please elaborate on how this comment, in any way, contributes to the conversation.Kmarion wrote:
No I guess I would go hide in a hole in the ground like Saddam did.
It illustrates what his actions led him to. You said he didn't want to seem weak with Iran next door. I was making the point I bet he looked pretty damn weak being drug out of the ground. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/ … index.html
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-02 21:17:41)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So he looked "pretty damn weak" after the US curbstomped him into that little hole? Gee, I wonder why?
He also looked a bit like a beat up garden gnome... "With Travelocity, you can... AAAAHHH... "
Honestly, we should have put his head on a stake and thrown it to the Shiite masses in Baghdad. They would've appreciated that.Reciprocity wrote:
So he looked "pretty damn weak" after the US curbstomped him into that little hole? Gee, I wonder why?
Evidence would be nice, or where you there?Reciprocity wrote:
So he looked "pretty damn weak" after the US curbstomped him into that little hole? Gee, I wonder why?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
forgive me, but I am not understanding your arguements. Allow me to remove the obvious sarcasm from my previous statement.Kmarion wrote:
Evidence would be nice, or where you there?Reciprocity wrote:
So he looked "pretty damn weak" after the US curbstomped him into that little hole? Gee, I wonder why?
Of course he looked "pretty damn weak", we bombarded and invaded his country, sending him fleeing into the hills. He's going to look like half-dead shit after taking the business end of our military.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2006-11-02 21:35:42)
-accidental double post, sorry.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2006-11-02 21:35:11)
First, there are all kinds in these forums so tone and sarcasm is often mis-interpreted.
You made the comment "If you neighbor was Iran would you have bent over backwards and pulled up your skirt to show the world exactly what weapons you might have had?"
I understood this to be a remark that meant he did not want Iran to know what weapons he was hiding. So my thought process was you were trying to imply he wanted his neighbor(Iran) to have the presumption that he and his military were stronger than they actually were. I said
You made the comment "If you neighbor was Iran would you have bent over backwards and pulled up your skirt to show the world exactly what weapons you might have had?"
I understood this to be a remark that meant he did not want Iran to know what weapons he was hiding. So my thought process was you were trying to imply he wanted his neighbor(Iran) to have the presumption that he and his military were stronger than they actually were. I said
to show that if his plan was indeed to appear strong as you suggested then it appears his course of action seemed to have backfired on him. I am pretty sure Iran knew what kind of military strength Saddam had when the United States marched through Baghdad. So to me it seemed your idea of "he didn't want Iran to know what kind of weapons he had" was illogical. At least given the result. There is one thing for sure now, Iran knows what kind of weapons Saddam had. Despite any non compliance with the UN.No I guess I would go hide in a hole in the ground like Saddam did.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I dont think is was so much a show of military strength like the Soviets parading ICBMs through the streets of Moscow. It was more like who the hell knows what saddam has got cooking in the basement. The mystery and unaccountability was the threat. If a crazy person walks around with a rifle slinged on his shoulder, you know he's packing. If a crazy person walks around with his hands in his pockets, who the hell know what he's got.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2006-11-02 22:58:05)
Careful, your getting close to making my point..Reciprocity wrote:
If a crazy person walks around with his hands in his pockets, who the hell know what he's got.
Kmarion wrote:
Could Saddam have prevented this by complying with UN resolutions? (Serious question)
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-02 23:32:18)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The name of the thread kinda says it all
Im still in "denial" and loving it.
Im still in "denial" and loving it.
lol, the most I'll give you is that Bush did call Hussein's bluff. I don't think Hussein ever imagined that his country would be overrunned by the US or the UN. He was playing his little game with the UN inspectors because that what he had sucessfully done for the last decade. He kept the west basically happy by allowing inspectors, but he always busted their balls enough to look a little crazy, a little unpredictable, and a little mysterious. It kept the west mostly off his ass, but it also kept Iran wondering exactly what the hell was going on over there.
Had he complied completely with the UN resolutions, we would have been happier but I dont think the Bush administration was ever looking for the UN's stamp of approval, compliance would bave been moot in the face of bringing democracy to the oppressed peoples of Iraq, of fighting terrorism, or whatever reason they would have initially used.
so i think Hussein was trying to pull the same ole' shit he had always done. Hustle the UN and maintain the perception of unpredictability with Iran.
Had he complied completely with the UN resolutions, we would have been happier but I dont think the Bush administration was ever looking for the UN's stamp of approval, compliance would bave been moot in the face of bringing democracy to the oppressed peoples of Iraq, of fighting terrorism, or whatever reason they would have initially used.
so i think Hussein was trying to pull the same ole' shit he had always done. Hustle the UN and maintain the perception of unpredictability with Iran.
Iraq was never overrun by the UN, it was a war started only by the US backed up by some conservative allies (until their Government changed after elections, e.g. Spain and Italy).Reciprocity wrote:
lol, the most I'll give you is that Bush did call Hussein's bluff. I don't think Hussein ever imagined that his country would be overrunned by the US or the UN.
He was complying with all UN inspections, since there were no WMD.He was playing his little game with the UN inspectors because that what he had sucessfully done for the last decade. He kept the west basically happy by allowing inspectors, but he always busted their balls enough to look a little crazy, a little unpredictable, and a little mysterious. It kept the west mostly off his ass, but it also kept Iran wondering exactly what the hell was going on over there.
Had he complied completely with the UN resolutions, we would have been happier but I dont think the Bush administration was ever looking for the UN's stamp of approval, compliance would bave been moot in the face of bringing democracy to the oppressed peoples of Iraq, of fighting terrorism, or whatever reason they would have initially used.
so i think Hussein was trying to pull the same ole' shit he had always done. Hustle the UN and maintain the perception of unpredictability with Iran.
Might wanna go back and tip toe through the facts again, he continually denied UN inspectors access to his weapons facilities they wanted to inspect. A violation. If he was in compliance with the UN resolutions, the inspections would not have been a problem. Since it was a problem, prudence dictates action.Pierre wrote:
Iraq was never overrun by the UN, it was a war started only by the US backed up by some conservative allies (until their Government changed after elections, e.g. Spain and Italy).Reciprocity wrote:
lol, the most I'll give you is that Bush did call Hussein's bluff. I don't think Hussein ever imagined that his country would be overrunned by the US or the UN.He was complying with all UN inspections, since there were no WMD.He was playing his little game with the UN inspectors because that what he had sucessfully done for the last decade. He kept the west basically happy by allowing inspectors, but he always busted their balls enough to look a little crazy, a little unpredictable, and a little mysterious. It kept the west mostly off his ass, but it also kept Iran wondering exactly what the hell was going on over there.
Had he complied completely with the UN resolutions, we would have been happier but I dont think the Bush administration was ever looking for the UN's stamp of approval, compliance would bave been moot in the face of bringing democracy to the oppressed peoples of Iraq, of fighting terrorism, or whatever reason they would have initially used.
so i think Hussein was trying to pull the same ole' shit he had always done. Hustle the UN and maintain the perception of unpredictability with Iran.
I did, he 'played around' with the inspections, I agree on that one, but bottomline, there were no WMD, and this was known by your Government, so there was no need for action or invading the country.lowing wrote:
Might wanna go back and tip toe through the facts again, he continually denied UN inspectors access to his weapons facilities they wanted to inspect. A violation. If he was in compliance with the UN resolutions, the inspections would not have been a problem. Since it was a problem, prudence dictates action.Pierre wrote:
Iraq was never overrun by the UN, it was a war started only by the US backed up by some conservative allies (until their Government changed after elections, e.g. Spain and Italy).Reciprocity wrote:
lol, the most I'll give you is that Bush did call Hussein's bluff. I don't think Hussein ever imagined that his country would be overrunned by the US or the UN.He was complying with all UN inspections, since there were no WMD.He was playing his little game with the UN inspectors because that what he had sucessfully done for the last decade. He kept the west basically happy by allowing inspectors, but he always busted their balls enough to look a little crazy, a little unpredictable, and a little mysterious. It kept the west mostly off his ass, but it also kept Iran wondering exactly what the hell was going on over there.
Had he complied completely with the UN resolutions, we would have been happier but I dont think the Bush administration was ever looking for the UN's stamp of approval, compliance would bave been moot in the face of bringing democracy to the oppressed peoples of Iraq, of fighting terrorism, or whatever reason they would have initially used.
so i think Hussein was trying to pull the same ole' shit he had always done. Hustle the UN and maintain the perception of unpredictability with Iran.
The only reason Iraq was invaded is $: oil, contract for allied companies, etc.
I understand this point of view, but I just want to point out: Europe is far more secular than the US and that didn't prevent riots and property destruction in France by extemists. I just want to say that its not necessarily our "religious" beliefs that's provoking thier hate. They hate so much about the west: how are women (and men, for that matter) behave (i.e.: modesty), our materialism, advertising, everything. And I still think if we had no religion at all (right, Lennon?) we'd stil be just as big a target as we are now.Turquoise wrote:
This is where we digress. Revelations is just as nutty as the 72 virgins bullshit that the Islamists believe in. Both the West and the rest of the world need to wake up and realize that a lot of religion is bullshit. It's much of the source of this entire terror conflict. When people start believing in more rational things, there will be less war....
Yeah, we discovered there was no WMD only AFTER we had to re-enter Iraq.Pierre wrote:
I did, he 'played around' with the inspections, I agree on that one, but bottomline, there were no WMD, and this was known by your Government, so there was no need for action or invading the country.lowing wrote:
Might wanna go back and tip toe through the facts again, he continually denied UN inspectors access to his weapons facilities they wanted to inspect. A violation. If he was in compliance with the UN resolutions, the inspections would not have been a problem. Since it was a problem, prudence dictates action.Pierre wrote:
Iraq was never overrun by the UN, it was a war started only by the US backed up by some conservative allies (until their Government changed after elections, e.g. Spain and Italy).Reciprocity wrote:
lol, the most I'll give you is that Bush did call Hussein's bluff. I don't think Hussein ever imagined that his country would be overrunned by the US or the UN.
He was complying with all UN inspections, since there were no WMD.
The only reason Iraq was invaded is $: oil, contract for allied companies, etc.
Since you brought it up I will ask you the same thing I have asked all the others who makes this claim.
If the US wanted Iraq's oil, why did we not KEEP it after WW2, or again after the 91 start of the war? We left Iraq, without stealing their oil. Can you please explain that?
"We" don't steal their oil. US and Multinational companies make money off of ridiculous oil contracts that were/are negotiated with a western-favoring government. Part of the reason "we" went to war with Iraq was so oil contracts previously favoring France, Germany, Russia and others could be renegotiated to favor US and its allies. That is part of the reason the aforementioned countries did not take kindly to our invasion. Another reason "we" went to war in Iraq is so US companies friendly with the current administration could reap the benefits of rebuilding a war-torn nation.lowing wrote:
If the US wanted Iraq's oil, why did we not KEEP it after WW2, or again after the 91 start of the war? We left Iraq, without stealing their oil. Can you please explain that?
Remember, as your great friend Immortal Technique sez:
Colonialism is sponsered by corporations
Thats why Halliburton gets paid to rebuild nations.
Tell me the truth, I don't scare into paralysis
I know the CIA saw Bin Laden on dialysis
In '98 when he was Top Ten for the FBI
Government ties is really why the Government lies
True... to a point, this applies to the people that are pulling the strings among the terrorists.URE_DED wrote:
I understand this point of view, but I just want to point out: Europe is far more secular than the US and that didn't prevent riots and property destruction in France by extemists. I just want to say that its not necessarily our "religious" beliefs that's provoking thier hate. They hate so much about the west: how are women (and men, for that matter) behave (i.e.: modesty), our materialism, advertising, everything. And I still think if we had no religion at all (right, Lennon?) we'd stil be just as big a target as we are now.Turquoise wrote:
This is where we digress. Revelations is just as nutty as the 72 virgins bullshit that the Islamists believe in. Both the West and the rest of the world need to wake up and realize that a lot of religion is bullshit. It's much of the source of this entire terror conflict. When people start believing in more rational things, there will be less war....
Osama makes a big show of being a Wahhabist, but if you look at his actions, he's probably an Atheist. Religion just seems to be the tool by which he can get people to support his extremism. So yes, it isn't the religion itself that is bad, but how it's being used or interpreted.
The riots in Paris were over race, not religion, so that's a good example as well.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-03 17:01:33)
I think you forgot some religions that were mentioned in the video. They also spoke about Hindu, Buddist, and other religions. Matter of fact the first religion that they show, was not Chrisitian at all, but a Eastern religion, and the temple being burned. Guess you just interpeted as Islam VS Christian and Jews.CameronPoe wrote:
Propaganda 101: The video tries to portray radical islam, and by association propaganda-wise - ordinary islam, as some kind of threat to Christianity (to get us 'onside' with the Israelis (Jews)). Bombs in Baghdad churches? No shit. There haven't been any bombs in mosques!! LOL. Burning Bosnian churches!!! OMG it must be radical islam - never mind Slobodan Milosevic trying to eradicate every last muslim and albanian from Yugoslavia at the time. When pitted against an enemy that defines itself by religion, one's anger is often vented against symbols of said religion. I'm sure plenty of mosques were burned in Bosnia too.
better go back and check the resolutions that Saddam broke, THAT is the reason we went back to Iraq.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
"We" don't steal their oil. US and Multinational companies make money off of ridiculous oil contracts that were/are negotiated with a western-favoring government. Part of the reason "we" went to war with Iraq was so oil contracts previously favoring France, Germany, Russia and others could be renegotiated to favor US and its allies. That is part of the reason the aforementioned countries did not take kindly to our invasion. Another reason "we" went to war in Iraq is so US companies friendly with the current administration could reap the benefits of rebuilding a war-torn nation.lowing wrote:
If the US wanted Iraq's oil, why did we not KEEP it after WW2, or again after the 91 start of the war? We left Iraq, without stealing their oil. Can you please explain that?
Remember, as your great friend Immortal Technique sez:
Colonialism is sponsered by corporations
Thats why Halliburton gets paid to rebuild nations.
Tell me the truth, I don't scare into paralysis
I know the CIA saw Bin Laden on dialysis
In '98 when he was Top Ten for the FBI
Government ties is really why the Government lies
That street thug isn't my friend.
Countries across the globe break UN resolutions on a daily basis, the US just sits back. I do not want our country to be the world police.lowing wrote:
better go back and check the resolutions that Saddam broke, THAT is the reason we went back to Iraq.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
"We" don't steal their oil. US and Multinational companies make money off of ridiculous oil contracts that were/are negotiated with a western-favoring government. Part of the reason "we" went to war with Iraq was so oil contracts previously favoring France, Germany, Russia and others could be renegotiated to favor US and its allies. That is part of the reason the aforementioned countries did not take kindly to our invasion. Another reason "we" went to war in Iraq is so US companies friendly with the current administration could reap the benefits of rebuilding a war-torn nation.lowing wrote:
If the US wanted Iraq's oil, why did we not KEEP it after WW2, or again after the 91 start of the war? We left Iraq, without stealing their oil. Can you please explain that?
Remember, as your great friend Immortal Technique sez:
Colonialism is sponsored by corporations
Thats why Halliburton gets paid to rebuild nations.
Tell me the truth, I don't scare into paralysis
I know the CIA saw Bin Laden on dialysis
In '98 when he was Top Ten for the FBI
Government ties is really why the Government lies
That street thug isn't my friend.
As for your dislike of Immortal Technique (I still really think you like the rhymes ) you would rather vote in executive thugs.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-11-03 18:11:31)
It was up to the UN to deal with Saddam and they did not do it, so we didKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Countries across the globe break UN resolutions on a daily basis, the US just sits back. I do not want our country to be the world police.lowing wrote:
better go back and check the resolutions that Saddam broke, THAT is the reason we went back to Iraq.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
"We" don't steal their oil. US and Multinational companies make money off of ridiculous oil contracts that were/are negotiated with a western-favoring government. Part of the reason "we" went to war with Iraq was so oil contracts previously favoring France, Germany, Russia and others could be renegotiated to favor US and its allies. That is part of the reason the aforementioned countries did not take kindly to our invasion. Another reason "we" went to war in Iraq is so US companies friendly with the current administration could reap the benefits of rebuilding a war-torn nation.
Remember, as your great friend Immortal Technique sez:
Colonialism is sponsored by corporations
Thats why Halliburton gets paid to rebuild nations.
Tell me the truth, I don't scare into paralysis
I know the CIA saw Bin Laden on dialysis
In '98 when he was Top Ten for the FBI
Government ties is really why the Government lies
That street thug isn't my friend.
As for your dislike of Immortal Technique (I still really think you like the rhymes ) you would rather vote in executive thugs.
screw immortal technique, he nothing more than another gangsta who will be shot to death or arrested within the next few years. turn the page
-I said US or the UN, mkay, not US and the UN. got it sweetie? kthnxbyePierre wrote:
Iraq was never overrun by the UN, it was a war started only by the US backed up by some conservative allies (until their Government changed after elections, e.g. Spain and Italy.