Silly little Saddam!! :D

[haecz]

they got him, hoooorraaaaayyy!! :D

people been riding around in their cars honking the horn
all day now, hahahha...
(i live in sweden, so this i pretty rare) :D

[danipunk]

Why are you happy?
This would make you more secure? Sure not.

I can't explain my ideas because TRUMPCARD want to BAN me for life, but I think I could ASK this questions that I wrote at the beginning of this reply, or not?....

Time will give me the answer.
Thanks Trumpky, for let me post this few lines. I can feel that the freedom of speech is going well, like the rebuilding in Irak. hehe
:wink:

[mattmeck]

Actualy I am realy happy they cought him, He is responcible for over 300,000 of his own peoples deaths including an estimated 100,000 children under the age of 10. Anyone who would kill his own people with sutch disreguard needs to be given to the people so they can deal with him. And as a side note, that is exactly what the US is going to do. It is going to be a public trial with the Iraky people judge, jury, and exicutioners. So hate the US all you want, but I agree with the policy's that state we wont watch inocent children be butchered for fun.


danipunk hate the US all you want that is your right, but can you honestly say that Saddam had the right to rape women then have them exicuted when he got bored with them? Or how about his dismembering partys? you know where they Tortured someones entire family including newborns and elderly, just because someone pissed Saddam off?

[Trumpcard]

I wont ban you for posting your opinion, you're free to it. I got pissed because you rejoiced at the death of innocent people. I could care less about your opinion, but when you laugh at the misery of others, then I take offense. As far as hating america, thats your perogative. You've shown repeatedly that you don't have any basis for your opinions so most of us just discount what you say as moronic anyways...

[mollymillions]

Most people in the world would be concerned that the US might decide they need liberating, so make sure you get your trade policies right.

[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...but the way the US handle things is NOT
the propper way...
starting a war against Iraq, from my POV without a reason.
and then capture Saddam to make them look good again,
thats just stupid.. they should lay of trying tom play the
worlds wise big brother.....
which they aren't...

[Trumpcard]

Theres a fine line that has to be danced when deciding when to act and when to stay out of the way.

The last time we kept to ourselves, Germany took 80% of Europe and was 50% of the way into Asia. I know the circumstances are different however.

I dont disagree that we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, but at the same time, when is the right time to act ? Iraq has been a thorn in the side of world diplomancy for years now, and its links to terrorism are well known. Im still amazed we went in without the support of the UN, as far as I know this is the first time we've done anything like that...

Right or wrong its done now...

[Master Elrath]

Well, if we didnt take him, who would?
The French?! Pfffffffft.

[Merth]

There's been a lot of debate on whether the US should have gone into Iraq. I personally support the decision.

There's no question that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - this was a fact in the early 90's, and is the reason why the UN resolutions were created. The big question was whether Iraq followed through on the resolutions and properly disposed of these WMD's. The UN inspectors were in place in order to ensure this task was carried out, but these inspectors were eventually denied entry.

We had several choices:
1. Trust Saddam's word that these WMD's were destroyed
2. View his defiance as a impending threat
3. Take the defiance with a grain of salt and wait for an imminent threat

Which of the three choices would you take? I choose option 2. The only real debate I see is whether or not it was an impending threat. I believe it was, but that is based on an opinion I formulated on Saddam's character through the media. I'm open to rebuttals.

If I were in Saddam's shoes, and I had truly destroyed the WMD's .. I would have no problem coughing up the evidence. The only reason I see for Saddam to do what he did was if he was hiding something.

[mattmeck]

I have noticed that nobody is thinking of the people over there. When the UN stopped them from importing / exporting they went from the richest nation in the middle east to the porest, now that they will be able to sell there oil and other national products and import what there lacking there whole standerd of living is going to increase. 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.

[SteelDragon]

Germany took 80% of Europe and was 50% of the way into Asia

The other partner in crime would be Japan. Germany never touched Asia. They couldn't get past mother Russia. :)

[Trumpcard]

The motherland is in Asia..

They got pretty damn far into it..

The battle of Stalingrad was one of the bloodiest battles of WWII...
D-Day was nothing compared to Stalingrad.. Russia wasnt too far from buckling under the german steam roller, but germany had started the war on too many fronts and had seriously underestimated the importance of their supply lines into Russia and how hard it was to be able to maintain them.

Japan was giving the Chinese hell at the time, not to mention dragging us into the Pacific theater....

[a_Guest03]

There's a quote I picked up from a movie, "The Way of the Gun", which has stuck with me for a long time.

"I would never ask you to trust me. That's the cry of a guilty soul. But trust life. Always trust life."

It means that you can't trust people by their words. You can only trust them to follow their nature.

Now this doesn't apply to everyone. He meant this in regard to himself, as a man who had done bad things to bad men. In a strategic fashion, you can't leave room for trust. Any civilized leader knows that you must cover your ass. This is especially true with anything as threatening as U.N. sanctions, military recourse, etc. The only reason he would tell us to trust him is to make us look bad for not trusting him. Otherwise he'd just hand over the evidence and be done with it.

[theobeo92]

Yay Saddam is Captured! No Parades Here But I'm glad that lil *&$)^&!)^)$(&%)Q (edited :shock: ) is finally gone. Now I can pick up where he left off.


Now where did I put that nuclear isotope...

[haecz]

tnx Trumpcard for the history lesson :P

[danipunk]

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... 8) )

[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!!

:D 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]

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.


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]

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.

[DeletedUser]

I laugh at everyone who says that moves like these are bad.

Look at his history and then look at the possibilities of what he could have done with WMD. You'd be begging the US to save your ass once 90% of the world population is gone. This isn't a game for everyone to sit down and decide war on a country through majority voting.

Look at what the world has come to.. you shouldn't even have an opinion on this shit.

[a_Guest03]

Darkyth, everyone should have an opinion, even if it's a bad one. One can't learn without mistakes.

[Merth]

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...
I interpreted this to mean you believe Saddam was not a threat to US interests. This is the heart of the issue and is where I see a lot of people in disagreement.

I believe he was a threat based on his defiance to comply with the UN resolution to dismantle his WMD's. What are your reasons to believe he was not a threat?

It's a personal issue for me because I believe I was one of his primary targets: I am an American.

[Trumpcard]

Darkyth, everyone should have an opinion, even if it's a bad one. One can't learn without mistakes.


Why is it Im visualizing you sitting indian style in a room full of burning incense addressing everyone as 'my child'

Confucius say 'Passionate kiss like spider's web - soon lead to undoing of fly.'

[a_Guest03]

I'll have to try that on the ladies, but I don't know many chicks who would do a guy they visualize as Ghandi.

[Trumpcard]

I have to disagree about mistakes though..

I got an A+ in Quantum Mechanics... I didnt learn it less than the 3 dozen people who failed it....

Mistakes are only enlightening if they are recognized as such.

Otherwise, a mistake is just as much a learning experience as a correct solution.

[Scorpious2k]

Mistakes are only enlightening if they are recognized as such.

Otherwise, a mistake is just as much a learning experience as a correct solution.

You have no idea how many times I have said the same thing.

[Shadow-Wolf]

Nightcrawler, hey until you can spell correctly i will not listen to your opinions, and when you try and insult the United States of America please remember Saddam is to Iraq
as the 13 original colonies were to old Great Britain.
you europeans arn't so clean as you think you are after all one of great britain's(european country) tyrannical kings(hmm european king..) ruled us, made us pay unfair taxes, etc.

[Trumpcard]

SW, I want to agree with you but I dont understand enough of your post to....

Heres a tip people.

Before hitting submit:

Read over your post. If you speak it outloud and it doesnt make any sense to you, it will not make any sense to us. Pretend you are speaking to someone in the room to you. Sentence fragments and wandering topics are not the tools of a master orator.

[Shadow-Wolf]

made sense to me lol

[mattmeck]

If you dont proof read you end up with stuff like this

http://bossmob.com/Signs%20of%20Intelligence%2016.jpg

and this one
http://bossmob.com/Signs%20of%20Intelligence%2014.jpg


or my all time faverote

http://bossmob.com/Signs%20of%20Intelligence%2010.jpg

[haecz]

mattmeck, i think you have missunderstod this thread a bit ;)

Shadow-Wolf:
you europeans arn't so clean as you think you are after all one of great britain's(european country) tyrannical kings(hmm european king..) ruled us, made us pay unfair taxes, etc.
this is like the most stupid thing ever said...
so your blaming spain,sweden, finland, norway
(the list goes on) for what the UK did to the US and so on?
you cant just blame us because we are geographicly (spelling)
bound to them? thats just silly....

a_Guest03:
Darkyth, everyone should have an opinion, even if it's a bad one. One can't learn without mistakes.
i really dont think that people here will see they opinion as a 'mistakes' and then the next day go buy a american-flag and
put it in their room or anythin..... we feel and think this way for a reason..



(ill update this thread later,,, must run down and take my scxhool bus :D)

[Raldarin]

Or you pull my strategy... Type such a monologue that no one will actually read it, thus preserving your integrity for yet another day... :lol:

[BusyBOW]

only thing i want to say isn t usa suks or even europ suks too, i only want to make all you noticethan with saddam they were dying, but now they haven t anymore light or watter for eat, drink, be in security, now it s total anarchy and when *USA army* ll left iraq, lot of people will die, like happen in south africa.
American have lie, you can't say they didn't about chimical and nuclear things.
Eurpean didn t want to make a war for fuel and because they was selling weapon to sadam too, right.
This *war* is more like nonsens for me....

[Eglin]

I hear that the first thing Dick Cheney asked when he heard they caught Saddam in a hole was "how deep" and "is there any oil?" lol, seriously, though... There is a good Michael Moore article about the capture, here (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-12-14).

[haecz]

heheh.... why did they hire him again?

[Muuss]

Eurpean didn t want to make a war for fuel and because they was selling weapon to sadam too, right.

Hey hey!
we're trading our weapons against their fuel, hoping someone will start a war against them soon, then, we offer them to rebuild their country if they offer their petrol in return. When all is finished, and the country is all set up, we restart trading them weapons....

call this whatever you want, but for me, its a good strategy :lol:

(that post is obviously a joke, i ll only take fuel as reward if you wanna gime a price for it).

[haecz]

Muuss, i dont call that strategy...thats just sick =O

[Muuss]

ironical or sarcastic perhaps, but sick, no, don't think so.

[mattmeck]

mattmeck, i think you have missunderstod this thread a bit


Actualy If you read back a bit in the thread you would see I understand just fine, however I was trying to lighten the mood here a little since it was starting to hit name calling, and rudness :wink:

[haecz]

mattmeck, heheh, i realized that :P
nice pics btw :D

[mehltd]

You've shown repeatedly that you don't have any basis for your opinions so most of us just discount what you say as moronic anyways...


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

I saw a video of a reporter ..reporting.. in iraq, and the building that was right next to him got hit with a cruise missile. It took, in world war two, almost 100 bombs to level ONE building. Why? because they sucked. You had to carpet bomb stuff to get it done. In this, we use one missle. If we were going to bomb iraq to ruins, we would have used something a tad bit bigger than a 200 or 500 pound smart bomb, or a cruise missle with a small payload.. they *do* have small payloads.. the missiles arent even that big (ive seen one, yay for air and space in DC).. its just the fact that we can hit something without breaking stuff around it.


Heres some charts for you:

Smart bomb (Ranging size): we used 200, 500, and (rarely) 1000 and (more rarely) 2000 pounders. 1 and 2k pounds are huge, and would leave a nasty crater.

Cruise Missile: These things look like they can have a TOTAL payload of 500 pounds. Someone correct me if im wrong.

TOW Missile: Saddams kids ate one of these. They range from 200 to 1000 pound payloads, and are designed to hit moving vechiles.

Compared to what we have:

MOAB: 17 tons of pure hell. Just.. Hell.

Daisy Cutter: 2 ton bombs which were used in vietnam to clear helecopter landing zones. The shockwave on one of these is so large that they register on the richter scale. My father was in vietnam, and he was in the rescue of a captured marine vessel. He said that one of them was dropped a quarter mile away, and he was blown over from the shockwave.

Any nuclear, atomic, or hydrogen bomb which are measured in millions of tons of TNT, whereas the ones above are wimpy millions.

Bell, will add more in a few minutes.