And some of that was by putting families in industral plastic shredders and dropping people in acid. Yes what a great way to keep the country under control.Hurricane wrote:
IDK about the oil and whatnot. But I do have to say that, despite how monstrous of a person he was, he knew how to keep two groups of people who absolutely hate each other from going into war with each other as seen in Iraq right now.farmerfez wrote:
now what would this solve? I mean im not saying i like saddam but where there bombs going off in iraq every day when was in power? Was there order? Bush coulda minded his own business but instead he had to get up in the affairs of another country which wasnt doing anything to us. We THINK Iraq had WMD's. It was never proven. This whole war was for oil and bush redeeming his father. If iraq had used WMD's it wouldve justified going in but we went in without proper intel or knowing what we would be facing and look what it got us into.
My 2 cents
R.I.P - That you did was wonderful...
Sentenced by Ben Kingsley. Strange.
If they don't shoot at us we don't shoot at them. Quite a different concept.SysTray wrote:
So wait, he's not allowed to kill people over there but we are?Miller wrote:
And how would this be? Oh right, killing anyone he doesn't like, from either side.SysTray wrote:
And we're doing so much better, with the nearly 3,000 US military deaths and near-civil-war in most towns of Iraq.Wolfren wrote:
And some of that was by putting families in industral plastic shredders and dropping people in acid. Yes what a great way to keep the country under control.Hurricane wrote:
IDK about the oil and whatnot. But I do have to say that, despite how monstrous of a person he was, he knew how to keep two groups of people who absolutely hate each other from going into war with each other as seen in Iraq right now.farmerfez wrote:
now what would this solve? I mean im not saying i like saddam but where there bombs going off in iraq every day when was in power? Was there order? Bush coulda minded his own business but instead he had to get up in the affairs of another country which wasnt doing anything to us. We THINK Iraq had WMD's. It was never proven. This whole war was for oil and bush redeeming his father. If iraq had used WMD's it wouldve justified going in but we went in without proper intel or knowing what we would be facing and look what it got us into.
My 2 cents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties … since_2003
Thousands of soldiers, thousands of civilians. Yes, we're doing far better than Saddam. I don't agree with how the man kept the peace, but I do realize that he was able to do it unlike this multinational task force and even the Iraqis themselves. This whole thing was doomed from the start, we never should have just barged right in saying "IM IN UR COUNTRY, LIBERATIN UR PPLZ" like a fucking lolcat. France didn't just barge right in during the Revolution to help us beat the British, and once we beat them they gave us some tips and went back to their business.
Evidently the Iraqis didn't like Saddam, as seen by the cheering after his execution. But surely there was more overall support for him than for the US occupation. You never saw civil war breaking out, you didn't see people suicide bombing into Saddam's motorcades. If the Iraqis truly wanted help to be freed from Saddam, somehow word would've gotten out and a force would be sent to help them. But we didn't hear any call. We just thought they had "nucular weaponz" and stormed in. We destroyed what was left of their military, then we ended up with our current situation.
True True True..Hurricane wrote:
And we're doing so much better, with the nearly 3,000 US military deaths and near-civil-war in most towns of Iraq.Wolfren wrote:
And some of that was by putting families in industral plastic shredders and dropping people in acid. Yes what a great way to keep the country under control.Hurricane wrote:
IDK about the oil and whatnot. But I do have to say that, despite how monstrous of a person he was, he knew how to keep two groups of people who absolutely hate each other from going into war with each other as seen in Iraq right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties … since_2003
Thousands of soldiers, thousands of civilians. Yes, we're doing far better than Saddam. I don't agree with how the man kept the peace, but I do realize that he was able to do it unlike this multinational task force and even the Iraqis themselves. This whole thing was doomed from the start, we never should have just barged right in saying "IM IN UR COUNTRY, LIBERATIN UR PPLZ" like a fucking lolcat. France didn't just barge right in during the Revolution to help us beat the British, and once we beat them they gave us some tips and went back to their business.
Evidently the Iraqis didn't like Saddam, as seen by the cheering after his execution. But surely there was more overall support for him than for the US occupation. You never saw civil war breaking out, you didn't see people suicide bombing into Saddam's motorcades. If the Iraqis truly wanted help to be freed from Saddam, somehow word would've gotten out and a force would be sent to help them. But we didn't hear any call. We just thought they had "nucular weaponz" and stormed in. We destroyed what was left of their military, then we ended up with our current situation.
Mod: inappropriate comment removed
Just so you know, the 600k figure was proven to be bogus and was only obtained through extremely flawed sampling methods. The real death toll is closer to 60k. Additionally, you make it seem like they made a mistake in executing Saddam. If you knew anything about what he did, you would know that it was not "proper" in any way.Marconius wrote:
And so passes on the only person in the world who knew how to properly handle Iraq...
$1 trillion, 3000+ American soldiers, 600,000 civilians later...
Also, @ all the "Hang Bush" comments. Saw them coming from a mile away.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-30 10:41:03)
What Marconius says is absolutely right. However, the real death toll is close to 100k, but it still is a huge number. What Saddam did was wrong but at least he knew how to control Iraq, now the country is a mess. And that is all Bush's fault. I don't say "Hang Bush", but I don't agree with the hanging of Saddam. Both committed crimes against humanity. Bush invaded Iraq without proof and the American soldiers dead in Iraq are more than 3000, and the Iraqis civilians about 100k. Who will judge Bush?Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Just so you know, the 600k figure was proven to be bogus and was only obtained through extremely flawed sampling methods. The real death toll is closer to 60k. Additionally, you make it seem like they made a mistake in executing Saddam. If you knew anything about what he did, you would know that it was not "proper" in any way.Marconius wrote:
And so passes on the only person in the world who knew how to properly handle Iraq...
$1 trillion, 3000+ American soldiers, 600,000 civilians later...
Also, @ all the "Hang Bush" comments. Saw them coming from a mile away.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/ … coming.jpg
Yay, with Saddam gone Iraq is free at last. Iraq is free and has now become a vacation spot for rich people. w00t.
Now that they've got Saddam, they (you know who "they" are) should invade North Korea... but wait, there is no oil in North Korea. NK has the Nukes and the WMD, but no oil, so forget it.
hehehehehe
Now that they've got Saddam, they (you know who "they" are) should invade North Korea... but wait, there is no oil in North Korea. NK has the Nukes and the WMD, but no oil, so forget it.
hehehehehe
There is quite a distinct difference between Bush and Saddam. There is also quite a distinct difference between Bush and Hitler (but that doesn't stop many of you internet liberals from trying to draw such a comparison).sergeriver wrote:
What Marconius says is absolutely right. However, the real death toll is close to 100k, but it still is a huge number. What Saddam did was wrong but at least he knew how to control Iraq, now the country is a mess. And that is all Bush's fault. I don't say "Hang Bush", but I don't agree with the hanging of Saddam. Both committed crimes against humanity. Bush invaded Iraq without proof and the American soldiers dead in Iraq are more than 3000, and the Iraqis civilians about 100k. Who will judge Bush?
The difference between Saddam and Bush is that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people to maintain order. According to Marconius, that is the "proper" way to maintain order in this region. While it may be the only way, it certainly is not proper nor acceptable in this day and age. I do agree with CameronPoe in that a civil war will fix many of Iraq's problems. Until that is finished, there will always be this extreme violence. What we essentially did was free a bunch of "animals" that Saddam had caged.
As for Bush's "crimes against humanity", there are many things which you are not taking into consideration. You, like many others, see things in only black and white. You ignore Saddam's horrible atrocities and focus on some far-fetched excuse to pin this on Bush. I, as an American, do not agree with many of Bush's policies, especially those regarding the war in Iraq. However, I, capable of rational thought, know that he is not guilty of these "crimes against humanity". Bush is not murdering Iraqi civilians to maintain order. Insurgents and death squads are. Your "far-fetched" observation is that Bush caused the insurgency, and therefore is responsible for everyone they kill. That is flawed logic, and a long way off from what Saddam did. The direct collateral damage caused solely by US military action is simply a byproduct of any war and has only caused a fraction of the civilian deaths in this campaign. If that is your reason for pinning these "crime against humanity" on Bush, then the same could be said for any and every world leader who ever went to war.
You say "Bush invaded Iraq without proof". That is yet another ignorant statement. Bush did base his decision on poor intelligence, but that does not make what he did illegal. Saddam violated a surrender condition of the first Gulf War when he refused to let in weapons inspectors.
There is my shred of common sense, rational thought, and logic for now. I do not usually address these childish and cliche "Hang Bush" and "Who will judge Bush" comments because those who make those comments are usually so hopelessly biased, nearsighted, and ignorant that I would be wasting my breath. That said, I will not be addressing those posts any more.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-30 11:47:36)
Why don't we blame Iraqi's for blowing themselves up and murdering each other? All the anti-Death Penalty people can also blame the Iraqi government while they are at it. They put him on trial, convicted him, and executed him.
Iraq was given opportunity, this is what they decided to do with it. When most nations gain their independence they don't immediately start murdering each other. Can you imagine if after the revolutionary war Americans started doing this. They are more barbaric now than we were 200 years ago.
Iraq was given opportunity, this is what they decided to do with it. When most nations gain their independence they don't immediately start murdering each other. Can you imagine if after the revolutionary war Americans started doing this. They are more barbaric now than we were 200 years ago.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
If it was up to me I would have waited for all the trials to be over with before I hung him. too late.
EDIT: but then again the trials were a fucking joke anyways
EDIT: but then again the trials were a fucking joke anyways
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-30 14:09:17)
Yes, they'd prefer you not to think that Iraq is now going to plunge even deeper into sectarian violence.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Anderson Cooper is showing Iraqi's dancing in the streets waving Iraqi flags and cheering. Its quite patriotic.
Bad file
EDIT: nevermind, are you supposed to post that?
Last edited by Masterstyle (2006-12-30 15:01:24)
Its international news. Not posting it is a crime to humanity.Masterstyle wrote:
Bad file
EDIT: nevermind, are you supposed to post that?
Ahemmm - President of Iran ( cough ) . Whew , you kids have no memory at all these days.OpsChief wrote:
Bad idea killing Hussein. Where the hell will we find another evil tyrant in the world, let alone the Middle East, to attack now Saddam is gone???
The full hanging video, bad quality and filming but good to see.
http://dump.geenstijl.nl/mediabase/8387 … index.html
http://dump.geenstijl.nl/mediabase/8387 … index.html
Saw a good quality video (almost broadcast quality) on the news here, but they removed the part where he is dropped, and it cuts right after, once he's dead and gone.
bad quality indeed but we can have a glimpse of what was cut off of the news feed. On the news it was from a different angle, showing his left profile, and filmed on the deck.delta4bravo*nl* wrote:
The full hanging video, bad quality and filming but good to see.
http://dump.geenstijl.nl/mediabase/8387 … index.html
+1 for the video
ty xDdelta4bravo*nl* wrote:
The full hanging video, bad quality and filming but good to see.
http://dump.geenstijl.nl/mediabase/8387 … index.html
Post updated with video from Google Video.