War/Iraq/Bush/Terrorism

[Wha?]

I recieved the link for Ed the Sock from a friend in an email, that had been forwarded to all of their friends. One wrote this in response. I have to blank out letters from "The F-Word" to keep the forum from changing it to "I'm Stupid", please understand that this is to keep it truer to the original wording.

I would just like to tell everyone that I have lost all respect for Ed
the Sock. I completely disagree with almost everything he said in that
"editorial". It's a load of shit.

If Bush is so concerned about ridding people of "a nasty oppressor" he
should kick himself out on his ass! Here's a little tidbit for you -
American television stations are not allowed to badmouth/question
George
Herbert Walker Bush Jr.'s decision to go to war or any of his
"STRATEGIES" without having someone either there in person or on the
phone (from the White House) to defend him. Freedom of speech? HARDLY!!

Here's a quote from his daddy "I will never apologize for the United
States of America - I don't care what the facts are." Said after
'Vincennes' shot down an Iranian Airliner.

yeah, do some research... start here
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html
also, read about how the US supplied both Iran and Iraq with weapons
and
reason to attack eachother over a few kilometers of land, covertly of
course
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

All America is looking out for is their own best interests. They have
great oil reserves, but they aren't being used, do you know WHY?!
Because it is much cheaper to exploit mid-eastern and African countries
for their cheap oil, knowing that they (third world countries) need
their (americans') measly dollars to stay alive. They are going to bomb
Iraq down, install their own government and sell tickets to countries
to
come and "REBUILD" the land, and all of this is going to be paid for by
the oil in Iraq. The US will then have THREE bases in Asia - Israel,
Afghanistan, Iraq.

Ask yourself, do we really need more American states in the world?!

F_CK THE WAR
F_CK BUSH

One shot to the head of Bush (Jr. and Sr. both, hopefully with ONE
bullet, cause they just aren't worth a bullet each) and bullet to the
head of Saddam Hussein, that f_cking mongrel.

F_CK CNN
F_CK ED THE SOCK

good day

This was another friends response.

I may not be an old smelly sock or a slightly deranged
conspiracy-theorist ( he was in the first plane, right *name*) but I too have a view on
all this.

The United States of America, and its limited supporters, try to
depict themselves as liberator of the oppressed and the great hero of
humanity. Saddam's tyranny, and Iraqis' misery is unequivocal, but Iraq
is not, as many pundits would want you to believe, the nexus of human
suffering.

Africa is the continent that can't. The African states have been
engulfed in an ever lasting bloodshed; fighting civil wars, and wars with
their neighbors. African governments are replaced by one militant
regime after another. These wealthy despots enslave their citizens into
desolate existence (ever herd of Apartheid ?) The Africans also have to
endure devastating draughts, perilous malnutrition, cycles of ominous
famines, and a proliferating AIDS/HIV epidemic (in South Africa alone
120,000 people die annually because of AIDS/HIV, and 20% of the population
is infected). The only sign of America's aid are the Coca-Cola
billboards.

America's supposed concern for the human rights of foreign is
unorthodox for them; the USA allocates only 1 % of its Gross Domestic Profit
to foreign aid, the smallest percentage amongst Industrialized Western
nations (yes, that 1 % may actually equal to more money than other
industrialized nations are giving, but the minute percentage is a testament
to America's indifference to the well being of others), and continues
to pursue relations with such frequent violators of human rights as
China.

America's solo attack on Iraq ( oh sorry, I forgot, Britain, an
American colony, is in it too) is a result of the UN's inability to
enforce their own sanctions, so the pro-war argument goes. Yet these
sanctions were the outcome of America's lobbying, both France and Russia
were greatly opposed to them, and not too long ago UN was considering
lifting the sanctions. More so, when UN's weapons inspectors did find
illegal warheads, Iraq did begin destroying them; in fact, as the
inspections went on, Iraq was becoming more compliant, and Hans Blix, head of
the weapons inspections, sad that while Iraq wasn't too enthusiastic,
it was, nevertheless, complying. However, this was not satisfactory to
Bush Jr., he kept saying that Iraq does have weapons of mass
destructions and has had them for over 12 years, and America's safety is in
jeopardy. But if this is this is the case, how come Iraq has never used
these weapons in 12 years? They could have used them on September 11,
when USA was in its most vulnerable.

I could go on and on speculating the real reason why US is trying to
kill Saddam, but Mr. Bush has already put it so eloquently, "He is the
guy that tried to kill my father."



PS: *name*, Afghanistan is not another heisted US country. The Talibans
were sadistic-psychopathic-monsters, and the US is finishing a job they
left off 20 years ago when the quickly vanished after preventing Soviet
Union from invading Afghanistan.
PPS: The extra oil supply that USA has is in Alaska's Wildlife
Refuge, the extraction of that oil would mean the complete annihilation of an
ecosystem and its inhabitants. Besides oil is a depleting resource and
the US can't just stubbornly depend on it.
PPPS: If anyone deserves to be shot are those people that drive  SUVs.
There's no way in hell you need an off-road Hummer to drive you kid
to soccer practice and back in Toronto!