I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

Funny Junk


Gorilla Mask

Funny Games

Viva La Games

FreeGame Heaven


Free Samples

Hot Games

123 Games

Comic World

Hoy Boys

Crazy Games

Insane Pictures

Back to Listing

Saddam likes Doritos and President Reagan

Hits: 3469 | Rating: (2.4) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: buddy
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 4185 Posts
Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:52:16 AM
Yeah and the War was for oil! That's why gas is 3 bucks a gallon

Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 4185 Posts
Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:47:41 AM
Saddam is such a humanitarian. The mass graves, the gassing of the Kurds in the north and using chemical weapons on the Iranians were all anomalies. Besides the UN, BJ Clinton, Saddam himself and Intelligence agencies around the world telling us he had weapons of mass destruction, why did we believe that? And why would we believe Saddam wanted to attack us? Other than him saying he wanted ta, what proof did we have?

Female, 13-17, Midwest US
 274 Posts
Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:01:52 PM
In the immortal words of jtc970, "War sucks, but freedom is worth it."

And I'm glad they made this article. I want to know what's going on around Saddam's environment. It still doesn't change my opinion on his earlier actions, but it was a well-written article.

Male, 13-17, Europe
 505 Posts
Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:25:58 PM
america, britain and the rest were wrong to go on a pointless war to capture and destroy 'chemical' weapons that nobody ever found and so probably werent even there. All they succeeded in doing was making even more countries opposed to the US and Britain, causing more suicide bombings and unneccessary and avoidable deaths and making a huge political cover-up in Britain. That war was avoidable and led on misleading information and in the end they accomplished absolutely nothing, and there goes a report saying saddam likes Doritoes. Who gives a sh*t anyway?

Male, 18-29, Western US
 1479 Posts
Friday, June 24, 2005 8:00:34 PM
What an intelligent retort... putz. I will never move from this country because only a coward would run, because I love this country and I want it to be everything that it should be. My gripe is with our politicians not with our people.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
--Edward Abbey

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 47 Posts
Friday, June 24, 2005 2:22:02 PM
S J W, why don't you just move to Canada and stfu.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 1479 Posts
Friday, June 24, 2005 12:29:28 AM
And no, just because war is money driven doesn't mean that we would conquer and assimilate other countries. Think about it. We need to manufacture goods outside of the US to keep them cheap enough for the average citizen to buy. If these countrys were part of the US we'd have to pay them the same wages.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 1479 Posts
Friday, June 24, 2005 12:29:20 AM
Helping Kuwait in Desert storm helped us in the long run. After the war we took the opportunity to expand Kuwait's borders to secure access to the Rumaila oil field which before was part of southern Iraq. By the way, coincidentally, there is a lot of investment in Kuwait by American and British oil companies and this move allowed them to double their oil output.

Billions in aid help us secure foreign relations so our companies are allowed to set up factories and make use of the cheap labor. For instance, as recently as 1996 Disney's factories in Haiti were paying their workers an average of $2.00 a day. As of the year 2000, they were paying them 7 cents per completed pair of Disney pajamas which sell in the US for $12.00 each. It may seem inhuman but apparently people like Michael Eisner, who earned up to $78,000 an hour in 2000, feel that it's ok.

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 346 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:22:10 PM
As far as fighting wars if they are only profitable, Why did we save Kuwait? Why did we help France? Why do we send billions in aide to other countries? If we were killing for oil then we would initiate wars instead of just having a backbone and following through with agreements.
If we fought war for profit, Mexico would be America, Canada would be America, Iraq would be America etc...

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 346 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:17:58 PM
If it was dangerous we would have protected it. Neither of us were there and neither was Kerry, so for him to blab about things without the intelligence was for political reasons only.
Our reason for being there is the same reason the terrorists keep fighting. It will be a great downfall for the middleeasts barbaric ways. These people want to keep dictators, they want people to be slaves to their religeon only. They do not want freedom. This is a move against them, for us to back out and give it up for no reason other than its too hard would only lead to greater propaganda and bigger terrorist recruiting. they would claim victory and will claim "America is weak and dont have the heart to fight for the freedom they say they beleive in" and by the comments of some democrats I fear they are correct. America did not gain it's freedom by sitting passive.
War is hard and civilians will be killed, its part of it. War sucks, but freedom is worth it.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 1479 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:24:00 PM
radioactive oil!? wtf are you talking about? Because the nuclear facility wasn't looked into there could have been a lot of things taken and circulated on the black market. Even if it wasn't weapons grade it can still be used in dirty bombs. As the story said the issue is that "It's feared that dangerous material may be sold on the black market and could end up in the hands of terrorist groups.". Your also missing my other point. What motive other than money is there for us to stay and help "protect" them? Half the world needs help with terrorists, warlords, dictators, government driven mass murders, human rights violations and so on but for some reason we let it happen. Like it or not, the country doesn't go to war unless it deems it profitable and if you don't belive that then I have a shake of my own you may want to drink.

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 346 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:53:20 PM
the oil would be no good if it was radioactive
As I said, the nuclear facility was not active, and if it was it was used for the radioactive waste, if it was looted and had radioactive material, let em run off with the unenriched-plutonium.
I doubt there was anything worth guarding in there, and thats why we didnt guard it. I wasnt there so I dont know. Im sure Kerry had first hand account of all the details :rollseyes:

The Iraqi people had no government and for a while it was us, until Iraq formed its own. So now they have one and requested that we stay there to assist in cleaning out the terrorists and Saddam loyalists. You suggest we leave them alone? You think they will be fine without being able to defend themselves? come on,drink a reality shake.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 1479 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:41:36 PM
Q: Why guard oil?
A: $$$

No nuclear facilities?

Fox news report on the looting of Iraq nuclear facilities:


If what Kerry said was false then all bush had to do was call it false but then he would have been caught in a lie.

Oh, and proof that the US chose "official inaction" regarding the Rwanda genocide:


"We are still there to keep the head lobbers from off lobbing heads"? We seem to be good at letting it happen when there's no financial reason to get involved. Besides, we aren't the Iraqi government, nor are we global police.

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 346 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:16:42 PM
We are still there to keep the head lobbers from lobbing off heads.

There was no reply because Kerry said things that are so far wacked that there can be no reply.
What good would an oil facility be if they used nuclear dirty bombs? There are no "Nuclear facilities" if there were then they would have been there for WMDs, what would an oil rich country want with nuclear power?
If you want to rant about your misbeleifs please visit http://www.therantpage.com , its a much better place for it.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 1479 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:48:18 PM
If the US cared about saving lives then why didn't we stop the murder of 700,000 people in 1994 Rwanda? Because there wasn't a profit in it.

Male, 18-29, Western US
 1479 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:48:09 PM
Let me ask a question or two. First, why are we even still there? They have no WMD's, no government ties to terrorism and Saddam is gone. What ever happened to fighting Al Qaeda? Secondly, how can we say that we haven't been responsible for civilian deaths? We bomb and fire on cities, smart weapons aren't smart enough to only kill the solders. Even US General Tommy Franks said "we don't do body counts" so the solders don't even know how was an enemy and who wasn't. Imagine not investigating who died in the trade center. Oh, and if there's a question if this is for oil or not here is an excerpt from the first Bush / Kerry debate:

Kerry - "The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.

We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders."

Bush had no response to this.

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 346 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:09:39 PM
AlphaBAstard- NO we did not sell him chemical weapons. He made those chemical weapons, then after they were found and the fact that he was trying to develop a nuclear weapon, he decided not to let inspectors in to prove he wasnt continuing. The world knew he had WMD not just Bush, remember it was the UN who agreed to war if he didnt let inspectors inspect. THe countries that backed out of that agreement have now been found to be stealing money from the oil for food program along with Saddam, while complaining his people were starving. I think the people are more important than the money.
as far as freeing Iraq, granted no WMD was found, so do we leave Iraq in the hands of the terrorists and let it fall back to a dictatership or do we stay until we train the Iraqi people to defend themselves and have a democratic elected goverment?
The argument that its all about oil is assinine. If we were doing it for oil Iraq would be the 51st state and the war would be over.

Male, 40-49, Western US
 1609 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:27:41 PM
I agree with jtc970.
MiligrmSmile - to answer your question: no, nobody's figured out that the US has killed more Iraqis than Saddam. Because it's not true.

Male, 18-29, Canada
 49 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:24:57 PM
Come on, everyone knows that Saddam is evil, but let's not just all ignore and forget the fact that he's was bascially a US puppet dictator. Who do think sold him the helicopters and chemical weapons to gas the kurds.

Sorry, but that lame exuse that your fighting to free Iraq doesn't cut it. It's an insult.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 47 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 1:30:15 PM
Mass murders and genocide?? Bah, that's nothing.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 47 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 1:28:27 PM
MiligrmSmile and Topcat, you guys are right. We should just let Saddam go and put him back in power. In fact, since he's such a nice guy maybe you guys can move to Iraq too. You could be neibors! You guys could hang out all day and eat Doritos. Poor Saddam, what'd he ever do?

Male, 18-29, Europe
 129 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 1:15:57 PM
he is just a pawn.

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 346 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 1:01:15 PM
holy crap!, you people are so wrong.
I guess you missed the fact that there have been plenty of mass graves found and thousands of bodies. WE are not killing Iraqi citizens, jeez the ingnorance in here is blinding. We are killing the people that dont want the citizens free. you know the people that lob heads off and drive cars into those citizens.
Whether or not he likes doritos does not exonerate him from torturing his people and the world with his threats.
Just because he has a sense of humor does not make him a nice guy! Even Charlie Manson has a sense of humor.

Male, 13-17, Western US
 1868 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:24:23 AM
Has anyone figured out yet that the US has killed more Iraqis that Saddam?

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 33 Posts
Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:57:36 AM
Why would they be reporting on the fact he likes doritoes?
They should really be reporting on the fact that he hates fruit loops. That's just sick.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |