Saddam < Gallows

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 01 Jan 2007, 21:16

That is much clearer than your prior points. Thats because Saddam is not gassing Americans and Bush isn't waging pointless pointless war in America.

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 01 Jan 2007, 22:19

But... Why would the Iraqis care whether or not Saddam gasses Americans...?

Both Bush and Saddam are much worse for Iraq than they are for America, though it is debatable which one is worse for Iraq.

Before the invasion Saddam prevented civil war by killing anyone who he thought might cause it, but then we invaded, and toppled his government. So there was nothing keeping the stability except for the much hated American troops and civil war gradually erupted as the Americans lost control.

Saddam directly ordered the deaths of Iraqis, whereas Bush removed what was preventing the Iraqis from killing each other, causing them to kill each other. And I'm sure Bush wishes they would stop killing each other, because stability = lower oil prices.

Which makes Saddam much worse, IMO.

Babax · Post by **Babax** » 01 Jan 2007, 22:32

Zoombie - Not at all. I mean that for Bush doesn`t matters will Iraq people live, or all they die stupid death. Same for Saddam - it doesn`t matters for him what will be with americans, the main point for Saddam to hate Bush - because of economical sanctions, like inability to trade oil and other stuff like other countries do.

Same for Bush - he just WANT Iraq oil, and not to become a superhero in Iraq people eyes :) All this judgement stuff is about just to prove, that Bush not a scaried stupid agressor, not even like Hittler or Napoleon, because they fight with great armies, but a stupid scaried moron, who chose the weakest countries just to make some money.

Babax · Post by **Babax** » 01 Jan 2007, 22:37

Lindir The Green - very funny things you say :) Oil prices doesn`t connected with Iraq oil rings, because of Arabians and Russian oil market. It doesn`t matters will Iraq sell oil or not, oil prices are not affected by it, because of very small size of Iraq oil trading.

The reason they (Bush and his partners) get Iraq oil to own hands just to emprove their influence in the middle-east and make a reserve of oil, if anything not-good-for USA will happen.

P.S. And stop talking about democracy already, it`s not even fun :)

LOrDo · Post by **LOrDo** » 01 Jan 2007, 23:35

WOW. A political discussion topic that HASN'T ended up as a stupid factless flamewar.
Keep up the good work guys.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 01 Jan 2007, 23:59

Babax, where are you from? Just out of idle curiousity, mind you, but sometimes it seems like the hip thing to do in some countries is bash America. Not that I'm saying America (Or any other country in the world) dosn't need or deserve bashing, it just seems that some times people are more interested in critizing for critizing's sake.

I personally don't envy the status of "Worlds Largest Superpower." All that title gets you is flack from everyone else, because people like to pick apart the people at the top, no matter how good or bad they are doing their job.

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 02 Jan 2007, 00:07

Bush doesn't want civil war, because even if there were no oil in Iraq, there is a lot of around that area and war makes that oil more scarce, because of broken pipelines and diplomatic political problems.

At least that's what the economists and theorists say, and I assume they know more than me, so I just take their opinion as my own.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 02 Jan 2007, 02:37

I think Bush is worse for the simple fact that for all of Saddam's evil acts, his influence is nothing compared to the only man in the world who can order the obliteration of a country. Saddam couldn't even enforce iron-fisted rule over his own country; Bush, on the other hand, can enforce his wooden-fisted rule over the entire world.

Muzic · Post by **Muzic** » 02 Jan 2007, 07:14

Comp1337 wrote:I say we pave over all of the middle east and turn it into a walmart parking lot. whos with me?

Holy crap then where is the actually walmart building gunna be???

LOrDo · Post by **LOrDo** » 02 Jan 2007, 07:27

Zoombie wrote:Babax, where are you from? Just out of idle curiousity, mind you, but sometimes it seems like the hip thing to do in some countries is bash America. Not that I'm saying America (Or any other country in the world) dosn't need or deserve bashing, it just seems that some times people are more interested in critizing for critizing's sake.

I personally don't envy the status of "Worlds Largest Superpower." All that title gets you is flack from everyone else, because people like to pick apart the people at the top, no matter how good or bad they are doing their job.

All the cool Canuckistan kids bash the US.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 02 Jan 2007, 07:29

I'm cool! Why don't I get to bash America?

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 02 Jan 2007, 07:41

Zoombie wrote:I'm cool! Why don't I get to bash America?

Because the first part of your statement is unfortunately untrue.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 02 Jan 2007, 07:45

Oh blast.

At least I can still refer to people using 15th century british slang...

Exit69 · Post by **Exit69** » 02 Jan 2007, 08:23

Lindir The Green wrote:But... Why would the Iraqis care whether or not Saddam gasses Americans...?

Both Bush and Saddam are much worse for Iraq than they are for America, though it is debatable which one is worse for Iraq.

Before the invasion Saddam prevented civil war by killing anyone who he thought might cause it, but then we invaded, and toppled his government. So there was nothing keeping the stability except for the much hated American troops and civil war gradually erupted as the Americans lost control.

Saddam directly ordered the deaths of Iraqis, whereas Bush removed what was preventing the Iraqis from killing each other, causing them to kill each other. And I'm sure Bush wishes they would stop killing each other, because stability = lower oil prices.

Which makes Saddam much worse, IMO.

The way i see it is Saddam was preventing a civil war by suppressing the minority(basicly rebels), while the US is helping that minority to take over control

This is not a way to end a civil war. The stability is achieved the other way. It`s a pity that such malicious things are being done in a name of democracy. Read in the news lately - 3000th american is killed in Iraq conflict. But hey, they avenged the killing of some ~150 rebels... Which took place 25 years earlier. BTW Did you know that death penalty was officialy banned in Iraq? And was reintroduced after Saddam was caught? Isn`t reintroducing such things is in itself a crime against humanity?
I`m not defending either side here, this isn`t a way to end conflicts. Anyway we can only sit back and watch what happens next.

Babax · Post by **Babax** » 02 Jan 2007, 10:11

LOrDo - what`s the Canucistan?
Well, if someone is so interested, then I`m from Russian Federation. And I don`t have anything against american people. I`m just feel sad for them, because the nation became very lazy, too heavy and silly. The most intellegent americans are citizens from the other contries, such as China, Japan, UK, Russia and so on... It was very funny for me to know, that typical american man doesn`t know the own history and almost nothing knows about geography :)

It`s not the most important thing in the world, but i feel sad for them, huge number of not so clever people, who growned on TV-shows and constant desinformation. So when in TV News say that Saddam is worsest man ever - all the americans begin to hate Saddam, as it was true :) That`s the reason I`m so sad about it, it`s totally brainless people, they do what the others say. Well, there are NO democrasy in USA ither.

Do you know what the democracy means? REAL? I`ll say! The democrasy is when voice of scientist is the same weight as voice of drunk! Voice of president is the same as voice of homemade. It the society there are always much more dumb people than rerally wise ones, such as magister of science, teachers, philosophers and so on... So the democracy - is the rulling of worst. Same was Platon saying, if you know who is it.

That`s why i`m so dislike Bush. He kbows all this stuff and using dumb americans to make money in the world. :)

Comp1337 · Post by **Comp1337** » 02 Jan 2007, 11:46

Babax wrote:Do you know what the democracy means? REAL? I`ll say! The democrasy is when voice of scientist is the same weight as voice of drunk! Voice of president is the same as voice of homemade. It the society there are always much more dumb people than rerally wise ones, such as magister of science, teachers, philosophers and so on... So the democracy - is the rulling of worst. Same was Platon saying, if you know who is it.

True words that is.

We are seeing the results of this in sweden atm.. If the voting trend keeps up, sverigedemokraterna (basically the nazi party) will reach the parliament next time. Its not the drunks killing sweden atm, its the chavs

Democrazy is a stupid system if you think about it, but the alternatives present big problems. whos voice is deserved to listen to? who should be ignored? what is there to prevent a dictature from happening by corruption?

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 02 Jan 2007, 15:55

The solution is to give control of the world to a giant supercomputer, or aliens.

But anyway, the cool part about the American democracy is that the voice of a rich person is worth much more than the voice of a poor person, and to get rich you usually have to not be an idiot. (either that or your parents weren't idiots... Which makes you less likely to be an idiot)

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 02 Jan 2007, 16:05

Exit69 wrote:The way i see it is Saddam was preventing a civil war by suppressing the minority(basicly rebels), while the US is helping that minority to take over control This is not a way to end a civil war. The stability is achieved the other way. It`s a pity that such malicious things are being done in a name of democracy....

Saddam was part of the minority Sunnis, who had control of the entire government. He kept control by suppressing the majority Shiites and minority Kurds, as well as the rebels.

Then the US came in, and stupidly tried to set up a democracy, which gave most of the power to the Shiites, who were previously oppressed by the Sunnis. That's a recipe for failure.

And since the invasion weakened greatly the central government, there was nothing stopping the Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other, and now there was new reason to kill each other. The Sunnis could kill the Shiites because now they were angrier than ever, and the Shiites could kill the Sunnis because now they weren't oppressed anymore.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 02 Jan 2007, 16:18

Snipawolf wrote:Shoulda shot him from 30 feet, then 29 feet, then 28 feet, etc with a riot shotgun, filled with rubber pellets XD

That would hurt, until he died from too many concussive hits...

While I don't doubt that Saddam deserves such painful punishment - consider that Iraq is now a Muslim country dabbling with such wonderful things as Sharia law. Giving them new ideas for variations on the concept of "stoning" isn't a great idea.

Honestly, Saddam's death is pretty much irrelevant. The guy deserved it, yes - it's hard to argue that (whether any court has the right to give someone such just-desserts is an argument for a different thread).

edit: the worst part about the state of Iraq is that the USA can't even say "if you want us to go, we'll go and you can sort out your little blood feud" since the blood-feud could easily go international as Jordan, Iran, and Syria try and gobble the country up for their respective ethnic groups, and meanwhile a separatist Kurd nation would cause carnage for Turkey.

Babax · Post by **Babax** » 02 Jan 2007, 16:52

Lindir The Green - the funny thing is that in USA when the citizens have an opportunity to use theire right to voice - all this democracy stuff works perfect and their is no difference in voices weights.

Spring RTS Engine

Saddam < Gallows