Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Death by hanging only serves as a flashpoint to further escalate sectarian division between the Sunni and Shiite population.
Actually, just to be symantical, removing the lynch pin on the bag of shit that is current Iraq serves to further escelate the violence between the two. I wonder why Dubya senior didn't do it in '91?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The emphasis was actually on the death sentence part rather than on the method employed.
I see... They're going to war with each other regardless until one is a clear victor. So having Saddam swing from the gallows or be imprisoned for life won't make a difference or enough of a difference either way in the Shiite vs. Sunni conflict.
Originally posted by Robtard
I see... They're going to war with each other regardless until one is a clear victor. So having Saddam swing from the gallows or be imprisoned for life won't make a difference or enough of a difference either way in the Shiite vs. Sunni conflict.
No. The difference is the, as I said before, lynch pin on teh bag of shit. When you empty the garbage, do you spread it all over the floor before you pick it up and take it out? Because that's what Bush has done. He's spread shit all over the place and decided to tell you he's the only one that can protect you from teh smell. No one argues how great Saddam was. That's a strawman argument. But to remove him from power when he was the only one holding that region back from civil war is irresponsible. That's why Bush the First didn't do it in '91. He didn't want to have to clean it up. But, Bush teh second is only serving the interests of his bakers...who are profitting HUGELY from this war. And the best part about Bush 2 is that he's doesn't GIVE A SHIT! Soon, he'll be out of power and he and his friends will have made enough money to go out and get plastered on coke and booze and not give a shit. (that last line was a joke by the way....i support our troops) (okay, teh last two lines involved a joke....)
This all really goes back to the "what have Americans got to answer for?" thread. Or something like that. "why do you hate Americans", "why does america hate everyone else?" "Stop the Insanity!"...One of those threads.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No. The difference is the, as I said before, lynch pin on teh bag of shit. When you empty the garbage, do you spread it all over the floor before you pick it up and take it out? Because that's what Bush has done. He's spread shit all over the place and decided to tell you he's the only one that can protect you from teh smell. No one argues how great Saddam was. That's a strawman argument. But to remove him from power when he was the only one holding that region back from civil war is irresponsible. That's why Bush the First didn't do it in '91. He didn't want to have to clean it up. But, Bush teh second is only serving the interests of his bakers...who are profitting HUGELY from this war. And the best part about Bush 2 is that he's doesn't GIVE A SHIT! Soon, he'll be out of power and he and his friends will have made enough money to go out and get plastered on coke and booze and not give a shit. (that last line was a joke by the way....i support our troops) (okay, teh last two lines involved a joke....)This all really goes back to the "what have Americans got to answer for?" thread. Or something like that. "why do you hate Americans", "why does america hate everyone else?" "Stop the Insanity!"...One of those threads.
My man, we're talking about the good vs. bad of killing Saddam, not if removing him from power was a wise move or not. What's done is done, so unless you're somehow implying that Saddam should be restored to power (which I do not think you are), your post is kinda irrelevant here.
Originally posted by Robtard
My man, we're talking about the good vs. bad of killing Saddam, not if removing him from power was a wise move or not. What's done is done, so unless you're somehow implying that Saddam should be restored to power (which I do not think you are), your post is kinda irrelevant here.
Then you are talking out of your ass. If George W Bush was willing to do what was needed in an area like Iraq, then our troops would have been in there with Napalm and machine guns, killing everybody. GB the First knew what would happen....so by your tactics, teh debate you mention is invalid!
As X said, a show trial was needed. Which is odd in my mind. Not because he didn't deserve a trial, but because this government has done away with them for everyone else. Why else would we (our representatives) be voting our president the authority to decide what is and is not torture...or how the geneva convention applies to our actions, etc? It's all just a show. In fact, a long time ago I mentioned that it was a travesty to even debate torturing someone in the year 2006. But that wasn't because i didn't think that people weren't being tortured! I think the revelation that torture sites and black prisions being revealed is a little too far towards those who want them to exist at all!.
Your point is that them killing each other was always going to happen but why not remove someone like Saddam who kept them in check by killing them anyway? Well, that goes back to the time of WW1....how about, why force three groups who hate each other to live in the same useless country to begin with? And that certainly wasn't decided by anyone alive in the US today! But we're having planes driven up our ass for it, aren't we?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Then you are talking out of your ass. If George W Bush was willing to do what was needed in an area like Iraq, then our troops would have been in there with Napalm and machine guns, killing everybody. GB the First knew what would happen....so by your tactics, teh debate you mention is invalid!As X said, a show trial was needed. Which is odd in my mind. Not because he didn't deserve a trial, but because this government has done away with them for everyone else. Why else would we (our representatives) be voting our president the authority to decide what is and is not torture...or how the geneva convention applies to our actions, etc? It's all just a show. In fact, a long time ago I mentioned that it was a travesty to even debate torturing someone in the year 2006. But that wasn't because i didn't think that people weren't being tortured! I think the revelation that torture sites and black prisions being revealed is a little too far towards those who want them to exist at all!.
Your point is that them killing each other was always going to happen but why not remove someone like Saddam who kept them in check by killing them anyway? Well, that goes back to the time of WW1....how about, why force three groups who hate each other to live in the same useless country to begin with? And that certainly wasn't decided by anyone alive in the US today! But we're having planes driven up our ass for it, aren't we?
Not sure what you're talking about, I am not nor have I defended Bush's actions. The topic is Saddam's sentencing.
I agree the trial was for show, he was going to be found guilty from the start and it is no coincidence he just happens to be found guilty just a fews days before elections.
No, that wasn't my point at all. The fighting started like it is because of Saddam's removal, I fully understand that he keep that region under control with an iron grip. But the point being to the topic, killing him or not killing him now will not affect the fighting in a major way.
Originally posted by Robtard
No, that wasn't my point at all. The fighting started like it is because of Saddam's removal, I fully understand that he keep that region under control with an iron grip. But the point being to the topic, killing him or not killing him now will not affect the fighting in a major way.
Okay, you admit that Saddam being removed was an impetus for the start of this shitfest.
Follow me now....
Should our democracy be sustained at the cost of every one elses' democracy? Also know as freedom, by "modern thinkers"?
If yes, then our democracy was threatened by Iraq's oppression.
If no, then why have sacrifeced our own democracy because Bush has told us Iraq was responsible for 9/11?
If Saddam was removed to obtain freedom, despite the explosion of Islamic fascism that has followed, did we ever really expect "democracy" to take hold?
Was it good to remove the infrastructure of a country under the control of a madman to fill teh coffers of US buisness? And if it was, then how are we any better than the madman himself?
Next, if the execution of that madman could replace or remove the lynchpin of the bag of SHIT! we've (the US, under GWB) already opened, would it make a difference in the building of a time machine?
Lastly, would Amercia be bright enough to turn back the hands of time and replace our own "madman' if we could?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, you admit that Saddam being removed was an impetus for the start of this shitfest.Follow me now....
Should our democracy be sustained at the cost of every one elses' democracy? Also know as freedom, by "modern thinkers"?
If yes, then democracy was never the issue in Iraq.
If no, then we agree.
If Saddam was removed to obtain freedom, despite the explosion of Islamic fascism that has followed, did we ever really expect "democracy" to take hold?
Was it good to remove the infrastructure of a country under the control of a madman to fill teh coffers of US buisness? And if it was, then how are we any better than the madman himself?
Next, if the execution of that madman could replace or remove the lynchpin of the bag of SHIT! we've (the US, under GWB) already opened, would it make a difference in the building of a time machine?
Lastly, would Amercia be bright enough to turn back the hands of time and replace our own "madman' if we could?
No, I do not think we have the right to shit on others.
I think it was expected in a fantasy dream like expectation; it hasn't happened in the time table the Bush cabinet had hoped. The area has been ruled by the sword for hundreds of years, it is asinine to think a Democracy would spring forth virtually overnight, especially taking into account the initial piss-poor planning that went into Saddam's overthrow and securing Iraq.
Was it good to ruin a country for personal wealth? Obviously no, but making that stick and be fact is next to impossible.
I do not think Saddams death will change anything so I cannot answer that. It will make the Iraqis that where oppressed under Saddam feel good, but killing him will not right Iraq.
That is a loaded question, I personally wouldn't go back in time and replace Bush even with 20/20 hindsight vision at my disposal. Just like I wouldn't go back and kill Hitler while he was still an art student for the simple reasoning that something worse would happen instead of Bush. It is a far cry, but what if Gore won and a nuke happy WWIII would be the outcome?
Originally posted by Robtard
No, I do not think we have the right to shit on others.I think it was expected in a fantasy dream like expectation; it didn't happen in the time table the Bush cabinet had hoped. The area has been ruled by the sword for hundreds of years, it is asinine to think a Democracy would spring forth virtually overnight, especially taking into account the initial piss-poor planning that went into Saddam's overthrow and securing Iraq.
Was it good to ruin a country for personal wealth? Obviously no, but making that stick and be fact is next to impossible.
I do not think Saddams death will change anything so I cannot answer that. It will make the Iraqis that where oppressed under Saddam feel good, but killing him will not right Iraq.
That is a loaded question, I personally wouldn't go back in time and replace Bush even with 20/20 hindsight vision at my disposal. Just like I wouldn't go back and kill Hitler while he was still an art student for the simple reasoning that something worse would happen instead of Bush. It is a far cry, but what if Gore won and a nuke happy WWIII would be the outcome?
It is your "BUT! can we make it stick?" mentality that is the problem.
It's just like my mother always saying: "It's politics, what can you expect?" version of a mentality. Nothing will stick until we make it stick!
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
It is your "BUT! can we make it stick?" mentality that is the problem.It's just like my mother always saying: "It's politics, what can you expect?" version of a mentality. Nothing will stick until we make it stick!
Problem with what? You? I see that as a major point... Just claiming that Bush lied without proof that will stick is the problem in my opinion. I have a serious issue with the Democratic party right now, they have attacked Bush and stupidly accused him on irrelevant issues for the last several years and this takes away from the major issue, i.e. Iraq, the economy, foreign policy. Every time some "moonbat" yells "Bush DID it!" without having any condemning proof backing the accustion, Bush's meat shield is able to smack it down it makes Bush look better and the Democrats look inept. That is my problem...