Quick! Hit the nearest warmonger on the head with a coconut!

[Bob Scene]

As recently as three years ago, the American news media reported as fact that the "U.N. Weapons Inspection Teams" that were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein contained CIA agents that were gathering data that was used to harm the Iraqi government.

Now, for some strange reason, as reported here, (http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html) all of the warmongers and mass media outlets, even the ultra-left-Bolshevik-America-hating ones, are pretending that never happened and that the only earthly reason Saddam might have for not trusting weapons inspectors is that he's packed to the rafters with anthrax spores and neutron bombs!

Pretty mysterious, huh? What could cause all the warmongers to conveniently forget something that was all over the front pages in 1999? As an ex-first-year medical student, the only thing I can think of is amnesia.

Anyone who's ever watched "Gilligan's Island" knows how amnesia works. Someone receives a sharp blow to the head with a blunt object (e.g. a coconut) and forgets everything! I'm sure this is what happened to all the warmongers, because I can't think of anything else to account for it. Fortunately, "Gilligan's Island" also gives us a cure. It turns out that if you whack a person who's already suffering from amnesia over the head with a coconut again, they will regain all of the memories they've already lost. Apparently, we'll all be fine as long as we are hit over the head with a coconut an even number of times.

I believe that it would be a bad idea to launch a war without an informed public debate, and I don't believe any public debate can be sufficiently informed if the ones shrieking the loudest are suffering from blunt-trauma-induced amnesia. I have no idea how so many people got knocked on the head with a coconut in the first place, but I have elimated the impossible, and now only the merely improbable remains! The only solution is to whack every warmonger over the head with a coconut again! Do it now, before it's too late!

Now, you're probably wondering why violence is necessary. Why not just gently remind all of the warmongers that it's an established fact that Saddam kicked out the "U.N. Weapons Inspection teams" for being CIA agents? Well, I tried that in this thread, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137250) using cites and being as nice as I could, but an amnesia-suffering warmonger just responded by babbling some kind of insane bullshit about me wanting Iraqis to rape American babies or something. It looks like millions of coconut whacks are the only thing that will restore public sanity!

You have your instructions. LET'S ROLL!

[Fredge]

Why does it make a difference to you that the so called inspectors were CIA agents as opposed to what you might traditionally consider an appropriate field for weapons inspectors to come from? Saddam et al lost the war; in my mind they shouldn't be able to pick who gets to do the weapon inspections.

And let's not forget the coconut that's evidentally struck your head. Mr. Hussein has been shooting at US & British planes (flying under the U.N. sanctioned treaty) that patrol the no-fly zone almost since the Gulf War ended. That alone is enough to take him out in my mind; it's an act of war.

[Bob Scene]

If you think it's okay to put CIA agents on the weapons inspection teams, then fine. Say Saddam doesn't get to pick. Then why not tell the truth about it? Why lie then and why lie now? It's the lie I'm concerned with here, not the legitimacy of the Iraqi government.

Of course, given the second half of your post, which is a complete non sequitur, I'm not sure why I'm trying to be logical with you. All I'm trying to do is point out this weird amnesia that's happening with this one fact. I never said shit about the no-fly zone. If I express concern that the media are blatantly lying to us about some particular point, it doesn't follow that I'm a Saddam-loving traitor, unless you're using fanatical war-mongering logic.

[elucidator]

But, why do you hate America so much?

[The Ace of Swords]

Reporting for your coconut corps, sir!

But can we use the "coconuta and a little bit of rum?" No point in saving the world if ya can't have a little fun.

[Fredge]

You're bothered by the fact that politicians and governments lie? I see your post count is under a billion so obviously you don't post every time they do lie. So it's just this particular lie that's bothering you?

As to my second paragraph, one you refer to as a non sequitur, when you use the term 'war monger' as much as you did in the way that you did , I can't help but interpret your words to mean that if I support a war against Iraq that I'm bloodthirsty. Perhaps that paragraph strayed off topic, but I don't think that just because I believe we should fight Saddam and what he stands for makes me a war monger.

[Tripler]

:: fwip ::

:: WHACK! ::

OW! :mad:

What the hell's a coconut doing in North Dakota? :confused:

Tripler
Ow. That hurt. . .

[The Ace of Swords]

Question, sir!

If the war-mongrels have forgotten about BOTH the UN inspections spying AND the supplying of Saddam with chemical and biological weapons, should we hit them with TWO coconuts, or will that render them amnesiac again?

Fredge: Yeah, that's a great case you made. :rolleyes:

[MikeG]

Tripler,The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not strangers to our land.

[elucidator]

What is the warmonger-bashing capacity of the average Polynesian coconut? Can a European swallow be used as a delivery system? Would that then qualify as a weapon of moist destruction?

[anya marie]

For every Poynesian coconut , an average of six bashes is obtained, and each warmonger may take 3 bashes, although you may need more coconuts , depending on the size of the coconuts and the G-force impact of the bashes.

[RedFury]

Mr. Hussein has been shooting at US & British planes (flying under the U.N. sanctioned treaty) that patrol the no-fly zone almost since the Gulf War ended. That alone is enough to take him out in my mind; it's an act of war.

Care to remind me under what "UN sanctioned treaty" those planes are flying under? I don't recall any resolution sanctioning a 'no-fly' zone.

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm):

The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north. The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says the Western powers - led by President George Bush senior - argued that their action was consistent with Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991. (Bolding mine)


So, what do you think the US or the UK would do if Iraqui planes regularly violated their air space?

[RedFury]

Mr. Hussein has been shooting at US & British planes (flying under the U.N. sanctioned treaty) that patrol the no-fly zone almost since the Gulf War ended. That alone is enough to take him out in my mind; it's an act of war.

Care to remind me under what "UN sanctioned treaty" those planes are flying under? I don't recall any resolution sanctioning a 'no-fly' zone.

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm):

The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north. The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says the Western powers - led by President George Bush senior - argued that their action was consistent with Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991. (Bolding mine)


So, what do you think the US or the UK would do if Iraqui planes regularly violated their air space? Throw coconuts?

[I am Sparticus]

Only 30 more warring days 'till elections! Saddam will come and get us if we don't go right now!

6 Billion Non-Americans can't be wrong!

Q: "Who's the enemy here: the president of the United States or Saddam Hussein?" -- Trent Lott

A: "Yes."




GW Bush:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."12/18/2000. As broadcast on CNN and available in transcript on their website. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

[elucidator]

Well, according to Mr. Rumsfeld, whom I regard as mostly honest but entirely mistaken, says that the Iraqi's have fired on Amercian or British aircraft 76 times and have yet to score a hit.

If they were over our airspace and we were using coconuts, we would have got at least one of them! I mean, really! 76 anti-aircraft attacks and not one hit?

[Fredge]

Originally posted by RedFury


Care to remind me under what "UN sanctioned treaty" those planes are flying under? I don't recall any resolution sanctioning a 'no-fly' zone.

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm):



Perhaps I was mistaken. Bash away.

[The Ace of Swords]

Apparently it was actually Candians in a live-fire exercise.

76 times!

[grendel72]

Originally posted by I am Sparticus
Q: "Who's the enemy here: the president of the United States or Saddam Hussein?" -- Trent Lott

A: "Yes."Ain't it the truth.

The thing that bothers me is that war, y'know like killing stuff, is being used so blatantly as a political maneuver. And of course, if you don't pretend not to notice this you are apparently anti-American.

[RedFury]

Fredge http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/report.php?postid=2490942

It's not a matter of "bashing," it's just that I'd wish people would stop repeating what the Bushistas say as gospel.

Fact is, since the start of the War on Iraq campaign we've been fed a string of lies and half-truths worthy of a totalitarian regime.

Off the top of my head I can recall the following:


Iraq linked to 9/11 and Al-Queda

Iraq will use WMD against his neighbors (?)

Iraq is a "clear and present danger to the US"

Iraq threw out UN inspectors

The US wants to liberate Iraq for "humanitarian reasons"

Iraq is directly responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqui children

Blair would provide 'definitive proof' -- cites International Institute for Security Studies

Your own misconception about the no-fly zones...and on and on and on.



Why do you continue to believe them? Are you hoping they finally get one right?

It truly is amazing.

[RedFury]

Please disregard the link in prior post. I was trying to link directly to the post I was answering to and did not achieve the desired result.

[UncleBill]

Originally posted by elucidator
Well, according to Mr. Rumsfeld, whom I regard as mostly honest but entirely mistaken, says that the Iraqi's have fired on Amercian or British aircraft 76 times and have yet to score a hit.Not sure where 76 comes from. Maybe 76 times in two months? There have been a bit more than 76 attacks, according to these guys (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/southern_watch.htm).

28 January 2001 -- Operation Southern Watch aircraft struck surface-to-air missile systems in southern Iraq. As of this date there have been more than 670 separate incidents of Iraqi surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery fire directed against coalition pilots since December 1998. Lets say since Dec 1, 1998. That is two years, two months. 26 months. 670 firings in, oh, let's say 113 weeks. Just about 6 times a week, works out pretty close. Maybe they take Saturdays off?

[elucidator]

It was on CNN a couple days ago, he made quite a big deal about the number 76, but I don't recall what time frame he placed that in, as I was so taken by the idea of all that AA fire and no hits. A month? Last three? Dunno.

[flyboy]

It's common out there. The reason why they don't hit anything is because in order to hit an object traveling at many thousands of feet at over 500 knots, you need radar. But if they turn their radars on, they know (from the Gulf War) that in a matter of minutes they and their radar facility will be rubble. So they fire their AAA guns and (much less frequently) SAMs ballistically--just point, shoot, and cross your fingers. This doesn't really work, but I think it's important to them to show some defiance and also hope for a lucky shot.

[Bob Scene]

Originally posted by Fredge
You're bothered by the fact that politicians and governments lie? I see your post count is under a billion so obviously you don't post every time they do lie. So it's just this particular lie that's bothering you?

Interior: Ministry of Love

Room 1:
Interrogator: (holding up two fingers) How many fingers am I holding up?
Me: Two.
Sound effect: ZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP!
Interrogator: There are THREE fingers! How many fingers am I holding up?
Me: Two.
Sound effect: ZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP!
Interrogator: There are THREE fingers! How many fingers am I holding up?
(Continues for several days.)

Room 2:
Interrogator: (holding up two fingers) How many fingers am I holding up?
Fredge: Three.
Interrogator: Well, actually it's two, but I'm supposed to be torturing you into saying three. So start off saying two, because that's how many there really are. Then I can keep giving you electric shocks to the genitals until you break down and say three.
Interrogator: (holding up two fingers) How many fingers am I holding up?
Fredge: Three.
Interrogator: You are no fun whatsoever! (Stomps out of room angrily.)

[Bob Scene]

Originally posted by Ace0Spades
Question, sir!

If the war-mongrels have forgotten about BOTH the UN inspections spying AND the supplying of Saddam with chemical and biological weapons, should we hit them with TWO coconuts, or will that render them amnesiac again?

Coconuts for everyone! As many as it takes!

[SPOOFE]

Whatever happened to the good ol' fashioned warmongers who just loved the smell of napalm in the morning?

[Henry B]

Bob Scene wrote:
Well, I tried that in this thread, using cites and being as nice as I could, but an amnesia-suffering warmonger just responded by babbling some kind of insane bullshit... <snip>
I can assure You that
1) You are not hit by bullshit, because You are nice.
2) You are not hit because You give a thread facts.
3) You are not hit because You have brains and You are capable to write so that a normal person understands Your arguments.

But to make all 1) and 2) and 3) at the same time, that is too much to any redneck.
I am just so pleased that there is a 1-2-3-guy in Texas.
Keep it up.

[Tripler]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Whatever happened to the good ol' fashioned warmongers who just loved the smell of napalm in the morning?


Oh, don't worry. We're still here. :D



I swear, as soon as I get some free time, I will sit down and actually post something informative or opinionated in this thread.

Tripler
Damned schedule.

[elf6c]

Not one angry post about an administration filled with chicken-hawks not actually listening to its veterans? Dang. I would have bet a dollar.

What happened to the war on terror? Umm maybe we should finish that first? I know mid-term elections are coming and the economy and corporate scandels have your administrations fingerprints all over them, but could we finish the war on terror before you try to redeem your daddy's mistake.

Not to say Saddam doesn't deserve a nice fat 1000 pound laser guided missle in his lap, but we are pissing away any goodwill we have, and your strident babble about "evil-doers" make you sound like a 50's comic book.

No desert until you finish your meat and vegetables, which is fixing the economy and finishing the war on terror.