If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Old and busted: Shock and Awe, leading to a drawn-out occupation. New hotness: Three days of absolute destruction, then get the hell out   (rawstory.com) divider line 1347
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

31729 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2007 at 10:26 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1347 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-04 08:39:54 PM  
Jon Snow: Shaggy_C: I argued for the war at the time for 3 reasons:

1) Iraq had used WMDs and chemical weapons against its enemies.
2) Iraq still had WMDs.
3) Iraq was willing to invade other nations.

The fact that we didn't seem to care about #1 until after 9/11 speaks volumes about that being a legitimate cause for invasion.

#2 was not supported by the evidence we had and contrary evidence was deliberately ignored by the White House. See the yellow cake fiasco.

#3 isn't a casus belli for invasion. The Six Day War was a proper preemptive attack. Iraq was not poised to invade anyone.


I'll agree with you about point #1, but let's get back to the "9/11 changed everything. EVERYTHING." If you remember, we had recently suffered a string of anthrax mailings in the United States. You know who used anthrax back in the '80s?

Secondly, I was explaining my reasoning why I was for the Iraq war at the time - and that was the evidence we were handed, coming from the top levels of the CIA as well as British intelligence. So sue me for trusting the two best intelligence agencies in the world over some loonies waving anti-war posters and cheering the insurgency.

Third point I think is debatable as well; they had shown within the last decade, that, given an opportunity, they would invade their neighbors. First Iran, then Kuwait. That he was throwing out major rhetoric about the United States and shooting at our planes wasn't a big help either.

But when it's all said and done, I felt we had a moral high ground in Iraq because we were coming in with the idea to spread democracy. A brutal dictator, especially one with access to chemical weapons, should never be allowed by the world community.

That being said, I'm uncomfortable about any kind of action against Iran. This isn't some Kim Jong-Il or Omar Ghadafi we're talking about. The Iranian president is elected and serves his term. I know the system there is somewhat flawed, but the people still have some say in the matter. To destroy what they have accomplished there, all because we're still pissed about our dictator being overthrown in the '70s is asinine. I'm tired of our foreign policy being one of maintaining the status quo, because it leads to BS like this. God I hate the last generation for letting this happen...fark Jimmy Carter for being a pussy and not getting our people out of the embassy and instead paving the way to where we are today.


Random Reality Check: Here we agree - except that we have no right to go around bombing anyone - unless you are suggesting that any nation that chooses can do the same to us.

Sigh...so you're saying, even in a case where we are attacked first, we cannot respond? I hope I'm just missing the point of your response...
 
2007-09-04 08:48:43 PM  
I think we should all just hug it out.
 
2007-09-04 09:02:42 PM  
CRogers79: Never hurts to examine more evidence:

Enough arguements, nobody will ever agree. More evidence please.

/pretty please?


img124.imageshack.us
img409.imageshack.us
img292.imageshack.us
 
2007-09-04 09:07:16 PM  
Shaggy_C: I felt we had a moral high ground in Iraq because we were coming in with the idea to spread democracy.

I don't remember that being one of the justifications for invading a sovereign nation given to Congress or the UN.

If I recall correctly, that excuse wasn't trotted out until the evidentiary claims (WMDs, links to Al Qaeda) were debunked, after the invasion already had taken place.
 
2007-09-04 09:16:00 PM  
fap fap fap

huh? uh... yeah... libs bad, fark iran, spread thin, stop spending... um... yeah...

/fap
//nods in approval over towards Jon Snow
 
2007-09-04 09:24:11 PM  
Jon Snow: I don't remember that being one of the justifications for invading a sovereign nation given to Congress or the UN.

If I recall correctly, that excuse wasn't trotted out until the evidentiary claims (WMDs, links to Al Qaeda) were debunked, after the invasion already had taken place.


You fool, it was the biggest reasons I was for the war:

2003 State of the Union:
"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom... Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."


Or Cheney, 2002:
"Our goal would be an Iraq that has territorial integrity, a government that is democratic and pluralistic, a nation where the human rights of every ethnic and religious group are recognized and protected. In that troubled land all who seek justice, and dignity, and the chance to live their own lives, can know they have a friend and ally in the United States of America."


It was always one of the main reasons to go in. I don't think you saw it as an argument in front of the UN because, well, maybe, MOST OF THE UN IS MADE UP OF NON-DEMOCRACIES. Christ, if you're trying to convince someone of something you don't attack them in the process!
 
2007-09-04 09:26:42 PM  
Maybe this time we'll fight to win instead of fighting to not lose.
 
2007-09-04 09:34:03 PM  
Shaggy_C: 2003 State of the Union:

"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom... Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."


Sorry, but that makes me want to puke knowing who said it.

CRogers79: Gee... thought we earned our rights. My bad.

Yeah. You are wrong if you think that. Rights aren't EARNED. They are not GRANTED.

And you sure as sh*t aren't going to convince me that dying for oil and some convoluted thinktank-driven politics ensures my freedom.

Impeaching the assholes in office and handing them over to the Hague for war crimes is a step towards guaranteeing freedom, if anything to send the message to Americans never to try this sh*t again.
 
2007-09-04 09:36:57 PM  
EricB: thank you, farks israel-firster brigade, for being here and selling another war with your lies again. but i fear that you might have to work a bit harder this time as people see you as the farking nutjobs you really are.

Who? Lies about what? You mean lying when we say that Israel is not the cause of all the evils and travails in that hemisphere of the world? Or lying when they claim that the evil Zionists don't make Dubya lick whipped cream off their nuts after hours? Or are they nutjobs for claiming that perhaps a nuclear-armed Iran is not such a swell idea?
 
2007-09-04 09:39:01 PM  
Daneel Olivaw: you get pwned


You're drunk, aren't you?

Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, conceded in November 2003 that the invasion was illegal but still justified.
 
2007-09-04 09:41:32 PM  
photobucket.com
 
2007-09-04 09:43:28 PM  
whidbey: Impeaching the assholes in office and handing them over to the Hague for war crimes is a step towards guaranteeing freedom, if anything to send the message to Americans never to try this sh*t again.


If Americans had 1/10 the balls that this country had in 1776 that is exactly what would happen...
 
2007-09-04 09:45:15 PM  
whidbey: Impeaching the assholes in office and handing them over to the Hague for war crimes is a step towards guaranteeing freedom, if anything to send the message to Americans never to try this sh*t again.

Then a Democrat gets elected and the ideologues in the right wing take revenge and do everything they can to get that poor bastard run out of office. I'm seeing an ominous pattern here.
Yeah, to some extent it's already happening. First you had the Clinton impeachment, and now you want to impeach Dubya for lying (even though no one can prove he lied - there's a big difference between lying and being ignorant).

I'm concerned that the future of American politics will be no-holds-barred partisan war, with no trick too dirty for either side. Maybe it's the slippery slope fallacy, but from the polarization I'm seeing, I'm not sure...
 
2007-09-04 09:48:46 PM  
Jon Snow: I'm not sure the hawt boobies can tame the raging Farkbeast. It may be too little, too late.

img399.imageshack.us

/doing my part
 
2007-09-04 09:55:23 PM  
repeat story. repeat flamewar.
 
2007-09-04 09:58:34 PM  
thank you, farks israel-firster brigade, for being here and selling another war with your lies again. but i fear that you might have to work a bit harder this time as people see you as the farking nutjobs you really are.

Jews are always innocent. In fifty years when they speak of this time, they will talk about the horrible anti-semitism they faced (chat room pogroms). Without any mention of their lobbying gentiles to make war against Jewish enemies.

I have been studying Jewish/gentile relations for over 15 years. Here is a quote that should offer some enlightenment on the issues that seperate us:

"Long historical memory, delving into centuries-old, even millennia-old,disasters, massacres and wrongs (accompanied by the convenient forgetting of wrongs and atrocities perpetrated by ones' own people against others), lachyrmorose self-righteousness, are all characteristics of groups whose experience is basically passive, as the Jews have been politically for thousands of years. In such groups, the consciousness of being victims accumulates and poisons the very being of its members. At times these characteristics become the primary content of their self-awareness as a group, a perverted focus of their self-identity. Finally,this suffering becomes a source of pride. ('I am persecuted and hated, a sign that I am valuable and unique, for which I am envied and hated'), rather than engendering a desire to be rid of it." - Israeli scholar Boas Evron
 
2007-09-04 10:03:26 PM  
FarkingUpTheWrongTree: First you had the Clinton impeachment, and now you want to impeach Dubya for lying

I definitely see the similarities that both "sides" are/were desperate to remove the President from office. But let's face it, the Clinton "impeachment" was a political farce. Bush has acted in an extremely reckless and dangerous fashion, and I would rather let a judge or jury decide if he lied, not pundits or god forbid the Senate at this point...

I'm seeing an ominous pattern here.

Oh yeah. Both parties have got to go. And why we are suddenly letting them "campaign" (i.e., wasting money and time) a whole year early is headshaking.

I hate to put the future of Internets up as an instant technology wild card in an election, but it's time we get some independent voices running for office. Voices without a party line, just common sense.
 
2007-09-04 10:05:32 PM  
pwhp_67: If Americans had 1/10 the balls that this country had in 1776 that is exactly what would happen...

As a Farker I'm ashamed to say this, but in this case testicular endowment doesn't really amount to much.
You can't impeach someone just because you believe they're teh evil. You need evidence ("holds up in court" evidence,) and I'm just not seeing it. I know that the popular anti-Dubya view says that Bush knew that there were no WMDs all along and knowingly used the nonexistant weapons to scare everyone into going to war... But if there were any evidence to back it up, why aren't Nancy Pelosi and the new Democratic House all over it?
This, and the numerous international intelligence agencies that came to similar conclusions, makes me stick the "Bush lied" meme in the tinfoil-hat corner of my chart.
Again, incompetence is not an impeachable offense, (unfortunately.)

As for war crimes, is engaging in war now a crime? It'd be nice if it was, but when you compare Iraq to the other major wars of the past hundred years, I can't help but think that those presidents are easily more guilty of what could be considered "war crimes".
 
2007-09-04 10:10:14 PM  
whidbey: Sorry, but that makes me want to puke knowing who said it.

Understandable, but it fit my worldview in 2002 that we should never allow tyrants a legitimate space on the world stage and my feelings in 2007 are the same. Democracy is the way the world needs to be. Could you imagine if we could eliminate the idea of war, arbitrary borders, poverty caused by malicious dictators, inhumane working conditions, human rights abuses, and lack of freedom as a way of life? Combine all the money the world spends now on petty squabbling and put it to its proper use - helping our fellow man, exploring the universe outside of our planet, and hopefully getting us to the point where all life is cherished the way natural law intended.
 
2007-09-04 10:10:26 PM  
FarkingUpTheWrongTree: Jon Snow: I'm not sure the hawt boobies can tame the raging Farkbeast. It may be too little, too late.



/doing my part


wow, who is that delightful creature?
 
2007-09-04 10:11:11 PM  
Shaggy_C: You fool, it was the biggest reasons I was for the war:

Non-defensive, non-UN approved wars are illegal. I'm not denying that "Freedom. LOL!" came up in propaganda, I am saying that it became the focus after the lies about WMDs and Al Qaeda links were debunked. You'll carefully note that this is not given as a justification for invading Iraq, but as a presumed, beneficial consequence.
 
2007-09-04 10:13:45 PM  
FarkingUpTheWrongTree: I'm not sure the hawt boobies can tame the raging Farkbeast. It may be too little, too late.

I will go down fighting:

img530.imageshack.us
img508.imageshack.us
img519.imageshack.us
img460.imageshack.us
img260.imageshack.us
 
2007-09-04 10:14:56 PM  
whidbey: But let's face it, the Clinton "impeachment" was a political farce.
Agreed.

Bush has acted in an extremely reckless and dangerous fashion, and I would rather let a judge or jury decide if he lied, not pundits or god forbid the Senate at this point...

I actually agree with the reckless/dangerous statement, but is that impeachable? Apparently it's up to the House to decide if there's sufficient cause to try and pass the Articles of Impeachment, and then to convince everyone to pass it (simple majority).

This is a fun thread but my friend is on my case and I hafta go. Have a good one!
 
2007-09-04 10:16:55 PM  
IRAN IS ACTIVELY UNDERMINING THE DEMOCRACY OF IRAQ

i9.tinypic.com

KILLING CIVILIANS AND AMERICANS

THEY. MUST. BE. STOPPED.
i18.tinypic.com
 
2007-09-04 10:18:01 PM  
Jon Snow: Non-defensive, non-UN approved wars are illegal. I'm not denying that "Freedom. LOL!" came up in propaganda, I am saying that it became the focus after the lies about WMDs and Al Qaeda links were debunked. You'll carefully note that this is not given as a justification for invading Iraq, but as a presumed, beneficial consequence.


Through the veil of partisanship, perhaps. But those of us who were paying attention saw Iraq in the realm of the bigger picture. It was this 'beneficial consequence' of the Bush Doctrine in ANY part of the world that had me support it. You and I may feel differently about it, but I think you should be happy enough that my fervent support of democratic principles keeps me from supporting any kind of military action in Iran unless absolutely necessary.
 
2007-09-04 10:20:28 PM  
Ubuntu2K7: KILLING CIVILIANS AND AMERICANS
THEY. MUST. BE. STOPPED.


Hmmm...

Login: Ubuntu2K7
Account created: 2007-09-03 21:29:55

The sock puppet brigade is swelling.
 
2007-09-04 10:27:01 PM  
img473.imageshack.us
img521.imageshack.us
img213.imageshack.us
img395.imageshack.us
img378.imageshack.us
 
2007-09-04 10:28:40 PM  
Ubuntu2K7: IRAN IS ACTIVELY UNDERMINING THE DEMOCRACY OF IRAQ



KILLING CIVILIANS AND AMERICANS

THEY. MUST. BE. STOPPED.


Don't be thickheaded. You know what group has the most representation in Iraq, and was the only group to consistently take part in the Democratic process? The Shi'ites. You know who Iran is supporting? The Shi'ites. We were supporting the same side until a few months ago, when we turned our sights onto the militias that were carrying out ethnic cleansing. We shouldn't be pissed at Iran for supporting them since we were doing it too up until recently. Granted, them providing arms for attacks specifically aimed at Americans is unacceptable; the same stands for their support of any groups that specifically target American interests. But the fact is, the biggest problem we've been having recently has been with the Mahdi army, which all started because we decided to put a hit out on Al-Sadr - really, the provisional government we put into Iraq acted heavy-handed with him and didn't include him or his followers in the elections. End result: he got pissed, and started attacking the U.S. This lasted a year or so, died down, and only recently started again because the surge has been targeting his army. It seems we're gaining the upper hand, as he just announced a cease-fire for the next 6 months. I don't think the Iranians, if their goal were to disrupt Iraq, would think this is a good idea. But don't let that stop you from posting Emo kids...if it makes you happy!
 
2007-09-04 10:29:26 PM  
Persian women are OK.....The further WEST you go in northern Africa, they get REALLY beautiful. Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco....
 
2007-09-04 10:31:42 PM  
EdBear: Ubuntu2K7: KILLING CIVILIANS AND AMERICANS
THEY. MUST. BE. STOPPED.

Hmmm...

Login: Ubuntu2K7
Account created: 2007-09-03 21:29:55

The sock puppet brigade is swelling.


It must be Malum2k7's new ID. Each of his new ID's seem to last about 3-4 weeks before bannination.
 
2007-09-04 10:31:55 PM  
Shaggy_C: Through the veil of partisanship, perhaps. But those of us who were paying attention saw Iraq in the realm of the bigger picture.

I was aware of PNAC before the invasion. I knew that "Freedom. LOL!" and "Democracy in the region. ROFL!" would be presented as benefits. I also was aware that there was a good damn reason that we didn't do it in Gulf I.

You and I may feel differently about it, but I think you should be happy enough that my fervent support of democratic principles keeps me from supporting any kind of military action in Iran unless absolutely necessary.

I appreciate that you are not willing to back a second, illegal attack on a sovereign nation within 4 years. That probably sounds dickish, but I am genuinely glad that people are not falling for it twice.
 
2007-09-04 10:32:18 PM  
Shaggy_C

We were not supporting Insurgents who HAPPEN to Be Shiites.

There are moderate Shiites and extremists ....

So, YOU don't be so simple.

Iran is supporting the extremists, the ones KILLING civilians and IA and IP and Americans.

Their efforts must be stopped.

Period.

Unless you think its OKAY for them to be giving extremists the means and methods to kill Americans and undermine democracy!?

Fool.
 
2007-09-04 10:34:06 PM  
PNAC is one think tank who basically says America should remain influential in the world....

Apparently American influence would bother you a great deal.

Wouldnt want a liberal democracy guiding policy......

Maybe a communist one is better for you?
 
2007-09-04 10:35:04 PM  
Ubuntu2K7: Persian women are OK...

Sure, studman2k7.

img480.imageshack.us
img261.imageshack.us
img296.imageshack.us
 
2007-09-04 10:36:52 PM  
Ubuntu2K7: Maybe a communist one is better for you?

Thanks for questioning my patriotism, Troll2k7. How's that working out for you guys so far?
 
2007-09-04 10:44:33 PM  
Jon Snow: I was aware of PNAC before the invasion. I knew that "Freedom. LOL!" and "Democracy in the region. ROFL!" would be presented as benefits. I also was aware that there was a good damn reason that we didn't do it in Gulf I.


I don't see why you add the "LOL!" to the end of those words. Are you trying to insinuate that they weren't true? Fark PNAC, period. Their goal is increasing U.S. profitability by creating new enterprises in foreign lands.

I am much more in step with this viewpoint:


There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
 
2007-09-04 10:52:29 PM  
Shaggy_C: I don't see why you add the "LOL!" to the end of those words. Are you trying to insinuate that they weren't true? Fark PNAC, period. Their goal is increasing U.S. profitability by creating new enterprises in foreign lands.

I am much more in step with this viewpoint:


It's nice that you're in step with that, but you'd probably need a government to go along with it.

America? Not so much.
 
2007-09-04 10:56:00 PM  
I've read every post in all 4 threads concerning Iran over the last few days. I've tried to do my best to study the region and the reasons that have brought us to this point. I must confess that I've also learned much from some very smart Farkers here about the middle east. To all those people, thanks.

The one overwhelming thing I notice is the political polarization of this issue. Every Democrat seems to think that every Republican wants to attack Iran and every Republican assumes every Democrat is an anti war hippy. This is just not the case.

I know a little about the history of the region but I don't claim to be an expert. It seems to me that while invading Iraq would not have been preferable considering what we have to deal with now it doesn't change the fact that we are where we are. I know the left argument "Why should we fix what you messed up" but that is not really an answer. I hope war is not the answer either. I hope "most" Amuricans agree.

I think most middle of the road persons agree that Iran having a nuke is unacceptable; so much so that even France denounces it. Those who think that "We have them, why can't they" are in a class by themselves and should be treated as such (ignored). My question is: What do we do now? I am not FOR attacking Iran but Iran with the bomb is not acceptable. I would like to think that diplomacy is still an option. Considering the region is as much an interest to China as the US I would think they would intervene and talk some sense to BOTH sides. i.e. NO, you can't have a nuke Iran and NO, you can't attack US/Israel.

If not, "The will of man has failed." (my cheesy LOTR quote)
 
2007-09-04 10:59:49 PM  
oh42na:This isn't originally mine, but hey - more fuel for the fire!!!

Getting a crater that large would be hard. You'd probably have to nudge an asteroid into an earth-crossing orbit & hope like hell that your calculations were correct. Even then, the resulting impact would probably wipe out most of human civilization.

/though if you used a series of smaller bombs with less of a global reach, then I'm not against the principle
 
2007-09-04 11:05:03 PM  
Sir Charles: radioman_: Conversion by the sword; that is the way of Islam. Some of you seem to like the idea. The rest of us will going down fighting.

Yeah. This.


You guys really don't even know how ridiculous you sound to sane people, do you? Sad.
 
2007-09-04 11:06:45 PM  
Shaggy_C: I don't see why you add the "LOL!" to the end of those words. Are you trying to insinuate that they weren't true?

Yes. Exactly.

Fark PNAC, period.

Well you can thank PNAC and the neoconservative movement for the clusterfark that's killing US soldiers as we speak. Who do you think convinced Cheney it was a good idea to take out Saddam? I'm not saying that overthrowing dictators and installing democracies is inherently evil, I am saying that the point was not "freedom and democracy" in Iraq. It was yet another BOO for the US military and a chance to get better access to their oil.

I am not making this up. We literally were drawing up plans to secure the oilfields 72 hours after 9/11.

You can side with any ideology you want, but that doesn't mean it is the ideology that led us into Iraq. You are claiming that we had the moral highground in invading a sovereign nation because of justifications the US didn't use. The basis for our invasion was WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups. It was not "Oh hai, I upgraded ur freedomz."

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

We SUPPORT dictatorships CONSTANTLY. Surely I don't need to tell you that.

General Jorge Rafael Videla, President of ARGENTINA
Colonel Hugo Banzer, President of BOLIVIA
General Humberto Branco, President of BRAZIL
Sir Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of BRUNEI
General Augusto Pinochet, President of CHILE
Fulgencio Batista, President of CUBA
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, President of the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez, General of EL SALVADOR
Alfredo Cristiani, President of EL SALVADOR
Halie Selassie, Emperor of ETHIOPIA
General Sitiveni Rabuka, Commander, Armed Forces of FIJI
Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of GERMANY
George Papadopoulos, Prime Minister of GREECE
General Efrain Rios Mont, President of GUATEMALA
Vinicio Cerezo, President of GUATEMALA
François & Jean Claude Duvalier, Presidents-for-Life of HAITI
Roberto Suazo Cordova, President of HONDURAS
General Suharto, President of INDONESIA
Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, Shah of IRAN, King of Kings
Saddam Hussein, President of IRAQ
General Samuel Doe, President of LIBERIA
Hussan II, King of MOROCCO
Anastasio Somoza, Sr. And Jr., Presidents of NICARAGUA
Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq, President of PAKISTAN
General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Defense forces, PANAMA
Alfredo Stroessner, President-for-Life of PARAGUAY
Ferdinand Marcos, President of the PHILIPPINES
Antonio De Oliveira Salazar, Prime Minister of PORTUGAL
Ian Smith, Prime Minister of RHODESIA
P. W. Botha, President of SOUTH AFRICA
Park Chung Hee, President of SOUTH KOREA
Ngo Dinh Diem, President of SOUTH VIET NAM
General Francisco Franco, President of SPAIN
Chiang Kai-Shek, President of TAIWAN
Turgut Ozal, Prime Minister of TURKEY
Mobutu Sese Seko, President of ZAIRE
 
2007-09-04 11:08:15 PM  
WE NEVER SUIT UP AND GO TO WAR FOR DICTATORSHIPS


nice try...


no, not really....
 
2007-09-04 11:09:07 PM  
dbho: My question is: What do we do now? I am not FOR attacking Iran but Iran with the bomb is not acceptable. I would like to think that diplomacy is still an option. Considering the region is as much an interest to China as the US I would think they would intervene and talk some sense to BOTH sides. i.e. NO, you can't have a nuke Iran and NO, you can't attack US/Israel.

03:04:50 PM
 
2007-09-04 11:13:49 PM  
They're forming into straight lines
They're going through a tight wind
The kids are losing their minds...
 
2007-09-04 11:16:40 PM  
Ubuntu2K7: So, YOU don't be so simple.

Iran is supporting the extremists, the ones KILLING civilians and IA and IP and Americans.

Their efforts must be stopped.


Oh Malum, while you're missing the point entirely here, you're overstating it horrendously.


Jon Snow: We SUPPORT dictatorships CONSTANTLY. Surely I don't need to tell you that.

Sigh...that was the 'old way'. We've moved away from supporting those kind of thugs since Bush has taken office. Are you trying to say that we should still be supporting dictatorships simply to maintain the status quo? If so, you're starting to sound like a 1980's conservative! Otherwise I would think we would be wise to agree that Bush's idea that democracy worldwide is our generation's calling is not a bad one.
 
2007-09-04 11:19:26 PM  
img206.imageshack.us
img505.imageshack.us
img211.imageshack.us
img211.imageshack.us
img508.imageshack.us
img300.imageshack.us
img111.imageshack.us
img390.imageshack.us
 
2007-09-04 11:24:29 PM  
So.. Did I leave you speachless Jon Snow>/b>? ;)


 
2007-09-04 11:24:52 PM  
img517.imageshack.usimg517.imageshack.usimg517.imageshack.usimg517.imageshack.usimg517.imageshack.us



This thread is funny.
 
2007-09-04 11:28:18 PM  
I hate to say it, but... If we do attack Iran (and I pray to God we don't), this is the way to do it. Our military is built to blow up places, not occupy them.

Still, it really is a shame, isn't it?

Democrats aren't taking measures to end the war because they want it to last for the duration of the Bush Administration so Republicans will look bad.

The Bush Administration wants to start a war in Iran before their term comes to an end so the next President, likely a Democrat, will have to deal with it so that Democrats will look bad.

That's what American policy has been reduced to, kids. Not doing what's right or what's good for the country, but making the opposition look worse than you.
 
2007-09-04 11:29:30 PM  
Shaggy_C: We've moved away from supporting those kind of thugs since Bush has taken office.

...wow, that's the most naive thing I've ever read on Fark.

"Spread of Democracy" theory enthusiasts are funny.
 
Displayed 50 of 1347 comments

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report