For you that wanted USA to invade Iraq, suck on this..

[Tom]

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Nuff said, i hope you feel slapped in the face...

Edit: And if you have a relative or anyone you know that are soldiers down there i just want you to know that i think they are murderers not freedom fighters or wtf you want to call them.

Peace.

I could write some long-winded paragraph about the reasons why you are wrong, but everybody here already realises you're wrong, so I won't bother.

As for insulting our armies, well thats very easy for you to say in your nice warm house with piping hot water and electricity, I think your opinion might be different if you lived in a farm and had to walk a mile for fresh water, and if you had to stoke a fire every 30 minutes just to keep from freezing.

 

[Ch3tan]

I respect the CoC Yoni

I thought it might be crossing the line a little, but he deserves to be bitten by a cockbadger to be honest. A cockbadger that visited China around January last year and may have been around birds with a flu*

*Not wishing SARS on anyone, that wouldnt be nice.

 

[GekuL]

The link posted didn't even actually say anything. Is that the best you could get?

 

[Utini]

Nath: U seem to have misread what i said in my posts, as i didnt agree with the way we WENT to war, i just agree with actually going on the basis of the benefit to the people there. And everyone is not agreeing now as u seem to say/think.
And yes, not all anti war people are foaming at the mouth idiots - though a fair proportion do just follow tabloid opinion blindly, again i agree.
I'm unsure what ure disagreeing with (other than i presume by the nature of ure post ure anti war), since all your points were effectively in agreement with me.

 

[nath]

Really all I was saying in my incredibly poorly constructed post was that I don't agree that the humanitarian aspect of the war justifies the war. I got the impression you felt that most people were on board with that now but I was probably completely wrong with that assumption

 

[fatbusinessman]

Really all I was saying in my incredibly poorly constructed post was that I don't agree that the humanitarian aspect of the war justifies the war.

Not to mention the fact that, as far as I can tell, Iraq is in a complete shambles at the moment, with fighting in the streets and a severe shortage of services. Not to mention the suppression of free speech.

Basically, I'm not disputing that Iraq needed to be rid of Saddam, but the way this has been handled has been a shambles from the start, with misrepresented evidence, pretty much outright lying to the public, and abysmal handling of Iraq since Saddam was deposed.

 

[Tom]

Suppression of free speech? Try inciting racial hatred here, see how much 'free speech' you're entitled to.

Iraq has been in a complete shambles for its entire history, and the people complaining about a shortage of services should remember that there weren't those services before the war, and those services weren't that much better when Saddam was attacking Iran.

As for the handling of Iraq since Saddam was deposed, well I think they're doing a better job than we give them credit for. It can't be easy, and you only hear the bad things over here (ie the stories that sell newspapers). You don't see front page headlines saying 'ALLIES HELP BUILD SPANKING NEW POWER STATION'.

 

[fatbusinessman]

Suppression of free speech? Try inciting racial hatred here, see how much 'free speech' you're entitled to.

On the one hand, there's racial hatred. On the other hand, there's hatred of the people occupying your country. The US says it's one, Sadr says it's the other. The US says it's an incitement to violence, Sadr says it's a non-violent form of free expression.

I can't really say I trust either of them to be telling the truth, but the onus is on the US not to trample on people.

 

[Krazeh]

Iraq has been in a complete shambles for its entire history, and the people complaining about a shortage of services should remember that there weren't those services before the war, and those services weren't that much better when Saddam was attacking Iran.

Wasn't Iraq in a fairly prosperous state during and towards the end of the 1970's? Didn't it kinda go downhill after the US helped put that new leader into power, what was his name now? Oh yeah it was Saddam, who went on to attack Iran and fucked up the economy of Iraq bigtime.

 

[Tom]

A revolution in 1958, a coup against the government in 1963, another coup in 1968, and Saddam Hussein coming to power in 1979 after the resignation of the existing president.

Sounds pretty stable to me.

 

[Bodhi]

I am honestly starting to wonder if Saddam Hussein was really all that bad. In his regime, blithering idiots such as n00b would quietly cease to be a problem.




/me contemplates emailing the White House and asking them if they'll send Saddam into exile as the facist ruler of Sweden.

 

[nath]

As far as I know, free speech means accepting all the nasty stuff you don't agree with aswell. You can't say "these people can have free speech, they say what we like. These lot can't though".

 

[Wij]

As far as I know, free speech means accepting all the nasty stuff you don't agree with aswell. You can't say "these people can have free speech, they say what we like. These lot can't though".

You know Bods is gonna say "Humour Bypass !!!" now right ?

 

[nath]

I wrote mine before I even saw bodhi's post, it wasn't a response to it cos that'd be utterly gay and totally humourless. And that's just not me is it.

 

[Wij]

aha - ok

*whistle*

 

[fatbusinessman]

*point at Wij*

*laugh at Wij*

 

[Wij]

*point at Wij*

*laugh at Wij*

*wave arms and shake fist*

 

[Cyfr]

He's trying to take over

*Shoots the dictator*

 

[Wij]

*stop bullets in mid-air*

 

[Tom]

*retaliates with arse bullets*

 

[Cyfr]

*Gets some John Smiths to sort Wij out*

 

[xane]

after the US helped put that new leader into power, what was his name now? Oh yeah it was Saddam ...

I see you know very little of the history of Iraq, less so than your knowledge of conspiracy websites, care to point us in that direction to support your claim, or perhaps http://www.absolutefuckingbollocks.com/ would be more correct ?

FYI Hussein was Vice-President for over five years when President Bakr "resigned", a situation forced by Hussein because of Bakr's negotiations to (re-)unite Iraq and Syria, a deal that would have made Hussein's political position less powerful. In true Stalin style he immediately had all his political opponents murdered as his first act as President, the rest is history.

 

[nath]

Do you really have to be quite so agressive and obnoxious when putting foward your point, xane? It's getting really old.

 

[Tom]

Most of this US-Saddam rumour comes from the time that Saddam spent in exile in Syria, after he botched an assassination, and fled for his life. It was rumoured that he was meeting with a CIA agent while there, but its never been conclusively proven (AFAIK).

 

[Jonaldo]

It's happened now and is all done and dusted. Will the ultimately fruitless discussion ever end?








Find out on the next episode of.. FREDDYSHOUSE!

*cue music*

 

[Utini]

/me petitions Jonaldo for the addition of lots of good looking women to the soap to go with the issues, hollyoaks style! (Well minus the issues)

 

[mr.Blacky]

As far as I know, free speech means accepting all the nasty stuff you don't agree with aswell. You can't say "these people can have free speech, they say what we like. These lot can't though".

Off course on the other hand Iraq is an occupied country and without a government, so ermm do they have free speech?

 

[xane]

Do you really have to be quite so agressive and obnoxious when putting foward your point, xane? It's getting really old.

Sod off and live happily ever after for the rest of your natural life.

 

[granny]

QQ.

I'm intrigued that nobody has taken this particular post to task.

OK n00b's post was utterly stupid - personally I am, and always was staunchly anti the war on Iraq but posts like n00bs do nothing but damage the anti-war argument in my opinion.

But to just reply with "QQ" I find extremely galling. It was always a pathetic response to anything even within the mentally limited regions known as "the DaoC forums" (and yes, I'm an ex-daoc'er but the forums have always been a hotbed of retardism) but to spread it onto a serious (if misguided) post on the general forums? Please, go away.

 

[Wij]

Please, go away.

QQ


















(someone had to )