Saddam < Gallows
Moderator: Moderators
Back on the subject of Saddam.....
IMO, he should have been jailed for life. Not just because I am opposed to the death penalty, but also because then he'd have to live out at least a few years (unless he whacked himself or some warden or co-convict did it for him) in a prison cell. An Iraqi prison cell. Stark contrast with his former palaces.
And for all those of you who wanted him shot in the nuts for suffering's sake, he'd suffer for a lot longer. Especially if the prison wardens and/or other convicts in there were Shi'ites or, even better, Kurds.
IMO, he should have been jailed for life. Not just because I am opposed to the death penalty, but also because then he'd have to live out at least a few years (unless he whacked himself or some warden or co-convict did it for him) in a prison cell. An Iraqi prison cell. Stark contrast with his former palaces.
And for all those of you who wanted him shot in the nuts for suffering's sake, he'd suffer for a lot longer. Especially if the prison wardens and/or other convicts in there were Shi'ites or, even better, Kurds.
Hell!!! Wake up guys!!! There are killing people out there!!! WTF???? There are always someone who kills, and someone, who killed!
It`s pretty easy while sitting in warm house, drinking beer and watching TV duscuss about how bad Saddam or how good Saddam was... There are very hard life out there! Life costs NOTHING! HOW DARE you to judge him if you don`t know anything about life in Iraq???
Anyhow, Saddam has lived for quite a long time, despite he could be killed numerous times, but he lived, and many of his enemies are dead. That`s the main story.
Strategia - i`d like to see if you would visit Iraq and ran on the streets screaming - dear Iraq people, thanks to Bush you are now free!! Happy new year!!! Let`s the freedom comes!! :) I wonder how long will it lasts...
Looks like blaming someone, whom you don`t know anything about, making you much more cool? Eh
It`s pretty easy while sitting in warm house, drinking beer and watching TV duscuss about how bad Saddam or how good Saddam was... There are very hard life out there! Life costs NOTHING! HOW DARE you to judge him if you don`t know anything about life in Iraq???
Anyhow, Saddam has lived for quite a long time, despite he could be killed numerous times, but he lived, and many of his enemies are dead. That`s the main story.
Strategia - i`d like to see if you would visit Iraq and ran on the streets screaming - dear Iraq people, thanks to Bush you are now free!! Happy new year!!! Let`s the freedom comes!! :) I wonder how long will it lasts...
Looks like blaming someone, whom you don`t know anything about, making you much more cool? Eh
I can only say that I LOVE my nice warm warm house and my nice, hillarious T.V and my wondeful wonderful beer.Babax wrote: It`s pretty easy while sitting in warm house, drinking beer and watching TV duscuss about how bad Saddam or how good Saddam was... There are very hard life out there! Life costs NOTHING! HOW DARE you to judge him if you don`t know anything about life in Iraq???
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
rattle, if you don't want to see politics discussed, don't read political threads.rattle wrote:Let's stop discussing politics you fools...
Some of us are mature enough to discuss it without rampant flamewars. Just because you aren't doesn't mean you should try to keep the rest of us from doing so.
You make a post to the same effect in seemingly every political thread, and quite frankly, it's getting old. Keep your posting to areas where you have something worthwhile to add.
easy there rattle this is gone along pretty well.
anyway i would like to address one of Babax's recent comments previous to his beer tangent...
anyway i would like to address one of Babax's recent comments previous to his beer tangent...
are u in fact doing the same thing right now. not only about Iraq but about America as well... again not trying to be a prick or anything but it seems kind of hypocritical. Anyway continue on with your discussion gentleman as this has been interesting reading so far...It`s pretty easy while sitting in warm house, drinking beer and watching TV duscuss about how bad Saddam or how good Saddam was... There are very hard life out there! Life costs NOTHING! HOW DARE you to judge him if you don`t know anything about life in Iraq???
Tell me when I did what you said I did.Babax wrote:Strategia - i`d like to see if you would visit Iraq and ran on the streets screaming - dear Iraq people, thanks to Bush you are now free!! Happy new year!!! Let`s the freedom comes!! :) I wonder how long will it lasts...
Looks like blaming someone, whom you don`t know anything about, making you much more cool? Eh
I hate ol' GW as much as the next Bush-basher, and I hate Saddam as well. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Bush is a lying idiot who's dragged the US into two relatively pointless wars - well, one at least, they did take out almost the entire leadership of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But my point about Iraq stands; there were no WMDs, public support for an attack was (IIRC) low and sinking, and now we're what, three years further on? and there are car bombs going off in marketplaces just about every single day. Now that isn't entirely Bush's fault, but he did set in motion the events that directly (note: directly, there are many underlying causes) sparked this atmosphere of violence.
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who abused his power enormously and who ordered the gassing to death of entire villages, as well as an ethnic cleansing of Kurds which somehow reminds me of the Endl├â┬Âsung.
Now which one is the lesser of two evils?
Saddam, a ruthless dictator who is now dead, or Bush, a snot-for-brains president who's eager for war and is sitting on just under ten thousand nuclear bombs. Now you tell me which is the lesser of these two evils.
(disclaimer: this post represents my and only my personal view, and is in no way affiliated to, associated with or even on the same planet as that of any organization to which I might claim affiliation, association or the sharing of the same planetary mass object. This has been a public service message. Thank You)
I'm not sure who to blame for the debacle of this thread, but since you're all at work finding who to blame for the conditions which spawned this thread, I guess I need not worry.
Over-simplified positions leading to gross hyperbole supported by blind faith. On the internet, there truly are no winners.
Over-simplified positions leading to gross hyperbole supported by blind faith. On the internet, there truly are no winners.
Strategia - well, first - Saddam has no relations with Al Qaeda. It`s obvious.
Second - why should we chose on of two evels Saddam or Bush if there are really don`t connected. Their countries in the different parts of Earth! They could live in there own countries futher, but no, Bush can`t sit without war, so he chose the weakest oppopnent....well, not the weakest, the weakest must be some Nigeria or Mozambic this bows-armed popua.
Saddam didn`t attack USA, well, BUT USA did attak Iraq. Reasons - you are already know about. We don`t chose between two evils, we just watching the only one evil. There is no other :)
Second - why should we chose on of two evels Saddam or Bush if there are really don`t connected. Their countries in the different parts of Earth! They could live in there own countries futher, but no, Bush can`t sit without war, so he chose the weakest oppopnent....well, not the weakest, the weakest must be some Nigeria or Mozambic this bows-armed popua.
Saddam didn`t attack USA, well, BUT USA did attak Iraq. Reasons - you are already know about. We don`t chose between two evils, we just watching the only one evil. There is no other :)
Where did I say that he did?Babax wrote:Strategia - well, first - Saddam has no relations with Al Qaeda. It`s obvious.
Not connected? Well, for one they're both leaders of a nation (well, Saddam is an ex-leader, but that aside). And Bush didn't attack Iraq because it was weak - in my personal opinion, the main reason to attack Iraq was OIL.Second - why should we chose on of two evels Saddam or Bush if there are really don`t connected. Their countries in the different parts of Earth! They could live in there own countries futher, but no, Bush can`t sit without war, so he chose the weakest oppopnent....well, not the weakest, the weakest must be some Nigeria or Mozambic this bows-armed popua.
Hmm, OK. Yes, somewhat agree with your point about Bush, and I'll be glad to see him go when his term is up (and I live on the other side of the frickin' ocean), but tell me - why do you consider gassing innocent villagers not evil?Saddam didn`t attack USA, well, BUT USA did attak Iraq. Reasons - you are already know about. We don`t chose between two evils, we just watching the only one evil. There is no other :)
Gassing innocent villagers IS evil! Same evil as beginning war for making money, same evil as approving narkomania, same evil as rasizm and so on.. so on.. so on... The world isn`t perfect, and we can`t do anything about it, can just try to make it better near ourselves.
Saddam - bad, yes, gassing people - bad too, BUT it was LONG TIME AGO, there was reasons to do that, or instead of this 144 people could be thousands dead in civil war, but maybe for you it`s better, because they`ll kill each other using knives, rocks, AK-47, but not gas.
Do you feel much better whe Saddam is dead? hehe.. I doubt that in Iraq things gets better, after this... There are always several sides, who ready to kill other sides at instant... Saddam could keep them at distants, could Bush do it? We`ll see....
Saddam - bad, yes, gassing people - bad too, BUT it was LONG TIME AGO, there was reasons to do that, or instead of this 144 people could be thousands dead in civil war, but maybe for you it`s better, because they`ll kill each other using knives, rocks, AK-47, but not gas.
Do you feel much better whe Saddam is dead? hehe.. I doubt that in Iraq things gets better, after this... There are always several sides, who ready to kill other sides at instant... Saddam could keep them at distants, could Bush do it? We`ll see....
Err, well, basically, that's what I'm saying.Babax wrote:Gassing innocent villagers IS evil! Same evil as beginning war for making money, same evil as approving narkomania, same evil as rasizm and so on.. so on.. so on... The world isn`t perfect, and we can`t do anything about it, can just try to make it better near ourselves.
OK, I admit I have not heard of any more recent gassings. Not touching on the horrible death that gassing causes, living in luxurious palaces like you're Donald Trump while over half of your country's population is suffering and barely scraping together an existence isn't evil?Saddam - bad, yes, gassing people - bad too, BUT it was LONG TIME AGO, there was reasons to do that, or instead of this 144 people could be thousands dead in civil war, but maybe for you it`s better, because they`ll kill each other using knives, rocks, AK-47, but not gas.
I don't feel better now that he's dead. Like I said, if it were up to me, he wouldn't have gotten off so easily. The death penalty is the easy way out when you're facing hard time in prison.Do you feel much better whe Saddam is dead? hehe.. I doubt that in Iraq things gets better, after this... There are always several sides, who ready to kill other sides at instant... Saddam could keep them at distants, could Bush do it? We`ll see....
Saddam could keep the Sunnis and Shi'ites and Kurds from slaughtering each other by oppressing two of the three aforementioned population groups. And as for Bush keeping them apart, well.....
