"Bomb Iraq!" - Gotta Read This... [Archive]

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th June 2003, 15:43

Some of you may have heard this, I don't know. But I only just found it, so forgive me if I'm a bit behind.

And I know it may be a little out of date, but hey, it still applies I suppose....So......

To the tune of “If You're Happy And You Know It”
all together now.......

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's all the proof we need,
If they're not there, they must be,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.

If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 15:59

COmming from someone who has the Ayetollah Kommeni(typo?) as his avatar you dont have a leg to stand on by posting this.

(Edited by Loknar at 4:00 pm on June 6, 2003)

Pete

6th June 2003, 16:03

How so mr Loknar the oh so intelligent one. Tell me what the Ayetollah has to do with him not 'hav[ing] a leg to stand on'

Loknar

6th June 2003, 16:07

Someone who has the picture of a the father of modern trerrorism is moaning about America bombing iraq?

Pete

6th June 2003, 16:14

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... you biased little man.

Th Ayetollah freed his people from one of the most pro-USA brutal dictatorships in the world. Shah Pahvelli (sp).

Modern Terrorism is best described the the sound of an American bomber flying over a poor 3rd world country unloading its payload on to a pharmecutical plant.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 16:20

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:14 pm on June 6, 2003
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... you biased little man.

Th Ayetollah freed his people from one of the most pro-USA brutal dictatorships in the world. Shah Pahvelli (sp).

Modern Terrorism is best described the the sound of an American bomber flying over a poor 3rd world country unloading its payload on to a pharmecutical plant.

Right, terrorism isnt shooting an old American man-who was in a wheelchair- and dumping him into the ocean. Terrorism isnt highjacking a plane, killing an American and throwing him out like he was a piece of shit.

I dont deny he freed his people, but he wasnt the nicest man, he had about 1200 people executed publicly. He spouts 'death to America' ect.. Despite what he has done he was a modern foundation to Islamic fundameltalism and terrorism.

Pete

6th June 2003, 16:26

Do you equate Islam with terrorism??

I know you equate Terrorism with anti-Americanism. America has no right to be anywhere but in America, yet they hold sway in many many countries, or have, through the use of friendly dictators.

Anyways War is the final form of terrorism.

Dirty Commie

6th June 2003, 16:28

No one denied that terrorism isn't limited to amerikkkan wars, but the truth is we sponsor many of the dicators we accuse of harboring terrorists. We fund terrorism, then whine when they fight for their independence from the oppresive puppets we set up.

Why is this in OI?

(Edited by Dirty Commie at 11:28 am on June 6, 2003)

Loknar

6th June 2003, 16:32

Do you equate Islam with terrorism??

I think it is used as a tool by many ISlamic clerics who live in villages.

I know you equate Terrorism with anti-Americanism. America has no right to be anywhere but in America, yet they hold sway in many many countries, or have, through the use of friendly dictators.

I dont equate it entirely with anti-Americanism but it is there. We have every right top be in Cuba, Germand, Japan and the Philipines because we won a war against them.

Anyways War is the final form of terrorism.

War and terrorism are 2 entirely different things. War is necessary sometimes.

Dirty Commie

6th June 2003, 16:37

Because we won a war with them?! We went to war with those countries to free them, not make them lackeys of our military! You are one of the most arrogant people who have came to this board.

The only way we would have aright to be in anycountry other than amerikkka would be if the people consented to it, not if a puppet dictator said we could.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 16:41

Quote: from Dirty Commie on 4:37 pm on June 6, 2003
Because we won a war with them?! We went to war with those countries to free them, not make them lackeys of our military! You are one of the most arrogant people who have came to this board.

The only way we would have aright to be in anycountry other than amerikkka would be if the people consented to it, not if a puppet dictator said we could.

Well those bases we have in those nations are strategic locations. You dont actually expect us to just leave a country after a World War would you? We will have a base in Iraqw as will the Brits but that doesnt mean we run the government. Look at germany and Japan, 2 of the bect economies in the world but we retain a military presense in both countries.

Dirty Commie

6th June 2003, 16:47

I don't see how if we liberate a country, we have the justification to maintain a military presence...Strategic locations? why do we need them? unless we are going to have another world war, the united states of aggression have no reason to maintain a military presence anywhere except here.

And yes, after a war in which we initiate, we should allow the United Nations to have control of the electoral process.

atlanticche

6th June 2003, 16:51

Loknar you sound a lot like a Stalinist

we have no right to have a military presence any other country than our own

Dirty Commie

6th June 2003, 16:53

If loknar keeps this up, I propose a ban, or at leats, we mov every thread he posts in out of OI so he can't post at all and wither away into obscurity. :biggrin:

Loknar

6th June 2003, 17:00

I don't see how if we liberate a country, we have the justification to maintain a military presence...Strategic locations? why do we need them?

We didnt liberatge Japan and Germany we fought them in a declared war. We like to have bases ebcaujse it is easier to refuel a Carrier Battle Group in Japan than heading all the way to Pearl Harbor an it is easier to conduct military operations in the region if it is ever necessary.

And yes, after a war in which we initiate, we should allow the United Nations to have control of the electoral process.

The UN didnt do anything to support us so they should only observe the elections nothing more.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 17:02

Loknar you sound a lot like a Stalinist

In many ways I suppose I would have his attitude.

we have no right to have a military presence any other country than our own

Germany has a base in Texas. We have a joint defense iniative with Canada.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 17:04

Quote: from Dirty Commie on 4:53 pm on June 6, 2003
If loknar keeps this up, I propose a ban, or at leats, we mov every thread he posts in out of OI so he can't post at all and wither away into obscurity. :biggrin:

So you put FREEDOM in your signature but you dont want me to speak because you disagree with me?

Dirty Commie

6th June 2003, 17:06

But why do we need to have military presence around the world? Why shouldn't the UN have electoral control/ You are stupid,The united nations exists for the purpose for doing that exaclty! Keeping elections fair and wars to a minimum. We don't have a demcracy in this country, why should we install a mock electoral process in Iraq?

I am wasting my time trying to clear your mind Loknar, say something reasonable and you'll stop getting so much flak about what you say.

atlanticche

6th June 2003, 17:07

Freedom is a misleading word it means freedom to do whatever when most things you cant and to say whatever you want exept anything against the government or any form of leadership

Loknar

6th June 2003, 17:11

Dirty Commie

Yeah the UN has been so sucessful so far.... We are humans and we will always fight until we are 1 unified planet. Organazations like the UN v I wish would have some teeth and kick some ass when it has to.

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th June 2003, 17:15

Back to Loknar's first post.

I wasn't actually posting this for a reason. The song just amused me. I was actually for the war on Iraq.

Also, your suggestion that Ayatollah Khomeini was the "Father of Modern Terrorism" is absolutly ridicuolous. For a man who peacefully protested and made speeches denouncing a leadership which was controlled by a country on the other side of the world, I don't think the title "Father of Modern Terrorism" is a justified title.

Furthermore, the regime which headed Iran that Ayatollah was protesting against was not acting in the interests of it's people, just the interests of America. Ayatollah was even forced into exile for many many years by the Shah's regime and under constant surveillance by intelligence agencies so to even just hint at him being linked with any form of terrorism is ludicrous, let alone proclaiming him "the Father of Modern Terrorism".

When he finally walked back into Iran as the new leader after the Shah fled due to the thousands and thousands of largely peaceful, but sometimes violent, protests, Ayatollah Khomeini of course created the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I think it is this action, to form an Islamic Republic, which you find a terrorist act. Therefore making you.....

a tosser.

Dirty Commie

6th June 2003, 17:16

Well, the UN knows when to intervene better than the u$a. The UN is not in place to kick ass, it is a peace keeping organization you dumbass. They intervene when a governement makes threats to its neigbors or the world, amerikkka intervenes when we have a chance to secure oil fields.

atlanticche

6th June 2003, 17:17

we can never have a unified planet because people will always have different interests

Dirty Commie

6th June 2003, 17:21

Quote: from atlanticche on 12:17 pm on June 6, 2003
we can never have a unified planet because people will always have different interests

That is 100% correct, and is my reasoning for an anarchistic society, people always have different interests...However, my argument on behalf of communism is that people putting their own interests forward only hurt the majority, which is why I am a communist.

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th June 2003, 18:17

Loknar, your ignorance and arrogance are overwhelming. The United States has no rights to have a military presence around the world because it intimidates their people, it spreads America's military power so that we have power, not only here, but also in other peoples' lands, and it strengthens the realtionships that America has with other countries, a relationship which, with the co-operation of foreign corrupt governements, works strictly in the interests of corporate America. In short, imperialism. Then again, according to whom does are these 'rights' determined? Who exactly has the power? The bourgeoisie has the power. Power derived from the appropriation of the labor of the working class. The working class which has no power, yet creates all the power. The working class which has no representation, but outpopulates every other class. They are the ones suffering from imperialism.

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th June 2003, 18:22

Just as with the pre-Khomeini Iranian Shah leadership.

jjack

6th June 2003, 18:36

Quote: from Loknar on 5:11 pm on June 6, 2003
Organazations like the UN v I wish would have some teeth and kick some ass when it has to.

I wish they would too. They finally started to show some teeth when they declined to serve as a rubber stamp for Bush's imperialist scheming.

Unfortunately, they failed to kick some ass when they withdrew their troops from the Iraq-Kuwait demilitarized zone when they should have bulked up their presence and repelled the American invaders.

The UN didnt do anything to support us so they should only observe the elections nothing more.

So if your friends don't play by your rules, you're going to take your ball and go home? The UN isn't there to play favorites to the United States. It's about time someone at least stood up and pointed out that we're overstepping our boundaries.

In any event, it would be better for the Iraqi people if the US troops and administration inside Iraq were replaced by the UN. The people of Iraq aren't there to serve the Americans. Now that we've bombed them all to hell, we can't go back and change it, but if we really took their right to self-determination seriously we would ask the United Nations to assist them in rebuilding their nation.

If we remain the sole power there (aside from Bush's British lap dogs) Iraq will become slave to the US's vested interests, whether Bush means well or not. That's just what happens when one nation is completely reliant on a more powerful nation; it's a leash around the weaker nation's neck.

Urban Rubble

6th June 2003, 19:28

"We have every right top be in Cuba, Germand, Japan and the Philipines because we won a war against them. "

When the fuck did we have a war with Cuba ? And where the hell is the country Germand ?

Pete

6th June 2003, 19:56

Lonkar

I think it is used as a tool by many ISlamic clerics who live in villages.

So you answered my question with a ‘yes’ then? Don’t dodge a straight question. It is yes or no.

I dont equate it entirely with anti-Americanism but it is there. We have every right top be in Cuba, Germand, Japan and the Philipines because we won a war against them.

You never won a war against Cuba, infact the complete opposite is true. Ever here of the bay of pigs? Germany and Japan. That was over 50 years ago. That gives you no right in a sovriegn country today. Philippines you won a war against the Spanish government and annexed the Philippines with great controversy almost 110 years ago.

War and terrorism are 2 entirely different things. War is necessary sometimes

False again. War is dropping bombs. It is killing civilians and soldiers. By declaring war on a nation you say “watch out for my army as I try to kill as much of yours as possible” how is that not terrorism?

The UN didnt do anything to support us so they should only observe the elections nothing more.

Doesn’t that make you wonder about the legitimacy of your actions… A war of aggression is… (you should know where this is going)

We didnt liberatge Japan and Germany we fought them in a declared war. We like to have bases ebcaujse it is easier to refuel a Carrier Battle Group in Japan than heading all the way to Pearl Harbor an it is easier to conduct military operations in the region if it is ever necessary.

Why do you need these military forces? If you don’t fuck with anyone they won’t fuck with you.

Yeah the UN has been so sucessful so far.... We are humans and we will always fight until we are 1 unified planet. Organazations like the UN v I wish would have some teeth and kick some ass when it has to.

If the UN had teeth America would be under attack by a majority of the world for fighting an illegal war against a sovriegn nation based on half truths, and to change a leader, which is in direct violation of the Doctrine of Sovereignty which all nations support by being part of the United Nations. Nice try.

Altanticche

Loknar you sound a lot like a Stalinist

Please refrain from such sectratarian and idiotic statements in the future.

RAM

6th June 2003, 20:04

I love that song!

Loknar

6th June 2003, 20:19

Socialsmo o Muerte

You're right, I was wrong in my analysis of cal;ling him the 'father of modern terrorism'. But Iran under his reign sparked such a hatred for America that allowed terrorist acts did occur. Of course he isnt the only one responcible for the reason they hated us. He was better than the Shah but he was still opressive.

(Edited by Loknar at 8:21 pm on June 6, 2003)

Loknar

6th June 2003, 20:23

Quote: from Dirty Commie on 5:16 pm on June 6, 2003
Well, the UN knows when to intervene better than the u$a. The UN is not in place to kick ass, it is a peace keeping organization you dumbass. They intervene when a governement makes threats to its neigbors or the world, amerikkka intervenes when we have a chance to secure oil fields.

The UN is an organazation made of of nationn, each with their own intereasts. This is why they are failing. Hell just look at Africa.

Pete

6th June 2003, 20:25

Answer my post Loknar. Just because it is big doesn't mean you have to be a fraid of it.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 20:27

Quote: from Victorcommie on 6:17 pm on June 6, 2003
Loknar, your ignorance and arrogance are overwhelming. The United States has no rights to have a military presence around the world because it intimidates their people,

If it is used for that purpose than I agree with you.

it spreads America's military power so that we have power, not only here, but also in other peoples' lands, and it strengthens the realtionships that America has with other countries, a relationship which, with the co-operation of foreign corrupt governements, works strictly in the interests of corporate America.

We work diplomatically more so than most nations. What was the French responce to the crisis in the Ivory Coast? Not diplomacy, over 10,000 troops was their answer.

In short, imperialism. Then again, according to whom does are these 'rights' determined? Who exactly has the power? The bourgeoisie has the power.

What about labour unions? They have the ability to ruin a copmpany. We also have laws againt monopolizing.
[b]

Dirty Commie

6th June 2003, 20:29

Lbour Unions can't bring a company down! Right now there is massive strike against Verizon, and the are fine, they hire scabs who gladly work for less, unions only work if they have all the workers in them.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 20:41

So you answered my question with a ‘yes’ then? Don’t dodge a straight question. It is yes or no.

I actually admire the Muslims. I know what their religon truely is and it isnt what you see today. It is used as a tool of hatred just as Stalin used the Orthodox church to encourage people to join the red army.

You never won a war against Cuba, infact the complete opposite is true. Ever here of the bay of pigs?

my mistake, I should say Spain.

Germany and Japan. That was over 50 years ago. That gives you no right in a sovriegn country today.

They arent under military occupation. If they want us to leave then we would because we have no right to stay therer. But Japan and Germany are good friends. ANd like I said Germany has an air base in Texas.

Philippines you won a war against the Spanish government and annexed the Philippines with great controversy almost 110 years ago.

Yes I agree, it was a dark chapter in our history. But I can admit it at least.

False again. War is dropping bombs. It is killing civilians and soldiers.

The difference is whether it is done on purpose or not. In 'Total War' however this doesnt apply.

By declaring war on a nation you say “watch out for my army as I try to kill as much of yours as possible” how is that not terrorism?

No by decareinf war you are informing the world that you intend to fight. Are telling me we shouldnt have declared war on Japan?

Doesn’t that make you wonder about the legitimacy of your actions… A war of aggression is… (you should know where this is going)

The UN has passed over 12 resolutions regarding Iraq. ZImbabwe and Libya are on the human rights councel. Iraq was on the disarmement councel. This is the UN. It is failing.

Why do you need these military forces? If you don’t fuck with anyone they won’t fuck with you.

HAHAHA you are nieve. 'Lets just hide maybe they wont bother us'. Let me tell you something, there will always be some guy building his military while people like you will have the "lets disarm'' attitude. I am surprised that after all this time nobody will listen to Winston Churchill.

If the UN had teeth America would be under attack by a majority of the world for fighting an illegal war against a sovriegn nation based on half truths, and to change a leader, which is in direct violation of the Doctrine of Sovereignty which all nations support by being part of the United Nations. Nice try.

Poor Saddam huh? Well nobody mentions his crimes and ever heard of a casus belli?

Loknar

6th June 2003, 20:43

Quote: from CrazyPete on 8:25 pm on June 6, 2003
Answer my post Loknar. Just because it is big doesn't mean you have to be a fraid of it.

What was the question? Didnt I adress it? I am sorry I am adressing 3 different people please bare with me :)

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th June 2003, 21:42

Loknar, I'm really looking forward to learning from you HOW Ayatollah Khomeini was "oppressive".

Actually, I'm more looking forward to hearing whether or not you actually know ANYTHING about the Iranian Revolution at all?

"But Iran under his reign sparked such a hatred for America that allowed terrorist acts did occur"

Maybe if that sentence made sense, I would actually be able to understand your point.

Khomeini first helped eject a government controlled by the imperialist America. Justice.

He then STOOD UP to the Western power in the Iran-Iraq war in which Iraq's plight was largely funded and aided by America.

Any "hatred" was not sparked by him. He was just defending his people; something which leaders are actually meant to do, although it is easy to forget that in this day in age.

Loknar

6th June 2003, 21:46

Why did he allow the American embassy to be taken over? He told the student protesters to stop the first time but the 2nd time he gave the signal.

I do know about the revolution.

And What about the people executed in public?

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th June 2003, 21:51

It is a part of the Shariah Law. The Shariah Law is implemented in an Islamic Republic. The people wanted an Islamic Republic. The people therefore permitted the use of Shariah Law. They therefore permitted such punishments.

Just thought I'd explain each stage of that as you seem to be missing the point in everyone elses posts because they don't explain each detail.

Why did he allow the American Embassy to be taken over?

Only because from that base, the American government had nigh on enslaved the Iranian people.

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th June 2003, 21:55

Loknar - "I am surprised that after all this time nobody will listen to Winston Churchill."

Well, that may be because he denounced the efforts of the whole of Britain's working class, abandoned his old political beliefs once he found himself in a bit of cash and said of Mahatma Gandhi, "That little brown man's naivety astounded me. He appeared to know nothing about the world around him, probably explaining why he was a representative of the people from that part of the world."

Just a suggestion as to reasons why we don't turn to wise ol' Winston for advice these days.