L
LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud
Guest
> look, dont get bitchy with me after i defended you against people who have
> nothing better to do than make up fake IDs and post pointless remarks
> about your nazism.
> of course i dont want saddam to have nukes. the thing is, he doesnt have
> em. there is no proof whatsoever. if there is, where the f*** is it?
I'm sorry you pay so little attention to the news, but weapons inspectors have destroyed weapons of mass destruction and the work Saddam has done on nukes over the years, so how can you sit there and say he hasn't been trying to build them? And the information has been in the news, from what weapins inspectors have found in the past, to what Iraqi defectors who WORKED ON SADDAM'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM have stated, to just a few weeks ago when Tony Blair showed satellite photos of facilities being reconstructed that have been used in the program. You're right he doesn't have one ready to launch. If he did we'd be in a world of trouble. Which is the whole point of acting now. DUH!!
>im
> sorry that im more distrustful of the government than you are,
You seem to be more distrustful of the American and British governments than you are of Saddm Hussein. After all, to you it's only a "possibility" that Saddam is "up to bad things," but you're 100% sure Bush is lying about *everything*. Not to mention your distrust for the other governments in the United Nations who have issued SEVENTEEN RESOLUTIONS to force Saddam to show what he's got and disarm - AS HE AGREED IN THE CEASEFIRE OF THE GULF WAR BUT HAS NEVER COMPLIED WITH. I can't figure out how Saddam,the fascit f*** freak, has earned such trust from you that you want him to have all benefit of the doubt, risking the lives of millions of people on it. I happen to think the burden of proof is on Saddam Hussein at this point, while you appear to be against weapons inspections that can expose the truth once and for all. Don't you want to find out the truth? Saddam's regime wrote to Kofi Anan (in a most derganged letter rambling on about zionism this and zionism that)claiming they have no weapons of mass destruction, and are not building nukes. This flieds in the face of all the intelligence reports, not just from America, but from England, Germany, the UN, the whole f***ing world, that he's a busy bee, hiding his weapons programs in modile trucks and pirvate residences. It's all a big conspiracy, is it? You think Tony Blair spends his evenings in smoke filled rooms thinking up massive conpsiracies to inflict evil upon the world? And how could it be that after the German chancellor's election was over (where he cynically capitalized on anti-American sentiments) he came out and praised the U.N. for their resolution?
If you're calling Bush and EVERYONE OTHER SANE LEADER IN THE WORLD a liar, you must think the weapons inspectors will find nothing, and therefore you should be 100% in favor of them.
>but i dont
> believe everything that is said. maybe if they backed it up with some real
> information. and that book that you mentioned doesnt prove anything. no, i
> havent read it, but it does not prove that in the here and the now saddam
> has nukes.]
Again, the point is, he's been working desperately to get nukes for a long time now, and he's got everything he needs to have them if he has a little more time.
This is proven and it's been all over the news. No one is saying we know he has nukes ready to launch "in the here and now." The point of the war is to keep that day from coming.
> newsflash: we're already in a depression.
See, this is the kind of tell-tale statement that makes me laugh. Aren't there any level-headed people left around here?
> bottom line: saddam is not THAT f***ing stupid. dont you think he knows
> that we can wipe the floor with his ass?
His whole history proves his M.O. is to make grave miscalculations in military strategy. He also stated to his aids that his big mistake was to invade Kuwait before he had nukes. In his speeches he says he wants a super-power in the region led by him. His personal hero is Stalin, having a whole bookshelf of books about him. He wants nukes to become a super-power, dominate the arab world, hold the world hostage, and of course his ultimate goal to kill all the jews in Israel to achieve the crowing place in history. In the last 15 years the guy has attacked all his neighbors. The guy, left alone, will f*** up the world. So I think it's gonna save plenty of lives to spend the 5 days to 5 months Donald Rumsfeld says it'll take to remove him, if he violated the UN resolution.
>dont you think he knows that if
> the rest of the world found out he had nukes,
You're opposed to weapins oinspections though. What exactly is the policy with respect top IRaq that you would favor? You haven't stated.
>the nations that have
> formerly protested american action over there would most likely lose all
> sympathy for him?
"SYMPATHY for him"? Anyone who has sympathy for that motherf***er is an enemy of humanity.
>i honestly think that saddam is a wee bit savvier than
> that.
YEah because he was so smart to invade Iran and waste a million lives, accomplishing exactly zero gain for himself. ANd he was a bright one to invade Kuwait. At the time he actually believed he could put up a fight against the international coalition. That's what his yes-men told him, so afraid of making him angry that they hyped up Iraq's milotary chances in meetings. After all, everyone working for Saddam is afraid to displease him, because he might throw them in a torture chamber at any moment.
And, again, what really says it all to me is how Saddam sacrifizes EVERYTHING
in his desperate craving to become a nuclear power. He has sacrifed IRaq's economy, IRaq's conventional military, and worst of all, Iraq's civilians, all to continue defying United Nations resolutions designed to keep him from continuing to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction, including nukes. That's how much he wants them. We've tried to get him to comply without forcefully toppling him, and that obviously can't work and is obviously costing many civilian lives.
So what we have right now, as the book I recommended argues, is a similar moment as when the French and British in the 1930s were fully capable of defeating Hitler. The French and British, in a world weary from WW1, decided to wait and see. And what did we see? Hitler got stronger, plowed over Europe, and cost the lives of millions of people. IRaq may not be the equivalent of Hitler's Germany, but the situation is comparable.
So...if you're opposed to weapons inspections, what do you SUPPORT doing?
I saw a woman on TV the other day who respresented the Iraqi Action something or other. An American group opposed to U.S. policy. the first time I saw her, she was screaming that the no-fly zones were illegal, to which her opponant, not believing his ears, asked (paraphrasing), "So you want the air protection pulled out, so Saddam can get back to slaughtering the Kuirds again?" She didn't reply to that, of course. She was too busy screaming like a retard about Evil America. LAter that day she was on again, and she was feeling so sorry for poor Saddam. She was ranting about how poor Saddam is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. The person debating was someone who defected from IRaq, and the discussion went like this (paraphrasing): Irai defector: "You're an American, right?" Deranged lady: "Yes, I was born in America, of IRaqi descent." Iraqi defector: "Well my God, it makes all the difference in the world. I lived under Saddam. Let me tell you, the IRaqi people are in a constant state of war with Saddam. You have no idea what you're talking about." Then the deranged lady started screaming and filibustering again.
Thankfully no one here is like that lady. But I hope you've really thought about what the best policy is for the good of the people in Iraq, the people in the region, and the rest of us. If you have, I can respect that. Icould be wrong and how events unfold is very unpredictable. But, again, why don't I see any policy ideas from you guys? Why do I only see how much you dislike Bush?
Is that all you're about?
> nothing better to do than make up fake IDs and post pointless remarks
> about your nazism.
> of course i dont want saddam to have nukes. the thing is, he doesnt have
> em. there is no proof whatsoever. if there is, where the f*** is it?
I'm sorry you pay so little attention to the news, but weapons inspectors have destroyed weapons of mass destruction and the work Saddam has done on nukes over the years, so how can you sit there and say he hasn't been trying to build them? And the information has been in the news, from what weapins inspectors have found in the past, to what Iraqi defectors who WORKED ON SADDAM'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM have stated, to just a few weeks ago when Tony Blair showed satellite photos of facilities being reconstructed that have been used in the program. You're right he doesn't have one ready to launch. If he did we'd be in a world of trouble. Which is the whole point of acting now. DUH!!
>im
> sorry that im more distrustful of the government than you are,
You seem to be more distrustful of the American and British governments than you are of Saddm Hussein. After all, to you it's only a "possibility" that Saddam is "up to bad things," but you're 100% sure Bush is lying about *everything*. Not to mention your distrust for the other governments in the United Nations who have issued SEVENTEEN RESOLUTIONS to force Saddam to show what he's got and disarm - AS HE AGREED IN THE CEASEFIRE OF THE GULF WAR BUT HAS NEVER COMPLIED WITH. I can't figure out how Saddam,the fascit f*** freak, has earned such trust from you that you want him to have all benefit of the doubt, risking the lives of millions of people on it. I happen to think the burden of proof is on Saddam Hussein at this point, while you appear to be against weapons inspections that can expose the truth once and for all. Don't you want to find out the truth? Saddam's regime wrote to Kofi Anan (in a most derganged letter rambling on about zionism this and zionism that)claiming they have no weapons of mass destruction, and are not building nukes. This flieds in the face of all the intelligence reports, not just from America, but from England, Germany, the UN, the whole f***ing world, that he's a busy bee, hiding his weapons programs in modile trucks and pirvate residences. It's all a big conspiracy, is it? You think Tony Blair spends his evenings in smoke filled rooms thinking up massive conpsiracies to inflict evil upon the world? And how could it be that after the German chancellor's election was over (where he cynically capitalized on anti-American sentiments) he came out and praised the U.N. for their resolution?
If you're calling Bush and EVERYONE OTHER SANE LEADER IN THE WORLD a liar, you must think the weapons inspectors will find nothing, and therefore you should be 100% in favor of them.
>but i dont
> believe everything that is said. maybe if they backed it up with some real
> information. and that book that you mentioned doesnt prove anything. no, i
> havent read it, but it does not prove that in the here and the now saddam
> has nukes.]
Again, the point is, he's been working desperately to get nukes for a long time now, and he's got everything he needs to have them if he has a little more time.
This is proven and it's been all over the news. No one is saying we know he has nukes ready to launch "in the here and now." The point of the war is to keep that day from coming.
> newsflash: we're already in a depression.
See, this is the kind of tell-tale statement that makes me laugh. Aren't there any level-headed people left around here?
> bottom line: saddam is not THAT f***ing stupid. dont you think he knows
> that we can wipe the floor with his ass?
His whole history proves his M.O. is to make grave miscalculations in military strategy. He also stated to his aids that his big mistake was to invade Kuwait before he had nukes. In his speeches he says he wants a super-power in the region led by him. His personal hero is Stalin, having a whole bookshelf of books about him. He wants nukes to become a super-power, dominate the arab world, hold the world hostage, and of course his ultimate goal to kill all the jews in Israel to achieve the crowing place in history. In the last 15 years the guy has attacked all his neighbors. The guy, left alone, will f*** up the world. So I think it's gonna save plenty of lives to spend the 5 days to 5 months Donald Rumsfeld says it'll take to remove him, if he violated the UN resolution.
>dont you think he knows that if
> the rest of the world found out he had nukes,
You're opposed to weapins oinspections though. What exactly is the policy with respect top IRaq that you would favor? You haven't stated.
>the nations that have
> formerly protested american action over there would most likely lose all
> sympathy for him?
"SYMPATHY for him"? Anyone who has sympathy for that motherf***er is an enemy of humanity.
>i honestly think that saddam is a wee bit savvier than
> that.
YEah because he was so smart to invade Iran and waste a million lives, accomplishing exactly zero gain for himself. ANd he was a bright one to invade Kuwait. At the time he actually believed he could put up a fight against the international coalition. That's what his yes-men told him, so afraid of making him angry that they hyped up Iraq's milotary chances in meetings. After all, everyone working for Saddam is afraid to displease him, because he might throw them in a torture chamber at any moment.
And, again, what really says it all to me is how Saddam sacrifizes EVERYTHING
in his desperate craving to become a nuclear power. He has sacrifed IRaq's economy, IRaq's conventional military, and worst of all, Iraq's civilians, all to continue defying United Nations resolutions designed to keep him from continuing to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction, including nukes. That's how much he wants them. We've tried to get him to comply without forcefully toppling him, and that obviously can't work and is obviously costing many civilian lives.
So what we have right now, as the book I recommended argues, is a similar moment as when the French and British in the 1930s were fully capable of defeating Hitler. The French and British, in a world weary from WW1, decided to wait and see. And what did we see? Hitler got stronger, plowed over Europe, and cost the lives of millions of people. IRaq may not be the equivalent of Hitler's Germany, but the situation is comparable.
So...if you're opposed to weapons inspections, what do you SUPPORT doing?
I saw a woman on TV the other day who respresented the Iraqi Action something or other. An American group opposed to U.S. policy. the first time I saw her, she was screaming that the no-fly zones were illegal, to which her opponant, not believing his ears, asked (paraphrasing), "So you want the air protection pulled out, so Saddam can get back to slaughtering the Kuirds again?" She didn't reply to that, of course. She was too busy screaming like a retard about Evil America. LAter that day she was on again, and she was feeling so sorry for poor Saddam. She was ranting about how poor Saddam is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. The person debating was someone who defected from IRaq, and the discussion went like this (paraphrasing): Irai defector: "You're an American, right?" Deranged lady: "Yes, I was born in America, of IRaqi descent." Iraqi defector: "Well my God, it makes all the difference in the world. I lived under Saddam. Let me tell you, the IRaqi people are in a constant state of war with Saddam. You have no idea what you're talking about." Then the deranged lady started screaming and filibustering again.
Thankfully no one here is like that lady. But I hope you've really thought about what the best policy is for the good of the people in Iraq, the people in the region, and the rest of us. If you have, I can respect that. Icould be wrong and how events unfold is very unpredictable. But, again, why don't I see any policy ideas from you guys? Why do I only see how much you dislike Bush?
Is that all you're about?