I have some questions - Another thread about Iraq

[reagan lives]

I'm a very busy man nowadays, but every now and then I poke my head in here to see if anything interesting is being written. Surprise surpise, the answer is no. Lately all I see is a plethora of threads about Iraq, usually started by "commies" and usually with a distinct anti-war slant. Which begs a few questions, which I'd like to direct towards our self-styled revolutionary friends:

1) Do you support the current regime that controls Iraq, given their human rights record and history of militarism?

2) If the answer to #1 is "no," then what do you think should be done about it? If you believe that Hussein should not stay in power, but do not believe that it warrants military action, then what is the correct remedy? Economic sanctions?

3) If the current Iraqi regime's sins (both actual and potential) don't yet warrant military intervention, then when will they? In other words, when will the danger they pose to their people, the surrounding nations, and the world at large be sufficient to justify the use of force?

4) Since I see all these threads in the "Socialism vs. Capitalism" forum, you guys must think that this Iraq issue has something to do with Socialism vs. Capitalism. What, exactly, does this have to do with socialism or capitalism?

Just asking.

[Pinko]

1) No

2) I believe military action could be nessarcery, but not yet. One thing I will grant the US is the current sabre rattling (or waving visciously more like) is having the effect of making Sadam more cooperative with the UN. The UN teams need access to potential inspection sites, but they also need to be independent of the objectives of their constituent nations.

3) The replacement of Sadam needs to occur after every other avenue of possibility has been exhausted. It needs UN backing, as unilateral action is in breach of the Geneva conventions. We cannot take the moral high ground if we stand on a giant pile of hypocracy.
Some years ago, Libya was the international bad guy. The US bombed Tripoli under the most shallow of pretexts. Now though, Gadafy's militancy has settled down and he has become a sensible leader allowing his country to prosper. His people are mostly happy and rather well off under his rule despite the sanctions placed upon Libya.
Sanctions need to be looked at. We need to help rebuild the damage done to Iraq's civil infrastructure but also make sure that is all that is done with the aid. We need to clean up their water supply (destroyed in the first gulf war), vaccinate their children, clean up the delpleted uranium that is lying around, use the no-fly zones to distribute food aid to the hungriest Iraqis. If we earn their trust, they will be more cooperative with us. If we earn their trust, they will have no reason to fly planes into buildings (that last one applies to the whole Arab world, not Iraq). People will remember your actions if you kick them when they are down or offer them a hand up, it is up to us to set the precident and make the first concilitory move.
We also need to apply the standards we espout in an unbiased manner to everyone, or risk the label of hypocrite. Israel is in breach of more UN resolutions than any other country in the world. the US has prevented UN weapons inspectors from inspecting US bioweapons plants. The US, Israel, UK and many other countrys have appaling human rights records. We need to address our own problems before we can take this high ground to preach from.
With the US stating that they are willing to defy the UN and do what the hell they want, they are sending a message to the rest of the world that behaviour like that is OK. It is nothing more than the perpetuation of a viscious circle.
Treat others as you would have them treat you.

4) Nothing. But many threads in SvC have nothing to do with either. Capitalists are only allowed to use this forum and it is the only place where we can debate with the opposition (so to speak). Personally, I think there should be a general discussion forum where anything goes and we can lock horns with the Right and Capitalists. That is essentially what this forum has become.


I know what you mean about not having much time to answer stuff. I am building a list of posts to answer, but justifying my statements is so bloody time consuming.

[Moskitto]

These are my awnsers not neccesarily representative of other members of the board.

1) Do you support the current regime that controls Iraq, given their human rights record and history of militarism?

No I do not support the current Iraqi regime which certainly needs to be removed, Hussein has massacred the Kurds before.

2) If the answer to #1 is "no," then what do you think should be done about it? If you believe that Hussein should not stay in power, but do not believe that it warrants military action, then what is the correct remedy? Economic sanctions?

direct military action shouldn't be treated as the only solution to the problem. Rather other means such as trying to destabilise the regime from within my motivating opposition forces should be used before military action. Economic Sanctions however have been shown time and again not to work if there isn't support amoungst the people eg. South Africa.

3) If the current Iraqi regime's sins (both actual and potential) don't yet warrant military intervention, then when will they? In other words, when will the danger they pose to their people, the surrounding nations, and the world at large be sufficient to justify the use of force?

Military action should be used as a last resort, rather than as a "he's crossed the line" policy.

4) Since I see all these threads in the "Socialism vs. Capitalism" forum, you guys must think that this Iraq issue has something to do with Socialism vs. Capitalism. What, exactly, does this have to do with socialism or capitalism?

I wonder the same thing often. I post stuff that I want capitalist's opinions in here because it's the only place you're allowed to post. Other than that I'd rather have a forum for non-capitalism vs communism matters where capitalists can post.

[new democracy]

1) no!!!!
2) give more help to iraqi opposition.
3) maybe that have some point, but bombing a country that was bombed already a few times and their people live in misery would not be a good thing.
4) right wingers tend to support the attack while left wingers don't.
and to sn: you said once that the iraqi people put saddam in power and this is not true. in 1,968 there was a coup under the leadership of saddam and another officer. it was not a popular revolution.

[Xvall]

1) Do you support the current regime that controls Iraq, given their human rights record and history of militarism?

Of course not. Why would I support a regime with such charachteristics? Although I may not wish for the country to be bombed, it does not mean that I wish for the regime to remain the same.

2) If the answer to #1 is "no," then what do you think should be done about it? If you believe that Hussein should not stay in power, but do not believe that it warrants military action, then what is the correct remedy? Economic sanctions?

Saddam Hussein should be killed. I would much like to see the workers and people of Iraq start some revolution, and personally oust him; followed by the creation of a far more democratic society. Military 'intervention' is not necessary

3) If the current Iraqi regime's sins (both actual and potential) don't yet warrant military intervention, then when will they? In other words, when will the danger they pose to their people, the surrounding nations, and the world at large be sufficient to justify the use of force?

Never. I will most likely never support an attack on this country. (Unless it was ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY NECECARRY and Saddam had stated clearly that he was planning on launching attacks on other nations) If the regime is evil then do something about the people ruling the country. Do not bomb their people. Weather or not the things you are bombing count as 'military targets' or 'civilian targets' is irrelevant. Think of it this way. If your neighbor has some quarrel with you, do you take it out on his children; his dogs; no, you take it out with him.

4) Since I see all these threads in the "Socialism vs. Capitalism" forum, you guys must think that this Iraq issue has something to do with Socialism vs. Capitalism. What, exactly, does this have to do with socialism or capitalism?

Since I haven't really started any of those threads; I don't know. I assume that since the capitalists are not allowed in the 'Politics' section, and that since most of the capitalists (Correct me if I am uninformed) are in support of a war against Iraq; they posted it here.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 10:01 pm on Sep. 25, 2002)

[El Che]

RL,

1) I do not "support" the Iraqi regime, in that I do not have a favorable opinion of it.

2) Nothing should be done about it. There is no remedy. Hussein is not your problem, if anything he is the problem of the Iraqis. There is absolutly no justification in international law for policies of "regime change".

3) Iraq does not pose a threat to anyone. And there are ways, short of force, to make sure of it. But YOU WANT to use force. ARG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

4) I dunno man, you tell me.

[reagan lives]

First of all, none of you know my personal position on this issue. I'm glad that out of four people, El Che was the only one presumptuous enough to actually tell me what I "WANT," but Drake and new democracy at least implied that "right-wingers" support war and "left-wingers" don't, which is grossly untrue. Especially since, around here, "right-winger" is defined as anyone who's not a socialist or collectivist of some sort (I don't like making such spurious distinctions, but you all seem married to them). In any event, those sorts of presumptions are dangerous to your intellectual health. Especially since Western liberal capitalist democracies INVENTED pacifism.

That said, El Che seems to be the statistical outlier here, so we'll deal with him first if the rest of you don't mind. If we analyze his answers to questions 1 and 2, we see that he makes no attempt to deny the human rights abuses that I alluded to in the opening post, yet he claims that the regime that perpetrates them is "the problem of" those who are being subjugated. Viva la revolucion. If the stance of the Left these days is that dictators who keep their populi in squalor while they kick back in their palaces are someone else's problem, Marx must be spinning in his grave. "There is no remedy." That is clearly false on its face, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't think anyone denies that a US-led attempt to remove Saddam from power would be successful. What you meant to say was "There is no remedy that I find morally justifiable." And if international law was worth the paper it's written on, we once again wouldn't be having this conversation, because Saddam would be clipping his toenails in a jail cell in the Hague.

As for his answer to the third one, El Che seems to be of the belief that "Iraq does not pose a threat to anyone." What a poor choice of words. Whereas vox seems to be galavanting around challenging the students here to provide him with classified documents to prove positively that Washington's particular assertions are true, El Che chooses here to make a positive statement, which places the burden of proof on his shoulders. So now I can pull a vox, and ask El Che to prove to me that "Iraq does not pose a threat to anyone." He also contends that there are ways "short of force" to deal with the threat whose existence he positively denies. I'd like to hear some of those as well.

As for the rest of you, you all seem to be amenable to a regime change in Iraq, and even supportive of the use of force by revolutionary elements within Iraq (the same elements that have been successfully kept down by Saddam for a decade or more, a situation which shows no signs of changing). So then, it's not the ends (removal of Saddam) or the means (use of force) that you disagree with, it's actually the actor who would be carrying them out (the United States). In this light, it seems to me that your reason for taking the stance that you do is nothing more than knee-jerk anti-Americanism, which while possessive of a certain prima facie appeal to teenagers and Europeans is actually not such a good pretext to base rational and informed judgements off of. Pinko is the exception here...he doesn't advocate the use of force, although he is grown up enough to realize that there comes a point where it is the only option. However, Pinko, the main functional part of your argument (that is to say, the part that's something other than grandstanding about US "hypocrisy," as if such a thing exists in International Relations) seems to posit an Iraq that is not controlled by Saddam. Your discussion about feeding and vaccinating the Iraqi children, et cetera...all these things would only occur after the forced removal of Saddam, which would only occur after all other options have been exhausted?

Good night.

[ArgueEverything]

1) Do you support the current regime that controls Iraq, given their human rights record and history of militarism?

1)No.
2)I'm opposed to any foreign intervention, particularly by the West who intend to replace Saddam by people just as brutal. Rather, I advocate the Iraqi regime's dethronement by the people of Iraq themselves. Preferrably, by the workers, which is not as unlikely as you may think - the Iraqi Communist Party, if i recall correctly, was the largest political party in Iraq before Saddam came to power and began his reign of terror against the Left.

3) If the current Iraqi regime's sins (both actual and potential) don't yet warrant military intervention, then when will they? In other words, when will the danger they pose to their people, the surrounding nations, and the world at large be sufficient to justify the use of force?

3)Maybe a good time would be when Iraq's neighbours support such a war? As it stands, not even Kuwait is backing the US. I predict that Iraq will never be a significant threat to its neighbours and the world due to the crippling sanctions imposed on it by the UN, which will be kept in place at least until Saddam is gone.

As for the threat he poses to his own people, I personally don't believe that is the grounds for a military invasion by the United States, especially, as I stated above, considering the people they are planning to replace him with. Further, if the US would like to take the moral high ground and invade Iraq on the basis of Saddam's brutal policy towards his own people, then wouldn't it be more sensible to invade those countries which have much worse human rights records? Also, if his policy towards his own people warrants and invasion, why is the US friendly with other countries which are just as bad, such as China?

[reagan lives]

Those are pretty much all the same arguments I addressed in my last post, except for your assertion that the US "intend[s] to replace Saddam by people just as brutal." I wonder where you got this idea from, or if it's purely conjecture.

[peaccenicked]

its the oil stupid........blind war monger.........
1)What do you think of non violent conflict resolution?
2) who has killed the most Iraqi - the US admin or saddam?

RL will predictably bore us with the US propaganda that Saddam is to blame for sanctions and being for the mass bombing of Iraq. He is a fucking disgusting moron.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:29 pm on Sep. 26, 2002)

[new democracy]

rl, i didn't say that right wingers ALWAYS support this wars i said TEND to support. and same goes to left wingers.

[reagan lives]

Wow, pea¢eniKKKed actually called me a "war monger" even AFTER I pointed out that I have never made my views on this subject known to you. Dumber than advertised.

[peaccenicked]

Pull the other one you have always backed up the propaganda of the war machine.

[Pinko]

[Regan Lives]
However, Pinko, the main functional part of your argument (that is to say, the part that's something other than grandstanding about US "hypocrisy," as if such a thing exists in International Relations) seems to posit an Iraq that is not controlled by Saddam. Your discussion about feeding and vaccinating the Iraqi children, et cetera...all these things would only occur after the forced removal of Saddam, which would only occur after all other options have been exhausted?

I don't think that is true. You can offer this hand of friendship to he existing regime, you make sure that these aid workers are given a token security escort and you pile social funding into the county.
The main drive of my point is that anti-western sentiment could well evapourate when we show that we are not the all conquering evil infidells that we are preceived to be. This hatred comes from various sources and if wee address these sources and prove ourselves to be everything they think we are not, then a softening of attitude can be reciprocated.

Also, there can be hypocracy in international relations (and it wasn't just the US I was refering to, the UK is just as bad, Israel is worse in some cases), the percieved double standards that we (as the west) eschew are clear to many, even a healthy portion of westerners.

[ArgueEverything]

"Those are pretty much all the same arguments I addressed in my last post, except for your assertion that the US "intend[s] to replace Saddam by people just as brutal." I wonder where you got this idea from, or if it's purely conjecture. "

Nope, it's not conjecture at all: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0922-02.htm

Besides, we know that it wouldn't be unprecedented for the US to back a dictator when it is in its "national interest".

[Stormin Norman]

Your question as to why the Iraqi situation appears in this forum is a good one. In your time here have you noticed a general theme that keeps rearing its ugly head? Claiming to support the rights of the underprivileged, the left is always the first to support that which is utterly perverse. Claiming that capitalism kills and has no justification; the left will defend the rights of a child killer of serial rapist. Ranting about the starving children in 3rd world nations that they claim America caused; they ignore the military dictators that rule these countries through the direct use of terrorism. Why would the Iraqi situation be any different? Do you honestly think that these same people would ignore their jaded mindset, put their ideology aside, and defend that which is just? If so, tell me any other time when they have proven themselves to honestly care about that which is right? Most of them will tell you that right and wrong are subjective ideas that have no basis. To me this seems a convenient line that justifies the kind of 'reforms' that the left wishes to impose on the masses. By defending the murderous treachery of another man, somehow it becomes easier for them to speak the kind of distortions that they preach. Of course, many of them know, too well, the results of their theory. Let's forget about those who are too ignorant to fully understand the ideas that they espouse. Let's focus on those like Vox and Peacenicked. Perhaps, someday they wish to hold the type of power that will allow them to commit acts equaling those of Hussein's. Perhaps, when they have killed thousands of people, perverts will exist to blur the distinction between right and wrong for them. They are setting up their own defense before the fact by professing such utter nonsense. Hooray for those of us like you Reagan, for you are capable of seeing through treachery and deceit.

[Stormin Norman]

Commondreams, yet another credible news source. Jesus Christ, it's getting to the point where I ignore the links you people present. Come on! Can't you find an A.P. source or something?

[Guest]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:46 am on Sep. 27, 2002
Commondreams, yet another credible news source. Jesus Christ, it's getting to the point where I ignore the links you people present. Come on! Can't you find an A.P. source or something?

That particular article actually comes from the Sunday Herald (sundayherald.com), a credible Scottish newspaper.

[Stormin Norman]

I don't know enough about the Sunday Herald to say one way or the other. You are right I jumped the gun and should have read the article. This is just a symptom of exactly how cynical I have become when presented with links by the left on this board. They do address an important point in the article. What to do when Saddam is gone? This is a valid point, but the vacuum theory has been debunked. It is the same argument that left Saddam in power for the last ten years. Obviously we should worry about the ramifications of removing him when we cross that bridge. He presents enough of a threat that it can be said that we made a mistake by following that logic in 1991. If the next leader proves worse, remove him. What about an argument for trial and error? The democratic experiment worked in France, England, and America. There is no reason for me to believe that it can't work in Iraq, although transition states are always shaky. A bold move like this would definitely be better than the alternative.

[ArgueEverything]

"This is a valid point, but the vacuum theory has been debunked. "

How so? You make this profound statement, but don't say anything to support it, except "It is the same argument that left Saddam in power for the last ten years", which is hardly a reason at all.

I contend that the "vacuum theory", as you call it, is supported by more than a century of American imperialism, which has seen numerous dictators (and sometimes even democratically elected leaders) replaced by even worse dictators WITH AMERICAN BACKING. Its the American backing that you seem to ignore, and which allows you to make a statement like "If the next leader proves worse, remove him". I'm sure you agree that Pinochet was worse than Allende, but since the former's dictatorship was in the interests of US foreign policy, he continued to rule. And the people of Chile suffered. In the same way, it is likely that the successor to Saddam will be a Western-backed dictator. The US won't replace him, because he will be their stooge, like Pinochet was. It will be the Iraqi people that suffer.

Which is why I want the Iraqi people to topple Saddam's regime themselves. That way they will have much more sovereignty over their own affairs than if they were ruled by a US-backed tyrant.

I see no prospects for a "democratic experiment" in Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East for that matter. Has the US shown any desire to improve Saudi Arabia's human rights record, or institute a democracy there? It certainly has the power to make such demands. Instead, it uses its army to prop up the Saudi feudal aristocracy, helping it suppress any attempts to revolutionise the oppressive system.

The fact is, the US needs a secure base in the Middle East. Traditionally, it has been Israel, but now Israel is becoming untenable because of intense Arab anti-Israel feelings (which compromise US economic interests in the region, since the US provides so much aid to Israel). So, I predict that once the US takes over Iraq, it will rule with an iron-fisted dictatorship, enabling the withdrawl of aid from Israel.


(Edited by ArgueEverything at 1:29 pm on Sep. 27, 2002)

[Xvall]

but Drake and new democracy at least implied that "right-wingers" support war and "left-wingers" don't, which is grossly untrue.

I really don't see where I implied that, but ok. All I did was talk about not wanting the U.S to invade Iraq. I don't think I mentioned the Right OR Left wing.

[Xvall]

Claiming to support the rights of the underprivileged, the left is always the first to support that which is utterly perverse.

Wait. Wait. Reagean just scolded me and new democracy for making generalizations about the 'right'. Now all you're doing is making generalizations about the 'left'. Yeah man. All of us are exactly the same! We support perverse things!

Claiming that capitalism kills and has no justification; the left will defend the rights of a child killer of serial rapist.

Once again. Another generalization. There is no diffirence between saying something like 'the left will defend the rights of child rapists' (Which we dont! When have we said such things!?) and saying something like 'The Americans are warmongers who wish only to cause death'.

Ranting about the starving children in 3rd world nations that they claim America caused; they ignore the military dictators that rule these countries through the direct use of terrorism.

Who put these dictators in power? Who funded these dictators? Who has accomlished nothing other than KILLING the people that these dictators control? Why don't they get rid of the actual dictator? Why do they insist on carpet bombing his people.

Why would the Iraqi situation be any different?

The Iraqi situation is to get oil. I don't know why you people don't understand this! If your stupid government really wanted to get rid of Saddam that bad, they could just assasinate him. Instead, they're going to bomb and invade the place, causing significant amounts of collateral damage, as well as many American deaths. Of course an idiot like you wouldn't give a shit, because you'll be nice and warm inside your cozy little capitalistic home, why other people's eighteen year old children will have thei]'pride'[/i] of fighting for their country, shooting children, risking their life, and coming back with a disorder! Jackass!

Do you honestly think that these same people would ignore their jaded mindset, put their ideology aside, and defend that which is just?

Yeah! Why dont' we defend just thinks like oil wars, embargoes, and ccarpet bombing villages! What is our fucking problem?

If so, tell me any other time when they have proven themselves to honestly care about that which is right?

GEE! About the million times we have opposed stealing from the poor, killing civilians, starving people, imperializing other continents, racism, sexism, and our support for equal rights! I guess those are all pretty 'irrelevant' things! Who needs them when we can have 'oil'! What SHOULD we be supporting? Are you implying that we SUPPORT Saddam, when have we SUPPORTED Saddam.

To me this seems a convenient line that justifies the kind of 'reforms' that the left wishes to impose on the masses.

You're right! Our shitty little reforms like help for the needy, and equality for ethnic minorities. Man are we unjust! We need to think ourselves over!

By defending the murderous treachery of another man, somehow it becomes easier for them to speak the kind of distortions that they preach.

Once again! Where are you coming up with this garbage!? What 'murderous treachery' have we defended! Seriously! And who is we?

Perhaps, someday they wish to hold the type of power that will allow them to commit acts equaling those of Hussein's.

Where did you come up with that? Another 'Red Scare' conspiracy! Yeah! We're secretly tricking the masses to help us, so we can use them to start war! We're protesting wars, because we want to spread violence! Wait a minute..

Perhaps, when they have killed thousands of people, perverts will exist to blur the distinction between right and wrong for them.

We have killed no one! Now you're debating on your hypothesis! How pathetic! Your nation, however, has commited genocie.

They are setting up their own defense before the fact by professing such utter nonsense. Hooray for those of us like you Reagan, for you are capable of seeing through treachery and deceit.

Raegan supported Osoma Bin Laden; hailing him as a 'freedom fighter', supporting him and his fight against the Soviet Union. He also supplied weapons to Iran. And yet you worship him.

[El Che]

"I'm glad that out of four people, El Che was the only one presumptuous enough to actually tell me what I "WANT,""

I reset that. Firstly when I said "you" I didn`t mean you personaly. For all I know you might just be some misguided individual who swallows the bullshit he is spoon fed. I was refering to Mr.Bush&co. Further, my conclusion that the Bush administration WANTS to atack Iraq is only logical. That they have ulterior motives is almost certain, the full extent of these one can only speculate.

"(...) yet he claims that the regime that perpetrates them is "the problem of" those who are being subjugated. Viva la revolucion. If the stance of the Left these days is that dictators who keep their populi in squalor while they kick back in their palaces are someone else's problem, Marx must be spinning in his grave."

lol, you probably didn`t realise it but you contradicted your self. Here I`ll explain: I said it is the oppressed who should revolt, not the contrary. Thus Marx would agree with me, as you point out unintentionaly.

What I reject is US hypocrisy. That and the cost, paid for with the blood of Iraqi civilians, of your unreflected and illintetioned acts. This is not merely a possiblity, thanks to economic sactions, messure you consider weak, it is a reality.

A US war on Iraq is both moraly and legaly reprehensible. Moraly because of its predictable results, based on an understanding of the US`s past actions, geopolitical position (past and present), intentions and a degree of speculation. If you want to improve the human rights record in Iraq or promote democracy I am all for it, but I reject the course of action in question here. Both because I feel it will not achive the desired objectives, that aren`t objectives in the first place, and because if the suffering of war can be avoided I believe it should be.
With what would you replace international law? With Washington? Excuse my french but you can fuck right off. Your unilateral with-us-or-against-us hegemony will not stand for long. There is no need for proof of anything really, whatever Mr.Bush says. Today Afganistan, tomorrow Iraq and the day after whatever "evil" springs to mind, one sided close minded mind at that. Haven`t you caused enough destruction? What will it take to satisfy your ego?

"As for his answer to the third one, El Che seems to be of the belief that "Iraq does not pose a threat to anyone." (...) So now I can pull a vox, and ask El Che to prove to me that "Iraq does not pose a threat to anyone.""

Sorry but you can`t turn the tables on me. It would suffice to say that my belief that Iraq does not pose a threat to anyone is based on your, demonstrated, inability to prove the contrary. Or in other words, its is based on the pressumtion of innocence. Oh what, you think only US citizens are deserving of such considerations? Thought so.

But because I am such a kind soul I´ll do more then that, here are some of the reasons (http://www.traprockpeace.org/counter-dossier.html) why I think Iraq does not pose a threat to others.

Ways short of force? There are many. Organisations can get involved on different levels to address different problems. The UN is of critical importance here, but other civil society and non-goverment agencies have their space too. Alot can be done in a context of mutual respect, you (yankees, i.e the bush adm) should try it sometime.


(Edited by El Che at 6:40 am on Sep. 28, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Stormin Norman, he's a moron

He sucks up to Uncle Sam
but he does nt really give a damn.
If we die he does not care
but he tell us we're unfair.

Tells us we want to dictate
Tell us our views on the State.
Tells us that he is a ''Star''
Tell us , just who we are.

Stormin Norman masterbator
Who really wants to be the dictator

Stormin Norman He's a moron

Everything about him is so boring
Until he has all but snoring.
He tries to be oh so aggressive
while telling us we are all so oppressive

Every now and again we laugh
that god has made this creature daft.
What on earth is in his brain but ham
believes that Iraq is Saddam

Bombing is the best solution
for a conflict resolution.
If you think any other way
You are just a red to blow away

Stormin norman is a moron

But we wish it was not so.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:41 am on Sep. 28, 2002)

[canikickit]

Norm, Norm he's our man, if he can't make ridiculous generalisation or compare something to something else in the most irrelevant way possible, then only Capitalist Imperial can!

[El Che]

lol I like the poem :)