The toll of tyranny is infinitely greater, than any price paid for freedom.

[Uber Sparky]

The toll of tyranny is infinitely greater, than any price paid for freedom.

The toll of an expanding, threatening, and belligerent tyranny, paid for over time, in many human lives – is far, far greater, than any lives spent in the eradication of such a tyranny.

Even if you may be predisposed to believe that the US itself is also a tyranny… even if that may, depending upon personal interpretation of issues and ones unique mindset, even then…

Which tyranny would you choose to live under? Which tyranny would you want any of your fellow man to live under?

Which evil would you choose – the lesser? Or the more?

I think this is a no brainer.

Now – somebody, anybody – please… make a point with fact and logic that, in the case of Iraq and it’s current leader – that he is the lesser of ‘any’ evil?

 

[Linedrive]

I am just pleased that Hussein took some time out of his busy schedule of gassing Kurds and eliminating political foes, to give me a last laugh before his dismisal from this planet.

He wants a debate, he wants to do interviews on American news stations, I'm expecting to see this guy on Jeopordy next week.

SH: "Alex, I'll try 'Biological Warfare for a thousand'.

 

[p_p_man]

A question with only one answer.

I suppose your point is that as Saddam is a very evil man then there is justification for invading Iraq and murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.

Am I right?

ppman

 

[Linedrive]

I'll try "Who is a 17 time repeat offender" for a thousand

 

[Uber Sparky]

I am saying that. compared to....

the human carnage the man will do, if left to his own devices...

will far surpass the human carnage of stopping him from doing so.

And nobody has dared to answer my questions.

 

[Uber Sparky]

I can't believe that nobody else wants to play this game.

p_p_man did on another thread - even he chose Bush.

The game is...

If in fact one must view both Irag and the US as tyranical institutions....

'If' - 'you had to' - (we're pretending now) - choose between one or the other - you know, live there under that situation...

which one would you choose?

This ain't brain surgery. Have some balls. Make a choice.

 

[Uber Sparky]

I can not belive you spineless pussies...

not fucking one of you can fucking 'pretend'...

that you only have two choices???????

You all fucking blow!

 

[Harry_Rabbit]

On War

By George Carlin

I'd like to talk a little about that "war" we had in the Persian Gulf. Remember that? The big war in the Persian Gulf? Lemme tell you what's goin' on.

Naturally, you can forget that entertaining fiction about having to defend the model democracy those lucky Kuwaitis get to live under. And for the moment you can also put aside the very real, periodic need Americans have for testing their new weapons on human flesh. And also, just for the fun of it, let's ignore George Bush's obligation to protect the oil interests of his family and friends. There was another, much more important, consideration at work. Here's what really happened.

The simple fact is that America was long overdue to drop high explosive on helpless civilians; people who have no argument with us whatsoever. After all, had been a while, and the hunger gnaws. Remember that's our specialty: picking on countries that have marginally effective air forces. Yugoslavia is another, more recent, example.

But all that aside, let me tell you what I liked about the Gulf War: it was the first war that appeared on every television channel, including cable. And even though the TV show consisted largely of Pentagon war criminals displaying maps and charts, it got very good ratings. And that makes sense, because we like war. We're warlike people. We can't stand not to be fucking with someone. We couldn't wait for the Cold War to end so we could climb into the big Arab sandbox and play with our nice new toys. We enjoy war.

And one reason we enjoy it is that we're good at it. You know why we're good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country is only 200 years old, and already we've had ten major wars. We average a major war every twenty years. So we're good at it.

We can bomb the shit outta your country! Especially of you country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in your country? Tell 'em to watch the fuck out, or we'll goddamn bomb them!

Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That's it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were trying to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world. Bullshit! That's our job. That's our fucking job.

But the Germans are ancient history. These days, we only bomb brown people. And not because they're cutting in on our action; we do it because they are brown. Even those Serbs we bombed in Yugoslavia aren't really white, are they? Naaaah! They're sort of down near the swarthy end of the white spectrum. Just brown enough to bomb. I'm still waiting for the day we bomb the English. People who really deserve it.

I also look at war itself a little differently from most. I see it largely as an exercise in dick-waving. That's really all it is: a lot of men standing around a field waving their dicks at one another. Men, insecure about the size of their penises, choose to kill one another.

That's also what all that moron athlete bullshit is about, and what that macho, male posturing and strutting around in bars and locker rooms represents. It's called "dick fear." Men are terrified that their dicks are inadequate, and so they have to "compete" in order to feel better about themselves. And since war is the ultimate competition, essentially men are killing one another in order to improve their genital self-esteem.

You needn't be a historian or a political scientist to see the Bigger Dick Foreign Policy Theory at work. It goes like this: "What? They have bigger dicks? Bomb them!" And of course, the bombs, the rockets, and the bullets are all shaped like penises. Phallic weapons. There is an unconscious need to project the national penis into the affairs of others. It's called "fucking with people."

So, as far as I'm concerned, that whole thing in the Persian Gulf was nothing more than one big dick-waving cockfight. In this particular case, Saddam Hussein questioned the size of George Bush's dick. And George Bush had been called a wimp (and remember "wimp" rhymes with "limp") for so long, he apparently felt the need to act out his manhood fantasies by sending America's white children to kill other people's brown children. Clearly the worst kind of wimp.

Even his name, "Bush," as slang, is related to the genitals without actually being the genitals. A bush is sort of a passive, secondary sex characteristic. It's even used as a slang term for women: "Hey, pal, how's the bush around here?" I can't help thinking, if this president's name had been George Boner... well, he might have felt a little better about himself, and he wouldn't have had to kill all those children.

Actually, when you think of it, this country has had a manhood problem for some time. You can tell by the language we use; language always gives us away. What did we do wrong in Vietnam? We "pulled out"! Not a very manly thing to do. No. When you're fucking people, you're supposed to stay with it and fuck them good; fuck them to death; hang in there and keep fucking them until they're all fucking dead.

But in Vietnam what happened was by accident we left a few women and children alive, and we haven't felt good about ourselves since. That's why in the Persian Gulf, George Bush had to say, "This will not be another Vietnam." He actually said, "this time we are going all the way." Imagine. An American president using the sexual slang of a thirteen year old to describe his foreign policy.

And, of course, when we got right down to it, he didn't "go all the way." Faced with going into Baghdad he punked out. No balls. Just Bush. Instead he applied sanctions, so he'd be sure that an extra half a million brown children would die. And so his oil buddies could continue to fill their pockets.

If you want to know what happened in the Persian Gulf, just remember the first names of the two men who ran the war: Dick Chenney and Colin Powell. Dick and colon. Someone got fucked in the ass. And those brown people better make sure they keep their pants on, because Dick and Colin have come back for an encore.

 

[Uber Sparky]

George Carlin is...

a very creative and humorous guy.

But not necessarily correct in all his inflated obsevasions.

 

[Lost Cause]

The Peace Tyranny also......

Amir Taheri: Anti-war protesters ignore the horrors
London | | 26-02-2003

"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" asked the Iraqi grandmother.

I spent part of last Saturday with the so-called "anti-war" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organisers to let at least one Iraqi voice be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organisers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussain in Iraq.

The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"

But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine" and "Indict Bush and Sharon."

Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war. The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.

We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussain had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Ba'ath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.

"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year old Salima demanded.

The reverend was not pleased.

"Today is not about Saddam Hussain," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's gorillas closed in to protect his holiness.

We next spotted former film star Glenda Jackson, apparently manning a stand where "antiwar" characters could sign up to become " human shields" to protect Saddam's military installations against American air attacks.

"These people are mad," said Awad Nasser, one of Iraq's most famous modernist poets. "They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant's death machine."

The former film star, now a Labour Party member of parliament, had no time for "side issues" such as the 1.2 million Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who have died as a result of Saddam's various wars.

We thought we might have a better chance with Charles Kennedy, a boyish-looking, red-headed Scot who leads the mis-named Liberal Democrat Party. But he, too, had no time for "complex issues" that could not be raised at a mass rally.

But was it not amazing that there could be a rally about Iraq without any mention of what Saddam and his regime have done over almost three decades? Just a little hint, perhaps, that Saddam was still murdering people in his Qasr Al Nayhayah (Palace of the End) prison, and that as the Westerners marched, Iraqis continued to die?

Not a chance.

'Blinded' protesters

We then ran into Tony Benn, a leftist septuagenarian who has recycled himself as a television reporter to interview Saddam in Baghdad.

But we knew there was no point in talking to him. The previous night he had appeared on TV to tell the Brits that his friend Saddam was standing for "the little people" against "hegemonistic America."

"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded.

The Iraqis would have had much to tell the "anti-war" marchers, had they had a chance to speak. Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors, would have told the marchers that their action would encourage Saddam to intensify his repression.

"I had a few questions for the marchers," Sultani said. "Did they not realise that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the anti-war marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?"

Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam's henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked.


'Deep moral pain'

Hashem Al Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.

"The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnez-zar," he said. "These prosperous, peaceful and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate."
He said that, watching the march, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park."

Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq's foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the "deep moral pain" he feels when hearing the so-called " anti-war" discourse.

"The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs," Khoi said. "The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim."

Ismail Qaderi, a former Ba'athist official but now a dissident, wanted to tell the marchers how Saddam systematically destroyed even his own party, starting by murdering all but one of its 16 original leaders.

"Those who see Saddam as a symbol of socialism, progress and secularism in the Arab world must be mad," he said.

Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq's most famous satirical writer, added his complaint. "Don't these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussain is from the prison to the firing squad?" he asked. "The Western marchers behave as if the U.S. wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussain."

With all doors shutting in our faces we decided to drop out of the show and watch the political zoology of the march from the sidelines. Who were these people who felt such hatred of their democratic governments and such intense self-loathing?

There were the usual suspects: the remnants of the Left, from Stalinists and Trotskyites to caviar socialists. There were the pro-abortionists, the anti-GM food crowd, the anti-capital punishment militants, the Black-rights gurus, the anti-Semites, the "burn Israel" lobby, the "Bush-didn't-win-Florida" zealots, the unilateral disarmers, the anti-Hollywood "cultural exception" merchants, and the guilt-ridden post-modernist "everything is equal to everything else" philosophers.

But the bulk of the crowd consisted of fellow travellers, those innocent citizens who, prompted by idealism or boredom, are always prepared to play the role of "useful idiots," as Lenin used to call them.

They ignored the fact that the peoples of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers for the war of liberation to come as quickly as possible.

The number of marchers did not impress Salima, the grandmother. "What is wrong does not become right because many people say it," she asserted, bidding us farewell while the marchers shouted "Not in my name!"

Let us hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in the name of Reverend Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Glenda Jackson, Tony Benn and their companions in a march of shame.

The writer, an Iranian author and journalist, is editor of the Paris-based Politique Interna-tionale. The writer can be contacted at: ataheri@gulfnews.com


www.gulf-news.com

*Like the light of day!

 

[Uber Sparky]

You dumb fucks! Quit postin' this bulk bullshit and...

answer the fucking questions put forth.

One or the other?

Pussies!

 

[fgarvb1]

Sparky! I am what i am and i live where i want to be.

As you well know the people of the USA are free to go and live anywhere in the world they want to. Sadly this is not so all over the world.

I choose here.

 

[patient1]

The toll of tyranny is infinitely greater, than any price paid for freedom.

The toll of an expanding, threatening, and belligerent tyranny, paid for over time, in many human lives – is far, far greater, than any lives spent in the eradication of such a tyranny.

Even if you may be predisposed to believe that the US itself is also a tyranny… even if that may, depending upon personal interpretation of issues and ones unique mindset, even then…

Which tyranny would you choose to live under? Which tyranny would you want any of your fellow man to live under?

Which evil would you choose – the lesser? Or the more?

I think this is a no brainer.

Now – somebody, anybody – please… make a point with fact and logic that, in the case of Iraq and it’s current leader – that he is the lesser of ‘any’ evil?

I think you are correct that terminating the tyrant will cause the least human suffering in the long run.

Of course I'd choose to live in the USA, & I wouldn't wish Stalinism on anyone.

Sadaam is probably the most evil man in the world since the death of Osama.

I'm concerned that doing "the right thing" in the wrong way , or for the wrong reason, will undermine the good it does. Leading to a possible ethnic civil war in the Middle east, & a third world that learns the lesson that the only thing that deters a superpower is a nuclear ICBM.

I'm concerned that we'll once again go to war without a congressional declaration. I think that is a menace to The Constituition, to say nothing of the undeclared "War Against Terrorism" that undermines our constitution for something as nebulous & open ended as the" war on drugs" or the "war against poverty."

I'm concerned that this isn't even about bringing Sadaam to death or justice, because we offered to let him leave the country.

I don't think you can bring credibility to the UN by enforcing it's resolutions against it's own will. If we're to discredit or discontinue with the UN, I think we should be more direct about it.

The UN. Aren't those the same guys that let Pol Pot, the mass murder of a million people, die of natural causes as a free man?

 

[Sandia]

I also look at war itself a little differently from most. I see it largely as an exercise in dick-waving.

This is actually my theory of the war. It's not about oil. It's about small minded men getting a vicarious thrill out of their "team's" superiority.

 

[Thrillhouse]

Re: Re: The toll of tyranny is infinitely greater, than any price paid for freedom.

Sadaam is probably the most evil man in the world since the death of Osama.

Do you know something everybody else doesn't? And I don't mean the alternate spelling of "Saddam."


As to Sparky's question: don't be stupid. No one would rather live under Saddam's rule. But that doesn't justify invasion and slaughter.

 

[Sandia]

Uber - It's not America's job to decide who leads other countries.

 

[Eumenides]

"Awesome amounts of alliteration from anxious anchors placed in powerful posts."

 

[phrodeau]

Re: You dumb fucks! Quit postin' this bulk bullshit and...

answer the fucking questions put forth.

One or the other?

Pussies!

US, Guber.

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[patient1]

Re: Re: Re: The toll of tyranny is infinitely greater, than any price paid for freedom.

Do you know something everybody else doesn't? And I don't mean the alternate spelling of "Saddam."

Sorry, I meant Sadamn.

Strictly theoretical.

I don't think Osama survived the bombings & his illness, or he would have sent the world a video with a newspaper, or an audio with a newsbroadcast in the backround, to verify he was alive & would live forever in legend. To survive the "great satan" would have been a victory.
The guy has such a price on his head, a fellow could afford 70 virgins without dying if he pointed a finger.

I understand that the first alleged audio tape was old, the second a fraud .

As for the most recent one, I think nobody denies it , because it serves everyone's agendas:

The USA will let people think Osama survived if it makes them believe he's in league with Saddam- the smoking gun.

Al 'Quida is not about to admit the death of it's founder/leader/ chief fundraiser- bad for morale & recruitment. This proves he lives to defy the satanic super-power.

Saddam will tolerate being called a "socialist infidel" if it keeps one of his factions committing suicide attacks to protect him, instead of turning on him at the first opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised that a Stalinist intelligence agency that has trained & maintained 2 dozen Saddam decoys couldn't train one guy to do a convincing Osama impression on an audio tape deliberately made difficult to authenticate or refute.

 

[Thrillhouse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The toll of tyranny is infinitely greater, than any price paid for freedom.

Sorry, I meant Sadamn.

Strictly theoretical.

I don't think Osama survived the bombings & his illness, or he would have sent the world a video with a newspaper, or an audio with a newsbroadcast in the backround, to verify he was alive & would live forever in legend. To survive the "great satan" would have been a victory.
The guy has such a price on his head, a fellow could afford 70 virgins without dying if he pointed a finger.

I understand that the first alleged audio tape was old, the second a fraud .

As for the most recent one, I think nobody denies it , because it serves everyone's agendas:

The USA will let people think Osama survived if it makes them believe he's in league with Saddam- the smoking gun.

Al 'Quida is not about to admit the death of it's founder/leader/ chief fundraiser- bad for morale & recruitment. This proves he lives to defy the satanic super-power.

Saddam will tolerate being called a "socialist infidel" if it keeps one of his factions committing suicide attacks to protect him, instead of turning on him at the first opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised that a Stalinist intelligence agency that has trained & maintained 2 dozen Saddam decoys couldn't train one guy to do a convincing Osama impression on an audio tape deliberately made difficult to authenticate or refute.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/09/attack/printable320599.shtml

I would think Osama and Al Qaeda would prefer the US thought he was dead. If he's dead, the US would stop looking for him (Although it appears we have already, shifting to Saddam), and it would make him a martyr, helping (I would think) recruitment.

 

[patient1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The toll of tyranny is infinitely greater, than any price paid for freedom.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/09/attack/printable320599.shtml

I would think Osama and Al Qaeda would prefer the US thought he was dead. If he's dead, the US would stop looking for him (Although it appears we have already, shifting to Saddam), and it would make him a martyr, helping (I would think) recruitment.

Thanks for the link, Thrillhouse.

To clarify, there have only been audio tapes since the last big battle in Afghanistan. Osama hasn't been seen since . I'm suggesting that a trained impersonator & a good writer could deliver a convincing message on a deliberately low quality audio tape to anyone wanting to believe. For all I know Osama is survived by his speech writers.


As I understand it, the first 2 have been discredited by technical analysis. The most recent one ( which Powell mentioned )at least has a more convincing script, with Islamist rhetoric rather than arab nationalist spiel. It's presently under technicall scrutiny.

For recruitment purposes, I think the whole martyr thing works better in attack than retreat.

If Al Q'uida wants Osama thought dead, they're doing a bad job of refuting the alleged messages from him.

 

[Uber Sparky]

He's alive enough to by a symbol to his people...

and that's all that matters.

He's contained - as some of you like to say.

My bet is that he's not very comfy either.

Now if we can find him - and torture his ass - and get him to spill his guts about his dickhead buddies...

Then we'd have something going.