I hope so.sandinista wrote:Is my sarcasm meter going off?

I hope so.sandinista wrote:Is my sarcasm meter going off?
The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
*cough splutter*Lozzer wrote:The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
"cough splutter" to put it mildly. By that logic the US should have been invaded numerous times and it's leaders disposed of.Eriku wrote:*cough splutter*Lozzer wrote:The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.
Keep indulging the adjectives.The Mad Hatter wrote:So you oppose the removal of a maniacal, homocidal tyrant on what grounds?
Just as your buddy Saddam aimed to strangle the life out of Iranians and Kurds with his chemical mixtures.To Saddam:
Your Excellency, Mr President: I greet you, in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means, which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq.
Yes, Their dear brother Saddam, killer of 2 million Muslims. And a few dozen infidels.I greet you, too, in the name of the Palestinian people, amongst whom I've just spent two weeks in the occupied Palestinian territories. I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support.
Which pretty much explains why they are refugee camps and occupied lands.And this was true, especially at the base in the refugee camps of Jabaliyah and Beach Camp in Gaza, in the Balatah refugee camp in Nablus and on the streets of the towns and villages in the occupied lands.
Sons who will have to change their names after the historians finally get around to sifting through the huge piles of anti-American propaganda, and determine that Saddam was, in fact, the brutish seizer of Iraqi sovereignty and killer of 2 million Muslims, and nothing more. While the infidel Coalition Of The Willing returned Iraqi sovereignty, and Bush and Cheney did not make off with the Iraqis' oil, as the lying liars of the loon left insisted they would.I thought the president would appreciate knowing that even today, three years after the war, I still met families who were calling their newborn sons Saddam;
Trapped? Like a rat? Poor Saddam would later learn the true meaning of that. Too bad you escaped, you pig.and that two weeks ago, when I was trapped inside the Orient House, which is the Palestinian headquarters in al-Quds [Jerusalem]....
Yes, they want to die for you, Saddam. Because those 2 million Muslim scalps on your belt are so impressive.with 5,000 armed mustwatinin [settlers] outside demonstrating, pledging to tear down the Palestinian flag from the flagpole, the hundreds of shabab [youths] inside the compound were chanting that they wish to be with a DSh K [machine gun] in Baghdad to avenge the eyes of Abu Jihad.
Yes, because the killer of 2 million Muslims deserves to be a member of the suicide bomber recruiters club.And the Youth Club in Silwan, which is the one of the most resistant of all the villages around Jerusalem, asked me to ask the president's permission if they could enrol him as an honourary member of their club and to present him with this flag from holy Jerusalem.
Hardly a difficult task to turn the Eurotrash. Nothing to brag about. But when you're desperate for propaganda, you're desperate for propaganda.I wish to say, sir, that I believe that we are turning the tide in Europe, that the scale of the humanitarian disaster which has been imposed upon the Iraqi people is now becoming more and more widely known and accepted.
Right, Galloway, because Saddam was paying you to work to get the embargo lifted. Of course you would want to show progress, however meager. But of course you don't want to get the embargo lifted too soon. Too many criminalistic turds making too much blood money off it. You included.Fifty-five British members of parliament opposed the war, but 125 are demanding the lifting of the embargo; and this does not include the invisible section of the Conservative Party who must also be moving in that direction, and Sir Edward Heath is being a very persuasive advocate inside the Conservative Party.
Translation: "If the embargo is not lifted, you will siphon off all the oil-for-food relief to the Iraqis, sell it, spend it on palaces, and cause a famine. Then I and my cohorts will screech that the sanctions caused the famine. We will teach them the true meaning of "propaganda.""It is my belief that we must convey the very clear picture that 1994 has to be the year of the ending of the embargo against Iraq. Otherwise, famine and all the awful consequences, including acts of despair by Iraqis, will be the result; and this is the message we must convey to civilized opinion in Europe.
Eh. Too bad you weren't with him to the end, when he dropped through the trap door. But I know your wisened little heart was there with him.Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem].
And, once again, Galloway believed correctly. Sort of. Eventually, the Iraqis did prevail - against Saddam, his murderous lackeys, and his false prophet, Galloway.To a lovely Islamic crowd:
So I say to you, citizens of the last Arab country, this is a time for courage, for unity, for wisdom, for determination, to face these enemies with the dignity your president has shown, and I believe, God willing, we will prevail and triumph, wa-salam aleikum.
You're a bright one, aren't you? The United States is required by the bill to be a promoter, not an instigator of Human Rights violations. Through a system of democracy, the country is able to uphold that. And being a democracy, it's able to hold violators to account. Is this the same with Iraq? LOL NO.sandinista wrote:"cough splutter" to put it mildly. By that logic the US should have been invaded numerous times and it's leaders disposed of.Eriku wrote:*cough splutter*Lozzer wrote:The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.
Lozzer wrote:You're a bright one, aren't you? The United States is required by the bill to be a promoter, not an instigator of Human Rights violations. Through a system of democracy, the country is able to uphold that. And being a democracy, it's able to hold violators to account. Is this the same with Iraq? LOL NO.sandinista wrote:"cough splutter" to put it mildly. By that logic the US should have been invaded numerous times and it's leaders disposed of.Eriku wrote:*cough splutter*Lozzer wrote:The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.
I think my sarcasm meter is going off again...has to be...that has to be one of the most nonsense posts I've ever read. Required by a "bill" to promote human rights NOT violate them? WHAAAA???!!! System of democracy???!! WWWHHHAAA? Holy shit mang. The US has historically been one of the worst human rights violators on the planetLozzer wrote:You're a bright one, aren't you? The United States is required by the bill to be a promoter, not an instigator of Human Rights violations. Through a system of democracy, the country is able to uphold that. And being a democracy, it's able to hold violators to account. Is this the same with Iraq? LOL NO.sandinista wrote:"cough splutter" to put it mildly. By that logic the US should have been invaded numerous times and it's leaders disposed of.Eriku wrote:*cough splutter*Lozzer wrote:The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.
And failed, miserablysandinista wrote:I did address your "argument" if that's what you want to call it.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests