RedAirForce From Ukraine, joined Aug 1999, 197 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1249 times:
By French I mean anyone opposed to taking out Saddam. Calling them French seems like the best tag I can think of ( though in the US "You German!" is coming up as a good bar room slander).
“I am surprised to hear of all the anti-war demonstrations in the West. I wish that the demonstrators could spend just 24 hours in the place I have come from and see the reality of Iraq. Fourteen lost years of my life. Nothing but bread for food — darkness, filth, beatings, torture, killings, bitterness and humiliation.”
-Rafat Abdulmajeed Muhammad, jailed for selling a roll of film to an British journalist
Oppose war=support Saddam, as war is the only thing to get rid of him.
Oppose war= you are as guilty as Saddam for all that he does
Andreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 33 Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
And it took you exactly how many years to realize this?????
Other than that I assume from what you say, that you want to throw around some insults...well go ahead, maybe it's better than spending time in bar rooms and calling other people "You German" (They might just hit back)!
A very convincing post, Mr. Highschool teacher, I'm really impressed!
AOMlover From France, joined Jul 2001, 1299 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1225 times:
Of course, if an Iraqi child is killed by an American bomb, he won't be able to write a letter saying that war was not the best solution...
How can you be so sure that war is the only solution at this time ?
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4853 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1223 times:
"though in the US "You German!" is coming up as a good bar room slander"
luv ya, too.
For the 500th time: We (speaking for the general public opinion in europe) have no doubts that Saddam is an evil dictator, and we would like to see him gone better today than tomorrow. However, we think a war with Iraq will cause more bad than good. The US have not yet clarified what should happen in Iraq after the war. A possible US-military leader will surely cause the middle-east to heat up, not just in Iraq, but in other countries with strong islamic movements. It especially gets dangerous in countries which now have a moderate leader, Pakistan, Egypt and Afghnistan (which the US seems to have forgotten) to name a few. There's no solution for the problems of the Kurds in northern Iraq, which by now live in a nearly-independent region. However, Turkey does not like the idea of an independent Kurdistan and will probably march into the region in the shade of a war.
These are just 2 of the most obvious reasons why we don't think war is the appropriate mean now.
And with your dumb "you are as guilty as Saddam for all that he does" comments you just disqualify yourself. Go watch fox news, and let's pray your students don't believe the mess you tell them.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1210 times:
Oppose war=support Saddam, as war is the only thing to get rid of him.
Well, it's the only thing to get rid of him with someone of limited vision and generous testosterone.....and more likely than not someone who's kid is doing jello shots on spring break while someone else's kid gets the honor of dying for his country.
Spare me the O'Reily Factor crap. Was a 300,000 man war the "only thing to get rid of" Khalid Mohammed, the archeitect of 9/11? No. It took a few cops and troops to grab him half asleep in his undersized wife-beater tee shirt and whistle him away to justice, which will hopefully involve the ocean and lots of chum. And I got news for ya, if he was sitting in Baghdad now and not Saddam, I'd be all about supporting this conflict.
But you've been sold a barrel of bullsh*t about A) what the threat in Iraq is and B) the most convenient way to get rid of it. And now anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'French'.
Red white and mutherf**king blue, here pal. Stick that in your talking point and smoke it.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1139 times:
Are you suggesting we send a couple of police officers and a SWAT team to Baghdad and arrest Saddam?
Exactly, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Maybe Barney Fife can go along for the ride too and deal with Uday.
First, we can both agree that whatever I suggest is basically farting at a hurricane? Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz wanted this present action 10 months ago, for what to me are incresingly sinister reasons, and now we have it, and nothing short of the United Federation of Planets is gonna stop it. Every ounce, every utter of "war can still be avoided" out of the lips of a Bush Administration official for the past half year has been nonsense, lies on the same level ...I take that back, far beyond...of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". The friggin Pope can suggest and urge until Christ returns, and nothing is going to influence the plans of the warhawks.
I brought up the capture in Rawalpindi as a direct example of playing out patience and skill, not re-ordering the strategic map of the world, which was and is the real intention of Bush. That same patience and skill could have handled Saddam and those around him, visited justice on them in the deep of the night, or in a tv interview, or on the crapper. But that patience and skill has been pissed on and dilluted vis-a-vis Iraq.
It's closing in on zero hour for me. The Iraq question is just about over, and my words...all words ...get emptier by the moment. If his gamble works, well, hey Hopalong, here's to you...enjoy your next six years as Prez, and maybe you'll double down with the Dear Dildo in Pyongyang.
If his gamble fails, then god damn him straight to hell. AND his frightening cronies.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1126 times:
"Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz wanted this present action 10 months ago, for what to me are incresingly sinister reasons, and now we have it, and nothing short of the United Federation of Planets is gonna stop it."
I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts about Perle's and Wolfowitz's motives. I do not trust them at all. These guys are basically college professors that have been given the power of demigods. When I listen to Perle, it is like he is playing a game of Risk. Wolfowitz, as an intel analyst, predicted back in the late 1970s that Iraq would be a serious problem. He was correct. However, it seems like he now wants to ensure that some recommendation he may have made 23+ years ago is actually executed. Incidentally, Wolfowitz was known as "Darth Vader" during the Reagan administration.
I do not agree that Bush was insincere when he said that war could be avoided in the past 6 months. However at this late stage, it looks like may have passed the V1 point of the roll.
Good column from my favorite commentator that is on point:
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4969 posts, RR: 46 Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
It seems to me you've been fooled (as have many others) into believing that the US is waging this war for humanitarian reasons (i.e. 'freeing' the country from Saddam). It is not. This excuse is only used to convince the public opinion to support the war. Ever notice how the US demands that Iraq disarms, but makes no demands at all to make Saddam treat his people better? That should give you a hint. This is NOT about human right for the US.
Let me put it another way, to use your analogy: There are other countries that treat their people just as bad as Saddam. Do you support an attack on Pakistan? After all:
Oppose war= support Musharaf, as war is the only thing to get rid of him.
Oppose war= you are as guilty as Musharaf for all that he does.