All cappies are inbred, and commies are gay - Alternatives t

[munkey soup]

Ignore the title, I just did that so people might actually look here and come up with some propositions.

As I have stated many times before, I am personally against a war. But (I believe) Saddam is unpredictable and a little crazy. What if he were able to obtain a small nuclear weapon and sneak it into the U.S. (or for that matter any other country)? Or he succeded in carrying out another sort of attack on the U.S.? Wouldn't we have to look back and say "we should have taken him out when we had the chance."?

With that in mind, does anyone have any ideas for alternative methods for changing the situation? I'm speaking more on the short term, but if anyone wants to rant on how the whole system needs changing (which is true) thats fine.

Note: to anyone who is in favor of the war, please don't just post that war is the only solution, I know I can't stop you, but I want a real discussion here.

[Nateddi]

I say we attack Israel. They have a history of not allowing UN inspectors and not signing treaties.

Or how about Pakistan? Pakistan is led by a military dictator and has nuclear weapons.

Or Egypt? Egypt has a better military than Iraq, and most hijackers came from Egypt second to Saudi Arabia.


MS: I wonder, why would saddam want to attack the US? Do you not think it is a bit strange how he went from an irrelevant bystander to an evil dictator out to destroy America in a short period of time without any new events or evidence. The ministry of truth is working phenomenally.

[Pinko]

War is not the only solution. Look at Libya for example. Diplomacy is the only valid means of addressing the problems at hand.
Detractors will say "but we tried diplomacy and it failed", but they are wrong. The west tried dictating terms to Iraq, which funnily enough said something like "Tell it to the ass".
Diplomacy requires compromise. Both sides need to give a little. The western nations need to address the concerns of the Iraqis and Iraq needs to address the concerns of the west. People do not develop deep seated hatreds for no reason, something caused the hate to surface, be it trying to control Iraqs natural resources (oil), or the unquestioning backing of Israel, or the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (part of the Holy Land). If the west starts to address these problems, then I would imagine Iraq would start to be a little more cooperative. If we build bridges by giving as well as taking, instead of demanding all the time, people would be a little more willing to talk.
Both sides need to address the greivances of the other side and it takes both sides to want to.
Using Iraq as nothing more than a shitting ground to get the economy back on track is going to do nothing more than create more terrorists and make the problem worse.
Attacking Iraq militarily will hasten thier nuclear programme. It will harden resolve and spur on the people involved, it will create new people willing to help Iraq achieve nuclear weapon capability. Ironicly, the bombing of Iraq may be providing them with material for nuclear weapon. Depleted uranium, although is nowhere near weapons grade, is ideal for tamping the initial explosion to stop the nuclear detonation fizzling out.

When the western world leans to negotiate instead of producing lists of demands backed by the threat of war, then there may be a peaceful way out of the situation.

[Edelweiss]

Good points Nateddi.
The US government don't have any proof that Saddam has any mass destruction weapons. An attack on Iraq would be insane, it would ignite the whole middle east. Saddam hasn't any links to AlQuaida. These are the reaons why all US allies except the UK are against an attack on Iraq.

[munkey soup]

As I have said before in other topics, but should have probably said in this one as well, I realize why the bush administration is doin all this sabre rattling, it is for their own selfish reasons.

And I understand what you're gettin' at Nateddi (which is amazing since the MoT has apparently brainwashed me), but I think what Saddam has done to the Kurds (and his own people) and his war against Iran and invasion of Kuwait (although I recently heard someone say that this was because Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraqi fields, can anyone verify this) is an indication of his instability. Granted, I probably shouldn't have used the U.S. so much as an example of him attacking.

But this is all just my brainwashed opinion.

[Pinko]

I posted something about Iraq's reasons for invading Kuwait. Having looked into it some more, it is in doubt as to whether Iraq informed the UN, but the US knew. It is by no means the only reason, other reasons are explored in some of these links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/14/...ain233586.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/14/world/main233586.shtml) -recent

http://www.nowarcollective.com/gulfwarfactsheet.htm -some facts

http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/gulfwar/.../whyinvade.html (http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/gulfwar/whyinvade.html) -reasons



(Edited by Pinko at 11:43 pm on Sep. 5, 2002)

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Nateddi on 10:03 pm on Sep. 5, 2002
I say we attack Israel. They have a history of not allowing UN inspectors and not signing treaties.

Or how about Pakistan? Pakistan is led by a military dictator and has nuclear weapons.

Or Egypt? Egypt has a better military than Iraq, and most hijackers came from Egypt second to Saudi Arabia.

How about the US?? They have the world's most powerful military and the most weapons of mass destruction, and it's a little while since a UN inspector went through there isn't it??

[Nateddi]

If saddam has long range missiles, and the yankees invade him, he has every right to strike back.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Nateddi on 8:51 pm on Sep. 6, 2002
If saddam has long range missiles, and the yankees invade him, he has every right to strike back.

This is a valid point. The US is at more threat of "terrorist" attack if they invade a country with those capabilities than if they stay the fuck away...

[suffianr]

Well, it's happened. Coalition forces have attacked Iraqi air defences. Special forces troops are going in. So, what now?

[Stormin Norman]

Regime Change.

Its kind of like a change of underwear only messier.

Bye-bye Sadam. I hope you die like the dogs that you helped Al Quida kill.

Next stop, Saudi Arabia. Then maybe back into Somalia. The sky is the limit. Perhaps we can get into a position to clean up the mess in Pakistan. Guarantee that Bin Laden is in one of those countries.

[jon doe]

G'day


These are the reaons why all US allies except the UK are against an attack on Iraq.

unfortunatly not.... john howard (australian PM) has also backed the US. Infact he's been using more violent rhetoric than bush. To the best of my knowledge Howard, Bush and Blair are the only ones who are backing the war (the axis of evil one might say)

thanks
-r.


P.S this is totaly unrelated but what does 'hasta la victoria siempere' mean? im guessing it has smoething to do with victory

[vox]

"I hope you die like the dogs that you helped Al Quida kill."

Any proof of this, SN? Or is this just another of your very famous lies?

See, after September 11, 2001, the US spent a lot of time and money trying to link Iraq with the attacks, but it couldn't. It's rather hard to understand, really, why Hussein and bin Laden would work together, considering their vast differences in ideology. Osama, you see, doesn't like Sadam, whose Ba'th party is not fundamentalist. Why, Hussein didn't even make women wear burqas! In Iraq, women were educated. Very very bad to a guy like Osama.

So, put up or shut up.

vox

[Stormin Norman]

Have you seen the new tapes purchased by CNN and CBS? In it Al Quida is engaged in training with chemical weapons, and test them on dogs. Iraq has an extensive chemical weapons program. Experts say that judging from the way the dog's died it was some type of nerve agent like Vx or Sarin. Now how would a bunch of guys living in caves get their hands on weapons this sophisticated? It could have been any number of state sponsors of terrorism. Hell, they could have got it from China for all I know.

Surely, you wouldn't say that Osama or Hussein are religious men. Would you? Do you not think that they could put their religious differences aside to achieve a common goal, the destruction of the U.S.. I think these are men who would stop at nothing to commit murder, and the fact that they would kill dogs helps prove that fact.

Don't confuse me as being someone who is concerned about laying out a case to convince liberals that it is a good idea to eliminate Hussein. If you can not see the benefit of ridding the world of such a man, then there is no help for you. I don't care for excuses, just kill the vermin.

[vox]

I heard an expert too, SN, saying that it was very hard to determine what the agent used to kill the dogs was, but that, given the exposure that the people using the agent would have endured, it couldn't be something like VX or Sarin. Hmmm.

Whether Osama fits your personal definition of "religious" isn't the issue. His philosophy, like Pat Robertson's, is based on religion. I wouldn't call Pat Robertson a "religious" man, but there's no denying the role of religion in his politics. Same with Osama.

But, once again, you're ignoring the question: DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF?

All you give is conjecture. Nothing to substantiate your claim. Strike one.

vox

[Stormin Norman]

Vox,

I got news for you, bub. You missed the point of my original post. Did you not hear me when I said that I was not concerned about convincing you liberals about the need to go into Iraq? I was interjecting an opinion that it is about time. It was my way of showing hapiness in the administration's decision. If I used conjecture, so what. Do you have a point or are you simply trying to irritate me?

When Sadam dies I will dance in the streets singing ding dong the witch is dead. Would you like to debate with me about my use of the word witch when I do this? If so I will invite you to the kegger I will throw to commemorate the event. Nothing better at a kegger than an debate between a mouthfoaming liberal and a conservative.

[Smoking Frog II]

Admit that commies are not gay, or might hire a mercenary to fuck your hot ass.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:51 am on Sep. 7, 2002
Regime Change.

Its kind of like a change of underwear only messier.

Bye-bye Sadam. I hope you die like the dogs that you helped Al Quida kill.

Next stop, Saudi Arabia. Then maybe back into Somalia. The sky is the limit. Perhaps we can get into a position to clean up the mess in Pakistan. Guarantee that Bin Laden is in one of those countries.


actually, many people reckon OBL is either dead or in america! so what do you think of that? may i ask why you want a war with iraq, are there any real reasons?!

[Storman Normin]

I woul;d agree with your proposition, providing these 'commies' and 'cappies' you speak of are lower or middle class, For I am the one perfect human, Stormin Norman. My name shall go down in history.

-----
Whatever the answer, we should refuse to let science become the dogma that subjugates the masses like the religion of the Dark Ages. Every legitimate claim should have evidence to support its claim, but if further investigation rules that theory improbable that theory should be abandoned and replaced with a better explanation.
-me 1/2

[suffianr]

"I woul;d agree with your proposition, providing these 'commies' and 'cappies' you speak of are lower or middle class, For I am the one perfect human, Stormin Norman. My name shall go down in history."

Oh no, not another one...I'm getting too old for this. Really. :)

[vox]

Comrades,

Notice that SN backs off like a dog beaten in the street when he's clearly shown to be wrong!

He first says, "Bye-bye Sadam. I hope you die like the dogs that you helped Al Quida kill."

He does not qualify this but states it as fact.

Now he says it's all just "conjecture!"

When will your lies stop?

vox

[Storman Normin]

Yes, my fake friend, Let us fuck up the middle east for a bit, hmm? YOU BASTARD! WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIE TONIGHT???

[Pinko]

Invading Iraq is going to fuck up the middle east more than anything else.

[SN]
"In it Al Quida is engaged in training with chemical weapons, and test them on dogs."

You say this as if it were abhorrent, yet history clearly records that the US and UK have tested chemical and biological agents on their own troops (not to mention the radiation tests in the early days of nuke testing).

[KickMcCann]

Its obvious what has happened. The US won the Cold War, and to the victor goes the spoils. The US has adopted the "domino theory" from the fallen USSR. This theory, which the US government once feared so much, has become part of their foreign policy, and it works. Afghanistan was the starting point, it was the easiest, next comes Iraq, then Iran, then maybe Syria, then finally Saudi Arabia. I might also leave room for Sudan in their too. And once these countries are changed, the corrupt, false, form of Islam, known as Whabbism, the one that says you must worship a monarch before you worship your god, will stop speading its filth and lies. The arab dictators and extremists, whose sole desire is to murder Jews, will stop brainwashing Palestinians into suicide bombers and making them front line fodder in their war against Jews. This will allow the moderates in Palestine to take power and finally create a 2-state solution. With no war to fight, Sharon, who is just as bad as the Arab extremists and dictators, will have no possible way to stay in power.
Can you say peace and democracy? But maybe we should just leave things the way they are, and let the totalitarian governments brainwash and oppress their people.