Comments

This time Eddie, it's not so much you I have a beef with but the moronic authors of some of the stories you've linked in your article, most notably one Robert Fisk, who wrote the article you linked under "violation of the geneva conventions."

everyone needs to shut their bitchy little traps and quit pointing fingers at the coalition forces because they are in a lose/lose situation. If they tried to strictly maintain order in the streets, they would wind up shooting hundreds of civilians, in which case they would be branded as "murderers", "bullies", or whatever other inane adjectives you people could come up with. They have wisely made the decision to let the Iraqi people be their own worst enemies in this case. At least that way, though lawlessness may ensue for a few days, the Iraqi people will have only themselves to blame for their actions.

Did anyone really not expect this?! Were you anti-war dipshits really expecting the regime to go away and the citizens to sit idly by and not take advantage of the situation when there was essentially no one to whom they had to answer?! People are starving over there! People are in desperate need of medicine over there! Of course stores and hospitals are going to be looted! This was not a condition caused by the invasion; it existed before. The opportunity simply wasn't there. You anti-war dipshits certainly do like to attempt to paint the picture as though this was caused by the invasion. I know more things than just food and medicine are being looted, but is it the coalition's fault that several Iraqi citizens decided they would like to have the TV that used to reside in the house of a Baath party official? No. And it certainly isn't worth shooting someone over, especially if you're a coalition soldier. There are greater travesties over there than someone stealing a TV. We've got bigger fish to fry. Quit your stupid bitching about it. In a perfect world, no one would steal or loot, but the world is certainly anything but perfect. Americans certainly aren't above this, either. Look at the LA riots back in the early 90s over the Rodney King verdict. People were using the verdict as an excuse to go rob, steal, and loot. But all those riots were really about was taking advantage of a situation in which there was no accountability, just like what's happening in Iraq right now. What you fools are saying is the equivalent of saying that the LA riots were the fault of the jurors who decided on "not guilty" in the Rodney King case!

Like I said, the coalition is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. They're not being too strict about street crimes, so you maggots say the lawlessness is their fault. IF they were overly strict about street crimes, you maggots would call them murderers or bullies. Make up your minds! At least have the strength of character to decide between which is the best path to take, because we've gotta do one or the other. Don't point fingers when it isn't possible, especially right away, do to better. It's easy to criticize, which is all you wanna-be intellectuals with your bleeding hearts do.

Lastly, anyone with good morals would not go out and loot, like many of the Iraqis are doing. I can't blame them for stealing food, water, or medicine. But anyone who steals or loots beyond that is a BAD PERSON and an OPPORTUNIST. These people were already there, and were not created by the coalition. Chew on that. Dipshits. -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 14, 2003 09:46 PM

WHAT?? ARE YOU INSANE YOU LITTLE BITCH?? THEY FOUND NO WEAPONS IN IRAQ!!! THE MEDIA SIMPLY MADE YOU BELIEVE THAT SADDAM IS EVIL,THE WORLD IS FULL OF DICTATORS SUCH AS HIM!! BUT THIS ONE JUST HAPPENED TO RULE A VERY RICH IN OIL COUNTRY. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY ATTACKED. WHAT DID YOU SEE ABOUT THE ACTUAL WAR? ONLY THINGS ON TV, ONLY PROPAGANDA , MANIPULATED NEWS AND SUCH! YOU NEVER RECTIFY AN EVIL WITH ANOTHER EVIL! MAN USES VIOLENCE ONLY WHEN HE HAS NO SMART WAY TO SOLVE SOMETHING! AND CLEARLY BUSH IS NOT SMART,NOR ANYONE THAT WAS FOR THE WAR, YOU MIGHT AS WELL CONSIDERR YOURSELVES AS ACCOMPLICES TO MURDER!!!

-- Posted by: ICE CUBE on April 17, 2003 03:46 PM

Dear Ice Cube, Clearly, what the U.S. needed was YOU calling the shots from the White House instead of Bush, Colin Powell, and the rest of the administration. They, with their combined intellect, were not intelligent enough to figure out a reasonable solution to the problem. Riiiiight. What dumb fucking simpletons like you fail to realize is that Bush alone is not making these decisions. He has countless advisors and other people doing the research, examining possibilities, and then presenting the best options to the president, who then discusses these ideas with the senior members of his administration. Yes, the president alone is RESPONSIBLE for the decision that is ultimately made, but that is not to say that he ALONE makes the decision or arrives at his decision without consulting anyone first. This is a concept called responsibility. Clearly, if you ever had any in your entire, misbegotten life, you would understand this. But you don't. Am I surprised? Not in the least bit. The best minds in this country are collectively working on this situation around the clock, not just Bush. Thank God yours isn't one of them. As for your pathetically weak comments about oil being our "only reason" for attacking Iraq: God, please let people as dim-witted as you never reproduce. The U.S. gets a whopping 11% of its oil from the middle east. With the advances we are making in engine technology (which improves fuel efficiency), and technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels, we could easily, with a concerted effort, cut out the need for ANY oil from the middle east over the next decade. Also, what was our motive for going into Vietnam? Rice? What about Somalia? Kosovo? Afraid we might actually want to help someone, while at the same time making ourselves a little safer as well? If this country disgusts you so badly, either try to get into politics so you can make a difference, or get the fuck out. Don't sit around and whine. I think if you ever attempt to get into politics, you'll quickly discover that you have few supporters, and the ones you do have are as intellectually bankrupt as yourself. Another thing you fail to realize is that this is not a perfect situation. Both sides have legitimate complaints, some more than others. In imperfect situations, it is impossible to come up with perfect solutions. Whatever happens, whether we do nothing or whether we attack like we did, somebody, somewhere, on either side, is going to suffer. People are going to be killed. Conceding this, what should we do? At the end of the day, when all the arguing by dipshits like you and Eddie Tews is done, what is comes down to is this: if we take action, the only people who are going to be worse off in the long-run are the members of the Baath party and their few supporters. The U.S. will be safer, having deposed a hostile dictator who had no love for us and would've been a threat in the medium/long term, thus justifying the war for ourselves; the Iraqi people will ultimately be better off as well if a democratic government can sustain itself over there. That, however, is on the Iraqi people, not us. We can attempt to help them get one started, but we cannot stay there indefinitely to support it. The U.S. clearly does not want another dictator in power over there, so if one ever comes to power again, you can be sure the U.S. didn't want it and that any suffering that ensues is the fault of Iraqis (note: this is not to say "the Iraqi people", just that SOME Iraqis will be behind it). As for your lack of any knowledge about how the American press works, let me suggest you read a book (wait, you can read, can't you?) entitled "The Elements of Journalism" by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, so you can see just what the standards to which the American press holds itself are. Your suggestion that the press is manipulating the news so we only see what the government wants us to see is laughable. How many times, throughout U.S. history, has the press exposed government scandals? TONS. If the government had such complete control over the press, why did those stories ever make it out in the past? Why would stories about journalists and military personnel stealing artifacts and money make it onto CNN and into the papers? Clearly, stories like those don't cast a good light on us, so why in the world would the government or the press want those stories to be heard? In fact, why did the U.S. military give the green light to embedded reporters if it had so much to hide?Also, if you're so brilliant, please explain how you are able to "see through" all the lies and manipulations perpetrated by our press that the rest of us buy hook, line, and sinker. Since you are certainly not privy to any classified or military information, the only source of news you have, like the rest of us, comes from the press. So what you are insinuating is that you have found something in the press that we have not, and that "something" exposes lies and all the other completely ridiculous claims you made. All of these requests I am making are completely rhetorical, by the way. Even if you did have "reasons", they would be complete bullshit and nobody really wants to hear them, except those as stupid as yourself who actually buy them. The rest of us are A LOT smarter than that. On another note, I don't even find it funny that you claim "The media simply made you believe that Saddam was evil." That is just sad. So sad. Even Iraqis would call you stupid for that one. Even Eddie Tews himself has admitted that Saddam is evil. I wish I knew who you really were. I'd make sure that that quote of yours was carved into your tombstone so the rest of the world could always remember how much of a complete shit head you were while you were alive. Lastly, if you're so smart (irt: "man only uses violence when he has no smart way to solve anything"), let's hear your brilliant solution to the problem. If you ever did sit down to think about it, as I did, before deciding on your "anti-war no matter what" stance, you would find that there is no reasonable solution to the problem that wouldn't involve fighting on some level. Yes, I wish Bush had waited longer and given the inspections a little more time before going in, but at this point, that's crying over spilt milk. War was inevitable, no matter how much time we gave Saddam. We already gave him 12 years. -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 26, 2003 04:36 PM