[quote]PtrDR wrote:
lovehunter wrote:
PtrDR wrote:
mazilla wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_verdict
Saddam sentenced to death?! what an outrage!!!
blame it on Bush!!! It’s his fault!
Dumbass.
you are a very creative person.[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Speak up! Saddam is a man in the mold of Che Guevarra and Joseph Stalin (your fabled “Uncle Joe”). Madmen and killers all. He’ll be an icon to my lunatic movement shortly after his death.
Why don’t I show the man the service that I feel he deserves? Show him all that love and reverence now while he’s alive. Talk about how Saddam’s hands were clean and run on a loop the segment of F9/11 that show’s Iraq as a land a peaceful kite-flying. Presided over by the loving and benevolent Saddam. My hero and demigod. Fuck you all.[/quote]
Fuck you bro.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Ren wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Come on, liberals. Speak up! Saddam is a man in the mold of Che Guevarra and Joseph Stalin (your fabled “Uncle Joe”). Madmen and killers all. He’ll be an icon to your lunatic movement shortly after his death. Another victim of Bushitler’s evil reign of terror, right?
Why not do the man the service that you feel he deserves. Show him all that love and reverence now while he’s alive. Talk about all the ‘little Eichmann’s’ in the WTC and how (Bill Maher says) “We had it comin’”. Talk about how Saddam’s hands were clean and run on a loop the segment of F9/11 that show’s Iraq as a land a peaceful kite-flying. Presided over by the loving and benevolent Saddam. Your hero and demigod. Fuck you all.
you are certifiably crazy, as is anyone that thinks people like che, stalin, and hussein are heroes.
Uncle Joe? wtf?
Do some reading, asshole. “Uncle Joe” was Truman’s nickname for Stalin. This was around the time that the White House was filled with Communists. A great time for America and, really, part of what spawned today’s pervasive “liberal thought” (i.e. America = Bad / Our Enemies = Good). Today, Communists are called democrats!
Do you see the ‘Che’ shirts on the street, on TV? Do you think those are CONSERVATIVES wearing them? Do you think it was Rush Limbuaugh who produced “The Motorcycle Diaries” (AKA: A Love Letter for Che)?
Was it Conservatives who made F-9/11? Who painted that picture of Saddam’s Iraq? Bush? Rummy?
Idiot.
Hey idiot, did you see that picture of Saddam shaking hands with someone. Who IS that?
I think it must be some liberal, America hating, communist right?
Perhaps it’s even Kerry.[/quote]
Wait. Isn’t that what you guys wanted more of? Talk? Come on. A picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam is an endorsement? Even you aren’t that stupid. Oh…wait…
Iraq got seeds for bioweapons from U.S. – Baltimore Sun Relating to the US sale of WMD’s. You decide.
Now, let’s not forget the help of the UK, Italy, Germany (big time), Portugal, Niger, Luxembourg, China, Austria, France (shocking, isn’t it?), India, Singapore, Egypt, Spain, etc.
Here’s is a Wiki entry about their wmd programs origins and development.
If you don’t like Wiki, here is a sampling of resources.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Ren wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Come on, liberals. Speak up! Saddam is a man in the mold of Che Guevarra and Joseph Stalin (your fabled “Uncle Joe”). Madmen and killers all. He’ll be an icon to your lunatic movement shortly after his death. Another victim of Bushitler’s evil reign of terror, right?
Why not do the man the service that you feel he deserves. Show him all that love and reverence now while he’s alive. Talk about all the ‘little Eichmann’s’ in the WTC and how (Bill Maher says) “We had it comin’”. Talk about how Saddam’s hands were clean and run on a loop the segment of F9/11 that show’s Iraq as a land a peaceful kite-flying. Presided over by the loving and benevolent Saddam. Your hero and demigod. Fuck you all.
you are certifiably crazy, as is anyone that thinks people like che, stalin, and hussein are heroes.
Uncle Joe? wtf?
Do some reading, asshole. “Uncle Joe” was Truman’s nickname for Stalin. This was around the time that the White House was filled with Communists. A great time for America and, really, part of what spawned today’s pervasive “liberal thought” (i.e. America = Bad / Our Enemies = Good). Today, Communists are called democrats!
Do you see the ‘Che’ shirts on the street, on TV? Do you think those are CONSERVATIVES wearing them? Do you think it was Rush Limbuaugh who produced “The Motorcycle Diaries” (AKA: A Love Letter for Che)?
Was it Conservatives who made F-9/11? Who painted that picture of Saddam’s Iraq? Bush? Rummy?
Idiot.[/quote]
You do know that that period is now called the “red scare” and is often sited as a witch hunt and a ridiculous and backward assed period of American history right?
ANd I thought Uncle Joe was made up by FDR. W/e. It was a mistake. Just like Rummy supporting Saddam before.
And liberal and conservative though has 100% nothing to do with love for the country.
Liberal = Tax and spend on social programs. Larger government. Welcomes constant change.
Conservative = Don’t tax, don’t spend on social programs. Smaller government. Dislikes change, wants to stick to old ways (religious values).
Neo Con = Don’t tax. Spend buttloads on wars and half assed security measures, and cause a huge growth in the national debt.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Ren wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Come on, liberals. Speak up! Saddam is a man in the mold of Che Guevarra and Joseph Stalin (your fabled “Uncle Joe”). Madmen and killers all. He’ll be an icon to your lunatic movement shortly after his death. Another victim of Bushitler’s evil reign of terror, right?
Why not do the man the service that you feel he deserves. Show him all that love and reverence now while he’s alive. Talk about all the ‘little Eichmann’s’ in the WTC and how (Bill Maher says) “We had it comin’”. Talk about how Saddam’s hands were clean and run on a loop the segment of F9/11 that show’s Iraq as a land a peaceful kite-flying. Presided over by the loving and benevolent Saddam. Your hero and demigod. Fuck you all.
you are certifiably crazy, as is anyone that thinks people like che, stalin, and hussein are heroes.
Uncle Joe? wtf?
Do some reading, asshole. “Uncle Joe” was Truman’s nickname for Stalin. This was around the time that the White House was filled with Communists. A great time for America and, really, part of what spawned today’s pervasive “liberal thought” (i.e. America = Bad / Our Enemies = Good). Today, Communists are called democrats!
Do you see the ‘Che’ shirts on the street, on TV? Do you think those are CONSERVATIVES wearing them? Do you think it was Rush Limbuaugh who produced “The Motorcycle Diaries” (AKA: A Love Letter for Che)?
Was it Conservatives who made F-9/11? Who painted that picture of Saddam’s Iraq? Bush? Rummy?
Idiot.
Hey idiot, did you see that picture of Saddam shaking hands with someone. Who IS that?
I think it must be some liberal, America hating, communist right?
Perhaps it’s even Kerry.
Wait. Isn’t that what you guys wanted more of? Talk? Come on. A picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam is an endorsement? Even you aren’t that stupid. Oh…wait…
[/quote]
I don’t care whether the war was justified numbnuts. I just think you super-fucked it up. Jackass.
Oh, and what about Bush’s “talks” in Korea. Saddam “may” have had “some sort” of WMD. Korea HAS a KNOWN and WORKING ATOMIC WEAPON.
So obviously the whole talk = dem, action = GOP thing is off a bit.
It’s not that simple you sad, sad dee de dee.
The picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam means about as much to me as the above picture. So, shelve the photo - foreign policy requires these kinds of choices, and aside, Saddam was largely a Soviet client who took its second highest amount of aid from France.
Moving on to Saddam: though he deserves death, I actually think that will be too easy for him. He is old. He has committed his atrocities. Sending him out in a blaze of glory does nothing.
Saddam deserves years of humiliation. He needs to sit and reflect on how he was castrated from power. He needs to wither.
I have no moral objection to offing the guy - I just think he deserves a worse punishment than death.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Come on, liberals. Speak up! Saddam is a man in the mold of Che Guevarra and Joseph Stalin (your fabled “Uncle Joe”). Madmen and killers all. He’ll be an icon to your lunatic movement shortly after his death. Another victim of Bushitler’s evil reign of terror, right?
Why not do the man the service that you feel he deserves. Show him all that love and reverence now while he’s alive. Talk about all the ‘little Eichmann’s’ in the WTC and how (Bill Maher says) “We had it comin’”. Talk about how Saddam’s hands were clean and run on a loop the segment of F9/11 that show’s Iraq as a land a peaceful kite-flying. Presided over by the loving and benevolent Saddam. Your hero and demigod. Fuck you all.[/quote]
You got your first name right…Hack!
[quote]pookie wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Why not do the man the service that you feel he deserves. Show him all that love and reverence now while he’s alive. Talk about all the ‘little Eichmann’s’ in the WTC and how (Bill Maher says) “We had it comin’”. Talk about how Saddam’s hands were clean and run on a loop the segment of F9/11 that show’s Iraq as a land a peaceful kite-flying. Presided over by the loving and benevolent Saddam. Your hero and demigod. Fuck you all.
You’re talking about Saddam Hussein, former Iraqi dictator, right?
The Saddam whose Ba’ath party the CIA supported in the 70s, right?
The same Saddam you supported in the Iran-Iraq war, right?
The Saddam you sold WMDs to in the 80s, while Reagan was in power, right? The one who’s seen shaking hand with Donald Rumsfeld on that picture, right?
The Saddam who’s claim that Iran has gassed the Kurds you officially supported until the 90s. Right?
You’re talking about that Saddam, aren’t you? 'Cause I might be reading you wrong, but I get the feeling you don’t like him anymore. It’s sad to see a beautiful friendship end so badly.
[/quote]
Bwhahahahhaha!!!
Maybe the Left can tell us all what this picture means being that the Rumsfeld-Saddam picture is worth so many words.
Or this one.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Maybe the Left can tell us all what this picture means being that the Rumsfeld-Saddam picture is worth so many words.[/quote]
Wow. That Rummy-Saddam picture really gets to you, doesn’t it? My point was simply that when it was convenient for the US to support Saddam, the US was more than willing to look the other way on all his brutal methods. Gassing the Kurds? Nah, not our Saddam. The Iranians did that.
Once he became more of an inconvenience, then he got demonized and became the number one enemy. Gassing the Kurds? He sure did! He cackled with glee while doing it too!
The main point is that the public’s opinion can and is easily manipulated and seeing all the idiots jump on this thread claiming “liberals love Saddam” strikes me as the height of stupidity. I wish more of them were lucid enough to realize how easily they get played.
[quote]pookie wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Maybe the Left can tell us all what this picture means being that the Rumsfeld-Saddam picture is worth so many words.
Wow. That Rummy-Saddam picture really gets to you, doesn’t it? My point was simply that when it was convenient for the US to support Saddam, the US was more than willing to look the other way on all his brutal methods. Gassing the Kurds? Nah, not our Saddam. The Iranians did that.
Once he became more of an inconvenience, then he got demonized and became the number one enemy. Gassing the Kurds? He sure did! He cackled with glee while doing it too!
The main point is that the public’s opinion can and is easily manipulated and seeing all the idiots jump on this thread claiming “liberals love Saddam” strikes me as the height of stupidity. I wish more of them were lucid enough to realize how easily they get played.
[/quote]
Pookie wins.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Wow. That Rummy-Saddam picture really gets to you, doesn’t it? My point was simply that when it was convenient for the US to support Saddam, the US was more than willing to look the other way on all his brutal methods. Gassing the Kurds? Nah, not our Saddam. The Iranians did that.[/quote]
It doesn’t really get to me so much as it has become a lazy substitute for a real argument and when it gets thrown up, the Left snickers like it is suddenly ‘game over’.
You say it was a matter of ‘convenience’ - but that was my point entirely. Was it a matter of convenience for FDR to ally with Hitler’s former non-aggression pact partner to defeat the Nazis only to turn against the USSR in the Cold War? Reckon we should have never allied with the Russians - after all, we looked the other way when it was convenient.
Again, swing and a miss. It wasn’t a matter of being an inconvenience, it was a matter of changing circumstances. See the Cold War.
Foreign policy requires tough choices. Unfortunately, these decisions are not like some Leftist’s wet dream of a foreign policy that plays out like a Broadway play - with easily discernible bad guys twisting their mustaches, good guys prancing about with fists on hips singing fabulous songs, and a wedding at the end - it is often a choice not between something bad and something good, but something bad and something worse.
The decision to back Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war was one of those decisions.
Secondly, isn’t it perfectly plausible that if the US is responsible for creating a monster like Saddam, it is therefore the most obligated to undo that mistake, assuming it was a mistake?
Well, I think it is ludicrous to say that ‘liberals love Saddam’. I certainly don’t subscribe to that.
What I will subscribe to is that liberals just can’t seem to wrap their Enlightened brains around some basic concepts about foreign policy. Working with Saddam may have been a necessary evil at the time if the alternative was something far worse.
A picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam is the equivalent of FDR shaking hands with Stalin - that was my primary point. Same principle.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Ren wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Come on, liberals. Speak up! Saddam is a man in the mold of Che Guevarra and Joseph Stalin (your fabled “Uncle Joe”). Madmen and killers all. He’ll be an icon to your lunatic movement shortly after his death. Another victim of Bushitler’s evil reign of terror, right?
Why not do the man the service that you feel he deserves. Show him all that love and reverence now while he’s alive. Talk about all the ‘little Eichmann’s’ in the WTC and how (Bill Maher says) “We had it comin’”. Talk about how Saddam’s hands were clean and run on a loop the segment of F9/11 that show’s Iraq as a land a peaceful kite-flying. Presided over by the loving and benevolent Saddam. Your hero and demigod. Fuck you all.
you are certifiably crazy, as is anyone that thinks people like che, stalin, and hussein are heroes.
Uncle Joe? wtf?
Do some reading, asshole. “Uncle Joe” was Truman’s nickname for Stalin. This was around the time that the White House was filled with Communists. A great time for America and, really, part of what spawned today’s pervasive “liberal thought” (i.e. America = Bad / Our Enemies = Good). Today, Communists are called democrats!
Do you see the ‘Che’ shirts on the street, on TV? Do you think those are CONSERVATIVES wearing them? Do you think it was Rush Limbuaugh who produced “The Motorcycle Diaries” (AKA: A Love Letter for Che)?
Was it Conservatives who made F-9/11? Who painted that picture of Saddam’s Iraq? Bush? Rummy?
Idiot.
Hey idiot, did you see that picture of Saddam shaking hands with someone. Who IS that?
I think it must be some liberal, America hating, communist right?
Perhaps it’s even Kerry.
Wait. Isn’t that what you guys wanted more of? Talk? Come on. A picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam is an endorsement? Even you aren’t that stupid. Oh…wait…
I don’t care whether the war was justified numbnuts. I just think you super-fucked it up. Jackass.
Oh, and what about Bush’s “talks” in Korea. Saddam “may” have had “some sort” of WMD. Korea HAS a KNOWN and WORKING ATOMIC WEAPON.
So obviously the whole talk = dem, action = GOP thing is off a bit.
It’s not that simple you sad, sad dee de dee.
[/quote]
North Korea? You want to talk about North Korea? Let’s dig us some photos of Madaline Albright’s fucking love affair with Kim Jong Il. Since photos prove so much. Shit, let’s dig up photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler to prove that Great Britain was responsible for WWII.
But let’s talk about North Korea. Let’s talk about which ex-President came up with the grand treaty (hint: He’s a borderline Communist Peanut Farmer. Wait. That’s not fair. Strike ‘borderline’) Let’s talk about which administration gave him nuclear technology and then - once he had all the technology he needed - agreed to NOT check up him via weapons inspectors for almost a decade? Any guesses? Thoughts? Still want to talk about North Korea, fuckface? Because I can talk about that all fucking day, you liberal fuckwad.
But I digress. And the above diatribe is too harsh. What I mean to say is that you are too fucking stupid to breath and CERTAINLY too stupid to vote. Stick your head in the oven instead. It’ll be better for our county than your misguided votes will be.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Or this one.[/quote]
Well. The only telling thing in this photo of Carter and Castro is that you can JUST see that hint of an erection that Carter get’s when he meets murdering dictators, especially Communists.
I think Clinton has a boner in that photo with Nobel Peace Prize Winner (nice choice, liberals) Arafat. But not much can be inferred from that, I’m afraid.
[quote]pookie wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Maybe the Left can tell us all what this picture means being that the Rumsfeld-Saddam picture is worth so many words.
Wow. That Rummy-Saddam picture really gets to you, doesn’t it? My point was simply that when it was convenient for the US to support Saddam, the US was more than willing to look the other way on all his brutal methods. Gassing the Kurds? Nah, not our Saddam. The Iranians did that.
Once he became more of an inconvenience, then he got demonized and became the number one enemy. Gassing the Kurds? He sure did! He cackled with glee while doing it too!
The main point is that the public’s opinion can and is easily manipulated and seeing all the idiots jump on this thread claiming “liberals love Saddam” strikes me as the height of stupidity. I wish more of them were lucid enough to realize how easily they get played.
[/quote]
The liberal motto should be: Vote Democrat! We can see the future!
Sure it’s a lie. But that’s their attituded toward the Republicans (AKA "The Liberals Daddy). They need Conservatives to take care of them, do the heavy lifting, defeat our enemies, that kind of trivia. While they lean back and say, “We’d have done THIS!” and “THIS is CRIMINAL!” and “America had it coming!”. Then they’ll be in power and swing a few deals with despots around the globe, enabling terrorism and weakening, well, the WORLD.
Don’t worry, though. Your daddy will get re-elected sooner or later to come in and clean up your mess. And you can all start bitching about the manner in which we do it…again.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It doesn’t really get to me so much as it has become a lazy substitute for a real argument and when it gets thrown up, the Left snickers like it is suddenly ‘game over’.[/quote]
I simply used it to bolster a point. Many seem to forget that at one point, Saddam was “an ally” in the region. He was still (or already) a brutal dictator, but you didn’t hear much about it.
Maybe “convenience” is not exactly the right word.
Still, people the world over are not blind to the effects of US foreign policy. You can’t expect the people of the various countries where you support oppressive regimes to understand “your need” for stability in the region.
In other words, are you one of those who wonders “Why do they hate us so?” or who subscribes to the “They hate us for our freedom” mantra?
[quote]Again, swing and a miss. It wasn’t a matter of being an inconvenience, it was a matter of changing circumstances. See the Cold War.
Foreign policy requires tough choices. Unfortunately, these decisions are not like some Leftist’s wet dream of a foreign policy that plays out like a Broadway play - with easily discernible bad guys twisting their mustaches, good guys prancing about with fists on hips singing fabulous songs, and a wedding at the end - it is often a choice not between something bad and something good, but something bad and something worse.[/quote]
You make it sound as if the US’s hands are tied. As if it’s past and current foreign policy is the only way to do it.
Some of us disagree. You might be right that our view could be unrealistic. Maybe having the US “play nice” would allow China or the soviets to manoeuvre and end up controlling important resources. There are probably classified facts available to whoever’s in power to which the public is not privy to which influence the various decisions taken…
[quote]The decision to back Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war was one of those decisions.
Secondly, isn’t it perfectly plausible that if the US is responsible for creating a monster like Saddam, it is therefore the most obligated to undo that mistake, assuming it was a mistake?[/quote]
Might it not be wiser to not create monsters in the first place? Although the choices might appear unavoidable at the time, it seems to me that some of those countries, and the US and by extension the whole West, are worse off later. The post-Shah Iran; the current (and apparently future) Iraq, etc.
Imposing stability for a while seems to eventually create a new, angrier enemy for the US.
The end result of all the meddling in the Middle East seems to be leading to a lot of extremists in power; with some of those countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons. It doesn’t strike me as a good situation for long term stability.
I said “the idiots.” While I disagree with you on many points, I certainly don’t think you’re an idiot.
The basic concept I get from US foreign policy is that the US does whatever is in it’s best interest (which is understandable, every country does the same) even at the expense of human lives, environmental resources, etc. (which, when avoidable, is reprehensible.)
It might have been. Saudi Arabia is probably a similar case. But you can’t expect the millions of oppressed Saudis to take the US seriously when it calls itself “a beacon of freedom” while supporting the House of Saud because it needs stability in the region.
FDR wasn’t responsible for Stalin’s rise to power. And FDR didn’t later start a war with the USSR to get rid of him either. There are important differences. Two “enemy” nations can ally themselves to fight a greater threat. History is replete with those kind of mismatched alliance in times of war.
The US/Iraq situation is different in many ways. Iraq was never dealing as an equal in whatever deals where being made; it was simply a proxy to fight soviet influence (and to a lesser extent the islamist regime in Iran) in the region. It was more of a puppet than an ally.
Hang’em high. If one good thing comes out of this whole bullshit mess, it’ll be that the piece of shit is dead.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hang’em high. If one good thing comes out of this whole bullshit mess, it’ll be that the piece of shit is dead.[/quote]
You bet.
