good quote from somebody smarter than you

[savestheglory]

"...One reads the statements of the blame-America-firsters, and listens to their chants, and one wonders if they have ever absorbed a single fact about the despicable character of Saddam Hussein, or about the murder, rape, and pillage that he has inflicted on his own and neighboring people. If some of them have indeed perused the voluminous and scrupulously documented materials prepared by governments as well as by human-rights and intelligence organizations, and if they continue to hold their position, one can only conclude that, in their view, it is better that innocent people suffer, and that a dictator amass and threaten to use horrific weapons of destruction, than that we act against such evils. For them, slavery is preferrable to freedom, if that freedom comes at the price of military action by the united states. There is a name for this attitude, and the name, once again is anti-Americanism. It today's circumstances, in the face of an evil that only the United States can defeat, to hold this attitude is worse than irresponsible, it is a species of deep perversity."

-William J. Bennett
...Why We Fight...

and this one goes out to the old screamoboy master:

"There are some peaces that are worse than war. There are some things that are worth fighting for. There are some wars taht you need to fight to have a just peace in the end."

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by savestheglory
"...One reads the statements of the blame-America-firsters, and listens to their chants, and one wonders if they have ever absorbed a single fact about the despicable character of Saddam Hussein, or about the murder, rape, and pillage that he has inflicted on his own and neighboring people. If some of them have indeed perused the voluminous and scrupulously documented materials prepared by governments as well as by human-rights and intelligence organizations, and if they continue to hold their position, one can only conclude that, in their view, it is better that innocent people suffer, and that a dictator amass and threaten to use horrific weapons of destruction, than that we act against such evils. For them, slavery is preferrable to freedom, if that freedom comes at the price of military action by the united states. There is a name for this attitude, and the name, once again is anti-Americanism. It today's circumstances, in the face of an evil that only the United States can defeat, to hold this attitude is worse than irresponsible, it is a species of deep perversity."

-William J. Bennett
...Why We Fight...

and this one goes out to the old screamoboy master:

"There are some peaces that are worse than war. There are some things that are worth fighting for. There are some wars taht you need to fight to have a just peace in the end."

You fucking idiot

Anti-War protestors aren't Pro-Saddam. We are against the US becomming the fucking police force of the world and the drastic consequences this war will have on our own soil and in Iraq.

[savestheglory]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
You fucking idiot

Anti-War protestors aren't Pro-Saddam. We are against the US becomming the fucking police force of the world and the drastic consequences this war will have on our own soil and in Iraq.


how in the name of god did you get that from what i said...can you even read? you are completely twisting my words to make me look bad... when did i say anti-war are pro-saddam?

[savestheglory]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
You fucking idiot

Anti-War protestors aren't Pro-Saddam. We are against the US becomming the fucking police force of the world and the drastic consequences this war will have on our own soil and in Iraq.

and by the way, the person who published this quote has several books published, which are all critically acclaimed, (that means he knows more about politics than you) so don't say i'm a fucking idiot for repeating something a brilliant writer has written

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by savestheglory
and by the way, the person who published this quote has several books published, which are all critically acclaimed, (that means he knows more about politics than you) so don't say i'm a fucking idiot for repeating something a brilliant writer has written

Oh my...

do you understand your own quote? It's talking about how supposedly anti-war protestors don't know or understand the crimes Saddam has committed, which would mean they are against the war because they don't have a problem with Saddam, i.e Pro-Saddam. Dumb ass.

[steve-0]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Oh my...

do you understand your own quote? It's talking about how supposedly anti-war protestors don't know or understand the crimes Saddam has committed, which would mean they are against the war because they don't have a problem with Saddam, i.e Pro-Saddam. Dumb ass.
you have got to be kidding. that is QUITE a stretch.

[day in paradise]

I usally dont wonder around these parts but..

savestheglory.. your sig rocks :D

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Oh my...

do you understand your own quote? It's talking about how supposedly anti-war protestors don't know or understand the crimes Saddam has committed, which would mean they are against the war because they don't have a problem with Saddam, i.e Pro-Saddam. Dumb ass.
No it just means those who are anti war are naive and dumb and need to get pepper sprayed, bean bagged, and fire hosed until the sense is knocked back into them

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by savestheglory
"...One reads the statements of the blame-America-firsters, and listens to their chants, and one wonders if they have ever absorbed a single fact about the despicable character of Saddam Hussein, or about the murder, rape, and pillage that he has inflicted on his own and neighboring people. If some of them have indeed perused the voluminous and scrupulously documented materials prepared by governments as well as by human-rights and intelligence organizations, and if they continue to hold their position, one can only conclude that, in their view, it is better that innocent people suffer, and that a dictator amass and threaten to use horrific weapons of destruction, than that we act against such evils. For them, slavery is preferrable to freedom, if that freedom comes at the price of military action by the united states. There is a name for this attitude, and the name, once again is anti-Americanism. It today's circumstances, in the face of an evil that only the United States can defeat, to hold this attitude is worse than irresponsible, it is a species of deep perversity."

-William J. Bennett
...Why We Fight...

and this one goes out to the old screamoboy master:

"There are some peaces that are worse than war. There are some things that are worth fighting for. There are some wars taht you need to fight to have a just peace in the end."


If liberating Iraq from an oppressive ruler was really our objective, why don't we liberate Saudia Arabia and North Korea, seeing how their rulers were measured to be more oppressive than Saddam? Oh, wait...arn't we sort of allies with Saudia Arabia? THE saudia arabia where most of the 9/11 hijackers originated from, where Bin Laden originates from, and where the ties to terrorism are apparent, and who offered exile to Saddam should he have taken Bush's offer to get out of Iraq. Does anyone else think that allowing an oppressive ruler to take exile in an even more oppressed country is kinda scary?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
If liberating Iraq from an oppressive ruler was really our objective, why don't we liberate Saudia Arabia and North Korea, seeing how their rulers were measured to be more oppressive than Saddam? Oh, wait...arn't we sort of allies with Saudia Arabia? THE saudia arabia where most of the 9/11 hijackers originated from, where Bin Laden originates from, and where the ties to terrorism are apparent, and who offered exile to Saddam should he have taken Bush's offer to get out of Iraq. Does anyone else think that allowing an oppressive ruler to take exile in an even more oppressed country is kinda scary?


so you are against us going into Iraq, but you wouldn't have a problem with us going into Saudi Arabia? that is a stupid arguement, "why don't we invade North Korea (or whatever country you want)?" If you are against war in Iraq, why would suddenly approve of a war somewhere else.

[bossydacow]

I was being sarcastic. I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bush Administration's reasons for war with Iraq. I am in no way for war.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
I was being sarcastic. I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bush Administration's reasons for war with Iraq. I am in no way for war.


asking "what about N. Korea or Suadi Arabia?" points to a glaring inconsistency with your own arguement. if you dissagree with war, then don't then don't try and support your position by saying we should invade other countries.

[your moms hot]

Originally posted by yeat182
asking "what about N. Korea or Suadi Arabia?" points to a glaring inconsistency with your own arguement. if you dissagree with war, then don't then don't try and support your position by saying we should invade other countries.
well..when i point out n korea its not because i think we should go to war there..its because i think that if were going to war to take down a regime that produces chemical weapons, that has restarted their nuclear facilities and that is flatly refusing to allow un inspectors back into their country..we might as well go to war with a country where there is no controversey as to wether or not they've done all this shit...and thats why i point out north korea...because they pose a bigger threat to your little world. north korea has weapons capable of hitting the west coast of america...iraq can barely hit israel now that weve deployed patriot missle batteries there. so whos arguement is inconsistant??

[yeat182]

i'm not argueing that North Korea isn't a threat. i'm saying that if you say you are against war, then don't argue against action in Iraq by saying we should be attacking other countries instead. it is contradictory to your arguement. ( not you personally,but those who are totally anti-war)

[bossydacow]

Yeat- i have no clue why my point isn't going through your head. What I am trying to say is that the reasons why Bush went to war with Iraq are the same reasons he could go to war with a bunch of other countries. Which raises the question, Why Iraq? Furthermore, comparing Bush's concerns about Iraq (terrorist support, and oppressive ruling),to the conditions in Saudi Arabia, the latter is far worse . But for somer reason, we are allies with Saudi Arabia. Why? I have no clue. It shows Bush's sleazy politics. So, I wasn't trying to support my position by saying we should invade other countries, I was supporting my position by pointing out the greasy inconsistencies in Bush's war campaign. Once again, why Iraq, when there are other countries just like it?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
Yeat- i have no clue why my point isn't going through your head. What I am trying to say is that the reasons why Bush went to war with Iraq are the same reasons he could go to war with a bunch of other countries. Which raises the question, Why Iraq? Furthermore, comparing Bush's concerns about Iraq (terrorist support, and oppressive ruling),to the conditions in Saudi Arabia, the latter is far worse . But for somer reason, we are allies with Saudi Arabia. Why? I have no clue. It shows Bush's sleazy politics. So, I wasn't trying to support my position by saying we should invade other countries, I was supporting my position by pointing out the greasy inconsistencies in Bush's war campaign. Once again, why Iraq, when there are other countries just like it?


because Iraq has directly violated 17 UN resolutions...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by bossydacow
Yeat- i have no clue why my point isn't going through your head. What I am trying to say is that the reasons why Bush went to war with Iraq are the same reasons he could go to war with a bunch of other countries. Which raises the question, Why Iraq? Furthermore, comparing Bush's concerns about Iraq (terrorist support, and oppressive ruling),to the conditions in Saudi Arabia, the latter is far worse . But for somer reason, we are allies with Saudi Arabia. Why? I have no clue. It shows Bush's sleazy politics. So, I wasn't trying to support my position by saying we should invade other countries, I was supporting my position by pointing out the greasy inconsistencies in Bush's war campaign. Once again, why Iraq, when there are other countries just like it?

Why did clinton bomb iraq and saudi arabia?

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Why did clinton bomb iraq and saudi arabia?

tell me.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by bossydacow
tell me.

It was to take the pressure off him and Monica. But my problem with that is why many on the left had no problem then but have a problem now with this war.

But you know, why did he bomb Iraq? He too could have bombed Saudi Arabia but chose not to.

[bossydacow]

I don't know man. I was a first grader when Clinton was first elected, and a fifth grader the second time. I could have cared less who was bombing who back then. Still, Saudi Arabia hasn't changed it's ways, and we are currently allies with them. How can Bush be so pissed off at Iraq, when his ally is just as bad?its a stupid double standard.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
I don't know man. I was a first grader when Clinton was first elected, and a fifth grader the second time. I could have cared less who was bombing who back then. Still, Saudi Arabia hasn't changed it's ways, and we are currently allies with them. How can Bush be so pissed off at Iraq, when his ally is just as bad?its a stupid double standard.
Saudi Arabia is bad, I admit, but not half as bad as Iraq. Common enemies make allies. Saudi Arabia hates Iraq. Plus the US needed Saudi Arabi's support because they are in an extremely stratigic location and we need to be there to launch our attack. Unfortunentaly Turkey will only give us fly-over rights, so more people will die than neccesary.

[bossydacow]

What makes Iraq worse than Saudi Arabia? I honestly don't know.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
What makes Iraq worse than Saudi Arabia? I honestly don't know.
For one the sort of agree with what the US asks them to do, and their leader isnt a complete psyco, room for improvement, but sane.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
What makes Iraq worse than Saudi Arabia? I honestly don't know.


they've invade 2 of their neighbors, they have chemical/biological weapons, Saddam is a cruel dictator whose only ambition is to rule the entire Arab world. Saudi Arabia isn't perfect, and just because we haven't invaded them doesn't mean that our relations with them are spectacular, the administration is very upset with them, and are dealing with it in different ways. for now, we need them as an ally in this war, but i think once iraq is freed, the relations with saudi arabia will change.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Saudi Arabia is bad, I admit, but not half as bad as Iraq. Common enemies make allies. Saudi Arabia hates Iraq. Plus the US needed Saudi Arabi's support because they are in an extremely stratigic location and we need to be there to launch our attack. Unfortunentaly Turkey will only give us fly-over rights, so more people will die than neccesary.

They don't hate Iraq you fucking idiot. They offered Saddam immunity in their country if he would have left when we gave him 48 hours to leave.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
They don't hate Iraq you fucking idiot. They offered Saddam immunity in their country if he would have left when we gave him 48 hours to leave.

yeah, didn't I already say that? I'd be worried if Saddam entered Saudi Arabia.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
They don't hate Iraq you fucking idiot. They offered Saddam immunity in their country if he would have left when we gave him 48 hours to leave.


Saudi Arabia is very strongly against the regime in Iraq, they fear that with Saddam in power, Iraq is a threat to them and everyone else in the region. It was the Saudi's that begged the US to protect them from Saddam in the first gulf war. also, many countries volunteered to accept saddam in exile, it doesn't mean the support him at all.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
Saudi Arabia is very strongly against the regime in Iraq, they fear that with Saddam in power, Iraq is a threat to them and everyone else in the region. It was the Saudi's that begged the US to protect them from Saddam in the first gulf war. also, many countries volunteered to accept saddam in exile, it doesn't mean the support him at all.
you beat me

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by yeat182
Saudi Arabia is very strongly against the regime in Iraq, they fear that with Saddam in power, Iraq is a threat to them and everyone else in the region. It was the Saudi's that begged the US to protect them from Saddam in the first gulf war. also, many countries volunteered to accept saddam in exile, it doesn't mean the support him at all.

Then why did Saudi Arabia refer to Saddam as their brother when offering him exile?

[yeat182]

to convince him to go into exile obviously, you wouldn't say, yeah, we think your a dirtbag, you're welcome to come to our country.

[bossydacow]

I still think it would be dangerous to allow Saddam to be placed in an enviroment that it is even more violent than the one he created in Iraq.

[yeat182]

he would have no power whatsoever and be under constant survallience, it would be much better than leaving him in power, and much better than removing him by force.

[bossydacow]

yeah, but don't you think its dangerous that he is in the same environment as rulers that are rated to be even more opressive than he is? Plus his sons would have been with him, so whats that? 5 pyschos. together.

[yeat182]

he would have absolutley no power, at all. it isn't as if he would suddenly team up with the Saudi's and take over the world? nor would he have the power to opress anyone other than maybe the people that live in his house.

[bossydacow]

evil is evil. evil likes company. i wouldn't put it past them. not for one minute. King Fahd & Crown Prince Abdullah were rated WORSE than Saddam! That is incredible! I could totally see those guys teaming up.

[yeat182]

rated by who?

[yeat182]

if you think they would form some sort of evil alliance, what is stopping them from doing that now? why didn't they already? he would be in exile, he would have no more power than any ordinary citizen, probalby much much less. he would not be a threat to anyone.

[bossydacow]

it was in PARADE magazine. The selections were based on the amount of civil injustices that occured in countries. Extra points were awarded to rulers who also tortured, killed, and gave unfair trials and elections. Amnesty international and i think one or two other organizations compiled the data. Here's the list (in order, worst to still bad but not as bad):

Kim Jong Il—North Korea (Age 61, in power since 1994)

King Fahd & Crown Prince Abdullah—Saudi Arabia (Ages 80 & 79, inpower since 1982 & 1995, respectively)

Saddam Hussein—Iraq (Age 65, in power since 1979)

Charles Taylor—Liberia (Age 55, in power since 1977)

Than Shwe—Burma (Age 70, in power since 1992)

Teodoro Obiang Nguema—Equatorial Guinea (Age 60, in power since 1979).

Saparmurad Niyazov—Turkmenistan (Age 62, in power since 1990)

Muammar al-Qaddafi—Libya (Age 60, in power since 1969)

Fidel Castro—Cuba (Age 76, in power since 1959)

Alexander Lukashenko—Belarus (Age 48, in power since 1994)

[yeat182]

well, i know that for many of the muslim countries, some of those so called "civil injustices" are simply the punishments given in the muslim religion (getting your hand cut off for stealing, etc...) so those numbers are a little padded. but i'd have to read the article.

[bossydacow]

you'll have to backorder it from Parade's archives. It's called, " Top 10 Living Dictators" or something. Unjust rules are unjust rules, regardless if its taken from religion or the mind of a psycho. Getting your hand cut off is a civil injustices for stealing is a civil injustice under any circumstances.

[bossydacow]

sorry, i fucked up that last sentence.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by The Nephilm

Anti-War protestors aren't Pro-Saddam. We are against the US becomming the fucking police force of the world and the drastic consequences this war will have on our own soil and in Iraq.

well if we don't take care of saddam, who will? someone has to, and since the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world we are probably the only ones who will do something about it

[Atomic Punk]

why should we gine the u.n. inspectors more time? they've already had 12 years and they're never gonna find anything cuz they don't want to.

[Expert_Monk]

Originally posted by Atomic Punk
why should we gine the u.n. inspectors more time? they've already had 12 years and they're never gonna find anything cuz they don't want to.

Thats pretty stupid, why would they not want to find anything? Saddam is a threat to them too. I agree that we need to be in there getting rid of saddam but what bothers me is the bullshit we've been fed by our own government. We have yet to prove anything. Plus a lot of our evidence was proven false... but everyone seemed to forget as soon as we went in. It's embarassing to say the least.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Expert_Monk
Thats pretty stupid, why would they not want to find anything? Saddam is a threat to them too. I agree that we need to be in there getting rid of saddam but what bothers me is the bullshit we've been fed by our own government. We have yet to prove anything. Plus a lot of our evidence was proven false... but everyone seemed to forget as soon as we went in. It's embarassing to say the least.


They wouldn't want to find anything because there Appeasers, much like Chamberlan didn't want to find any thing wrong with Nazi germany even though the signs were all THERE.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Expert_Monk
Thats pretty stupid, why would they not want to find anything? Saddam is a threat to them too. I agree that we need to be in there getting rid of saddam but what bothers me is the bullshit we've been fed by our own government. We have yet to prove anything. Plus a lot of our evidence was proven false... but everyone seemed to forget as soon as we went in. It's embarassing to say the least.
They shot scuds at us. Those were prohibited by 1441. We also found antidotes to chemical weapons and chemical suits. Looks like we found it. Plus most of that investigation was headed by France and Russia. You know who the top 3 crediters of Iraq were? France, Russia, and China, in that order. These are the biggest three countries not wanting to go to war with Iraq...wonder why.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
They wouldn't want to find anything because there Appeasers, much like Chamberlan didn't want to find any thing wrong with Nazi germany even though the signs were all THERE.
Like what Churchill said. "They had to choose between disgrace and war, they choose disgrace, and they will get war" Appeasment lead to WWII

[yeat182]

something is wrong with the UN when they appoint Iraq to head the Disarmarment program, and Libya to head the Human Rights program...

[Expert_Monk]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
They shot scuds at us. Those were prohibited by 1441. We also found antidotes to chemical weapons and chemical suits. Looks like we found it. Plus most of that investigation was headed by France and Russia. You know who the top 3 crediters of Iraq were? France, Russia, and China, in that order. These are the biggest three countries not wanting to go to war with Iraq...wonder why.

ummmm.... antidotes and chemical suits? That doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence to me. And anyway I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about the false evidence we brought to the UN http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html