# Proof that certain 3rd worlders are animals **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 31, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533 "2004-03-31T15:15:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/41 "2004-03-31T17:20:46Z")
**HumptysHamhole** I don’t believe I’ve addressed this subject ever on these boards (though if I’m incorrect, I sure someone will be along soon to point it out) but will do so now. I opposed to the war on the basis of which it was sold which definately not was on humantiarian grounds, but fear. I also object to the rather shoddy way we’ve have to date handled the occupation. That said, I have a real problem with the calls for nuking a city, or a scoched earth policy that would make us no better than the dictator we replaced. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/42 "2004-03-31T17:34:39Z")
Well fucking said **Binary** I opposed the war on the same grounds as the others. I can’t believe anyone would swallow all that WMD bullshit. If it wasn’t obvious to you when Colin Powell was at the UN that the US had nothing, you are a part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/43 "2004-03-31T17:41:37Z")
Have you all forgotten how Iranian mourners behaved at the funeral of [Ayatollah Khomeini](http://members.lycos.co.uk/nostalgiacentraluk/news/1989/iran.htm) back in '89? And they _loved_ the guy! Maybe desecrating or mutilating a corpse just isn’t a big deal in the middle east? ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/44 "2004-03-31T17:59:22Z")
> [@belladonna](#): > > Well, [you learn something new every day](http://www.normantranscript.com/story.php?story_id=8878&c=1) > :eek: Eek indeed. Your link’s story states the **kids** didn’t believe it was a real corpse. Not exactly the same thing as what happened in Iraq, with so called adults involved. And apparently the victims were civilians (and no, this doesn’t mean it’s okay to do this to soldiers either!) ---
**Author:** ![HumptysHamhole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f0a364/32.png) [@HumptysHamhole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumptysHamhole)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/45 "2004-03-31T18:00:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Do us all a favor and drop this foolish fucking argument. You really seem to have swallowed the steaming piles of shit that our current administration has been shoveling whole. Ahem – read my post before you criticize it. I didn’t support going to war in Iraq at the time in which we did. However I do make sure that I am consistent in making arguments (either for or against) concerning the war. That is what the post concerned – there are people in this thread who would like turn on and off the human rights switch whenever it helps them make a point. **Stuffys** answer to the question is perfectly acceptable. So are other rational answers that are based on a consistent view on how to develop US-World policy. > [@](#): > > How many times and in how many ways does it have to be pointed out that Human Rights were not the primary justification for this ill conceived miscarriage of a war? I am sick to fucking death of this question. Who the fuck said that human rights was the primary justification for this war? > [@](#): > > Look, I was opposed to the war. However, If the powers that be had gone to the UN and said “look, here is a list of the top 10 Human Rights abusing regimes on the planet. As the most militarily powerful nation on earth, we feel that it is our duty to do something about this, and we want your help and blessing”. I would have 1100% supported it. Hell, I would liked to have signed up to help! So your answer to my question would be this then: I support a war that is fought for reasons of human rights but not if that war is being fought for a reason of political expediancy (while being disguised as a human-rights war). That is a perfectly acceptable rationale and it could have been stated without misrepresenting what I said or assuming you know my own position. What I really object to is people who claim that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because it wasn’t good for us in world politics who then turn around and argue that the US shouldn’t do things because they violate human rights. The two concepts don’t always go hand in hand. > [@](#): > > This is a _really_ stupid argument. The fact is that Iraq was no worse than many other countries in the world and if you ask people like you why America does not invade them you get responses like “it’s none of our business” and “our government’s responsibility is to look out for American insterests”. But in the case of Iraq the rules change, or so it seems. > > So, Iraq has a bad regime and the USA is going to invade. . . for what? To make things worse and destabilize the region? Because that is what is actually happening, good intentions not withstanding. > > And who appointed America the world nanny? Sailor - I believe that we invaded Iraq in order to look out for American interests. So in this case I don’t think the rules have changed. The biggest case that Bush made in his decision to go to war in Iraq was to protect American interests. He also made the human rights case (whether we believe he was sincere or not is different argument). So I’m not sure for what you are arguing - you seem to criticize “people like me” for saying “it’s none of our business” but then you say the exact same thing at the end of your post. Do you think its ok to say “it’s none of our business?” If so why did you criticize “people like me” for supposedly saying it? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/46 "2004-03-31T18:08:13Z")
What I want to know is why do so many of you think it’s more “humane” to bomb from 30,000 ft and do this: [**Pictures of Civilian Casualties and Destruction caused by the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq**](http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm) Now, if I was a father/husband/relative of one of the thousands of Iraqi’s killed or wounded by the invading American forces, I’d have a _really_ hard time trying to stop my animalistic urge to get revenge on the next soldier I laid my eyes on. And judging by what is happening, many many Iraqis are failing at doing just that. Can’t say that I blame them either. Your pResident did insist that they "should bring it on,’ anyway… ---
**Author:** ![Celyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9dc877/32.png) [@Celyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celyn)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/47 "2004-03-31T18:09:37Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > … > Unfortunately so many groups behave more like primitive tribes. > > … Oh, yes, “certian groups”… Well, here is rather a nasty recent news item. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3568075.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3568075.stm) [quote] … A teenager accused of violating a tomb in an Edinburgh graveyard cut the head from a corpse, the High Court in Edinburgh heard. A 15-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said Sonny Devlin “was running aboot going mental with it.” Mr Devlin, 17, and the youth deny taking the remains of a body from its coffin, cutting off its head, playing with it and simulating a sex act. They are also accused of breaking into the Mackenzie Mausoleum in Greyfriars Churchyard. Mr Devlin, of East Claremont Street, Edinburgh, is charged with committing the offence while on bail. The pair have denied the “violation of a sepulchre”. The mausoleum was named after Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, a former lord advocate, who died in 1691. … [quote] So we had better make a judgement and a punishment that applies to _all_ teenagers, then? ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/48 "2004-03-31T18:14:20Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > As to Americans descrating bodies here - are you talking about isolated psychopaths? We have 250 million people here and you might have a handful of instances of this. Ever hear of [lynching](http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html#b)? No one knows exact figures, but between 2,000 and 4,000 people were strung up by patriotic Americans. It doesn’t excuse what happened in Iraq, but mindless mobs act like mindless mobs regardless of nationality, religion or skin color. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/49 "2004-03-31T18:15:08Z")
> [@HumptysHamhole](#): > > Sailor - I believe that we invaded Iraq in order to look out for American interests. So in this case I don’t think the rules have changed. The biggest case that Bush made in his decision to go to war in Iraq was to protect American interests. Well, as long as we have that clear then dead Americans are just part of the price America should expect to pay. Iraqis have the right to protect _their_ interests which seem to be in conflict with America’s interests right now. Iraqis are trying to get America to pay the highest price in the hopes that America will decide it is not worth the effort. America thumped its chest and told the world to go to hell and went in alone. Well, now each side is looking out for their own interests. In cases like this I tend to root for the little guy who was attacked by the big guy, but that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/50 "2004-03-31T18:25:16Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > In cases like this I tend to root for the little guy who was attacked by the big guy, but that’s just me. No, not hardly. Make that the great majority of the world – including, thankfully, a growing number of Americans themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/51 "2004-03-31T18:25:53Z")
**HumptysHamhole** You may have a point. After more than a year of listening to person after person claiming that the Iraq invasion was about human rights, and claiming that I must want Saddam in power committing atrocities because I opposed the war that the way that you phrased your post hit a hot button or two. But then, on review of your post, I am not sure how else I could take it. You are presenting the false dichotomy that in order to be in favor of Human Rights one cannot be opposed to this war. That is bullshit, and really as far as I can tell more of the painting of the Anti-War folks as unpatriotic or hypocritical or something. So, in balance, I guess that my original objection to your post stands. If you want to clarify or point out what it is I am misunderstanding, fine, but until then I will assume that you are simply buying our administrations after the fact Human Rights justification for this and also buying their falsehoods concerning the motivations driving those that opposed the war. I really see no other interpretation of your post. For bonus points, why don’t _you_ tell us how you feel about the War (pro or Con) and justify why, rather that stirring the pot. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/52 "2004-03-31T18:40:45Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Following this logic, a couple of questions: > > Can you find one instance in recorded human history where a action like this had any sort of a positive outcome? > > Using the school analogy, when you had a teacher do this to you (I am assuming that this is a pretty universal experience) did you find it fair and just at the time, or did you simply wind up resenting the teacher? Depends on what one means by a “positive outcome”. To give an instance, the Mongols used to commit atrocities (such as killing the entire population of cities) if the city in question refused to surrender instantly, or the ruler of said city killed a Mongol ambassador or committed a similar act. It worked well for them in the short term - it encouraged surrenders. More recently, in 1982 I believe, Syria had a problem with rebellion. Their solution was to exterminate an entire city containing rebels, and there hasn’t been a rebellion in Syria since (at least, that I have heard of). I know that the rhetoric emerging from the resistance in WW2 against the Germans is that it is impossible to rule by terror. Unfortunately, this is not exactly true; the Germans used pitiless reprisals to keep occupied Europe in line, and to a large extent they succeeded. In some places the resistence scored successes (as in the Pripet Marshes and in former Yugoslavia), but inevitably such places had difficult terrain and poor communications. As a general rule, the resistance was noting but a minor annoyance, made considerably more minor by the policy of random, severe reprisals. I think the real issue is not that such atrocities don’t work in the short term, but that they are immoral and have negative long-term consequences. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/53 "2004-03-31T18:52:46Z")
> [@HumptysHamhole](#): > > Who the fuck said that human rights was the primary justification for this war? _Then you say_ > [@](#): > > the biggest case that Bush made in his decision to go to war in Iraq was to protect American interests. He also made the human rights case (whether we believe he was sincere or not is different argument). Cocaine is a helluva drug! > [@](#): > > What I really object to is people who claim that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because it wasn’t good for us in world politics who then turn around and argue that the US shouldn’t do things because they violate human rights. The two concepts don’t always go hand in hand. hoooooooWHUT? There were, and are, worse violaters of human rights then SH. You can’t possibly how stupid it is to say we went after him because he was a _bad bad evil man_, when real problems like Jong Kim deuce exist. > [@](#): > > I believe that we invaded Iraq in order to look out for American interests. So in this case I don’t think the rules have changed. The biggest case that Bush made in his decision to go to war in Iraq was to protect American interests. He also made the human rights case (whether we believe he was sincere or not is different argument). Umm, no. We went to war because Iraq had Checmical and biological that they were either going to give to terrorists, or use on us sometime in the _very very near future_. ---
**Author:** ![HumptysHamhole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f0a364/32.png) [@HumptysHamhole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumptysHamhole)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/54 "2004-03-31T19:27:37Z")
**BinaryDrone** I think we are actually at a misunderstanding. My original post in this thread was meant to point out the inconsistancies of the way people are arguing either thier support or opposition to the Iraq war. It was never intended to be an argument either for or against the Iraq war itself. I am just plain tired of people arguing against the United States for ignoring human rights issues say in North Korea while at the same time saying that the US should mind its own business in relation to Iraq. If you believe that fighting for human rights should be the prime motivator for our foreign policy then you should want the US to invade both Iraq and North Korea (and about 100 other nations). Oddly enough this criticism of mine applies to many people on both side of the Iraq war issue. There are people who say they support the war only because of human rights issues while at the same time they say going to war in the Congo isn’t a good idea. There are also people who oppose the war in Iraq by saying that the United States should mind its own business at the same time that they criticize the US for ignoring human rights abuses in the Sudan. Neither of these positions make any sense. In relation to this thread people who were arguing against revenge bombings on human rights grounds were arguing against the Iraq war on political grounds. It is possible to argue against (or for) both positions using both criteria however. That is why I put in parenthisis “(it can be done easily by the way).” But I would like people to be consistent in thier arguments. Bonus: First of all, I believe that it is OK for the United States to act in favor of its own best interests. I also believe that it is OK for the United States to defend human rights when it sees them being violated. However I do not not think that the US has a duty to go to war every time it sees gross human rights abuses. I do however think our country should do \*something \* in these cases. We have a duty to do _something_ because we are the most economically and militarily powerful nation nin the history of human civilisation. We must accept that responsibilty. When the above two propositions are in conflict with one another (self interest vs. human rights) I believe that we must decide by trying to develop a balance between the severity of the human rights abuses with the risk our nation would face by our confronting them. For instance: there are some human rights issues in Russia today but they are not comparitively severe enough for us to risk world war III by invading them. There are some severe human rights abuses in China but invading China might actually bring destruction to the US (and the rest of the world. There were severe human rights abuses in the Rwandan civil war and yet we stood back and did almost nothing. We could have done a lot more without any serious risk to our national interest. As for Iraq. I think that the Bush administration invaded Iraq with a belief that it was for the best national interests of the US. I believe that the administration played up the notion of the human rights abuses to garner support for a strategic war. However it is important for us to remember that the human rights abuses were very real. I think it was a bad idea to invade Iraq when we did and how we did because it was bad for our national interest (to invade at that time). I can balance this against the human rights issue because I believe that even if Bush would have done things right in regard to Iraq we still would have had to invade within 3 years time. In other words we still would have come to the rescue of the Iraqi people but they would have had to wait a little longer. I believe this a justifiable balance in the face of our own national interest. However, now that we have invaded I support the war fully and I am glad that Saddam is out of power. I am also able to be glad that the human rights abuses have for the most part ended. I don’t like the idea that some people have of trying to argue that the human rights violations either didn’t exist or that they weren’t that bad (as has been done in this thread). Nor do I like the argument that if a person supported the war for national interests they can’t be glad that the human rights abuses are over. ---
**Author:** ![HumptysHamhole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f0a364/32.png) [@HumptysHamhole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumptysHamhole)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/55 "2004-03-31T19:39:16Z")
**World Eater** Please learn how to read. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by HumptysHamhole > Who the fuck said that human rights was the primary justification for this war? > Then you say > Quote: > the biggest case that Bush made in his decision to go to war in Iraq was to protect American interests. He also made the human rights case (whether we believe he was sincere or not is different argument). > Cocaine is a helluva drug! One would think that the word **biggest** would imply **primary** – thus I could rephrase the second quote like this: The primary justification for this war that Bush made was to protect American interests. Get it? Maybe a thesaurus would help. > [@](#): > > Umm, no. We went to war because Iraq had Checmical and biological that they were either going to give to terrorists, or use on us sometime in the very very near future. Exactly. In what way is that not protecting national interests? You actually make my point. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/56 "2004-03-31T19:43:47Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > What I want to know is why do so many of you think it’s more “humane” to bomb from 30,000 ft and do this: > > [**Pictures of Civilian Casualties and Destruction caused by the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq**](http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm) > > Now, if I was a father/husband/relative of one of the thousands of Iraqi’s killed or wounded by the invading American forces, I’d have a _really_ hard time trying to stop my animalistic urge to get revenge on the next soldier I laid my eyes on. > > And judging by what is happening, many many Iraqis are failing at doing just that. > > Can’t say that I blame them either. Your pResident did insist that they "should bring it on,’ anyway… Ah… But you forget The Most Important Thing for people like the OP and Dog: Those pictures are only showing third-world animalistic sub-human"collateral damage" (read: not to be taking in account because worthless and by decision of the US “worth it”) = They are _not_ US citizens or US military by any means. They are, like the OP states \*\* third worlder animals and/or sub humans\*\* and one should use “nukes” on them for maximised effect and efficiency. Oh well… One should understansd that reasoning. Besides, using “nukes” would also resolve the problem of pictures of the crimes of the USA. Like the ones you bring up in a courageaous attempt to make people see how many were wounded and murdered (and still are) during this murderous criminal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Throw a few “nukes” and you have a completely clean surface = no left-overs of those animalistic third worlder sub-humans = no bloody pictures for the world to see. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/57 "2004-03-31T19:49:15Z")
**OP and DogFace** : If you ever plan to take part of an invasion of my country - even in your dreams which I am sure you have -, please send me a note. I shall be waiting to welcome you and your co-invaders. Because you see - and I know you can not understand this - underscribed Third Worlder Arab Animalistic Sub-human wouldn’t like it that much that you and your co-invading murderers in your lunatical arrogance would consider my family “worth it” to be murdered by you and considered just good enough to become “collateral damage”. Thank you for letting me know in time. Let me also know when the “nukes” are coming in. You never know what I can do to return them back to you. With all pleasure involved. Let us all just work together to destroy this planet and its entire population. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/58 "2004-03-31T19:55:18Z")
Am I the only one who finds the thread title incredibly bigoted? The OP is stating indirectly that only the third world is capable of being barbaric. Despite old and recent history proving otherwise, I wonder if this sort of “civilized versus savages” colonialist rhetoric is in fact a silently held opinion by most in the Western countries. I am really beginning to wonder… Just the other day, I saw a link at [fark.com](http://fark.com) to a story where someone in India was making money by selling so-called “holy water” … and some of the responses were… “Bring on the western civilization” as if no one in the West believes in religous mythology and makes money of it. Unbelievable! I am feeling pretty hopeless about this situation. Will bigotry ever die? (Before anyone comments on my ignoring the actual story in the OP, the acts were vile and despicable. But, I am also disturbed by the OP and choose to comment on it) ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/59 "2004-03-31T19:57:47Z")
Aww, don’t worry, you Saudis are our buddies! Although if we did decide to get you, you’d be kind of stuck since you always use Western soldiers so the gazillion princes don’t get the burnooses dirty. GW1 Joke: What’s the marching song of the Saudi Army? _Onward, Christian Soldiers_ I must admit as I watched the Twin Towers burn from my rooftop, tears in my eyes, I had a fleeting thought of bombing the entire Middle East–the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Jordanians, the whole messy squabbling lot–into a sheet of glass. I get the impression the OP felt the same way and just vented. None of it was realistic or serious, just a wave of anger at a great wrong. Cut him some slack. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533/60 "2004-03-31T19:59:17Z")
> [@HumptysHamhole](#): > > **World Eater** The primary justification for this war that Bush made was to protect American interests If you mean by American interests, WE’RE GOING TO BE ATTACKED!!! SADDAM HUSSEIN THIS MINUTE IS GIVING ANTHRAX TO OSAMA BIN LADEN WE MUST STOP THEM NOW OR WE’LL ALL DIE!!! WE HAVE TO ATTACK THEM BEFORE THEY CAN ATTACK US, WE CAN’T WAIT, WE CAN’T WAIT 6 MONTHS, WE CAN’T WAIT 3 MONTHS, THEY COULD ATTACK US AT ANY TIME, THEY HAVE NUKES, SWEET FUCKING CHRIST WE HAVE TO GO IN NOW!!!111!1!!1!!111111!!! Then yes, the American interests we were protecting was our very existence. The problem with this, is first off we’re wrong on the whole WMD thingie. Second, we’re wrong on the Osama being buddies with Hussein thingie. Lastly, there is a very good argument to be made that in “protecting” our national interests, we’ve made things worse then if we hadn’t protected them in the first place. If the cost was free, sure, boot SH the fuck out. If the cost is hundreds of Billions of dollars, and thousands of injured and hundreds or dead soldiers, maybe it’s simply not worth it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proof-that-certain-3rd-worlders-are-animals/237533.md?page=4)