dhaen said:
Well, even as a supporter of the official US position to liberate Iraq from its tyrant, I was able to see humor in most of the pictures posted, though most were still biased, anti-US propaganda, but this one is so far outside the truth that I feel obliged to end my silence and post again. The facts of the matter are that Saddam is stalling and dragging things out as much as he can. The picture of a dog eagerly doing everything he is told by a dominating US is so incredibly false that I can't believe even you who are in favor of appeasing sadistic despots find the cartoon enjoyable. Saddam only cooperates the very minimum that he possibly can to stave off a US invasion. While I think Saddam is pretty much convinced the US will invade, he remains convinced that he will weather this next storm for the simple reason that he always has. He is toying with the US right now, and he is laughing at the gullibility of you so-called anti-war people. Rather than Saddam being an obedient dog, he is playing you all as pawns so that he can continue to remain in power, continue to abuse his people, continue his work on weapons of mass destruction, continue his quest to become another North Korea of such power that no nation will threaten to take him on for fear of nuclear reprisal, continue to covertly fund terrorist nations, fulfill his quest to retake Kuwait, then take Saudi Arabia, then threaten Iran and Israel, and, in general, be a major pest. Why not take out this guy while we still can? Do you really want Iraq to be the nest North Korea? Wake up, guys and smell the coffee - Saddam isn't a nice little puppy dog.
We are all still waiting for some proof. But may be Bush knows something we don't I suspect that Bush kept all the receipt.
Jeff,
It was meant only as a bit of fun in troubled times.
I am not anti American, but am anti Bush policy.
As for taking out Saddam "because he's bad", I'm not the world's policeman, and nor is he. Maybe if the UN had more balls ALL of the time, they could be.
So what if he takes Saudi and Kuwait? Neither are democracies, even though they are supported and woo'ed by all the so called free countries. The only reason for that is oil; clear and simple.
Sorry if anyone was offended by my recent posts😉
From another post:
Cheers,
It was meant only as a bit of fun in troubled times.
I am not anti American, but am anti Bush policy.
As for taking out Saddam "because he's bad", I'm not the world's policeman, and nor is he. Maybe if the UN had more balls ALL of the time, they could be.
So what if he takes Saudi and Kuwait? Neither are democracies, even though they are supported and woo'ed by all the so called free countries. The only reason for that is oil; clear and simple.
Sorry if anyone was offended by my recent posts😉
From another post:
Well somehow I doubt it
Cheers,
Well, he probabbly knows exacty how many tons of biological and chemicals substances the U.S. sold to Iraq in the 80's along with the technologies to deal with it. That's why I said:" Bush probably knows something that we don't. And he must has kept all the receipt as proof. Always remember that Saddam was killing Iranians with U.S. made WMD including chemical and biological warfare.
Jeff R said:
First off I will start by getting a few things out in the open.
I am not one of these "anti-war no matter what" type of people. I believe it is obvious that to politically survive King George has to find a way to go to war with Iraq, and having said that I wish he would get it over with so we can watch his economic policy fail just like his dad's did.
I did not share the fanaticism to go to war based on a slew of "play on your fears" arguments that made no sense whatsoever when you consider Saddams personality.
I think it's funny that everytime King George says "he has to do this" he does it. Saddam is not making any citizen of this country look stupid, he is making your boy, King "I can do no wrong" George look stupid. The whole world is waiting for the proof in the pudding and all they get is a bunch of "we swears" from an administration that I have personally caught lying over so called evidence, twice. So don't hand me that "trust your government crap" you seem so quick to sidle up to and swallow until you choke others on it. If anybody is Saddams love toy It's King George and all those who would kill to have sex with him.
As far as the last part of your post, Saddam does send money to the families of suicide bombers in Palistine. Who told you he secretly funded terrorism, had ambitions of taking Iraq, Wanted to take Saudi Arabia or the rest of the region? It sounds like typical "prey on the fear of babes" retoric that King George wants everyone to believe, or maybe your just paranoid. How could you possibly know or hold information to prove all this? King George doesn't have it either and when asked about proof he states not a list of confirmable facts but the old Texas inbred favorite "he even tried to kill my daddy".
Why can't you let us have a couple of laughs with some funny cartoons and get over it.
Thanks your apology, but none was needed or expected. We are big enough, on both sides, to poke fun at each other. J
You have some good points, but I think dismissing our activities is due to "oil" is quite simplistic. We have gone into countries that offered next to nothing of intrinsic value to the US but where we felt that in the longer term it was in our best interests. Oil is certainly something that is in the vital interests of the entire world. And I add that, for the free world, what is generally in the best interests of the US is generally pretty good for the rest of the free world. I mean, can a weak US face off North Korea? Now that is a country that really scares me, and it a great example of a future Iraq run by Saddam. Had we taken out Kim Jong long ago, things would now, most likely, be so much better there. As is, the world may soon find itself on the brink of a nuclear showdown there. This is what appeasement of despots does – makes things so much worse later on.
We could debate whether Iraq re-invading Kuwait, then going after Saudi Arabia, would be "good" or "bad". True, neither are democracies, but with someone like Saddam in charge of what would become a world powerhouse, we would have a new superpower nation that would soon rival, and perhaps exceed, even the power of the US. They have trillions of dollars in oil - oil that we need, and this combined nation would have the wealth to build up, arm itself, and become a major menace that the free world has not yet seen. At least communism Russia was relatively civilized and could be reasoned with. This new country, full of religious zealots, would now attempt to impose their views on the rest of the world. While many of you criticize the US for attempting to impose its views of democracy on the world, now imagine people like Saddam and Bin Laden imposing their views! Still more scared of Bush? He may, in fact, be our savior right now.
You have some good points, but I think dismissing our activities is due to "oil" is quite simplistic. We have gone into countries that offered next to nothing of intrinsic value to the US but where we felt that in the longer term it was in our best interests. Oil is certainly something that is in the vital interests of the entire world. And I add that, for the free world, what is generally in the best interests of the US is generally pretty good for the rest of the free world. I mean, can a weak US face off North Korea? Now that is a country that really scares me, and it a great example of a future Iraq run by Saddam. Had we taken out Kim Jong long ago, things would now, most likely, be so much better there. As is, the world may soon find itself on the brink of a nuclear showdown there. This is what appeasement of despots does – makes things so much worse later on.
We could debate whether Iraq re-invading Kuwait, then going after Saudi Arabia, would be "good" or "bad". True, neither are democracies, but with someone like Saddam in charge of what would become a world powerhouse, we would have a new superpower nation that would soon rival, and perhaps exceed, even the power of the US. They have trillions of dollars in oil - oil that we need, and this combined nation would have the wealth to build up, arm itself, and become a major menace that the free world has not yet seen. At least communism Russia was relatively civilized and could be reasoned with. This new country, full of religious zealots, would now attempt to impose their views on the rest of the world. While many of you criticize the US for attempting to impose its views of democracy on the world, now imagine people like Saddam and Bin Laden imposing their views! Still more scared of Bush? He may, in fact, be our savior right now.
PassFan said:
Why can't you let us have a couple of laughs with some funny cartoons and get over it.
Well, if you re-read my post, I said that even I enjoyed some of the cartoons - it was only the one that I was a little upset about as it was so incredibly inaccurate and gives a totally false picture of the facts. So, I am hardly trying to prevent you from getting a few laughts.
As for my doomsday perdictions, I am hardly spouting any pro-Bush retoric. These are my own personal feelings and I have not seen anyone in the Bush administration use them. They are based on Saddam's goals when he first invaded Kuwait, and is why Saudi govenrment is supporting us now. I hardly think they are inaccurate. If you want to think that without the US being over there Saddam will behave himself, you are free to do so. History shows you will be wrong, and while you bash me for my opinion, you have totally failed to show where my thinking is in error.
If you think Bush is acting like a King, then tell me how you think Saddam has been behaving all along? Butcher, murderer, liar, con man all come to me.
Am I paranoid? Perhaps, but I refuse to bury my head in the sand and think that if the big, bad Bush/USA would only stop picking on Saddam that everything will be all better.
Point by point..
Jeff,
IMO any connection between state and religion is unhealthy.
Cheers,
Jeff,
I can see no other reason for courting Saidi or Kuwait.
There's nothing wrong with that IF it is your best interests. It's an honest assessment. What is dishonest, is my goverments (current) reason: that of humanitariansm.
If you mean cheap oil - yes. Otherwise - no. And have you stopped to wonder why you are having to "face off" N Korea? IMO part of the reason is US troop buildups in the south. Try and remember how it felt when the USSR sent missiles to Cuba.
Did you really say that? How would you feel and react if another superpower invaded your territory and took out Bush? .....Hey there's an idea, but Im a bit short on superpowers at the moment🙂
I don't agree. Each case has been different.
I believe every invasion is a bad thing. It seems to solve the immediate problem, and then leaves bigger problems for 50 years or more.
Each country will try to do the best for itself. That's natural. The problem (and this isn't anti American) is when the players are of such unequal weights. The US is the only superpower at present, and yet they cry fowl when a few small European countries try to bundle together to gain some mass.
IMO any connection between state and religion is unhealthy.
Cheers,
Re: Saddam Hussein tortures children
It is terrible, I agree. I find it just as terrible when the Saudi
religious police prevents the firemen from rescuing schoolgirls
from a burning building because they had not had time to put
on their veils. So if the reason for war is to save the people of
Iraq from tyrrany, I presume Saudi Arabia is next on the list?
jackinnj said:
It is terrible, I agree. I find it just as terrible when the Saudi
religious police prevents the firemen from rescuing schoolgirls
from a burning building because they had not had time to put
on their veils. So if the reason for war is to save the people of
Iraq from tyrrany, I presume Saudi Arabia is next on the list?
The biggest mistake what peace supporters make is that :
They think that fighting for peace is a noble cause. They do not understand that the world is not big enough for all . Somebody rule and somebody are ruled . That is , and that will be .
It is a civilisation war .
Is not a simplified point of view . If you will read " The Clash of Civilizations " by Samuel P. Huntington it would be more easy to understand USA politics.
http://www.lander.edu/atannenbaum/T...ntington_clash_of_civilizations_full_text.htm
And Irak is just the beggining .
Some people need a motive.
9/11 - that is the motive !
Regards !
They think that fighting for peace is a noble cause. They do not understand that the world is not big enough for all . Somebody rule and somebody are ruled . That is , and that will be .
It is a civilisation war .
Is not a simplified point of view . If you will read " The Clash of Civilizations " by Samuel P. Huntington it would be more easy to understand USA politics.
http://www.lander.edu/atannenbaum/T...ntington_clash_of_civilizations_full_text.htm
And Irak is just the beggining .
Some people need a motive.
9/11 - that is the motive !
Regards !
Ahh, social Darwinism...
Reach me my pistol, Floyd. The place is getting thick with little people!
Reach me my pistol, Floyd. The place is getting thick with little people!
Jeff R said:
Facts, personal feelings, opinions. Do you want to go back and re-read what you wrote? What is it your trying to express? When did I bash you, by asking you questions? What is your definition of Bashing?
Your cartoon in question was the Saddam doggie thing wasn't it. You admitted yourself that Saddam does just enough of what bushy wants to stave him off. Perhaps stymie should replace stave, but wasn't that what the cartoon was about.
If you recall Bushy didn't want to go to the UN, and Bushy didn't want to ask congress, and Bushy didn't want to develop a coalition. No, Bushy wanted to go straight to world aggressor and right to war. Colin Powell was the voice of reason that slowed King George down and caused him to ask for these things.
Saddam seems to stymie George's efforts at just the right moment. I can see him sitting on the edge of his seat watching the clock tic down and right at the last minute.... drats, foiled again. I think it's funny.
I also never said you had doomsday predictions either. You and I see diferently on why Saddam invaded Kuwait. Do you think if he wanted the region he would have taken it then, when he had the Chance? I happen to feel the Kuwaitis are partly responsible for stealing Iraqi oil. As is the US for giving him the impression we didn't care. If you know of any info I'd like to see it.
I can't think of anything we could tell the world that wouldn't make us all hypocrites. Do you think America should be the ones to decide who gets what in the "free world". What kind of world would that be. By our own standards then there are a few countries who have the right to preemptively attack America don't they...Iraq, North Korea, Iran to name an Axis of Evil right off the top of my head. Who are we to tell another sovreign nation what they can and cannot do. What gives us the right to set very dangerous precedents in the world, morality? What's immoral is to hide all this crap behind that word.
History is full of aggressors, good and bad. I only see one aggressor right now. As misguided and as illiterate as King George,s attempt to go to war has been, do you really think he won't screw up the final event? Do you think we'll be around to be judged right or wrong? How will we really be judged by history? Saddam is a butthole. That doesn't mean I want a butthole for a leader too. It's not up to us to clean off the planet. The only way you can change any of it is to eliminate mankind. Your a fan of History, see if you can find a time in the history of man when all was peaceful? The only time I know of was before adam ate the apple. No one is ever going to change it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.