http://66.246.23.2/~eolsen/archives/200 ... 131912.php

Naturally this isn't all knowing but...a intelligence analyst has predicted the war will start this weekend.

"War is over, if you want it."

-John Lennon.

Some pray, I hold on to song lyrics.

you see, that just sucks.

It's possible, and honestly I strongly hope we're in there by this weekend, but I have a powerful inclination that we'll be pushing for a second resolution first just to tidy things up in the eyes of the world, make this largescale armed robbery of ours look nice and legitimate. But I really don't see what all the anti-war fuss is about. Don't people realize that Saddam Hussein has [more than once] tortured children in front of their parents simply to coerce them into doing his bidding? That he's ordered his soldiers to rape mothers in front of sons, daughters in front of fathers, often videotaping the affairs for his own personal viewing pleasure? And his son Uday is even worse, every day he and his bodyguards cruise around Baghdad in his Mercedes, and when he sees a woman he fancies, his men jerk her off the street, and she's taken to a place of his choosing to be raped.

Saddam Hussein is a madman and a murderer thousands of times over, and unseating him is a noble feat, politics nonwithstanding. Plus we'll be making some money. Is anyone here planning on boycotting cheap gas just because we took it from a fiend? It's not like his people were seeing a piece of the profits anyway, and they'll be much better off once we've installed a democratic government.

Hope this doesn't start a heated political debate and get me into trouble or anything, but I just felt at least one pseudo-conservative should make his presence and stance felt. For the sake of fairness, y'know.

Deucalion wrote:Hope this doesn't start a heated political debate and get me into trouble or anything, but I just felt at least one pseudo-conservative should make his presence and stance felt. For the sake of fairness, y'know.

Glad to know i'm not the only pseudo-conservative on the board/forum.

I said my piece a while back, I still stand by it.

Deucalion wrote:Hope this doesn't start a heated political debate and get me into trouble or anything, but I just felt at least one pseudo-conservative should make his presence and stance felt. For the sake of fairness, y'know.

No, it won't start a debate (not with me at least). After arguing with Loretta at 11th Street last night, I've figured out that there's no purpose in trying to argue against idiotic statements.

Below is a dissertation on the viability of combat, both short-term and sustained, within the Middle East. Much thought and research, in terms of the current disarmament situation, the stances of America and Iraq upon multiple political ideals, and the threat of terrorism in the broad overview has gone into this thorough and complete document. We feel that we have addressed issues which other media outlets have ignored, including the threats of violence upon the Iraqi populace by Saddam Hussein in the event of war, and the reconstruction in the aftermath of outright devestation on America's behalf. There are, obviously, certain variables which nobody can foresee, and even those we have taken into account, if only because we're political geniuses. We have strived to cover all aspects of combat and peace, politics, and general human welfare within our essay, and we strongly hope that you concur.

Sincerely,

Spam & Caustic

Turn Iraq into a glass parking lot.

Thank you.

BBBUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

we likes the violence! don't we, precious?

Spam wrote:Below is a dissertation on the viability of combat, both short-term and sustained, within the Middle East. Much thought and research, in terms of the current disarmament situation, the stances of America and Iraq upon multiple political ideals, and the threat of terrorism in the broad overview has gone into this thorough and complete document. We feel that we have addressed issues which other media outlets have ignored, including the threats of violence upon the Iraqi populace by Saddam Hussein in the event of war, and the reconstruction in the aftermath of outright devestation on America's behalf. There are, obviously, certain variables which nobody can foresee, and even those we have taken into account, if only because we're political geniuses. We have strived to cover all aspects of combat and peace, politics, and general human welfare within our essay, and we strongly hope that you concur.

Sincerely,

Spam & Caustic

Turn Iraq into a glass parking lot.

Thank you.

Nah. Just wall off the middle east. Let only food and archaic weapons in. Find alternative energy sources. And let them kill each other off. They're dead set on it. And only reason we are in this mess is because of oil.

but we gots to fire us some quickie mart clerks, executive style!

saddam, you can take your slushie, and shove it up your (_O_).

we will win the war because we have real, ultimate power!

vertigo25 wrote:
I've figured out that there's no purpose in trying to argue against idiotic statements.

Word. Nothing I say is gonna make people stop being dumb.

WraithAngel wrote: And only reason we are in this mess is because of oil.

Good enough for me.

I got four words for you. . . Ass ass in ate.

No need for a war to kill one to ten psycho despots. No need for bombs. No need for guns. Just a ninja. Or Steven Tyler.

We're blatantly trying to kill the fucker, and I don't know anyone who would be opposed to assassinating the fucker as opposed to sending our guys over there to get shot and killing their guys who aren't the real enemy. I'm anti-war just because its like crushing a gnat with a steam roller. I'm also anti killing, but I'm anti a lot of things and I think if you're going to be an asshole at least do it efficiently and rationally.

North Korea is the real threat and we're ignoring it in favor of these backwards ass bogeymen who can't do shit to us unless we send people over there. Iraq = Short range chemical and biological weapons. North Korea = LONG RANGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Plus North Korea TOLD us they were going to revoke the non-aggression pact.

Bush is an idiot.

EvilVegan wrote:Bush is an idiot.

Ass ass in ate...

EvilVegan wrote:I got four words for you. . . Ass ass in ate.

No need for a war to kill one to ten psycho despots. No need for bombs. No need for guns. Just a ninja. Or Steven Tyler.

We're blatantly trying to kill the fucker, and I don't know anyone who would be opposed to assassinating the fucker as opposed to sending our guys over there to get shot and killing their guys who aren't the real enemy. I'm anti-war just because its like crushing a gnat with a steam roller. I'm also anti killing, but I'm anti a lot of things and I think if you're going to be an asshole at least do it efficiently and rationally.

North Korea is the real threat and we're ignoring it in favor of these backwards ass bogeymen who can't do shit to us unless we send people over there. Iraq = Short range chemical and biological weapons. North Korea = LONG RANGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Plus North Korea TOLD us they were going to revoke the non-aggression pact.

Bush is an idiot.

First off last line is SOOOOO true

As to ass ass in ate Sadam - Fact is Sadam is too high profile to just bump off. Look at it from a poloticians point of view. Assassination if performed potentially means sanctioned open season on ANY political figure. No country head wants to have to constantly be looking over his/her shoulder for a bullet coming their way. Secondly this would create a martyr outta this raving lunatic bringing terrorist attacks againt the US and it's citizens to an all time high. And finally To just remove the current head of Iraq does nothing to keep the next person to step in his shoes from being just as bad if not worse. If we are to remove Sadam we then have to insure a "better" system replaces him, can't do that with just a sniper bullet.

Glass parking lot is sounding good to me....

we got plenty of snipers and plenty of bullets. And our political leaders should be looking over their shoulders. They should be fucking scared as shit that they're being watched. Maybe they'd behave a little better.

this was just sent to me by a canadian friend...

That is hillarious. That made my night!

i believe that mafiaman covered the assassination angle well enough on the old board. in a nutshell, if you kill a world leader by assassination, you're going to give them ideas that might lead to you getting knocked off, next.

bush knows this. he's a moron, yeah, but he does at least have basic survival instincts.

"they couldn't get through the U.S. secret service!", you might say. sure, fine. whatever. and a few years ago, we didn't think someone could fly an airplane full of people into a major building, or hell, our the pentagon for that matter.

confident. cocky. lazy. dead.

just my $0.02.

http://salon.com/opinion/fiore/2003/02/ ... ndex1.html

The "I'm not Llistening blah blah blah blah" is kinda cute...

Actually reminds me of something. I recall a few months ago a opinion piece I was reading about veterans and war. It would seem that many of the Iraq hawks in congress never serve while several of the doves in Congress had served in the military.

Another thing of note...Former Marine's Kenneth Nichols human shield movement. A large group of people freely surrounding targets in Iraq in hopes it will help dissuade bombing.

Interesting to note that some who have seen war are most admant against starting a new one.