Iraqis show love for USA
Breaking News – Iraqis show love for USA; learn LOLspeak
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: mbrandons via Breaking News Builder
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Wait for the entire question before you hit your buzzer. | …and this graph shows the growing number of Californians Next »
» 115 comments
-
Recent Comments
Jojo on SPEECHLESS pittypat on PHOTOBOMB dissimilitude on Always keep Aaron Hong on Always keep I Like Peanut Butter… on SPEECHLESS Second Opinion on SPEECHLESS HelOnWheels on Always keep Grrr on SPEECHLESS charro on ABSTINENCE HelOnWheels on Always keep 
Cheezburger Network Blog
This is one of the few things I’ve seen on this site that I didn’t actually think was in the least funny, and I even get a little chuckle out of the phrase ‘RSS Lol News Feed’.
How dare they protest us being there! I think we should be there more now!! Whoever isn’t currently being there should be there at some point in time, preferably sooner than later.
Teach them to protest us being there.
They need to take their ideas and go out!
Well, we know that Bert is evil – it was only a matter of time until the lolcats make their move…
Good thing he wasn’t trying to convey “Can’t”
*snort*
I knew it! That boot is a WMD! Especially after it’s been worn for 6 months with no change in socks.
wah izrachi’s lobes yuh amerikenz!
Comahare amb gibes uz a grate bagdag kiss!
^That wasn’t lolspeak was it? I’m surprised even cats understand that…
No it wasn’t; there are standard spellings in LOLspeak, and Jonathan’s not used most of them!
Ah so sowwy, Ahtz heart nuff speakan english!
(I am from Brooklyn, NY, were F*#K is a comma)
Jonathan
I knew it was a form of punctuation, but didn’t realize it was a comma. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Looks like the 4077th had one too many martinis.
Wow. Not funny at all. Congratulations on making fun of people for misspelling in a language they know very little of. How’s your Arabic spelling, by the way?
do you not know what LOLspeak is?
U kan haz FAIL!!
Concurrence.
My arabic is nonexistent… which is why I don’t attempt to write it.
TOOOOOOO SOOOOOOOOOOON!!11!1!!!ELEBENTY!!1!!
Too soon, Executus? Are you channeling Ragnaros?
So that’s what the initials TS stand for in the op’s name…
Pleez to remoov da stik frum up yo ass. kaithanxbai
My Arabic speliing is excellent-mainly because it’s written phonetically, unlike English, which in terms of spelling, makes no sense whatsoever.
I’ve offered to edit these people’s signs, but they never seem to have time to take me up on my offer.
sigh
I think they should have bigger signs. The little bits of paper look a bit crap…
I think, maybe, there are no Kinkos in Iraq that carry large pieces of cardboard. In a country where they get 10.9 hours of electricity daily, they’re lucky to get pens!
Uncalled for! Those people are so desperate to be heard that they attempted to make english sign. That isn’t in the least bit funny!
I direct your attention to the sign written in their own language at the far right. I spot at least five in their language and two in English.
*hands anoun. a sense of humor*
Use it well, my friend. Use it well.
you’re a good person, capt. just earned a bunch of good karma with your act of kindness (for us as well as him, i think we all benefit here, thank you).
Pleez to remoov da stik frum up YO ass too. kaithanxbai
You’re welcome, you Goddamn savages. You’re welcome for defeating, ousting, finding, capturing, trying, and sentencing your genocidal ruler who killed nearly 2 million of your own people. You’re welcome for fighting the terrorists who constantly try to overthrow your government. You’re welcome for us spending unimaginable billions of dollars and soldiers’ lives to bring stability to an ungrateful nation such as yours. You’re welcome for giving you a democratic govrnment. You’re welcome for trying make your wretched existence better.
We’re already leaving, so why are you still protesting? Go home, pray to Allah, slaughter a goat, have dinner, pray to Allah, and go to bed. Repeat until you die at 48 years old.
Trying and sentencing?
Yes, by an Iraqi government.
You’re welcome for trying make your wretched existence better.
Indeed, because everything happening out there is entirely philanthropic.
Wyde, you’re wide. Any sense there might have been in your smugly superior jingoism was cancelled out when you decided to begin your post by calling people savages.
I’d almost forgotten how crazy Wyde is. This brings back memories…
Indeed it does you lewd, vulgar, fireman-lover! Get to the kitchen at once!
That was a bipartisan plot to kidnap fireman and have our wicked way with them, iirc. I wasn’t lewd and vulgar, I was reaching across the aisle!
*firemen*
Reaching across the aisle? Pah, women should be seen and not heard…
Ouch. This Wyde-ness is painful to type…
Satire is usually a good cause though, I commend you. Now go out and do something feminist.
Do you honestly think that the USA invaded because we wanted to bring them a “better” life? Then why aren’t we making the same effort in the many African countries where AIDS, rape, starvation and genocide are practically a way of life? It wouldn’t have anything to do with all that oil under the sand, would it?
I’m guessing that hearing “We’re from the U.S. government and we’re here to help you” is scary in other countries, too.
It’s like when your company introduces those nice consultants who are here to “help the company become more efficient” – you know your ass is grass.
Of course it was oil, you know, and now we have a huge supply of really cheap oil and, oh, wait…
*crickets chirping*
It’s Teh Ebil Oil Companies keeping prices artificially high so they can pay off their buddies George W. and Cheney.
-
But wait, Teh Ebil Oil Companies don’t set the prices, OPEC does, and last time I checked they were in no way affiliated with GWB or anyone over here……….
…another good point.
For future reference, crickets usually chirp when a question has been asked and no reply is forthcoming.
I don’t really like it even then because sometimes you just can’t get back to an argument, and the cricket chirp implies the asker of the question won something.
And sometimes it’s just not worth the bother.
True, at least it doesn’t get overused. Sometimes though it does make a point when a valid question is asked the person chooses to ignore it.
What I meant was that it was a valid point that wonko was making but no one had addressed it, that’s all.
Well I don’t think it was an avoidance thing, I think there were just better battles, for lack of a better word, going on.
There’s no tears shed from me over Saddam (or those nasty little thugs he called sons), but, surely, there must have been a better way to get him out of power than a complete invasion.
I’ve actually never been able to wrap my head around the concept that invasion of a country for purposes of deposing a tyrant is ok, but targeted assassination of the same tyrant isn’t.
Why localize killing when you can spread it out amongst the populace?
Yeah, but really? That has never made sense to me.
*shrugs* Yeah… me neither.
Assassination circumvents the national/international justice system, so unless they’re a clear and present danger or have been tried and sentenced in absentia, it’s technically an extrajudicial killing. It’s also surprisingly difficult, even if you’re not trying to hide your involvement.
Practically, though, assassinating a leader, especially a despot, wouldn’t be likely to result in regime change. Instead, you’d most likely have Despot Jr. or a senior general stepping in and continuing the activities that you offed Despot Sr. for in the first place.
Thank you, Dhoti, that makes a lot of sense. I’d guess you’d also run into the problem of turning the leader you want to assassinate into a martyr, which could make whatever situation you were trying to avoid a whole lot worse.
Oh, definitely. Imagine the kickback if one of the CIA’s half-cocked schemes to assassinate Castro had actually worked…
KOK!
Ok, some of those sounded like they’d contracted out to Wile E. Coyote…but the question of how the loss of Castro in the 60’s would have affected developments in Cuba over the following decades is an interesting one.
I can definitely see his death whipping up anti-imperialist sentiment, particularly in Latin and South America.
(Personally, my money’s on Cuba’s getting turned into a formal Soviet satellite state.)
I’m sort of disappointed that “exploding cigar” made it past the planning stage at the CIA. Can you imagine the guy greenlighting that one? “Yeah Bob, that’s a great idea. I’ll just call up Acme, I think they have a buy one get one half off deal.”
“Operative Fudd, can you hear us? How is Operation Hunting Season progressing?”
“Be vewy vewy qwiet. I’m hunting Cast-woe. Huhuhuhuhuhuh.”
Later on:
“Abort the mission! Abort the mission! Castro put his finger in the gun and it blew up in Fudd’s face! Get out of there!”
OMG Eric, how’d you get a hold of classified CIA files?! Now you’ve done it, better get out of the house before the take down team gets there!
I can also see how, with regards to the middle east where religion guides so much of their daily lives the last thing we would have wanted to do would be to make a martyr out of Saddam. Whether I think we had any business invading Iraq or not, what you say further down from a tactical point really makes sense.
Arguably, the national/international justice system could be changed to permit it under certain circumstances, though, right?
Right now, that power’s in the hands of the military — if the despot is a clear and present danger, then he’s a legitimate military target, and dealing with him is their call. (Holmes may be rolling in his grave at my twisting of his phrase, but I think the basic thought is the same.)
Granted, I haven’t really thought about the implications, but on first glance, I’d be *very* hesitant about handing that kind of power to the judiciary. It doesn’t seem like the right place for it.
It’s a puzzle, I’ll admit. I just keep coming back to the problem that it can be considered a legitimate military objective to, say, bomb an area that’s considered strategically important, with the knowledge that it will very likely kill people who may include civilians. But to target a bombing directly at the leader that’s causing the problems in the first place is not a legitimate military objective?
I suspect this reflects the fact that the leaders make the rules…
Imoptent!
HEHEHEHE IMPOTENT!
Irrelevant, much?
Irreverent!
I think it all comes down to results, not tactics — in other words, I think they would both be legitimate military tactics, it’s just that targeted assassination wouldn’t achieve the desired result.
As near as I can tell, the “mission statement” of OIF was to remove the Hussein regime from power and promote a democratic replacement. While assassinating Saddam would certainly have gotten him out of the way, it’s very unlikely that his death would have ended the regime, so that’s where the full-scale invasion and the bombings come in.
That’s certainly the best explanation I’ve heard from a tactical standpoint, Dhoti. Thanks. (And I’m outta here for the day…)
Seems like everyone would have been better off with the Hussein regime in place than with the full-scale invasion and the bombings.
Everyone except the disappeared enemies of the regime, that is. And the Israelis killed or wounded by the suicide bombers motivated by Saddam’s payments to their families. And the soldiers killed during the Iran/Iraq War. And don’t forget the Kurds.
But none of that matters, right? Because if the lights stay on and the trains run on time, who cares about liberty, or the price in blood? I’ll bet you loved Basra under the Mahdi Army, then. Douche.
Do we have any numbers on that? How many people were adversely affected by the Hussein regime, vs. how many have been impacted by the invasion?
I think you make a good point-it’s just not something I’ve heard a whole lot about. People supporting the removal of Saddam usually focus more on his threat to the West or the stability of the area and not on the Iraqis…
I suppose it all really depends on what your goals are with regards to said country and/or their leader.
While I don’t personally agree with sacrificing American lives to remove another country’s ruler, I would agree that if it has to be done, what you’re saying does make sense.
Thanks, I tried to say that and ended up being not as clear.
“You’re welcome for defeating, ousting, finding, capturing, trying, and sentencing your genocidal ruler who killed nearly 2 million of your own people.”
And in the process killing perhaps hundreds of thousands more…
“You’re welcome for fighting the terrorists who constantly try to overthrow your government.”
Who weren’t there before the invasion…
“You’re welcome for us spending unimaginable billions of dollars and soldiers’ lives to bring stability to an ungrateful nation such as yours.”
Actually, Iraq was a lot more stable before we invaded. Nice try, though.
“You’re welcome for giving you a democratic govrnment.”
I think food, water, electricity, health care, etc. is much higher on most Iraqis’ lists of priorities right now, especially since they had that before the invasion.
“You’re welcome for trying make your wretched existence better.”
Let’s review the history of the last 30 years or so. In the early 1980s we (the US) armed Saddam Hussein to fight the Iranians (while simultaneously arming Iran as a regional counterbalance during the Iran-Contra scandal), who then ended up using that same weaponry to destroy rivals and consolidate his power. Then we bombed the crap out of Iraq in 1991. Then we imposed an embargo in 1993 that left Iraq with one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Then we invaded again in 2003 and have since occupied the country for six years. Perhaps we should stop “trying make [their] wretched existence better.”
“We’re already leaving, so why are you still protesting?”
How do you know this photo wasn’t taken several years ago? Oh, that’s right, you don’t. You’re just talking out of your ass.
*applauding enthusiastically*
*gives standing O*
I remember reading an article ca. 2005 where an Iraqi woman said, to paraphrase, “Things were bad under Saddam, but at least we could buy bread.”
That really struck me….
To which George Bush replied, “Let them eat cake.”
WIN.
False dichotomy FTW.
> How do you know this photo wasn’t taken several years ago?
Because one of the signs refers to al-Zaidi — he wasn’t locked up until last year.
Ok, I’ll give you that one. I’m used to him being referred to as the “shoe thrower” instead of his real name, so I didn’t put it together.
But my original point still stands. If the photo was taken six months ago after he was first arrested, we weren’t exactly “already leaving” at the time.
Of course, Obama’s plan to “leave” will still “leave” tens of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq, so it’s also wrong to claim that we’re “already leaving” now.
I thought the Iraqi government laid out a withdrawal plan as part of the force renewal agreement early last year, no? (It may not have been that specific, but it at least limited US participation.)
Realistically, though, a small continuing presence in Iraq (“small” being along the lines of our presences in Germany and South Korea) would be the only way to withdraw the majority of our forces without leaving the Iraqi government completely swinging in the breeze. But no, it’s no surprise that “withdrawal” is yet another Obama promise with an expiration date.
“You’re welcome for defeating, ousting, finding, capturing, trying, and sentencing your genocidal ruler who killed nearly 2 million of your own people.”
And in the process killing perhaps hundreds of thousands more…
Due to the clever positioning of the Iraqi Military sites which were sited right in the middle of built up areas. Anyone who knows anything about explosives and bombs know that they all have a blast radius, which just happens to cover those very same residential areas. Also Smart Bombs are an oxymoron, like Military Intelligence and Bulletproof vests. Also Sadaam killed more of his own people.
“You’re welcome for fighting the terrorists who constantly try to overthrow your government.”
Who weren’t there before the invasion. Actually they were. It’s well known that Terrorist training camps were located in Iraq, however much like the WMD due to the American Policy of broadcasting their intentions months in advance giving the terrorists and the Iraqi military plenty of time to shift their gear before getting defeated by the Allies (Which of course they knew they would be)
“You’re welcome for us spending unimaginable billions of dollars and soldiers’ lives to bring stability to an ungrateful nation such as yours.”
Actually, Iraq was a lot more stable before we invaded. Nice try, though. Yes, but only through the deaths of thousands of Sadaams own people and through the brutality and oppression brought by Sadaam’s rule.
“You’re welcome for giving you a democratic govrnment.”
I think food, water, electricity, health care, etc. is much higher on most Iraqis’ lists of priorities right now, especially since they had that before the invasion. Actually if those demonstrations have taken place recently, then this shows that they are all hypocrites as they would never be allowed to do that in Sadaam’s time. They’d be lined up against a wall and shot. Also yes there may be few resources but that’s only because they are blown up by the terrorists who keep declaring that they were better off under Sadaam.
“You’re welcome for trying make your wretched existence better.”
Let’s review the history of the last 30 years or so. In the early 1980s we (the US) armed Saddam Hussein to fight the Iranians (while simultaneously arming Iran as a regional counterbalance during the Iran-Contra scandal), who then ended up using that same weaponry to destroy rivals and consolidate his power. Then we bombed the crap out of Iraq in 1991. Then we imposed an embargo in 1993 that left Iraq with one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Then we invaded again in 2003 and have since occupied the country for six years. Perhaps we should stop “trying make [their] wretched existence better.” Actually Military sites were bombed in 1991 due to Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait (or don’t you remember that!!) And the Embargo was enforced to try and stop Iraq forcing it’s way on the Kurds in the North and the Marsh Arabs in the South, and also to prevent Military build up.
“We’re already leaving, so why are you still protesting?”
How do you know this photo wasn’t taken several years ago? Oh, that’s right, you don’t. You’re just talking out of your ass.
This is the only point I actually agree with.
what’s an embargo?
Ivan! Here is another stick and this one has burrs on it.
Dude, you’re freaking racist.
Is he wielding a Croc?
That would be a Weapon of Terrible Fashion.
And Escalator Disasters.
In their country, it is considered a terrible insult to show someone the bottom of your foot. That’s why he’s doing that.
This protest sponsored by Nike…
I love how shoes are the big symbol over there now (referring to the shoe that attacked Bush, I assume). There’s maybe three or four independent thoughts in the whole Middle East at any given moment.
Throwing shoes is a way of showing contempt in the Arab world, and has been long before the shoe-throwing journalist. And you, sir, are a douche.
I think I love you.
Oh darling, hold me.
Showing the soul of your shoe is a big insult there also. I agree with your assessment re: douche.
A douche of the highest order.
Shoes have souls?
Not even just throwing shoes… hitting things with shoes and even showing the soles of shoes is a symbol of contempt.
If I remember from when I took Middle Eastern dance, showing the palm of your hand is a big no no as well. At least, my dance teacher was very strict on making sure we never did it.
I’d understood that to be to do with dance forms, the same as ballet is all about smooth lines, and Indian dance about sharp angles (think spirit fingers, but with palms parallel to the body, shoulders and elbows at 45 or 90 degree angles).
No, she told us showing the palm of the hand was offensive. Now she could have been wrong, but when she was younger she studied in Egypt for awhile, so I was inclined to believe her.
Too funny!
That shoe cracks me up!
Iraq is essentially split into four regions, each with different ethnic, religion, and political beliefs. Get that through your head and you will understand that to the Northern Iraqi tribes, freedom is bondage to Islam and terror.
Is the man on the right listening to an iPod?
I enjoy holding up shoes too
I thought we invaded Iraq because of 9-11??