Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(CNN)   U.S. preparing to open can of whoop-ass on Iraq   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3720 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2001 at 8:52 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

69 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2001-07-31 09:08:15 AM  
Here is that can for them to open!!
2001-07-31 09:08:18 AM  
I don't think the U.S. has the pizazz that it had back in 50's to realy kick some ass nor does it have the funck to whoop-ass... The U.S. is a sad sad place...
2001-07-31 09:30:30 AM  
"...And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate."

Um, so if the president has a bad day, can he take it out on Saddam?

"Damn all of the democratic bastards and their 'right to life' crap, I'm so mad I could just bomb someth....Yes, Colin, I want to bomb Saddam. No, no, forget the SAM sites and their radar systems, I want to BOMB SADDAM. You'll take care of it? YEEHAW!!!"
2001-07-31 09:39:04 AM  
"Such sanctions, she said, would "go after the regime, not after the Iraqi people."

So we are going to specifically target Ambassys in Iraq this time just to be sure! Yup, George W. Bush come up with that plan all by himself!
2001-07-31 09:39:47 AM  
We should have turned that farking place into a parking lot the last time we were there.

Everyone is entitled to their religion, and peace, no grudge there. Saddam is nothing but an arab version of hitler or stalin. Genocide is not a cool thing.

Nuke that SOB.
2001-07-31 09:45:52 AM  
Oh great, here comes dubya dubya III.
2001-07-31 09:49:46 AM  
Anybody ever see the X-files episode where a high-ranking intelligence guy said Saddam Hussein was really an actor set up by the US Government? He said whenever they needed a distraction, they had him rattle his saber a little bit so they could get all high and mighty and bomb him once or twice to make everybody look the other way.

I don't think we set up Saddam like that, but I totally believe the gov't uses him as a distraction whenever they need to stir up some fervor. Remember a couple years back when the Clinton sex thing was going on, and he ordered bombing runs made and the military action was all you saw on CNN for a few days? It totally took over the media and helped Clinton out of his bind. With the exception of the occasional Republican pointing out that "Wag the Dog" had just come out, it worked pretty well.
2001-07-31 09:56:05 AM  
looks like it's back to Kuwait for me.
2001-07-31 10:12:48 AM  
Next time we should aim for schools and hospitals.
2001-07-31 10:20:41 AM  
Another imcompetent president covers up for his short comings by bombing Iraq. Been there.. done that.
2001-07-31 10:30:04 AM  
Like father like son.
2001-07-31 10:38:47 AM  
I'm having a hard time getting past her first name.

Superficial? Yes. Ignorant of political events? Yes, and not proud of it. But Condoleezza?
2001-07-31 10:39:17 AM  
Good Ol' Boys Charlie Daniels and Lee Greenwood are probably pennen' up some new arse whoopin', patriotic tune as we read this. Gotta pay for that expensive property in Branson ya know.
2001-07-31 10:41:22 AM  
And, to think I was laughed at in the previous thread on this subject, when I stated that Bush is going to bring us to war because is ratings at home are so poor, like most 3rd world dictators do. You'd think he could be at least a *little* more creative on his choice of enemies, though. C'mon, Iraq is just a weak bully who hasn't even been committing human rights violations recently; why not afghanistan, who practically tortures their women?

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 10:44:47 AM  
As Ozzy Osbourne once sang"Thank God for the bomb !Nuke Ya , Nuke Ya !"
2001-07-31 10:56:04 AM  
Anyone see the Worldnetdaily exclusive on Friday - unconfirmed by major media, but stated Iraqi elite troops crossing into Jordan and positioning on Isreal's border.
2001-07-31 10:58:56 AM  
Hehe, See ya there Spurt, I was hoping that the last time I saw the giant sandbox would be it, but now? Who knows...

2001-07-31 11:30:19 AM  
No-one ever explained why we dont send in the SAS, Special forces, whatever and just assassinate him
Why then?
2001-07-31 11:43:32 AM  
b/c it would create even more instability.
2001-07-31 11:53:06 AM  
Docwra: Because actually killing the guy causing the problems is against the "rules of war" written by the guys causing all the problems. It's only ok to kill the 20-something year-old guys who join the military.

I can just see them coming up with those rules:
"Ooooh! Put in one where no one's allowed to kill me! Just my soldiers!"
2001-07-31 12:19:18 PM  
Rei: Iraq is the perfect choice. They don't have a larger country protecting them. Afghanistan is too sensitive to India and could start something bigger.

First rule of being a bully, don't pick on the kids who have bigger brothers.
2001-07-31 12:24:15 PM  
Harim, I tend to think that sending out planes to bomb other countries is more for economic boosts than distraction from personal issues. We spend over 50 million dollars a day when we're bombing countries though, and then we buy more stuff, stimulating the economy a little. With a little help from the media, it makes it seem as though things get a little better.
2001-07-31 12:33:53 PM  
the problem with bombing afghanistan, is there's nothing worth bombing! How you target 20 guys on donkeys in the desert carrying 20 year old CIA provided SAMs with a stealth bomber? We'd have to break out the biplanes to attack Afghanistan.
2001-07-31 12:35:10 PM  
Just like Yugoslavia there are loads of misinformation available in the propagandistic press. I doubt that Saddam is really that bad a person/dictator compared to all those Latin American Dictators that we put in place, in fact I think we even trained him and supplied him with weapons.

While the war on drugs is our excuse to meddle in South America, we only have OIL to do it for in Iraq.
Consider the current stance of Russia on getting more Oil from that region, will a nice little war make it harder for them?

People don't start wars for personal reasons (at least on in this century) but for economic ones.
2001-07-31 12:40:58 PM  
actually, saddam does have one major strike against him. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Wiped out an entire village of them. Not that the US cares. I don't see us running around in defense of the Kurds very often, hell we even helped Turkey catch their leader. So saddam's not a very nice guy, but he's no Nixon either.
2001-07-31 12:43:11 PM  

India doesn't like Afghanistan. They're close, but they're enemies. Hindus and muslims have long been figting (that's why east and west pakistan (east pakistan now=bangladesh) broke away. India might even join in; I know they're nuclear (laughably so, but they are), but I'm not sure of the state of their military otherwise.

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 12:44:56 PM  
-=rei=-: And, to think I was laughed at in the previous thread on this subject, when I stated that Bush is going to bring us to war because is ratings at home are so poor

Yes you are omniscient. No one else saw that coming.

BTW, that's not the reason we're laughing at you.
2001-07-31 12:46:21 PM  
Not only would assassinating Saddam violate the rules of war, but it could very easily be used to make him a martyr against the 'evil western nations'.

Also, who's to say that the person who assumed the leadership wouldn't be worse, or that he wouldn't become a fanatic bent on revenge.

Rei - granted that human right's violations are moe severe than what has been going on over in Iraq, but there are plenty of reasons that we'd most likely go after Iraq first.

First, and foremost, there is a constant threat to the personnel stationed over there. They have fired at our aircraft on numerous occasions.

Secondly (and tied to the first), there are already some troops stationed over there. As such, there is an established base of operations.

Thirdly, and sadly enough, we are not directly affected by many of the events that are occurring in Afghanistan.

At least, that is how I see things, in my skewed distorted vision.
2001-07-31 12:56:31 PM  

You're kind. Pray tell, what is your reason?

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 01:08:01 PM  

As for the threat to our military personel: True. Though, they've been shooting at our aircraft for a long time, and not downing them ;) I feel more sorry for Americans trapped in Afghanistan, especially american women, than our military personel. One of the people who's been working on the investigation of human rights violations is an american woman who married a man from Afghanistan. He said he wanted to visit home for a month; she went with. As soon as she was over there, he informed her that she would not be leaving. Their child was enrolled in school there. She was beaten regularly, even in public. She could not leave the house, could not do anything. She tried to run away several times with her child, and failed. Eventually, she got a man to help smuggle her out of the country. Women, children, are regularly raped with no recourse, killed with no recourse, beaten all the time with no recourse. Its sickening. Cases of men "restoring their honor" by killing their sister who tried to run away after being repeatedly raped by a family member. All sorts of just appalling things that are supported by their law...

I just found this site which goes into Afghanistan more. All the more reason that religion should *never* play *any* part in politics.

As for your second and third points, they're also true... but sad. Very sad.

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 01:10:08 PM  
Kill Sadam? Don't be silly - he's the perfect papaer tiger!

Otherwise the U.S. would have to look for some other country to use as its official punching bag, and do you know how hard it is to find ones that can't fight back? War is great patriotic fun as long as the "enemy" has no real power to hurt you. "Sadam spotted taking candy from baby - bombing of Iraqi confectionery facilities ordered"
2001-07-31 01:22:20 PM  
"Not only would assassinating Saddam violate the rules of war, but it could very easily be used to make him a martyr against the 'evil western nations'."

Bush could make it look like an accident... sort of like the stuff they tried to do to Castro in the 50's. Sure it didn't work then, and it makes the US look pretty stupid now, but why let that stand in the way of democracy?

Hmmmmm? Lets see. Sadam doesn't smoke, so the exploding cigars are out. Does he play mini-putt? Bowling? Anyone know?
2001-07-31 01:40:21 PM  
So India is nuclear, but only laughably nuclear? Laughably nuclear... laughably nuclear... No.
2001-07-31 02:11:24 PM  
*grin* True, LargeYam, probably not the best choice of words :)

Ok, I'll rephrase. They're nuclear, but they don't know what they're doing very well. They have very high rates of mutations near their nuclear power plants, in addition to cancer and other diseases. Here's a report on their arsenal, roughly 1/100th the size of the United State's, with questionable status about how well their weapons are capable of working and being delivered.

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 02:12:01 PM  
please pardon the spelling errors :)
2001-07-31 02:22:52 PM  
Informal Poll ©2001
2001-07-31 02:23:40 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
Informal Poll ©2001
2001-07-31 02:40:47 PM  
Swell! If Israel and Palestine can't get on the ball and get something going, we might as well. TV has been kind of weak lately. Bring on Wulf Blitzer and CNN!
2001-07-31 02:55:38 PM  
2001-07-31 02:57:11 PM  
I care this much.
[image from too old to be available]
-= rei =-
2001-07-31 03:00:24 PM  
The commentary of Rei is one of the consistent highlights of this board, although that sure is a nifty pie chart. However, as a laughability model, I would flip the percentages.

The fact that India has a bungling grasp on nuclear technology makes them much more of a threat... especially to themselves.
2001-07-31 03:02:27 PM  
yep.time to justify the much-hyped missle shield which supposedly doesnt even work so well and will most likely only succeed in further isolating us and alienating our past many ways,iraq is like the old phillipino woman that we all keep in our closets.a good distraction (or a good gumming)if the need arises.

fun for all!
2001-07-31 03:04:45 PM  
Even if only one of their nukes works that's still enough to take out New York City.
I don't think that's very funny.
Now, if it was Paris, that would be funny.
2001-07-31 03:13:34 PM  
I don't care if every one of their missiles are defective. If a few of those things explode, then I suspect, that many people outside of the country will feel the effects of it.

Side note, it's a pathetic world that has to rely on the ability to be able to effectively destroy a vast portion of the world, and have global genocide as a result, in order to keep the peace. Too bad it's the only one that is capable of sustaining life that we can reach within the course of a human lifespan.
2001-07-31 03:33:02 PM  
Tucci, you're an idiot. Polls are useless if no one gives a rat's ass about them.

As for "Sodom" Hussein, it's time he put on his flak jacket, I hear that the forecast in Iraq calls for metal objects falling from the sky!

-he who stacks pork
2001-07-31 03:35:51 PM  
Leo, if you believe that they'll actually kill Hussein, you're the idiot.
2001-07-31 03:41:35 PM  
I for one appreciate Rei's posts.

Although Tucci's pie chart was pretty creative and funny.

But make no mistake: The US would be very, very, very wrong to go to war against Iraq. The domain of international politics is a fantasyland constructed of half-truths and gorilla dust. It is a game played by wealthy and powerful elites for their own amusement. Soldiers and citizens are unwitting pawns in this charade and there are never winners. Everyone loses.

Pray to whatever diety(s) you want. But pray for peace, love, and understanding.


by Shel Silverstien

I will not play at tug o' war.
I'd rather play at hug o' war.
Where everyone hugs
Instead of tugs.
Where everyone giggles
And rolls on the rug,
Where everyone kisses,
And everyone grins,
And everyone cuddles,
And everyone wins.
2001-07-31 03:44:59 PM  
I like Rei and I agree with a lot of her positions. And the chart was meant to be funny. But she does go on a bit at times...
2001-07-31 03:52:52 PM  

Hehe, true, I know, its a fault of mine ;)
Boredom with a project combines with bigotry or advocating of an atrocious society in a bad way ;)

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 04:32:08 PM  
'Another imcompetent president covers up for his short comings by bombing Iraq.'

Iraq shot down an American Plane. I'd say they deserve it. Bomb Baghdad to the ground and drop fliers telling the people that they wouldn't be in this place if Saddam hadn't shot down a U.S. plane and that the only way to stop another bombing would be to remove Saddam and his relatives.
Displayed 50 of 69 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.