For Pro-war people..
Check Thois Out <--- Not for people with bad nerves!! Explicit images
-
Last edited by stanton; 04-01-2003, 06:45 PM. -
What you don't show:
400,000 children starving to death in Iraq in the last 10 years while Saddam builds himself lavish palaces all over the country.
Genocidal gasing of Kurds.
Terror and death squads.
And here's a good one if you're concerned about the children: The Fedayeen Saddam will go into a village, pick out some likely targets (malcontents, ethnic outsiders, etc.), gather the village around MAKING SURE THE CHILDREN ARE IN THE FRONT OF THE CROWD, and then torture and/or execute the victims to put fear of the government in the kids early on.
Crimes against women. The Fedayeen Saddam have, for example, beheaded and cut the tongues out of women for minor and sometimes imagined or trumped up "crimes."
You can't have a war without casualties, but ten years from now without Saddam will probably result in fewer casualties than ten years with him.SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. -
Originally posted by UnseenWorld
What you don't show:
400,000 children starving to death in Iraq in the last 10 years while Saddam builds himself lavish palaces all over the country.
Genocidal gasing of Kurds.
Terror and death squads.
And here's a good one if you're concerned about the children: The Fedayeen Saddam will go into a village, pick out some likely targets (malcontents, ethnic outsiders, etc.), gather the village around MAKING SURE THE CHILDREN ARE IN THE FRONT OF THE CROWD, and then torture and/or execute the victims to put fear of the government in the kids early on.
Crimes against women. The Fedayeen Saddam have, for example, beheaded and cut the tongues out of women for minor and sometimes imagined or trumped up "crimes."
You can't have a war without casualties, but ten years from now without Saddam will probably result in fewer casualties than ten years with him.
Comment
-
So fucking dropping bombs on these people is going to solve this problem?Originally posted by UnseenWorld
What you don't show:
400,000 children starving to death in Iraq in the last 10 years while Saddam builds himself lavish palaces all over the country.
Genocidal gasing of Kurds.
Terror and death squads.
And here's a good one if you're concerned about the children: The Fedayeen Saddam will go into a village, pick out some likely targets (malcontents, ethnic outsiders, etc.), gather the village around MAKING SURE THE CHILDREN ARE IN THE FRONT OF THE CROWD, and then torture and/or execute the victims to put fear of the government in the kids early on.
Crimes against women. The Fedayeen Saddam have, for example, beheaded and cut the tongues out of women for minor and sometimes imagined or trumped up "crimes."
You can't have a war without casualties, but ten years from now without Saddam will probably result in fewer casualties than ten years with him.
Comment
-
Nice eh.. Tax dollars well spent..Comment
-
uh, YES!Originally posted by Martin
So fucking dropping bombs on these people is going to solve this problem?
Either that or fear the wrath of these kids 20 years from now when they grow up and are pissed off as hell at the US. Best to just eliminate the problem now.
SPECIALTY COSTUMES • PROPS • FX
Superheroes • Monsters • Robots
PM for details
For any manufacturing needs. Adult or otherwise.
aka BonsHigh on Insta
Bonsai weed plants
Comment
-
Obviously they're not targetting children and innocent civilians.Originally posted by Martin
So fucking dropping bombs on these people is going to solve this problem?
Comment
-
-
Don't worry they'll still pissed off at the US even after they remove Saddam.. Remember you put him there..Comment
-
Bombs are dropped on military targets as much as possible. Of course, the benificent government of Iraq flouts international law by putting military targets in civilian areas. Just today our forces discovered an ammo dump in a village school.Originally posted by Martin
So fucking dropping bombs on these people is going to solve this problem?
SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
-
Originally posted by Martin
So fucking dropping bombs on these people is going to solve this problem?
You during WWII:
"So this Hitler guy is killing millions of people? So what the fuck are supposed to do? Like going to war with this crazy mo-fo is going to stop him? Bombing Germany is going to do shit? Fuck no. We should just kick back, smoke a blunt and not give a fuck."
- Martin
Long term, Iraq will be better off.ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000
"Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions."
---------------------------------------------Comment
-
Very different Hitler conquered most of Europe. He was a real threat to us, they didnt go in for the jews no one believed it at the time. He was getting too powerful, Saddam is a pityful piece of shit he has nothing.Also there is a very very good chance he is dead but they are stilling fighting pretty hard. So maybe they dont want us to save them.Originally posted by JeremySF
You during WWII:
"So this Hitler guy is killing millions of people? So what the fuck are supposed to do? Like going to war with this crazy mo-fo is going to stop him? Bombing Germany is going to do shit? Fuck no. We should just kick back, smoke a blunt and not give a fuck."
- Martin
Long term, Iraq will be better off.Last edited by tony286; 04-01-2003, 07:09 PM.Comment
-
Hitler didn't pose a threat to America. He posed a threat to humanity. Saddam Hussien is a sadistic psyhcopath that should be eliminated.Originally posted by tony404
Very different Hitler conquered most of Europe. He was a real threat to us, they didnt go in for the jews no one believed it at the time. He was getting too powerful, Saddam is a pityful piece of shit he has nothing.ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000
"Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions."
---------------------------------------------Comment
-
Snoooore... you again? You think there aren't similar pictures of Americans from this conflict and others?Originally posted by stanton
Check Thois Out <--- Not for people with bad nerves!! Explicit images
Saddam himself inflicts more damage than that on his own people in any given week. You can keep repeating the same things over and over again and you can keep showing pictures of "innocent" Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have been injured but you aren't doing anything but spinning your wheels. The fact that you quote and promote only one side of things time and time again shows your statements for the worthless tripe they are.
SpaceAceComment
-
And that is your expert opinion? Is that based on your years of study in psychology? Or is it based on your graduate work in history and international relations? Or are you just talking through your ass?Originally posted by JeremySF
Hitler didn't pose a threat to America. He posed a threat to humanity. Saddam Hussien is a sadistic psyhcopath that should be eliminated.Comment
-
There's a lot of evil dictator...why Saddam?Originally posted by JeremySF
Saddam Hussien is a sadistic psyhcopath that should be eliminated.mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation
but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959Comment
-
Originally posted by tony404
Very different Hitler conquered most of Europe. He was a real threat to us, they didnt go in for the jews no one believed it at the time. He was getting too powerful, Saddam is a pityful piece of shit he has nothing.Also there is a very very good chance he is dead but they are stilling fighting pretty hard. So maybe they dont want us to save them.
Well, most people don't like being invaded. Even with Stalin at the helm in Russia, Russians lined up to fight Germany. We will simply have to prove we aren't being colonial by getting out as soon we can once the deed is done.
There are those who argue that we had to fight Hitler because of his expansionist intentions and history or overrunning nearby countries (there but for fortune).
But suppose Hitler had stayed within his borders and just exterminated German Jews. Would we have had NO pretext to set things aright?SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
-
Hitler didn't pose a threat to America.
Oh yes he was, if all of europe was under him he would of been a bigger super power than the USA. They figured it was a matter of time he would take a shot at us.Comment
-
Originally posted by SilverTab
There's a lot of evil dictator...why Saddam?
He's an evil dictator who could give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group.SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
-
That's funny. Crack a history book. The <B>reason</B> Hitler got to where he did is because everyone played the "mind your own business" game just like so many of you think we should be doing now. Here's a news flash: if Hitler had been stopped before Poland, World War II as we know it and the holocaust would never have happened. Saddam was stopped at Kuwait. Who knows where it would have gone from there if we had sat around with our thumbs up our asses.Originally posted by tony404
Very different Hitler conquered most of Europe. He was a real threat to us, they didnt go in for the jews no one believed it at the time. He was getting too powerful, Saddam is a pityful piece of shit he has nothing.Also there is a very very good chance he is dead but they are stilling fighting pretty hard. So maybe they dont want us to save them.
It's amazing to me how many ostriches there are out there with their heads in the sand pretending there's no real problem until the problem is uncontrollably large and right on your doorstep.
SpaceAceComment
-
he should be killed, but even mentioning him in the same sentence as Hitler is a bit much. Saddam is spacedog compared to Hitler. Saddam is a tinpot dictator in the middle of nowhere, a threat only to his own people and one or two countries that 99% of America doesn't care about unless they're told to by the tv, or their taxes are going toward killing them.Originally posted by JeremySF
Hitler didn't pose a threat to America. He posed a threat to humanity. Saddam Hussien is a sadistic psyhcopath that should be eliminated.Comment
-
But Saddam has gone after no one in 12 yrs.Comment
-
What about North Korea???Originally posted by UnseenWorld
He's an evil dictator who could give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group.mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation
but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959Comment
-
WordOriginally posted by bhutocracy
he should be killed, but even mentioning him in the same sentence as Hitler is a bit much. Saddam is spacedog compared to Hitler. Saddam is a tinpot dictator in the middle of nowhere, a threat only to his own people and one or two countries that 99% of America doesn't care about unless they're told to by the tv, or their taxes are going toward killing them.mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation
but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959Comment
-
Remember you put him there...
Ignorance is quite becoming on you... tell me, do you prefer pumps or flats with that?
He took over that country on his own, the fact that we backed him against Iran didn't have a thing to do with his coup. Granted we were wrong for backing him... take that up with Nancy Regan. She was running the country then.
Last edited by Gemini; 04-01-2003, 07:25 PM.<center><a target="_blank" href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac"><img border="0" src="http://216.130.172.224/gfy/gsig.gif" width="490" height="100"></a><br><a href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac" target="_blank"><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#FF99FF"> Buy me away from Slavedriver Smokey!<br>It's May Sig Sweeps!<font></b></center>Comment
-
Originally posted by SilverTab
There's a lot of evil dictator...why Saddam?
hmmm.....let's see, where do I start?
Saddam agreed to disarm after GWI.
Saddam sponsors terrorism against American interests.
He's an evil dictator who could give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group.
The Middle East is strategically very important to our interests.
We didn't finish the job we started the first time.
Oh, and if you haven't heard, there's a fuckload of oil in Iraq.ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000
"Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions."
---------------------------------------------Comment
-
The US would never go after N. Korea because then they would have to fight a real war. Iraq is an easy target and they have oil. That's the only reason the US is there. Oh, yea, and to free the Iraqi peopleOriginally posted by SilverTab
What about North Korea???
Comment
-
at the same time it's amazing how so many people can think thats it's ok to be setting new international precedents and building terrorist resistence against us when the problem is infintesmally small and 1000km away.. a middle ground is needed.Originally posted by SpaceAce
It's amazing to me how many ostriches there are out there with their heads in the sand pretending there's no real problem until the problem is uncontrollably large and right on your doorstep.
SpaceAceComment
-
Originally posted by SilverTab
There's a lot of evil dictator...why Saddam?
By your logic we shouldn't go after any dicatators. Is that right? We should just let them all run free?
Fuck no! We can't go after all of them, but we should at least make a fucking effort to go after at least some of them.ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000
"Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions."
---------------------------------------------Comment
-
Damn..and I tought it was all about the liberation of the poor irqis!Originally posted by JeremySF
Saddam agreed to disarm after GWI.
Saddam sponsors terrorism against American interests.
He's an evil dictator who could give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group.
The Middle East is strategically very important to our interests.
We didn't finish the job we started the first time.
Oh, and if you haven't heard, there's a fuckload of oil in Iraq.
mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation
but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959Comment
-
or a few more of those precision "decapitating" strikes that opened the war.Originally posted by bhutocracy
at the same time it's amazing how so many people can think thats it's ok to be setting new international precedents and building terrorist resistence against us when the problem is infintesmally small and 1000km away.. a middle ground is needed.Comment
-
We are kicking his ass , where are these weapons we have heard so much about .We have how much of the country now ?70% and no WMD.Comment
-
Originally posted by bhutocracy
he should be killed, but even mentioning him in the same sentence as Hitler is a bit much. Saddam is spacedog compared to Hitler. Saddam is a tinpot dictator in the middle of nowhere, a threat only to his own people and one or two countries that 99% of America doesn't care about unless they're told to by the tv, or their taxes are going toward killing them.
You know what. You're absolutely right. He should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Hitler. I agree with you 100%. However, he's pretty fucking bad. He's definitely Stalin-esque.ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000
"Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions."
---------------------------------------------Comment
-
Originally posted by SilverTab
Damn..and I tought it was all about the liberation of the poor irqis!
Oh, yeah, that too! Forgot about them....
ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000
"Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions."
---------------------------------------------Comment
-
True....Originally posted by JeremySF
You know what. You're absolutely right. He should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Hitler. I agree with you 100%. However, he's pretty fucking bad. He's definitely Stalin-esque.
BTW I'm not that much of an anti-war myself....just trying to see both side of this...mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation
but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959Comment
-
No. I think we should build Dictatorland, where people can drive to in their SUV's and offload the kids to dictators dressed up in hilarious plush suits and pay to play carnival games like "dunk a dictator" while behind the distraction the corporate CEO's that own the themepark get Arthur Andersen to cook their books and ashcroft puts people in jail for selling bits of glass and registering domain names that don't reflect the content of their pages.Originally posted by JeremySF
By your logic we shouldn't go after any dicatators. Is that right? We should just let them all run free?
Comment
-
Originally posted by bhutocracy
No. I think we should build Dictatorland, where people can drive to in their SUV's and offload the kids to dictators dressed up in hilarious plush suits and pay to play carnival games like "dunk a dictator" while behind the distraction the corporate CEO's that own the themepark get Arthur Andersen to cook their books and ashcroft puts people in jail for selling bits of glass and registering domain names that don't reflect the content of their pages.
mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation
but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959Comment
-
"Building terrorist resistence."Originally posted by bhutocracy
at the same time it's amazing how so many people can think thats it's ok to be setting new international precedents and building terrorist resistence against us when the problem is infintesmally small and 1000km away.. a middle ground is needed.
I see this argument again and again even though it fails to stand up to even the most basic logic.
First of all, America has suffered numerous terrorist attacks worldwide. Many of them before the first Gulf War, many of them since. We've lost soldiers and civilians, the worst incident of course being the September 11th attack against the World Trade Centers. We did, basically, nothing. We went through diplomatic channels, we accepted UN resolution after UN resolution. We accepted that we should not act alone and the attacks continued.
On what planet and under what circumstances do ignoring attacks on your people make them stop? Which bullies or terrorists have ever been stopped by pretending they don't exist? What lesson are you teaching people with a grudge against you when you let them get away with acts of terrorism and destruction again and again? Would you support this approach for criminals in your own country? If they murder someone, you ignore them so as not to make them angry because you figure as long as you coddle them they won't do it again?
There is nothing in history or life to suggest that sitting back and eating shit will improve any situation. The argument tht we are just making things worse for ourselves is demonstrably bullshit. When we're through they won't have the resources to make things worse for us.
SpaceAceComment
-
didn't Stalin kill millions? sorry I won't drag the thread into semantics I just don't gel with the comparison of bush and saddam to churchhill and hitler... - yeah he's no frikkin girl scout. It would just be nice to have taken him and his sons out in that first strike.. every Iraqi civilian killed is 5 more potential terrorists.Originally posted by JeremySF
You know what. You're absolutely right. He should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Hitler. I agree with you 100%. However, he's pretty fucking bad. He's definitely Stalin-esque.Comment
-
wow, you got that from al jazeera? now that's a fucking unslanted unbiased reporting if i've ever seen it. that fucking news outlet is just as much a propoghanda tool as iraqi TV is.
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.Comment
-
Hm, is it just possible that taking and holding 70% of a hostile country doesn't leave much time for looking under every rock, searching every bunker and sifting through every sand dune? Apply a little critical thought before you make a statement like that. The whole of Iraq, top to bottom, above and below ground, is a lot of area to search. It could take years to comb the entire country when you consider Saddam's penchant for hiding thing in civilian buildings as well as military. We've been there how long?Originally posted by tony404
We are kicking his ass , where are these weapons we have heard so much about .We have how much of the country now ?70% and no WMD.
SpaceAceComment
-
thats why Afghanistan was a good idea, and Pakistan, which is where the guys that actually did 90% of US terrorist attacks are now based is a better idea than Iraq. Pakistan DOES have nukes.. if you're worried about WMD going to terrorists worry about Pakistan or ex soviet bloc countries first.Originally posted by SpaceAce
"Building terrorist resistence."
I see this argument again and again even though it fails to stand up to even the most basic logic.
First of all, America has suffered numerous terrorist attacks worldwide. Many of them before the first Gulf War, many of them since. We've lost soldiers and civilians, the worst incident of course being the September 11th attack against the World Trade Centers. We did, basically, nothing. We went through diplomatic channels, we accepted UN resolution after UN resolution. We accepted that we should not act alone and the attacks continued.
On what planet and under what circumstances do ignoring attacks on your people make them stop? Which bullies or terrorists have ever been stopped by pretending they don't exist? What lesson are you teaching people with a grudge against you when you let them get away with acts of terrorism and destruction again and again? Would you support this approach for criminals in your own country? If they murder someone, you ignore them so as not to make them angry because you figure as long as you coddle them they won't do it again?
There is nothing in history or life to suggest that sitting back and eating shit will improve any situation. The argument tht we are just making things worse for ourselves is demonstrably bullshit. When we're through they won't have the resources to make things worse for us.
SpaceAceComment
-
this war isn't gonna have any more terroist that is or will be.
over 3000 people died in september 11 without a warComment
-
Originally posted by UnseenWorld
He's an evil dictator who could give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group.
Yeah I had pakistan in mind too...!Originally posted by bhutocracy
thats why Afghanistan was a good idea, and Pakistan, which is where the guys that actually did 90% of US terrorist attacks are now based is a better idea than Iraq. Pakistan DOES have nukes.. if you're worried about WMD going to terrorists worry about Pakistan or ex soviet bloc countries first.mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation
but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959Comment
-
Another obvious point that many people don't seem to get is that a country already having nukes and weapons of mass destruction pretty much rules out an action like we are taking in Iraq. The whole idea is to keep Iraq from getting to that point. Everyone keeps bitching about how we are ignoring North Korea; we're not ignoring it, but we don't want a nuclear holocaust in Asia. If we fuck around for long enough, Iraq will be yet ANOTHER Pakistan or North Korea: a shitty little nation with nuclear weapons and lots of demands. Ask yourself if we really need any more of those.Originally posted by bhutocracy
thats why Afghanistan was a good idea, and Pakistan, which is where the guys that actually did 90% of US terrorist attacks are now based is a better idea than Iraq. Pakistan DOES have nukes.. if you're worried about WMD going to terrorists worry about Pakistan or ex soviet bloc countries first.
SpaceAceComment
-
Originally posted by bhutocracy
thats why Afghanistan was a good idea, and Pakistan, which is where the guys that actually did 90% of US terrorist attacks are now based is a better idea than Iraq. Pakistan DOES have nukes.. if you're worried about WMD going to terrorists worry about Pakistan or ex soviet bloc countries first.
well we have better relations with Pakistan than Iraq, as a matter of fact Pakistan has been very supportive to capturing the terroists in there country, hence worrying bout Pakistan giving away nukes,Comment
-
oh yeah forgot the first half of your post:
the logic is almost ineffable.
look at the rising anger in the ENTIRE muslim world against this action, every Iraqi death is another reason to take up arms against the christian invader.. another muslim brother killed by the white devils.. another muslim baby bombed.. a brother of a slain civilian vowing revenge.. in case you haven't noticed these people aren't rational. they don't care about dying for the cause - why in hell would they be deterred about america showing their strength in a country with less ties to terrorism than most of the middle east? it's like someone picking on your retarded cousin for something that you did, you'd want to go in and kick some ass.Comment
-
yeah but civil unrest from the insane majority of anti-US citizens could easily overthrow musharrif's government and then what? this war is not a stabilising event for radical muslim countries such as Pakistan.Originally posted by playa
well we have better relations with Pakistan than Iraq, as a matter of fact Pakistan has been very supportive to capturing the terroists in there country, hence worrying bout Pakistan giving away nukes,Comment
-
as I said, Im not against taking saddam, his sons, or weapons plants out. It's the way in which it's being done having side consequences of inciting other muslim populations.Originally posted by SpaceAce
Another obvious point that many people don't seem to get is that a country already having nukes and weapons of mass destruction pretty much rules out an action like we are taking in Iraq. The whole idea is to keep Iraq from getting to that point. Everyone keeps bitching about how we are ignoring North Korea; we're not ignoring it, but we don't want a nuclear holocaust in Asia. If we fuck around for long enough, Iraq will be yet ANOTHER Pakistan or North Korea: a shitty little nation with nuclear weapons and lots of demands. Ask yourself if we really need any more of those.
SpaceAce
North Korea isn't shit.. they're just tantrum throwing for more aid. this is a side issue, I agree with you about the uselessness of bringing them up.Comment
-
Originally posted by SilverTab
What about North Korea???
What about North Korea? That is the example of what we don't Iraq to become, isn't it? Iraq is one country where the cat may still be in the bag. Once a country goes nuclear, it's difficult to force it to go back.SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
Comment