What will The Holy Sheriff now accuse Fucking Saddam for?

The BBQ Pit
21

Spoofe
My Clairvoyance Machine tells that it is always very dangerous to school terrorists (against any regime, even those that US does not like).
Do not take it as a personal thing, though. I know that Americans are mostly nice people. They do not school terrorists.
It just seems so hard to think about everything “from the other side of the globe”.

Isolation is not good for You, but it does not mean that You should travel everywhere with an army. Just travel, learn some languages, read what people is thinking in some other countries etc. You will come to the right conclusions after awhile.

Let us make a test of Your hidden empathic resources:
1) If China would school terrorists against Russia or in South America, would You be against?
2) If Iran is schooling terrorists against Russia or in South America, would You be against?
3) If USA is schooling terrorists against Russia or in South America, would You be against?

You can come to the right answer even with half of my IQ.

Brutus wrote:

If You are rational, attack Saudi-Arabia for heavens sake!
The terrorists came from there. And there is no democracy; never been an election.
And please let us all fight the terrorists. Together. Catch them and put them before the judge. Not bombing with the small nice pinpointing bombs when we do not even know where they are.

And not to go to war before the “small” question “Why?” is explained by e.g. You.
You see, my IQ is such, that I need a rational explanation. I am not satisfied with the terrorist way of thinking: “Let’s just bomb the shit out of Satan!!”

Brutus wrote further:

What a splendid idea!
Then everyone that would not fit the picture; long beards etc., would probably be terrorists, because the terrorists will in all circumstanses make just the opposite that Mr Bush will declare!
Even the ajatollahs will be clean shaven after that.

Or we bomb the clean-shaved Satan. Brutus and I.
Yeah, but first tell me “Why?”

22

Henry, my friend, you are finally starting to see the light. If our Gov’t had half the balls it claims it does, we would have issued a formal declaration of war against S.Arabia on Sept.12 '01. Heck, probably sooner.

23

Airdisc

Originally I wrote only business letters in English. There You use always a capitalized “You”.
But also in other languages the word “You” is capitalized. (German “Sie”, Swedish “Ni”, Finnish “Te” usw.)
In English the word “I” is the only capitalised pronomen.
I do not think that the root would be that some Shakespearian forefathers would be egoistic and therefore capitilize “I”, but I have never heard an explanation about it.
Well, I like to address You as “You”.
I have never addressed the Queen of England, because she is not likely to go with me hip-hopping in downtown bars when I visit her country. Anyhow, I think the proper way would be: “Would Your Highness be so kind to admit me the pleasure to go together hip-hopping in some disco more proper for elderly Rock & Rollers like me and Your Highness?”, with capital letters.
Well, I will check this out next week or so, if I will leave for London.

May I do so also in future? I do not mean R&R. I mean capitalize when I address You?

P.S. Rock & Roll has to be capitalized! I am sure there is a law about it somewhere.

24

Brutus!
I am so glad You showed me The Light in this question!
But let’s not go even there alone.
Let’s check if EU or UN will give us some aid.

And let us see to that there is a better reason than the fact that there is fucking many terrorists born there.
Let’s begin from the beginning:

  • Do You know this Atta guy? Has he ever been in S-Arabia?
    We could maybe connect him with someone there? Maybe he had a cousin that has the same model of camel that someone in S-Arabia has?
    You know this question about camel-models, from “1000 and one night too much”; "One bump, or two bumps, that is the question?
    I like more the two-bump model but that has nothing to do with the camels nor the OP…
25

They were probably aiming for the senators.

Cite, please? I’m curious whether it was regular ATC radar or fire-control radar.

You do know what fire-control radar is, I assume? What it’s used for, and why it would be considered a threat if its operators trained it on a warplane?

As opposed to, say, Pravda. Fark had several interesting articles from them today; the “retarded alien baby” one was quite illuminating.

26

Um Airman, while the US radically slashed its oil imports from Iraq in late August, Iraq was still a MAJOR supplier of US oil up until then* - so the US hasn’t exactly “lived without Iraqi oil for more than a decade”.

That said, if the US is absolutely committed to bringing about “regime” change in Iraq through military action, you might want to consider taking out the House of Saud along with Saddam.

*US Department of Energy Oil Import figures for January-July 2002

27

Your Clairvoyance Machine is busted. Two years ago on other boards I could be found arguing in support of the Russians rooting out the terrorists in Chechnya. You were probably bitching about Clinton tolerating Putin’s human rights abuses.
Rushing to war on the basis of fears that your best intelligence cannot corroborate is the act of a coward. Condemning the United Nations because you lack the diplomatic skills to convince Russia, France and China that Saddam needs stepping on is the act of an incompetent fool.

28

Well, the administration says Iraq is developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and that they are likely to use them against the US if they get the chance. I’m not sure why you think this is such an unlikely reason in and of itself.

Any other reasons proposed, such locking down Iraqi oil supplies, revenge for a failed assassination attempt on the elder Bush, etc. are pure speculation on our part.

For the third fucking time, the radar units that have been attacked are fire-control radars used to guide surface-to-air missiles to their targets. When such a radar is activated, it is generally recognized as an aggressive act.

But not just the radar units were activated; missiles were launched against US aircraft. This has been done dozens of times over the past ten years. US policy has been to destroy the missile launching and radar guidance facilities when this occurs.

The only expansion I know of was of the southern zone, in 1996. If you know otherwise please post a link that confirms your assertion.

History of the no-fly zones:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/244364.stm

Don’t know. Let’s see, they’ve gotten rid of one since September 2001 (the Taliban). Maybe one a year, but really it’s too small of a sample to tell.

I just want to point out right here that the US has not yet launched an assault against Iraq. What if this was all a ploy to get weapons inspectors back in the country? But as I said, any reason other than the official one is pure speculation.

Lastly, I’ll just say that it may difficult for you to understand from your location, but the US population is far from unified over the the possibility of miltary action against Iraq. While Congress may have rubber-stamped approval of the proposed action, it is far from guaranteed that the public will support it.

I’m sorry if you are offended, Henry B, but the fact is, much of the information you have posted to this thread, and apparently your understanding of the situation, is flawed. Feel free to post whatever rebuttal you like, but I will not waste my time further.

29

reprise, while I may have erred by saying that, I do have to ask: Did you do the numbers? What we import from Iraq is all crude, and it amounts to one half of one percent of all imports.

That to me does not jump up and say “major supplier”.

I refuse to let this become a diversion, so I’ll concede your point without further reservation, and instead use it to attack Saddam some more.

The money realized from those purchases is supposed to be used for his people, not for weapons. Is that not the deal? Instead, he spends it on weapons, which he in turn shoots at us.

Yet another example of why we should bag the bastard.

As for you, Henry B, your consistent misrepresentation of fact and your interpretations are honestly giving me a headache. I’m afraid we’ll never agree, and so I’m done dealing with you.

30

My single biggest problem with invading Iraq is I think that only makes it that much more likely for Saddam to do something. I’m convinced that he love himself more than he hates America. He knows that he can take potshots at jets and brutalize his own people pretty much as long as he wants. He also knows that Bush is looking for any excuse at all to bomb the shiat out of him. So this makes me think that Saddam has no reason to act out unless he feels his reign is about to end. Saddam isn’t going to Hitler himself in a bunker. That’s when he’ll annouce, “fark it, launch everything.”

I think Ariel Sharon could end up being the wild card in all this too. Suppose the U.S. lays waste to Iraq. Saddam lobs a couple missiles into Israel like he did in the Gulf War. What kind of retaliation would happen? Would Sharon even go nuclear against Iraq? Would this eventually draw other Arab nations into a war? I’m not making predictions, I’m merely speculating.

The other thing that bugs me is the timing. Is Saddam a rotten guy? Sure. But what, he was our friend for 10 years and all of a sudden he’s bad again? Or what about the rest of the world’s truly rotten dictators? Saddam doesn’t have a monopoly on the world’s list of bad guys. And why is it “wagging the dog” if military action is planned during a sex scandal and “patriotism” if military action is planned during economic hard times?

Feh. Anyways, I would like to thank Airman Doors and everyone else serving our country. Whatever I think about the higher-ups in charge or ethics of military action has no effect on the respect I have for those who put their lives on the line to protect my right to be a smartass on the Internet (among other things).

31

My, my, how the Norse have fallen. Used to be in the good old days, hop a ship, cruise down south, a little raping and pillaging. Hmph, ever since the invention of the submarine, all we hear is bitch, bitch, bitch.

32

Geez, guys, I know this is the Pit, but is it really necessary to hurl personal insults at someone who happens to hold a different opinion than you? Pacifist does not equal pussy. If you disagree with Henry B’s interpretation of the facts, then fine, dissect his arguments to your heart’s content.

However, it sure wouldn’t hurt any of us to read something other than mainstream U.S.-based media sources about Iraq. Even a U.K paper or two would be a big help. And I think we as Americans are just deluding ourselves if we think it’s pointless to consider how the rest of the world will look at us if our government and military make unilateral decisions that involve bombing other countries. Having half the world think that Americans are a bunch of trigger-happy wackos who don’t give a damn about anything except their own access to the good life isn’t exactly conducive to world peace.

Look, I’m no big fan of Saddam Hussein’s either. Check out the Human Rights Watch report on what he did to Kurdish villages (hint: chemical warfare). He’s one of the very few individuals who is almost enough to make me years for the [irony] “good old days” [/irony] of U.S.-backed targeted assassinations.

However, I’m also of the camp that finds the timing of Bush’s wish to escalate in Iraq to be highly suspicious, and I started a thread to that effect a couple of months ago. So even if you think Henry’s facts are wrong, that doesn’t negate the sentiment behind the thread.

Eva Luna, who thinks Siberia is beautiful and who will be out marching against bombing Iraq, just like she did in 1991, as soon as she shakes this damn bronchitis!

33

Although I hate to say it, I pretty much agree with Airman Doors. If you don’t think Saddam is a lying lunatic, you’re stupid.

34

Libertarian, there’s a big difference between thinking that Saddam Hussein is a lying lunatic and thinking that the U.S. should go to war with Iraq. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference is stupid.

35

Eva Luna, You seem to be Jean D’Arc in shining armour, defending a dumbelly like me. :slight_smile:

To everyone who has participated in this thread:
1) I am absolutely not a pacifist.
2) USA is the leading country of the world.
3) USA has in former days shown a good example to many countries.
4) USA seem also to have a dark side, the very one-eyed media and as a result, one-sided thinking.
5) People around the world, but many in USA, believes that politics is “On” or “Off”, peace or war, black and white. It is not!
6) Saddam has to be moved from power, put in court in Hague, and the Baath-party has to be destroyed. But how, that is the question.
7) It is no question about that the world do not need Airman Doors, USAF, and his colleagues around the world. Always has. But when and what is the orders/expections, that we all should discuss. What is the proper way to do it?

This above was the short form. If You are not interested to read the longer one, please do not read. It really seems to me that people does a very “selective” reading and posts answers on what they believed they read. Fortunately not everyone. And this goes for many threads I have been reading the last 5 months. Maybe I would also read very fast through everything, if I would understand every word and didn’t have to go to my Webster always now and then.
Even if this is The Pit, we should come to some conclusions, or anyhow come to an understanding what the other guy is thinking. Otherwise there is no meaning in the whole discussion and we can just stare at the stupid-box.

So:
USA is, or should be an example in world politics. If I would have been asked some years ago, if USA would attack e.g. Iraq without NATO or UN, I would have answered: “NO WAY! They are not stupid!” (My dissapointment on Bush is enormous).

There is three (main) possibilities to put Saddam out of power, destroy Baath etc.:
1) Begin a war, with or without UN resolutions, and without inspections, occupy the country within months.
Result:

  • Thousands of new recruits for bin Laden, mostly not from Iraq. The War on Terrorism will just see the morning sun.
  • Every country, (I put here China so You will see how it looks like), will tell that they are just having a pre-emptive war. “We are just taking preventing North-Korea from making nukes!” “Fuck UN, they have always been against China!” etc. etc.

So anyone who believes he has got a mission from God, Marx or Satan, can just perform “the usual pre-emptive war”.

2) The UN inspectors goes and inspects.
Frankly I do not know how many “inspection-units” are available, but I do not either believe that the soldiers will be “mass-destruction-weapon-engineers” over-night, able to find this or that. (What do You need for chemical weapons? InterNet like my 19 year countryman used, when he blasted a bomb near Helsinki last Friday? He was studying chemistry though and just made some unusual explosives at his home).

Result:
The world will very soon know the result, or if not successful, why it is not enough, not enough of resources etc. (I do not believe the recourses will be sufficient enough).
And the world can act accordingly. Which means that USA has done everything possible to avoid… what ever. There will be a movement to one side or another, but USA will not be the scapegoat. Do not believe that the inspection will be a walk in the Sunday afternoon. I do not believe that the west is able to put pressure only with weapons.

3) The UN inspectors goes and inspects and does not be allowed to inspect, or will be taken as hostages.
Result:
The whole world will be united against Saddam. Just ask for a war-ticket and You get it.

I am for the French suggestion: A new resolution and inspections. If Saddam blows it = war between The World and Iraq. (If You read what they actually saying).

What we should do and what to avoid:

  • that a western country makes anything unilaterally. (This I have stressed in former posts asking (irritating) questions. And there is many of us that does not see that we should defend the values we are ourselves breaking.)
    Is it so humiliating to ask UN, on whose mission the army there is acting, about no-fly-zones? And later wider no-fly-zones? I do not know if there has been an attempt to get a permission/resolution to bomb e.g. radar-stations, but the answer “that is the US policy” is just stupid.
    It is just arrogant behaviour and gives “the other side” new arguments.

  • strengthen UN, it is so far the only world-wide political forum we have.
    (As we can see, George Bush is very concerned about the arm-race within mass-destruction-weapons”. I hoped in my youth, that JFK-type of president would be, but there never was any new JFK after him. Unfortunately I do not believe that the concern of Bush is so much about the global arm-race).

  • build up a international “defending/preventing/crisis-area army”.
    Could have been used in every conflict after the fall of Soviet Union. And I believe USA would have got very much glory out of this, because I think USA would be very active in this matter.

To put my thoughts in a nut-shell:
USA can make much good, but to understand how the rest of the world is thinking and why, why it is acting like it is, seem not to be possible, even for the people in the high positions. Those who should be really well informed. Or they do not care.
But as these posts in many threads have shown, there are a lot of emphatic people also in USA.

If You still think that the right answer is:
A duel before the sun goes down, please think how long can You have an endless War with/against Terrorism, with all Your rights guarantied?
10 years? 20 years? 40 years?
Whatever Your answer is, the War has not really begun yet, the war that will not keep the frontier somewhere far from home.
And You can just guess what will happen to the newly found rights in the other parts of the world. And how it will affect Your life in the long run? It will, believe me, it will.

Please think before You react.
If You know all answers before thinking, then You should know that You are not. You are just a programmed stupid and arrogant @sshole. As the Russian nationalists who I see every day. There is too many of that kind already and we should get rid of one, or what do You think? :wink:

36

White House: Saddam “Months Away” from Perpetual Motion Machine

37

Quite the opposite. Those who recognize that Saddam is a rat bastard but do not think we should ‘regime change’ his ass are stupid.

Saddam is Iraq. It is a dictatorship. You are bright enough to realize that he alone determines what Iraq does; and if he is a lying rat bastard, then Iraq will be a lying rat bastard.

Thats the thing with dictatorships; the country hops to whatever tune the dictator plays.

38

Eva Luna bellowed:

I know the difference, but I don’t think you do. When the lying lunatic is a dictatorial head of state with biological and chemical weapons deliverable by missile, and who has directly threatened American citizens, the person who sees only happy shiny people holding hands is stupid.

39

Six years, ten months, eight days, five hours and forty-three minutes exactly.

40

Meanwhile, the War on Poverty rages on.