NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.

I don't know...an arms race between Iran and Iraq sounds like the last thing we would have needed about now.

George W. Bush is the bigger threat to peace. He should be regime changed. I hope our progressive Democratic party can do it before W bans elections. :(

First things first here; If you claim that W. is a larger threat to peace and that he should be removed from office then undoughtedly you *want* Dick Cheney to be President... Oh, wait I forgot you actually thing you can impeach any non-Democrat in Congress, wonderful I always enjoy listening to people like you.

Secondly, Ha, and Ha again, what you define as a "Progressive Democrat" (I'm assuming you mean the likes of Ed Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton there) is about as useful to this country as a Conservative Republican. Both are a bunch of rich fools who run for office because they have nothing else to spend their money on. They sit in congress and yell across the chamber at the majority so that come election time they can say that, Ha we oppoosed so-and-so, and that is why we deserve to be in power. What we need in this country are people who really know what it means to live the life of an average citizen. Unfortunately modern electoral process makes it so that only the rich can run for office; and while there are undoughtedly some intelligent people in Congress they are hardly the people who make headlines in this day and age. A time when controversy and confrontation breeds good press, and thus the "best" politicians are those who give rise to the most controversey.

Third and Finally, just because a democracy is "The process of electing your dictator," according to one man (who's name escapes me right now), doesn't mean the people of the US would let G.W. take supreme power and abolish the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government. That final saying proves how deluded you are W. is not intelligent enough to know how to manipulate a system like this in order to gain supreme power, by saying that you give a man whom you despise far, far too much credit, and are saying that the American people are too stupid to realize when someone is manipulating the electoral process. By which you are, in fact (assuming that you are American) insulting yourself, so congradulations and I can't wait to hear your response. Pass the popcorn please:p .

Weed isn't good for you.

Seriously though, meh. I don't care about Saddam or Bush.

Weed isn't good for you.


Are you sure, its all natural.

When will you get it through your head? I DO NOT hate America.

How is it not hating America when you always root against America? When you go OUT OF YOUR WAY to FIND things to condemn America, when you MAKE THINGS UP that reflect poorly on the United States????

White supremacists should try claiming that burning crosses is more supportive of civil rights than not burning them.:rolleyes:


You pretty much DEFINE Anti-Americanism.

I was going to use a reasoned response to your other claims about Saddam's atrocities, but since you just want to use this debate as a platform for flaming me and hurling insults, I will just posts a few links that kinda dints your claims about 400,000 in mass graves:

Blair graves claim 'untrue' (http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?area=%2fbreaking_news%2fbreaking_news__international_news&articleid=132936)

Iraqi Mass Graves (http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/7/19/123455/386)

Number of Iraqi Mass Graves Cited in USAID Report Discredited (http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=810)

The US should not have invaded Iraq. It is coming back to haunt America and the world. The fact that you can't see that is the sad part.


From your own source:
A Downing Street spokesperson said: 'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human-rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq." -- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 - your other links are simply rehashes of the same article.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf


No graves HERE!!!

You will notice that it said, uncovered at THIS point. There are lots of cites yet unexumed.

Get back with me when you gain the capability to cite them completely and IN CONTEXT.

This is BS and you need to read more on this, especially the reports of civilians being blocked from leaving the city. Get bent indeed!!-----



I have read up on it. It is a propoganda ploy and you (of course) assumed that the terrorists were right (again).


I could go on and on, but I think you catch my drift?

I caught your drift on your very first post. I happened to be downwind at the time.

Not to mention the fact that he squandered oil wealth on palaces and weapons while infrastructure decayed; Saddam was a monster whose "secular" leadership prolonged the problems of tribalism and fanned the flames of Islamic extremism in his country while simultaneously building sympathy for Iran.
While infrastructure decayed? Iraqi people had better access to water and electricity under Saddam than they do now. Also he suppressed Islamic extremism. He was a secular leader who didin't want religious theocrats infringing on his power.

While infrastructure decayed? Iraqi people had better access to water and electricity under Saddam than they do now. Also he suppressed Islamic extremism. He was a secular leader who didin't want religious theocrats infringing on his power.

So that makes me wonder...

...who would be killing more people while in power in Iraq? Saddam, or Extremist Islamic Religious Theocrats™?

You are absolutely right Drunk Commie. I think part of the reason that Bush is attacking Iraq and Syria is that they both had a progressive socialist party in power. President Hussein was secular and inspired confidence in the Iraqi people. Plus, he DID routinely hold elections and won them over and over again.

George W. Bush is the bigger threat to peace. He should be regime changed. I hope our progressive Democratic party can do it before W bans elections. :(
Well, Syria really is a state sponsor of terrorism and one of the instigators of Hezbollah's attack on Israel.

Dude DCD what are you smokin' man?
I'm smoking rocks of pure, uncut, freebase truth.

Not only should the US have invaded Iraq its one of the best things the US has done in decades . Its given iraq a fresh democratic start and has brought to the front the war on terrorism that needs to be fought SOONER not later .
History will show the invasion of Iraqs a huge turning point for the good of the region .
What was wrong with fighting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, you know, where Al Qaeda is?

I don't know...an arms race between Iran and Iraq sounds like the last thing we would have needed about now.
Who said anything about an arms race? I would have pressured Saddam into all out war with Iran and helped him cause more severe damage to Iran by giving him more modern weapons and maybe, if necessary, launching a missile or airstrike or two into Iran on his behalf.

So that makes me wonder...

...who would be killing more people while in power in Iraq? Saddam, or Extremist Islamic Religious Theocrats™?
Saddam killed Iraqis and Iranians. Religious theocrats tend to send terrorists to kill Americans and Europeans. Guess who I prefer?

While infrastructure decayed? Iraqi people had better access to water and electricity under Saddam than they do now. Also he suppressed Islamic extremism. He was a secular leader who didin't want religious theocrats infringing on his power.

A quarter or so of the population with access to water and maybe half with electricity aren't really that much better; Iran's infrastructure steadily decayed from the 1980's onward because Saddam felt it better to fight a stalemate against Iran, invade Kuwait, and slap up a few dozen palaces rather than replace and repair the infrastructure.

He was a secular leader, but engaged in both religious repression and inciting tribalist sentiment.

Saddam killed Iraqis and Iranians. Religious theocrats tend to send terrorists to kill Americans and Europeans. Guess who I prefer?


there you go, a real moderate
darkies<whites


pure, uncut, freebase racism
you said you care more about the lives of your countrymen
do you have one foot in europe and another in the U.S.?

A quarter or so of the population with access to water and maybe half with electricity aren't really that much better; Iran's infrastructure steadily decayed from the 1980's onward because Saddam felt it better to fight a stalemate against Iran, invade Kuwait, and slap up a few dozen palaces rather than replace and repair the infrastructure.

He was a secular leader, but engaged in both religious repression and inciting tribalist sentiment.
Yes, he repressed radical religious fucknuts. He was good at that. That's why he was usefull. Oh, and it makes no sense that he'd incite tribalist sentiment when he wanted the nation unified under him, so I'll have to ask for evidence of that.

Are you sure, its all natural.

Yes, I'm sure weed is not good for you.

Whenever somebody claims that something has to be good for you because it's natural, I respond with one example--botulism toxin. It is produced naturally by the bacteria Clostridium botulinum, and a dose of 0.000000001 milligram per kilogram of body weight will kill you.

It's natural--it's definitely not good for you (unless you're trying to tighten and tone your facial muscles :rolleyes: )

Don't eat out of a dented room-temperature can of mushrooms.

From your own source:
A Downing Street spokesperson said: 'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human-rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq." -- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 - your other links are simply rehashes of the same article.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf

No graves HERE!!!

You will notice that it said, uncovered at THIS point. There are lots of cites yet unexumed.

Get back with me when you gain the capability to cite them completely and IN CONTEXT.
IF anyone has a problem with comprehension, it would be you. I did read the whole article BEFORE I posted the link. Blair got caught in a lie and had to make excuses for it, such as the disclaimer at the end:

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer newspaper that repeated claims by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "400 000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves" is untrue, and only about 5 000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair, in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a United States government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

In that publication -- Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAid, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from November 20 last year: "We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400 000 people in mass graves." A BOLD FACED LIE

On December 14 Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted on the Labour party website that: "The remains of 400 000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves." BOLD FACED LIE REPEATED

The admission that the figure has been hugely inflated follows a week in which Blair accepted responsibility for charges in the Butler report over the way in which Downing Street pushed intelligence reports "to the outer limits" in the case for the threat posed by Iraq. Ah, embellishment!!

Downing Street's admission comes amid growing questions over precisely how many perished under Saddam's three decades of terror, and the location of the bodies of the dead.

The Ba'athist regime was responsible for massive human-rights abuses and murder on a large scale -- not least in well-documented campaigns including the gassing of Halabja, the al-Anfal campaign against Kurdish villages and the brutal repression of the Shia uprising -- but serious questions are now emerging about the scale of Saddam's murders. People want to know the truth!!

It comes amid inflation from an estimate by Human Rights Watch in May 2003 of 290 000 "missing" to the latest claims by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, that one million are missing. Isn't inflation a monetary term? Allawi much discredited?

At the heart of the questions are the numbers so far identified in Iraq's graves. Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing -- according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain -- about 5 000 bodies. Less than 100 per site.

Forensic examination of grave sites has been hampered by lack of security in Iraq, amid widespread complaints by human-rights organisations that until recently the graves have not been secured and protected.

While some sites have contained hundreds of bodies -- including a series around the town of Hilla and another near the Saudi border -- others have contained no more than a dozen.

And while few have any doubts that Saddam's regime was responsible for serious crimes against humanity, the exact scale of those crimes has become increasingly politicised in both Washington and London as it has become clearer that the case against Iraq for retention of weapons of mass destruction has faded.

The USAid website, which quotes Blair's 400 000 assertion, states: "If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II." Ah, there is that magic word IF!!!

It is an issue that Human Rights Watch was acutely aware of when it compiled its own pre-invasion research -- admitting that it had to reduce estimates for the al-Anfal campaign produced by Kurds by more than a third, as it believed the numbers it had been given were inflated. There is that word inflated again.

Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: "Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years." Oh great, an estimate based on an estimate based on circumstatial info!! How accurate!!

A further difficulty, according to Inforce, a group of British forensic experts in mass grave sites based at Bournemouth University who visited Iraq last year, was in the constant overestimation of site sizes by Iraqis they met. Ah, over estimation. These guys suck at math?

"Witnesses were often likely to have unrealistic ideas of the numbers of people in grave areas that they knew about," said Jonathan Forrest. Nice word that ..."unrealistic".

"Local people would tell us of 10 000s of people buried at single grave sites and when we would get there they would be in multiple hundreds." Hmm, that is about a 100 to 1 ratio. Precise science here!!

Now here is your security blanket that you want to hold on to. Hmmmm missing WMD, missing links to Al-Queda and now we have missing bodies!! I know, Saddam had them flown to Syria. :rolleyes:

A Downing Street spokesperson said: 'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human-rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq." -- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
BTW, that article was from July 2004. How many mass graves have been exhumed since? Did they find the other 395,000 bodies that you claim to have been buried? Well? Have they?

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It's not a popular position to hold, but I value the lives of my countrymen more than the lives of foreigners. Particularly foreigners with very different cultures.

exactly, because foreigners arent human....

there you go, a real moderate
darkies<whites


pure, uncut, freebase racism
you said you care more about the lives of your countrymen
do you have one foot in europe and another in the U.S.?
I said I care more about my countrymen foreigners ESPECIALLY IF THEY COME FROM A VERY DIFFERENT CULTURE. Europeans, though somewhat culturally different from Americans, are much more similar than Saudi Arabians or Iraqis or Iranians.

You can take your accusations of racism and shove them. I make no distinction between the value of a black American or a white one. Only between an American and a person of an inferior culture, like a Saudi. I discriminate based not on race, but culutre.

I don't miss Saddam. He never wrote, he hardly ever called, and he forgot my birthday. What a bastard.

I firmly believe that the war was because bush wanted control of that region. if he wanted to make it better he would be using diplomacy, not war.

IF anyone has a problem with comprehension, it would be you. I did read the whole article BEFORE I posted the link. Blair got caught in a lie and had to make excuses for it, such as the disclaimer at the end:


BTW, that article was from July 2004. How many mass graves have been exhumed since? Did they find the other 395,000 bodies that you claim to have been buried? Well? Have they?

Yep. And they are STILL cataloguing them.


(you missed this part also)- Again from your own article.

Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies.


Oh, and these were not included in that 270 number as they are all RECENT finds (they were found AFTER your article.) I think if you care to look, they each describe a DIFFERENT grave site. :

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/world/middleeast/05grave.html?ex=1307160000&en=f61682fbc3536b01&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1912229,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4501737.stm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/04/18/2003250977

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/06/29/buried_but_not_nameless_in_iraqs_desert/

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-graves5jun05,1,3838288.story?coll=la-headlines-world

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2168968

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/10/14/2003206772

Yep. And they are STILL cataloguing them.
And the grand total so far is? Nowhere near your claim of 400,000?

(you missed this part also)- Again from your own article.
Your debating skills are atrocious. Not only did I NOT miss that, I am the one who bolded it. The relevant part, despite your spin, is that only 5,000 bodies had been found to date. Now, I am no math genius but I do believe that 5,000 does not equal 400,000.

Oh, and these were not included in that 270 number as they are all RECENT finds (they were found AFTER your article.) I think if you care to look, they each describe a DIFFERENT grave site. :

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/world/middleeast/05grave.html?ex=1307160000&en=f61682fbc3536b01&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1912229,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4501737.stm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/04/18/2003250977

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/06/29/buried_but_not_nameless_in_iraqs_desert/

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-graves5jun05,1,3838288.story?coll=la-headlines-world

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2168968

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/10/14/2003206772
Glad to see you are doing some research. And your grand total so far is?
I know, nowhere near the 400,000 that you claimed initially.

Saddam ate all the rest of the bodies at a buffet with his sons , after they gang raped the" chosen " for the evening .

It figures the canuk would be a Saddam apologist .

Saddam ate all the rest of the bodies at a buffet with his sons , after they gang raped the" chosen " for the evening .

It figures the canuk would be a Saddam apologist .
Why would you suggest that I am a Saddam "apologist"?

Why would you suggest that I am a Saddam "apologist"?


He didnt kill the right quota for you . Or at least the right amount of bodies have not shown up yet to meet your " Butcher of Bahgdad " quota .


Why quibble over a few thousand rapes and murders ?

*puts hand up and waves*

Yeah, popcorn over here! Don't bother popping it, the flames will do that for themselves.

I really miss his moustache...

How is it not hating America when you always root against America? When you go OUT OF YOUR WAY to FIND things to condemn America, when you MAKE THINGS UP that reflect poorly on the United States????

White supremacists should try claiming that burning crosses is more supportive of civil rights than not burning them.:rolleyes:

You pretty much DEFINE Anti-Americanism.
Like I told you before, I don't hate America. You do though:

When will you get it through your head? I DO NOT hate America. If anything, you hate America, at least half of it. Just read your posts back. You hate millions of Americans. You believe that the right has the moral high ground and that everyone else is a traitor. Your blind support of the war on Iraq hurts your country and you can't see that. You don't seem to mind your troops dying in Iraq. I do care. Not one American needed to die in Iraq defending a lie. Believe me, you don't occupy the moral high ground.

Do you really think that America hasn't done some really bad ass shit? If you don't think that is the case then you know nothing about history. The invasion of Iraq was one of those bad ass things, and I don't need to go out of my way to find things that America has done wrong. Everything is recorded in the annals of history. It is fairly difficult to claim the moral high ground when you wallow in the same shit as your supposed lesser opponent.

Iraq was no "imminent threat" to the US and should not have been invaded under false pretenses. Twice the US has invaded Iraq and killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. You would trivialize that while suggesting that Saddam is a thug. You seem to ignore the complicity of your country when you supported Saddam in the Iran/Iraq War. You seem to ignore that your country supplied armaments to Iran when it appeared that Iraq might win the war against Iran. I could go on and on, but you would ignore any truths that would make your country look less than stellar.

I have no need to "make things up", when the truth is there in black and white. If events reflect poorly on the US, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is happening?

I would like America to be the best country it can be and she can't do that when she is wallowing in the shit.

If you want to promote freedom, democracy, and justice, then practice what you preach.

Calling me anti-American because I don't fit into your quaint little worldview is just plain foolishness.

He didnt kill the right quota for you . Or at least the right amount of bodies have not shown up yet to meet your " Butcher of Bahgdad " quota .
I don't see how searching for the truth makes anyone an "apologist".

Why quibble over a few thousand rapes and murders ?
It appears to be high on USalpen's agenda, perhaps you should ask him?

I really miss his moustache...

Yeah, Saddam's major example of fall from grace was not his being dethroned and imprisoned, but his growing a beard and totally ruining his Dictator Mustache.

Seriously. Imagine Stalin with a big old-man beard. It makes you feel kinda sad for 'em!

Capitalism is a concept, nothing to do with this or that culture.

Really? What is culture, then, since regional economics has nothing to do with culture, according to you.

Define culture, in your own words.

We have eliminated the killing of nearly 60,000 Iraqi's per year. When we finish (if you allow us to) we will have eliminated the deaths of well over 70,000 per year. All the while, we liberated 53 million people from tyranny and wiped out two safe havens for the world's terrorists.

Damn good reason to throw a party - unless you support dictators and terrorists.

Iraq has a much lower pop. than that...

Well, the US knows a little bit about supporting dictators.....Hussein, Suharto, Pol Pot, and Pinochet quickly come to mind. However, in regards to your numbers, it would appear that Iraqiya's posts kinda put a dent in them and that they appear, according to him, far lower than you claim.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11366928&postcount=169

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11367065&postcount=192

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11368370&postcount=210

BTW, that picture you displayed, what is that supposed to represent?

Pol Pot's kind of iffy, because we never supported him while he was in power, and we only supported him because we supported all factions that were fighting against the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. But still, you're right, we did support him, as well as many other unsavory characters, like the ones you mentioned, in addition to many more.

Saddam used WMD's to kill thousands of innocent townspeople. STFU. There was no justification. ESPECIALLY when you claim Saddam "treated the kurds well" ! If that is treating them well, than the WORST that individual soldiers are accused of, must be rolling out the red carpet! - right???

Did you actually read my post? Did you notice that it was IRAN who dropped the WMDs?

Also, when I said he treated them well, I compared it to the way Kurds behave in Iraq, as well as how they are treated in neighbouring nations with Kurdish populations. All they do is cause trouble, even Kurds in nations such as Germany protest asking for special treatment.

I don't miss Saddam. He never wrote, he hardly ever called, and he forgot my birthday. What a bastard.

ROFLMAO

*adds to sig*

Iraq has a much lower pop. than that...

When USAlpenstock said that we have liberated 53 million from tyranny, I believe he was referring to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

When USAlpenstock said that we have liberated 53 million from tyranny, I believe he was referring to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Aye, probably. *slaps forehead*

Did you actually read my post? Did you notice that it was IRAN who dropped the WMDs?

Also, when I said he treated them well, I compared it to the way Kurds behave in Iraq, as well as how they are treated in neighbouring nations with Kurdish populations. All they do is cause trouble, even Kurds in nations such as Germany protest asking for special treatment.
Boy, that sure does justify genocide don't it.

Down with the bad Kurds!!

:rolleyes:

exactly, because foreigners arent human....

First you are putting words in his mouth, he never stated that he hated foreigners. By which it can be assumed that he is NOT xenophobic, and doesn't support xenocide. However, he thinks that Saddam in power was better:

1). Because he tied up the Iranians and gave them something close to home to worry about, something that modern day Iraq (provided it holds together) cannot do, and will not be able to to for some time.

2). Because Saddam did not support the people who were wiling to blow themselves up just for the oppertunity to kill a few "infidels." And because he kept the people he knows and cares for from dying. I dont think he loved Saddam as a man, but logically prefered him killing people with whom he had no contact than those he interacts with every day.

Assuming that what I just stated was correct then we can assume, therefor, that he is not a "racist" person, he is just someone who looks at a situation logically; and examines it with his mind rather than his heart.

First you are putting words in his mouth, he never stated that he hated foreigners. By which it can be assumed that he is NOT xenophobic, and doesn't support xenocide. However, he thinks that Saddam in power was better:

1). Because he tied up the Iranians and gave them something close to home to worry about, something that modern day Iraq (provided it holds together) cannot do, and will not be able to to for some time.

2). Because Saddam did not support the people who were wiling to blow themselves up just for the oppertunity to kill a few "infidels." And because he kept the people he knows and cares for from dying. I dont think he loved Saddam as a man, but logically prefered him killing people with whom he had no contact than those he interacts with every day.

Assuming that what I just stated was correct then we can assume, therefor, that he is not a "racist" person, he is just someone who looks at a situation logically; and examines it with his mind rather than his heart.


I miss Bahgdad Bob he was a corker.


Saddan had ties with Al -queda...he kept his hands wet , he explored all possibilities...BTW..his own captured papers he left laying around Iraq while everyone ran away ? They are being translated ...the tons of them and are painting a not so pretty picture of old saddams dealings with terrorist of all types. " The enemy of my enemy is my friend " seems to come into play throughout Arab history...look it up..:D

Saddan had ties with Al -queda...he kept his hands wet , he explored all possibilities...BTW..his own captured papers he left laying around Iraq while everyone ran away ?

Really, so he had contact with people who tried to assasinate him, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ask you to cite that (though in your defense it is possible:) ).

Why quibble over a few thousand rapes and murders ?

Because 5000 dead and raped under Saddam pales in comparison to the number being killed and raped in post US constructionism in Iraq.

Was he a bastard? Pretty much? Was he worse for Iraq than the US was?

Before sanctions? Nope. Iraqis had a much better standard of living under Saddam then, comparable to first world countries. Didn't make him any less of a bastard for what he did, but the average Iraqi lived better under him then as compared to living under US occupation.

At least if you were being killed by a goon squad, you'd know where to expect it to come from. Now, well, now it could be suicide bombers, car bombs, execution squads of one faction or another, American soldiers out to have 'fun' or just plain trigger happy.

The ONLY reason I'd ever miss Saddam Hussein is that he made himself the focus of the world's enmity like very few figures in history have truly been able to accomplish. Subtlety was not one of his strong suits. He was cold, arrogant and ruthless. Particularly to his own people. So it was kinda nice, in a twisted sort of way, to have him around to serve as the world's lightning rod. Whenever the subject of what was wrong with the world came up, there was always Saddam there to serve as the benchmark and shining example for evil run amok.

"Whattaya lookin' at? You're all a bunch of f*cking assholes. You know why? 'Cause you don't have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your f*cking fingers, and say "that's the bad guy." So, what dat make you? Good? You're not good; you just know how to hide. Howda lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth--even when I lie. So say goodnight to the bad guy. Come on; the last time you gonna see a bad guy like this, let me tell ya. Come on, make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through; you better get outta his way!"

Yeah, that was from Scarface. But it seems..... oddly appropriate, doesn't it?

I said I care more about my countrymen foreigners ESPECIALLY IF THEY COME FROM A VERY DIFFERENT CULTURE. Europeans, though somewhat culturally different from Americans, are much more similar than Saudi Arabians or Iraqis or Iranians.

You can take your accusations of racism and shove them. I make no distinction between the value of a black American or a white one. Only between an American and a person of an inferior culture, like a Saudi. I discriminate based not on race, but culutre.

Whoever said the west has the best culture? Of course a westerner would say he has the best culture, it is the one he has grown up with, and has learnt to understand best. However, when you look at the 50% divorce rate, or the huge number of gun crimes in the US, or the gigantic amount of pornography mass produced, you really need to understand, western culture is not supreme.



Boy, that sure does justify genocide don't it.

Down with the bad Kurds!!

:rolleyes:

This is the third time I've said this, Iran gassed the Kurds, not Iraq. This was backed up by a DIA (Defence intelligence agency) investigation, which found that the chemicals used were Iranian, and also by US diplomats commenting on the situation. Only when the US was trying to paint a portrait of Saddam as a "bad guy" before the first gulf war did they switch the blame to Iraq.

When commenting on the Kurds behaviour, I was showing that Iraq did in fact treat the Kurds very well, even though the more they were given, the worse they behaved. I was showing that there is a false, rosy view of Kurds given through the media, and how they have been an "oppressed minority" under Saddam, which, as I proved, is not true.

Whoever said the west has the best culture? Of course a westerner would say he has the best culture, it is the one he has grown up with, and has learnt to understand best. However, when you look at the 50% divorce rate, or the huge number of gun crimes in the US, or the gigantic amount of pornography mass produced, you really need to understand, western culture is not supreme.
This is exactly the argument that I used when I first got involved in the Iraq debate back in Feb. 2004. Why would the west presume that the people of Iraq want the "democratic" lifestyle of those in the west, especially for some of the reasons that you have mentioned.

Because 5000 dead and raped under Saddam pales in comparison to the number being killed and raped in post US constructionism in Iraq.

Was he a bastard? Pretty much? Was he worse for Iraq than the US was?

Before sanctions? Nope. Iraqis had a much better standard of living under Saddam then, comparable to first world countries. Didn't make him any less of a bastard for what he did, but the average Iraqi lived better under him then as compared to living under US occupation.

At least if you were being killed by a goon squad, you'd know where to expect it to come from. Now, well, now it could be suicide bombers, car bombs, execution squads of one faction or another, American soldiers out to have 'fun' or just plain trigger happy.

Over twelve million Iraqis do not agree and have voted a democratic government into power. They seem to think they are much better off.

The Sunni's who had power and the radical Islamist who do not want a democracy do not seem to be happy...they are voting with caar bombs and suicide squads...in the short term they are causing a bit of pain ...but nothing like the pain Saddam caused..How many Iraqi's do you think died as a result of his invasion of iran and of Kuwaiit ???

How many shiite and Kurds died in his prisons or when he bombed their towns or masacred the villiages ?

Please stop being a joke of an apoligist for a monster..its very unbecomming .

Now you are counting bodies to weigh the worth of being free ..you are pathetic .

I don't see how searching for the truth makes anyone an "apologist".


If you were really interested in the truth, you would have a point. But you are more interested in Blaming America and our President for every bad thing in the history of the world.

It appears to be high on USalpen's agenda, perhaps you should ask him?

You are trying to deny that Hussein was a mass murderer. That is plain, flat out a false. It disgusts me that any human being would go to the lengths you have to defend such evil. Who's next on your list of dispicable people to defend?? Hitler??? Stalin?? Pol Pot??? Chavez??? Castro??


You really need to examine which side you support. 'Cause I got a clue for you, they are the worst murders the world has ever seen. Your hateful attempts to accuse America and Bush of similar acts simply point out how effective the terrorists have been at polluting the minds of people around the world. It is OK to bomb innocents on purpose - when the people trying to stop such cowardly acts make a mistake, you jump all over them and try to draw some moral parallel. That makes you no better than those who give the suicide bombers their marching orders.

Those that I support are risking their own lives to prevent that.

By the way CH - your Omnipotent source that "disproves" the 400,000 deaths by quoting Blair, was LYING to you. I was about to post a compilation of separate incidences that were documented before that was published that add up to well over the 5000 your "impecable source" claimed, when my power went out last night. I will have to re-compile it, but rest assured, it is coming.

Seems they had an agenda to push and you fell for it.

It appears to be high on USalpen's agenda, perhaps you should ask him?


You are the one using that to argue that Saddam was not a butcher. You also ignore the fact that there are so many people burried in mass graves that they are STILL to this very day, finding more gravesites, and still counting those at sites they found earlier.

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the words "so far" and cannot comprehend that 52 partially explored sites (of the then known 272) is a LONG way from fully exhausting the search.

Why are you so interested in trumpeting the benovolence of Saddam anyway??

Makes a guy wonder.

You are the one using that to argue that Saddam was not a butcher. You also ignore the fact that there are so many people burried in mass graves that they are STILL to this very day, finding more gravesites, and still counting those at sites they found earlier.

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the words "so far" and cannot comprehend that 52 sites partially explored is a LONG way from fully exhausting the search.

Why are you so interested in trumpeting the benovolence of Saddam anyway??

Makes a guy wonder.


Wonder the fuck away. While you're at it, explain why theres no more funding for the WMD search, the ISG report is accepted as final by the US, and the Brits and Aussies concur.

Wonder the fuck away. While you're at it, explain why theres no more funding for the WMD search, the ISG report is accepted as final by the US, and the Brits and Aussies concur..

Yep and they found many of the WMD's - not that the press would let you know - and CERTAINLY not that you would ever admit - even though the VERY SAME report that you all trumpet as saying "no WMD's" actually listed dozens of WMD finds - some active and viable and some degraded yet still deadly.

.

Yep and they found many of the WMD's - not that the press would let you know - .

Why not?

.
and CERTAINLY not that you would ever admit - even though the VERY SAME report that you all trumpet as saying "no WMD's" actually listed dozens of WMD finds - some active and viable and some degraded yet still deadly.

Deadly perhaps in the "Tommy - don't play in the barrell" deadly way, but not in the cackling madman with missile on the launcher way. There was nothing there except (according to them) "intent", in which case we're all guilty.

Why not?


Because they hate the President as much as you do.


Deadly perhaps in the "Tommy - don't play in the barrell" deadly way, but not in the cackling madman with missile on the launcher way. There was nothing there except (according to them) "intent", in which case we're all guilty.

You simply do not know what the hell you are talking about. Read up a bit on Binary sarin. You will find that it does not degrade until it it's two components are combined. We found uncombined Binary Sarin - enough to make the 9-11 World Trade Center attacks look like a Sunday picnic.

Because they hate the President as much as you do.


Thats a possibility, however there are billions of people on the Planet, served by a range of news reportage in a number of formats, and some 295 million of them live in the US. In a country that is the most media saturated in the world, watched by the combined media of the rest of the world, somehow I think it would have got out.


You simply do not know what the hell you are talking about. Read up a bit on Binary sarin. You will find that it does not degrade until it it's two components are combined. We found uncombined Binary Sarin - enough to make the 9-11 World Trade Center attacks look like a Sunday picnic.

Not that I don't believe you, but why then was the search deemed a failure and the conclusion reached that all that was really there was "intent"? Why then did Blair and Bush take the "world is a better place without Saddam" line?

he was a vicious repressive bastard, but at least there was order of sorts, and no extremist nutcases allowed to do as they please...

Not that I don't believe you, but why then was the search deemed a failure and the conclusion reached that all that was really there was "intent"? Why then did Blair and Bush take the "world is a better place without Saddam" line?

I do not WANT you to take my word for it. Look for yourself.

It was only reported as a failure - just like they report our economy as being a failure, which is a REAL load of bunk (I am an economist). Look at the Iraqi Survey Group report. It did say that there were no "Stockpiles" of WMD's. But that is the only thing that got reported widely. This is the one that the press seized upon as "proving" there were no WMD's.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer3_bc.pdf

There are literally hundreds of violations documented here and if you look to annex "F" it lists 53 instances of Chemical weapons - including binary Sarin. There have been other WMD finds since this report, but again, it does not get any significant coverage, and gets pooh pooh'd as being made before 1991 - which is irrelevant because that is exactly the stuff we claimed he had and refused to destroy. The whole report is riddled with violations and evidence of programs.

Thats a possibility, however there are billions of people on the Planet, served by a range of news reportage in a number of formats, and some 295 million of them live in the US. In a country that is the most media saturated in the world, watched by the combined media of the rest of the world, somehow I think it would have got out.



It did get out. But only Fox news covered it in any detail. Still it got mention in other press outlets - except they made sure it was buried in the back.

The left likes to deride Fox, but it seems they actually give BOTH sides of the issues. I think that is what they don't like about them. They USED to have a monopoly.

The left likes to deride Fox
No. Smart people deride Fox.

No. Smart people deride Fox.

Sorry, but only the left who want to hide anything that exposes the frauds they are, deride Fox.

Why do you fear it when BOTH sides of a story get told??? That is their only crime.

You are the one using that to argue that Saddam was not a butcher. You also ignore the fact that there are so many people burried in mass graves that they are STILL to this very day, finding more gravesites, and still counting those at sites they found earlier.

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the words "so far" and cannot comprehend that 52 partially explored sites (of the then known 272) is a LONG way from fully exhausting the search.

Why are you so interested in trumpeting the benovolence of Saddam anyway??

Makes a guy wonder.
You can carry on all you want, trying to rationalize and justify the US invasion of Iraq, by changing and/or inventing new excuses, but the facts remain:

Iraq War = one BIG lie

WMD = Words of Massive Deception

Saddam =/= "threat" to the US

dead innocent people = dead innocent people

Whenever the war against Iraq is over, will the number of dead innocent people, as the result of the invasion of Iraq, be greater than the number of dead innocent people under Saddam's rule?

And of course, this supposed war on terror (Iraqi style) is being won?

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html)

And of course, it doesn't matter that Iraq was once more secular and western leaning under Saddam, as long as the people of Iraq could "democratically" elect politicians that would eventually draft a constitution favouring Islamic laws. How ironic.

And of course, the Iraqis just love you occupying their country

And of course it doesn't matter as long as the end justifies the means?

And of course, you will try to paint me as a Saddam sympathizer, even though nothing could be further from the truth, because that is what Bush apologists do.

And of course, you will try to paint me as anti-American, even though it is you not I, who finds it acceptable for Americans to be dying in Iraq.

15 of 19 terrorists who flew planes into your buildings came from Saudi Arabia, yet you went looking for terrorists in Iraq. Go figure.

BTW, NONE ot them were Iraqis (http://www.zmag.org/pdf/none_brochure.pdf)!!

Ummmm, where is Osama?

Why do you fear it when BOTH sides of a story get told??? That is their only crime.

However, they are not fair and balanced, they are biased in the extreme to the Republican side.

However, in the long run, this does in fact make both sides of the story. Watch CNN and Fox, and you should get both sides, with a touch of MSNBC if Wolf Blitzer gets on your nerves.

CanuckHeaven, I agree with you.... *bunkers down and waits for the universe to explode*

Well, for the most part.

The innocent civilians dying: Well, it's the nasty truth, people die in war. Collateral damage is unavoidable. In the long run, theoretically anyways, less will die as the reign of terror will stop.

Oops! The shi-ites got power. *looks to Iran* Look! They're Shi-ite!

*reads Executive Orders*



Oh, and Canuck, I personally, am Machiavellian. As long as the ending is moral and good, the means of getting there are irrelevant. However, I can't say the end is going to look quite moral and good...

Over twelve million Iraqis do not agree and have voted a democratic government into power. They seem to think they are much better off.

Rubbish. Voting does not equate thinking they have a better government. It just means that they prefer a local government as opposed to a foreign administration whether direct or by remote control.

Would those twelve million Iraqis think life was better under Saddam before the sanctions hit? Maybe, nobody seems to have bothered to ask, because they all want to use the elections to say "See? The Iraqis are happy with this."

Bollocks. Trying to link the two is about as logical as trying to link a bullet wound with an artillery shell.


The Sunni's who had power and the radical Islamist who do not want a democracy do not seem to be happy...they are voting with caar bombs and suicide squads...in the short term they are causing a bit of pain ...but nothing like the pain Saddam caused..How many Iraqi's do you think died as a result of his invasion of iran and of Kuwaiit ???

How many died in the invasion and post invasion? How many went in the mass graves?

If there are not 400,000 corpses as the neo-cons crow about but a significantly smaller amount, the number of Iraqi dead directly and indirectly (including insurgent bombings) caused by the invasion becomes a great deal more signifcant.

It means that the amount of people dying caused by the US becomes closer to that caused by Saddam and his goons.

But because it's a demockracy, it's all better is it?

When American democracy results in comparable death tolls, talk to me about that then and not until.


How many shiite and Kurds died in his prisons or when he bombed their towns or masacred the villiages ?

Who knows? Do you have actual numbers that aren't propoganda pieces or just plain hand waving raving?


Please stop being a joke of an apoligist for a monster..its very unbecomming .

What's unbecoming is that you're attempting to make my argument that both parties have dirty hands invalid with a laughable attempt of an apologist accusation. It's a sign of the mentally deficient when they're unable to properly argue a point.

Nowhere did I make an excuse for Saddam at any one point, but noooo, you couldn't argue my points, so you had to use this tired old variation of "he's with the enemy!' mentality.

It's retarded. Maybe you should put "In" in front of the second part of your name.


Now you are counting bodies to weigh the worth of being free ..you are pathetic .

Being free how? Did the Iraqi's fight for this freedom? Or was it delivered to them via 500 kilo bombs?

Did the American people ask for others to do their fighting for them when they wanted independance? Allies yes, but they fought for their freedom. Did Ghandi sit on his ass because he wanted independance? Well, maybe, but that was part of his strategy.

Freedom is not given to other people, it is fought for by those who want it. The person who attempts to give it to others is nothing more than a two faced snake who wants something out of it.

You seem to think that freedom is this kind of magic bullshit feelgood that automatically makes anything worthwhile, even when delivered via a bullet to the head. But that's ok, because they're free right?

If you think America went in there for freedom's sake, or to remove a dictator, you're hopelessly naive.

Power projection, strategic dominance, resource control. Now those are the more plausible reasons why America went to war. In fact, it is the ONLY reason why any country ever went to war. Name me an incident that didn't at least have one of the three.

Go on. Make my day.

Osama??? If the liberal media would quit tipping him off, we might have gotten him by now. The New York Times seems bound and determined to expose every secret method we have of finding him. They have exposed no less than 5 methods we were using to track him and his network. They are the spy agency for Al-Qaeda.


You lie about no WMD and refuse to look at the proof. The Very same report that the left and the press used to "prove" there were no WMD's actually lists 53 separate instances of WMD's and literally hundreds of violations on weapons and weapons programs.

You lie about the Iraqi connections to terrorists. the 9-11 report makes reference to the Al-Qaeda connections, but because they did not have conclusive evidence of collaberation on 911 - you and the rest of the left think that says there was no relationship. (even though Osama was offered safe harbor in Iraq.)

You discount any evidence of Saddam planning to share his WMD's with terrorist organizations. I backed this up with transcripts of the tapes and mainstream press citations.

You deny that Charles Duelfer and David Kay said that there was sufficiently credible evidence that Weapons of Mass Destruction were moved to Syria. Despite me showing you the quotes in 3 different places.

You have YET to document any proof that we gave Saddam WMD's.

You make excuses for Saddams Brutality and BLAME the United States for it.

You deny that Saddam killed between 1 million and 1.5 million people despite what Amnesty International, and Human Rights watch say.

You take one left wing newspaper story that is inaccurate and claim that proves that Saddam did not kill his own citizens and bury them in mass graves. Despite the fact that even your own source said that only 52 sites had even started to be exhumed. (there are more than 300 now) They are STILL counting in those original sites and we are finding more sites regularly.

You quote another poster on this site as your ultimate source even though he directly contradicted BOTH Amnesty International AND Human rights watch (and the United Nations by the way).

You made the preposterous claim that Iran was responsible for Halabja and used your impecable internet buddy as proof - despite EVERY respectable and even most left wing organizations saying otherwise.

You slander, lie and condemn President Bush because he rushed to War (after 12 years of violations of the cease-fire agreement) with Iraq.

Yet you also condemn him for NOT going to war with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Apparently you think we should go to war when diplomacy is working - or has a chance of working, and we should NOT go to war when 12 years and 3 presidents efforts failed to have any effect, and signs were seen that they were actually going backward.

You apparently don't think enough of the Iraqi people to believe they can live peacefully because, as you said, they are "sand niggers". I tend to believe that people are pretty much the same everywhere and ALL deserve a chance to be free.

You are right. You know - how could I have been so blind. :rolleyes:

We can always neuter him and have him take Paul Schaeffer's spot on Letterman.

However, they are not fair and balanced, they are biased in the extreme to the Republican side.

They are slightly biased in their OPINION programs - the straight news is pretty damn balanced.

I will agree that in comparison to to MSNBC and CNN and the network stations, the BBC, and the CBC they do appear right wing, but I contend that is only because the others are so far left. I do watch every one of those networks to be sure I don't miss much (part of my job) and it only reinforces my beliefs on the matter. I can watch Fox news and get Wesley Clark parroting every left wing lie in the book, and still get the right wing view accurately represented. I can get the left wing portion on the other networks, but curiously the right wing view is either not even covered or covered in such a way that even I would not support the positions they supposedly give fair coverage to.

However, in the long run, this does in fact make both sides of the story. Watch CNN and Fox, and you should get both sides, with a touch of MSNBC if Wolf Blitzer gets on your nerves.



I agree totally, but if you neglect Fox, you will NEVER get the other side of the story. If you neglect all BUT Fox, you will get comparable coverage on both sides in the news features and both sides (but weighted to the conservative side) on the opinion programs.

They are slightly biased in their OPINION programs - the straight news is pretty damn balanced.

Not as much as you might think.

I will agree that in comparison to to MSNBC and CNN and the network stations, the BBC, and the CBC they do appear right wing, but I contend that is only because the others are so far left. I do watch every one of those networks to be sure I don't miss much (part of my job) and it only reinforces my beliefs on the matter. I can watch Fox news and get Wesley Clark parroting every left wing lie in the book, and still get the right wing view accurately represented. I can get the left wing portion on the other networks, but curiously the right wing view is either not even covered or covered in such a way that even I would not support the positions they supposedly give fair coverage to.

The BBC, surprisingly, isn't that bad. That's what I use.

I agree totally, but if you neglect Fox, you will NEVER get the other side of the story. If you neglect all BUT Fox, you will get comparable coverage on both sides in the news features and both sides (but weighted to the conservative side) on the opinion programs.

If you neglect all but Fox you're actually not in much of a better position than if you neglect all but say, CNN. You're just on the other side of the fence.

Not as much as you might think.



The BBC, surprisingly, isn't that bad. That's what I use.



If you neglect all but Fox you're actually not in much of a better position than if you neglect all but say, CNN. You're just on the other side of the fence.


I won't argue that people should watch more than one source. But I would disagree on your evaluation of Fox. I could give you every single point that you get from ANY left wing site, and I have also seen that position argued on Fox. Sadly I cannot make that same argument in Favor of ANY other network when it comes to the conservative side.

Again, either way, you absolutely do need both sides of an issue. That is very important.

I won't argue that people should watch more than one source. But I would disagree on your evaluation of Fox. I could give you every single point that you get from ANY left wing site, and I have also seen that position argued on Fox. Sadly I cannot make that same argument in Favor of ANY other network when it comes to the conservative side.

I agree, but Fox has a tendency to just touch on it. CNN, however, pretty much only gives that opinion, so I don't watch it. Usually I watch FOX or MSNBC. Or look at BBC website, which I like a lot. (I don't get the BBC on my tele, damn cable :( )

Again, either way, you absolutely do need all sides of an issue. That is very important.

edited for better accuracy.

Osama??? If the liberal media would quit tipping him off, we might have gotten him by now. The New York Times seems bound and determined to expose every secret method we have of finding him. They have exposed no less than 5 methods we were using to track him and his network. They are the spy agency for Al-Qaeda.

And by repeating this on a public forum, you are telling more Al-Qaeda agents about US intelligence methods you terrorist mole. If you're a patriot, you'd get some duct tape and put it across your mouth.

Get im!

You apparently don't think enough of the Iraqi people to believe they can live peacefully because, as you said, they are "sand niggers".
You exaggerate my friend. I did not say anything derogatory about the Iraqi people and certainly did not call them "sand niggers".

I think that the Iraqis were living a lot more peacefully until the US gave them the "Shock and Awe Show". You sure did kick some terrorists butts that night. The images of those bombs blowing up Baghdad was no different than those planes flying into the WTC. Both events were violently obscene.

800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html)

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."
And 2, 3, going on 4 years later and the battle still rages on. Hmmm.

I tend to believe that people are pretty much the same everywhere and ALL deserve a chance to be free.
I would believe you but your hatred even towards your fellow citizens betrays your true feelings.

I can just picture you in a room full of Iraqis and explaining to them how you are going to give them "freedom", and explaining further that a few of their loved ones would have to die, but in the end, it would be all good because they would be "free". I can see them all giving you a standing ovation. :rolleyes:

You are right. You know - how could I have been so blind. :rolleyes:
Calling me a liar won't help you get over your denial.

Yet you also condemn him for NOT going to war with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
I never said anything like that at all. Don't put words in my mouth and quit making things up.

CanuckHeaven, I agree with you.... *bunkers down and waits for the universe to explode*

I second that... *runs to join Derscon in his bunker, and discusses Machiavelli with him*

I second that... *runs to join Derscon in his bunker, and discusses Machiavelli with him*
Brings popcorn to the bunker to share. Donates a couple of Archie Bunker tapes for a few laughs. :D

Well I find the title of this thread interesting. Think about it. If many people on the left had their way Saddam would still be in power and still be a murderous tyrant instead of being tried for war crimes by his own people's new democratic government. So, using their logic and priorities, we might as well just cut, run, and put Hussein back. If Ted Kennedy or his ilk sponsered such a plan I would not be completely shocked at all! Good grief.

Well I find the title of this thread interesting. Think about it. If many people on the left had their way Saddam would still be in power and still be a murderous tyrant instead of being tried for war crimes by his own people's new democratic government. So, using their logic and priorities, we might as well just cut, run, and put Hussein back. If Ted Kennedy or his ilk sponsered such a plan I would not be completely shocked at all! Good grief.
Well, well, well. My good friend USalpenstock retires for the night and his good friend BarryGoldwater shows up. Now all we need is Sal Fontinallis to show up and the party is on!! :p

Well, well, well. My good friend USalpenstock retires for the night and his good friend BarryGoldwater shows up. Now all we need is Sal Fontinallis to show up and the party is on!! :p

I missed you too.:p

Yay popcorn!

And Canuck, I prefer Monty Python. :D

*notes that the bunker is actually an underground manifestation of my imagination, warning all to tread carefully*

It is true though, that if the left had their way Saddam would still be the tyrant of Iraq instead of on trial by his own people's democratic government. So I could see how it would be logical to want to put him back in power.

Yay popcorn!

And Canuck, I prefer Monty Python. :D

*notes that the bunker is actually an underground manifestation of my imagination, warning all to tread carefully*

Thats alright, I trust you to be sane of mind. And if you aren't... well, then we will get along even better:D .

It is true though, that if the left had their way Saddam would still be the tyrant of Iraq instead of on trial by his own people's democratic government. So I could see how it would be logical to want to put him back in power.
So it was just about "regime change"?

THE ORIGINAL DOWNING STREET "MEMO" (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html)

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
Not an option.

Thats alright, I trust you to be sane of mind. And if you aren't... well, then we will get along even better:D .

lawl!

Ask Canuck if I'm sane. Or TIoR, for that matter. Or Czardas. Or Northrop-Grumman, Or Cherry Ridge, or the walloping hamster with a large sword running at you ready to disembowl you with a feather...

lawl!

Ask Canuck if I'm sane. Or TIoR, for that matter. Or Czardas. Or Northrop-Grumman, Or Cherry Ridge, or the walloping hamster with a large sword running at you ready to disembowl you with a feather...

Yay, feather disembalment.... Wait, oh S**t.

Yay, feather disembalment.... Wait, oh S**t.

First it tickles you into a frenzy as you're held down by large things looking strangly like Bahamut from FFX, and then the feathers dig into your abdomen and rip out your intestines, and hang you with them.

But you won't die, you'll just hang there.

First it tickles you into a frenzy as you're held down by large things looking strangly like Bahamut from FFX, and then the feathers dig into your abdomen and rip out your intestines, and hang you with them.

But you won't die, you'll just hang there.

And to think I liked you, :( . You're so mean. *runs to a little corner in the "bunker" where no one can see him and cries*

Note: Then he continues running

And to think I liked you, :( . You're so mean. *runs to a little corner in the "bunker" where no one can see him and cries*

Note: Then he continues running

*bunker warps into a bubble, trapping him with the tickling/debowling hamsters for all of eternity*

MUAHAHAHA!

*bunker warps into a bubble, trapping him with the tickling/debowling hamsters for all of eternity*

MUAHAHAHA!

*Uses Telepathetic powers to warp the bubble and flees from it in abstract terror, then grabs two AK-47's that he left outside just in case...*
"Die F*****S!"

(and for good measure):mp5:

*Uses Telepathetic powers to warp the bubble and flees from it in abstract terror, then grabs two AK-47's that he left outside just in case...*
"Die F*****S!"

(and for good measure):mp5:

*laughs as his telepathic powers are useless when in his imagination, but lets him go anyways, kicks him out of the bunker as the universe explodes*

*turns to Canuck, who is resting on a plush couch with a bowl of popcorn*

Hey, Cannie, since there's no need for politics now, we can't debate.

*laughs as his telepathic powers are useless when in his imagination, but lets him go anyways, kicks him out of the bunker as the universe explodes*

*turns to Canuck, who is resting on a plush couch with a bowl of popcorn*

Hey, Cannie, since there's no need for politics now, we can't debate.

Ahem, that would be Telepathetic powers :D .
*Laughs evily as his telepathetic powers shield him from the explosion and he creates his own universe based on worship of himself as god.*

Well I find the title of this thread interesting. Think about it. If many people on the left had their way Saddam would still be in power and still be a murderous tyrant instead of being tried for war crimes by his own people's new democratic government.

Whereas the current Iraq still lacks much in the way of a viable economy, suffers from constant insurgency that bombs them, government run death squads, American trigger happy soldiers.

Is it better now? Just because you've got that thing called freedom?

Freedom doesn't give life. Freedom don't give jobs. Freedom doesn't fill an empty stomach.

Freedom, is an ideal, no more, no less.


So, using their logic and priorities, we might as well just cut, run, and put Hussein back. If Ted Kennedy or his ilk sponsered such a plan I would not be completely shocked at all! Good grief.

Too late. You broke the china, now you fix it. And no whining that it's hard.

But if you keep up the mentality of "This is the only way to fix it, nothing else." then be prepared to stay there and get nothing but criticism.

I agree, but Fox has a tendency to just touch on it. CNN, however, pretty much only gives that opinion, so I don't watch it. Usually I watch FOX or MSNBC. Or look at BBC website, which I like a lot. (I don't get the BBC on my tele, damn cable :( )



edited for better accuracy.

Good edit.

So it was just about "regime change"?

THE ORIGINAL DOWNING STREET "MEMO" (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html)


Not an option.

No there were a myriad of reasons, however Central to the need, was regime change.

There WAS NO Downing Street memo. All it EVER was, was a left wing newspapers opinion of a coversation he may/maynot have overheard.

The whole premise is as funny as the CBS Texas Air National Guard forgery - except not as good. The guy didn't even bother to forge the document, we are just supposed to take his word for it!

This is the third time I've said this, Iran gassed the Kurds, not Iraq. This was backed up by a DIA (Defence intelligence agency) investigation, which found that the chemicals used were Iranian, and also by US diplomats commenting on the situation. Only when the US was trying to paint a portrait of Saddam as a "bad guy" before the first gulf war did they switch the blame to Iraq.



Bull sh*t. I ignored you the first couple of times, because I don't usually respond to such insane statements. I have seen several references to this and all have been de-bunked. Show me your "proof". Again, the document itself would be nice.

You exaggerate my friend. I did not say anything derogatory about the Iraqi people and certainly did not call them "sand niggers".

If it was not you, I apologize.

I think that the Iraqis were living a lot more peacefully until the US gave them the "Shock and Awe Show". You sure did kick some terrorists butts that night. The images of those bombs blowing up Baghdad was no different than those planes flying into the WTC. Both events were violently obscene.

800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html)

Of course you discount the fact that when we bombed Baghdad, we were targeting military command and controll and doing our best to avoid the civilian population.

The terrorist PURPOSE was to cause civilian casualties.

But F*ck that right - let's just call the two equal. :rolleyes:




And 2, 3, going on 4 years later and the battle still rages on. Hmmm.

I expected a minimum of 5-7 years. Seems we may be ahead of schedule. Maybe not, but much progress has been made - despite your dark desires.

I would believe you but your hatred even towards your fellow citizens betrays your true feelings.

I have no hatred, I am simply arguing for an accurate discussion based on ALL known facts, you are the one tossing out hatred towards the US and her policy of fighting the terrorists.

I can just picture you in a room full of Iraqis and explaining to them how you are going to give them "freedom", and explaining further that a few of their loved ones would have to die, but in the end, it would be all good because they would be "free". I can see them all giving you a standing ovation. :rolleyes:

I LIVE with Iraqi's, and my business partner is Chaldean (whose family was murdered by Saddam). Try looking up the demographics of Dearborn, Michigan. I don't live very far from there at all - and I used to live right next door.

Damn near the whole town fled Saddam's tyranny. I have friends who have been to Iraq - close friends and they seem to tell me that most Iraqi's are very nice to them and grateful to us for getting rid of Saddam. That impression is backed up by the ABC poll I quoted - where I think only 26% wanted us out right away. 56% say things are better now than before the war and 71% saw improvements in the comming year.

Calling me a liar won't help you get over your denial.

You my dear, are the one in denial, and you most definitely are a liar.


I never said anything like that at all. Don't put words in my mouth and quit making things up.

It certainly seemed that you implied it. Perhaps not.

No there were a myriad of reasons, however Central to the need, was regime change.
The elimination of Saddam is one motive but the broader picture suggests more like divide and conquer.

The decision to invade Iraq was made as part of a broad strategy to shift the balance of power in the Islamic world, a strategy that will be playing out for years to come.

There WAS NO Downing Street memo. All it EVER was, was a left wing newspapers opinion of a coversation he may/maynot have overheard.
There was and is a Downing Street Memo and your accounting of this matter, clearly does not fit the apparent facts. That is why your credibility is being challenged constantly.

The secret Downing Street memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)

The whole premise is as funny as the CBS Texas Air National Guard forgery - except not as good. The guy didn't even bother to forge the document, we are just supposed to take his word for it!
In the matter of the Downing Street memo, there was no need to forge the document!! A rather poor attempt by you to subvert the truth once again.

I agree that you should value the lives of your countrymen more, but my god he was torchering human biengs like me and you, so what if there from another culture, they are still people and didnt deserve what happened to them, besides we should have helped them, what do you think Suddam might have done if he were kept dictator......

I agree that you should value the lives of your countrymen more, but my god he was torchering human biengs like me and you, so what if there from another culture, they are still people and didnt deserve what happened to them, besides we should have helped them, what do you think Suddam might have done if he were kept dictator......

If it was Iraqis that were being affected, it should've been Iraqis to decide to remove Saddam, not America.

The elimination of Saddam is one motive but the broader picture suggests more like divide and conquer.




There was and is a Downing Street Memo and your accounting of this matter, clearly does not fit the apparent facts. That is why your credibility is being challenged constantly.

The secret Downing Street memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)


In the matter of the Downing Street memo, there was no need to forge the document!! A rather poor attempt by you to subvert the truth once again.



Sure there was!!!!

So the source made photocopies which he gave to me. I was told by the lawyers on the Daily Telegraph where I then worked that I had to copy them all and send the photocopies I had been given back to the source. This was because the photocopy paper used for the copies I was given by the source were made on a government photocopier. The paper they were printed on therefore in law belonged to the government and we could have been accused of theft and had the documents taken off us.

So having sent back those copies, we now have several photocopies of each document which are on paper that belongs to us. I worked from one of these. The editor has another, and the third goes to the lawyers, who have a secretary type the text up using a manual typewriter. This is not done in the same format as the original document. It is just a record of what the document actually says which we can keep without putting the source in danger. I did not at any time work from the typed up texts. I always worked from the photocopies.

There are any number of ways that the authorities could have tracked down the source using the photocopies of the documents. Photocopiers have their own signature, so the photocopier that was used could have been tracked down. A crease or mark of some sort on the original document the source copied could appear on the photocopy. Highly classified documents are often typed up again rather than photocopied, with deliberate mistypes inserted so that documents can be tracked down to a particular person. It was essential we destroyed any evidence.

At 6pm on the evening before the paper appeared, having finished off the two articles I was writing, I shredded the photocopies which I had made, leaving me with only the typed up versions. I then passed that typed up text version to two political parties, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists). Plaid Cymru gave them to an academic who put them on his own website. That website was taken down immediately by the British Police Special Branch, who also began investigating me for a potential breach of the official secrets act.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/msmith-interview.html

I have in my posession a document from Canuck Heaven, that says she personally plotted to free Saddam Hussein from prison and return him to power.

Of course you cant actually SEE the memo, but you can take my word for it. It really exists!!!!!


You see I copied it illegally from government sources so I wrote it out myself. OF COURSE I took great care to make sure I trascribed it accurately and making sure I used different colored crayons to make it pretty. I fed the originals to my dog.

:rolleyes:

Sure there was!!!!
Yup, there is.

I have in my posession a document from Canuck Heaven, that says she personally plotted to free Saddam Hussein from prison and return him to power.
You assume way too much, heck, you can't even get my gender correct.

As far as the memo is concerned, their explanation is logical enough.

And while you want to deny the existence of these documents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml), you cannot unequivocally claim that they do not exist.

You assume way too much, heck, you can't even get my gender correct.

How do we know you're a man? :confused:

How do we know you're a man? :confused:
I guess you would have to take my word for it huh? The problem is that Alpen made an incorrect assumption. Perhaps he can provide a logical explanation?

How do we know you're a man? :confused:

Quite true, your description does say Uber spam girl, as such isn't it logical to assume you're a woman?

Note: for the record though I'm supporting you.

I guess you would have to take my word for it huh? The problem is that Alpen made an incorrect assumption. Perhaps he can provide a logical explanation?

But you're a leftist! According to FOX, you always lie! ;)

Therefore, as well as Batzuen's revelation, you must be a woman!

:fluffle:

But you're a leftist! According to FOX, you always lie! ;)

Therefore, as well as Batzuen's revelation, you must be a woman!

:fluffle:

YAY FOX!!
and so as not to be undone by Derscon's fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle:

YAY FOX!!
and so as not to be undone by Derscon's fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle:
Fluffling proves you to be a liberal. How could you betray America ... :(

But you're a leftist! According to FOX, you always lie! ;)

Therefore, as well as Batzuen's revelation, you must be a woman!

:fluffle:
Well, if FOX believe that all leftists lie, then it is time to change the channel. :eek:

Fluffling proves you to be a liberal. How could you betray America ... :(

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, dont tell anyone:D.
*looks around quickly to make sure no one saw that*
For the record I'm a Libertarian.

Well, if FOX believe that all leftists lie, then it is time to change the channel. :eek:

Nah, I would much rather bash my television in with a war hammer.

Nah, I would much rather bash my television in with a war hammer.

OH, PICK ME, PICK ME, I WANT TO! BAUTZEN SMAAAAAASH!!:sniper:(or shoot).

OH, PICK ME, PICK ME, I WANT TO! BAUTZEN SMAAAAAASH!!:sniper:(or shoot).

It's my TV, asshole. :mad:

I smashy! (or am I smashed? and I'm using a hammer...) ;)

It's my TV, asshole. :mad:

I smashy! (or am I smashed? and I'm using a hammer...) ;)

(he cries out in a babies voice) BUT, BUT... I WANT TO SMAAAAASH (throws tempertantrum).

(he cries out in a babies voice) BUT, BUT... I WANT TO SMAAAAASH (throws tempertantrum).

*gives a nuclear weapon to Bautzen*

Here ya go.

Since you provided a quote from Tony Blair you must win automatically.

Seriously, Tony Blair also said that Saddam had weapons of MASS destruction, and it was a farse.

You keep mentioning Kurds and I keep mentioning rebels. Your list is still nothing but full of speculation,estimates, and rumors. I believe I asked for proof.

The Tony Blair quote is only one piece of the puzzle. And the exhaustive studies conducted by Amnesty International, the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, and all those other groups I listed were just lies? They are estimation due to the difficult nature of the task, but the fact is that huge swaths of missing people, thousands of eyewitness reports, and such don't come from nowhere.

And who cares if they were rebellions or not? A rebellion does not give you jurisdiction for mass, indiscriminate murder.

The Tony Blair quote is only one piece of the puzzle. And the exhaustive studies conducted by Amnesty International, the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, and all those other groups I listed were just lies? They are estimation due to the difficult nature of the task, but the fact is that huge swaths of missing people, thousands of eyewitness reports, and such don't come from nowhere.

And who cares if they were rebellions or not? A rebellion does not give you jurisdiction for mass, indiscriminate murder.

Well Saddam has a right to defend his regime, if they were people involved in the rebellion, they are legitamite targets, it is not murder.

There are also thousands of eyewitness reports regarding ufo sightings and anal probing, my guess, false.

Yup, there is.


You assume way too much, heck, you can't even get my gender correct.

As far as the memo is concerned, their explanation is logical enough.

And while you want to deny the existence of these documents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml), you cannot unequivocally claim that they do not exist.


Sorry about the gender mix-up. I originally thought you were male, but your "title" or whatever that is says "spam-girl". No offense intended.

Neither can your side claim unequivocally that they DO exist. I don't think anyone should be basing anything on a piece of paper that does not exist - expecially when the author has an agenda. I believe that is the case here.


If however I agree (and I don't) that it is real, I still think it stops well short of damning either Bush or Blair.

Well Saddam has a right to defend his regime, if they were people involved in the rebellion, they are legitamite targets, it is not murder.

There are also thousands of eyewitness reports regarding ufo sightings and anal probing, my guess, false.


So, Bush would be justified in killing all of the liberal Democrats??? :rolleyes: They are no less "legitimate" than the Kurds were. Sheese, and you have the nerve to critisize us????

I am sorry but that is just pure hogwash.

The Tony Blair quote is only one piece of the puzzle. And the exhaustive studies conducted by Amnesty International, the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, and all those other groups I listed were just lies? They are estimation due to the difficult nature of the task, but the fact is that huge swaths of missing people, thousands of eyewitness reports, and such don't come from nowhere.

And who cares if they were rebellions or not? A rebellion does not give you jurisdiction for mass, indiscriminate murder.


The only things that matter to them are the exaggerated claims and outright fabrications that they use to claim the US is evil and Bush is a nazi.

Well Saddam has a right to defend his regime, if they were people involved in the rebellion, they are legitamite targets, it is not murder.

There are also thousands of eyewitness reports regarding ufo sightings and anal probing, my guess, false.

I am assuming, then, that you also support the Israeli crackdown in the Gaza, then. After all, the terrorist rebels are threatening the stability of Israel, therefore Israel needs to crack down on them.