Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 9

 

Poll

Was Saddam's Hanging the Right Thing?

Yes65%65% - 202
No34%34% - 106
Total: 308
2006-12-30 11:46:50
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6941|England

Turquoise wrote:

LostFate wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I agree that removing Saddam has allowed insurgents to take over the country and create a chaotic hellhole.  Our inability to anticipate this shows a true lack of leadership in our government.

However, I don't see how you can sympathize with a brutal dictator.
The only way to handle Barbarians is to be brutal quite obviously...now hes gone there just killing each other

Suicide cars? everyday this is the bullshit you get without saddam even if he was an asshat.
I agree.  But I'm also pretty sure that you'd be condemning America if we decided to become the next Saddam in the interests of maintaining order in Iraq.  If we started acting as brutal as Saddam was, and it actually started working, you'd be saying that we've become evil.

Granted, you'd be correct, but it just seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.  On the one hand, we're trying to be civil in our defense of Iraq.  On the other hand, it's not working because of what you mentioned.  This is why I'd prefer us to leave now.
I understand you man, but i dont think the US or Great Britain should have invaded, if the people were that bothered about Saddam they would have sorted it themselfs and have done it without the Hell hole that iraq is in now..

Remember a President should be afraid of there people not the other way round.
2006-12-30 11:47:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6861|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

LostFate wrote:


The only way to handle Barbarians is to be brutal quite obviously...now hes gone there just killing each other

Suicide cars? everyday this is the bullshit you get without saddam even if he was an asshat.
I agree.  But I'm also pretty sure that you'd be condemning America if we decided to become the next Saddam in the interests of maintaining order in Iraq.  If we started acting as brutal as Saddam was, and it actually started working, you'd be saying that we've become evil.

Granted, you'd be correct, but it just seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.  On the one hand, we're trying to be civil in our defense of Iraq.  On the other hand, it's not working because of what you mentioned.  This is why I'd prefer us to leave now.
You're forgetting that this war took the life of at least 100k civilians and more than 3000 American soldiers.  Who is responsible for that?
The death of the civilians is divided in cause by us and the terrorists.  I think you'll find that the terrorists (including militia members) have killed far more people than our soldiers have.

As for the death of our soldiers, that's because of the terrorists.

I'll agree that the War with Iraq was completely unnecessary and stupid, but I'm not blaming Bush directly for the death of these people.  Indirectly, you can blame him, but that's a bit different.
2006-12-30 11:47:53
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7127|UK

Blehm98 wrote:

terrorists
No Invaders = No Terrorist.

Time to rub those 2 brain cells together.

Last edited by m3thod (2006-12-30 15:39:14)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2006-12-30 11:50:48
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7213|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I agree.  But I'm also pretty sure that you'd be condemning America if we decided to become the next Saddam in the interests of maintaining order in Iraq.  If we started acting as brutal as Saddam was, and it actually started working, you'd be saying that we've become evil.

Granted, you'd be correct, but it just seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.  On the one hand, we're trying to be civil in our defense of Iraq.  On the other hand, it's not working because of what you mentioned.  This is why I'd prefer us to leave now.
You're forgetting that this war took the life of at least 100k civilians and more than 3000 American soldiers.  Who is responsible for that?
The death of the civilians is divided in cause by us and the terrorists.  I think you'll find that the terrorists (including militia members) have killed far more people than our soldiers have.

As for the death of our soldiers, that's because of the terrorists.

I'll agree that the War with Iraq was completely unnecessary and stupid, but I'm not blaming Bush directly for the death of these people.  Indirectly, you can blame him, but that's a bit different.
It doesn't matter who killed the civilians.  The American soldiers are just victims here.  And you can blame Bush, because he invaded a country using false excuses and evidence and converted Iraq into the mess it is today.
2006-12-30 11:50:52
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6941|England
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhR04RkBFhs

GODDAMN right you son of a bitch its got nothin to do with it
2006-12-30 11:52:42
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7102
Copied and pasted my response from the other Saddam thread:

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).

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.
2006-12-30 11:54:39
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6941|England

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Copied and pasted my response from the other Saddam thread:

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).

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.
Who's Going To Judge Bush?
2006-12-30 11:56:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6861|North Carolina

LostFate wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

LostFate wrote:


The only way to handle Barbarians is to be brutal quite obviously...now hes gone there just killing each other

Suicide cars? everyday this is the bullshit you get without saddam even if he was an asshat.
I agree.  But I'm also pretty sure that you'd be condemning America if we decided to become the next Saddam in the interests of maintaining order in Iraq.  If we started acting as brutal as Saddam was, and it actually started working, you'd be saying that we've become evil.

Granted, you'd be correct, but it just seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.  On the one hand, we're trying to be civil in our defense of Iraq.  On the other hand, it's not working because of what you mentioned.  This is why I'd prefer us to leave now.
I understand you man, but i dont think the US or Great Britain should have invaded, if the people were that bothered about Saddam they would have sorted it themselfs and have done it without the Hell hole that iraq is in now..

Remember a President should be afraid of there people not the other way round.
The first part I agree with.  Again, I was against the War with Iraq, and withdrawal should be done as soon as possible.

The second part is kind of fuzzy...  See, on the one hand, before Saddam, Sunnis and Shiites were killing each other.  When Saddam entered power, he suppressed both groups, but he favored the Sunnis -- many of whom became Baathists.  Being the minority of the area, the Sunni aristocracy that developed created an environment where a large Shiite underclass was oppressed by Saddam.  In addition to this, Saddam treated the Kurds as the lowest of the low.  He killed thousands of them, because they posed a separatist threat to his power.

So, after Saddam fell, the Kurds remained separated from the other groups and were very grateful for our intervention.  They tried to fight Saddam, but despite their unity, they could not fight the power of his military.

The Sunnis had no reason to fight Saddam, but after Saddam fell, the Shiites understandably had some scores to settle with them.  In the meantime, Iran supports the Shiite militias while the Saudis support the Sunnis.  All of these outside influences coupled with the hatred each group had for each other made it impossible for the Iraqi people to unite against Saddam.  Had all 3 groups put aside their differences, Saddam may have actually fell internally, but this cooperation was not even a remote possibility.

I still agree that we shouldn't have intervened though....
2006-12-30 11:56:42
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7222|UK
Another method of killing him was probably needed. However he was going to die no matter what.
2006-12-30 11:58:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6861|North Carolina

m3thod wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

terrorists
No Invaders = No Terrorist.

Time those 2 brain cells together.
Tell that to the people who lived in Iraq before Saddam.

Terrorism is something that occurs just as often without an invasion as with one.  The Sunnis and Shiites had been committing terror acts on each other for quite some time before Saddam rose to power.

Granted, the scale of terrorism has definitely increased in Iraq after removing Saddam.
2006-12-30 11:58:50
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7213|Argentina

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Copied and pasted my response from the other Saddam thread:

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).

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.
I'm saying hanging Saddam is barbaric and it will only cause more violence.  I never said hang Bush and I never compared him to Saddam, who by the way never killed hundreds of thousands, do you have a source? And Bush is responsible for every single death in Iraq since 2003.  He invaded the country based on false evidence or poor intelligence, whatever you want and he removed the only guy who could handle the situation.   Even his dad criticized him.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-12-30 12:02:41)

2006-12-30 12:00:27
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7140|United States of America
I don't see why people think capital punishment must be the most humane thing to look at. Break the neck on the drop and the person dies unconscious. Guillotine for less than 1/4 second and they're dead but OH NOES the people have to look at blood. People even call lethal injection inhumane because it takes more time than other methods. It was created to deter people from committing crimes so it doesn't help if there is no message.
2006-12-30 12:01:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6861|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You're forgetting that this war took the life of at least 100k civilians and more than 3000 American soldiers.  Who is responsible for that?
The death of the civilians is divided in cause by us and the terrorists.  I think you'll find that the terrorists (including militia members) have killed far more people than our soldiers have.

As for the death of our soldiers, that's because of the terrorists.

I'll agree that the War with Iraq was completely unnecessary and stupid, but I'm not blaming Bush directly for the death of these people.  Indirectly, you can blame him, but that's a bit different.
It doesn't matter who killed the civilians.  The American soldiers are just victims here.  And you can blame Bush, because he invaded a country using false excuses and evidence and converted Iraq into the mess it is today.
Well, I see what you mean.  I don't think I like Bush anymore than you do, but I'd rather blame him for direct actions like the ones you mentioned above.  He did lie to get us into Iraq.  He did exploit our fear of terrorism to get public support.  I just can't bring myself to blaming him for all the death we see in Iraq.  That's just too complex of a situation to blame on one person.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-12-30 12:01:57)

2006-12-30 12:04:20
SealXo
Member
+309|6992
What the fuck kind of question s this? Saddam Insane killed 180,000 fucking KURDS

innocent women and children
fucking babies born without a arm
10 toes
no assholes
fuck you
if that was your child. You wouldnt hesitate to kill the bastard
2006-12-30 12:04:56
justice
OctoPoster
+978|7197|OctoLand
I still don't see the need in hanging his dog...poor dog...
I know fucking karate
2006-12-30 12:05:07
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7127|UK

Turquoise wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

terrorists
No Invaders = No Terrorist.

Time those 2 brain cells together.
Tell that to the people who lived in Iraq before Saddam.

Terrorism is something that occurs just as often without an invasion as with one.  The Sunnis and Shiites had been committing terror acts on each other for quite some time before Saddam rose to power.

Granted, the scale of terrorism has definitely increased in Iraq after removing Saddam.
That is what i meant

I replied to Blem98 in a manner which reflected his input to this thread.

Last edited by m3thod (2006-12-30 12:13:23)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2006-12-30 12:06:04
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7213|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


The death of the civilians is divided in cause by us and the terrorists.  I think you'll find that the terrorists (including militia members) have killed far more people than our soldiers have.

As for the death of our soldiers, that's because of the terrorists.

I'll agree that the War with Iraq was completely unnecessary and stupid, but I'm not blaming Bush directly for the death of these people.  Indirectly, you can blame him, but that's a bit different.
It doesn't matter who killed the civilians.  The American soldiers are just victims here.  And you can blame Bush, because he invaded a country using false excuses and evidence and converted Iraq into the mess it is today.
Well, I see what you mean.  I don't think I like Bush anymore than you do, but I'd rather blame him for direct actions like the ones you mentioned above.  He did lie to get us into Iraq.  He did exploit our fear of terrorism to get public support.  I just can't bring myself to blaming him for all the death we see in Iraq.  That's just too complex of a situation to blame on one person.
He is responsible directly or indirectly, but yet responsible.
2006-12-30 12:06:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6861|North Carolina

DesertFox423 wrote:

I don't see why people think capital punishment must be the most humane thing to look at. Break the neck on the drop and the person dies unconscious. Guillotine for less than 1/4 second and they're dead but OH NOES the people have to look at blood. People even call lethal injection inhumane because it takes more time than other methods. It was created to deter people from committing crimes so it doesn't help if there is no message.
I agree.  I think the guillotine would've sent a more powerful statement against Saddam.
2006-12-30 12:08:31
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7213|Argentina

SealXo wrote:

What the fuck kind of question s this? Saddam Insane killed 180,000 fucking KURDS

innocent women and children
fucking babies born without a arm
10 toes
no assholes
fuck you
if that was your child. You wouldnt hesitate to kill the bastard
I never said he didn't deserve to die, but hanging?  I love you too.
2006-12-30 12:08:55
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|7109|pimelteror.de
Was Saddam's Hanging the Right Thing? yes


death penalty is not to punish the criminals, it is to satisfy the lynchmob...

i think, it would have been better, to proceed the trial, so that every crime, he committed,
could have been processed. killing is always the easy solution for dumbheads...

Last edited by [pt] KEIOS (2006-12-30 12:12:47)

2006-12-30 12:09:58
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7102

Turquoise wrote:

That's just too complex of a situation to blame on one person.
Agreed. That is extremely flawed logic. One could say that Barbara Bush is indirectly responsible for all the killing in Iraq because she gave birth to George W. It is simply a cliche excuse made by people who are simply ignorant to the situation, or are so biased that they refuse to accept anything else. Like you said, the situation is far more complex than that.
2006-12-30 12:11:22
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7213|Argentina

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

That's just too complex of a situation to blame on one person.
Agreed. That is extremely flawed logic. One could say that Barbara Bush is indirectly responsible for all the killing in Iraq because she gave birth to George W. It is simply a cliche excuse made by people who are simply ignorant to the situation, or are so biased that they refuse to accept anything else. Like you said, the situation is far more complex than that.
We are lucky to have you to enlighten us.
2006-12-30 12:12:02
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7127|UK

SealXo wrote:

What the fuck kind of question s this? Saddam Insane killed 180,000 fucking KURDS

innocent women and children
fucking babies born without a arm
10 toes
no assholes
fuck you
if that was your child. You wouldnt hesitate to kill the bastard
No one is shedding a tear for Saddam.

It was the manner this whole facade has culminated.  You know, oops sorry you don't WDM lets overlook the fact we attacked a sovereign state that was of no risk to us, oh and we'll put you on trail in this monkey court and let it rumble on for over a year and then string you up and kill 1000's of your countrymen during the process.

Apart from that well Saddam old boy, sleep well....and we shall continue to uphold truth, virtue, freedom.

Total and utter BOLLOCKS.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2006-12-30 12:21:18
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6861|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

That's just too complex of a situation to blame on one person.
Agreed. That is extremely flawed logic. One could say that Barbara Bush is indirectly responsible for all the killing in Iraq because she gave birth to George W. It is simply a cliche excuse made by people who are simply ignorant to the situation, or are so biased that they refuse to accept anything else. Like you said, the situation is far more complex than that.
We are lucky to have you to enlighten us.
Fancy and I disagree on a number of topics, but we definitely agree on this one.

I'll break it down....  We can stretch it and say that Bush can be held responsible for the deaths of civilians that accidentally occurred when we invaded.

However, in looking at the deaths that occurred after the war, most of them were the result of terror acts or militias fighting each other.  Those deaths cannot be attributed to Bush, because it's not like Bush was intending these terrorists and extremists to fight each other.

It was really pathetic that he didn't seem to anticipate this occurring, but again, I'm not saying he's responsible for their actions.
2006-12-30 12:29:50
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7213|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:


Agreed. That is extremely flawed logic. One could say that Barbara Bush is indirectly responsible for all the killing in Iraq because she gave birth to George W. It is simply a cliche excuse made by people who are simply ignorant to the situation, or are so biased that they refuse to accept anything else. Like you said, the situation is far more complex than that.
We are lucky to have you to enlighten us.
Fancy and I disagree on a number of topics, but we definitely agree on this one.

I'll break it down....  We can stretch it and say that Bush can be held responsible for the deaths of civilians that accidentally occurred when we invaded.

However, in looking at the deaths that occurred after the war, most of them were the result of terror acts or militias fighting each other.  Those deaths cannot be attributed to Bush, because it's not like Bush was intending these terrorists and extremists to fight each other.

It was really pathetic that he didn't seem to anticipate this occurring, but again, I'm not saying he's responsible for their actions.
I agree with you, it's pathetic that he didn't anticipate this happening and that's why he is directly and indirectly responsible. 
The difference between you and Fancy_Pollux is one, while you can debate without insulting or harassing the other person, he doesn't know a better way.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard