Abunai, you've truly gone off the deep end on this one. Your location tag is
very fitting.
Abunai! wrote:
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?
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?
Quote:
You undermine your own point, dumbass. "Terrorism is why! Oh, terrorism was just one reason." FUCKING DUMBASS.
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.
Quote:
"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?
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.
Quote:
"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.
I would replace "tinged" with "soaked through."
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Oh wait, it's fuck the rest of the world unless they do what we want, I forgot. My bad.
Nahh. It's ignore the rest of the world unless they do what we want, and fuck 'em if they work against us.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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."
Quote:
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.
It's called an "example."
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
We're going to make the world a better place by becoming the lone controlling force in the world?
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.
Quote:
Tell me, what kind of fuck-headed, jingoistic, jackass, moronic argument is that?
One that Octavian would have agreed with.
Pax Americana, anyone?
Edited to add:
And getting rid of Saddam Hussien stops incidents like this.