»1587200 Posted January 1, 2007 Report Posted January 1, 2007 That video made me sickNo one forced you to watch it, and the fact that you were so anti-hanging, then watched it, makes me second guess what you actually think.
»freakmonger Posted January 1, 2007 Report Posted January 1, 2007 That video made me sickNo one forced you to watch it, and the fact that you were so anti-hanging, then watched it, makes me second guess what you actually think. Exactly
»1587200 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Posted January 2, 2007 It's not clever, it's obvious. Why would you say that hanging Saddam is wrong and in-humane, then watch the video?
NBVegita Posted January 2, 2007 Report Posted January 2, 2007 It would be ignorant to think that just because they're not as technologically advanced that they wouldn't attempt to break him out of jail. Idealism is not meant for the real world.
»1587200 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Posted January 2, 2007 It would be ignorant to think that just because they're not as technologically advanced that they wouldn't attempt to break him out of jail. Idealism is not meant for the real world.Agreed. Saddam is less of an issue and threat, dead.
MillenniumMan Posted January 2, 2007 Report Posted January 2, 2007 That video made me sickNo one forced you to watch it, and the fact that you were so anti-hanging, then watched it, makes me second guess what you actually think. There was this movie a few years ago called Crash I think it was. Anyway, this couple would wait around to see a deadly car wreck and the !@#$%^&* afterwards because it got them off. She reminds me of that movie PS, I'm downloading the movies now and will burn them to DVD and masturbate to them as soon as possible. PPS, historicaly speaking, this is paralell to the zapruter film of Kennedy's assassination or having a camera in the bunker with film rolling at the moment Hitler blew his brains out when he knew his time was over. PPPS, we were technologicaly superior on 9/11 also... keep that in mind when dealing with fundamentalist nuts.
AstroProdigy Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 We were technologically superior on 9/11, but we also had a huge country that they only needed to succeed in hitting once. Not only that, but the warnings of the impending attack were ignored before 9/11. If they wanted to fly a plane onto Hussein's jail cell they would simply kill him. The posibility of an actual organized jail break of a very well guarded criminal succeeding is negligent. Let them kill themselves trying it's not that big a deal.
NBVegita Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Not that big of a deal? Until it turns into a hostage situation where they take dozens, or maybe hundreds of U.S. civilians hostage to try to negotiate his release? As has happened many times in the past over such an issue. And of course for extremists they would have no means of breaking into a jail...yeah...just because they don't have satelites in space doesn't mean they fight with stones tied to sticks. They're extremely intelligent, and they would attempt it, more than once. And it wasn't George Bush or the american government that found him guilty, or ordered the death penalty, it was the Iraqi government. But why not just blame this on our government too. I mean !@#$%^&* if aliens invaded our world tomorrow, it would somehow end up being George Bush and the United States fault.
Greased_Lightning Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Of course it would be, I mean, we're the ones sending all these probes into space to try to learn things. And we're the ones that put the flag on the moon. Everyone knows that the moon is the territory of the West Side Klingon Gang
AstroProdigy Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Hundreds of US civilians? Where are they going to find a m!@#$%^&* of unprotected US civilians in Iraq? The United States has the best military in the world. If we put some of our best to guard him then no matter how smart they are we're smarter and at the same time vastly technologically superior. Their biggest weapon against us has been hiding behind civilians. In order to have a jail break they'd have to come out of hiding and we'd massacre them. I didn't blame this on Bush. It was Iraqis who screwed up this time. They get a few screw ups considering we made dozens of them in Iraq.
NBVegita Posted January 4, 2007 Report Posted January 4, 2007 Did I ever say they would get the civilians in Iraq? There are hundreds of thousands legal, and illegal immigrants in the united states. You don't think any of them have a vested interest in saddam? You don't think any of them are extremist enough to capture american civilians and try to demand his release? And he would have been kept in Iraq. We would lose a ton of troops trying to make sure he can't escape. Iraq is their territory. You leave a large number of troops, they start getting killed, and our government loses twice, keeping troops in Iraq (which you have to assume that the iraqi government would even allow) and the deaths of these soldiers. Or you leave a small number of troops, and they never make it home to see christmas. Those people might not have the technology, but have you ever seen the movie Black Hawk Down? Ever heard of the Vietnam War? Technology isn't everything. This war in Iraq already proves that although we might be smarter then them when it comes to making bigger bombs and faster guns, when it comes to fighting battles in Iraq they have a thing or two to teach us. Keeping saddam alive isn't worth even one American life.
AstroProdigy Posted January 4, 2007 Report Posted January 4, 2007 I should hope all that illegal wiretapping could help us catch these people. Maybe if we banned guns instead of being in bed with the NRA then they wouldn't have the weapons to take more than a few hostages. How many troops did we lose from the time he was captured to the time he was executed making sure he can't escape? That's not how we lost 3000 troops. We don't need thousands of troops making sure he can't escape. In the Vietnam war the technology gap between us and them was nowhere near as extensive as in Iraq. In Black Hawk Down, one of our helicopters happened to get shot down by lucky militia. Failing with an organized operation to guard the former dictator from escape is extremely unlikely. We don't need to learn how to use civilians as a shield. That's their biggest advantage. Why not put Saddam on an island and guard the island? It's been done to lots of defeated leaders before to keep them from getting back into power.
NBVegita Posted January 4, 2007 Report Posted January 4, 2007 You need to correct your history on what actually happened in mogadishu, but that is not the arguement. And my how you underestimate these people. It is people like you, who when in our government cause things like 9/11 to happen. We cant take any chances. Wire taps? You could tap every phone in america and not catch half the terrorists in our country. These people are extremely intelligent. Have you not researched the training and preparation they did for 9/11? You could be living next to one and never know it. By hanging him that takes care of problems for iraqi's and problems for us. They are going to attack us over any reason they can think of. Right now their rally is Saddam's death. Give it 2 years when we have the next president, and they'll find another excuse. It was not the united states choice to have him executed, and they would have had no right to stop the iraqi government from doing what is perfectly in their right to do. Saddam deserved to be hung. He was hung. Any fallout from that on the United States is not on our heads.
AstroProdigy Posted January 5, 2007 Report Posted January 5, 2007 In Somalia we were peacekeepers which cause more problems too. The situation of keeping Saddam from escaping prison is completely different. I never said they have no ability to strike at us. I just said that a very specific operation of breaking someone out of prison with a superior military guarding him is extremely difficult even for our own best trained troops. I don't doubt their intelligence. I'm just saying that it's virtually impossible even with good planning. Striking us at home is something that they could probably still do now, though, thanks to our "strong on terrorism" president. The problem is we did know about some of the terrorists who commited 9/11. Our intelligence was very well organized and trained and the reason they still were able to attack was that the people on top ignored the warnings. I mean gees the CIA managed to pull together a massively successful invasion of Afghanistan without troops on the ground. It's been taken down now, though; a courtesy of Rumsfeld. I never said it was our choice to have him executed. It's not our fault that he was, but it was a mistake to have him executed when the United States could have kept him from getting free with a comparitively small effort. It's their mistake not to do it, but we will pay for it now with the increased terrorist attacks and the further breakdown of regional stability. Personally I think Saddam deserved to die, but the smart choice would have been to NOT make the terror into a martyr. There's a situation in the Middle East that becomes more and more ripe for war every day and this is just one more push in that direction.
NBVegita Posted January 5, 2007 Report Posted January 5, 2007 The problem is that with their extremists saddam is just the rallying point today. Tomorrow he will be forgotten and there will be a new rallying point. We can't not do something because it might upset some people in the middle east. I mean some of the middle east feels that all western powers should be destroyed.
AstroProdigy Posted January 5, 2007 Report Posted January 5, 2007 An escalation of violence today will have an effect on the situation tomorrow.
NBVegita Posted January 5, 2007 Report Posted January 5, 2007 It not really violent to hang someone. Its actually a quite passive act.
Greased_Lightning Posted January 5, 2007 Report Posted January 5, 2007 Hey, we didn't kill Saddam. Iraq didn't kill Saddam. Gravity killed Saddam, or rather the sudden stop and the fact that he didn't have a strong enough neck to survive. I say, blame gravity! Blame bones! Jihad on gravity!!!! You know what I heard? Gravity doesn't worship Allah. Gravity doesn't even believe in any God! Gravity is a heathen! That's worse than all the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and etc. combined!!! Gravity IS THE DEVIL!!!!! KILL GRAVITY!!! AHHHHH!!!!! RIOT IN THE STREETS WITH SUICIDE BOMBERS!!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALLAH IS GREAT!!!! GRAVITY, THE INFIDEL MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But seriously, that sonofa!@#$%^&* deserved it.
Wild Luck Posted January 6, 2007 Report Posted January 6, 2007 It not really violent to hang someone. Its actually a quite passive act. Well if he broke his neck on the fall he did not even know he died. I think saddam deserved a more severe punishment than death, like senteced to lifetime in jail in a solitude cell with no light (this causes desorientation and allusinations) and no contact with any person, not even able to see people (this coudl cause him to go insane). The only problem in letting saddam alive is that some terrorist coud hijack a plane or bank and capture innocent people and ask for saddam liberty in exchange for them.
SeVeR Posted January 7, 2007 Report Posted January 7, 2007 I mean some of the middle east feels that all western powers should be destroyed. Well how about we stop !@#$%^&*ing with them and see if they stop !@#$%^&*ing with us? I'd rather we did that rather than !@#$%^&*uming they'll !@#$%^&* with us whatever we do. I don't want to be apart of this media driven islamophobia just so some people can get away with fulfilling their conservative agenda.
AstroProdigy Posted January 7, 2007 Report Posted January 7, 2007 The Muslim world has been left behind and when socialist type secularists failed to change that, some people !@#$%^&*umed that it was because Islam was corrupted. That's why we have terrorists. Israel is just a catalyst. The only way to stop them is to stop what they percieve as unbalanced trade and let them dominate. Incase you haven't noticed, countries always want unbalanced trade for their benefit and they won't stop just so it'l go the other way around. Unless let the Muslim World be in charge or people move to secularism we will never see an end to terrorism. It's a fact of life. Deal with it and stop sticking your heads in the sand and hoping that appeasing the Muslim world will do the trick. You'd have to appease them to pre World War 2 Nazi appeasement levels for them to be happy and I'm not willing to hand them the world. Are you?
SeVeR Posted January 8, 2007 Report Posted January 8, 2007 There's plenty we can do without giving them the world or any small piece of land for that matter. I wouldn't define appeasement as an end to the wars being fought out on their land or a balancing of trade. We didn't invade Germany before giving them Czechoslovakia... and in the current case it wouldn't be "appeasement" on that scale. Don't you think we should put right our wrongs before concluding if they're a warlike bunch of fascist, racist, lunatics who will fight us no matter what we do? I know plenty of Muslims in the UK who don't fit that stereotype. Don't you think it defies common sense to wrong somebody and not expect them to fight back? Saying they'll fight us even if we didn't wrong them sure is a nice way to keep wronging them, isn't it?
NBVegita Posted January 8, 2007 Report Posted January 8, 2007 How did we wrong the Al queda? We gave them money. We gave them weapons. We gave them training. We gave them power. And they give us 3 of our own planes into civilian buildings.
AceSpades Posted January 8, 2007 Report Posted January 8, 2007 Don't you think we should put right our wrongs before concluding if they're a warlike bunch of fascist, racist, lunatics who will fight us no matter what we do? I know plenty of Muslims in the UK who don't fit that stereotype. I also know plenty that do. How about the Muslims that refuse to follow English rule and want an Islamic alternative to everyday life. They refuse to fit into society and instead want to build there own little private territory in the middle of our major cities. Did you not see the "Alternative Christmas Message" on channel 4? Some islamic woman in a full head-dress addresing the nation on a Christian holiday. You make me sick with you biased opinions.
Recommended Posts