America! We brought democracy to Iraq!

[Trolldor]

Iraq doesn't owe them anything, Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

[kiki5711]

Iraq doesn't owe them anything, Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

US placed him there, then they invaded the country to get rid of him???

[Pappa]

Iraq doesn't owe them anything, Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

US placed him there, then they invaded the country to get rid of him???

Yep. Um.... and they helped the Taliban too.

[kiki5711]

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

It doesn't take an army of amunition to get one gun with as bullet in it. It's not unheard of to assassinate leaders. Unfortunatelly, it seems the ones that do get assassinated are the "good" ones.

In the case of North Korea, they have been brainwashed for too long and live in fear. They're like one big cult.

[kiki5711]

Iraq doesn't owe them anything, Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

US placed him there, then they invaded the country to get rid of him???

Yep. Um.... and they helped the Taliban too.

and now for a grand prize of gazzillion dollars the US is charging to find them. So, first they help them, set them up, then charge their countries to get rid of them.

[Pappa]

Iraq doesn't owe them anything, Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

US placed him there, then they invaded the country to get rid of him???

Yep. Um.... and they helped the Taliban too.

and now for a grand prize of gazzillion dollars the US is charging to find them. So, first they help them, set them up, then charge their countries to get rid of them.

It's just a mixture of Canadian Bacon and World Hegemony.

[kiki5711]

Iraq doesn't owe them anything, Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

US placed him there, then they invaded the country to get rid of him???

Yep. Um.... and they helped the Taliban too.

and now for a grand prize of gazzillion dollars the US is charging to find them. So, first they help them, set them up, then charge their countries to get rid of them.

It's just a mixture of Canadian Bacon and World Hegemony.

So, are you saying it's just "BUSINESS AS USUAL"? THe fact a few hundred thousand soldiers/civilians get killed is just part of the deal/process.?

[Eriku]

So, are you saying it's just "BUSINESS AS USUAL"? THe fact a few hundred thousand soldiers/civilians get killed is just part of the deal/process.?

All a part of the international relations cost-benefit analysis:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

[PsychoSerenity]

Firstly Suddam was not a secular dictator, secondly who the fuck are you to say that Iraq was in a better position under Suddam?

Well sorry, I always thought he was quite secular, at least compared with the rest of the region.

And I didn't say Iraq was better under Saddam. I just said after 7 years of occupation, well over a hundred thousand deaths, continuing violence, and a failure to form any real government, it's still pretty fucked up. It's not like there weren't any options other than invading.

[Pappa]

Firstly Suddam was not a secular dictator, secondly who the fuck are you to say that Iraq was in a better position under Suddam?

Well sorry, I always thought he was quite secular, at least compared with the rest of the region.

And I didn't say Iraq was better under Saddam. I just said after 7 years of occupation, well over a hundred thousand deaths, continuing violence, and a failure to form any real government, it's still pretty fucked up. It's not like there weren't any options other than invading.

+1 And the options that were available were squashed for political reasons.

[kiki5711]

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

I'm not sure I understand. Price for what?

[sandinista]

Iraq doesn't owe them anything, Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

US placed him there, then they invaded the country to get rid of him???

Yep. Um.... and they helped the Taliban too.

and now for a grand prize of gazzillion dollars the US is charging to find them. So, first they help them, set them up, then charge their countries to get rid of them.

It's all wrapped up in the military industrial complex. The US has an economy based on warfare. Doesn't matter what they go to war for, as long as they are at war. Install "dictators", get rid of "dictators", support fascism, support "freedom, makes no difference. All that is important is that the US is at war and that the "dictators" fall in line with US policy. It's still quite humorous, although sad, that people here (I thought this was called rationalia not gullibalalia) still actually believe that any of this (invasions, bombings, occupation etc) has anything to do with "democracy". That's ludicrous. Really. The US is going around bombing people so they can have what? Democracy? Something the US doesn't even have, yet they are going to "spread it elsewhere" whether people want it or not. If you define "democracy" as an open market to US corporations, then sure, yes, it is "democracy" they are spreading.

[Trolldor]

Iraq doesn't owe them anything, Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Secondly,why don't the North Koreans kill Kimmy? All it takes is one bullet.
Oh, yeah, those that do oppose him probably don't have access to weapons, training or either their freedom or their lives.

US placed him there, then they invaded the country to get rid of him???

Yes, the US placed him there.
Every atrocity Suddam committed is squarely at the feet of the US Government, all those Iraqi civilians who died of starvation as a result of the Sanctions are at the feet of the US Government. It was the responsibility of the US to give the Iraqis what they had taken from them.

Secondly, the man was not secular.

Until his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam paid very little attention to Islam. He has, however, often used Islam as a justification for his actions. He made the pilgrimage to Mecca and had his picture taken kissing the black stone. He then set himself up as a protector of Islam, even though his invasion of Kuwait broke many of its laws. He is also accused of idolatry for causing his likeness to be so blatantly displayed throughout Iraq. But not even Iran's ayatollahs dared to compete with the Prophet and his spiritual successors by hanging their own portraits in mosques as Saddam does. And it was following the invasion of Kuwait when he started referring to himself as a direct descendant of the Prophet.

http://www.int-review.org/terr30a.html

So, he was secular in that he didn't have much by way of Islamic Government, but it didn't stop him from claiming he had divine providence.

[Toontown]

I hesitate to ask, for fear of dislodging another avalanche of leftobot propaganda....but what the hell. We only live once, or so the beer commercial confidently declares...so let's get them doggies rolling.

RAWHIDE!

My question is, why do leftobot automatons keep repetitively screaming that the U.S. is taking Iraq's oil, without any evidence? Is there some reason for this, other than inherent dishonesty?

Remember, leftobots. Bald assertions and attribution of motive do not constitute evidence. Ain't you got no evidence?

Leftobots wouldn't be lying to us...would they?



Leftobot: Hey, you oil-sucking Merkins are going to have to do better than that! You missed 80 billion there, you incompetent bastards!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/ ... 6313.shtml

Leftobot: Dammit, you incompetent Merkin thieves! Can't you steal anything right??

http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2010/0 ... s-in-2010/


Come on, you greedy murdering Merkin bastards. The leftobots are counting on you to steal all of Iraq's oil. They've been counting on you all along. It's the centerpiece of their entire propaganda campaign. Their entire worldview. Their entire belief system.

Yeah, sure Saddam was at least a brutal secular illegitimate tyrant, with only a couple million scalps on his belt, who was trying to "modernize" Iraq and had only invaded two countries and gassed a few hundred thousand. But the leftobots need more than "Iraq was better off under Saddam" (nevermind Iran, Kuwait, or the Kurds, or world stability in general - (Jedi hand wave)) . They need to catch the Merkins red-handed in the act of straight up robbing Iraq at gunpoint. That's what is really important. The leftobots need something to counter the brute fact that the U.S. is indeed pulling out of Iraq and leaving behind a liberated Iraq, in full possession of it's own resources, with a legitimate chance to become something the Iraqis can be proud of - the first modern Arab democratic republic - something many leftobots continue to insist the U.S. would never do, even in the face of it happening. Because all A-rabs are inherently inferior and incompetent, you know. Yeah, I know the leftobots don't actually say that, but their meaning is clear when they predict that Iraq will quickly sink into failed-state status as soon as the U.S. finishes pulling out - which they always said the U.S. would never do.

Oh, what a tangled web the leftobots weave, in their ceaseless efforts to deceive...

In short, the leftobots need a brand new bag, not to mention personality transplants. O'Reilly is becoming mystified as to how the "far left loons" continue to cling to any credibility whatsoever. And he has a point. They lie. They lie a lot. And when they're not straight up lying, they're spinning like mutherfuckers. I wouldn't trust a fucking leftobot to take out my garbage. The crooked mutherfucker would be digging around in it, looking for something he could use.

[Ian]

Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Oh bollocks. He seized power on his own. The US tacitly supported him in the 1980s because he was an enemy of an enemy.