Saddam's capture

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan This would be a great time for me to say "the apple doesn't fall far from the idiot tree." But that's of course not allowed. So when faced with utter stupidity I should smile and take it. Hmmmm I wonder what that reminds me of.....oh oh I know! I know! COMMUNISM.

But hey it's for the greater good.

What?

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by patlajan admin told me to go read the rules. I've been a bad boy.

Hey, if YOU were the bad boy, how come my thread disappeared completely??

[fIReBuRntInHeLL]

Too bad he got captured, I never supported him and his politics but i dont consider that its US's job to take care of Iraq!!!!!
World is going down to helllllllll

[Anonymouse]

A visitor writes....

Here's what's really happening: Saddam agreed to be captured. The U.S. is gonna make Saddam lie and say he had weapons of mass destruction.

This will rectify all the criticism that's been put on the administration for not finding the WMD's. Saddam might even say he was working with Bin Laden or planning an attack.

Then, they'll exile Saddam into Syria or somewhere like that (returning the favor). This will get Bush re-elected, justify the war, and encourage more imperialism to wipe out "terror." This means, the draft is near as well.

[Lagonid]

they're gonna hang in the middle of Baghdad with live cameras just like they killed the romanian president and his wife Chaoshesko (or however you spell it).

he should of killed himself.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan This is the only place anyone finds your brand of crap interesting isn't it?

I prefer to think of it as enlightenment to the power of 10.

[anileve]

So he’s captured… It's so much excitement here that I can hardly suppress my yawn.

[Tramanian]

Originally posted by america is the greatest threat to the world, not terrorism or nuclear bombs or anything else. europe has to realize this and unite to keep back the dirty xxxxin americans.

When America gets involved with foreign affairs and wars, they are called a threat to world peace, when America doesn't get involved, they are called isolationists. No matter what America does it is critisized for being wrong.

Observe that the left constantly attacks America for going to war, but never often publically opposes a brutal dictatorship.

The left opposes that one country go to war against an armed adversary, but doesn't oppose a dictator using force against *unarmed* citizens.

[Tangent]
Observe historically that it has not been semi-Capitalist countries that *initiate* the use of force, but exactly the type of country that the left supports: statist countries. For instance, the conjoining of Nazi Germany and Soviety Russia against Poland, or WW1, which was started by Monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia....and of course we can't forget Turkey in 1915.

Free countries thrive by production, statist countries survive by looting or by receiving aid from free countries.

If one is so reject war, yet advocate socialism, statism or collectivism of any kind, then one has arrived at a contradiction in his thoughts.

If one is to reject war, one must reject all forms of statism and one must advocate Capitalism, for Capitalism was the first and only political/social/economic system fundamentally oppposed to war, and by its nature makes it impossible to go to war for an invalid purpose.

[End Tangent]

America has and will invade brutal dictatorships, and it is a free country's right to do so. A dictatorship is an outlaw; a country that does not respect the rights of its own citizens is nothing but a large slave camp and has such has no right to exist. Once said country uses up all of its resources it will have no choice but to attack and conquer a neighboring country, or it will collapse.

Saddam may not have been an immidiate threat, but once his country's resources were expunged, he would have had no choice but to attack Kuwait, Syria, etc etc.

As I said before: America thrives because we produce, Iraq survived by looting, first from its own citizens and then later on to other countries.

America has never attacked another free country and has no plans, desires or rights to do so. America is not a threat to world peace, America is a threat to dictatorships.

Of course, don't get me wrong here, I DO NOT, repeat: DO NOT support America's foreign policy. America's foreign policy is a xxxxing joke, filled with ridiculous trade tarrifs, special privilges and the like...but if one wants change for the better, one must reject the statist doctrine that is already far too prevaillant and one must accept the only political system based on the recogniztion of individual rights: Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Tramanian When America gets involved with foreign affairs and wars, they are called a threat to world peace, when America doesn't get involved, they are called isolationists. No matter what America does it is critisized for being wrong.

Observe that the left constantly attacks America for going to war, but never often publically opposes a brutal dictatorship.

The left opposes that one country go to war against an armed adversary, but doesn't oppose a dictator using force against *unarmed* citizens.

[Tangent]
Observe historically that it has not been semi-Capitalist countries that *initiate* the use of force, but exactly the type of country that the left supports: statist countries. For instance, the conjoining of Nazi Germany and Soviety Russia against Poland, or WW1, which was started by Monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia....and of course we can't forget Turkey in 1915.

Free countries thrive by production, statist countries survive by looting or by receiving aid from free countries.

If one is so reject war, yet advocate socialism, statism or collectivism of any kind, then one has arrived at a contradiction in his thoughts.

If one is to reject war, one must reject all forms of statism and one must advocate Capitalism, for Capitalism was the first and only political/social/economic system fundamentally oppposed to war, and by its nature makes it impossible to go to war for an invalid purpose.

[End Tangent]

America has and will invade brutal dictatorships, and it is a free country's right to do so. A dictatorship is an outlaw; a country that does not respect the rights of its own citizens is nothing but a large slave camp and has such has no right to exist. Once said country uses up all of its resources it will have no choice but to attack and conquer a neighboring country, or it will collapse.

Saddam may not have been an immidiate threat, but once his country's resources were expunged, he would have had no choice but to attack Kuwait, Syria, etc etc.

As I said before: America thrives because we produce, Iraq survived by looting, first from its own citizens and then later on to other countries.

America has never attacked another free country and has no plans, desires or rights to do so. America is not a threat to world peace, America is a threat to dictatorships.

Of course, don't get me wrong here, I DO NOT, repeat: DO NOT support America's foreign policy. America's foreign policy is a xxxxing joke, filled with ridiculous trade tarrifs, special privilges and the like...but if one wants change for the better, one must reject the statist doctrine that is already far too prevaillant and one must accept the only political system based on the recogniztion of individual rights: Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

I agreed with you on everything from laissez faire to capitalism, but I do not agree with the assumption that 'America' is free.

I agreed with your assertion that the present threat is 'Statism' no matter in what form, but I do not agree with you here, since America epitomizes what 'Statism' means.

America is anything but a laissez faire society. I must add on here that it was Emil Durkhaim in his marvelous work, "The Division of Labor Within Society" in which he went on about how capitalism in and of itself is not harmful, however the rise of the State will have negative ramifications for society.

[Tramanian]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I agreed with you on everything from laissez faire to capitalism, but I do not agree with the assumption that 'America' is free.

I agreed with your assertion that the present threat is 'Statism' no matter in what form, but I do not agree with you here, since America epitomizes what 'Statism' means.

America is anything but a laissez faire society.

Oh come on, "Epitomizes"? America is certainly no where close to actually being free, but none the less remains relatively free.

As my proof I offer you the Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/

Just click Submit and make sure that "all" is selected."

While there is certainly Statism in America, our underlying principal is still freedom....the problem is that the Statists attempt to disguise Statism as "true freedom" and people seldom bother to question (mainly due to the fact that both major parties are so damn similar and both share the same statist premise).

None the less, I don't believe people in this country will tollerate it much longer.