NationStates Jolt Archive

Osama bin Laden or George Bush and the evil US foreign policy?

Troll.

Nuff said.

What IS trolling?

Basically, making inane statements and being annoying just to get attention.

What IS trolling?

This thread is.

This isn't trolling. It's asking for an opinion... though using asinine methods.

Wow. This guy just ingores counters to his arguments and then makes new ridiculous claims.

This thread is.
if this was trolling, why would 75% agree bush is a bigger terrorist?

Osama bin Laden or George Bush and the evil US foreign policy?

depends on how you define terrorism

But Osama wins under almost any definition.

depends on how you define terrorism

But Osama wins under almost any definition.
howabout killing civilians for pointless causes. bush has killed more civilians, I say he wins

howabout killing civilians for pointless causes. bush has killed more civilians, I say he wins

What country do you live in where they teach you that Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama Bin Laden?

I'm gonna go with......Syria?

howabout killing civilians for pointless causes. bush has killed more civilians, I say he wins

Actually, he hasn't killed any.

His orders have resulted in the deaths of quite a few. But at least Bush doesn't go out of his way to target civilians.

Except here in the US, that is.

What country do you live in where they teach you that Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama Bin Laden?


The United States. Freedom of opinion is a great thing, even if Bush and his cronies are trying to take it away from us.

What country do you live in where they teach you that Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama Bin Laden?

I'm gonna go with......Syria?
you are sorely mistaken if you feel the middle east is the only place that views Bush as a terrorist

I REALLY don't like George W. Bush but calling him a terrorist is going a little far. Unless you are going to call all heads of state terrorists.

Soviestan:

Just a couple questions assuming that you are american

-Which would you regret more
a) the american revolution never occured and you still live in a monarchy and would be hanged for having such views as you do
b) the american revolution did occur and the worst you get for your views is a marine on your ass

-When you look back on your life, how do you want to view it
a) you made every effort that you could with your lack of power to disrupt U.S. efforts to give iraqis and afghanis a future and are therefore partly to blame for its failure
b) you allowed it to run its course w/o interference and mabye allowed it to succeed

-Which is morally worse
a) a serial killer deliberately taking the lives of 3 people
b) a driver loosing control of his vehicle due to an unforseeable pot hole in the road killing 4 pedestrians

howabout killing civilians for pointless causes. bush has killed more civilians, I say he wins

He hasnt targetted civilians. he hasnt just killed them for the sake of it. he is actually fighting towards an end, the freedom of Iraq. Some civilians have died, but the insurgents are responsible for most of the civulian deaths happening now. I did not support the war and I think Bush is a moron, but he is no terrorist.

Why must the troll be fed?

Soviestan:

Just a couple questions assuming that you are american

-Which would you regret more
a) the american revolution never occured and you still live in a monarchy and would be hanged for having such views as you do
b) the american revolution did occur and the worst you get for your views is a marine on your ass
A, because at least then there wouldnt be a war, which by its nature is unjust
-When you look back on your life, how do you want to view it
a) you made every effort that you could with your lack of power to disrupt U.S. efforts to give iraqis and afghanis a future and are therefore partly to blame for its failure
b) you allowed it to run its course w/o interference and mabye allowed it to succeed
A, Because the war on terror is a fraud to allow bush to violate the human rights of Afghanis, Iraqis, and others abroad and the civil rights of Americans at home
-Which is morally worse
a) a serial killer deliberately taking the lives of 3 people
b) a driver loosing control of his vehicle due to an unforseeable pot hole in the road killing 4 pedestrians[/QUOTE]
B, more people more died

He hasnt targetted civilians. he hasnt just killed them for the sake of it. he is actually fighting towards an end, the freedom of Iraq. Some civilians have died, but the insurgents are responsible for most of the civulian deaths happening now. I did not support the war and I think Bush is a moron, but he is no terrorist.
Freedom for Iraq? Do you really think thats what he cares about? I think its more about oil and power. If he cared about freedom he wouldnt prop up countless regimes around the world that oppress their people.

They both blow shit up, one of them is head of state for a superpower and the other is an old man on dialysis

you are sorely mistaken if you feel the middle east is the only place that views Bush as a terrorist

So which one of them are YOU from?

Soviestan:

Just a couple questions assuming that you are american

-Which would you regret more
a) the american revolution never occured and you still live in a monarchy and would be hanged for having such views as you do
b) the american revolution did occur and the worst you get for your views is a marine on your ass

-When you look back on your life, how do you want to view it
a) you made every effort that you could with your lack of power to disrupt U.S. efforts to give iraqis and afghanis a future and are therefore partly to blame for its failure
b) you allowed it to run its course w/o interference and mabye allowed it to succeed

-Which is morally worse
a) a serial killer deliberately taking the lives of 3 people
b) a driver loosing control of his vehicle due to an unforseeable pot hole in the road killing 4 pedestrians

These questions are irrelevancies. Nice try.

He hasnt targetted civilians. he hasnt just killed them for the sake of it. he is actually fighting towards an end, the freedom of Iraq. Some civilians have died, but the insurgents are responsible for most of the civulian deaths happening now. I did not support the war and I think Bush is a moron, but he is no terrorist.

Osama would say he fighting towards an end as well. Is that all that is required not to be a terrorist?

A, because at least then there wouldnt be a war, which by its nature is unjust
Wait, what? You would prefer everyone just lie down and let those who are willing to fight walk all over them? If your nation is attacked, or if your people are being oppresses it is your right, privilege and, depending on your place in the world, your responsibility to fight.
A, Because the war on terror is a fraud to allow bush to violate the human rights of Afghanis, Iraqis, and others abroad and the civil rights of Americans at home
You are almost right. The US is no more threatened by terrorists than it is by its own leaders, but Bush is merely a puppet. He lacks the initiative and independence to realize that the Neo-Cons run him and the world.

B, more people more died
Now that’s just ludicrous. Intent is everything.

The poll in nonsensical. I mean, “more of a terrorist?” They are both vile, but its hardly a tie, and neither of them are lackluster representations of terrorism. Bush doesn’t know what he’s doing and Bin Laden may not even be behind 9/11.

So which one of them are YOU from?
the US

Wait, what? You would prefer everyone just lie down and let those who are willing to fight walk all over them? If your nation is attacked, or if your people are being oppresses it is your right, privilege and, depending on your place in the world, your responsibility to fight.
I would never fight for this country or any other. patriotism and nationalism are ugly things. countries are nothings more than peices of land with made up lines around them, one is not better than another


Now that’s just ludicrous. Intent is everything.
not to me.
The poll in nonsensical. I mean, “more of a terrorist?” They are both vile, but its hardly a tie, and neither of them are lackluster representations of terrorism. Bush doesn’t know what he’s doing and Bin Laden may not even be behind 9/11.
ok...

Whos more of the terrorist?
Michael Moore!

I would never fight for this country or any other. patriotism and nationalism are ugly things. countries are nothings more than peices of land with made up lines around them, one is not better than another
I’m not talking about fighting for the nation or state. I’m talking about fighting for the people and their rights, which ultimately benefits you, if you need that motivation.

The US has killed more innocent civilians in war. Iraq? 30,000 dead or so?

But people remember that WTC. 3,000 dead is only one-tenth the tragedy, but since they were Americans, Americans automatically value them higher. Roughly 10 times as more valuable. Nice how that works isn't it?

Whos more of the terrorist?
Michael Moore!

Because of all the blood on his hands, the innocents slaughtered at his command.

How dare you compare our great President to a filthy muslamic terrerrist, he is good and righteous and just, and if it wasn't for his decisive actions in the War on Terror we would be fighting the war here in the USA. If we have to sacrifice some trivial "civil liberties" or kill some innocent Iraqis to makes this happen, that's a small price to pay. No one in their right mind would say otherwise but a TERRORIST, so think hard about which side you're on, accept Jesus as your savior and buy an SUV

I’m not talking about fighting for the nation or state. I’m talking about fighting for the people and their rights, which ultimately benefits you, if you need that motivation.
ultimately though, fighting for america or americans is fighting for imperial conquest

I'm a Native American who has had everything taken from my by a running series of American Presidents, and I'm still a patriot. Countries are not lines on a map. If you cant see past the glaringly painful corruption in EVERY SINGLE governemnt of the world then you are going to live a hard life with few friends. But if you see them, accept that things are wrong and fight to make them right then you sould see why the U.S. is not what you are saying it is, at least here in America you can stand up and say "Hey that is not right!" and don't say it don't work because I have witnessed great wrongs in the makings made right by those who did stand up and oppose it.

The US has killed more innocent civilians in war. Iraq? 30,000 dead or so?

But people remember that WTC. 3,000 dead is only one-tenth the tragedy, but since they were Americans, Americans automatically value them higher. Roughly 10 times as more valuable. Nice how that works isn't it?

The WTC was deliberate, and Americans never deliberately targeted civilians in Iraq. I'd bet that a very large percentage of those Iraqi civilian deaths were killed by their own "freedom fighters" who seem to think that randomly blowing things up is the best way for Iraq to move forward. In the news, you see a lot more of Iraqis getting killed by suicide bombers than by US fire.

Oh yeah, and I hope Pythogria if he sees this doesn't mind him borrowing his "Faith in Humanity" points system (just once, I promise).
So many people actually think GWB is t3h ev1l and more evil than Osama bin Laden?

Faith in Humanity: -100,000 points.

:(

How dare you compare our great President to a filthy muslamic terrerrist, he is good and righteous and just, and if it wasn't for his decisive actions in the War on Terror we would be fighting the war here in the USA. If we have to sacrifice some trivial "civil liberties" or kill some innocent Iraqis to makes this happen, that's a small price to pay. No one in their right mind would say otherwise but a TERRORIST, so think hard about which side you're on, accept Jesus as your savior and buy an SUV

You had me going there.

You had me going there.
I try. :D

How dare you compare our great President to a filthy muslamic terrerrist, he is good and righteous and just, and if it wasn't for his decisive actions in the War on Terror we would be fighting the war here in the USA. If we have to sacrifice some trivial "civil liberties" or kill some innocent Iraqis to makes this happen, that's a small price to pay. No one in their right mind would say otherwise but a TERRORIST, so think hard about which side you're on, accept Jesus as your savior and buy an SUV
I like your style;)

ultimately though, fighting for america or americans is fighting for imperial conquest
I had no idea that the ACLU was an imperialist organization.

He hasnt targetted civilians. he hasnt just killed them for the sake of it. he is actually fighting towards an end, the freedom of Iraq.

Yeah. And Germany was fighting for the freedom of France and Poland.

So what if he hasn't targetted civilians? If you "miss" and kill 10 people, isn't that still ten times as bad as if you "aim" and hit 1?

Fighting "towards an end" doesn't justify anything either. We bombed Cambodia to fight Communism. We nuked Nagasaki to scare the Japanese into surrendering. A mugger pulls out a knife so his target will not resist.

Some civilians have died,

Remember that 9/11 thing? Some civilians died. But hey, Osama was working towards an end.

but the insurgents are responsible for most of the civulian deaths happening now.

I remain skeptical on that assertion.

I did not support the war and I think Bush is a moron, but he is no terrorist.

The distinction is semantic at best. Bush has wound up causing more terror, and death. I think that's a bit more important than whether he fits the dictionary newspeak definition of terrorist.

The WTC was deliberate, and Americans never deliberately targeted civilians in Iraq.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was also deliberate.

I'm sure you'd feel a lot better if your family was killed because they just happened to be in the wrong place when a foreign country dropped a bomb on them, right? I mean, at least they weren't homing in on your family. Nothing personal. Just an accident. You stepped in front of the bullet!

I'd bet that a very large percentage of those Iraqi civilian deaths were killed by their own "freedom fighters" who seem to think that randomly blowing things up is the best way for Iraq to move forward. In the news, you see a lot more of Iraqis getting killed by suicide bombers than by US fire.

What you would bet, and what the news shows, are not something I take without a large grain of salt. No offense.

This is just a pre-teen mindless Bush hater venting his steam people.

Regardless of htat, I still think Bush is more of a villian than Bin Laden is. If you've ever seen the Loose Change videos, you'll know why.

This is just a pre-teen mindless Bush hater venting his steam people.

Regardless of htat, I still think Bush is more of a villian than Bin Laden is. If you've ever seen the Loose Change videos, you'll know why.
wait, you call me a "pre-teen mindless bush hater" and then say you have the same position as I?

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was also deliberate.

I'm sure you'd feel a lot better if your family was killed because they just happened to be in the wrong place when a foreign country dropped a bomb on them, right? I mean, at least they weren't homing in on your family. Nothing personal. Just an accident. You stepped in front of the bullet!



What you would bet, and what the news shows, are not something I take without a large grain of salt. No offense.

Normally I'd agree with you, but the news seems to love jumping on anything that makes the USA look bad.
I think that the invasion of Iraq was justified. Frankly, in my opinion, ANY country with an evil dictatorial government has justification for invasion if diplomacy fails. Whether it should be carried out is another matter. I supported the war when it started, but now I see that it is a bloody debacle and Iraq is in a worse state than it was before, and it was definitely a mistake. However, that could probably have been solved through better planning. I still believe that it was morally justified. We removed an evil dictator from power, and that's good enough for me.

Hey lets face it, war is bad, yes it is, any idiot knows that. And hey I don't have to belive only the news, I've family over there in that damn desert, pictures and videos of the people there rejoycing at Saddams fall. Young men giving their lives in the thousands, and no I'm not talking about Americans, but the Iraqi men who are fighting and dieing for what they belive in. I've lived in a reservation, and I know a little about poverty and opressors and if the chance to stand up and be a free nation came about, you better belive I would take it, just like those young men who are true patriots fighting for what they can make of their country.

Call Bush what you want but he isn't a terrorist.

I consider that the perfect westernized reflection of the Al-Qaeda is the PNAC. Both think it is their duty to shove their way of life down the throats of whomever they want. Both of them go about their business very diferently though.

I just want everyone to know that I hate freedom.

I just want everyone to know that I hate freedom.
Ooh yeah, me too. DEATH TO THE INFIDEL WEST!

wait, you call me a "pre-teen mindless bush hater" and then say you have the same position as I?

No, you were the one comparing Bush to Hitler and Stalin, saying he was an evil mass murderer with a body count higher than BOTH of those atrocities to manking.

I was simply saying I dont like the man.

See a differencE?

Ooh yeah, me too. DEATH TO THE INFIDEL WEST!

The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers!

Normally I'd agree with you, but the news seems to love jumping on anything that makes the USA look bad.
I think that the invasion of Iraq was justified. Frankly, in my opinion, ANY country with an evil dictatorial government has justification for invasion if diplomacy fails. Whether it should be carried out is another matter. I supported the war when it started, but now I see that it is a bloody debacle and Iraq is in a worse state than it was before, and it was definitely a mistake. However, that could probably have been solved through better planning. I still believe that it was morally justified. We removed an evil dictator from power, and that's good enough for me.

The news does whatever sells the most. I don't watch it.

Anyway, yeah, Saddam was a bad man and we were the only ones gonna take him out. The bloody debacle and mistake comes from a) tying this into the war on terror (which it basically had nothing to do with) and b) occupying the nation for years on end while we manipulate their government like a drunken virgin fumbling around at my crotch on prom night.

We used 9/11 as an excuse to invade, and then occupy a nation. If it was truly because Saddam was an evil dictator, we should have been honest about it - and once he's gone, get the hell out of someone else's country.

We should STILL do that. I don't buy the "well, it was a mistake to occupy their nation, so we should continue to occupy their nation to make it better" or the "stay til the job gets done" nonsense.

In truth we (as in the U.N.) should have gone in years ago, there was an agreement with the U.N. that Saddam broke and the world let it slid when we all should ahve been waiting like wolves at the lambing for him to slip up.

The news does whatever sells the most. I don't watch it.

Anyway, yeah, Saddam was a bad man and we were the only ones gonna take him out. The bloody debacle and mistake comes from a) tying this into the war on terror (which it basically had nothing to do with) and b) occupying the nation for years on end while we manipulate their government like a drunken virgin fumbling around at my crotch on prom night.

We used 9/11 as an excuse to invade, and then occupy a nation. If it was truly because Saddam was an evil dictator, we should have been honest about it - and once he's gone, get the hell out of someone else's country.

We should STILL do that. I don't buy the "well, it was a mistake to occupy their nation, so we should continue to occupy their nation to make it better" or the "stay til the job gets done" nonsense.

I think the world was better off with Saddam in power. He kept a whole lid on this Shiite/Sunnii business we are obviously having no success putting an end to. Now that they are beating the utther living shit out of each other, Iraq is right were it was in 2k3. Sure, they might have "democratic" elections, but they can only really choose from the candidates the US decides to put on the ballets. Not real "Democratic" from what I understand a democracy to be.

I personally think we should just throw Saddam back in there, let him find a way to deal with the shiites and the sunis, then maybe we could work on democracy.

or we could just let them abthe in there own blood, and let the iwnner of a civil war emerge victorious. After the iwnner emerges we can work on democracy too.

I think the world was better off with Saddam in power. He kept a whole lid on this Shiite/Sunnii business we are obviously having no success putting an end to. Now that they are beating the utther living shit out of each other, Iraq is right were it was in 2k3. Sure, they might have "democratic" elections, but they can only really choose from the candidates the US decides to put on the ballets. Not real "Democratic" from what I understand a democracy to be.

I personally think we should just throw Saddam back in there, let him find a way to deal with the shiites and the sunis, then maybe we could work on democracy.

or we could just let them abthe in there own blood, and let the iwnner of a civil war emerge victorious. After the iwnner emerges we can work on democracy too.

I think the latter option is best. I mean, it worked for the USA, didn't it?

Oh yes he kept them in line alright....with musterdgas

Bush isnt a terrorist, he isnt using fear to get what he wants, Bin Laden is(though he aint doing much). Even if Bush killed as much as Hitler, he isnt a terroist.

Oh yes he kept them in line alright....with musterdgas

Well, its either they blow themselves the fuck up with rifles, or get mustard gassed. I gues dying to enemy gunfire is more humane though, in your favor.

@Santa Barbara: Yeah, I am actually in favor of that too. It wuold be the most practical, and we dont have to worry about Saddam waltzing around doing Silly and Bad Things (tm).

George Bush is an Islamic Fundamentalist! (http://www.ironcircus.com/The_Rub_-_George_Bush_is_an_Islamic_Fundamentalist.wma)

Yes actually, would you rather die fighting with a rifle in your hands or die slowly as you try and run from the gas thats been dropped on your village by agressors far away?

Yes actually, would you rather die fighting with a rifle in your hands or die slowly as you try and run from the gas thats been dropped on your village by agressors far away?

I'd probably rather die fighting with ar ifle myself. But you never know, some people are into the whole pain and suffering thing.

God dmanit, think of the BDSM lovers, people. Think of the BDSM lovers!

"Whos more of a terrorist?"

Yo momma. :D

I think the world was better off with Saddam in power. He kept a whole lid on this Shiite/Sunnii business we are obviously having no success putting an end to. Now that they are beating the utther living shit out of each other, Iraq is right were it was in 2k3. Sure, they might have "democratic" elections, but they can only really choose from the candidates the US decides to put on the ballets. Not real "Democratic" from what I understand a democracy to be. Where do you get your information? I'd like to see evidense of the Us manipulating elections

I personally think we should just throw Saddam back in there, let him find a way to deal with the shiites and the sunis, then maybe we could work on democracy. Ah yes. Torture, rape, murder, mass graves, chemical weapons, then it'll all be peachy, right?

or we could just let them abthe in there own blood, and let the iwnner of a civil war emerge victorious. After the iwnner emerges we can work on democracy too. How bad do you think things are over there?
http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=875

George Bush is an Islamic Fundamentalist! (http://www.ironcircus.com/The_Rub_-_George_Bush_is_an_Islamic_Fundamentalist.wma)

ROFLMAO! :D

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=875

That's very interesting.

ROFLMAO! :D

It's catchy, isn't it?

The distinction is semantic at best. Bush has wound up causing more terror, and death. I think that's a bit more important than whether he fits the dictionary newspeak definition of terrorist.

Are you serious, or just ignorant? Do you honestly believe that Bush has killed more people than Saddam, or Bin Laden. Saddam would gas entire villages of Kurds, killing 2,000 or 3,000 at a time! About a month ago they uncovered a mass grave of about 30,000 kurds, all murdered by Saddam several years earlier. The US military has killed very few civillians, of course its a shame that any civillains die, however who do you see everyday on the news killing 20 or 30 civillians at a time, the insurgents, not Bush. An estimated 350,000 Iraqi civillians dies under Saddam, Bush comes no where near that number, not even 5,000 people have dies as a direct result of Bush.
:headbang:

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=875

To back my claims of US infested ballots, read these: http://antiwar.com/wanniski/?articleid=3653
and
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/us_rigging_iraq.html

Second,

Ah yes. Torture, rape, murder, mass graves, chemical weapons, then it'll all be peachy, right?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims of rape? I know that the chemical weapons was a true story, along with the mass graves and torture., but I havent heard of rape.

Now, when our US soldiers arrest insurgents in Iraq, we detain them to Guantanamo to be tortured and we get information out of them, as evidenced by the various Abu Gharaib stories i'm sure you can find out there.

Mass graves you asy? Dont you think the US murdering 30,000 Iraqi insurgents is making a pseudo mass grave? I mean, think about it, these are the same people Sadam would be killing. Does it really make a difference if the US or Saddam is killing them? Yeah, the US does it more humanely, but it's still death. Death in itself is inhumane, remember that.

And how bad do I think things are over in Iraq. Obviously, if there are 30,000 Iraqis dead, and 3,000 US soldiers bad, that seems to me like things are pretty bad. And you think that within our 3 years of occupation there, we'd be able to put an end to this silly civil war.

Are you serious, or just ignorant? Do you honestly believe that Bush has killed more people than Saddam, or Bin Laden. Saddam would gas entire villages of Kurds, killing 2,000 or 3,000 at a time! About a month ago they uncovered a mass grave of about 30,000 kurds, all murdered by Saddam several years earlier. The US military has killed very few civillians, of course its a shame that any civillains die, however who do you see everyday on the news killing 20 or 30 civillians at a time, the insurgents, not Bush. An estimated 350,000 Iraqi civillians dies under Saddam, Bush comes no where near that number, not even 5,000 people have dies as a direct result of Bush.
:headbang:
That nation name kicks ass.

Are you serious, or just ignorant? Do you honestly believe that Bush has killed more people than Saddam, or Bin Laden. Saddam would gas entire villages of Kurds, killing 2,000 or 3,000 at a time! About a month ago they uncovered a mass grave of about 30,000 kurds, all murdered by Saddam several years earlier. The US military has killed very few civillians, of course its a shame that any civillains die, however who do you see everyday on the news killing 20 or 30 civillians at a time, the insurgents, not Bush. An estimated 350,000 Iraqi civillians dies under Saddam, Bush comes no where near that number, not even 5,000 people have dies as a direct result of Bush.
:headbang:

:headbang:

The last time I checked insurgents targeted Americans and enemy religion people, not innocent civilians. I could also show you some articles about US soldiers being cruel to Iraqi citizens as well, if you'd wish.

howabout killing civilians for pointless causes. bush has killed more civilians, I say he wins

Actually bush didn't kill anyone, he sent soldiers into the middle east to end a dictatorship, in the process i am sure civilans were harmed or killed, but that would be because of the IEP's (improvised explosive devices for tho'es you that didn't know) and landmines placed by thier own people in feilds and on road sides. If you were to add up the assaults and self implied casualties inflicted by their own forces and counted them as bushes doings, maybe, just maybe you could say that he killed inoccents. I think that you are a mindless pinko and you need to have some sence knocked into you, i feel that bush did the right thing by eleminating the man that brainwashed people from the start of their lives and convinced them to hijack a plane FILLED WITH INNOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN, and flew it into two office buildings, again filled with innocent people, as a statement from the middle east saying "we dont like your freedoms and the way you run your country, we feel that we should test chemical and biological weapons consisting of mustard gas, and anthrax on our own people". From the time bin laden and hussein were placed into power, they have killed roughly 21 million of their own people to test weapons alone. If you dont like being able to get up in the morning with a gun in your face put their by your own government because you refused to fight and let a corrupt government run rampent and wild on your own soil, you do that, but when you are drafted, id shoot you myself. I agree that bush dose'nt always make the best decisions, but at least its in the countrys best wishes which is more than your doing you useless, freedom hateing, anti-democratic, slimeball.

It's a little sad, I agree with what Bush is doing and I AM CANADIAN!!

"did you exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead roll in a cage?"
Pink Floyd: Wish you were here

howabout killing civilians for pointless causes. bush has killed more civilians, I say he wins

Actually bush didn't kill anyone, he sent soldiers into the middle east to end a dictatorship, in the process i am sure civilans were harmed or killed, but that would be because of the IEP's (improvised explosive devices for tho'es you that didn't know) and landmines placed by thier own people in feilds and on road sides. If you were to add up the assaults and self implied casualties inflicted by their own forces and counted them as bushes doings, maybe, just maybe you could say that he killed inoccents. I think that you are a mindless pinko and you need to have some sence knocked into you, i feel that bush did the right thing by eleminating the man that brainwashed people from the start of their lives and convinced them to hijack a plane FILLED WITH INNOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN, and flew it into two office buildings, again filled with innocent people, as a statement from the middle east saying "we dont like your freedoms and the way you run your country, we feel that we should test chemical and biological weapons consisting of mustard gas, and anthrax on our own people". From the time bin laden and hussein were placed into power, they have killed roughly 21 million of their own people to test weapons alone. If you dont like being able to get up in the morning with a gun in your face put their by your own government because you refused to fight and let a corrupt government run rampent and wild on your own soil, you do that, but when you are drafted, id shoot you myself. I agree that bush dose'nt always make the best decisions, but at least its in the countrys best wishes which is more than your doing you useless, freedom hateing, anti-democratic, slimeball.

It's a little sad, I agree with what Bush is doing and I AM CANADIAN!!

"did you exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead roll in a cage?"
Pink Floyd: Wish you were here

I am sure you could show me some evidence of US brutality, however I doubt you can come up with more that 12 examples. And making some prisoners take off their clothes, and jump on each other for a picture is nothing compared to what they do to us if they catch us, regardless of whether you are a reporter or a soldier, you will get a. brutally tortured b. raped, regardless of gender c.held for ransom d. beheaded, probably on camera, even if the ransom is payed.

The insurgents may be mostly targeting coalition soldiers, Iraqi army personell, Iraqi police and other emergency services, but the kill ratio is still about 25 dead civillians, and maybe 1 or 2 injured or killed troops.

To back my claims of US infested ballots, read these: http://antiwar.com/wanniski/?articleid=3653
and
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/us_rigging_iraq.html

Second,

Ah yes. Torture, rape, murder, mass graves, chemical weapons, then it'll all be peachy, right?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims of rape? I know that the chemical weapons was a true story, along with the mass graves and torture., but I havent heard of rape.

Now, when our US soldiers arrest insurgents in Iraq, we detain them to Guantanamo to be tortured and we get information out of them, as evidenced by the various Abu Gharaib stories i'm sure you can find out there.

Mass graves you asy? Dont you think the US murdering 30,000 Iraqi insurgents is making a pseudo mass grave? I mean, think about it, these are the same people Sadam would be killing. Does it really make a difference if the US or Saddam is killing them? Yeah, the US does it more humanely, but it's still death. Death in itself is inhumane, remember that.

And how bad do I think things are over in Iraq. Obviously, if there are 30,000 Iraqis dead, and 3,000 US soldiers bad, that seems to me like things are pretty bad. And you think that within our 3 years of occupation there, we'd be able to put an end to this silly civil war.
Allawi, who of course is going to run for president on his own party's slate and will be a shoo-in the way things are rigged, will not have to worry about the Sunni nationalists messing up his chances because they will boycott the rigged process.
However, despite a slick advertising campaign ( partly funded by the Americans ), this list was not able to muster enough support in the December 2005 national elections, winning a poor 25 seats in the national assembly, a net loss of 15 seats since the January 2005 elections. As result, his party will probably not be able to have a signigicant impact on the Iraqi political scene.
Yes. rigged. I'm sure. One of the sites you mentioned was totally wrong by the second paragraph

I'm sure you can see the difference between shooting those who attack you with guns/bombs in self defence and preserve the life and safety of Iraqis and Saddam murdering thousands of innocent people in cold blood because they disagreed with him.

Civil war? Silly? What the hell is wrong with you? There is no civil war. See: The American Civil war, French revolution, early 1900's Russia, etc. Those were civil wars.
And to expect perfection in Iraq immediately (what? violence in the middle east?) is typically American, so I guess I can't blame you.

And google "Saddam" and "rape rooms".

EDIT: torture, forgot to address that. All the instances of torture (read: Abu Graib) are against US policy and are being investigated and those involved are being prosecuted.
And what defines "torture" is another debate all together

That nation name kicks ass.

Do we have a fellow lacrosse player here by any chance?

And google "Saddam" and "rape rooms".

I did, and got this (http://www.fsteiger.com/Saddams_mass_graves.html). It's an interesting read.

Do we have a fellow lacrosse player here by any chance?
Afraid not, but a nation full of lacrosse defensemen would be pretty badass.

I am sure you could show me some evidence of US brutality, however I doubt you can come up with more that 12 examples.

Actually, over 100 people have died in US custody. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173327,00.html)

I am sure you could show me some evidence of US brutality, however I doubt you can come up with more that 12 examples. And making some prisoners take off their clothes, and jump on each other for a picture is nothing compared to what they do to us if they catch us, regardless of whether you are a reporter or a soldier, you will get a. brutally tortured b. raped, regardless of gender c.held for ransom d. beheaded, probably on camera, even if the ransom is payed.

The insurgents may be mostly targeting coalition soldiers, Iraqi army personell, Iraqi police and other emergency services, but the kill ratio is still about 25 dead civillians, and maybe 1 or 2 injured or killed troops.

I've heard worst han that. I saw pictures and even saw a documentary thing on discovery channel about how they did some of the most horrendous tortures you could possibly think of to abu gharaib people, such as cut their tongues off and pour salt over the wound.

@ 5iam: Sure theres a civil war. Look at the war between the shi'ites and the sunnis. Only a blind man could not see the escalating conflict between those two. It might not be a civil war yet, but it will soon escalate into one, regardless of if the US is there or not. Its kind of like hydrochloric acid being poured on your skin: the skin will only protect the internal organs for so long, if you get what i'm saying.

I never said I expected perfection immediately, but I do expect some semblance of it after being there for three fucking years and spending trillions of dollars on the god damn country!

One of my sites may have been wrong, but I provided you with more than one site.

I'm sure you can see the difference between shooting those who attack you with guns/bombs in self defence and preserve the life and safety of Iraqis and Saddam murdering thousands of innocent people in cold blood because they disagreed with him.

I can, indeed, see the difference ther. But thats the flaw in your argument. THe US has launched plenty of offensives against the insurgents, go to any major news website if you dont believe me.

I did, and got this (http://www.fsteiger.com/Saddams_mass_graves.html). It's an interesting read.
Wow. I guess Saddam wasn't bad guy after all.

Not to mention that "mass graves" "rape rooms" "gassing his own people" have been known to the world far before Bush came to office.

Afraid not, but a nation full of lacrosse defensemen would be pretty badass.

Dam straight it would...

I agree with everyone that bin ladin is more EVIL then bush, but I'll argue that they're equally terrorists.
I assume most of you would agree that a terrorist is someone who uses fear to reach some goal.
Does anyone remember the 2004 elections? Bush's strategy in that, you will recall, is to say over and over and over, "If you do X, the terrorists win!", appealing to people's fear of "the terrorists".
Since Bush used fear to win the elections, he is a terrorist.
Bit ironic that Bush won by saying "If I lose the terrorists win".

I did, and got this (http://www.fsteiger.com/Saddams_mass_graves.html). It's an interesting read.

I saw pictures of torture equipment and chambers in Time magazine. And the guy who wrote that article SAYS the mass graves which the US supposedly created contained Iraqi soldiers KILLED IN COMBAT.

howabout killing civilians for pointless causes. bush has killed more civilians, I say he wins

Actually bush didn't kill anyone, he sent soldiers into the middle east to end a dictatorship, in the process i am sure civilans were harmed or killed, but that would be because of the IEP's (improvised explosive devices for tho'es you that didn't know) and landmines placed by thier own people in feilds and on road sides. If you were to add up the assaults and self implied casualties inflicted by their own forces and counted them as bushes doings, maybe, just maybe you could say that he killed inoccents. I think that you are a mindless pinko and you need to have some sence knocked into you, i feel that bush did the right thing by eleminating the man that brainwashed people from the start of their lives and convinced them to hijack a plane FILLED WITH INNOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN, and flew it into two office buildings, again filled with innocent people, as a statement from the middle east saying "we dont like your freedoms and the way you run your country, we feel that we should test chemical and biological weapons consisting of mustard gas, and anthrax on our own people". From the time bin laden and hussein were placed into power, they have killed roughly 21 million of their own people to test weapons alone. If you dont like being able to get up in the morning with a gun in your face put their by your own government because you refused to fight and let a corrupt government run rampent and wild on your own soil, you do that, but when you are drafted, id shoot you myself. I agree that bush dose'nt always make the best decisions, but at least its in the countrys best wishes which is more than your doing you useless, freedom hateing, anti-democratic, slimeball.

It's a little sad, I agree with what Bush is doing and I AM CANADIAN!!

"did you exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead roll in a cage?"
Pink Floyd: Wish you were here

Wow. I guess Saddam wasn't bad guy after all.

Not to mention that "mass graves" "rape rooms" "gassing his own people" have been known to the world far before Bush came to office.
I saw pictures of torture equipment and chambers in Time magazine. And the guy who wrote that article SAYS the mass graves which the US supposedly created contained Iraqi soldiers KILLED IN COMBAT.

Calm down there. I wasn't suggesting that Saddam was a good person, but rather that we look for facts rather than accuations before the entire situtation goes "dead Kurdish incubator babies" again

Bush is a git, a fool, a moron, a monarchist swine, rightwing nut job, slave driver, pseudo-totalitarianist, but at least he's trying to do some good.
Bin Laden can :upyours: :mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :mad: for all I care. He doesn't even follow his own religion!!!(the Koran specificly forbids killing oneself or others,and yet he claims to be a good Muslim. Allah have mercy!)

Calm down there. I wasn't suggesting that Saddam was a good person, but rather that we look for facts rather than accuations before the entire situtation goes "dead Kurdish incubator babies" again

Sorry, I wasn't yelling at you. I wasn't really yelling at all, really. I should probably have left the "meh" in front of my post :p

@ 5iam: Sure theres a civil war. Look at the war between the shi'ites and the sunnis. Only a blind man could not see the escalating conflict between those two. It might not be a civil war yet, but it will soon escalate into one, regardless of if the US is there or not. Its kind of like hydrochloric acid being poured on your skin: the skin will only protect the internal organs for so long, if you get what i'm saying. Hey, I have an idea! How about you provide some sort of evidense for your claims!

I never said I expected perfection immediately, but I do expect some semblance of it after being there for three fucking years and spending btrillions of dollars on the god damn country! Let's also ignore all the progress we've made. Elections, most of the country is secure, government, etc. and focus only on the bad.

One of my sites may have been wrong, but I provided you with more than one site. How getting your own arguments instead of posting random sites? I don't feel like digging through everything you can throw to support your own argument.

I'm sure you can see the difference between shooting those who attack you with guns/bombs in self defence and preserve the life and safety of Iraqis and Saddam murdering thousands of innocent people in cold blood because they disagreed with him.

I can, indeed, see the difference ther. But thats the flaw in your argument. THe US has launched plenty of offensives against the insurgents, go to any major news website if you dont believe me. You're kidding, right? Look at any war/military action EVAR, it always involves more than defence. Kill them before they kill you. If you are against this you are against every war in history.
.....

Actually bush didn't kill anyone, he sent soldiers into the middle east to end a dictatorship, in the process i am sure civilans were harmed or killed, but that would be because of the IEP's (improvised explosive devices for tho'es you that didn't know) and landmines placed by thier own people in feilds and on road sides. If you were to add up the assaults and self implied casualties inflicted by their own forces and counted them as bushes doings, maybe, just maybe you could say that he killed inoccents. I think that you are a mindless pinko and you need to have some sence knocked into you, i feel that bush did the right thing by eleminating the man that brainwashed people from the start of their lives and convinced them to hijack a plane FILLED WITH INNOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN, and flew it into two office buildings, again filled with innocent people, as a statement from the middle east saying "we dont like your freedoms and the way you run your country, we feel that we should test chemical and biological weapons consisting of mustard gas, and anthrax on our own people". From the time bin laden and hussein were placed into power, they have killed roughly 21 million of their own people to test weapons alone. If you dont like being able to get up in the morning with a gun in your face put their by your own government because you refused to fight and let a corrupt government run rampent and wild on your own soil, you do that, but when you are drafted, id shoot you myself. I agree that bush dose'nt always make the best decisions, but at least its in the countrys best wishes which is more than your doing you useless, freedom hateing, anti-democratic, slimeball.

It's a little sad, I agree with what Bush is doing and I AM CANADIAN!!

"did you exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead roll in a cage?"
Pink Floyd: Wish you were here

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Thank you for playing.

^^^

Why do people actually think that?

At this point in time, Osama is holed out in a smelly cave, dying of kidney disease. George Bush is plotting the invasion of another middle eastern country. That's all I have to say; I don't want to make a judgement, at the risk of being Napalmed.

EDIT: I forgot someting. Guess who trained Osama? That's your answer.

^^^

Why do people actually think that?

LSD, cocaine, soma, and floridated water.

Or some combination of the above.

EDIT: I forgot someting. Guess who trained Osama? That's your answer.
We trained him to go crazy and want to kill Americans and Jews?

We trained him to go crazy and want to kill Americans and Jews?

America trained him as a soldier...

^^^

Why do people actually think that?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because its true.

America trained him as a soldier...

Uh... NO.

Try again?

^^^

Why do people actually think that?

Because the media tells them its that way. :D Case in point:

Oh, I don't know, maybe because its true.

*ERRR* Incorrect. Someone please provide these types with a link.. ;)

Uh... NO.

Try again?

You heard right. We trained him.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20011005.htm
There are plenty of other articles too, this was just the first I could find.

^^^

Why do people actually think that?

Because the Bush administration lied about it.

America trained him as a soldier...Uh... NO.

Try again?

Uh ... yes.

See, e.g.,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Oh, I don't know, maybe because its true.

No, it it isn't. Even the Bush Administration has admitted Saddam was not responsible for 9/11:

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

The bipartisan Sept. 11 commission that found no "collaborative relationship" between the former Iraqi leader and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. The commission firmly blamed al-Qaida and not Saddam for the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

George W. Bush/US foreign policy, overwhelmingly, mostly because of his superior power capabilities.

Sorry, I seem to have misread 5iam's post. I though he/she was posting in defense of Bush and asking "why do people actually believe" that Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

I am, in fact, on your side after all.

Normally I'd agree with you, but the news seems to love jumping on anything that makes the USA look bad.
I think that the invasion of Iraq was justified. Frankly, in my opinion, ANY country with an evil dictatorial government has justification for invasion if diplomacy fails. Whether it should be carried out is another matter. I supported the war when it started, but now I see that it is a bloody debacle and Iraq is in a worse state than it was before, and it was definitely a mistake. However, that could probably have been solved through better planning. I still believe that it was morally justified. We removed an evil dictator from power, and that's good enough for me.

So what you're saying is that if I, living in a certain country, and consider myself morally superior to say, the US (the equivalent of Babylonian debauchery) I can invade it, and be supported by some non-sensical notion of morality. Grrrreat!!! Let's get to it.......

Let's invade sex shops, and sinagogues, and pc outlets. Because i'm a anti-pc
anti-semitic prude son of a bitch!!!!

So what you're saying is that if I, living in a certain country, and consider myself morally superior to say, the US (the equivalent of Babylonian debauchery) I can invade it, and be supported by some non-sensical notion of morality. Grrrreat!!! Let's get to it.......

Let's invade sex shops, and sinagogues, and pc outlets. Because i'm a anti-pc
anti-semitic prude son of a bitch!!!!

Uhh... are you ok or are you from the wacky shack??:D

OIL IS TEARING THE WORLD APART!

Because if there was no oil, neither would be viewed as terrorists.

One mans terrorist is an other man's freedom fighter.

I hate freedom! Amongst other freedoms, I hate freedom of speech so much that I'm not going to use my 'freedom' to try influence you to believe in what I believe. I ain't no hypocrite. *glares menacingly*

.....

Hey, I have an idea! How about you provide some sort of evidense for your claims!

Go to any major news channel and look at the stories about shiites bombing sunniis, vice versa. You tell me that that is not going to erupt into a civil war eventually.

Let's also ignore all the progress we've made. Elections, most of the country is secure, government, etc. and focus only on the bad.
I never said we didn't make any progress. What I said was, I expect a semblance of perfection. A trillion dollars is a lot of money, I don't know if you know that. After spending trillions of dollars on a poor little Arab country with nothing more than some oil we'd like to get our hands on, you'd think we could achieve some semblance of PERFECTION down there. You know, the kind of "perfect democracy" good 'ol GB was bragging about 3 years ago. Also, for the record, a semblance of perfection is different from progress. It's better than progress, and I think that we could achieve it after trillions of US dollars.

How getting your own arguments instead of posting random sites? I don't feel like digging through everything you can throw to support your own argument.

What, so I can't use websites which back my claims up as evidence to support my arguments? Oh god, i'm sorry, please kill me, I'm such a bad person because you're too god damn lazy to read the evidence which I provide to you to support my claims!

You're kidding, right? Look at any war/military action EVAR, it always involves more than defence. Kill them before they kill you. If you are against this you are against every war in history.
I am not a moron, and I know that war involves more than defence. But an all-out offensive maneuver against insurgents isn't exactly what i'd call "shooting those who attack you with guns/bombs in self defence".

we'd be able to put an end to this silly civil war.
Sure theres a civil war
It might not be a civil war yet
going to erupt into a civil war eventually

And I think you mean Billions, not trillions.
kind of "perfect democracy" good 'ol GB was bragging about 3 years ago
Wow I'd love for you to find a quote to actually support the crazy things you say.

you're too god damn lazy to read the evidence which I provide to you to support my claims!
If all I wanted was to research your own claims, then I have google to use. It's up to you to provide the actual arguments (how hard is it to look through your own sources and quote the specific reference you want?)

But an all-out offensive maneuver against insurgents isn't exactly what i'd call "shooting those who attack you with guns/bombs in self defence
That's why you're not in the military. ;)