Silly little Saddam!! :D

[danipunk]

Originally Posted by haecz

hey, im not in any ways a US-fan, i might be considerd the opposite, but as mattmeck said. its a good thing that they
cought him..

First of all, the person captured is not Saddam, its Santa Claus :lol: :lol:

Jokes apart. Its true that he was a big fucking bastard, and had killed a lot of innocents. But the world is FULL of these bastards. One more or less wouldnt change it. Be realistic. This year, the children that will be killed, is going to be like the last year (more or less), and the capture of Saddam wont change the things.

The problem is that US, has decided to take him for the good way or the bad way. The HADNT HAVE the power to hunt people this way. You probably had forgotten that Saddam is a PERSON, and he feels and loves, and also hates, like me or you.
Someone had to Stop it, but no the Us. Maybe the iraqians with organization could had killed Saddam. We cant know it because Mr O'bush wants to play War with his "alives gijoes"

In definitely, Dont have the right to follow and hunt a person out of your country, in name of freedom or in name or nothing (He had done it i name of petrodollars... )

[a_Guest03]

Actually, it does make a difference when you take him out. It's a fixed cost vs. a variable cost. If we take him out now, we kill X amount of children. If we don't take him out now, he kills (yearly) X amount of children.

Saddam probably has 10+ years of rule, and 2 able-bodied children to rule after him. His progeny could rule until SOMEONE overthrew him for being ruthless and murderous. So you now have stopped ~70 years of his family's murderous rule, assuming that no organization would have stopped him aside from the U.S.

Do the math! Saddam would kill more in his tenure than this war could possibly kill without using WMD, and his children would topple the figure by a large amount.

50X is much bigger than X. Also assume that those people have feelings, and love and hate as well. In their death and desperation, do they not want the U.S. to save them? If not, that's just suicide, and pathetic (in a sad way, not in a mean way). I think the condemned among Saddam's enemies would love anyone to defy him. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Why are the Iraqi's helping us to capture the old rulers if they love their government so much? It's because they don't trust Saddam almost as much as they don't trust us. That means a lot, because of something I know to be true. You feel safer with the demons you know than with the angels you don't. Battered women won't leave their husbands. Abused children won't tattle on their parents. If the Iraqi's are turning on Saddam, they DO NOT want him there. The American's wouldn't turn in Bush to a foreign commander unless they HATED him. The British wouldn't turn in Tony Blair.

We DO kill people, but the arabs are killing their own people as well! Who will stop them? Apparently it's the U.S. and their allies. Dani, I know that you don't agree with us fighting them for oil. You don't agree with us fighting them for freedom, because of the oil incentives. You don't think the U.S. is trustworthy enough or altruistic enough to take the country and give it back, or you believe that we just aren't WORTHY enough, because we are filthy Americans. It's happened before, quite a few times. It only backfired a few times, like with Germany in between WWI and WWII.

I wish the world would stop hating us. We aren't bullies, and we aren't ruthless. The movies want to portray the US government as some untrustworthy secret society, but I don't think that's true. The US makes a lot of mistakes, but there are a lot of people to care for, and that takes a lot of work. On top of that, there's fighting between parties that stops much progress. It seems stupid, but it keeps guys like Saddam out.

One day, the fate of the US in the eyes of the world will fall on another nation, and they will be the disdain of the remainder of mankind. We are just and honest as a society, and our people are wiser than we know what to do with. We just haven't adapted yet to a purely integrated global population with global ideas. When it is all there, we'll do a lot better.

[Baron Sprite]

Saddam needed to go, and if you hate the US and it's decision to go to war against him, sorry your country had to sit through another victory against a mass murderer in the safety of your borders while americans/coalition forces died to save millions of lives in a country thousands of miles away that most people know little to nothing about.

[theobeo92]

Holy Crap!!!! A_guest03!!

You are like a freaking speechwriter or something..

that was beautiful....


*turns off Black Eyed Peas "Where is the Love"*

I agree, we are not bad, but we are mistakenly portrayed as it.

Up with resolution!
Down with persecution!!

Made that up myself!!

[haecz]

but one thing your missing is that the US ignored the UN.
and did what was best in their minds. they should
have waited for the UN and done a united attack against
terrorism.... not trying to save the world from terrorism..
coz its not their job to be the Mighty-US-Pooolice-mess-with-us-and-we-shut-your-ass-down....

[Merth]

but one thing your missing is that the US ignored the UN.
and did what was best in their minds. they should
have waited for the UN and done a united attack against
terrorism.... not trying to save the world from terrorism..
coz its not their job to be the Mighty-US-Pooolice-mess-with-us-and-we-shut-your-ass-down..

Would you make the same argument with Al-Qaeda in the pre-9/11 years? If we had known about their capability prior to that day, should we have sat on our ass and waited for the UN to pass something?

[a_Guest03]

The U.S. had legal rights to attack Iraq. They were violating their U.N. resolution, and we had every right to attack them. What should we have waited for, everyone to say, "cool! Do it!", or something to that effect?

If you can rout your enemy with only your country's allies, and you're allowed to do so by international treaties (UN), why shouldn't you? We were attacked on our own soil by Afghanistanian zealots, and they received support from Saddam, who was violating his resolutions.

[haecz]

Originally Posted by a_Guest03

The U.S. had legal rights to attack Iraq. They were violating their U.N. resolution, and we had every right to attack them.

that doesnt give the US the right to start a war,
its the UN's thing to sort out. And since Bush doesnt
seem to give a flying fuck about what the UN says
he shouldnt go berserk when Saddam's not keeping his word.

Originally Posted by Merth

Would you make the same argument with Al-Qaeda in the pre-9/11 years? If we had known about their capability prior to that day, should we have sat on our ass and waited for the UN to pass something?

at 9/11 Al-Qaeda were the aggressors, and US would have all the right to strike them down... but now the US is interfearing with other peoples deals and so on...
they think that just because the UN has a resolution, and Saddam is breaking it, they can bust his balls...
ITS not Bush's job to be some kind of a hitman...

[a_Guest03]

The U.N. made the resolution... and it gave the U.S. rights to start the war against Iraq because they failed to uphold their end of the bargain. So what did we do wrong?

[haecz]

i did not know that the UN gave Bush the 'right' to
bomb Iraq to ruins,.. and THEN look for Saddam,
but if that was the case.... dang.. thats just stoopid :P

[a_Guest03]

Welcome to the wonderful world of UN. What I read about the UN resolution was that it granted any member of the UN rights to attack based on Saddam's failure to yield a document proving destruction of WMD. I heard "any member". So, when we follow the resolution that the UN made, even with an unpopular move, how can we be blamed for not following the UN?? The only thing we didn't do was take a poll on how popular the move would be. It obviously was an unpopular choice. Either the U.N. members need to more carefully make their laws, or they need to be accepting of the consequences.

Saddam broke the rules of the UN and a member of the UN decided to beat him up. Saddam acted like a child, and pretended that he couldn't get the evidence together, and cockblocked investigators. So he was hiding something, and failed to prove WMD destruction. Bush may seem stupid, but I'd assume it was WMD too, if Saddam pulled that crap on me. He had them once, and he didn't destroy them.

If he cared about his people, he would've fed the UN the evidence and told us to stop bothering him. His people's suffering results from the actions of two major people, Saddam and Bush. Saddam's failure to lead caused us to fight him. You don't try to muscle or lie to every country in the world, especially when they expect you to fight using chemical or nuclear weapons, like Saddam had in the past.

As for bombing, it's standard procedure to cut off the enemy's ability to produce weaponry, or anything that can be used for weapons. I can't speak for all bombs, but military structures, major munitions factories are usually the first things to go. There are errant bombs that strike mosques and other civilian structures from time to time, and I feel sorry for the people injured in those bombs. It's a terrible misfortune.

[haecz]

If he cared about his people, he wouldnt have killed and tortured them for 20 years :P

[a_Guest03]

Good point.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by mattmeck

The US is not taking over there oil wells we are paying to fix everything over there out of our pockest vie tax $, so us self centered americans are rebuilding someone elses country to make there lives better

I wonder why you are paying for that out of your pockets, maybe you wona see the EU to pay for it? Becouse you saved Iraq and startet a holy war? Even if Saddam has been caught theres still mr. Osama out there hes even a lucky guy he got schooled by fbi/cia and recieved money to get this war on i mean com`on sometimes i think im in the wrong movie. I remember that conference of Cofee anan where he was holding up that little bottle of anthraxx o whatever it was? I mean be serious you think any sane human wud bring sutch shit there even if that bottle was only simbolic you cant be serious. An to mr. GWBush hes a joke the worst and dumbest president ever witch guy gets nearly killed by a bretzel!!!His dogs where licking him for the sault and he was about to die... How many people have to die untill this fuckt up planet blow finally up and theres nothing left,nothing at all atleast there wud be peace for ethernithy.

I dont wona get hystorical but the nation whit the most blood on his hands is the U.S.A you can say whatever you wont. They was having fights that till this day never got to the surface of a news paper. I dont say that the Germans where angels or the russians or anibody else but the us is NR.1 telling fairitales and i feel sorry for the honest people over there becouse they serve a country like this. Blinded by their honor and patriotism witch gets me sick.

And dont let us forget the event of Hiroshima...

God dosent exist, somebody please bless this world...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all those people whit threir (List of stupid Users) go on and put me on it i dont really care im saying what ive seen,think,feel the right of expression and to critisize.

[Raldarin]

Yes... America does have bloodstained hands. but to say it has more blood on it's hands then any other country? Cmon.. look how new the USA is compared to any other country... Imagine the hundreds and hundreds of years of Feudalistic warfare in europe.. before US even came into being. what about the french/english 100 year war? Mongolian conquest, (ghengis/Kublai khan)? The Crusades! The roman conquests, greeks.. The CONSTANT warfare in africa since before civilization! All before USA even came into existance. NO, USA is NOT the most bloodstained country. And Hiroshima... Yes, we dropped that bomb, but look at the facts, Common practice in japan was death before dishonor.... The fight beforehand had been very brutal every inch we took soaked both sides in blood. Japan would not give up until dead. japan attacked the US, the US was staying OUT of the war until provoked by japan. Through stealth they bombed pearl harbor, killing many innocent americans, for absolutely no reason. The USA wasn't even in the war... Japan started it, we finished it. Had we not stopped the fight with the bomb, more japan lives would have been lost, because they would not have surrendered. It would have been pointless casualties on both sides. Seeing the power of the USA, made japan step down, thus ending the wasting of life.

On the Saddam issue, Yes, we went over there, and damn proud of it. Saddam gave aid to Osama, for direct attacts on US soil. For aiding the US's enemy, they labeled themselves enemies. If it were not for Saddam, the attacks might never have been launched. So Saddam indirectly assaulted the US. As guest also stated, we had "legal" rights through the treaties as well. Bush may not be a genius, but he knows what hes doing. Even if he didn't know what he was doing, he has a large resource of people that DO know what they are doing. Yes, the president makes some decisions, but cmon, the president is NOT a king. Bush can't just go declaring war on every country, why.. because the government would not support it. Every decision he has made has been supported by the whole government, or near enough. You can't say bush is an idiot for attacking Iraq, because HE didn't attack, he just helped the process go smoother.
Now you ask yourself, known terrorists that have caused (even indirectly) attacks to your fellow civilians, innocent people, children, causing thousands to die... And would you wait 2 years for the UN to approve something, knowing any moment you could be attacked again? Knowing full well, that every moment that terrorist lives, the lives of your children are at stake.. the lives of your friends, your family, and you would do nothing?

Edit: Honor? Honor makes you sick? Patriotism? that makes you sick? So the act of protecting your kin makes you sick. The thought of avenging deaths of thousands of innocent lives makes you sick... Human Decency makes you sick. With no honor, what do you have? Does the US back out on their agreements? I think not.. why? Honor. Would an american sit and watch its children be murdered by it's government? No.. why? Honor. Patriotism? yes... why not... Our government gives us freedom... The main question is I suppose, is it our morals that make you sick, or the jealousy you have of our morals.