Saddam's Trial

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Quoted post[/post]]
Didn't he kill a bunch of his own people back in the 80's tho?

:yes: Nerve gas + Iraqi Kurds = Saddam's handywork

Let him fry.

Quoted post[/post]]
Isn't this what we wanted ?

And now you people (sic) are LOVING this persian peice of shit.

I predicted this fully. It's this kind of rhetoric that has nullified our actions (And deaths) in Iraq. We went in, he's out, let the fucker go in Times Square.

His tyranny and cruelty is something that most will never even comprehend. Place no halo on his head, Do not vilify those that have done what the public outcry was to do:

Leave it to the wishy washy spineless wimps being churned out of the public education system / :rant: / joke


Seriously tho, Saddam is an EVIL (thats right, i used a moral distinction) person who should pay for his crimes with his life.

Even Johnny Cochran couldnt help him.
 
Quoted post[/post]]
and offering a reward in a poverty stricken country is the best way to get suspected terrorists???

there are many documented cases where people were sold into US custody but had no connections to the insurgency or terrorist activities...

Ok, so how about you go out there and get 'em? In other words, what other options are there to get "terrorists"? If you think it was so bad that the US offered rewards for key people involved with Saddam, what advice do you have to offer?
 
he tells the judge 'to hell with you' and then states he's not afraid of execution.

march his ass outside and shoot him sqwah in the nutz and then in the head.

he asked for it.
 
The US does NOT do what saddam did. No way. Cite evidence.

We did not occupy Iraq in response to 9/11. How many times do I have to say this ? You just ignore me anyway.

We have occupied Iraq and are met with open arms. It's only the few thousand that have a problem with Westerners being there. And those people have problems with westerners being anywhere.

They can vote, they can walk the streets, they can practice markets, and they have a fair shot at life in the world view.

And you have the balls to compare us to him. Shame on you.
 
thank you celerity. The US government has not done what Sadaam has. Killing people in the name of "battle" or "war" is different than in ignorance or...well... ignorance.

Originally posted by Blanco

Saddam had a good reason for gasing the Kurds and he had a good reason for everything he did

you sure bout that?? come on, torturing your soccer team cuz tehy didnt win??? killing people just because they didnt agree with you?? please....

Sure technically, the US is just as good as him, TECHNICALLY. Man, this country is filled with so many people who hate this governemtn and what they do... how bout you stop bitching and move somewhere else like France. Why does every single thing that the government does immediately put up red flags of conspiracy wih you ppl?? OMG a raise in taxes, BUSH MUST BE PLANNING WORLD DOMINATION!!!

maybe things are deeper than the media make sthem out to be, but at the same time... maybe they arent as much as YOU make them out to be...

PS. I just got back from the bars tonight, im a little wasted and a little high :mrgreen:
 
So I'm confused on the whole situation. So we didn't go to Iraq for terrosists? What did we go there for, Saddam, oil, control of that area, or was it terrorism? And if so, why is it that almost every nation is against us on this. I have been trying to figure this out for awhile and have found opinions, not answers. Someone explain this to me so I can take my head out of my ass.
 
Quoted post[/post]]
So I'm confused on the whole situation. So we didn't go to Iraq for terrosists? What did we go there for, Saddam, oil, control of that area, or was it terrorism? And if so, why is it that almost every nation is against us on this. I have been trying to figure this out for awhile and have found opinions, not answers. Someone explain this to me so I can take my head out of my ass.

Well you see there's this little thing called speculation and there's a whole lot of it.
 
The US does NOT do what saddam did. No way. Cite evidence.

We did not occupy Iraq in response to 9/11. How many times do I have to say this ? You just ignore me anyway.

We have occupied Iraq and are met with open arms. It's only the few thousand that have a problem with Westerners being there. And those people have problems with westerners being anywhere.

They can vote, they can walk the streets, they can practice markets, and they have a fair shot at life in the world view.

And you have the balls to compare us to him. Shame on you.

you're telling me the white house didn't try to connect saddam to al qaida and 9/11?
bullshit

met with open arms? perhaps at the beginning, but no longer

walk the streets? vote? markets?
sure, but all with a good chance of being blown the fuck up...
look at the mortality rates pre and post occupation...
what do you see?

and one blaring example would be the US using CHEMICAL weapons on soldiers and civilians alike, as well as killing women and children...
i think the US occupation is worse that saddam's gov't even was...

and the kurds were killed cause they were trying to get rid of saddam...
and i think the lives of all the kurds that were killed is directly on the hands of the US gov't...
we supported their movement, then left them with no support, then saddam had his way with them...
 
has anyone seen that he isn't even showing up for the tria;l now? he's "boycotting" it. this thing is fuck8in stupid.
 
he's being kept in a cage in the dessert with no shower and the same clothes and underwear for 3 days straight, then he's expected to be in front of a camera for his image to be broadcast around the world...

i would boycott that shit too...


lets run this scenerio down for a bit...

you have a snow fort, and your friend has a snow fort...
you're friends so you supply him with snowballs to defend his snow fort...
you decide you're no longer his friend so you go tell his mom that he has snowballs
his mom comes outside and takes his snowballs, then she puts up a fence so no one can give him snowballs, and she comes outside every 5 minutes to make sure he's not making or getting any more snowballs...

now that he's completely defenseless you decide to start a war with him...
he has no defenses so you can pretty much just take over his snowfort and occupy it...

does this seem like a fair scenerio?
 
Quoted post[/post]]
So I'm confused on the whole situation. So we didn't go to Iraq for terrosists? What did we go there for, Saddam, oil, control of that area, or was it terrorism? And if so, why is it that almost every nation is against us on this. I have been trying to figure this out for awhile and have found opinions, not answers. Someone explain this to me so I can take my head out of my ass.

We have official reasons for going to Iraq, and then some speculated "unofficial reasons" for going to Iraq. I happen to believe the unofficial ones too, so bear with me here:

Officially the US tried to connect Saddam to the terrorists. Yes we did. We also tried to connect the 9/11 terrorists with Saudi Arabia (Where they were all from :)), Syria, KOREA, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We originally hit on Saudi Arabia (Being that they were all FROM there) but Saudi Arabia decided to play a real nasty game of "Whaddya gonna do about it?" with us, and we backed down. I'm truly disappointed about this, but it happened. We went after Afghanistan and won an unprecedented war in the mountains of Afghanistan - something that NO OTHER invading army had ever been able to accomplish in world history. We didn't "officially" capture Bin Laden (Although I believe we DID and we are waiting for elections to tell everyone) but we did topple the Taliban and it's ruthless tyranny, human rights intolerances and terrorist training tendencies. This one move had made a huge dent in the way that the Middle east produces terrorism.

Iraq was next for official and unofficial reasons as well. Officially:
Saddam Hussein stated on TV that he was going to crush the US. We pleaded to the UN to let us go in and see how serious he was, and the UN denied the notion. They continued with their sanctioned "Weapons Inspectors" (Which is when this became famous). The Weapons inspectors found nothing, but the US had no confidence in their results : Because the CIA and Interpol had both released reports that Iraq HAD the weapons to carry out their threat. Since it was OUR ASSES on the line, we decided wholeheartedly to tell the UN to fuck themselves, and that we were going to go in and get them before they get us.

Unofficially, we all know the Bush family (Oil tycoons) have had it in for OPEC in the 70s (Everything from Cuba to the Bay of Pigs hinged around the Bush oil companies) and that Saddam had been a major thorn in their side for 40 years. We attacked to secure their oil. That doesn't mean "own" it. that means "secure it" so that it's available for capitalist sale (Not cartelling) and that our purchasing needs will always be met. Will the Bush cronies get rich from this ? Oh hell yes. But that can be another thread. This is about Saddam.

One last point: Do not think that "every nation is against us on this". We are out there as a multi-national fighting force. This is NOT a US against Iraq thing, although a lot of people want you to think that. The General of operations out there is Middle Eastern, and he controls forces from Africa, Europe, Japan, Hell - even Turkey, Syria and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has even given troops to the fight (Although I have my own suspicions about that). The US is the largest percentage of available force because we simply have the superior army. Remember: That the US couldn't sell this attack plan to the UN, but they DID sell it to NATO and other friendly countries, after convincing them of the imminent dangers.

And so far - they were RIGHT. No more terrorist activities have occurred since 2001 on US soil. That means that when the Commander in Chief, the Military and the White House said "No more", they meant it.

And that is your non-biased evaluation of what happened.
 
Quoted post[/post]]
Quoted post[/post]]
So I'm confused on the whole situation. So we didn't go to Iraq for terrosists? What did we go there for, Saddam, oil, control of that area, or was it terrorism? And if so, why is it that almost every nation is against us on this. I have been trying to figure this out for awhile and have found opinions, not answers. Someone explain this to me so I can take my head out of my ass.

We have official reasons for going to Iraq, and then some speculated "unofficial reasons" for going to Iraq. I happen to believe the unofficial ones too, so bear with me here:

Officially the US tried to connect Saddam to the terrorists. Yes we did. We also tried to connect the 9/11 terrorists with Saudi Arabia (Where they were all from :)), Syria, KOREA, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We originally hit on Saudi Arabia (Being that they were all FROM there) but Saudi Arabia decided to play a real nasty game of "Whaddya gonna do about it?" with us, and we backed down. I'm truly disappointed about this, but it happened. We went after Afghanistan and won an unprecedented war in the mountains of Afghanistan - something that NO OTHER invading army had ever been able to accomplish in world history. We didn't "officially" capture Bin Laden (Although I believe we DID and we are waiting for elections to tell everyone) but we did topple the Taliban and it's ruthless tyranny, human rights intolerances and terrorist training tendencies. This one move had made a huge dent in the way that the Middle east produces terrorism.

Iraq was next for official and unofficial reasons as well. Officially:
Saddam Hussein stated on TV that he was going to crush the US. We pleaded to the UN to let us go in and see how serious he was, and the UN denied the notion. They continued with their sanctioned "Weapons Inspectors" (Which is when this became famous). The Weapons inspectors found nothing, but the US had no confidence in their results : Because the CIA and Interpol had both released reports that Iraq HAD the weapons to carry out their threat. Since it was OUR ASSES on the line, we decided wholeheartedly to tell the UN to fuck themselves, and that we were going to go in and get them before they get us.

Unofficially, we all know the Bush family (Oil tycoons) have had it in for OPEC in the 70s (Everything from Cuba to the Bay of Pigs hinged around the Bush oil companies) and that Saddam had been a major thorn in their side for 40 years. We attacked to secure their oil. That doesn't mean "own" it. that means "secure it" so that it's available for capitalist sale (Not cartelling) and that our purchasing needs will always be met. Will the Bush cronies get rich from this ? Oh hell yes. But that can be another thread. This is about Saddam.

One last point: Do not think that "every nation is against us on this". We are out there as a multi-national fighting force. This is NOT a US against Iraq thing, although a lot of people want you to think that. The General of operations out there is Middle Eastern, and he controls forces from Africa, Europe, Japan, Hell - even Turkey, Syria and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has even given troops to the fight (Although I have my own suspicions about that). The US is the largest percentage of available force because we simply have the superior army. Remember: That the US couldn't sell this attack plan to the UN, but they DID sell it to NATO and other friendly countries, after convincing them of the imminent dangers.

And so far - they were RIGHT. No more terrorist activities have occurred since 2001 on US soil. That means that when the Commander in Chief, the Military and the White House said "No more", they meant it.

And that is your non-biased evaluation of what happened.

Thank you kind sir. :bow:

So people think that we are occupying Iraq to take control of the oil, and put a new government in place, when really we should have taken care of the problem and leave them alone?
 
He's saying the underlying objective for installing a new government is to stabilize the oil resources - i.e., make it easier for the bush cronies to access.
 
Yes, and No. We did this same thing with Japan when we conquered them. We marched in, rebuilt them as a democratic society, then left them alone.

We are the ONLY ... Repeat ONLY army in the history of the WORLD to EVER do that.

And we will do that with Iraq and Afghanistan too. And then Iran, Syria, and Korea. We will do this because we have proven that it's better to win over a land and make them your friend and ally than it is to win over a land and simply conquer it.

That's what Britain does.

We aren' tinterested in pushing religion (We didn't with japan) we are interested in pushing human rights and economy agendas so that these places can be strong allies of the US, not protectorates (Like the mistake we made with Puerto Rico)

Our intents are pure, but you could also see that there are a LOT of multi-trillion-billion-impossibilion dollar scams between old friends. And that's making amockery of the US world-wide way.

Which I am a firm believer in.

God bless america :)
 
Back
Top