Saddam Caught!

[ExCyber]

If that's all you can see, you're not even paying attention to the thread. Not everything is about Bush.

 

[Jeffrey]

blind... zombie... follower...

must... obey... leader...

Bush... good... vote again...

😛

 

[ChiBangin101]

Originally posted by jeff-20@Dec 14, 2003 @ 06:34 PM

But who appointed America as the Police Officer? Could I just walk into your home and make a citizen's arrest because you aren't living by my rules?

I wouldn't have a problem with that if the person was killing a lot of people.

I think it's stupid that people are behind Saddam just because they hate America or Bush for other reasons.

 

[Jeffrey]

Woah, I am not behind him. I am trying to be objective.

And I don't think it is fair to claim authority without appointment or permission -- as this year's Noble peace Prize winner said.

Why did we even ask other countries for permission if we were going to just do it anyway?

Also, it is not fair to be selective. Stop some crimes, and watch others without interfereing. Especially if the cops only serve people with money!

 

[Jurai]

Originally posted by jeff-20@Dec 15, 2003 @ 12:12 AM

Woah, I am not behind him. I am trying to be objective.

And I don't think it is fair to claim authority without appointment or permission -- as this year's Noble peace Prize winner said.

Why did we even ask other countries for permission if we were going to just do it anyway?

Also, it is not fair to be selective. Stop some crimes, and watch others without interfereing. Especially if the cops only serve people with money!

nm i misread his 3rd line, and i dont feel like bashing him more

 

[Jeffrey]

Originally posted by Jurai@Dec 15, 2003 @ 05:54 AM

nm i misread his 3rd line, and i dont feel like bashing him more

Ah-ha! I knew it! IRAQI SYMPATHIZER!

It will be my duty to report you to the CIA.

You are now officially on an FBI watch-list.

 

[Jurai]

jeff stop acting like a fucking shit tard who just finished guzzling donkey cum

 

[it290]

I don't know Jurai, I really think there are a fair number of Americans, myself included, and people of pretty much every other nationality who think Bush is somewhat 'evil' (whatever that term may mean). It's certainly not that hard to draw that conclusion given his actions, whether it be being partially responsible for the deaths of innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, and American soldiers, pushing legislation that has harmful effects upon the environment, supporting the limitation of the freedoms of American citizens, lying to the public (in several cases), or just good 'ol complicity in making his corporate buddies some cash.

 

[Jurai]

bush didnt order troops to go shoot civilians, saddam did, so stfu stupid ######, k fucking thnx

 

[Scared0o0Rabbit]

it's good that saddam is gone, in some ways he was the hitler of iraq. with that said, I just hope bush doesn't get re-elected. If so it's going to be coin toss time: heads to invade mexico, tails to invade canada.

 

[Jeffrey]

oh... now I see why he got banned.

 

[Ammut]

Aww, I was going to come back to Jurai's pathetically immature comments... but now hes gone...

😛arty

First Saddam, now this? Today is indeed a good day 😀

I'm glad Saddam is gone, I'm sure the question of what to do with him will be discussed and announced through the media soon enough. Did anyone else see Bush and Blair's Speeches though? :blah :wanker

---Ammut

 

[Jeffrey]

I think the admins are taking inspiration from the capture... they've banned two people today. Both who seemed to have it coming for a while.

 

[axelblazeadam]

Man this topic has grown since I last posted.

Just thought I'd say that being Anti Saddam and Anti Bush are not mutually exclusive.

I think Saddam had to be removed but I'm no Bush supporter. I've hated him since I heard of his policy on the environment(or lack of one) and I hope he loses the next election.

 

[Jeffrey]

Oh boy is Bush going to spin this capture during the next election!

But history shows that we tend to elect a more passive president after any major war. If Hillary EVER had a chance, I guess it would be now.

Can you imagine an election between Hillary and Colin Powell??? I don't know who I'd vote for...

 

[Ammut]

Originally posted by MTXBlau+Dec 13, 2003 @ 07:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MTXBlau @ Dec 13, 2003 @ 07:04 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>All I have to say is I wish they spent that 200+ billion dollars finding the guy who did actually attack the US, then go after Saddam.

[/b]

Thats another great reason behind attacking Iraq...

"If we can't get the bad guy we're after, perhaps we can make one look just as bad, then catch him.Yea!"

Originally posted by Gallstaff@Dec 13, 2003 @ 11:53 PM

I think we should do all we can to make sure that his followers know what a fucking pussy he is

I'll email all the Iraqis newsgroups 😛

<!--QuoteBegin-BJammzz@Dec 14, 2003 @ 02:47 AM

I agree...it effects the iraqi people more than us by a LONG shot.....but by having peace over there, it will help us over here.......all I want is gas to be liek 1.20 for premium 🙂.[/quote]

This is exactly the kind of typical notion that makes people so anti-American.

You'd choose to save 5 cents on a litre of gas even if you knew that it was coming from a country that has no human rights. But it doesn't affect you so why care? I mean, why the **** should I spend $2 more on a pair of shoes when we can just exploit some kids in a third world country? I mean, its taking place far away and they need jobs there anyway, right?

This thinking, combined with a nation obssessed with 'rightiousness', 'justice', and 'freedom for all' is just ****ed up. You value freedom so highly, yet as long as YOU have your freedom, you don't give enough of a fuck to pay $2 extra for thousands others around the world. Nice.

And just so you know, I think this has done anything but 'help us over here' in the long run as discontent will grow with other nations, as evidenced by France, Germany, Russia, and even Canada. Even your main 'allies' in with you, Britain and Australia, both have populations opposing the war. Discontent for Blair has shot up ever since he started ass kissing to Bush, and polls show that a great majority of Aussies are against sending troops to help out. Not only does the US piss off certain nations but it shuns international organizations such as the UN and ignores the ICC and whatnot. And now the American government is awarding its little coalition **** buddies, assigning grants to contractors to these member nations and not those who opposed the war. All these factors add up in the end.

I'm glad I don't live in the States. No, I am not anti-American... I just greatly dislike the American government and its policies. I feel sorry for Americans alot, being represented in such a fashion worldwide when I know that individuals that live there really, generally, are good people. Why Bush gets votes is beyond me, but it sickens me to think him being in for another term. The way things are going however, it seems it'll be something the world will have to put up with for another 4 years.

thats a lot of typing.

---Ammut

 

[ratfish]

Originally posted by ExCyber@Dec 14, 2003 @ 09:25 PM

criticizing the government

Actually, a little OT, but it's interesting you brought this up. It really made me think (in my sleep deprived stupor) about the government.

The basic founders of the US were dissenters from their government. There were all types of laws, tarifs, religious and political issues going on during those times that a large portion of the general public didn't feel were lawful, and they thought the king *cough* George *cough* was being an asshole, to put it plainly.

From what I understand, one of the big reasons why they didn't want to put up with the English government anymore was because they believed that when the people governed by the law didn't have a fair say in it, it was only necessary to voice their opinion, to the point of creating their own laws, and then leading to the creation of their own government.

And of course I'm not saying that all dissenters should create a new government and start a rebellion, but things seem to be getting a little out of hand, and the government should listen, take into consideration all of the dissenting opinions, and make some middle-ground. Yes, the US' foreign policy can still be referred to as "dollar diplomacy" especially at times like this, putting the "well-being" of the country's (in this case) security first, and all other things shoved to the back stage.

It's just such a big issue to grasp, and looking at issues like this from all angles, you're going to have to lean towards one side of the issue, there's no way to maintain an exact middle gorund for ever. And then there'll be lots of distorted information from the media comming in from all angles, and then not after quite a long period of time passes, it ends up back at the beginning and it starts all over again.

Sometimes there's nothing to do but hope the situation is resolved and comes out in the best situation possible. Who expected a rag-tag group of farmers with muskets to win their independence from the English army?

 

[it290]

And of course I'm not saying that all dissenters should create a new government and start a rebellion, but things seem to be getting a little out of hand, and the government should listen, take into consideration all of the dissenting opinions, and make some middle-ground. Yes, the US' foreign policy can still be referred to as "dollar diplomacy" especially at times like this, putting the "well-being" of the country's (in this case) security first, and all other things shoved to the back stage.

And I agree with you, but unfortunately, during the time of the framers of the constitution, things like propaganda and tear gas didn't exist. What I mean is that it seems the people in power have become more willing to abuse that power over time - and that willingness is increased by the fact that rebellion is more or less impossible for the forseeable future.

IMHO, a couple of things need to happen. First, some _real_ campaign finance reform needs to be put into effect. The amount of money these guys spending is ludicrous- and I don't think a monetary advantage has any place in a fair election.

Secondly, I think the president's power needs to be reduced. For example, I don't think the President should be about to name Supreme Court Justices- I never understood how that fit into the checks and balances system in the first place. I think the ability to veto should be diminished as well.

Can you imagine an election between Hillary and Colin Powell??? I don't know who I'd vote for...

Heh.. that would indeed be interesting. I don't think Powell's interested at this point however. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he retires soon)

 

[Scared0o0Rabbit]

Can you imagine an election between Hillary and Colin Powell??? I don't know who I'd vote for...

Seriously

And I agree with you, but unfortunately, during the time of the framers of the constitution, things like propaganda and tear gas didn't exist.

You wanna bet propaganda didn't exist?