I SUPPORT TYRANNY AND DEATH IN IRAQ

FROM THE NY TIMES.COM - REPORTING ON THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ:

"I'm 49, but I never lived a single day," said Yusuf Abed Kazim, a Baghdad imam who pounded the statue's pedestal with a sledgehammer. "Only now will I start living. That Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a criminal."

On one street, a white-haired man held up a poster of Saddam and beat it with his shoe. A younger man spat on the portrait, and several others launched kicks at the face of the Iraqi president.

"Come see, this is freedom. This is the criminal, this is the infidel," he said. "This is the destiny of every traitor. He killed millions of us."

HEY, OPPONENTS OF LIBERATION: GO TO BAGDHAD AND EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY YOU FOUGHT SO HARD TO KEEP THEM LIVING UNDER VIOLENT, BRUTAL OPPRESSION.

I dont think that anyone wanted to keep Hussein alive and in power. THose that did, well, they dont speak for all.

The concern lies in Americas place in not only this war, but in the doctrine of "first strike" among other issues. Post cold war America is still in its infancy. We are still trying to sort out our place in the world as a dominate super power. Opposing voices should be a natural and welcome part of the process.

Your post are irrational, short sighted and silly. You are missing the point completely, as most people are. Perhaps you should read a little more outside of American media, talk in a calm fashion (something I get the feeling you are incapable of) to other people. And remember, America is a country of free speech. If they want to protest, let them. Get over it. If it turns out that you and Bus and the others are right all along, then good for you. You win. Big fucking deal.

You must be very young HDB...the left never admits error.

>Your post are irrational, short sighted and silly. You are

>missing the point completely, as most people are.

I don't think so honey! His post is right-on. It's YOU that has missed the point - by about a trillion miles, I'd say.

Now - which of the before mentioned buttons are YOU going to wear?

fukamarine

>I dont think that anyone wanted to keep Hussein alive and in

>power. THose that did, well, they dont speak for all.

>

IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING THAT CAN GET HUSSEIN OUT OF POWER - HOW IS THAT NOT THE SAME AS BEING IN FAVOR OF KEEPING HIM IN POWER?????

Do you acknowledge that if you had your way -- i.e., NO WAR against Hussein -- he would still be in power, oppressing virtually every Iraqi?

Do you acknowledge taht if you had your way, that every Iraqi would continue to live under brutal terror and suppression?? Do you acknowledge this??

>The concern lies in Americas place in not only this war, but

>in the doctrine of "first strike" among other issues.

Assume that Iraq has WMD and is likely to give them to terrorists? Make that assumption for the moment (of course, Hussein would never do anything so bad, but just assumse).

ARE WE SUPPOSED TO WAIT UNTIL THE SARIN GAS OR SMALL POX IS DEEP INTO ALL OF OUR LUNGS BEFORE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT - OR IS A "FIRST STRIKE" JUSTIFIABLE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES?

>Opposing voices should be a natural and welcome part of the

>process.

Sure - you are welcome - and the more you speak, the better, since it reveals the corruption of your purported "concern for humanity" the more you speak.

>If they want to protest, let them. Get over it.

>If it turns out that you and Bus and the others are right all

>along, then good for you. You win. Big fucking deal.

The same people who protested this war have protested, and will protest, every other liberating act this country does. Because what they are about is BLIND HATRED OF EVERYTHING AMERICAN, especially when America is governed by a <gasp> conservative Republican. The more their real motives are revealed, the less impact they will have.

They are already a minute minority - and,thanks to the inspirational images of FREE IRAQIS which are being beamed throughout the world - freed by our military and the British military - they are becoming more and more minute by the second.

So I see, the war is over?? And we won?? (I just saw where the Red Cross is ceasing operations in Baghdad because it is bedlam)

I hope we are as 'good' at keeping the Peace...

>IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING THAT CAN GET

>HUSSEIN OUT OF POWER - HOW IS THAT NOT THE SAME AS BEING IN

>FAVOR OF KEEPING HIM IN POWER?????

Did you ever hear the expression - Give peace a chance?

Without having done so, we do not know that war was "the

only possible thing" to get rid of Hussein. I deeply regret

that the US with the UK became the lone rangers in this

effort. We must place trust in the international community

where compromise and consensus form policy. Without that,

peace in our time is not likely.

>ARE WE SUPPOSED TO WAIT UNTIL THE SARIN GAS OR SMALL POX IS

>DEEP INTO ALL OF OUR LUNGS BEFORE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT -

>OR IS A "FIRST STRIKE" JUSTIFIABLE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES?

If you know your neighbor has a gun with intentions to kill

you, and you go over to kill the neighbor first, how will a

jury of your peers judge you? Unless your neighbor fires the

gun at your first, you are likely to be judged guilty. Got it?

Finally, if the US "wins" in Iraq, it will not be because of

bullying tactics, but by the spirit of cooperation we evidence

in the transition process. This will require less glorying

and more of a humbling posture.

Peace.

>So I see, the war is over?? And we won??

No, no - don't worry - it's a big quagmire over there - we're all bogged down - it's another Vietnam - fierce resistance - we're losign.

Amazing - even when entire cities are liberated, people are dancing in the streets, tearing down sybmols of tyranny, hugging our troops whose armored vehicles occupy almost every strategically valuable centimenter in the country -- those who are Anti-liberation STILL hope that we are going to lose the war.

(I just saw where

>the Red Cross is ceasing operations in Baghdad because it is

>bedlam)

Generally speaking, after an absolute dictatorship which has been in place for 30 years is removed, and no longer rules the country, there tends to be some disorder and confusion for a few days. What you're seeing is jubiliation and a celebration of freedom by people who have never had it.

>I hope we are as 'good' at keeping the Peace...

Ask the Japanese, Germans and South Koreans (and the French) how good we are it. They seem to have done pretty well as a result of our liberation and re-building.

>Did you ever hear the expression - Give peace a chance?

Yes - it was created by drug-ingesting, Soviet-loving hippies who wanted to let communism spread throughout the world and masqueraded their desire to DO NOTHING IN THE FACE OF TYRANNY as "peace" - just as you do.

Then, when it became known BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that communism was IN FACT the oppressive, tryannical suffocation of life and soul which responsible adults in the Western World always knew it to be, these "hippies" all seemed to have disappeared - or at least obtained jobs writing for The New York Times.

Why would we rejuvinate failed policies from the past?

AND OH - BY THE WAY - we waited 12 years for Saddam Hussein to comply with UN Resolutions. How much longer should we have waited?

AND HOW MANY IRAQIS WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED AND OPPRESSED WHILE WE WAITED?

IT'S EASY FOR YOU - sitting here on your fat ass in the West, with more freedoms than you can possibly hope for - lazily telling everyone we should "wait" even longer to liberate Iraq. I bet that if it was YOU living under Saddam's tyranny, waiting wouldn't strike you as such a good idea.

>I deeply regret

>that the US with the UK became the lone rangers in this

>effort.

This is a lie. Australia and Poland both had troops in Iraq fighting with us - and numerous other countries provided various means of support.

And even if your lie that we acted as "lone rangers" was true, it would make no difference - WE DO NOT NEED, NOR SHOULD WE, THE APPROVAL OF FRANCE and similar countries in order to defend the citizens of our country and to liberate from unimaginable tryanny the citizens of another country!!!

>If you know your neighbor has a gun with intentions to kill

>you, and you go over to kill the neighbor first, how will a

>jury of your peers judge you? Unless your neighbor fires the

>gun at your first, you are likely to be judged guilty. Got

>it?

Any U.S. President who waited around for terrorist acts to occur in the US - rather than acting BEFOREHAND to stop it - would be in such profound dereliction of duty that they would be impeached immediately.

In your example of the neighbor, the law expects you to FLEE if you know that someone is coming to get you, rather than hunt them down and kill them first. Apparently, that is what you think the U.S. should do as well in the face of terrorism threats -- FLEE. Thankfully, your cowardice is shared by only a tiny number of our citizens - and that number is shrinking every day.

>>Did you ever hear the expression - Give peace a chance?

>

>Yes - it was created by drug-ingesting, Soviet-loving hippies

>who wanted to let communism spread throughout the world and

>masqueraded their desire to DO NOTHING IN THE FACE OF TYRANNY

>as "peace" - just as you do.

Hold on there HDB, a guy can be drug-ingesting and still be to the right of Attila the Hun, as well as far too young to be a hippie. This is the fun part. This is where you get to watch all of the peaceniks start back-pedaling terrifically. The same people who believe there is NEVER EVER a justification for using the best army in the world. Just sit back and enjoy in the $100 seats. It can be fun.

Later.

PS. Also, anyone who says give peace a chance has spent a tad too much time in the kitchen listening to Martha.

Man, you are so stupid, I wouldnt even know where to begin with you.

So I just say this. My pin will say "NO W in 2004"

Fuck protesting in the street. I think its time for us to look for a regime change America style. By voting. Feel free to scream your head off, little boy.

Dont call me honey. You dont fucking know me. If you said it to my face, Id deliver a round house kick square across your slack jawed, shitty little mouth.

Trust me when I tell you that not all people that had a problem with Americas behavior are peaceniks and pacifists. Personally, Id love to see a gang of homo hating marines (and they ALL are) beat you to a bloody pulp on the streets of DC. I doubt there would be much "fuking" going on.

My button-"NO W IN 2004"

>I don't think so honey! His post is right-on. It's YOU that

>has missed the point - by about a trillion miles, I'd say.

>

>Now - which of the before mentioned buttons are YOU going to

>wear?

>

>fukamarine

>

>

>Man, you are so stupid, I wouldnt even know where to begin

>with you.

Whenever liberals get cornered and exposed, they start calling names. I asked you these questions:

<<IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING THAT CAN GET HUSSEIN OUT OF POWER - HOW IS THAT NOT THE SAME AS BEING IN FAVOR OF KEEPING HIM IN POWER?????

Do you acknowledge that if you had your way -- i.e., NO WAR against Hussein -- he would still be in power, oppressing virtually every Iraqi?

Do you acknowledge taht if you had your way, that every Iraqi would continue to live under brutal terror and suppression?? Do you acknowledge this??>>

Since you couldn't answer, you called me stupid. That really helps your case.

No wonder you have been able to convince only a tiny portion of your fellow citizens of the rightness of your views. With profound, compelling rhetoric such as "Man, you are so stupid," it's really bewildering that your views have been so resoundingly rejected.

>So I just say this. My pin will say "NO W in 2004"

I'm sure that will be very effective against a President with an approval rating of 75%. Just tell them: "No W in 2004." They will all come back to the Democratic Party in droves.

>Do you acknowledge that if you had your way -- i.e., NO WAR

>against Hussein -- he would still be in power, oppressing

>virtually every Iraqi?

>

>Do you acknowledge taht if you had your way, that every Iraqi

>would continue to live under brutal terror and suppression??

>Do you acknowledge this??

While I beleive that Iraq was a threat, and that Hussein had to go, I also beleive that we have to be aware of the bigger picture. Its not the war I havea problem with. Its the way it was handled.

YOu do realize that there are other countires that have worse dictatorship than Iraq. Even Suadi Arabia is terribly heavy handed with its population. Pakistan, Iran, Syria, all of them are monsters.

In your little diatribe, one othe issues that I brought up, you didnt even address. THat is where America is going, as a dominant super power. WHo are we going to be? How are we going to address the problem of terrorism, if the rest of the world doesnt want to deal with us, becasue we pissed them off?

What is going on in Iraq is just a link in a chain of events. There are going to be other issues. Iran, North Korea and China are just a few. Not to mention the future terrorists attacks that are inevitable.

If people are concerned about these things, let them be. We are not supposed to be a totalitarian regime, but you and others are acting like anyone that disagrees with you should be put to death. If you cant embrace any of the ideas that are out there, fine. But at least embrace everyones right to their opinions. After all, THAT is the American way.

>Dont call me honey. You dont fucking know me. If you said it

>to my face, Id deliver a round house kick square across your

>slack jawed, shitty little mouth.

>

>Trust me when I tell you that not all people that had a

>problem with Americas behavior are peaceniks and pacifists.

>Personally, Id love to see a gang of homo hating marines (and

>they ALL are) beat you to a bloody pulp on the streets of DC.

Well, I'm glad to see you are in favor of rational, civilized debate. Do you really harbor such hatred for all those who disagree with you about political issues, or is it only the ones who make the mistake of calling you "honey?" LOL!

I think it is going a bit too far to say that anyone who opposes this war supports the Saddam regime. Nevertheless, I don't see any of the war's critics coming up with an alternative means of removing a dangerous dictator and giving the Iraqi people a chance at a decent future. Saddam is (was?) not a very old man and if we had done nothing he probably would have been able to hold on to power for many more years. The problem with those who keep criticizing Bush's solution is that they don't offer a solution of their own.

>Well, I'm glad to see you are in favor of rational, civilized

>debate. Do you really harbor such hatred for all those who

>disagree with you about political issues, or is it only the

>ones who make the mistake of calling you "honey?" LOL!

Just the ones that call me "honey" ;-) Its fine to disagree with me, plenty of people do and will. This was meant as disrespect, plus I just dont like bitchy guys. There was noting rational or civilized about his post, or pretty much this entire thread.

hey dumb ass how long have you been fighting in [email protected]:13-04/09/03

>I think it is going a bit too far to say that anyone who

>opposes this war supports the Saddam regime.

ASSUME: B can result only if A.

If Johnny - knowing this - opposes A, is it fair to say that Johnny also opposes B?

>Nevertheless, I

>don't see any of the war's critics coming up with an

>alternative means of removing a dangerous dictator and giving

>the Iraqi people a chance at a decent future. Saddam is

>(was?) not a very old man and if we had done nothing he

>probably would have been able to hold on to power for many

>more years. The problem with those who keep criticizing

>Bush's solution is that they don't offer a solution of their

>own.

EXACTLY. It should also be pointed out that we tried lots of things short of war and they all failed: no-fly zones; sanctions; covert support to Iraqi opposition groups. They all failed.

What the initial resistance demonstrated was that Saddam's power - like most dictators' - was entrenched, firm, and strong. Only a war could have dislodged him.

Thus, those who opposed the war, by definition, favored keeping Saddam in power.

>

>

>

>While I beleive that Iraq was a threat, and that Hussein had

>to go,

Since you weren't in favor of the war, how did you propose to make this happen? Were you hoping that you would snap your fingers and he would be gone? Or did you hope that Hans Blix would convince him to leave?

>I also beleive that we have to be aware of the bigger

>picture. Its not the war I havea problem with. Its the way it

>was handled.

Seems like it went pretty well. What would you have changed with how it was handled?

>YOu do realize that there are other countires that have worse

>dictatorship than Iraq. Even Suadi Arabia is terribly heavy

>handed with its population. Pakistan, Iran, Syria, all of them

>are monsters.

Yes, true - as you point out, this war was but a step in an overall plan. A significant component of that plan is to transform the Middle East from an unstable, dangerous, weapons-abundant region of dictatorships and theocracies into stable, democratic, prosperous countries which are more aligned with our values. That will take care nicely of all the countries you've identified.

If you have any doubt about the urgency of this project, take a look at the 16 acre hole at the bottom of Manhattan that used to be the World Trade Center.

>In your little diatribe, one othe issues that I brought up,

>you didnt even address. THat is where America is going, as a

>dominant super power. WHo are we going to be? How are we going

>to address the problem of terrorism, if the rest of the world

>doesnt want to deal with us, becasue we pissed them off?

The rest of the world will deal with us if: (a) there are benefits for them in dealing with us or (b) they fear not dealing with us. Foreign affairs have ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been driven by SELF-INTEREST, not by who likes whom.

Third grade cliques are determined by who is nice and popular. World allies are determined by interest and fear.

>If people are concerned about these things, let them be. We

>are not supposed to be a totalitarian regime, but you and

>others are acting like anyone that disagrees with you should

>be put to death. If you cant embrace any of the ideas that are

>out there, fine. But at least embrace everyones right to their

>opinions. After all, THAT is the American way.

Who denied anyone the right to speak? I just pointed out that those who were opposed to this war, by defintion, opposed the liberation of Iraqi people and sought to have them condemned to eternal tyranny.

That's my opinion. How does my expression of it result in suppression of your views?

Whatever does your posting have to do with the subject? The man was talking about government policy in the war and you post this?

hey yerface you can't talk logic with these guys.they are nothing but gutless armchair warriors.a couple of these dickheads i totally ignore..........lol i notice one of them still reads my posts though...oh well i guess as long as they get some dick every now and then they don't care about anything [email protected]:49-04/09/03

When you start talking logic, we'll talk logic. Posting about trolls, etc is not talking logic or asking when somebody was fighting in Iraq is not logic. Get a grip on it. It is possible to get dick and still talk logic. Depends on where the dick is located.

By the way as a man who was sergeant in the US Army during the Cuban Missile Crisis and during the time President Kennedy and President Johnson were building up to Vietnam, thankfully before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, I think I have a right to answer this. Been there and done that.

First off, let me say that cutting and pasting one of Rush's Limbaugh's transcripts is not impressive toanyone at any time.

It is decidely obvious that you have missed the whole point of the protests.

Bush lied.

Bush said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Bush said Saddam was a threat to the US.

Bush said that Saddam was linked to Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

In all three instances, Bush lied.

The real reasons for this invasion were simple: Daddy, oil, and a convenient scapegoat to take America's mind off of the failure to find bin Laden.

You sit there on your high horse sneering down at us, but fail to realize it is only a hobby horse. Where were you when women were slaughtered in Afghanistan while we did nothing? Where were you when North Korea began rattling its saber and we did nothing? Epypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and a host of other countries have done worse things to their citizens. Where are your words of overthrow for those regimes?

The only reason we took down the Taliban is because they harbored bin Laden. other wise, we would have continued to let them maim and destroy women. We had the opportunity to take out Saddam 12 years ago and blew it. That's why Daddy got beat by Clinton. Why did what the UN had to say matter so much then (don't take out Saddam, just free Kuwait) and now it doesn't matter at all?

Opposing a war waged for fictitious reasons has nothing to do with supporting Saddam and everything to do with the lack of integrity of George W Bush. Perhaps you would consider wearing a button that says:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

It ceratinly seems to be Big Brother W's motto.

The UN mattered then because the war was conducted under the aegis of the UN even though most of the equipment and a great number of the fighting men were American. The UN had brokered an arrangement under which Saddam would destroy his weapons and be covered by the sanctions. On this basis Bush Sr did not push the issue. The election was because of the economy, not Saddam. Clinton said the economy was tanking and was believed. He was elected and the economy immediately started recovering. After 7 years Saddam kicked out the inspectors who were supposed to check that he kept his word about the weapons. Clinton bombed him a couple of times when the news of his escapades got too hot but did nothing else. The inspectors stayed gone. Then last fall the UN passed the 1441 which said that the Iraqis were not fulfilling their agreement of 1991. Nothing happened until W and Blair started making noises about forcing the issue. Lo and behold the inspectors were allowed back in reluctantly, but the Iraqis were still not fully cooperating. The dates were set and all of a sudden Saddam said I am cooperating and Blix and his compadre said yes he was cooperating but still not fully. Thus the war.