sadamm huessein

[Anarchist Freedom]

i hope you guys dont like him hes an ass he tortured his own people with acid america does it but still do you support saddam?


:che:

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 23 2003, 07:47 PM
i hope you guys dont like him hes an ass he tortured his own people with acid america does it but still do you support saddam?


:che:
I think he is like most despots, a powerhungry tyran. Someone that hurts his own people, shouldn't deserve any respect in my opinion. The was mad and didn't respect human life in any way. It is his own fault he got banned from his own country by his nemesis. He failed to realise his dreams by his troubeld and false methods of work, I don't like him one bit, but I have to give him credit for his courage all than not true for opposing the mighty america without any fear ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree with Desert Fox that I admire Saddam Hussein for bravely standing up to America, (sadly) despite the fact that it cause his country to become devastated. He did not give in the pressure placed upon himself by false American conspiracies.

But as a political leader, he is a cock sucker. He is a dictator, a capitalist, he oppresses his people, he is a bastard. As far as America's stories about the attrocities he commits, I cannot say that I believe these or not, but whether or not he is an oppressive leader is not questioned, in America or elsewhere. He is an extremely oppressive leader, but not for the reasons provided by America. He is an oppressive leader for reasons ignored, as always, by America, which is what makes me detest Bush's campaign against him so much!

Use punctuation next time, please. :)

[Soviet power supreme]

I wonder where he is. If he is still in iraq , how come the americans haven't found him.

[BuyOurEverything]

I don't like him either for pretty much the same reasons given. The Kurds are hardly his own people though.

[commieboy]

Saddam is a horrible person...but where i live there are alot of Caldeans (Not sure if i spelt that right, or Catholic Iraqis) and they all like saddam because he never persecuted them, and they pray for him...But i think he should be killed, and killed again and again, until he dies. lol

But America's points are totally wrong to go to war with the Ba'ath party, one ecxuse is he HAS USED WMD on HIS OWN PEOPLE...i highly doubt muster gas BOUGHT FROM the U$ is a WMD...and those people of his were Kurds manning a 20mm cannon...so he had full right to gas them, because uprisings and rebellions are not under the geneva convention...but when you're hung from a celing fan and shocked for not getting a medal in the olympics...somthings wrong...

[BRIN]

Saddam Hussain is probly one of the ''better arab leaders'' under his reign minorities wern't discriminated against (with exceptions)he also seemed to bring socialism and social justice.Althogh his methods where harsh he was probly one of the best arab leaders the world has ever seen but not the best.

[Hawker]

He was a madman and a lunatic.He tortured and oppressed his own people.I spit on his face if I ever see him.He is no politician just another gangster who was lucky enough to get in head of a country.

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 03:23 AM
Saddam Hussain is probly one of the ''better arab leaders'' under his reign minorities wern't discriminated against (with exceptions)he also seemed to bring socialism and social justice.Althogh his methods where harsh he was probly one of the best arab leaders the world has ever seen but not the best.
Minorites weren't discriminated against?................if you define murder and torture of athletes as "harsh" then you are blind. The Kurds only wanted freedom from him and were gassed.................check your IQ at the door please.....either you are demented or are a teenager.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 23 2003, 08:49 PM
I wonder where he is. If he is still in iraq , how come the americans haven't found him.
Well do you honestly think they will find a man that powerfull so fast, they tried to find Osama Bin Ladin too but never found him too. I doubt anyone will tip the Americans where they can find him, since that the anti-america attitude is only growing. And that is ideal for saddam since he will remain out of the grasp of America. But I doubt really that he is still in Iraq. If I would guess, I think he would have found his refuge in Saudi-Arabië since that is one Arab country America won't mess with. They fear them for their control off Oil and if I would be Saddam I would take shelter there too ;)

[Intifada]

saddam hussein was a dick head, to say the least. he was a dick head, who was also supported by the americans when he attacked iran. the usa fund and love dictators, so long as they don't do anything the usa don't like. as soon as they defy us policies, they are evil.

i think that saddam should have been removed, but one doesn't have to do that by killing loads of innocent people and crippling their country. this war was never about weapons of mass destruction. it was all about oil and the further dominance of the israeli terrorists in the middle east.

FUCK BUSH AND HIS TERRORIST REGIME!!!

[Hawker]

Originally posted by Desert Fox+Oct 26 2003, 09:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Desert Fox @ Oct 26 2003, 09:48 AM)
Soviet power [email protected] 23 2003, 08:49 PM
I wonder where he is. If he is still in iraq , how come the americans haven&#39;t found him.
Well do you honestly think they will find a man that powerfull so fast, they tried to find Osama Bin Ladin too but never found him too. I doubt anyone will tip the Americans where they can find him, since that the anti-america attitude is only growing. And that is ideal for saddam since he will remain out of the grasp of America. But I doubt really that he is still in Iraq. If I would guess, I think he would have found his refuge in Saudi-Arabië since that is one Arab country America won&#39;t mess with. They fear them for their control off Oil and if I would be Saddam I would take shelter there too ;) [/b]
No he wouldn&#39;t go to Saudi Arabia because the Saudi&#39;s would arrest him and give him to the Americans on site.The Saudi&#39;s will do anything to please the US.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Hawker+Oct 26 2003, 04:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hawker @ Oct 26 2003, 04:24 PM)
Originally posted by Desert [email protected] 26 2003, 09:48 AM

Soviet power [email protected] 23 2003, 08:49 PM
I wonder where he is. If he is still in iraq , how come the americans haven&#39;t found him.
Well do you honestly think they will find a man that powerfull so fast, they tried to find Osama Bin Ladin too but never found him too. I doubt anyone will tip the Americans where they can find him, since that the anti-america attitude is only growing. And that is ideal for saddam since he will remain out of the grasp of America. But I doubt really that he is still in Iraq. If I would guess, I think he would have found his refuge in Saudi-Arabië since that is one Arab country America won&#39;t mess with. They fear them for their control off Oil and if I would be Saddam I would take shelter there too ;)
No he wouldn&#39;t go to Saudi Arabia because the Saudi&#39;s would arrest him and give him to the Americans on site.The Saudi&#39;s will do anything to please the US. [/b]
Don&#39;t be fooled, they want to give the USA the false illusion that they are loyal. Saudi-Arabië is far more smart than meets the eye. They have limitless funds and control the oil supplies. That makes them quit powerfull so you don&#39;t have to think they are the american&#39;s lapdog. And if saddam would get there they won&#39;t arrest him, they would just make that information gets to american ears. And even if it would, I don&#39;t think the us would be so stupid to go and attack saudi-arabië.

[BRIN]

Body guard,
I admit that the Kurds were discriminated against but at least he didn&#39;t discriminate people based on there gender,sexuality,faith,race which is very rare in the arab world.Also he kept those fundimentalist at bay which seem to be corrupting the arab world and i admire him for that.I admit he had lots of flaws but he was a hell of alot better than most of those other bastards over there(with exception to Muamer Quadaffi and Yassar Arafat).

I don&#39;t think removing Saddam was a very good idea because it has seemed to unite all the fundimentalist and converted many into fundimentalist which will result in a Shi&#39;ite(spelling)millitary coup as soon as the us lets down its guard making iraq the next iran or saudi arabia.

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 04:03 PM
saddam hussein was a dick head, to say the least. he was a dick head, who was also supported by the americans when he attacked iran. the usa fund and love dictators, so long as they don&#39;t do anything the usa don&#39;t like. as soon as they defy us policies, they are evil.

i think that saddam should have been removed, but one doesn&#39;t have to do that by killing loads of innocent people and crippling their country. this war was never about weapons of mass destruction. it was all about oil and the further dominance of the israeli terrorists in the middle east.

FUCK BUSH AND HIS TERRORIST REGIME&#33;&#33;&#33;
IHB, If you remember correctly Saddam was given many chances to leave Iraq peacfully. The last one on the day before the war started. He chose not to leave and bring distruction on his armed forces.......

"Israeli terrorists" huh?.........I assume you are saying that Isreal has no right to exist?

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 01:49 AM
Body guard,
I admit that the Kurds were discriminated against but at least he didn&#39;t discriminate people based on there gender,sexuality,faith,race which is very rare in the arab world.Also he kept those fundimentalist at bay which seem to be corrupting the arab world and i admire him for that.I admit he had lots of flaws but he was a hell of alot better than most of those other bastards over there(with exception to Muamer Quadaffi and Yassar Arafat).

I don&#39;t think removing Saddam was a very good idea because it has seemed to unite all the fundimentalist and converted many into fundimentalist which will result in a Shi&#39;ite(spelling)millitary coup as soon as the us lets down its guard making iraq the next iran or saudi arabia.
Brin, you are correct....Saddam was an equal oppertunity murderer. He slaughtered and imprisoned all who did not tow the party line.

[Intifada]

i am saying that israel has no right to demolish palestinian homes. i am saying that the israelis have no right to attack refugee camps. i am saying that israel has no right to attack civilian areas with apache helicopters (given by america). i am saying that the israelis have no right to illegally occupy the palestinian&#39;s land.

let me ask you a question, GB (lol), is it TERRORISM, when an israeli sniper shoots an old lady, who has only a cane, trying to make her way to a hospital for her cemotherapy treatment???

that is just one example of israeli terror.

i know that suicide bombings are acts of terrorism, however, what would you do when a foreign nation occupies your country???

ariel sharon has been involved in terrorism for years&#33; in 1983 he was found responsible for a civilian massacre by the lebanese militia in 2 palestinian refugee camps. 800 innocent people were killed in the brutal attack.

by the way the invasion and occupation of iraq is illegal, it&#39;s as simple as that&#33;

FREE PALESTINE AND IRAQ&#33;&#33;&#33;

ISRAEL ISREAL TERRORISM&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Desert Fox]

Well have anyone heard the news about the recent attacks in Iraq. Even the red cross got attacked. That is rather sad since they only try to help the people , I can understand they target military targets but help organisations is rather harsh. And what amazes me even more is the ones that peformed those attacks were foreigners and not even Iraqee people ...

[Intifada]

those foreigners have been sucked in by the usa. the usa has just increased the amount of terrorism, and hasnt prevented it.

[sledovatel]

desert, why does it amaze you so much that the terrorists attacking those soft targets were foreign to iraq? do you really think that the iraqi people want to create more chaos in their own country? of course not. but what about the surrounding arab nations? they have a lot to gain in a destabilized iraq. perhaps surprisingly to you people, the anti-american feelings are not as great inside iraq as many of you claim them to be. most anti-american sentiment is localized in the suni&#39;i areas and in hard-lined ba&#39;athist cities. but have you heard of any attacks outside of those areas? amazingly no. now the surrounding arab nations will say otherwise. why would they do a thing like that? because they want to make it seem as if the united states has failed. why else would they keep destroying oil lines? oh wait, i can hear your answer now "because america is just in it for the oil&#33;" all this chaos would be over sooner if france would stop supplying terrorists with missles.

oh yeah, ihateb., of course terrorists have been sucked there. why go out looking for all of them when you can just have them gather in one spot? now if only arafat would give us a visit...
-s

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 12:29 AM
desert, why does it amaze you so much that the terrorists attacking those soft targets were foreign to iraq? do you really think that the iraqi people want to create more chaos in their own country? of course not. but what about the surrounding arab nations? they have a lot to gain in a destabilized iraq. perhaps surprisingly to you people, the anti-american feelings are not as great inside iraq as many of you claim them to be. most anti-american sentiment is localized in the suni&#39;i areas and in hard-lined ba&#39;athist cities. but have you heard of any attacks outside of those areas? amazingly no. now the surrounding arab nations will say otherwise. why would they do a thing like that? because they want to make it seem as if the united states has failed. why else would they keep destroying oil lines? oh wait, i can hear your answer now "because america is just in it for the oil&#33;" all this chaos would be over sooner if france would stop supplying terrorists with missles.

oh yeah, ihateb., of course terrorists have been sucked there. why go out looking for all of them when you can just have them gather in one spot? now if only arafat would give us a visit...
-s
I see the point in your argument. It is no secret that the other Arab countries don&#39;t like America. I could understand that they attacked police stations because they saw them as lapdogs of the americans but when they attacked the red cross that really looked way to suspicious. And the other Arab countries don&#39;t want to have that the american have the valuable oil supplies of Iraq since that would weaken their position and they see America now as one of their biggest competition.

[Intifada]

the fact of the matter is that bush and blair both lied about weapons of mass destruction and the threat that saddam posed.

in feb 2001 colin powell said:

"He (saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destrustion"
bush&#39;s reasons to invade iraq were said to be:
1) IRAQ IS A THREAT TO PEACE- no it wasn&#39;t.
2) WE HAVE TO REMOVE SADDAM BECAUSE HE IS AN EVIL DICTATOR- true, but that does not mean killing iraqis and destroying their country. bush was never properly elected.
3) IRAQ HAS LINKS WITH AL QAEDA- not and never proven
4) HE HAS DEFIED UN RESOLUTIONS- so has israel. and the usa is violating human rights, at this present moment, in guantanamo bay.

this war was about oil. it was all about the protection of israeli terrorists.

and sledovatel, do not blame france. it was also the usa who provided the so called evil saddam with weapons. it was also the usa who supported and funded bin laden.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 05:54 PM
2) WE HAVE TO REMOVE SADDAM BECAUSE HE IS AN EVIL DICTATOR- true, but that does not mean killing iraqis and destroying their country. bush was never properly elected.

I want to know how you can plan a intervention without killing a single enemy soul. That is just impossible and if you want a intervention to take out the leader, you need to be willing to sacrifice people in order to stop the villian killing more people. You can&#39;t take out somebody without creating casualties even a 5 year old knows that ;)

[Intifada]

maybe you could have ended the sanctions, which were just damaging the people. then you could have sent support to the people, such as money and weapons in order to start a revolution and get rid of saddam. true overthrows that work occur when the people do it, just like in cuba.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 08:45 PM
maybe you could have ended the sanctions, which were just damaging the people. then you could have sent support to the people, such as money and weapons in order to start a revolution and get rid of saddam. true overthrows that work occur when the people do it, just like in cuba.
What and give Saddams regime the oppertunity to buy WMD, if it wasnt already? Good one. I remember reading that sinse Saddam came to power there have been 5 revolutions in Iraq... all bloodily put down, some of these when the USA had nothing to do with Iraq. So really you place the USA in a lose lose situation. Catch 22.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Saddam huh?

hmmm I hear just as bad as G.W.Bush.

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3215137.stm)

"why the harsh treatment, its like saddam"

[Intifada]

the fact is that the invasion of iraq was illegal. now the occupation is illegal.

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:43 AM
the fact is that the invasion of iraq was illegal. now the occupation is illegal.
The fact is that it does not matter now. It happened. Lots of stuff happens in this world that many consider illeagal.....like how Saddam gassed the Kurds.......

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Enigma+Oct 28 2003, 07:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Oct 28 2003, 07:54 PM)
[email protected] 28 2003, 08:45 PM
maybe you could have ended the sanctions, which were just damaging the people. then you could have sent support to the people, such as money and weapons in order to start a revolution and get rid of saddam. true overthrows that work occur when the people do it, just like in cuba.
What and give Saddams regime the oppertunity to buy WMD, if it wasnt already? Good one. I remember reading that sinse Saddam came to power there have been 5 revolutions in Iraq... all bloodily put down, some of these when the USA had nothing to do with Iraq. So really you place the USA in a lose lose situation. Catch 22. [/b]
I concur, you would never be able to get a revoltion against Saddam. It was just plain impossible and if you manage to get a revolution by the people you would send way more Iraqees to death than you would by a US intervention and do you would have wanted really so many bloodshed on your hands by your idea <_<

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Desert Fox+Oct 29 2003, 10:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Desert Fox @ Oct 29 2003, 10:47 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 07:54 PM

[email protected] 28 2003, 08:45 PM
maybe you could have ended the sanctions, which were just damaging the people. then you could have sent support to the people, such as money and weapons in order to start a revolution and get rid of saddam. true overthrows that work occur when the people do it, just like in cuba.
What and give Saddams regime the oppertunity to buy WMD, if it wasnt already? Good one. I remember reading that sinse Saddam came to power there have been 5 revolutions in Iraq... all bloodily put down, some of these when the USA had nothing to do with Iraq. So really you place the USA in a lose lose situation. Catch 22.
I concur, you would never be able to get a revoltion against Saddam. It was just plain impossible and if you manage to get a revolution by the people you would send way more Iraqees to death than you would by a US intervention and do you would have wanted really so many bloodshed on your hands by your idea <_< [/b]
Thats the problem with my "comrades" rather than see 7000 die in a US led invasion they would rather see 10,000+ killed in a revolution, and I am being very best case scenario with the 10,000 figure. History has shown that such civil wars are usually very very bloody.

However I do disagree with the sanctions, however (from Amnesty international) I have read that the sanctions in Iraq have killed nearly 1000,000 people, however the artical then went on to point out that Iraq produses and sells enough material to feed its self. But poor managment by the regime has lead to the deaths seen. Its all the palaces and armys of 10&#39;s of thousands taking the money you see. No the blame for the deaths caused by the sanctions though partially the fault of the USA, equil blame if not more can be laid on the door of Saddam Hussein.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by Desert [email protected] 27 2003, 12:09 PM
Well have anyone heard the news about the recent attacks in Iraq. Even the red cross got attacked. That is rather sad since they only try to help the people , I can understand they target military targets but help organisations is rather harsh.
hehehehe, when I read the news about the red cross getting bombed it made me think of this news story

US admits second bombing error BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1621921.stm)

This is the second time International Red Cross buildings have been hit since US air strikes began on 7 October. Two of the warehouses hit this time were struck last time around.

My guess on this is, that more than likely The Red Cross is the real evil in this world and both sides know it. Maybe Hitler&#39;s clone runs it now or something, maybe it is a Front for COBRA from G.I. Joe. I just wish they would release this classified information on the Red Cross to main stream media.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by Bodyguard+Oct 29 2003, 01:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bodyguard @ Oct 29 2003, 01:16 AM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 07:43 AM
the fact is that the invasion of iraq was illegal. now the occupation is illegal.
The fact is that it does not matter now. It happened. Lots of stuff happens in this world that many consider illeagal.....like how Saddam gassed the Kurds....... [/b]
Or how the US has practically wiped out an entire race of people.

Before you say that killing of the American Indians was a long time ago, what is the cut off time for that BTW? 100 years, 50 years? 20 Years? It isn&#39;t like we rushed in there the day after he gassed kurds, in fact we didn&#39;t really give a shit, so giving a shit about it now like it matters and to use it in an argument for us going in is, is sad.

I don&#39;t even remember us suggesting economic sanctions after he did that.

In fact, there was little coming from the White House at the time declaring anything about bad about that. I guess it is just good to dig up past actions of a country when it fits the need.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Enigma+Oct 29 2003, 10:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Oct 29 2003, 10:05 AM)
Originally posted by Desert [email protected] 29 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 07:54 PM

[email protected] 28 2003, 08:45 PM
maybe you could have ended the sanctions, which were just damaging the people. then you could have sent support to the people, such as money and weapons in order to start a revolution and get rid of saddam. true overthrows that work occur when the people do it, just like in cuba.
What and give Saddams regime the oppertunity to buy WMD, if it wasnt already? Good one. I remember reading that sinse Saddam came to power there have been 5 revolutions in Iraq... all bloodily put down, some of these when the USA had nothing to do with Iraq. So really you place the USA in a lose lose situation. Catch 22.
I concur, you would never be able to get a revoltion against Saddam. It was just plain impossible and if you manage to get a revolution by the people you would send way more Iraqees to death than you would by a US intervention and do you would have wanted really so many bloodshed on your hands by your idea <_<
Thats the problem with my "comrades" rather than see 7000 die in a US led invasion they would rather see 10,000+ killed in a revolution, and I am being very best case scenario with the 10,000 figure. History has shown that such civil wars are usually very very bloody.

However I do disagree with the sanctions, however (from Amnesty international) I have read that the sanctions in Iraq have killed nearly 1000,000 people, however the artical then went on to point out that Iraq produses and sells enough material to feed its self. But poor managment by the regime has lead to the deaths seen. Its all the palaces and armys of 10&#39;s of thousands taking the money you see. No the blame for the deaths caused by the sanctions though partially the fault of the USA, equil blame if not more can be laid on the door of Saddam Hussein. [/b]
Well the sanctions have killed many people in Iraq (but I doubt that it is 1.000.000 people, but anyway) but the sanctions alone didn&#39;t kill them, the bad regime was responsible also like you said. If the sanctions hadn&#39;t been there I doubt that there would have been far less civilian deaths, the only result would be probally that there would have been more palaces and wealth for saddam and his staff ...

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 29 2003, 10:06 AM
My guess on this is, that more than likely The Red Cross is the real evil in this world and both sides know it. Maybe Hitler&#39;s clone runs it now or something, maybe it is a Front for COBRA from G.I. Joe. I just wish they would release this classified information on the Red Cross to main stream media.
LOL &#33;&#33;&#33; Really I am amazed how you come up with such theories. Watch out or else you gonna get a application form to join Bush his staff. I think he would love someone that can create theories for him since he is running out of ideas :P

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 29 2003, 10:19 AM
Or how the US has practically wiped out an entire race of people.

Before you say that killing of the American Indians was a long time ago, what is the cut off time for that BTW? 100 years, 50 years? 20 Years? It isn&#39;t like we rushed in there the day after he gassed kurds, in fact we didn&#39;t really give a shit, so giving a shit about it now like it matters and to use it in an argument for us going in is, is sad.

I don&#39;t even remember us suggesting economic sanctions after he did that.

In fact, there was little coming from the White House at the time declaring anything about bad about that. I guess it is just good to dig up past actions of a country when it fits the need.
Well I hadn&#39;t thought about that event yet. But in my opinion the extermination of the the Indians was done far more crueller and way more horrible than the gassing of the kurds. The indians got betrayed, raped, slaughterd by the American people. In no way does those events can be compared with the gassing of the kurds. Saddam was a cruel man, but he looks like a baby when it comes to the first american and how they treated the Indians ...

[Intifada]

we all know that saddam was an evil man. i still think, however, that the invasion and occupation was wrong and an evil act in itself. the usa has killed many through sanctions and the two wars in iraq. the new problem now is that iraqis are suffering because of poor water supplies and no electricity etc

below is just one disturbing picture from iraq, which were caused by the usa and britain. Isn&#39;t this terrorism?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 05:54 PM
we all know that saddam was an evil man. i still think, however, that the invasion and occupation was wrong and an evil act in itself. the usa has killed many through sanctions and the two wars in iraq. the new problem now is that iraqis are suffering because of poor water supplies and no electricity etc

below is just one disturbing picture from iraq, which were caused by the usa and britain. Isn&#39;t this terrorism?
WOW, you show us a picture we have all seen before, or a paricualrly graphic death, in an attempt to shock us into submission to you arguments. Well sorry mate, but you show me one gory pic, you could show me 1000, it wouldent make a differance. You see Saddam Has killed 100,000 of thousands of people in syatematic campains to cleanse Iraq of Undesirables. The USA no matter what they do will not get a death tally as high as Saddam did and was doing, until he was removed. The US kills 7000 civillians, saddam would have probably killed 70,000, and im being very generous to him with that figure.

[Sabocat]

How can the death of countless 10&#39;s of thousands of children who died from dysentary, from lack of clean water be blamed on Saddam, when U&#036; warplanes were repeatedly bombing water purification and pumping facilities for almost 10 years?

http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html

[Bodyguard]

If Saddam would have spent the oil revenue on food and infrastucture instead on palaces and luxuries for himself and family and his croneys then the plight of the Iraqi people would have been much different. All he would have had to do is follow the rules laid down by the UN and stopped killling the Kurds and the US and the UK would not have had to have the "no fly zone". There is no argument anyone can give to justify the excesses of Saddam and his ilk.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 06:57 PM
How can the death of countless 10&#39;s of thousands of children who died from dysentary, from lack of clean water be blamed on Saddam, when U&#036; warplanes were repeatedly bombing water purification and pumping facilities for almost 10 years?

http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html
Thatnks a lot for those links the first in particular was very thought provoking, that artical quite literally has done more to change my mind that all the other debates/arguments i have had on this subject of sanctions before.

[Intifada]

its as simple as the fucking abc,
bush and saddam are both evil fuckers&#33; :angry:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:29 PM
its as simple as the fucking abc,
bush and saddam are both evil fuckers&#33; :angry:
that was never in dispute. ;)

[Intifada]

true, but you havent answered my question yet. that pic, isn&#39;t that terrorism? ;)

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 06:29 PM
its as simple as the fucking abc,
bush and saddam are both evil fuckers&#33; :angry:
But atleast saddam had balls :P

[Intifada]

LOL, but how do u know? :D

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:01 PM
LOL, but how do u know? :D
FACT: Saddam dared to go against the mighty USA <_<
FACT: Bush just faced Iraq because daddy told him too :P

[Intifada]

i was meaning literally&#33; ;)

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:25 PM
If Saddam would have spent the oil revenue on food and infrastucture instead on palaces and luxuries for himself and family and his croneys then the plight of the Iraqi people would have been much different. All he would have had to do is follow the rules laid down by the UN and stopped killling the Kurds and the US and the UK would not have had to have the "no fly zone". There is no argument anyone can give to justify the excesses of Saddam and his ilk.
How could he spend money to get chlorine for the water supply when it was a part of the sanctioning list of prohibited chemicals?

You can&#39;t purify water with money.

I&#39;m sick of hearing about the "palaces" like he&#39;s the only leader in the world that had them.

What about the White House and Camp David (American Palaces)? Plenty of people starving on the streets of America...why aren&#39;t you advocating tearing those places down to feed and house the hungry?

What about Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Holyroodhouse? Plenty of starving people on the streets of the UK....why aren&#39;t you advocating tearing that place down to feed and house the hungry?

Are you insinuating that the oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia (you know...the country where most of the hijackers of the planes that crashed into the WTC were actually from) doesn&#39;t have palaces while the poor starve in the streets?

Besides, your fable doesn&#39;t hold water, because before the sanctions, Iraq&#39;s population was healthy and the infrastructure was sound.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 11:25 AM
If Saddam would have spent the oil revenue on food and infrastucture instead on palaces and luxuries for himself and family and his croneys then the plight of the Iraqi people would have been much different. All he would have had to do is follow the rules laid down by the UN and stopped killling the Kurds and the US and the UK would not have had to have the "no fly zone". There is no argument anyone can give to justify the excesses of Saddam and his ilk.
Well you might be a socialist and you don&#39;t even know it.

What about all of America&#39;s poor, unemployed, getting laid off as CEOs get raises, spend millions on just a party, own multiple houses (million dollar mansions) when some people don&#39;t have any means of owning a home. Have great healthcare when others die in the streets with curable and treatable illnesses.

I could easily change your statement to this.

If CEOs would have spent the profits on food and infrastucture instead on palaces and luxuries for themselves, their family and croneys then the plight of the American people would have been much different.

There is no argument anyone can give to justify the excesses of the wealthy and their ilk.

[Exploited Class]

Just to add, but the very wealthy lay off people, removing their ability to provide, while the company is making a profit and move those jobs to 3rd world countries. Allthe while making more money and buying more luxury.

Just because you get to hide behind "Free Market Theory" and "Profit Margins" doesn&#39;t mean you aren&#39;t the exact same kind of person as Saddam when you get to do the same thing as him and with a clean conciousness. And I recall plenty of times that companies and CEOs have "killed citizens" and were not removed. In fact they try to cover it up and hide their actions, battle decisions in courts over their crimes against humanity. They even deystroy paper trails to try and get out of the punishments of their crimes.

Creating an economic system that you darn well know will never have 0% unemployment, that counts on paying people below livable wages, withholding medical treatments from your citizens, allowing for medical costs to be out of the reach of many citizens, is sickening to me.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:39 PM
true, but you havent answered my question yet. that pic, isn&#39;t that terrorism? ;)
is there a differance between terrorism and war?

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Enigma+Oct 29 2003, 04:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Oct 29 2003, 04:18 PM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 07:39 PM
true, but you havent answered my question yet. that pic, isn&#39;t that terrorism? ;)
is there a differance between terrorism and war? [/b]
I read a great line once that said something along the lines of:

The difference between terrorism and warfare is the availability of an air force.

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+Oct 29 2003, 07:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Disgustapated @ Oct 29 2003, 07:45 PM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 02:25 PM
If Saddam would have spent the oil revenue on food and infrastucture instead on palaces and luxuries for himself and family and his croneys then the plight of the Iraqi people would have been much different. All he would have had to do is follow the rules laid down by the UN and stopped killling the Kurds and the US and the UK would not have had to have the "no fly zone". There is no argument anyone can give to justify the excesses of Saddam and his ilk.
How could he spend money to get chlorine for the water supply when it was a part of the sanctioning list of prohibited chemicals?

You can&#39;t purify water with money.

I&#39;m sick of hearing about the "palaces" like he&#39;s the only leader in the world that had them.

What about the White House and Camp David (American Palaces)? Plenty of people starving on the streets of America...why aren&#39;t you advocating tearing those places down to feed and house the hungry?

What about Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Holyroodhouse? Plenty of starving people on the streets of the UK....why aren&#39;t you advocating tearing that place down to feed and house the hungry?

Are you insinuating that the oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia (you know...the country where most of the hijackers of the planes that crashed into the WTC were actually from) doesn&#39;t have palaces while the poor starve in the streets?

Besides, your fable doesn&#39;t hold water, because before the sanctions, Iraq&#39;s population was healthy and the infrastructure was sound. [/b]
I am sorry if you are sick of hearing the truth about Saddam.....he had BILLIONS stashed away as we have found. All he had to do to end the sanctions is behave like a civilized person and nation. But he chose misery for his country because of his meglomania. The White House a palace? Have you ever seen it? It is not very big and has nothing like the luxury of some of Saddams joints&#33; Camp David? ROFL it is a compound of several cabins in the woods....it was designed as a getaway not a palace&#33; Hmmmmmm I have never seen starving people in the US.....I assume you mean starving as in like Somalia starving? Hunger and starvation are two vastly different things (not to discount hunger in the least)........Iraq was hardly in perfect shape after a decade of war with Iran. And the sanctions only started AFTER he invaded Kuwait&#33; Again it is amazing to me that people will defend scumbags like Saddam just out of hate of the US.

[Sabocat]

I am sorry if you are sick of hearing the truth about Saddam.....he had BILLIONS stashed away as we have found. All he had to do to end the sanctions is behave like a civilized person and nation. But he chose misery for his country because of his meglomania. The White House a palace? Have you ever seen it? It is not very big and has nothing like the luxury of some of Saddams joints&#33; Camp David? ROFL it is a compound of several cabins in the woods....it was designed as a getaway not a palace&#33; Hmmmmmm I have never seen starving people in the US.....I assume you mean starving as in like Somalia starving? Hunger and starvation are two vastly different things (not to discount hunger in the least)........Iraq was hardly in perfect shape after a decade of war with Iran. And the sanctions only started AFTER he invaded Kuwait&#33; Again it is amazing to me that people will defend scumbags like Saddam just out of hate of the US.

Okay....I&#39;m going to make this as simple as I can for you. All he had to do was act like a civilized person and nation to end the sanctions? You mean the sanctions to get him to eliminate his Weapons of Mass Destruction? You mean the weapons that after invading and occupying they have never found? The weapons that UN inspectors never found while stationed there? The weapons that were repeatedly lied about by governments of several countries?

Now, here comes some simple logic. Follow closely....If they never found any Weapons, then he was behaving himself and living up to the conditions to get the sanctions removed. Of course you ignored my question to you when I asked how you could buy chemicals to purify the water supply when it was part of the prohibited chemicals under the sanctions. How is money then the solution to that problem?

As far as your pathetic description of the White House and Camp David. The White House costs millions of dollars to maintain every year. It has very sophisticated security systems and personnel. Do you have any idea what the value of property on Penn. Ave would be worth on the open market?

Camp David is much more than &#39;&#39;cabins in the woods". Doesn&#39;t it ever strike you as odd that no one ever sees pictures of it, and there is never any filming inside? It&#39;s government property afterall...paid for with tax dollars. Why no tours of it, like the White House? Because it has the most sophisticated security systems available. It is capable of functioning as a command center. Are you really naive enough that Presidents would bring foreign dignitaries to "cabins in the woods"?

Never seen starving people in the U&#036; eh? Don&#39;t get out much I guess. I have a gentleman that rummages through the dumpster across from my office every morning looking for scraps of food. He&#39;s in his early 60&#39;s and is as thin as a rail. Actually, emaciated is the word I would use. I occassionally buy him breakfast or will run out a protien bar to him if I catch him. He lives on the street and trust me....is starving.

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 09:30 PM

I am sorry if you are sick of hearing the truth about Saddam.....he had BILLIONS stashed away as we have found. All he had to do to end the sanctions is behave like a civilized person and nation. But he chose misery for his country because of his meglomania. The White House a palace? Have you ever seen it? It is not very big and has nothing like the luxury of some of Saddams joints&#33; Camp David? ROFL it is a compound of several cabins in the woods....it was designed as a getaway not a palace&#33; Hmmmmmm I have never seen starving people in the US.....I assume you mean starving as in like Somalia starving? Hunger and starvation are two vastly different things (not to discount hunger in the least)........Iraq was hardly in perfect shape after a decade of war with Iran. And the sanctions only started AFTER he invaded Kuwait&#33; Again it is amazing to me that people will defend scumbags like Saddam just out of hate of the US.

Okay....I&#39;m going to make this as simple as I can for you. All he had to do was act like a civilized person and nation to end the sanctions? You mean the sanctions to get him to eliminate his Weapons of Mass Destruction? You mean the weapons that after invading and occupying they have never found? The weapons that UN inspectors never found while stationed there? The weapons that were repeatedly lied about by governments of several countries?

Now, here comes some simple logic. Follow closely....If they never found any Weapons, then he was behaving himself and living up to the conditions to get the sanctions removed. Of course you ignored my question to you when I asked how you could buy chemicals to purify the water supply when it was part of the prohibited chemicals under the sanctions. How is money then the solution to that problem?

As far as your pathetic description of the White House and Camp David. The White House costs millions of dollars to maintain every year. It has very sophisticated security systems and personnel. Do you have any idea what the value of property on Penn. Ave would be worth on the open market?

Camp David is much more than &#39;&#39;cabins in the woods". Doesn&#39;t it ever strike you as odd that no one ever sees pictures of it, and there is never any filming inside? It&#39;s government property afterall...paid for with tax dollars. Why no tours of it, like the White House? Because it has the most sophisticated security systems available. It is capable of functioning as a command center. Are you really naive enough that Presidents would bring foreign dignitaries to "cabins in the woods"?

Never seen starving people in the U&#036; eh? Don&#39;t get out much I guess. I have a gentleman that rummages through the dumpster across from my office every morning looking for scraps of food. He&#39;s in his early 60&#39;s and is as thin as a rail. Actually, emaciated is the word I would use. I occassionally buy him breakfast or will run out a protien bar to him if I catch him. He lives on the street and trust me....is starving.
The UN (hardly a US cheerleader) and its weapons inspectors were thrown out before they were allowed to complete their inspections in 1998-99...The world knows he had them as proven when he gassed the Kurds in 1991. He never showed how they were disposed of like South Africa did when they renounced the use of WMDs. Yes chemicals with duel uses were closely monitored..I admitt that. Let me ask you a question. Do you know what the conditions were for the lifting of sanctions were?

The cost of maintaining the White House is small considering the overall wealth of our country and that goes for Camp David also. Compare the wealth of the US to Iraq and then look at difference...talk about not understanding things&#33; I have seen shots of the conferance room in Camp David when the Cabinet is meeting there. Of course it has tight security as well it should......the safety of the leaders of the country is important....dont think every other country is like this?

As I said there is a big difference between hunger (wich goes on in many places) and starvation. I think it is great that you help him out with food, that shows compassion. Have you told him where there might be a shelter or charity soup kitchen nearby also? Take a look at the news (any outlet you like) and watch some stories about Africa....that is starvation, my friend. I am not discounting hunger at all......but like everything else there is degrees of things.

[Sabocat]

The UN (hardly a US cheerleader) and its weapons inspectors were thrown out before they were allowed to complete their inspections in 1998-99...

There you go again, faithfully repeating what Bill O&#39;Reilly and Ann Coulter want you to repeat. This lie has been disproven so many times, that it&#39;s hardly worth showing anymore. If you read carefully, you will find that the inspectors were not kicked out. They left. Nothing was found.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/14/iraq.01/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/...ain537096.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml)

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg02099.html

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Enigma+Oct 29 2003, 08:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Oct 29 2003, 08:18 PM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 07:39 PM
true, but you havent answered my question yet. that pic, isn&#39;t that terrorism? ;)
is there a differance between terrorism and war? [/b]
There is a great difference between the two of them. In wars both partys face eachother on the battle field. In terrorism only one party attacks the other. Also in terrorism the soldiers are way more psyched up for their goal than most soldiers in a war. I can go on ages to state the difference but I won&#39;t waste your time ...

[Intifada]

i just looked up the dictionary for the meaning of terrorism. here is what i found: "organised violence to secure political ends"

you can make your own conclusions from that

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:23 PM
i just looked up the dictionary for the meaning of terrorism. here is what i found: "organised violence to secure political ends"

you can make your own conclusions from that
Well than you can divide them in two domains:
War: Political Terrotorial
Terrorism: Political Control

[flayer2]

he was a dick head, who was also supported by the americans when he attacked iran

The Iranian regime of Ayatolla khomeni was an enormous threat to the region at that time. All evidence points to khomeni as a regligious fanatic fundamentalist, with a version of Islam that was extremely aggressive in nature. He named both the Soviet union and the united states as great satans. He especially hated the secularism of the Iraq government and promoted revolution among the shite population ( definately a casus belli in itself). I can&#39;t blame Iraq for going to war with Iran. Sooner or later war would have been taken to them.

The US had a tilt in favour of Iraq but the preferred policy was for the war to continue indefinately ( remember Iran/contra).