[J m HofMarN]

I didnt say poor, I said evil, and you've only proved my point. Claiming that Saddam was evil was just a veil thrown over the capitalist motivations for the invasion. It's a well known fact that war profiteers like Lockheed Martin and other such pig corporations contribute funds the political parties, and those funds have to be returned in government contracts, and those contracts dont come without a good war. And then after the war, when a puppet government is set up, more American corporations can profit.

[J m HofMarN]

"Damn it woman, if you weren't so weak you might not get raped all the time!"

Yeah, real compassionate.

[Renegade]

Claiming that Saddam was evil was just a veil thrown over the capitalist motivations for the invasion

It's not a claim, its a fact.

[J m HofMarN]

You're right. Saddam has always been evil. He was never our allie. The US is at war with Iraq. The US has ALWAYS been at war with Iraq.

[Renegade]

Never said that just merely pointing out hes evil. No offense but if you learned some arguing skills you'd actually sound a lot better

[J m HofMarN]

So by your own admission the US government has given guns and aid to people who are, in your own words, evil.

And this would make the US government evil too, right?

[Renegade]

You've caught me in my web of lies oh wise JM. America is .. the ANTICHRIST!

[Jordan]

If the US claimed that the war was always about over throwing Saddam and NOT about Terrorism via WMD, then would the war be just?

[Renegade]

Might be a noble cause, but wouldn't be a smart war. Plus if we wanna fix or help people we should start in Africa where it be much more needed

[Otal Nimrodi]

If the US claimed that the war was always about over throwing Saddam and NOT about Terrorism via WMD, then would the war be just?

Is the war just now?Anyway, I do agree that they would have trouble justifying it. Sometimes one must lie to get a good result. Or at least what they believe to be good.

[J m HofMarN]

Bush could have said, and very likely would have if he could make a case for it, that the invasion of Iraq was meant to save the lives of all the world's puppies and kitties from an evil Iraqi virus developed by their evil weapons developer, Miss Anthrax (seriously, he gave someone that name. What a fuckwit.) And that the only way to save the cute widdle puppies and da kitties was to invade nasty old Iraq.

It dosnt matter what justification was used, the motives would have remained the same - to profit from murder and terror.

[Otal Nimrodi]

I didn't deny that, I was simply saying that Mr. Bush was able to choose the best way to justify the war that, I believe, he set out to wage since the start of his presidency.

[civilian_number_two]

Civilian #2 you are very graceful when you beat around the bush (no pun intended)

So let me ask you very directly, what do you want? How would you have society operate? (LOL, I already know where this is going)

Can you please answer this question so I can point out the fact that you like to critique the ideas of others while offering no ideas of your own?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for the compliment on my gracefulness. I apologize that I didn't read or reply to your posts on Friday night, but all the college girls were out at the bars, and I am a weak weak man with a long line of credit.

I won't bother to say how I think society ought to be run. 1) that's the either/or fallacy again: "if our society is flawed, how would YOU fix it? OH? NOTHING TO SAY? Therefore, society is PERFECT EXACTLY AS IT IS!" QED; and 2) you've already promised to shed tears at my ignorance or some dipshit thing lke that (sorry if I got the words wrong). I might as well ask you to introduce me to your cunt sister. With that sort of request, do you think you'd bother?

(Salad said "hardcore;" I misremembered and cited "militant." He's accusing me of nitpicking and putting words in his mouth. Well, the word, fine, but it's a synonym. It would be the same word in French. The accusation of "nitpicking?)

LOL!
----------------

Stuff folks are saying about irrelevant countries like Canada and how the US is the only country in the world that can stop terrorism and all that jazz: the US invented terrorism. The guerilla tactics of the Revolutionary war and the terrorist actions of John Brown in the civil war showed the world how random attacks without declarations of war could be quite effective in shaping policy.

I honestly think that there are differnet ways to shape a foreign trading partner's policies, apart from bombing the shit out of all of his civilians and calling him a terrorist. In the case of this camelfucker Saddam, he was TRYING to get Bush to sit down with him, and he ALLOWED the US to look for the WMDs that they still haven't found and he HAS NO connection to 9/11 or the terror organizations that are the alleged point of all this military confiscation of foreign oil interests. Saddams' failing was that he didn't understand how the international media works, and he didn't spend enough time talking to US reporters on TV. His face in the news making comments about how he didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and how he wanted to continue to trade peacefuly with the US might have helped him.

Bush refused to talk, ignored the results of the searches, belittled foreign fgovernments that suggested that a war was not justified, and sent in the marines. Now your children are listening to and gradually believing stories about terrorists plotting to destroy the US, eating their Freedom Fries and watching you pour your champagne out on the street, all the while having secret misgivings about every other nation on the Earth that is not openly backing your efforts. The attack on Iraq is a war of conquest and aggression. The US was not attacked by Iraq or any foreign government; the idea that terrorism cannot exist without government support is bullshit, and this illusion that the attacks on 9/11 required loads of government money and skill are ludicrous. I could fly a jet into a building if I didn't have to get it off the ground. And the government of Southern Ireland is not backing the IRA. These organisations are operating independent of government help, and definitely independent of IRAQI help.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 23 July 2005 - 02:16 PM

[J m HofMarN]

I think the thing Bush was relying on, and what ultimately allowed him to do it, was the in-born racism present in so many Americans:

Saddam is an A-rab and a mooselim, so is Bin Ladin. It makes PERFECT sense that they'd hang out.

Of course when you start to tell the ignorant government patsies that Bin Laden and Saddam are as different as the pope and Martin Luther, then they just say something to the effect of "well they both hate us so they were probably working together anyhow." Sure they were.

And your point about government backing is completely accurate, Civilian. The most recent Qaeda operations have occured without backing or authorization even from Qaeda's central command. And the 9/11 attacks are estimated to have cost at the most 500000 dollars. All over the middle east you see the same thing:

Israelis using million dollar jets against Palestinian freedom fighters armed with rifles worth a few dollars and rocks they pulled out of the streets.

Money and power mean nothing next to the will to fight, and that's why the US is fighting a losing war.

Ask Bush or any of his scum sucking cronies if they'd lay down their lives for their "cause" Of course not! Their cause is profit, and profit is worth nothing if you're dead. But freedom is worth everything, whether you're dead or alive. That's why Sadr or any of the other Iraqi rebels would die for their cause (and thousands already have).

Here's another example:

The US put millions into a crowd dispersal truck that uses microwaves to literally cook human beings alive. (But of course the US government isn't evil, it's touted as non-lethal and somehow compassionate means to assault protesters and freedom fighters)

The point is the pigs in Washington spent millions on this weapon of oppression, but when they deploy it I swear on my beret that some Iraqi hero is going to put a fucking rock right in the center of the satellite dish and ruin the thing, and that rock will not have cost the rebellion a single dime.

That's another reason why the Muslims will win.

[Renegade]

Ask Bush or any of his scum sucking cronies if they'd lay down their lives for their "cause" Of course not! Their cause is profit, and profit is worth nothing if you're dead. But freedom is worth everything, whether you're dead or alive. That's why Sadr or any of the other Iraqi rebels would die for their cause (and thousands already have).

Oh really? Those "freedom fighters" didn't seem to have a problem with Saddam was massacering kurds or shiites though? They didn't have a problem when he knocked off top ranking shiite clerics to make sure he'd keep his power (despite a shiite majority existing in that country). Those same "freedom fighters" didn't seem to have a problem when Iraq invaded Iran, nor did they have a problem when he invaded Kuwait (which was because Kuwait wasn't gonna let Saddam not pay back the debt he owned that country because of the Iran war). They didn't seem to have a problem that Saddam himself wasn't even a islamic leader but quite the contrary a "socialist". Don't you also think its rather odd that the people fighting are 1) ex baathist members and 2) terrorists who are coming OUT of the country INTO Iraq to terrorize? The overwhelming majority of the terrorists actually ARENT Iraqi. And by definiton they aren't freedom fighters, they are soldiers who want their own govt to have control, that doesn't make you a freedom fighter, that makes you simply a fighter (and a terrorist one at that since you're DELIBERATLY targetting civilians.

And yes it does take govt to allow terrorism to happen. Case in point was the Taliban which was outwardly sheltering and providing atleast base resources to Al Quada, not to mention other terrorist organization like Hezbollah (or as I like to call em, "we're morons who think Iran's govt is actually good nuff to be spread elsewhere") who is outwardly funded by Iran. Just because it doesn't take much to send a plane into a building, not all terrorism is simply a suicide bombing, they are still soldiers and fighters and need things just as anyone else.

As for the 9/11 to Saddam you're correct there was no link and it was rather funny watching them TRY to make the link when it was non existent. Though the WMD is shady when EVERY international agency ALSO beileved Saddam still had WMDs, from France, Russia, Great Britain, US, Israel, etc etc etc. EVERYONE still believed he had WMDs, which is actually Saddams fault for trying to pretend he still had them (to keep Iran thinking Iraq was still the real deal) and also the fact that he didn't keep the records of destroying the WMDs (which actually remains shady, a lot of people think he sent off the WMDs to Syria before the war, though I don't believe that actually happened neway).