The 50 Worst People of 2007

[Brixtonbulldog]

Your comment is not thought out.

How is a disarmed country the size of California going to fuck with the mightiest military force on the planet?

Uh...

Let's think about this, okay guy?  An armed, aggressive, radical Islamic, murderous regime the size of California BECAME DISARMED THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF THE MIGHTIEST MILITARY FORCE ON THE PLANET.

Maybe you should take a step back from the keyboard for a while, okay?

[Brixtonbulldog]

Pointing out a fact that everyone acts out of ego demeans their service in what way?

And how does that change the fact that the troops can be used for evil purposes as well as good ones? 

How are the killings in Iraq by US soldiers protecting me and my constitutional rights?

If our soldiers are killing insurgents (ie. terrorists) then isn't that protecting anyones rights (including the right to LIVE, duh) who would've eventually been targets of those terrorists (whether that would've been people at work in an office building here in the states, commuters on the subway in Spain, or Iraqi citizens at a market in Baghdad)?

It's just logic.. not that hard people.

[Eyeball Chambers]

If our soldiers are killing insurgents (ie. terrorists) then isn't that protecting anyones rights (including the right to LIVE, duh) who would've eventually been targets of those terrorists (whether that would've been people at work in an office building here in the states, commuters on the subway in Spain, or Iraqi citizens at a market in Baghdad)?

It's just logic.. not that hard people.

So you disagree with the 16 intelligent agencies that say invading Iraq created more terrorism?

[Decker]

Uh...

Let's think about this, okay guy?  An armed, aggressive, radical Islamic, murderous regime the size of California BECAME DISARMED THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF THE MIGHTIEST MILITARY FORCE ON THE PLANET.

Maybe you should take a step back from the keyboard for a while, okay?

I'd answer this but I don't understand what you are saying.

On one hand you say that Iraq could attack us, and then you point out that the US had disarmed Iraq obviously before the 2002 invasion b/c the WMD inspectors were finding nothing. 

So Iraq was disarmed from Desert Storm and subsequent sanctions but was able to hurt the US even though it was disarmed.

[Decker]

If our soldiers are killing insurgents (ie. terrorists) then isn't that protecting anyones rights (including the right to LIVE, duh) who would've eventually been targets of those terrorists (whether that would've been people at work in an office building here in the states, commuters on the subway in Spain, or Iraqi citizens at a market in Baghdad)?

It's just logic.. not that hard people.

Al Qaeda was not an ally of Hussein. 

Insurgents are Iraqis defending themselves from the invading US forces.  Only 5-15% of the insurgents are foreign fighters and only a small part of that number is Al Qaeda drawn to to Iraq to join the party.

In short, our rights and our lives are not any better off for the invasion of Iraq.

[Brixtonbulldog]

So you disagree with the 16 intelligent agencies that say invading Iraq created more terrorism?

No.

It didn't "create" terrorism.  Terrorism existed and was growing before we ever went there.  The fact that we're fighting it there with troops  (and making a difference, apparently) seems like a better idea than having it here with civilian casualties after ignoring the problem.

Yet another easy to understand concept from yours truly

[Brixtonbulldog]

I'd answer this but I don't understand what you are saying.

On one hand you say that Iraq could attack us, and then you point out that the US had disarmed Iraq obviously before the 2002 invasion b/c the WMD inspectors were finding nothing. 

So Iraq was disarmed from Desert Storm and subsequent sanctions but was able to hurt the US even though it was disarmed.

WMD inspectors can't find much when they're consistently being denied access. 

The point is that they were TRYING to rebuild their weapons and once they did do you honestly believe another Kuwait wouldn't happen?  I didn't think so.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Insurgents are Iraqis defending themselves from the invading US forces.

I can't believe you actually believe this.  Defending themselves??  Yeah ok, like we're attacking their country, raping and pillaging.  Holy Cow.

In short, our rights and our lives are not any better off for the invasion of Iraq.

How safe we are here is a direct result of handling problems before they become BIG problems.  This is PRECISELY why we are the most powerful nation and will remain so.

[Decker]

WMD inspectors can't find much when they're consistently being denied access. 

The point is that they were TRYING to rebuild their weapons and once they did do you honestly believe another Kuwait wouldn't happen?  I didn't think so.

You should know the facts before you draw your conclusions:

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

"This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences."
http://216.219.216.117/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

That's from Blix's report to the UN.

He's the expert WMD inspector.

[Decker]

I can't believe you actually believe this.  Defending themselves??  Yeah ok, like we're attacking their country, raping and pillaging.  Holy Cow.


How safe we are here is a direct result of handling problems before they become BIG problems.  This is PRECISELY why we are the most powerful nation and will remain so.

If Iraq was unarmed, then why did the US use military force to invade the country to enforce a resolution compelling Iraqi disarmament?

Again, how was a disarmed Iraq a threat to the US?

[Brixtonbulldog]

You should know the facts before you draw your conclusions:

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

"This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences."
http://216.219.216.117/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html

That's from Blix's report to the UN.

He's the expert WMD inspector.

Read the entire report again buddy.. Saddam didn't exactly work with us on this.

[Decker]

Read the entire report again buddy.. Saddam didn't exactly work with us on this.

Yes he did.  It was a grudging relationship but ultimately he did comply.

[Brixtonbulldog]

If Iraq was unarmed, then why did the US use military force to invade the country to enforce a resolution compelling Iraqi disarmament?

Again, how was a disarmed Iraq a threat to the US?

You're still not listening are you...

obviously we weren't going to wait until he WAS a threat

.. not to mention any of the other reasons to invade iraq

[Brixtonbulldog]

I'm hesitant to use blogs but this one is right on the money.  IMO number 5 is reason enough.

http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/002558.html

[Decker]

You're still not listening are you...

obviously we weren't going to wait until he WAS a threat

.. not to mention any of the other reasons to invade iraq

"The justification for the war - the existence of weapons of mass destruction - was without foundation," Blix said. "The military operation was successful, but the diagnosis was wrong.

     "Saddam was dangerous to his own people but not a great, and certainly not an immediate, danger to his neighbors and the world," he added.

 Again on Tuesday he criticized the United States and Britain for trusting their own intelligence more than that of the weapons inspectors, who had not found "a smoking gun."

Again BB, if there were no WMDs, why did the US attack Iraq?

THERE WAS NO THREAT POSED BY IRAQ.  

[Decker]

I'm hesitant to use blogs but this one is right on the money.  IMO number 5 is reason enough.

http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/002558.html

You have got to be kidding.

Humanitarian reasons are why we invaded Iraq?

So we killed btn 80-650,000 Iraqis, displace another 2-4 million of them, co-opted their natural resources and destroyed the country's infrastructure on humanitarian grounds?

You have to do a little better than that.  On it's face, such a claim of justification is incredulous.

We won't even address the legal basis for such a claim.

[Brixtonbulldog]

"The justification for the war - the existence of weapons of mass destruction - was without foundation," Blix said. "The military operation was successful, but the diagnosis was wrong.

     "Saddam was dangerous to his own people but not a great, and certainly not an immediate, danger to his neighbors and the world," he added.

 Again on Tuesday he criticized the United States and Britain for trusting their own intelligence more than that of the weapons inspectors, who had not found "a smoking gun."

Again BB, if there were no WMDs, why did the US attack Iraq?

THERE WAS NO THREAT POSED BY IRAQ. 

... because Hans Blix has the best interests of the US in mind, right? lol...

Read the reasons to invade again if you have to.

[Brixtonbulldog]

You have got to be kidding.

Humanitarian reasons are why we invaded Iraq?

So we killed btn 80-650,000 Iraqis, displace another 2-4 million of them, co-opted their natural resources and destroyed the country's infrastructure on humanitarian grounds?

You have to do a little better than that.  On it's face, such a claim of justification is incredulous.

We won't even address the legal basis for such a claim.

I don't have the time to wait for you to pull your head out of your ass.  What you're saying is along the same lines as saying killing the attacking nazi forces in WW2 is just like murdering innocent german citizens.  It's a silly argument and makes no sense.

And I do feel stupid now.. for assuming I was talking to a reasonable and thinking person versus what appears to be just the opposite.

Read the list a few times if you have to.

[Brixtonbulldog]

On that note... I bet you think we should do something about the human rights atrocities in Africa, without considering (and thinking) for one second that doing so would involve many of the same actions that we've been forced to go through in Iraq.

[Decker]

I don't have the time to wait for you to pull your head out of your ass.  What you're saying is along the same lines as saying killing the attacking nazi forces in WW2 is just like murdering innocent german citizens.  It's a silly argument and makes no sense.

And I do feel stupid now.. for assuming I was talking to a reasonable and thinking person versus what appears to be just the opposite.

Read the list a few times if you have to.

The Nazis were taking over Europe.  Who did Iraq attack?  Which of our allies did Iraq attack?

Your method of argumentation is uneven and illogical.

Why should I read 'the list' a few more times?  The BS will be the same.

Under the holdings of the Nuremberg Trials, the invasion of Iraq was an war of aggression.  That's the same thing we nailed the Nazis and Japs with.

Under the UN Charter, the invasion was an unauthorized use of force.  Again, a war crime.

And finally, you call me names b/c that's all you really have left.

It's seems hard for you to stomach the fact that we attacked and brutalized a tiny country for no really good reason at all.

[Decker]

On that note... I bet you think we should do something about the human rights atrocities in Africa, without considering (and thinking) for one second that doing so would involve many of the same actions that we've been forced to go through in Iraq.

If you are referring to the on-going genocide in Darfur, how is that relevant to Iraq? 

That list you provide of justifications for attacking the toothless tiger aka Iraq is so pathetic that only a pro-war ideologue could look at that and say, "see, we were doing the right thing all along!"

I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. 

[Brixtonbulldog]

The Nazis were taking over Europe.  Who did Iraq attack?  Which of our allies did Iraq attack?

Your method of argumentation is uneven and illogical.

Why should I read 'the list' a few more times?  The BS will be the same.

Under the holdings of the Nuremberg Trials, the invasion of Iraq was an war of aggression.  That's the same thing we nailed the Nazis and Japs with.

Under the UN Charter, the invasion was an unauthorized use of force.  Again, a war crime.

And finally, you call me names b/c that's all you really have left.

It's seems hard for you to stomach the fact that we attacked and brutalized a tiny country for no really good reason at all.

The point was calling out who the bad guys are (or enemy) versus your attempt to alleviate their earned title and deem them as innocents.. but obviously you missed the point yet again. 

That is why I call you names.. because you do not respond to rational debate and logic.

I say read the list a few more times in the vain attempt that you might see through the cloud of BS you have apparently been living within and come back down to earth.

War of aggression?  Yeah right.. we intervened as we should.  And as the most powerful nation we do bear some responsibility for standing by and doing nothing while countries like iraq do whatever they want.  The UN was prepared to do exactly nothing no matter how many violations Iraq committed.  I guess the fact that we put an end to that bothers you as it did the leaders AT the UN, a corrupt, and impotent organization.

[Brixtonbulldog]

If you are referring to the on-going genocide in Darfur, how is that relevant to Iraq? 

That list you provide of justifications for attacking the toothless tiger aka Iraq is so pathetic that only a pro-war ideologue could look at that and say, "see, we were doing the right thing all along!"

I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. 

It is relevant in order to uncover the hypocrisy you and those that think as you do participate in.  I guess you don't like that either, sorry.

[Decker]

The point was calling out who the bad guys are (or enemy) versus your attempt to alleviate their earned title and deem them as innocents.. but obviously you missed the point yet again. 

That is why I call you names.. because you do not respond to rational debate and logic.

I say read the list a few more times in the vain attempt that you might see through the cloud of BS you have apparently been living within and come back down to earth.

War of aggression?  Yeah right.. we intervened as we should.  And as the most powerful nation we do bear some responsibility for standing by and doing nothing while countries like iraq do whatever they want.  The UN was prepared to do exactly nothing no matter how many violations Iraq committed.  I guess the fact that we put an end to that bothers you as it did the leaders AT the UN, a corrupt, and impotent organization.

We intervened into what?  Hussein gassed the Kurds 20 years ago and Bush I's reaction was to ignore it and continue his golf game.

The sanctions on Iraq that devastated the country was imposed at the US's behest.

What did the Iraqi people do to the US to merit our invading their country, blowing it up, killing them, and taking their property rights?

What did they do?

[Decker]

It is relevant in order to uncover the hypocrisy you and those that think as you do participate in.  I guess you don't like that either, sorry.

For god's sake one of the justifications for attacking the country was "Revenge".

If an attack is not legal, which this one wasn't, then using force predicated on a theory of self defense becomes murder...a war of aggression.

Why not just include "Iraqis are brown skinned, or they smell, or they are poor business men, as other reasons for the invasion?  They are just as valid as the comedy list you posted.

Good nite BB.  Until tomorrow.