LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html Long, but a good read. Absolutely sickening that he was planning this for so damn long. He wasn't open to the UN peaceful solutions, he had plans to be a war criminal the entire time. That little west Texas bastard. :fyou George. Who would have thought the W stood for Warmonger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html Long, but a good read. Absolutely sickening that he was planning this for so damn long. He wasn't open to the UN peaceful solutions, he had plans to be a war criminal the entire time. That little west Texas bastard. :fyou George. Who would have thought the W stood for Warmonger? outstanding, i knew you will see it that way. the best thing is to take him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html Long, but a good read. Absolutely sickening that he was planning this for so damn long. He wasn't open to the UN peaceful solutions, he had plans to be a war criminal the entire time. That little west Texas bastard. :fyou George. Who would have thought the W stood for Warmonger? outstanding, i knew you will see it that way. the best thing is to take him out. That entire thing about making me sick was about George Warmonger Bush. Saddam is evil, but Bush's war is fascist and illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html Long, but a good read. Absolutely sickening that he was planning this for so damn long. He wasn't open to the UN peaceful solutions, he had plans to be a war criminal the entire time. That little west Texas bastard. :fyou George. Who would have thought the W stood for Warmonger? outstanding, i knew you will see it that way. the best thing is to take him out. That entire thing about making me sick was about George Warmonger Bush. Saddam is evil, but Bush's war is fascist and illegal. but i guess saddum being evil is ok with you uh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html Long, but a good read. Absolutely sickening that he was planning this for so damn long. He wasn't open to the UN peaceful solutions, he had plans to be a war criminal the entire time. That little west Texas bastard. :fyou George. Who would have thought the W stood for Warmonger? outstanding, i knew you will see it that way. the best thing is to take him out. That entire thing about making me sick was about George Warmonger Bush. Saddam is evil, but Bush's war is fascist and illegal. but i guess saddum being evil is ok with you uh Thank you LDF! Apu, why do you pry on how "evil " dubulya is instead of how unhuman Sadam is? The U.S. is trying to stay away from killing civilians while sadam wants them to stay so tehy can be used as a human shield and so his nut job soldiers can act like "innocent civilains and then start killing Americans. Which one is evil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 Thank you LDF! Apu, why do you pry on how "evil " dubulya is instead of how unhuman Sadam is? The U.S. is trying to stay away from killing civilians while sadam wants them to stay so tehy can be used as a human shield and so his nut job soldiers can act like "innocent civilains and then start killing Americans. Which one is evil? We are invading Iraq to prove to them that they cannot dismiss the UN...Meanwhile, we are dismissing the UN. We are going to prove to them that they cannot kill civilians. Yet we shot a missile into a marketplace today killing over 50 people ( http://www.iraqbodycount.net ) We also had the plans for urban warfare which is going to slaughter LOTS of civilians. Tell me again, we SUSPECT this guy has weapons and we are invading. Yet countries like North Korea have come out and said "WE HAVE NUKES!" "WE HAVE MISSILES THAT CAN HIT THE STATES!" and Dubya does nothing. If he was really worried about 'homeland security' he'd deal with that. Or what about Pakistan who is run by a dictatorship that is harsh to it's people and has the nuke? There are lots of other countries that are much more evil than Saddam could ever wish to be. This is just a case of Bush wanting a war no matter what because it'd help his popularity...and think of all that oil for Halliburton and the Chevron ties that Condie Rice has. They are going to cleanup damn good in this. Saddam is evil, yet the cost of this war is too great. Money says that the next terrorist attack comes and we find out that it was due to our imperialism in the Middle East. How much do you want to be that our next attack comes against Iran? We have a history of installing and overthrowing governments there so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch. And many of the corporate news stations are trying to justify war with Iraq because of his gassing of the Kurds in 1988. Let's see WE SOLD HIM THE f***ING WEAPONS TO DO IT! and afterwards, Rumsfeld even shook the man's hand! And we are fighting a war for what happened that long ago? Talk about stretching for an actual reason. And why has the reason for war consistantly changed right after the reason was found to be blatant bulls***? The reason for war has changed so much from the beginning of the Bush campaign to wage war. I guess it's easy to wage war when you're not the one fighting, eh, AWOL Georgie? :fyou And RPS, did you think the Iraqi army was just going to lay down and let their country be taken over? They know they are outgunned, outmanned, etc. so they are doing what they can militarily to have a chance. Not saying that I agree with it because it is a sickening desperate maneuver but I can understand WHY they would be doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 but i guess saddum being evil is ok with you uh I am more worried about Kim Jong Il. I am more worried about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda cells. Myabe it's just me but I'd rather focus the nation's attention on the men who perpetrated the worst terrorist attack on American soil. I am not worried about some 3rd world dictator who we aren't even sure has weapons. Yes, I feel bad for the people who live under oppressive UN sanctions. But I ask you, if the people in the region haven't been afraid of him for the past 12 years, why is the world's only superpower shaking in it's boots? With the lies perpetrated by this administration justifying a war, with the future propaganda for Al Qaeda, for us disrupting peace and Middle Eastern relations for years, etc. etc. etc. plus the human lives and the devestation caused...the cost of this war is too great. We don't have enough money for schools but we suddenly have $80 billion for war? That is just the beginning stages. Can we say TAX HIKE when we get to the $1 trillion deficit mark? Will you still be supporting this action years in the future when we are still paying out the ass for it when we have our troops over there for the next 15-20 years restabilizing their government. And wouldn't it be a kick in the nuts if in their "democratic" (since we want them to have a democracy) if they elected Islamic fundamentalists into government? Would we have to foot another $80 billion to overthrow that regime too? Where does this end? We set the international precent for pre-emptive invasions for our own national interest. What is to stop any other country from doing that now? We've created a very dangerous slippery slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Well my opinions are very much different. Civilians in teh way are f***ing everything up and the fact that we have to "protect them". f*** that! get the f*** out of the way or get killed. There will be a lot of American deaths and this war will take much longer if we try to pick whack jobs out of a croud who are all dressed like civilains. The reason this whole thing started is because of that sick f*** sadam and his threat to us and other countries. And the way he likes to go around to countries next to him and push them around then threaten with chemical weapons. The difference between Korea and Iraq is, EVERYONE knows Sadamn is crazy enough to blast off chemical weapons for s***s and giggles. Korea knows there are concequences , but they care, unlike sadam who will hide in a bomb shelter and keep his people in the area to get killed only to throw off Americans. As f***ed up as this country is, i could never see that happening here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox247 Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 I'm not really into political talks but all I gotta say about the war is: There is always a better solution to war. However, I understand that the decision has been made and cannot be changed. My sympathy goes out to the innocent Iraqis who cannot leave their country and who cannot speak out against their damn government. My prayers go out to all the helpless Iraqis trapped in Saddam Hussein's hell. Though I'm against war, my prayers go out to the soldiers who put their lives on the line to protect us and defend our country, and I do not take that for granted. Those protesting against war should be ashamed of themselves, because it has been done and cannot be stopped anymore. So may this terrible war end soon and may our soldiers arrive home safely to their loved ones, and may the Iraqis enjoy their new freedoms once this is over and done with. God Bless America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 but i guess saddum being evil is ok with you uh I am more worried about Kim Jong Il. I am more worried about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda cells. Myabe it's just me but I'd rather focus the nation's attention on the men who perpetrated the worst terrorist attack on American soil. I am not worried about some 3rd world dictator who we aren't even sure has weapons. Yes, I feel bad for the people who live under oppressive UN sanctions. But I ask you, if the people in the region haven't been afraid of him for the past 12 years, why is the world's only superpower shaking in it's boots? With the lies perpetrated by this administration justifying a war, with the future propaganda for Al Qaeda, for us disrupting peace and Middle Eastern relations for years, etc. etc. etc. plus the human lives and the devestation caused...the cost of this war is too great. We don't have enough money for schools but we suddenly have $80 billion for war? That is just the beginning stages. Can we say TAX HIKE when we get to the $1 trillion deficit mark? Will you still be supporting this action years in the future when we are still paying out the ass for it when we have our troops over there for the next 15-20 years restabilizing their government. And wouldn't it be a kick in the nuts if in their "democratic" (since we want them to have a democracy) if they elected Islamic fundamentalists into government? Would we have to foot another $80 billion to overthrow that regime too? Where does this end? We set the international precent for pre-emptive invasions for our own national interest. What is to stop any other country from doing that now? We've created a very dangerous slippery slope. unless something has changed since i got back from the movies the pentagon is saying that wasnt one of their missiles that crashed into that marketplace...chances are it was a SAM that missed its mark and landed in downtown baghdad you do relize every SAM the iraqis send up into the air has to come down somewhere when it misses its target??? and that website...yeah thats real fair and balanced Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 IraqBodyCount.net uses a s***load of different media sources and has the minimum and maximum death counts of the civilians. But then again, coming from a person who watches Fox News you're used to your "fair and balanced" news being so slanted to the right that anything else may seem Marxist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,924907,00.html The Guardian is still reporting that the US Central Command in the area has not yet confirmed or denied that it was an Allied missile that killed over 52 people there so far. But in something funny/scary to lighten the war talk. John Ashcroft and the DEA recently raided a man's glass pipe shop and his home. They took everything from the pipe shop and rummaged through his home. They didn't charge him or arrest him. But they stole all his stuff. Scared yet? The funny part is that they were cracking down on marijuana paraphenalia and their target...none other than 1978 "Up In Smoke" film star, Tommy Chong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac9001 Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Bush might be doing it for the wrong reasons, but everyone is better off without Saddam in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 IraqBodyCount.net uses a s***load of different media sources and has the minimum and maximum death counts of the civilians. But then again, coming from a person who watches Fox News you're used to your "fair and balanced" news being so slanted to the right that anything else may seem Marxist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,924907,00.html The Guardian is still reporting that the US Central Command in the area has not yet confirmed or denied that it was an Allied missile that killed over 52 people there so far. But in something funny/scary to lighten the war talk. John Ashcroft and the DEA recently raided a man's glass pipe shop and his home. They took everything from the pipe shop and rummaged through his home. They didn't charge him or arrest him. But they stole all his stuff. Scared yet? The funny part is that they were cracking down on marijuana paraphenalia and their target...none other than 1978 "Up In Smoke" film star, Tommy Chong. for god sakes you think CNN stands for corporate news network and you are telling me im biased?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 IraqBodyCount.net uses a s***load of different media sources and has the minimum and maximum death counts of the civilians. But then again, coming from a person who watches Fox News you're used to your "fair and balanced" news being so slanted to the right that anything else may seem Marxist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,924907,00.html The Guardian is still reporting that the US Central Command in the area has not yet confirmed or denied that it was an Allied missile that killed over 52 people there so far. But in something funny/scary to lighten the war talk. John Ashcroft and the DEA recently raided a man's glass pipe shop and his home. They took everything from the pipe shop and rummaged through his home. They didn't charge him or arrest him. But they stole all his stuff. Scared yet? The funny part is that they were cracking down on marijuana paraphenalia and their target...none other than 1978 "Up In Smoke" film star, Tommy Chong. for god sakes you think CNN stands for corporate news network and you are telling me im biased?? It's owned by Viacom/AOL/Time Warner (or whatever the f*** their new corporate name is now) It's corporate. US "news" sucks because it's all been purchased by large conglomorate corporations that are going to paint the stories to their business likings. Sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 you do relize every SAM the iraqis send up into the air has to come down somewhere when it misses its target??? The Pentagon has denied that they speficially targeted the area. However they have yet to say that it wasn't an Allied missile.(according to the AP) The US Central Command in Qatar said that they were investigating the claim and it may very well still be an Allied missile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 you do relize every SAM the iraqis send up into the air has to come down somewhere when it misses its target??? The Pentagon has denied that they speficially targeted the area. However they have yet to say that it wasn't an Allied missile.(according to the AP) The US Central Command in Qatar said that they were investigating the claim and it may very well still be an Allied missile. thats because the pentagon makes sure before they say either way...saddam tv automatically blames the US...i ll bet you that wasnt one of ours...if it was it would have done alot more damage.. speaking of missiles...the missile saddam got through to kuwait wa called a sear sucker ...its chinese made and its a stronger missile then the notorious scud...definately a missile banned under the UN resolutions and hans blix didnt even know they had those...tha dangerous thing aboput these missiles..they travel so low to the ground that the patriot is useless against them..they come in under the radar..thats wh ythere wa no warning in kuwait...just more saddam lies being exposed..but george bush is the evil one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 thats because the pentagon makes sure before they say either way...saddam tv automatically blames the US...i ll bet you that wasnt one of ours...if it was it would have done alot more damage.. speaking of missiles...the missile saddam got through to kuwait wa called a sear sucker ...its chinese made and its a stronger missile then the notorious scud...definately a missile banned under the UN resolutions and hans blix didnt even know they had those...tha dangerous thing aboput these missiles..they travel so low to the ground that the patriot is useless against them..they come in under the radar..thats wh ythere wa no warning in kuwait...just more saddam lies being exposed..but george bush is the evil one Actually they weren't banned under the UN resolutions. They were under the mile range, I believe. Or at least that is what the Corporate News Network was saying last evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 thats because the pentagon makes sure before they say either way...saddam tv automatically blames the US...i ll bet you that wasnt one of ours...if it was it would have done alot more damage.. The crater left by the "mystery origin" missile was smaller and shallower than the craters left by Allied bombs, Tomahawk, or Cruise Missiles leading many on the ground, including some Iraqi's, to believe that the missile was not Allied in origin. As reported by AL JAZEERA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Kill or be killed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.