Who agrees with these political lyrics?

Question

They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshyt, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my ******
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my ******
You ever clock someone who talk shyt, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that shyt, after Ronald Reagan's election" immortal technique

Answer 1

Cut the crap. In harlem and Washington heights you have to watch your back just as much as Iraq. Your so called ****** are looking to wack you and take your Glock and your weed and your women. So stop begging for attention.

Answer 2

It's a bunch of presumptuous, uneducated, crap. Where'd you get that?

Besides, nobody expects them to just lay down their weapons. We know they're going to fight. We wouldn't have brought guns with us if we didn't expect them to fight. But the majority of the people in Iraq voted for democratic rule. The people that are peaceful, want to have control of their own lives. They aren't bowing to an invador. They are thanking the people that came and stopped the oppressors. The ones who still want to opress are the ones still fighting. It's funny how liberal america embraces the very people who want everyone in the world to live under strict rules that benefit only the men in the leadership. If you want to live like that fine, but don't expect a bunch of other people to live like that when they choose not to.

Whoever wrote those lyrics shouldn't be so damned ignorant. Saddam Hussein is the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. His goals were to systematically terrorize and exterminate the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, to silence his critics, and to test the effectiveness of his chemical and biological weapons. Hussein launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88, using them as testing grounds. The worst of these attacks devastated the city of Halabja on March 16, 1988.

And the US did not sell the Chemical Weapons to Saddam. The New York Times claimed that the US helped Iraq develop chemical weapons and turned a blind eye to their testing the weapons on the Kurds. But the US did not turn a blind eye. They reported it to the media. Loud and clear. And there was never any real evidence that the US aided in development, either. There just wasn't anything we could do. We needed Iraq to defeat Iran, and aid in the war against the soviet union. It was either a few people die horrible or millions die horribly. No one person was more important than another, but we had to allow the sacrifice of a few to save the millions. What would you do??? Just let the millions die? In either case it wouldn't have been the US doing the killing.

Finally, I HATE political music. It's bullshyt. Music is about inner peace and art, not politics. The two should never be combined. Music is supposed to bring people together, and politics always split people into two groups. Why would anyone ever want to ruin the music world? It's an effing disgrace, a total waste of creativity, and an absolutely dirty thing to do. I wish I could curse right now...

Answer 3

Doubtful, the real resistance would be in the rural areas.

Answer 4

Ronald Regan is amazing!

Answer 5

"bullshyt"
"fightin' "
"******"
Clearly this person is an intellectual genius.

Answer 6

I do my brother from another mother.

Answer 7

Congratulations, you're a moron!

Answer 8

certainy NOT I