The End Of All War Protests - GoFuckYourself.com

hybrid · 03-24-2003, 01:34 AM

I'll tell you what, all you anti-war hippies.

Give me an argument in favor of Saddam. It's very easy to critisize America, because we're the instigator in the public eye. But give me a good defense for Saddam to remain in power.

If you can defend him, I'll listen, but I don't think there's anything to justify his regime maintaining control.

stocktrader23 · 03-24-2003, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hybrid
I'll tell you what, all you anti-war hippies.

Give me an argument in favor of Saddam. It's very easy to critisize America, because we're the instigator in the public eye. But give me a good defense for Saddam to remain in power.

If you can defend him, I'll listen, but I don't think there's anything to justify his regime maintaining control.

nevermind

hybrid · 03-24-2003, 01:36 AM

NO, I really am curious. I want to hear both sides.

galleryseek · 03-24-2003, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hybrid
NO, I really am curious. I want to hear both sides.

no one will raise any significant points. so you won't hear it.

hybrid · 03-24-2003, 01:44 AM

So there really is NO defense for Saddam?

C'mon, now, there's GOT to be SOME reason that we've had millions of people turning out to protest the war.

There has to be a reason Boneprone's car got fucked with.

There's got to be a reason people are intentionally trying to "shut down cities" in the name of peace.

I really want to know.

bhutocracy · 03-24-2003, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by galleryseek

no one will raise any significant points. so you won't hear it.

because no-one supports saddam, it's a stupid question.

UnseenWorld · 03-24-2003, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bhutocracy

because no-one supports saddam, it's a stupid question.

Leaving him in office is de facto supporting him. Leaving him in office frees him to continue to murder and oppress his own people!

Mark · 03-24-2003, 01:46 AM

He has a fine, bushy and very manly mustache?

BRISK · 03-24-2003, 01:46 AM

He's charming?

bhutocracy · 03-24-2003, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

Leaving him in office is de facto supporting him. Leaving him in office frees him to continue to murder and oppress his own people!

I didn't say that the consequence of their actions doesn't have that effect.

hybrid · 03-24-2003, 01:48 AM

Why is it a stupid question?? If you're not for his regime being disposed of, then you're for it remaining.

My question is why? What benefit is there?

bhutocracy · 03-24-2003, 01:49 AM

I'd say a lot of it is how we're going about it, why we're going about it, and the neglible effect it will probably have on terrorism. Not support for Saddam personally, which would just be silly to believe.

bhutocracy · 03-24-2003, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hybrid
Why is it a stupid question?? If you're not for his regime being disposed of, then you're for it remaining.

My question is why? What benefit is there?

because you're asking a loaded question. Being against THIS war is not the same as getting rid of Saddam.. talking for weeks about 3000 missles shocking and awe-ing iraqi citizens probably boosted protester support.

directfiesta · 03-24-2003, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hybrid
So there really is NO defense for Saddam?

C'mon, now, there's GOT to be SOME reason that we've had millions of people turning out to protest the war.

There has to be a reason Boneprone's car got fucked with.

There's got to be a reason people are intentionally trying to "shut down cities" in the name of peace.

I really want to know.

Reason for people in the streets ( akll cut and paste from your question):

- protest the war

For war = against Saddam

Against war = against war + against Saddam

BRISK · 03-24-2003, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
For war = against Saddam

Against war = against war + against Saddam

What if you don't care either way? Neutral?

Joe Sixpack · 03-24-2003, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hybrid
I'll tell you what, all you anti-war hippies.

Give me an argument in favor of Saddam. It's very easy to critisize America, because we're the instigator in the public eye. But give me a good defense for Saddam to remain in power.

If you can defend him, I'll listen, but I don't think there's anything to justify his regime maintaining control.

Saddam's my daddy!

He's actually a really nice guy, he just has a few issues!

I think he just needs some counselling and a bit of group therapy!

directfiesta · 03-24-2003, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRISK

What if you don't care either way? Neutral?

You are then a Swiss ....

hybrid · 03-24-2003, 01:55 AM

I have no onion.

hybrid · 03-24-2003, 01:56 AM

stinky

DarkJedi · 03-24-2003, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hybrid

Give me an argument in favor of Saddam.

here

Gman.357 · 03-24-2003, 02:03 AM

This argument has been raised in depth a billion times on the board (in one form or another). And niether side did much to change the opinion of the other. I think the only reason you aren' t hearing Joe Six's views here, is because he's getting tired of arguing the same points on the same subject.

It's hard to convince someone the sky REALLY isn't blue, when he plainly sees it to be so.

bhutocracy · 03-24-2003, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hybrid
Yes, it is a loaded question. But since we're in a situation where there's nothing to reverse it, the question now becomes:

Why should we NOT be doing this? It really makes sense to take this course of action, IMO. The lesser of two evils.

1. Wait for UN sanction so US doesn't ostracise half the world, and strain relationships for years to come.
2. It solidifies Pre-emptive doctrine, meaning North Korea could legitimately launch nukes at the US tomorrow.
3. Weapons Inspectors could have kept Saddam caged indefinately or until multilateral UN commitment for military disarmament. each month would have meant more missiles being destroyed even if newer ones were being made or purchased.
4. More angry muslims = more domestic terror attacks.
5. Takes funds and focus of catching real terrorists like Bin Ladin.
6. He's only hurting his own people or his neighbors, of which Israel could handle him, the CIA guys said Saddam is nothing but a political target with no ties to Alquaeda.

those are probably a few of them.. you'd have to ask around though.. it's not as if im a protestor.

Joe Sixpack · 03-24-2003, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gman.357
This argument has been raised in depth a billion times on the board (in one form or another). And niether side did much to change the opinion of the other. I think the only reason you aren' t hearing Joe Six's views here, is because he's getting tired of arguing the same points on the same subject.

It's hard to convince someone the sky REALLY isn't blue, when he plainly sees it to be so.

I told you already, Saddam's my Daddy!

He's a good guy who just gets bad press.

mrthumbs · 03-24-2003, 02:09 AM

I'll tell you what, all you pro-war hippies.

Give me an argument in favor of Bush. It's very easy to critisize Iraqi, because we're the instigator in the public eye. But give me a good defense for Bush to remain in power.

If you can defend him, I'll listen, but I don't think there's anything to justify his regime maintaining control.

hybrid · 03-24-2003, 02:09 AM

Quote:

1. Wait for UN sanction so US doesn't ostracise half the world, and strain relationships for years to come.
2. It solidifies Pre-emptive doctrine, meaning North Korea could legitimately launch nukes at the US tomorrow.
3. Weapons Inspectors could have kept Saddam caged indefinately or until multilateral UN commitment for military disarmament. each month would have meant more missiles being destroyed even if newer ones were being made or purchased.
4. More angry muslims = more domestic terror attacks.
5. Takes funds and focus of catching real terrorists like Bin Ladin.
6. He's only hurting his own people or his neighbors, of which Israel could handle him, the CIA guys said Saddam is nothing but a political target with no ties to Alquaeda.

those are probably a few of them.. you'd have to ask around though.. it's not as if im a protestor.

Thank you. That's all I was asking for.

hybrid · 03-24-2003, 02:10 AM

Quote:

I'll tell you what, all you pro-war hippies.

Give me an argument in favor of Bush. It's very easy to critisize Iraqi, because we're the instigator in the public eye. But give me a good defense for Bush to remain in power.

If you can defend him, I'll listen, but I don't think there's anything to justify his regime maintaining control.

directfiesta · 03-24-2003, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mrthumbs
all you pro-war hippies.

LOL..... Hippies....

Why not?

MetaMan · 03-24-2003, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hybrid
I'll tell you what, all you anti-war hippies.

Give me an argument in favor of Saddam. It's very easy to critisize America, because we're the instigator in the public eye. But give me a good defense for Saddam to remain in power.

If you can defend him, I'll listen, but I don't think there's anything to justify his regime maintaining control.

Sadaam is looking good these days, looks like hes slimmed down,
and omg there is no other leader who knows how to work the color green as well as he does,

wouldnt u vote for him?

directfiesta · 03-24-2003, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MetaMan

Sadaam is looking good these days, looks like hes slimmed down,
and omg there is no other leader who knows how to work the color green as well as he does,

wouldnt u vote for him?

Who's the opponent? Bush?

galleryseek · 03-24-2003, 02:24 AM

heres a few questions...

this all boils down to the weapons inspections.

1. exactly how long were the inspections carried out, and did iraq comply with all of the demands?

- it seems to me if the inspections were carried out for a course of years, and the iraqi government wouldn't allow them to conduct the inspections accordingly over a long period of time... then obviously action must be taken right? theres no reason NOT to allow those inspections, only if he had something to hide. which is reason enough to go through with what we're doing now.

i'd hope you all agree that if indeed the weapons inspections were carried out over a long period of time, and we gave them chance after chance after chance, that some sort of action must be taken. we asked for the help of the UN with the information and they backed down. why? did they think iraq would eventually GIVE in?

i'm just unclear of how the inspections went. clarification??

Tuga · 03-24-2003, 06:17 AM

Stupid questions get no answers.

mule · 03-24-2003, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by galleryseek
heres a few questions...

Well to quote G.W. Bush:
"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to
answer questions. I can't answer your question."

cluck · 03-24-2003, 09:36 AM

Well the real question may be why go after him when we support people who do essentially the same thing. There's alot of shit going around about how he tortures his own people and whatnot. If you're really concerned about that look at what they do in China, Brazil or pretty much anywhere else your clothes are made. The reason it's cool for them to torture their people is that the USA gets big money out of their labor. The USA can only get money out of Iraq if there's a regime change and we start trade with them.

As far as more practical reasons for everyone who doesn't care and thinks that's just the way capitalism should work, see bhutocracy's post.

benthompson · 03-24-2003, 09:40 AM

I don't think anybody can say that Saddam is innocent and people are not walking to save Saddam.
I think people (including me) are against war. Any war..

03-24-2003, 01:34 AM	#1
hybrid So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Backseat of a Ford Escort Hatchback Posts: 3,253	The End Of All War Protests I'll tell you what, all you anti-war hippies. Give me an argument in favor of Saddam. It's very easy to critisize America, because we're the instigator in the public eye. But give me a good defense for Saddam to remain in power. If you can defend him, I'll listen, but I don't think there's anything to justify his regime maintaining control.

03-24-2003, 01:46 AM	#9
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	He's charming? __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

03-24-2003, 01:55 AM	#18
hybrid So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Backseat of a Ford Escort Hatchback Posts: 3,253	I have no onion. Last edited by hybrid; 03-24-2003 at 01:58 AM..

03-24-2003, 01:56 AM	#19
hybrid So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Backseat of a Ford Escort Hatchback Posts: 3,253	stinky Last edited by hybrid; 03-24-2003 at 01:59 AM..

03-24-2003, 02:03 AM	#21
Gman.357 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,796	This argument has been raised in depth a billion times on the board (in one form or another). And niether side did much to change the opinion of the other. I think the only reason you aren' t hearing Joe Six's views here, is because he's getting tired of arguing the same points on the same subject. It's hard to convince someone the sky REALLY isn't blue, when he plainly sees it to be so. __________________ Ouch. Last edited by Gman.357; 03-24-2003 at 02:05 AM..

03-24-2003, 01:36 AM	#3
hybrid So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Backseat of a Ford Escort Hatchback Posts: 3,253	NO, I really am curious. I want to hear both sides.

03-24-2003, 01:44 AM	#5
hybrid So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Backseat of a Ford Escort Hatchback Posts: 3,253	So there really is NO defense for Saddam? C'mon, now, there's GOT to be SOME reason that we've had millions of people turning out to protest the war. There has to be a reason Boneprone's car got fucked with. There's got to be a reason people are intentionally trying to "shut down cities" in the name of peace. I really want to know.

03-24-2003, 01:46 AM	#8
Mark Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 600	He has a fine, bushy and very manly mustache?

03-24-2003, 01:48 AM	#11
hybrid So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Backseat of a Ford Escort Hatchback Posts: 3,253	Why is it a stupid question?? If you're not for his regime being disposed of, then you're for it remaining. My question is why? What benefit is there?

03-24-2003, 01:49 AM	#12
bhutocracy Not making A Comeback Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 10,218	I'd say a lot of it is how we're going about it, why we're going about it, and the neglible effect it will probably have on terrorism. Not support for Saddam personally, which would just be silly to believe.

03-24-2003, 02:09 AM	#24
mrthumbs salad tossing sig guy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: mrthumbs*gmail.com Posts: 11,702	I'll tell you what, all you pro-war hippies. Give me an argument in favor of Bush. It's very easy to critisize Iraqi, because we're the instigator in the public eye. But give me a good defense for Bush to remain in power. If you can defend him, I'll listen, but I don't think there's anything to justify his regime maintaining control.

03-24-2003, 02:24 AM	#30
galleryseek Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 8,234	heres a few questions... this all boils down to the weapons inspections. 1. exactly how long were the inspections carried out, and did iraq comply with all of the demands? - it seems to me if the inspections were carried out for a course of years, and the iraqi government wouldn't allow them to conduct the inspections accordingly over a long period of time... then obviously action must be taken right? theres no reason NOT to allow those inspections, only if he had something to hide. which is reason enough to go through with what we're doing now. i'd hope you all agree that if indeed the weapons inspections were carried out over a long period of time, and we gave them chance after chance after chance, that some sort of action must be taken. we asked for the help of the UN with the information and they backed down. why? did they think iraq would eventually GIVE in? i'm just unclear of how the inspections went. clarification??

03-24-2003, 06:17 AM	#31
Tuga Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal Posts: 7,678	Stupid questions get no answers. __________________ Go Fuck Yourself! ICQ 101411627

03-24-2003, 09:36 AM	#33
cluck Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,248	Well the real question may be why go after him when we support people who do essentially the same thing. There's alot of shit going around about how he tortures his own people and whatnot. If you're really concerned about that look at what they do in China, Brazil or pretty much anywhere else your clothes are made. The reason it's cool for them to torture their people is that the USA gets big money out of their labor. The USA can only get money out of Iraq if there's a regime change and we start trade with them. As far as more practical reasons for everyone who doesn't care and thinks that's just the way capitalism should work, see bhutocracy's post. __________________ icq 279990726 www.mcdonalds.com <- great money making opportunity

03-24-2003, 09:40 AM	#34
benthompson Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 553	I don't think anybody can say that Saddam is innocent and people are not walking to save Saddam. I think people (including me) are against war. Any war.. __________________ No signature.. I am bored of the signatures aswell..