http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11755 … aqi_Police
Can this take pleace and keep going in todays world?
Can this take pleace and keep going in todays world?
They do things differently
Considering it is taken place in today world -- you betcha. Any idea where the vid come from / date?
Ah... Islamic Justice... you gotta love it. Beats the crime right outta ya.
Your saying you wouldn't beat the fuck out of someone who was tyring to kill you after you catch him? Maybe the prisoner was a suspected bomb maker, and his bombs had already killed numerous women and children. You wouldn't rough him up??
** Ha, i actually just watched the video... I take that all back... They were definitely beating some asses... Oh well, wadda gonna do bout it?
** Ha, i actually just watched the video... I take that all back... They were definitely beating some asses... Oh well, wadda gonna do bout it?
Last edited by <SS>SonderKommando (2007-04-02 20:37:50)
Good point... Whip it.. whip it good...<SS>SonderKommando wrote:
Your saying you wouldn't beat the fuck out of someone who was tyring to kill you after you catch him? Maybe the prisoner was a suspected bomb maker, and his bombs had already killed numerous women and children. You wouldn't rough him up??
what up nugga!Sgt.Kyle wrote:
They do things differently
yeah, thats probably around sadam's regime cause that kinda looks like their uniforms. Now they just wear our old desert storm shit.
Yep. No need to remove Saddam.
Start removing a shit load more dictators soon otherwise this argument is going to be obsolete. Who is next?usmarine2007 wrote:
Yep. No need to remove Saddam.
Tell the people in that vid that argument is obsolete.Fen321 wrote:
Start removing a shit load more dictators soon otherwise this argument is going to be obsolete. Who is next?usmarine2007 wrote:
Yep. No need to remove Saddam.
Well, the Ayatollah, Mugabe, and Kim Jong Il are all prime candidates.
yeah, instead of batons Sadaam used chemical weapons.... he was much better wasnt he?usmarine2007 wrote:
Yep. No need to remove Saddam.
Last edited by <SS>SonderKommando (2007-04-02 21:00:43)
Actually, that vid was old. He used both.<SS>SonderKommando wrote:
yeah, instead of batons Sadaam used chemical weapons.... he was much better wasnt he?usmarine2007 wrote:
Yep. No need to remove Saddam.
According to the American government, Saddam was better to have in power than leaving Iraq in its former state. Apparently, Saddam wasn't good to keep in power when he started invading an ally of ours. His treatment of his citizens never really bothered us until it was convenient for us to disapprove of it.<SS>SonderKommando wrote:
yeah, instead of batons Sadaam used chemical weapons.... he was much better wasnt he?usmarine2007 wrote:
Yep. No need to remove Saddam.
One would think you do not have to rule people like that......Turquoise wrote:
According to the American government, Saddam was better to have in power than leaving Iraq in its former state. Apparently, Saddam wasn't good to keep in power when he started invading an ally of ours. His treatment of his citizens never really bothered us until it was convenient for us to disapprove of it.<SS>SonderKommando wrote:
yeah, instead of batons Sadaam used chemical weapons.... he was much better wasnt he?usmarine2007 wrote:
Yep. No need to remove Saddam.
In Iraq, you probably do, but that's beside the point. Deposing Saddam had nothing to do with his human rights abuses. If that had been the case, we would've stopped supporting him long before he invaded Kuwait.usmarine2007 wrote:
One would think you do not have to rule people like that......Turquoise wrote:
According to the American government, Saddam was better to have in power than leaving Iraq in its former state. Apparently, Saddam wasn't good to keep in power when he started invading an ally of ours. His treatment of his citizens never really bothered us until it was convenient for us to disapprove of it.<SS>SonderKommando wrote:
yeah, instead of batons Sadaam used chemical weapons.... he was much better wasnt he?
You seem to forget we were just getting over the Russians.Turquoise wrote:
In Iraq, you probably do, but that's beside the point. Deposing Saddam had nothing to do with his human rights abuses. If that had been the case, we would've stopped supporting him long before he invaded Kuwait.usmarine2007 wrote:
One would think you do not have to rule people like that......Turquoise wrote:
According to the American government, Saddam was better to have in power than leaving Iraq in its former state. Apparently, Saddam wasn't good to keep in power when he started invading an ally of ours. His treatment of his citizens never really bothered us until it was convenient for us to disapprove of it.
Just because the Soviets were our enemy, that doesn't justify aiding dictators.usmarine2007 wrote:
You seem to forget we were just getting over the Russians.Turquoise wrote:
In Iraq, you probably do, but that's beside the point. Deposing Saddam had nothing to do with his human rights abuses. If that had been the case, we would've stopped supporting him long before he invaded Kuwait.usmarine2007 wrote:
One would think you do not have to rule people like that......
Or... conversely, if it does justify that, then we have no moral basis to remove them.
As a conservative, what would you prefer? A secular police state, run by a megalomaical dictator, under the reigns of UN sanctions? or a weakly governed, terrorist playground, featuring uncontrolled sectarian war, verging on genocide, with a dab of civilians caught in crossfire and completely permeable borders?usmarine2007 wrote:
One would think you do not have to rule people like that......
the only problem is you can't have both and we've already narrowed the choices by half.
Hindsight being 20/20 obviously the world seemed more comfortable with Saddam.Reciprocity wrote:
As a conservative, what would you prefer? A secular police state, run by a megalomaical dictator, under the reigns of UN sanctions? or a weakly governed, terrorist playground, featuring uncontrolled sectarian war, verging on genocide, with a dab of civilians caught in crossfire and completely permeable borders?usmarine2007 wrote:
One would think you do not have to rule people like that......
the only problem is you can't have both and we've already narrowed the choices by half.
Hell, at this point, I'd take him back.
I guess we should have focused on chasing OBL.
Hey, you liberals win one!
Trouble is, I think we all still lose.
Saddam and his people were terrible and evil, but at least our people weren't getting killed.
The situation is one big shit sandwich.
Now that you've won the Iraq debate, what do you suggest we do? Reparations? Hang everybody in Washington? Revolt?
Get the fuck out of Iraq immediately and salvage Afghanistan while keeping an eye on Pakistan.ATG wrote:
Now that you've won the Iraq debate, what do you suggest we do? Reparations? Hang everybody in Washington? Revolt?
You do realize that war will erupt between Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia over control of Iraq and millions will die in a orgy of killings?Turquoise wrote:
Get the fuck out of Iraq immediately and salvage Afghanistan while keeping an eye on Pakistan.ATG wrote:
Now that you've won the Iraq debate, what do you suggest we do? Reparations? Hang everybody in Washington? Revolt?
Just want to make sure ya'll understand the implications.
Fuck, what a mess.
When a war drum beating good ol' boy NRA member like me says it's a bad war, The Bush admin has a much bigger problem than they know.
I'm loving the $3.40 gas today.
This war for oil thing is going great.
I just wished I'd bought some Halliburton stock before it doubled.
and we were gonna go over there and just free these little people.......
is there anyway to tell if these were before or after suddam was taken out of power?
justice when it is the best