Subject: Why is USA at war?

From: JJ <jakubj@parkin.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2003 12:14 AM
Message-ID: <pan.2003.03.29.05.10.28.205682.1423@parkin.ca>

Gulf War I made some sense. Saddam invaded Kuwait.

What exactly is the point of this one?

Here are the usual answers:
(1) Stop terrorism.
(2) Saddam is evil.
(3) Saddam has biological and chemical weapons.

Are all three the reasons? Is one of them a reason? Are two? What's
going on?

This war will at most stop terrorism aimed against Iran (supposedly Saddam
supports anti-Iranian Ansaru-l-Islam). Doesn't this sound insane?

Who gives a shit about (2), really. Rumsfeld? Rumsfeld's advisors
include(d) Pearle ("The Prince of Darkness") and "Carpet bomb Hanoi"
Kissinger.

And about (3). Saddam has nothing but bargain priced weapons made in
Russia and China. And at most, Iraq still has some blueprints for the
weapons they nolonger have or never had.

I think the reason why USA is at war is because Cheney, Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz are EVIL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Why is USA at war?
From: "Dunter Powries" <fech.redcap@spedlins>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2003 1:27 AM
Message-ID: <%0bha.2789$_14.861@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>

You appear to be discarding What-is-the-point-of-the-war Option #2, "Saddam
is evil," on the perfectly reasonable and self-evident grounds that no one
gives a shit, but you are then postulating as The-point-of-the-war that the
Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz entity is EVIL, without making allowance, in turn,
for nobody giving a shit. Please clarify and expand.

Dunty

"Get back, Jack; I aren't pay for Slack!"

JJ <jakubj@parkin.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.03.29.05.10.28.205682.1423@parkin.ca...
> Gulf War I made some sense. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
>
> What exactly is the point of this one?
>
> Here are the usual answers:
> (1) Stop terrorism.
> (2) Saddam is evil.
> (3) Saddam has biological and chemical weapons.
>
> Are all three the reasons? Is one of them a reason? Are two? What's
> going on?
>
> This war will at most stop terrorism aimed against Iran (supposedly Saddam
> supports anti-Iranian Ansaru-l-Islam). Doesn't this sound insane?
>
> Who gives a shit about (2), really. Rumsfeld? Rumsfeld's advisors
> include(d) Pearle ("The Prince of Darkness") and "Carpet bomb Hanoi"
> Kissinger.
>
> And about (3). Saddam has nothing but bargain priced weapons made in
> Russia and China. And at most, Iraq still has some blueprints for the
> weapons they nolonger have or never had.
>
> I think the reason why USA is at war is because Cheney, Rumsfeld and
> Wolfowitz are EVIL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Why is USA at war?
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2003 8:49 AM
Message-ID: <3E85A45B.1B61@succeeds.com>

JJ wrote:
>
> Gulf War I made some sense. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
>
> What exactly is the point of this one?
>

For the same reason that the fictional character
James Bond existed. To kill those who would misuse
nuclear and biological weapons.

It really doesn't matter if Iraq has any right now.
Saddam & co. have the resources to eventually get some,
and they will do anything to get some. They cannot be
persuaded to keep just enough conventional arms
for self defense. They want to rule a Moslem empire,
the secret lust of many a Moslem leader.

And here's probably the biggest reason of all: they
don't care if their entire country is destroyed if
it means they can destroy their hated enemy, no matter
who the hated enemy of the hour is.

Remember MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)? It was
the theory that kept both the US and the Russians from
destroying the world. There were a lot of people who
were very scared when the Soviet Union collapsed,
because the certainty of MAD was placed in jeopardy.

But I think that a variant of MAD still exists: the
promise from the US and whatever other nuclear powers
"that if you, petty little country #1, use a nuclear
weapon against your hated enemy, petty little country
#2, then WE, the US, will annihilate you."

Now this is a very tangible peacekeeping threat, but
it only works if the leaders of petty little country
#1 CARE. If they say either, "We don't CARE if our
country is destroyed as long as we can smite out hated
enemy"; OR, "the US wouldn't DARE to nuke us (for
whatever reason)"; then the US has no other choice
then to conventionally pulverize them until they no
longer have the ABILITY or WILL to seek and use such
weapons.

So the big question then becomes: who are the other
petty little countries that just GOTS to have a nuclear
weapon to make their penis hard, AND are so fucking
irresponsible that they might use it against their
hated enemy? I might add, they must be countries that
the US can't scare with the threat of nuclear
annihilation.

And for this reason, we will be at war for as long as
it takes, and we will kill as many peasants as it
takes until these fuckwads are wiped out and replaced
by somebody who CARES.

--
Anyone with a gun pointed
at you is the government.
--nu-monet

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Why is USA at war?
From: JJ <jakubj@parkin.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2003 11:33 PM
Message-ID: <pan.2003.03.30.04.28.28.302283.2010@parkin.ca>

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:49:15 -0500, nu-monet v5.0 wrote:

> JJ wrote:
>>
>> Gulf War I made some sense. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
>>
>> What exactly is the point of this one?
>>
>>
> For the same reason that the fictional character James Bond existed. To
> kill those who would misuse nuclear and biological weapons.
>
> It really doesn't matter if Iraq has any right now. Saddam & co. have
> the resources to eventually get some, and they will do anything to get
> some. They cannot be persuaded to keep just enough conventional arms
> for self defense. They want to rule a Moslem empire, the secret lust of
> many a Moslem leader.
>
>
I suspect that Saddam is a powermongering closet atheist with a communist
slant (the Baath party in Iraq does call itself "the socialist party of
Iraq"). To prove his faith, he shows himself on iraqi tv praying. Once
he made a huge mistake in the ritual. He never moves his lips (he
probably doesn't even know the words used in the ritual).

He doesn't want to be suicide-bombed so he uses the usual religious
rhetoric.

> And here's probably the biggest reason of all: they don't care if their
> entire country is destroyed if it means they can destroy their hated
> enemy, no matter who the hated enemy of the hour is.
>
> Remember MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)? It was the theory that
> kept both the US and the Russians from destroying the world. There were
> a lot of people who were very scared when the Soviet Union collapsed,
> because the certainty of MAD was placed in jeopardy.
>
> But I think that a variant of MAD still exists: the promise from the US
> and whatever other nuclear powers "that if you, petty little country #1,
> use a nuclear weapon against your hated enemy, petty little country #2,
> then WE, the US, will annihilate you."
>
> Now this is a very tangible peacekeeping threat, but it only works if
> the leaders of petty little country #1 CARE. If they say either, "We
> don't CARE if our country is destroyed as long as we can smite out hated
> enemy"; OR, "the US wouldn't DARE to nuke us (for whatever reason)";
> then the US has no other choice then to conventionally pulverize them
> until they no longer have the ABILITY or WILL to seek and use such
> weapons.
>
> So the big question then becomes: who are the other petty little
> countries that just GOTS to have a nuclear weapon to make their penis
> hard, AND are so fucking irresponsible that they might use it against
> their hated enemy? I might add, they must be countries that the US
> can't scare with the threat of nuclear annihilation.
>
> And for this reason, we will be at war for as long as it takes, and we
> will kill as many peasants as it takes until these fuckwads are wiped
> out and replaced by somebody who CARES.

Yeah, well if the US right-wing VIGILANTIST OLIGARCHY was more honest,
I'd probably be less confused about their true intentions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Why is USA at war?
From: Wbarwell <Wbarwell@munnged.mylinuxisp.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: Wbarwell@munnged.mylinuxisp.com
Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2003 9:05 AM
Message-ID: <3e86f9ce@news3.mylinuxisp.com>

JJ wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:49:15 -0500, nu-monet v5.0 wrote:
>
>> JJ wrote:
>>>
>>> Gulf War I made some sense. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
>>>
>>> What exactly is the point of this one?
>>>
>>>
>> For the same reason that the fictional character James Bond existed. To
>> kill those who would misuse nuclear and biological weapons.
>>
>> It really doesn't matter if Iraq has any right now. Saddam & co. have
>> the resources to eventually get some, and they will do anything to get
>> some. They cannot be persuaded to keep just enough conventional arms
>> for self defense. They want to rule a Moslem empire, the secret lust of
>> many a Moslem leader.
>>
>>
> I suspect that Saddam is a powermongering closet atheist with a communist
> slant (the Baath party in Iraq does call itself "the socialist party of
> Iraq"). To prove his faith, he shows himself on iraqi tv praying. Once
> he made a huge mistake in the ritual. He never moves his lips (he
> probably doesn't even know the words used in the ritual).
>

He built a huge and fancy mosque in Baghdad and it has a Quran
written in Saddam's own blood. That is why Iraq is successfully
withstanding the US (besides the fact that Rumdumfeld sent
too few troops). The only way we can win is if GW BUsh writes
out a neat copy of the entire bible in his blood.

--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Why is USA at war?
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2003 9:55 AM
Message-ID: <3E87057E.6CC7@succeeds.com>

JJ wrote:
>
> Yeah, well if the US right-wing VIGILANTIST
> OLIGARCHY was more honest, I'd probably be
> less confused about their true intentions.

I remember in one local election a long time ago,
a retired college professor in Poli Sci ran for a
seat in county government, as a republican in a
very republican county. He ran on a platform of
openness in the process, he wanted the people of
the county to know how their county worked, and
spent much time, effort and money in his campaign.

I wish I could say that his opponent had only
an elementary-school education, but he had an
associates' degree from a community college.
But his understanding of people was so great, he
spent less than $500 on his campaign. He won
hands down. A whopping majority.

I learned a great lesson about the public from
that campaign. A lesson I'd bet about every
successful politician in the US has learned, one
way or another.

--
Anyone with a gun pointed
at you is the government.
--nu-monet

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Why is USA at war?
From: phy <phy00x@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sat, Apr 5, 2003 11:01 AM
Message-ID: <XnsB42566C6461A7phy00xyahoocom@216.168.3.44>

JJ <jakubj@parkin.ca> wrote in
news:pan.2003.03.29.05.10.28.205682.1423@parkin.ca:

> Gulf War I made some sense. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
>
> What exactly is the point of this one?
>

We are at war because Saddam thought Bush was bluffing.

-phy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Why is USA at war?
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, Apr 6, 2003 4:03 PM
Message-ID: <3E908807.651F1FA9@yahooX.com>

phy wrote:
>
> JJ <jakubj@parkin.ca> wrote in
> news:pan.2003.03.29.05.10.28.205682.1423@parkin.ca:
>
> > Gulf War I made some sense. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
> >
> > What exactly is the point of this one?
> >
>
> We are at war because Saddam thought Bush was bluffing.
>

THEY are at war because the best possible business to be in involves
selling people millions and billions of dollars worth of products
which they will immediately destroy. WE are NOT at war, THEY are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Why is USA at war?
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2003 11:26 AM
Message-ID: <070420031126155546%stang@subgenius.com>

In article <3E908807.651F1FA9@yahooX.com>, nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
wrote:

> phy wrote:
> >
> > JJ <jakubj@parkin.ca> wrote in
> > news:pan.2003.03.29.05.10.28.205682.1423@parkin.ca:
> >
> > > Gulf War I made some sense. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
> > >
> > > What exactly is the point of this one?
> > >
> >
> > We are at war because Saddam thought Bush was bluffing.
> >
>
> THEY are at war because the best possible business to be in involves
> selling people millions and billions of dollars worth of products
> which they will immediately destroy. WE are NOT at war, THEY are.

And you too can DEPEND on DOBBSCO MUNITIONS.

The Bullet With a Brain

--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected (Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
A subsidiary of:
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. / P.O. Box 204206, Austin, TX 78720-4206
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com
For SubGenius Biz & Orders: call toll free to 1-888-669-2323
or email: jesus@subgenius.com
PRABOB

Back to document index

Original file name: Why is USA at war? - converted on Monday, 21 July 2003, 13:45