Tendo City

It's only funny to those who so desperatly desire humor in the name of their own viewpoints they laugh PURELY at agreement. The only reason TO laugh at that is the "I SO agree with them" variety, which isn't exactly humor. Really, this is right up there with comics I read with points I agree with. They too tend to lack any humor. What's the funny part? The penguin? Is it the "sure if you mean" kind of joke? There isn't even a punchline.

Well yeah, political (or biased) cartoons often aren't funny when read by people who disagree with those opinions... they really are made for the audience that agrees...

In that comic's case its funny because it shows how stupid those opinions are...

was Suddam Hussein involved in 9/11? probaily not... Is he involved in terrorism? Definently!

Suddam Hussein has killed just as many people as Slobidan Mislovic in his own country , yet mislovic is on trail for war crimes yet Suddam still is free? Suddam Hussein has the money and the resouces to fund terrorism and the motive to do so, Just like the Taliban housing Bin ladin , Suddams regime must also be Purged.

May I add I just heard on CNN that they have discoverd Chemical weapons inside a factory in Iraq just recently.....

The bottom line is that Saddam is an evil dictator, he has weapons in conflict with Resolution 1441, and that his people are in dire need of liberation. Whether or not he's in cahoots with Bin Laden does not matter.

Even the very young helped gather aid in the town, the scene of the first battle in the war on Iraq. The town has no electricity or clean water and food is in short supply.









We're such evil imperialists :( We're just in it for oil :(

To Bush helping the people of Iraq is just a side benefit of going in there... like Afghanistan. We went in there to kill Al-Quaida... and the Taliban since they refused to give up Al-Quaida. But to get even better ratings on the war suddenly it became about "freeing the Afghanis from the evil Taliban"... that would have worked, if it hadn't been so obviously clear that NO ONE cared about the Afghanis until we wanted to go in there... I mean, the Taliban had been in power doing their stuff for most of a decade...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
To Bush helping the people of Iraq is just a side benefit of going in there... like Afghanistan. We went in there to kill Al-Quaida... and the Taliban since they refused to give up Al-Quaida. But to get even better ratings on the war suddenly it became about "freeing the Afghanis from the evil Taliban"... that would have worked, if it hadn't been so obviously clear that NO ONE cared about the Afghanis until we wanted to go in there... I mean, the Taliban had been in power doing their stuff for most of a decade...

Five years. They were in there five years. Came to power in 96, died off in 2001. Just because freeing them wasn't the main objective, and never was, doesn't understate the relevance of it. We could very, very easily have gone in there, guns a-blazing indiscriminantly, and we still would have toppled the Taliban. And now you see us in Iraq, taking the greatest care to preserve the nation's infrastructure and being very careful to avoid civilian casualties. We have no obligation to do that, other than base morality. We could easily drop MOABs and Daisycutters all over Baghdad and flatten the entire city if we so pleased, which would ensure beyond any doubt that the regime is dead. But we aren't. Freeing Iraqis from Saddam's clutches is not our main objective, but it most certainly IS an objective, and one of considerable importance. Not to mention, life will become even better for them afterwards, as the sanctions will be lifted. This war was begun to preserve our interests, but it will also be the best thing that ever happened to those people, and you cannot say otherwise with any credibility.

The Taliban controlled parts of Afghanistan since the late '80s... if we'd cared about the Afghanis we'd have strongly supported the forces that were fighting them... we didn't even begin to and they lost...

Oh, and of course they have to pay attention to the humanitarian part... if we indiscriminatly killed civilians it'd get even the American people against this war...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
The Taliban controlled parts of Afghanistan since the late '80s... if we'd cared about the Afghanis we'd have strongly supported the forces that were fighting them... we didn't even begin to and they lost...

Oh, and of course they have to pay attention to the humanitarian part... if we indiscriminatly killed civilians it'd get even the American people against this war...

That's true, but we're really going out of the way here, we're doing more than any nation has ever done for the citizens of a country they were at war with. We wouldn't indiscriminantly kill civvies, but we don't have any obligation to do anything more for them. Yet we do. We do the same even for EPWs.

On a related note, anyone else not surprised that the reaction of the Iraqis isn't exactly "flowers in the streets"? I mean, Sadaam has been in power for 35 years... in that long a amount of time he has had lots of time to get the people extremely loyal to him, atrocities or no... and he has. While almost certainly a majority of Iraqis dislike him and wish he was gone they won't celebrate or do anything until its clear he is... and right now they aren't convinced of that, especially with how much harder its turning out to be (and how much resistance the Iraqis and putting up) than expected...

Oh, and as far as news channels go CNN is by far the best one... not stupid Fox News... we don't get it here on campus (for news channels we get CNN, CNN Headline News, and MSNBC...) but even if we did I'd never prefer it to CNN... CNN is annoying and very far from the perfect news channel but its the best we got.

I wish CNN would cover some other news then just Iraq.

I hope Suddam Hussein gets a Public execution! Along with his gay sons.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
On a related note, anyone else not surprised that the reaction of the Iraqis isn't exactly "flowers in the streets"? I mean, Sadaam has been in power for 35 years... in that long a amount of time he has had lots of time to get the people extremely loyal to him, atrocities or no... and he has. While almost certainly a majority of Iraqis dislike him and wish he was gone they won't celebrate or do anything until its clear he is... and right now they aren't convinced of that, especially with how much harder its turning out to be (and how much resistance the Iraqis and putting up) than expected...

It's becuase they are afraid of Saddam, loyalty doesn't really have anything to do with it. They are afraid that if they do celebrate and for reason we decide to back out at the last minute that Saddam would have the killed. He did if before to the Kurds in northern Iraq back in 1991.

Oh, I'm sure loyalty has something to do with it... strange as it may sound, its hard to say that people wouldn't be patriotic and want to support their country even when its seen as evil... even when it is evil. Because the government 'brainwashes' them... just look at North Korea!

Loyalty could be part of the reason, but what accounts for most of it is fear. Just like in Star Wars. "Fear will keep the star systems in line".

Well, yeah, in Stalinist regimes like North Korea and Iraq fear (and the use of force on dissidents) is of course the main way they keep down revolts... but the people are very afraid -- they aren't sure if the regime will die, and don't know if if they do revolt (or express support for the Americans) they will be killed by what remains of the Secret Police... but in 35 years of rule there was plenty of time to build up plenty of others who are fanatically loyal to Sadaam...

Sure there are going to be some that are fanatically loyal to Saddam, if there weren't there's no way he'd have stayed in power as long as he did. But, mainly it's fear that's keeping the general population from doing anything just yet.

Saddam pretty much is "General Scales" isn't he?

I'd say he's more of a Gran Moff Tarkin.

he is incredibly fat and ugly I can tell you that much....
Half of Iraq children starve while this man Stuff his face with food and even sprouts a butter belly to prove it.

It sure doesn't help that we have sanctions which deny the Iraqis a lot of supplies they need... but the majority of the blame is on the regime, just like North Korea (but not nearly as bad as it is there). Even with the sanctions, if the regimes had wanted to feed their people and get good medical supplies they could... but funding the army is more important to them, so they don't care... especially in North Korea. Lots of people there starve to death while they pump money into a million man army...

Like Korea needs a million-man army...seriously though, how many men does it take to press a button which'll launch a nuke? Not a million.

A million man army just means a million targets if they fuck with us.

Oh come on... are you seriously trying to say that if there was a war in Korea there wouldn't be civilian casualties in South Korea in higher levels than any war since Vietnam at the very least? Then you're insane... if they attacked it'd be apocalyptic for South Korea... especially if they used their nukes that they "don't have". In that case Japan would be threatened too... and Bush does realize this. He's an idiot but isn't that stupid... so we're doing a 'lets say we dont want to fight and not do much to actually help the situation'. Note that the tensions haven't eased yet... so we don't know how it'll end up. Hopefully both sides can agree on another treaty like we did in '94...

And hopefully we'll make sure they stick to it this time.

I didn't say there wouldn't be catastrophic consequences for DRPK's neighbors. But still, in the long run we would make them pay for it.

Well, yeah, they'd lose in the end but that really isn't the point... the cost would be too high, especially when there ARE ways of avoiding it...

It seems like most of the major countries that were against going to war with Iraq have been supplying Iraq with weapons.

Syria: supplied Iraq with night vision goggles.

Russia: supplied Iraq with various equipment.

China: Recent reports say that the missle that hit Kuwait City was a Chinese-made missle.


No wonder they were against it.

To say nothing of Germany's weapons and alleged chemical agent sales to Iraq, and of course, the big one, France's $60 billion oil contract with Saddam Hussein.

Those nations aren't for peace or liberal values, they either have illegal activities to cover up or are trying to preserve lucrative cash flows.

Wait. Those ARE liberal values.

today suddam is using suicide bombers.
He killed 4 marines with a Suicide bomber,Someone should tell suddam that this is no bullshit Starcraft with infested terrains, When we find him he is as good as dead.

I wouldnt understand estimate North korea as they have the 2nd largest army in the world.Their military is in better shape then Suddam.As his entire economy is devouted to his military arsenal.
Russia and China have also equiped them no doubt.

Favour toward the U.S in south Korea is at a all time low , Not over Iraq but over the death of 2 korean school girls at the hands of drunken American GI's who left off with only a slap on the wrest.

If bush goes for North Korea next he had better be Patient , Without U.N and stronger international backing such a war could bring about the end of the U.S as we know it.

Double standards here, Weltall? You know that they have some US equipment too, from when we funded and armed them when they were fighting Iran... was Sadaam OK to fund back then, because we did in our policy I talked about in length (and no one responded to) before of funding any brutal dictator or terrorist group who claimed to fight communism...

Oh, and I very much doubt that France, Russia, and Germany have their contracts as primary reasons to not want to go to war... its just not about that... its about not seeing any good reason to fight and not changing that opinion when the US completely fails to provide any semblance of proof or reason to go to war... oh, and doing what your people want (no war) in an attempt to win the next election, too.

Those are all much better reasons than yours.

I read an article saying that France wants to see all of Europe as one great power, and equal to and shoulder-to-shoulder with the USA. They hate us anyway, but with the way we kinda ignored them, their vision obviously isn't materializing. That's perhaps why they're sore; 'cuz we still are more powerful than all of Europe combined twenty times over.

That isn't true. While militarially we are more powerful than Europe, economically it isn't that simple... if Europe could unite it'd be a major economic power, given how it has more people in it than the US does, and it has a already big economy... the problem is that they can't seem to agree enough to unite... which isn't surprising but means that Europe won't match the US soon.

Europe is so Divided they will never amount to anything but pack of Squabbeling politicians.

Europe should stop being a Rival and be a Partner.

They should... but because of the long history of division in Europe its very hard to do...

Oh yeah, and the US has a military budget bigger than the rest of the world put together... yeah, its bigger than all of the other 192 countries combined.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Double standards here, Weltall? You know that they have some US equipment too, from when we funded and armed them when they were fighting Iran... was Sadaam OK to fund back then, because we did in our policy I talked about in length (and no one responded to) before of funding any brutal dictator or terrorist group who claimed to fight communism...

The U.S. did not fund Iraq. We funded Iran. Altough Iran isn't really that much better than Saddam, but the point remains. And anyway we aren't talking about equipment supplied during the Iraq/Iran War we are talking about equipment supplied to Iraq AFTER the Gulf War.

That is just false. Unquestionably. When the Iranian Revolution of 1979 hit, and the radical Shia Muslims took over and held those hostages, our support for Iran (who under the previous brutal dictator we had supported) stopped and our support for Sadaam's Iraq started in just a few years... I've seen pictures of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadaam from the '80s when we were giving them all kinds of weapons and ignoring the clear evidence that in that war, Iraq was using chemical weapons on the Iranians. Why? Because Sadaam was losing and we thought that the only way to stop the spread of Iranian revolutionary doctrine was Sadaam. So we funded him and ignored his atrocities and war crimes. And you know what he did after drawing out that war? Yeah, invaded Kuwait. With lots of Russian matiriel, true, but also some US stuff...

Since the Gulf War, we of course haven't funded Iraq while some Russian companies (governmental support is uncertain) and other Middle Eastern nations have... but the fact remains, Sadaam is still using some US materiel from when we were funding him... I heard that when they found some caches of weapons a lot of gas masks and stuff were of American manufacture and probably from before the first Gulf War...

Who doesn't have SOME American hardware, honestly! If we didn't give it to them, they would've bought it off the black market. We make veritably everything.

ABF, I've never heard of any of that...how sure are you that it's true?

What? You've got to be more specific...

Was it true about our supplying Iraq and that Rumsfield shook Saddam's hand.

Yes. Without question. I saw a PBS documentary on it a few weeks ago... we sold Iraq weapons all through the '80s to stop Iran. We only stopped because Sadaam got too greedy and attacked Kuwait... and even then we only acted because Kuwait has oil, I'm sure...

As for Rumsfeld I'd show the pic but don't remember where exactly it is... but its perfectly believable since we were selling them stuff and visiting Baghdad...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Double standards here, Weltall? You know that they have some US equipment too, from when we funded and armed them when they were fighting Iran... was Sadaam OK to fund back then, because we did in our policy I talked about in length (and no one responded to) before of funding any brutal dictator or terrorist group who claimed to fight communism...

That was a mistake, funding him. The difference is, we haven't funded him anything in well over a decade, while the aforementioned are most likely still doing so right now.

Quote:Oh, and I very much doubt that France, Russia, and Germany have their contracts as primary reasons to not want to go to war... its just not about that... its about not seeing any good reason to fight and not changing that opinion when the US completely fails to provide any semblance of proof or reason to go to war... oh, and doing what your people want (no war) in an attempt to win the next election, too.

Those are all much better reasons than yours.

That's just plain bullshit and you know it. Bush is in it only for the oil, but those who oppose us do so only for moral reasons? Do you understand how stupid that sounds? Their opposition to us is without a doubt because of economic contracts. Remember that post I made about Germany and France's full support in war against Serbia? They had no oil contracts to lose if Slobodan Milosevic fell, so they helped out, WITHOUT AN IMMINENT OR EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THREAT TO ANYONE BUT KOSOVO, AND WITHOUT BACKING FROM THE UN OR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

And not a single moron liberal took to the streets and denounced Clinton for that. Not one. No one marched with flags telling US troops to shoot their officers. You miserable liberal hypocrites were just simpatico with THAT unilateral and completely unprovoked act of war because your favorite liberal parasite of a president was conducting it.

Someone's got double-standards, and it's sure as hell not me.


Doesn't that make you proud? Bring a tear to your eye?

This is Saddam's domestic army on the march. And I bet you'd love nothing more than to be a soldier in it.

Those brainless maggots hate the fact that the U.S is bombing Iraq becuase it could kill people , Now they are chanting for U.S troops to kill their officers?It beginning to sound that they our siding with Iraqi Suicide bombers.

As for the Oil , The U.S has a dirty history to make up for....
But If the U.S does keep its word and rebuild Iraq and also contine their work in Afghanistan it could lead to a better future of Foreign policy were their previous mistakes are examined.

The U.S should give its pledge never to intentialy give any weapons to 3rd world countries and non democratic states ever again.Perhaps then the international comunity may forgive the U.S some day.

*sigh* The stupidity of those people makes me sick. I guess they think it's okay for American troops to kill their leaders, but not okay to kill Iraqi soldiers who are supporting a murderous dictator. How sickening.

First off, I don't think this sentiment reflects ALL the anti-war people. You know, when demonstrating for peace, let's not suggest acts of violence, or do them. However, it seems these people probably actually were HAPPY to hear about that one soldier who bombed his commander's tent. It's rather sickening, and kinda a statement about humanity, that even when trying to get a message for peace and not war out, they have to suggest violence to do it. Stupid violent little humans...even in peace they wish for death to their enemies... *becomes a swirly eel covered demon pig*

Second off, yes regarding that war on... name of place I forget, which had all the problems that this current war seems to have (lack of UN support and such). It does seem ironic that one might support one and chastice the other. I must say I myself agreed with that war, and still do. Motivation was under question there too (something about taking attention away from his own situation). To be honest, I do believe I'll stop arguing about motivation. That's irrelevent. Are the actions, regardless of what motivated them, something that should be done here (or then)?

I'd think that being anti-war and wanting anyone hurt is hypocritical... I very much doubt that lots of antiwar people would support that...

Oh, and in Kosovo the government was actively killing its own citizens in massacres at the time we went in... while Sadaam has definitely done that, he has been more careful (about his image) in recent years because of international pressure... the main reason Iraqis have been dying over the past decade is lack of food and medicine... we shouldn't just stand while people get slaughtered, like we did in Rwanda or Yugoslavia for 8 years before we finally went in... But this case just doesn't meet those criteria.

Also, there were antiwar protests to Kosovo. There are for every war. But they were definitely less pronounced... but not because of a Democratic president. Left wing activists wouldn't care as much about that... Clinton was so centrist in so many ways he almost could have been a moderate Republican...

Oh yeah, and he actually had strong international support. You cannot underrate the importance of that... international support was vital. We do not have that now...

Now you say "Cooalition of the Willing". You know what that is code for? "A short list of nations that aren't against war". Not "A list of nations who will help us in war", but "A list of nations who won't try to stop the war". And its just 30 nations... (with supposedly 15 more who don't want to admit it because of how unpopular it is) of 193 in the world...

And the war has achieved exactly what I said several times: It has just hardened resistance against war in almost every nation in the world... Look at Spain. I bet that that government doesn't make it past the next election... not with 90% of the public opposing their pro-war policy...

I remembe hearing not too long ago someone in the government [might have the been the President] said the coalition was up to 50.

Yeah! Coalition of the Willing! But about able...

Far as I know, the only people who've given us anything at all are: Britain, Australia, Spain, Poland.

That dumb fuckhead with that big protest sign is boiling my blood...how fucking hypocritical can a shithead like that get? We should send him to Iraq so he can blow Saddam there instead of from here.:hammer:

Terrorist groups are helping Suddam , AllahJihad for example,Sending Suicide sqauds. You dont get that kind of help free , I bet he paid them lots of funding.

The U.S is right Suddam is a asshole so is the anti war protesters.
Boo!To my Government as well!

I'm glad we're agreed on that, my boy. Anyone who supports Iraq or stands in the way of the Coalition is an enemy of freedom and humanity. And the Goron Empire.



----Barry

is your name Barry? Darunia.