeah. um, what else was I going to say...oh yeah, weeeee!"

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 7, 2003, 5:03 pm

Winnow, he sucks because this war is not nessicary. The simple fact that he stated in front of the whole of the United States that he believes Iraq is a threat makes him just like Clinton on the cigar issue, except Clinton lied about his personal life and this dick lies about our country.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 5:05 pm

Acies wrote:Winnow, he sucks because this war is not nessicary. The simple fact that he stated in front of the whole of the United States that he believes Iraq is a threat makes him just like Clinton on the cigar issue, except Clinton lied about his personal life and this dick lies about our country.

Hows he lying to our country?...Iraq is a threat penis.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 7, 2003, 5:07 pm

Gurugurumaki wrote:
Acies wrote:Winnow, he sucks because this war is not nessicary. The simple fact that he stated in front of the whole of the United States that he believes Iraq is a threat makes him just like Clinton on the cigar issue, except Clinton lied about his personal life and this dick lies about our country.
Hows he lying to our country?...Iraq is a threat penis.

A threat to us? ROFL
Not rikry

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 7, 2003, 5:10 pm

And we are the only people on the planet that matter, right Acies?

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 5:14 pm

It is very rikely. He produces weapons, ie suitcase nucrears, sells them to fokers that hate us, and there is your threat my friend.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 7, 2003, 5:17 pm

Essencially, since Bush has made it very clear by blowing off the requests of the rest of the world (excepting England).
Falla, I think Bush is doing more harm than help to this world by pursuing this. We "could" have Saddam hit by his own people, even his entrie family can be eliminated.
Then we could install a puppet.
This war is bullshit, there is ulterior motives, my president is a figure I loathe.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 7, 2003, 5:19 pm

Iraq does not have the facilities to produce nuclear weapons.

DPRK does.
Pakistan does.
India does.
Isreal does.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 5:21 pm

miir wrote:Iraq does not have the facilities to produce nuclear weapons.

DPRK does.
Pakistan does.
India does.
Isreal does.

It was an example, I should have used germ agents instead..I sooo sowwy~

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 7, 2003, 5:27 pm

I should have used germ agents instead

Yeah, Iraq is known for cranking out those chemical weapons and selling them off to terrorists.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 5:30 pm

Bush is talking about the future dickwit. If you dont like it, then just stay the fuck out of the way.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 7, 2003, 5:33 pm

Gurugurumaki wrote:
miir wrote:Iraq does not have the facilities to produce nuclear weapons.

DPRK does.
Pakistan does.
India does.
Isreal does.
It was an example, I should have used germ agents instead..I sooo sowwy~

Who gave Iraq those bio/chem weapons?

He's had bio/chem weapons for 15-20 years, what would just now provoke him into selling those weapons to radical militant muslims (who consider him an infidel and a traitor)?

When has Saddam ever engaged in any unprovoked attacks against the United States?
Has there ever been any terrorist links succesfully tied to Saddam?

Hell, Saudi Arabia has more terrorist links than any other country in the middle east yet Bush considers them allies to the USA.

Not too long ago the USA considered Saddam Hussein an ally.
The USA was aiding Iraq in their war against Iran, supplying cash and weapons.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 5:37 pm

miir wrote:
Gurugurumaki wrote:
miir wrote:Iraq does not have the facilities to produce nuclear weapons.

DPRK does.
Pakistan does.
India does.
Isreal does.
It was an example, I should have used germ agents instead..I sooo sowwy~
Who gave Iraq those bio/chem weapons?

He's had bio/chem weapons for 15-20 years, what would just now provoke him into selling those weapons to radical militant muslims?

When has Saddam ever engaged in any unprovoked attacks against the United States?
Has there ever been any terrorist links succesfully tied to Saddam?

Hell, Saudi Arabia has more terrorist links than any other country in the middle east yet Bush considers them allies to the USA.

Not too long ago the USA considered Saddam Hussein an ally.
The USA was aiding Iraq in their war against Iran, supplying cash and weapons.

Come on Mirr you know things change over time. Iraq hates the US, and Bush believes in the near future that Saddam will want revenge. That revenge will be in the form of bio/chem attacks on US soil...atleast thats Bush's stance. He wants to prevent this. After the US is done with Iraq, we will head on over to N Korea to see if they want some~

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 7, 2003, 5:38 pm

If you dont like it, then just stay the fuck out of the way.

Bush fans seem to share Bush's outlook. Pretty pathetic arguments from both of them.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » March 7, 2003, 5:41 pm

Gurugurumaki wrote:Bush is talking about the future dickwit.

Thank you for expanding my vocabulary. VV has taught me many new words for use in daily life...asshat and jackassery, just to name two.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 5:42 pm

Not really an argument, just stating whats going to happen. I hope you like your little delusional world up in the shithole known as Battle Creek. The Canadian boarder is not too far away.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 7, 2003, 5:42 pm

Has there ever been any terrorist links succesfully tied to Saddam?

he did give big payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who took out targets in Israel.

but if that was grounds for war we'd be at war with quite a few. It is nothing on the order of what Syria supports.

we should take a page out of Israel's book and stage some attacks on US targets and blame then on Iraq. Israel conducted some terrorist attacks on US targets and blamed them on arabs in the late 60s to generate public support in the US against Eqypt.

i wouldnt put it past Sharon to do that sort of shit today.

Anyways, I dont think the way Bush answered some rather direct questions accomplished the goal of the press conference. He has still yet to make a compelling case to the international community as well as the mainstream American populus.

On NewsHour last night they had about a 10 minute segment with 2 polling guys (from different organizations) whose data pretty much matched up. You could divide the country into 3 groups, each around 33%. one that is for the war unconditionally, one that is against the war unconditionally, and one that would support a war with a UN resolution. that last 3rd will be important politically in 2004, and will be swayed by how the war plays out.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 5:45 pm

I'm not saying I'm for war, as some Americans and allies will die. I just think it is inevitable and arguing on VV wont prevent it. Therefore, I'm behind my president...yoo know~

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 7, 2003, 5:47 pm

i'm against war.

i can't take time off to go to FF because of it.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 7, 2003, 5:48 pm

Come on Mirr you know things change over time. Iraq hates the US, and Bush believes in the near future that Saddam will want revenge

Saddam's actions and words don't realy convey any hate towards the US.
Bush and Powell, on the other hand, seem to have some deep seeded rage towards Hussein and Iraq.

I'll be interested to see if the UN finds any 'WMD' or chem/bio facilities after the US assassinates Saddam.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 7, 2003, 5:53 pm

Powell was the chief person in the White House who argued for the U.S. to go through the UN last summer. He had never had a "hard on" for Hussein in the way that one would characterize Bush's statements.

i think because of Iraqi noncompliance, he has adopted the stance that the rest of the administration has held for some time, but in a much more tempered fashion.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 7, 2003, 5:54 pm

That revenge will be in the form of bio/chem attacks on US soil...atleast thats Bush's stance. He wants to prevent this.

Because a war with Iraq is going to make everyone in the Middle East like us, right? A common argument you will hear is that this method of thinking is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. No one will suddenly like the US more because we killed Saddam or put a puppet government in place. This war will simply strengthen the resove of the organized groups that are already against us. It has the chance of causing even more terrorist related violence against our country and people, both here in the states, and abroad.

After the US is done with Iraq, we will head on over to N Korea to see if they want some~

Intelligent and thought provoking response, pap smear!

observers · Post by **observers** » March 7, 2003, 5:58 pm

All said and done, GWB dosnt need anyone elses approval on this matter, Congress approved the " war on terror" and if he has proof of terrorism ties, Well then, WTF are we arguing about? Here are a few key points to concider:

1. Sadaam is truely fucked. If your in Iraq and want a long happy life.... move a few feet to the left of Iraq.

2. Germany should remember, they are here ONLY because the US and Russia didnt kill everything in its path to get to Hitler in Berlin.

3 France should concider, whats more important, The oil they THINK there gonna get outta this if they back Sadaam OR the millions in US aid that we SHOULD shut off for being TARDS.

4. On the germany thing, Adolpf Hitler was NOT seen as a huge threat to the US in the late 30's and early 40's. America stayed neutral and "peaceful" until the death of millions of Jews could not be overlooked. If you think about it, We did the wrong thing back then by not removing a dictator who aginst WW1 treeties, ARMED his country and damn near took over the world.

If my facts on this issue are not EXACTLY accurate, it is because i speak from the heart and not the text of some book written by a long dead author. For that folks, I appoligise. BUT the fact remains, Sadaam has killed in MASS numbers, his own people in the north, He is playing a mind game with the world " see mommy, im cleaning up my room ( 8 years later ) He too is spreading propaganda and lies to his own people.

GWB May seem as an embarassment to some, But to others of us who have fought, been wounded for and love our country dearly, He is a Pillar of strength, a hope in the dark if you will. People have forgotten 9-11 and this is sad.

* steps off soapbox * and takes a bow

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 5:58 pm

FP-I tell it like it is. After Iraq, we will see if N Korea wants some. It doesnt have to be a novel response to spew out an answer. And the pap smear comment, ghey as hell, and your insulting women across the nation.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 7, 2003, 6:01 pm

Voronwë wrote:
we should take a page out of Israel's book and stage some attacks on US targets and blame then on Iraq. Israel conducted some terrorist attacks on US targets and blamed them on arabs in the late 60s to generate public support in the US against Eqypt.

As it turns out, they were actually canadians dressed up to look like americans. Way too much bodyhair was discovered on the victims thus blowing the ruse wide open.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 7, 2003, 6:11 pm

I tell it like it is.

Is this suppossed to be profound or something? I'm pretty sure virtually everyone knew we were going to war with Irag about 6 months ago. Thanks anyway Captian Obvious!

And the pap smear comment, ghey as hell, and your insulting women across the nation.

Your response to my insult is fucking gay. Chirst, did you suddenly forget where you're posting? Grow some thicker skin, douchbag. (Oh no! I did it again! I'm oppressing the female gender! Whatever will they do after my harsh usage of thier feminine hygiene product?!?)

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 7, 2003, 6:14 pm

Fairweather....anal fan and a liberal. Coincidence? I think not.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 6:16 pm

pap smear is not a product donkeynuts, its a procedure. Similiar to your anal gangbangs on Sunday night with the assmen crub in town.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 7, 2003, 6:18 pm

Difference between Iraq and N. Korea, from a military standpoint, is that DPKR is surrounded by countries who can defend themselves. The Saudis and Kuwaitis have no real military, and are reliant on us to keep them safe.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 7, 2003, 6:27 pm

pap smear is not a product donkeynuts, its a procedure.

I never said it was. Somehow I'm not terribly shocked that you misread me. I'll try writing in retard next time so you'll have a better chance of understanding my posts.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 7, 2003, 6:31 pm

masteen wrote:Difference between Iraq and N. Korea, from a military standpoint, is that DPKR is surrounded by countries who can defend themselves. The Saudis and Kuwaitis have no real military, and are reliant on us to keep them safe.

the saudis and kuwaitis pretty much unanimously hate your fucking guts.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 6:34 pm

That may be true Kyo, but they would not survive without us.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 7, 2003, 6:52 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:
masteen wrote:Difference between Iraq and N. Korea, from a military standpoint, is that DPKR is surrounded by countries who can defend themselves. The Saudis and Kuwaitis have no real military, and are reliant on us to keep them safe.
the saudis and kuwaitis pretty much unanimously hate your fucking guts.

And I will defend those sand niggers' rights to do exactly that. At least as long as they keep the sweet, sweet crude flowing...

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 7, 2003, 6:56 pm

WoMDs?

What the fuck are the VX cannisters that are being dug up with the missiles they are destroying?

Jesus H man, how far down in the sand can you shove that think head of yours?

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 7, 2003, 6:57 pm

masteen wrote:
kyoukan type-R wrote:
masteen wrote:Difference between Iraq and N. Korea, from a military standpoint, is that DPKR is surrounded by countries who can defend themselves. The Saudis and Kuwaitis have no real military, and are reliant on us to keep them safe.
the saudis and kuwaitis pretty much unanimously hate your fucking guts.
And I will defend those sand niggers' rights to do exactly that. At least as long as they keep the sweet, sweet crude flowing...

ROFR-brutal I tell ya

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 7, 2003, 6:58 pm

masteen wrote:And I will defend those sand niggers' rights to do exactly that. At least as long as they keep the sweet, sweet crude flowing...

and use the money to finance terrorist groups. wonderful thought process there.

Skunki · Post by **Skunki** » March 7, 2003, 7:12 pm

Ok so the guy isnt the best public speaker in the world. However discrediting him because his agenda doesn't=yours by flaming his public speaking equals about the same as you jackholes who flame people's grammar.

It doesnt discredit anything and is just sidestepping the whole issue in itself.

Saddam is the one that wants to destroy us. We arent looking for war with him, but it is a necessary means to an end.....ours or iraqs. It is why this is happening. All he has to do is disarm..it is as simple as that. It his choice and noonelsess just like the british dude(i forget his name and no its not Tony Blair) said today. So stop blaming Bush and the US for looking out after the world..im sick of it hehe

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 7, 2003, 7:19 pm

Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary)

As a politician, part of his job is to communicate effectively. It is fair to judge him on his successes and failures in that regard in my opinion.

edit: Secretary not Minister

at any rate, the war is going to happen. The U.S. has put itself in a position where it will lose credibility if it backs off. I don't know how the situation can be resolved without force at this point. Saddam isnt going to defect, and the US isnt going to back down. They are not going to get U.N. support either. That was more clear today than ever.

Skunki · Post by **Skunki** » March 7, 2003, 7:25 pm

you have a good point Voro. Now that i think of it his speeches effect his approval ratings, and how the UN or anything hes lobbying for is effected. I was just responding to the people who come here and say He cant even speak blah blah blah like it effects the issue of Saddam in any way. I dont see how it does, concentrate on the issue at hand not wether he can spell potatoe..oh wait that was another dude hehe

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 7, 2003, 7:52 pm

miir wrote:He still needs to learn how to pronounce nuclear.
It's not NOOK-YOO-LER.

Main Entry: nu·cle·ar
Pronunciation: 'nü-klE-&r, 'nyü-, ÷-ky&-l&r

<snip definition>

usage Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

observers · Post by **observers** » March 7, 2003, 8:52 pm

LOL

miir · Post by **miir** » March 7, 2003, 9:23 pm

Fuck off with the Saddam/Hitler comparisons.

apples to oranges

Saddam is the one that wants to destroy us. We arent looking for war with him, but it is a necessary means to an end.....ours or iraqs. It is why this is happening.

Now what exactly has Saddam done that would give you that impression?
He has not partaken in any aggresive actions towards the US.
He has not threatened any pre-emtive strikes against the US.
He has not made any threats towards the US.
He has not made any threats towards his neighbors in the past 12 years.

I can almost understand why hes reluctant to disarm...
The US has lined up 300k troops at his borders and Bush has made it clear that he intends to remove him, regardless if he disarms or not.

If someone pointed an assault rifle at you and demanded you drop your knife before he pumped you full of bullets... would you defned yourself or drop the knife and die quietly?

All he has to do is disarm..it is as simple as that

Is that why that Ari whats-his-fuck was spewing that disarming isn't acceptable and that the US requires a regime change?

For fock sakes, take a second and listen to all the shit your government is pumping into your hollow skull.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 7, 2003, 9:59 pm

miir wrote:
All he has to do is disarm..it is as simple as that
Is that why that Ari whats-his-fuck was spewing that disarming isn't acceptable and that the US requires a regime change?

For fock sakes, take a second and listen to all the shit your government is pumping into your hollow skull.

Amen

wadana · Post by **wadana** » March 7, 2003, 10:19 pm

Now this is funny haha.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » March 9, 2003, 10:19 pm

I think there are a couple of major issues in this debate that most anti-war peeps elegantly choose to ignore.

1. There are a hell of a lot of people living in Iraq right now (Kurds in the north, Shi'is in the south) who would all be dead if it were not for our constant eyes and presence in the area. Saddam is evil, and I find it hard to believe that people would not support his removal for the very same reasons we removed Slobodan Milosevic from Bosnia. . .even if you take NOTHING else into account.

2. For years. . .literally years. . .he has gone against what he agreed to when the Gulf War ended. He waits until the very last second before war to make any concession at all. This is not satisfactory behavior for a nation that has agreed "without condition" to agree to disarm without being forced to do it and to provide concrete proof that such disarmament has occured. The only reason we have gotten anywhere at all recently is because we have 200,000 troops on his borders and he knows he cannot win. Keeping 200,000 troops on his border indeffinitely is not an option. He has had plenty of chances to show good will and cooperation and has failed them all. I believe in following through on promises and inforcing promises we fought and died to achieve. It is ridiculous that people are willing to forgive this guy time and time again. I quote from a Wall Street Journal editorial:

"High fashion at the U.N. has it that if we just keep nagging Saddam, he will lose all interest in germs, gas and nuclear bombs, and apart from the miseries of 24 million Iraqis still living in fear of having their tongues ripped out, all will forevermore be safe and well. . . Let's do the math. To get even a show of forward motion from Saddam, it has taken 17 failed U.N. resolutions, 12,000 pages of pointless documents from Baghdad, umpteen visits to Iraq by Mr. Blix, the concentrated attention for many months of the entire world, plus--and most important--the deployment to the Persian Gulf of six U.S. aircraft carrier groups and 250,000 troops."

Maybe if we pour another 250,000 troops in we can get a couple scuds out of the deal.

3. Saddam is an evil, evil man. He has murdered over 200,000 of his own people (over 100,000 of these Kurds). He has made promises of sanctuary to family members and had them summarily executed publicly. He allows zero freedom for his subjects and rules by terror and oppression.

To conclude, I am not willing to stand on the sidelines and watch the world change for the worse. In this case, I believe leaving Saddam in power would have a direct impact on me in the form of the support of terror, but even if that is ignored completely, I support the use of force to remove him from power because he is evil and he is a murderer and has no right to be the leader of a nation in this day and age.

I believe as the only superpower in the world, we have a duty to support democracy and protect the people on this planet who cannot protect themselves. Certainly there are many others besides Iraqis who deserve this protection, but our reach is not infinite and we have to pick our battles.

Saddam has been dicking over the world for far too long and it needs to end. We are the only ones willing and able to do it, so bring on the tanks. Anyone who does not wish to participate does not have to. . .they can slide into obscurity and remain obsolete.

Avestan

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 9, 2003, 10:53 pm

Well you say he is evil and is stockpiling weapons and supports terrorism and murders innocent people for personal enjoyment and I say he doesn't. The only difference between who's opinion is more valid is the fact that there really isn't any evidence that he is stockpiling weapons or supports terrorism or murders Iraqis beyond the rhetoric your government seems to enjoy spewing on the news every day.

If there was any actual proof of any of that then there wouldn't be such an overwhelming number of people totally opposed to war.

Skunki · Post by **Skunki** » March 10, 2003, 5:42 am

woo how the heck are you stan?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 10, 2003, 6:37 am

3 France should concider, whats more important, The oil they THINK there gonna get outta this if they back Sadaam OR the millions in US aid that we SHOULD shut off for being TARDS.

France's stance on the issue has very little to do with oil, opposed to what the US government would like you to believe. The money and oil owed to France by Saddam is miniscule to the business they do with the United States. They are losing a hell of a lot more money taking this stance then they would if they merely supported the US. Luckily, there is a country in the world that stands up for what it believes in and doesn't let money blind them to reality.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 10, 2003, 7:15 am

On the germany thing, Adolpf Hitler was NOT seen as a huge threat to the US in the late 30's and early 40's. America stayed neutral and "peaceful" until the death of millions of Jews could not be overlooked

Sorry but you're very wrong here.
The US stayed out of the war until Pearl Harbour. Nazi Germany declared war on the US at about the same time.
The holocaust was just a rumour until well into 1945. I think it was May 1945 when Ike saw a camp for himself and brought in the press and the politicians.
So in summary, no-one entered the war to stop the holocaust because nobody knew/believed it was occurring.

As for Iraq - well I've given up arguing. One group of people look at Iraq and see a country that is "100% certain" to sell weapons it doesn't have to people it doesn't like at some indeterminate point in the future and that's a "threat to teh fatherland. Oops I mean homeland". Obviously this calls for immediate war.
The other group sees the same "facts" and sees no need for war yet as there is plenty more mileage in peaceful disarmament processes.
I personally believe this is a lot more to do with the US's strategic oil supplies than disarming Saddam and that's why Dubya is so pissed that the rest of the world didn't buy his bullshit and rubberstamp the invasion cos now he's gonna have to come clean or really shit on his own doorstep.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » March 10, 2003, 9:44 am

Yo Skunki, doing well, working too much. Hope you are doing well as well.

Kyou,

The other problem I have with this debate (and many others) is the way many people decide to write off all evidence as government rhetoric from the start. How can we make ANY informed decision if we nullify any and all evidence from the get go. We have to believe something and I choose to believe what I read in the papers. Maybe it is foolish to do so, but I do have trust in my government. I had trust in Bill Clinton's government in the Bosnia affair, and I do not see that same kind of trust coming from his supporters in this matter. It is hipocricy at its finest, but that is life. Clinton was a first class cumball, but I trusted what his administration said about foreign affairs, because quite simply, they are the best informed and they were elected to deal with it. We can argue all day about whose evidence is right or wrong, but most of what I said in my last post is as close to fact as it gets. Not from the government, but from the people in Iraq and in the case of the public executions, direct from the psycho himself.

Stan