[Liberator]

I have collected the various platforms of the three major U.S. political parties in the following links.  Based on the platform, which are you?

Republican

Democrat

Libertarian

[Knight Templar]

Can't you find us some queer little test or something?

[Stryke 9]

None of the above. Party politics are a joke. It's fine when the game of political football doesn't get past the TV, but when you have a group of deranged lunatics conducting a genocidal campaign across western Asia and threatening to jail everybody it's time to end the game.

[Turnsky]

indeed..

[Liberator]

It's fine when the game of political football doesn't get past the TV, but when you have a group of deranged lunatics conducting a genocidal campaign across western Asia and threatening to jail everybody...

I take it then that you would spit in the face of a Veteran returning from a foreign field?

I also know for a fact that if we had known on Sept 12, 2001, who had killed almost 4000 innocent people, that you would not have a problem with the total elimination of them and anybody siding with them.

That said, the U.S. has not, is not currently, and will not in the future conduct genocide on anyone.  We act to remove a threat to the Free World.  Saddam Hussein is a homicidal, madman who has no qualms about providing money or weapons to terrorists.  The removal of Saddam Hussein and his ilk from Iraq will greatly reduce the tension in the Middle East.

As for what comes next after Iraq, probably Iran or one of the other known terrorist backers.  Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing of the various attrocities being commited against what in this country would be considered "Minority Groups", and I'm glad we've got a president who not afraid to do what is necessary.

[Stryke 9]

Mmm. So, the American Indians never numbered more than a few ten thousand, there wasn't any support at all for Hitler before the US itself was attacked (and we weren't as a people considering doing what he did, only to the blacks), and Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, et al. were just friendly helping-out?

I've got nothing against soldiers who basically have to do what they do or get shot (by one side or the other), I've got a problem with the people who order them to commit what just happens to be murder. Stick a pin in yourself and let all the hot air out-  the fact that I can't abide a genocidal war of aggression does NOT equal that I have a personal hatred of all soldiers in any war ever.

As for the rest of your post, it hardly even makes sense. Fix the grammar, remove the bull**** exhortations, include some facts that actually are, and you might have something worth responding further to. And don't ****ing leap to conclusions or polarize me again, or I'll make sure this forum gets very nasty for you in very short order.

[Falcon X]

OWN THIS

[Stryke 9]

OWN THIS!

[J.F.K.]

I resent politics. That said, I would probably be a Liberal...

[Turnsky]

probably 'cause simon crean has the mental capacity of a rock..

[Liberator]

Originally posted by J.F.K.
I resent politics. That said, I would probably be a Liberal...

Liberal or Libertarian?

They are two ENTIRELY different things!

Stryke, I'll say it again.  The war in Iraq is not going to be genocide.  We'll go in, probably kill 1000-2000 Republican Guards, the rest will give up and we'll spend 3 months hunting Hussein.  

The selfish is to remove a know supporter of terrorism from a position of power, if they have to put a pretext on it, it's fine with me.

A beneficial side-effect is the Iraqi people will be allowed to choose their own way for the first time in DECADES.  Perhaps you can't fathom the total lack of freedom that the Iraqis have endured.  

The last "election" held in Iraq had 100% participation, with Hussein getting 100% of the vote.  Why is this? Because if you didn't come to vote, they came to your house and shot you.  If you didn't vote for Hussein, they shot you.  I don't know if you're Christian, Catholic, or Other, but in Iraq if you are not Muslim, they either imprison and shoot you, or they humiliate and shoot you.

I recently read an interview of a Iraqi teacher who was lucky enough to escape Iraq.  She told of a day that soldiers came and closed the school and brought the teachers and students, bear in mind this was a middle school so the students are between 9 and 13, to bear witness to an execution.  Eight people were tied to stakes in the town square.  Their crime?  The spoke against Saddam Hussein in a tavern.  For this offense they were shot dead by a squad of 10 soldiers armed with fully automatic weapons.

I refuse to beleive that you would stand by and let this happen.  But the U.S. has had to because he was a stabilizing influence in the region until recently.  They won't admit it openly but most people in the middle east will be glad he's gone.

[Stryke 9]

It's a genocide if we single out Arab states to attack. Which we've been doing- Bush has ignored North Korea altogether, despite the fact that it really does seem to be trying to provoke a war now. Go read about the Indian Wars and what the Europeans did in southern Africa, and tell me that this isn't a repeat. Go right ****ing ahead. It's almost identical.

And 1000-2000?

Uh huh. You do realize that the most conservative estimates are pegged at more than ten thousand, yes?

It's not ****ing Afghanistan, it isn't a war against a couple of disorganized, badly armed farmboys who spend half their time fighting against each other and the other half surrendering because they'll get the exact same job after the war is over and their life won't change a bit.

Never mind that if Saddam actually has MDWs, which is the only excuse Bush has to go in and start blasting away, Haifa will be a smoking crater before it all ends. That's more than a million deaths, and that's just civilian.

I think we've had this discussion many times already. A war in Iraq is not just shooting a couple of people.






And I don't know what it is with Americans these days, but seriously- yer treating the Iraqis like children. Saddam is not the first repressive regime ever to exist, nor is he the toughest and most restrictive. When dictators get too bad, the people overthrow them of their own accord, and generally install a more acceptable and freer government after a short period of chaos. On the other hand, countries that are "liberated" by other states are invariably turned into, well, slaves, effectively. Colonies of the mother state. Look at every point in history- it's never good for the conquered country, no matter how much bull**** about "it's for their own good, we're civilizing them" the victor spews out.

Do you really think they care whether they've got a repressive military dictatorship under Saddam or a repressive military dictatorship under one of the feebs Bush is thinking of appointing? I think they care much more about whether they're still alive, and with all limbs fully intact, which a US war will significantly reduce the possiblility of.





Possibly one solution, if you really wanna see Iraq "liberated", is to go with the Saudi plan, which is actually believable as a blueprint for freedom. At least they're not talking about using the oil to pay the US's expenses and installing repressive militant regimes to drive out all the anti-Americanism, like a certain cowboy we all know.

[PeachE]

****, none of you know at all what you're talking about..

(1) If Iraq does have WMD, he will not use them against America or her allies because we have made it clear in the past that we would respond proportionally (eg - nuclear attack). the man is homicidal, not suicidal, and he's always shown that he knows when to back down.

(2) as for the rights of the people of Iraq, believe it or not, Military Dictatorship is the only thing holding Iraq together as a nation right now. if they were to go to a democratic goverment, there would be civil war and inner strife the likes of which noone has ever seen. I mean, Iraq should have never been a country in the first place. Even the Ottoman Empire figured that one out. But noooooo, the stupid Brits had to come along and look at these three separate nations of the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs and the Shiite Arabs and say "Hey, these fellows will get along quite nicely. let's make them a country." ****ing dumbasses.

[Stryke 9]

That's the story of all of Africa.


And nobody, short of Dubya, is saying that Iraq WILL attack the US, never mind COULD. Haifa, for your information, is in Israel, is easily within range of midrangers, and has several million people in it. It'd be toast just like Jerusalem if Saddam had MDWs of any sort and decided for a last hurrah when the US troops were pounding at the gate- which he no doubt would.

[PeachE]

oh and btw, just in case it comes up

(3) it's not about oil. and even if it were, America would not get the oil. France and Russia already have contracts out for most of the oil, and in a post-war environment, they would be the ones to claim the fields. interesting how they're the ones opposed to war, no? this is because declaring war on people is not a good business strategy. if we wanted the oil, we would buy it. no matter how much they charged, it would be less costly than a war. it's as simple as that.

[Bobboau]

but in Iraq if you are not Muslim, they either imprison and shoot you, or they humiliate and shoot you.

actualy Iraq is one of the better places to be a not-a-muslim in the arab world, the second in comand Tariq Azis (no way in hell I'm gona spell his name right) is in fact a Christian

And nobody, short of Dubya, is saying that Iraq WILL attack the US, never mind COULD

I am saying Iraq (and by Iraq I mean Sadam and his Bath party) can and will.

[PeachE]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Haifa, for your information, is in Israel, is easily within range of midrangers, and has several million people in it.

yes, i'm quite aware of that. that's why i included the nifty phrase "or her allies".

It'd be toast just like Jerusalem if Saddam had MDWs of any sort and decided for a last hurrah when the US troops were pounding at the gate- which he no doubt would.

i doubt it. he'd back down and try to parlay an agreement before it ever came to that.

[Stryke 9]

Er... diplomacy's kinda gonna be shot by the time Bush finally gets his war expressly set to kill Saddam going, isn't it? I doubt he's gonna be doing much talking seeing as 250,000 heavily armed troops are going to be out for his head and there's nobody gonna stop them.

When the war starts, he's basically dead, and not likely to give a **** about reprecussions. He'll just take as many as possible with him, as any sensible soldier would.

[PeachE]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
When the war starts, he's basically dead

not really. with the lack of American support for this war, if Saddam decides to give in to US demands, i think Bush would be very willing to end the call for his head. Bush isn't looking for another Vietnam. he just needs Iraq to quiet down and stop being a threat to Middle East stability. Besides, he's got more pressing issues in the Middle East with the Israeli-Palestinean conflict. That's where Saddam is getting all his leverage from, anyway.

[Bobboau]

On the other hand, countries that are "liberated" by other states are invariably turned into, well, slaves, effectively.

like Japan, France, Germany, (sort of) the UK, hell all of Europe, South Korea,
yup, all our slaves

and I bet Sadam orders WMDs to be used on Baghdad the day we reach the gate, he'll give a half hearted atempt to pin it on us(only the zanies will beleve it), but his real goal will to be to deny us the victory we truly want