ZOMBIE FORUMS

...I believe Revolutio meant something more specific.

Which could amount to revealing the spy if it is specific enough, but hey, Iraq's gone, we don't need whoever he was anyways anymore.[/sarcasm]

As for 12/7....dammit, I've never been good with dates. Comes from trying to learn the European and Japanese ways of doing them, I guess. Or it could just be that I suck with dates anyways...

*sees Spei's new avatar and giggles like a schoolboy*

Edit: MiB, I believe you should read Kit's post. That jogged my memory quite nicely, thank you.

2nd edit: Yes, anyone against the war has to be anti-Bush, of course. I mean, Bush IS the war, and the war is Bush, right?

3rd edit, because I'm an ass: You don't give a full rat's ass about it. Okay, that's your deal, fine. But then what the hell was the point in going in Iraq? Business deals in the reconstruction? Oil?

Can anyone honestly say they would have believed any more specific information if it was presented, or would they just chalk it up as more propaganda?

Its moot, because of two reasons.

1) Monday morning quarterbacking. The administration did its job and only a few hardcore anti-bush people opposed him. I leave out the rest of the world because I give exactly 1/2 a rat's ass about it.

2) Any more specific information wouldn't have persuaded anyone who wasn't already convinced- you either trust that the gov't wouldn't lie about that or you don't. Simple, see? So we have no swing people who would logically be convinced.

No reason to present "more specific" information.

And perhaps this will jog your memory.



-MiB

I seriously doubt this. First, the same people who screamed that it was all about the ooooiiiiiillllll would have screamed just as loudly that it was all about the ooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllll if the stated reason was a humanitarian one. Second, people who are willing to see resources expended and soldiers risk (and sometimes lose) their lives to take out a threat to us might be far less willing to see those same resources and lives expended over purely humanitarian reasons.

If all Saddam was guilty of was brutally oppressing his people, we wouldn't have done anything about it. We let dictators get away with that in places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and scattered hellholes around the planet. No, freeing the Iraqi people was a reason, but it was not the reason.

Nor was it just Saddam's support of terrorism. Saudi Arabia is a prime supporter of terrorism, both through monetary donations (the "Golden Chain") and by its worldwide promotion of violent, dangerous Wahhabi Islam.

It was his apparent quest for WMDs and his support of terrorism (twenty-five thousand dollars to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber, for a start) and his history of aggression and his oppression of his people.

Preemptive strike against another ridiculous misquotation by The Guardian:

Guardian quote:


Actual quote:


Tsk tsk, Guardian reporter George Wright. Showing a bit of bias?

Just a wee bit.



Actually, either disliking America or hating Bush/the government in general is the only reason for that. Or ignorance, which I don't count.



1) Terrorism needs to start being taken out. Enough issues that had to do with the US BESIDES his connections to terrorism were there that Bush probably said "Lets take out the biggest concentration of problems first."

2) Besides that, Freeing Iraq means lower oil prices. Cheap oil = OPEC has less of a stranglehold on the US and other western powers, which means we can go after the larger centers of terrorism (coughcoughsaudiarabiacoughcough) without fear of our economy going down more.

3) He was supporting Palestinian suicide bombers. I like my jews in 1 piece, thank you.

4) Saddam looked at me funny

-MiB
Don't trust the media

Disclaimer: Okay, I'm feelish rantish, and feel like pissing someone off. So assume this is an imitation of the old you, and kindly don't take it personally. Also realize some of this is some poor attempt at satire/mockery.



The only reason for being against the war is disliking America or Bush? That's so FUCKING STUPID. It couldn't possibly be because people are against killing, maybe? That they think there might be some way, something WAY out there that could be conceivably better than bombing the hell out of Saddam and any city near him at the time? Or shooting anyone that doesn't immediately get down on the ground and stay quiet whilst men pointing guns search them? No? Not possible?



You undermine your own point, dumbass. "Terrorism is why! Oh, terrorism was just one reason." FUCKING DUMBASS.

"Terrorism needs to start being taken out." So you're saying we've doing jack-shit? Bullshit, we took care of Osama, didn't we?

"Bush said." Okay, I admit I don't like Bush for personal reasons. In fact, most of what I say (correct or not) is probably tinged with bias against him. So I'm just going to call him a moron and leave it that. Though you'll probably misinterpret my meaning.


Er, is this supposed to be a reason BESIDES oil (which I already mentioned)? No? Then why did you feel the need to put it in, again? Fuck, having all the other powers in the world give us all their money so we can instantly develop Iraq into our little puppet/slave state would make it easier to take care of Saudi Arabia, too. Peaceful means? Fuck that shit, if they don't instantly obey regardless of whatever else they might have that needs to be doing, they get the bombing on their asses.

I seriously doubt we are going to be going after Saudia Arabia soon, unless we have control of, say, the majority of the other major oil producing countries, and that's only going to happen by massive and heavy-handed wars that will eventually end up making shitholes like Afghanistan. Oh wait, it's fuck the rest of the world unless they do what we want, I forgot. My bad. It doesn't matter that we might seem a little hypocritical going after all these oil-producing nations claiming it is for their freedom and not the poorer nations that wouldn't get us anything, because getting oil is what we're doing. What? The rest of the world doesn't like this? Fuck them, they don't matter. We're making the world a better place, because if we make it American, it has to be better. The UK? They get to be the 51st state.

What? We're allies of Saudi Arabia at the moment? Well damn, guess we'll just have to tell them we changed our minds and that they can go do what we told them or die in a hail of bombs. Betrayal? Not really. I mean, we're the fucking US of A.



Palestinian Suicide Bombers? Why didn't you lump that under terrorism instead of babbling about how terrorism was a problem we need to take care of and that is one problem Saddam had. But nevermind, that's ad hominem, and it's my duty to try to make sense of what you said.

...I like my Jews in one piece too, but generally they're acting like total asses in Israel. But wait, they do what we want, so they can't be in the wrong at all! It must be all <insert target of the month here>'s fault. We don't need to address the issue of a Palestinian state, them Palestines are gettin' better leader dude. He'll bow to demands like a good boy, I bet.

So, basically, the only thing that you have besides oil is terrorism. Yay. And some other unmentioned, babbled about reasons that most of us know, but you failed to address.

MiB, you seem to realize your faults, outwardly admit that they are faults, but take pride in them anyway. If they're faults, DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM! Fucking hell, I used to be a totally aloof, elitist, arrogant, introverted asshole. I never deigned to say anything to other people, because people would invariably act how I believed was stupid, and they would just prove themselves eternal morons. But I realized these problems of mine (in addition to a number of other ones), and worked to change them. Now I just have a little bit of lingering assholishness and some elitism, but am lucky enough to be generally outgoing, cheerful, and friendly (yes, I realize how ironic it is to say that in this context).

Your attitude is nothing, if not self-centered and egotistic. Telling the rest of the world to fuck off is NOT the way to go about doing things, despite what any jingoist may have told you. We're going to make the world a better place by becoming the lone controlling force in the world? Tell me, what kind of fuck-headed, jingoistic, jackass, moronic argument is that?

-Abunai
Because the word jingoistic ass is so applicable to you.

Uhh, the fucker is still alive...

I think Ab meant "took care of him" in a "heavily disabled so he isn't bothering us anymore" way. Whether he'll bother us again or not (that is, if he's still alive, which we don't know whether he is or not) is up for debate, but he's leaving us alone for now.

Well, he might be heavily disabled, he might still be running at full power. We can't tell because we can't find him...

The only thing I took personally, Abunai, was your horrible imitation of "old me." To wit-



Being against killing is...well, in the end its morally hypocritical, if you value "survival" as moral.
Because we bombed the hell out of Iraq, and killed everyone in it who looked at us funny. And no, it wasn't possible. I thought everyone under the sun already conceded that more UN inspectors would do exactly jack shit.
Why use facts, when you can rant like a moron about things that never happened? Its so much easier that way.



Sigh. You know, I hate when people are purposely coy just so they can get in a jab. Stop avoiding the obvious in future posts, kk thx. gg no re.

And if you truly thought that at any one time, then perhaps you'd best leave the debate to people who take ideas past the "painfully obvious" stage. It doesn't take that much thinking to figure how I don't contradict myself. But then I suppose you never really were much on thinking.



Sorry, mistype. Terrorism needs to be continued to thinking out.



"tinged"?
Come Abunai! I thought you were more honest than that.



Can someone please make sense of this for me? I'm kind of confused, he rambles on and on about impossible or stupid things happening. Oh well. *drops some change into Abunai's cup*



Like Iraq, who had by far the best military in the Middle East, the savage battles that were raged across Iraq devistated the country, leaving only a few buildings standing and many million innocents dead. Oh fortune teller, tell us what else you see in your crystal ball, that we may partake of your infinite wisdom and infallable predictions...

As to the rest of your stuff, all I have to say is- PIE. You can resolve your own points yourself, with a little brainpower. Goodnight.

-MiB

Something this debate needs.



Panties.

Quick summary of my position.

Give me beer.
Shut GWB up with a half-brick in a sock.
Go to Red Alert, Actor has a beard!!

Actor.

Abunai, you've truly gone off the deep end on this one. Your location tag is very fitting.



Yep. Fighting an extremely controlled and well-targetted war that inflicted minimal (although, admittedly, not nonexistent) civilian casualties is an alternative, and that's exactly what was done. Or did I miss a giant smoldering crater where Baghdad used to be?



There's support of terrorism all over the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is a major concentration of it, for example. But dealing with it is easier region-by-region, rather than launching a continent-wide assault, and there were added reasons to depose the Ba'ath regime, such as apparent development of WMD and extreme oppression of the populace.



Then consider it "Terrorism needs to be continued being taken out." As for Osama, I'm convinced that he's dead, but the war on terror was never the war on Osama; he's simply a very visible target in it.



I would replace "tinged" with "soaked through."



Iraq had the most advanced army of the Muslim Mideastern countries. It really took a "massive" war to destroy it, didn't it? It got chewed up like a chihuahua versus a pitbull in Desert Storm, and in the recent war it was more like a chihuahua versus a mountain lion. And that was the best the Arab world had.



Nahh. It's ignore the rest of the world unless they do what we want, and fuck 'em if they work against us.



If Iraq didn't have oil, we most likely would not have gone into Iraq. I'm sure that now you're grinning and thinking "He admitted it's all about the ooiiiiiilllllll!!!!" but hold your self-congratulation for another minute. If Iraq had had no oil, there would have been little reason to invade, because there would have been little threat from the regime. An oil-less Hussein would not have had the money to finance an army such as he had, to construct WMD, and to give handouts to terrorists; an oil-less Hussein who was no threat and whose major crime was oppressing his people would likely have received the U.S. "blind eye" treatment, as dictators as Robert Mugabe have.



You don't seem to like America very much. I'd suggest reading What's So Great About America by Dinesh D'Souza to give you a different perspective.



We're the allies of Saudi Arabia for two reasons. One, they have ooooiiiiiillllll, and if they cut if off they cause us economic pain. Second, they have oooiiiiillll, which means they have money, which they use copiously to bribe people and buy support. That's the extent of our "alliance." As soon as we no longer need their oil, I fully expect that alliance to end; not in the sense of "All your base are belong to us!" but in the sense of "Goodbye, enjoy your return to the Middle Ages since virtually your entire economy was based on a now-unneeded substance."



It's called an "example."



Know what Bush is doing right now? Putting all his energy into that Road Map. He may actually be able to pull it off, althoug I don't expect it. But claiming that the issue is not even being addressed is willful blindness to current events.

As for Abbas, he's an Arafat apointee. Not elected, not selected by a group, but picked out by Arafat. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.



Better us than anyone else. Someone is going to be top dog; I'd rather not see China in that role. I expect what you're actually getting at is that a UN-style organization should be in charge of world affairs, but the UN is simply broken.



One that Octavian would have agreed with. Pax Americana, anyone?

Edited to add:
And getting rid of Saddam Hussien stops incidents like this.

When people talk about "terrorists", it sounds sorta like "Commies" must have in the 50's. Although, please don't attack the analogy, attack the idea.
People aren't born as terrorists. Terrorism is not inherent to the Middle East, nor is in nonexistent in the rest of the world. The Americans used it in the glorious Revolutionary War. Middle Easterners are simply in an area where:
A. There are many conflicts.
B. There are many conflicts with nations and people who are much wealthier and more powerful than the people in the Middle East.
C. Therefore, terrorism is the only useful tool for warfare.
Therefore, fighting against "terrorism" is just like fighting any other war. We, of course, hate it, so we try, somehow, to differentiate it from other types of warfare, and then use that vilification as an excuse for war.

This is not, of course, to make any direct comment on other issues here. Only wanted to rant about that.

EDIT: reminds me. I made precisely the same argument against someone else (pertaining to the media) that you did, MiB.
*sob*

I've written entire articles on the similariies between the "Red" Scare and the "Terrorist" or as I call it "Brown" Scare. It doesn't help because those who don't remember specifically don't have any sense of history or its repitition. Most people in America have never heard of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Except that in most other wars, the enemy is clearly defined. In World War II, the enemies were known: the Germans and Japanese. Virtually all other wars I can think of follow this pattern; the one partial exception I can think of is Vietnam, due to the Vietcong's practice of hiding among civilians.

But with terrorism, the enemy is not clearly defined. The war on terrorism is not identical to a war on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran; terrorists come from and are supported by all of those places, yet are the dominant faction in none of them. The war on terrorism cannot be fought by taking territory and capturing cities (unless all the inhabitants are slaughtered; successful genocide would be the end of Arab terrorism, but that idea is simply too horrible to even consider carrying out); it cannot be fought by armies engaged in full-out traditional warfare. The war on terrorism is different than fighting other wars. It is a war of rooting out terror cells within our nation (such as the Lackawanna six), of stopping the sources of their funding (Islamic "charities" that actually raise money for terror groups, and wealthy benefactors such as the "Golden Chain" of Saudis), of destroying the places were they can train and build their strength (Afghanistan), and, of course, of capturing or killing their leaders.

If the war on terrorism could be fought as any other war, it would likely already be over, or at least well on the way to completion.

The war on Terrorism breaks the first rule of fighting: Never pick a fight you can't win.

You can never completely eliminate an ideology, especially using the tactics that created such an ideology in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall the revolutionary army of the Colonies did not intentionally target civilians in order to make political points, because they could not strike the british army in any useful capability- in fact, as I recall the Revolutionary Army won.

You're drawing too wide a category. Not every revolutionary is a terrorist- though I don't like a whole bunch of them, I wouldn't classify them as a "terrorist"- that would be stupid.

Edit: The idea isn't to wipe it out, but destroy the things that made it such a powerful force. Nobody is claiming we can wipe out terrorism- that would be foolery- but that we are attempting to destroy the infrastructure that makes this particular kind of terrorism efficient.

And these tactics did not create terrorism, at least not the kind against the USA- supporting democracies and helping countries retain their independance did. Given a choice, I'd do the same thing over again, and I'd still see 9-11 happen rather than see Israel go to hell and Iraq expanded. If you'll recall, the infidels setting foot on Saudi Arabia and daring to help the only free republic in the arab world were the major beef Osama had with us. Of course, you forgot that for convience, but since when has that been new?

-MiB

... I don't really have an opinion in this debate... well, I do, but I'm afraid to say it because it is definitely going to be so horribly misconstrued by all the bloodthirsty vultures out there. And besides, my view has been rehashed, and any support I give of it will lend to the stereotype of war hawk or peace dove or what have you.

Regardless, I think a few things need to be clarified. Some of you really don't know what the hell you are talking about.


As to that oil bit:
If anything, OPEC will tighten it's prices, because it will feel pressured by the American presence in the Middle East. Obviously, if we can harness the Iraqi oil, our prices will drop, but OPEC will only jack the prices of it's oil to compensate for what it will lose.

Saudi Arabia is no more a center for terrorism than any other middle eastern nation. Of course, ignorant people will say it is because "15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi". That's great. Here's the thing about Saudi Arabia: the princes who control the country actually don't want to piss America off. The princes kind of like us, and would favor us if not for their volatile people. Not all of them, but understand that Saudi Arabia is a very strict Sunni nation - and recent events breed for more Sunni radicalism (and yes that is what Saddam and Osama both claim to). So if Saudi Arabia were to assist us, their people would revolt, the established government would be toppled, and there'd be another surging terrorist state that is completely against us, with the money and the resources that currently rest in the control of the princes. Although, a lot of the money generated by terrorists from Saudi Arabia comes from oil and private owners, like bin Laden and his father.


I'm thinking that what Abunai is bitching about is WHY ATTACK IRAQ. So far, all his opposition, he claims, has come up with is terrorism and oil... uhm...

Try Iraq violated ALL of the statutes of the United Nations Agreement... each one of them singularly cause of outside intervention/action.


And Kylaer is right. Terrorists use unconventional methods of warfare; not meaning nukes, but meaning blowing up buses. You can't really fight a "war" against terrorism. You can crack down on it, but you can't point at a solid entity and declare war. Kind of like America's domestic "war on drugs". And when you have terrorists, they are not prisoners of war, either, when they are captured. They are enemy combatants, meaning they represented no army, no nation, no organization of any sort (ie NATO), and they can just tuck their asses in Guantanamo Bay for the rest of their lives.

Anyway, I need to go make a sammich. Adios.

Thank you.

aw, you're welcome. didn't mean to join the "slam Abunai" contest, but you were wrong. *shrug*