HaHa! Liberals hypocrisy with Saddam!

Oh yeah, whatever happened to Jessica Lynch, the hostage that the government made such a big deal about, oh thats right, she came out and said that everything the military said about how she was tortured and raped was made up by the government as propaganda, sucks for you conservatives. I agree that Saddam should be out of power, the whole world agrees with that, but war is not the answer

 
I'm asking an openly sincere question here. Those of you who are upset at the death toll of Iraqi civilians propose that there must have been a better way to incur the deposition of Saddam. Someone suggested using special forces with the correct intelligence. I would have to say this would be very difficult considering we couldn't even find Saddam for how many months now w/ the intelligence we had. I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible. I am saying is that I doubt few if any people on these boards have an understanding of a cost/benefit/success analysis for an operation such as the deposition of a dictator. The unfortunate thing about this ignorance of the dynamics of battle is that it becomes difficult to come up w/ a plan that we think would have worked better. So I guess my question is... if you think the death of these civilians were unfortunate, but Saddam had to be deposed of at some point (not necessarily this war), what would have been a better way to do it? It's easy to criticize without posting a plausible and thorough alternative.

 
what I believe about the war is that bush jumped right in. he did not get approval from UN, other countries and such and instead began the attack before evaluating things such as these. The goal of the war was to stop iraq mainly from producing weapons of mass destruction, which still have not been found(funny that we are able to single out and find one person yet we are unable to find any evidence that iraq was creating something capable of attacking the US or other countries, i just think weapons of mass destruction would be much much easier to find but still no luck there) personally i think the US government should of gathered more support from the rest of the world and countries and with that kind of help I think if a goal was to find saddam, it would have been easier because we would have had more resources, more world support and help and more ideas at how to go at the current situation. I just believe that the world should have disarmed saddam, not the US

 
^ You make a good point. However, you have to wonder if major western allies would have ever been ready to give their approval for the deposition of Saddam. Iraq has owes heavy debts to France, Germany, and Russia. Three major nations that the U.S. was criticized for not having their support. But why would these countries have wanted to support any sort of war when it would mean that the status of repayment of debts would be more tenuous than they already were. Iraq's debts are estimated to be 100 billion dollars. These debts DO NOT include the controversial reparations for the 1991 Gulf war. Those reparation debts are around 200 billion. Iraq's gross domestic product was estimated at 32 billion in 2000. I hope I've illustrated that countries such as France, Germany, and Russia, had other motives than believing the conflict was just plain wrong for leading opposition.

 
how about you justify bush's and US bombings while at the same time justifying the results in this picture
menino_queimado.jpg
ohh i bet he probably supported saddam and deserved this, come on conservatives and bush supporters, lets hear it!

 
or how about the picture of this iraqi boy,
aljazeera03.jpg
my point is that violence doesnt really stop violence. these boys lives are forever changed by US bombing. they didnt have a choice, this is the truth about war, personally i dont think this is ever justifiable. try and explain to them that by bombing you are helping them and their country

 
better yet bush, conservatives, justify these american soldiers ENDING THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, HOPES AND DREAMS, bush ordered these soldiers in and this is what they get in return
us-military02.jpg


 
^ Don't just go and post pictures. I could go on the internet and find pictures of what Saddam did to his own people. Try telling the citizens of that country that there is nothing anyone is gonna do to help them stop those atrocities as well. I'm not arguing for the bombing that incurred that pain to those people. I'm simply providing a counterpoint that posting pictures as an argument is not a strong one when anyone can do the same thing to show what Saddam has done.

 
I am in no way support Saddam. I completely agree that he has committed extreme atrocities that make anyone want to puke but for capturing Saddam, i just dont think bombing is an accurate tool. In the end all the places we bombed looking for him and trying to find him, he was never there and as you know when captured he was in good health as reported by the military. These bombing campaigns did nothing to capture Saddam, all it was that caught him was a tip. And I appreciate the counterpoint, nothing needs to be onesided in this world, nothing is. Im not saying that Saddam is free from atrocities, im just saying that our own efforts have produced atrocities. can anyone really say the end justify the means with pictures like this. Yes, saddam is gone, hurray for this, but the US is adding to the violence to, sure they are trying to prevent violence and pain but must we inflict it too in the name of peace someday?

 
I think everyone agrees that if idealistically that is the best. I think the conflict most people have in this discussion is reconciling idealism with reality in the best manner. I believe that tactics that involve bombing are used not in a manner to depose to one person, but to inflict damage upon the securities (such as the republican guard, body guards blah blah blah). This creates a lower risk for U.S. ground forces, but incurs more damage upon civilians. The alternative is to use less tactical bombing and increase the degree to which infantry and special ground forces are used. This obviously puts the higher death rate on infantry units, but however it levels the playing field. It could lead to a longer drawn out conflict with chances lowered for success. I suppose ultimately the decision to use bombs that will inevitably end up hurting civilians hinges on the uncertainty of ground forces being able to produce efficient results. In part, Vietnam was such a disaster because we didn't tactically bomb well and the conflict was based on infantry fighting (we saw how many soldiers that killed on both sides). Obviously war was created a long time ago to solve conflicts, and we haven't been very successful at phasing it out. I don't really see how you depose of manaical figures with power peacefully. I do think if there was a way to seize and cut off the economic funds of a rogue nation, then possibly that can be used as a shift in power. Unfortunately history doesn't provide enough good peaceful examples to take lesson from.

 
If the Iraqi people really wanted freedom more than a tyrant, don't you think they would have taken care of the problem themselves?

Saddam's capture is definitely a big boost for U.S. military morale and for the Bush 2004 campaign... now we can finish what we started. If, of course, the capture of Saddam is really what we were sticking around for.

'If there's a nipple, download it, then delete it.' - Matt Harvey
 
'Liberals: so you guys stick to your word, you need to stand up for Saddam and say how it isn't right and how this is a wrong war and we don't belong in it right? HA!

that is, unless you wanna agree with the president now? whatcha goona do libs!?'

SkierDave, you seem to be a bit confused. Liberals against the war aren't 'for' Saddam; his capture doesn't suddenly make the war 'right.' No one is 'standing up for' Saddam; we may be standing up for the sovereignty of the Iraqi people in letting them decide on their own damn government. I don't agree with the president in spending hundreds of billions of dollars and costing the lives of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans, just to catch one man and 'bring him to justice.'

Catching Saddam Hussein doesn't make the Iraq war justified. Discovering weapons of mass destruction that his regime PLANNED to use against the U.S. justifies the war. We won't find them, because they don't exist. And even if they do, Hussein wouldn't be damn fool enough to use them against us.

In summation, maybe you should cool your gloating and realize that we're all in this together. Violent partisanship hurts our country more than any terrorist.

'If there's a nipple, download it, then delete it.' - Matt Harvey
 
FYI all of you war haters, Baghdad residents, yes thats right I said Baghdad residents not CNN analysts or what have you American News Sources, conducted a study last August and September which indicates that Saddam Hussein's regime may have murdered as many as 61,000 citizens of the Iraqi capital. Last I checked we were not even close to that in war casualties. We all know that the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south were the primary targets of the dictator's brutality, but this new study/poll reveals that even those living within the 'Sunni Triangle' were not spared.Gallup surveyed 1,178 Baghdad residents asking whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. An astounding 6.6% said yes. The new data suggests that previous estimates based on mass graves recently discovered that put the number of victims at 300,000 to 500,000 might be too low. Some are revising their figures upwards to one million or more. Forty-one mass graves have already been confirmed.When asked about the rising death toll in Iraq, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told Talon News, 'There was an announcement by the Iraqi Governing Council earlier this week about the tribunal that they have set up to hold accountable members of the former regime who were responsible for three decades of brutality and atrocities. And we welcome that decision by the Governing Council.' The IGC formally established a war crimes tribunal to try former leaders of Saddam Hussein's government. The body may try Saddam Hussein in absentia for crimes against humanity during his reign of terror.

'We continue to learn more and more about the atrocities of the former regime as time goes on. And I think the Iraqi people suffered for decades under a very brutal regime, and that regime is not coming back; we can assure the Iraqi people of that.' We are urging the United Nations to become involved in the investigation of the mass murders that appear to be on track to exceed the death toll of other recent atrocities in Kosovo and Rwanda.The United Nations itself has taken little action to address the Iraq situation from the aspect of victims of the former regime. Which is unfortunate, but we must press on. All of you against the war in Iraq are blind to what actually has been going on over there. Your supposed to be fucking humanitarians yet you blind yourself because the past, present, and future fate of the Iraqi people is not prevolent in your own country. Wake up and smell the nepalm liberal bitches. Your a drain on both the economy and the moral of the country. Sometimes I think to myself that some liberals might have justified views, but I still find myself looking for that one liberal. Maybe he, she doesnt exist.

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
Do you think posting pictures of war casualties is relevant in this discussion? Its not at all. If I posted a picture of every man, woman, and child killed by Saddam and his regime then harvey would have to close down the site cause I would overload the sites bandwidth to the Nth degree. You liberal cocksuckers are so stupid.

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
'If the Iraqi people really wanted freedom more than a tyrant, don't you think they would have taken care of the problem themselves?' -Kami

Dude, granted we have opposing views just about all the time, I can't believe your statement I quoted above. Do you not understand the constructs of the gov't that the Iraqi people were confined by? What a terrible statement without any sort of sense. You do know that Iraqi's didn't live in a democracy, correct? You do know what it means to be afraid for your life right? Well you and I can at least understand that, but we can not sympathize with them on a first hand basis for obvious reasons. Either way we still understand that people will not react as we would in a democratic state you see. You have no clue, ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE, as to what these poor people were going through. To live your life in such fear as they did is not right from any perspective. Do I need to keep going or can you see the light?

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
w/ the economy, I do think we need to get our country back on track before giving billions of dollars to Iraq, we deffinately need money, but 80 or whatever billion is not possible.

You guys keep forgetting that Saddams regime sp? is killing the citizens on purpose while we have certain targets to attack to help the citizens. And again, the troops want to be there and know why they're there. and

freedom is never free.

screw other countries, our president know's whats right, and if you need to go against the flow to shatnd up for whats right, then you do that, we have our troops behind us and a few other countries that are only consider whats best for their country and screw the rest.

www.BottleCapProductions.com

info@bottlecapproductions.com

PROHIBITED to be released spring of 2004

we are about pure riding enjoyment!
 
do you guys even know what started the first Gulf war? Oh, I forgot you dont have that kind of attention span, you talk about stuff with only the knowlege you have from recent, biased news. Which I guess means you have absolutely no understanding and therefore no valid arguements. Saddam didnt just act up for no reason, he was provoked and stood up for himself, which is admirable in a tragic sort of way. I wish he got away...

----------------------

'Dude, check out this nasty gouge.'

'Your mom has a nasty gouge.'

im just gonna sling crystal meth so i dont have to get a real job and can afford to ski, with the way my senior year is goin though thats probably one of my few options

-switchskier88
 
it is senseless to point at a liberal and say ha you are a fool! plain arrogance.

a liberal is generally someone who is extremely against the brutality against other human beings, unless the situation is extremely dire. thus i would like to see saddam fall. BUT, i hate to think that it took us a year to find saddam and then think that finding him justifies the war it doesn't.

you have to understand, this war is not about capturing saddam or bin laden, those were priorities but they have been superceded so that we can reconstruct iraq. in principle a good thing. the way we are doing it = bad bad bad.

to shut out france, germany, and our other allied powers from having a hand in restoration is a horrible act of selfcenteredness. france and germany both have experience in reconstruction. they were given those countries as mandates and have had a hand in them for a long time. we on the other hand have not.

by keeping restoration contracts domestic we once again alienate foriegn nations. which, under the circumstances is a stupid move.

-AndrewP

-------------------------------

Go Fishing. Go Ride.

 
221: Why are you bringing up the Gulf War when Saddam was the aggressor in that cause. Relations had been good between Kuwait and Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, but then Iraq fell into a situation mired by debt. Some of that debt was due owed to Kuwait, and when Iraq requested the debt be dropped, Kuwait refused. What Kuwait did to antagonize Iraq was to start pumping oil from a field that straddled the border, and Kuwait wasn't sharing revenues; and additionally, they were producing more oil than allowed by OPEC quotas. Eventually Iraq mobilized troops on the Kuwaiti borer. It's no secret that tensions had been historically high on the border because Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman empire, and thus Iraq believed they had claim. Iraq invaded and seized the Kuwaiti capital. I'm really trying to see the point of bringing up people's ingorance of the Gulf War, when there seems to me that there is no misnomer that would lay the blame elsewhere than an economic dispute between two nations and where one decided to take military action and invade the other.

 
The liberals should just give up now because their little chance of winning the next election was just blown away.. Looks like we've got another 4 years.... go Bush!

-Jason
 
I'm almost impressed. A little further back, after the Gulf war, Kuwait was carved out of Iraq for the British. 'This is ours, cheerio' Then the oil dispute, which involed Kuwaiti companies not drilling on a field that straddled the border, but lining up hundreds of rigs and slant drilling. Saddam invaded, and the rest is history. So on one hand, you have the US drilling illegally to feed its overblown populations fuel needs and a guy with an outmatched army trying to stand up for himself. The French and Russians used diplomacy to get oil, trade, the civilized way. The US felt the need to use force which in the long run has cost much more in blood and money but they had to prove a point to Saddam and the world, sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I admire Saddam for taking a stand, sort of a David and Goliath thing, just like I admire Castro or Noriega. Little guys with little countries that refused to shut up like everybody else and take it up the ass for the States. The US and is the only country capable of launching a major invasion anywhere on the globe, other military powers, like Russia or China have big armies, but they are strategiacally defensive. The reason the US needs the attacking capability is to defend their global supply lines, because the continental US cant meet its own needs. The rest of the world has better things to do than wage global wars. The US is the only nation to profit from war in the last century. The rest of the world does not understand the US bloodlust. The US is beginning to look like a savage barbarian, always looking for a fight and using force or sanctions even aginst her allies if anyone even slightly disagrees.

----------------------

'Dude, check out this nasty gouge.'

'Your mom has a nasty gouge.'

im just gonna sling crystal meth so i dont have to get a real job and can afford to ski, with the way my senior year is goin though thats probably one of my few options

-switchskier88
 
to correct, kuwait was seeded to the british after WW2, not the gulf war. my bad.

----------------------

'Dude, check out this nasty gouge.'

'Your mom has a nasty gouge.'

im just gonna sling crystal meth so i dont have to get a real job and can afford to ski, with the way my senior year is goin though thats probably one of my few options

-switchskier88
 
British protection of Kuwait goes all the way back to late 1800's early 1900's when Kuwait received British protection for political autonomy. Britain granted them independance in 61, and that's when Iraq first made claims that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman empire and had a right to them. Everything I've read however from historians suggest that Iraq's claims actually had very little historical basis.

I do understand what you're saying about admiring Saddam for not being pushed around by larger nations. If you put aside anything he's done to his own people, that is a rather admirable face to put on your nation.

The U.S.'s involvement in the Gulf War however had a larger and more consensual basis than this last war has. Before the U.S. was even involved Arab states tried to mediate the conflict where they set up two conferences in Saudi Arabia. The day after the second conference is when Iraq invaded.

'The United States sent more than 400,000 troops, and more than 200,000 additional troops came from Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, France, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Senegal, Niger, Morocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain. Other countries contributed ships, air forces, and medical units, including Canada, Italy, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Poland, and South Korea. Still other countries made other contributions: Turkey allowed air bases on its territory to be used by coalition planes, and Japan and Germany gave financial support. The initial goal of the force was to prevent further Iraqi action, but most countries were aware the force might ultimately be used to drive Iraq from Kuwait.' - encarta

To say that the U.S. wanted their hand in the affairs of oil in the region is no history. However, the opinion of many nations, including Arab ones were that they feared Iraq's territorial goals, and were afraid that Iraq would attempt to control the Arab oil supply. As much as a U.S. controlled oil supply is undesirable, that control in the hands of any nation and especially one like Iraq at the time is highly undesirable. Hence the large opposition by many nations.

 
I agree with the pretext of the first war, but this one was boorish and heavy-handed. To paint the occupation of Iraq as a humanitarian mission is ridiculis. Civilian casualties, infrastructure damage, crime is all out of control and disproportionate to any benefits. Ask any Iraqi civilian: would you rather be alive and living under Saddam or dead and living under the US? Also, It could be argued that during Saddam's tenure, the US either directly or indirectly through its actions and policies was responsible for millions of deaths, poverty and homelessness around the globe. Who's the tyrant now?? Also, if the US government continues to insist that this war was to liberate a people oppressed by a dictator, I insist that the US, without delay proceeds to declare war on EVERY dictatorship on the globe. Its only fair. What about Liberia? They got ignored. Rwanda? Somalia is still out there suffering. Libya is a known terrorist breeding ground. Iraq was just the enemy du jour with a payoff in oil for a victory. Right or wrong, I just want people to be aware of what this war really is about. It never has been and never will be about the civilians. Political things almost never are. And it has been acknowleged that capturing Saddam will have little or no effect on the proceedings in Iraq. No doubt his trial will be a big media circus, parading the 'captured tyrant' around like a caged animal.

----------------------

'Dude, check out this nasty gouge.'

'Your mom has a nasty gouge.'

im just gonna sling crystal meth so i dont have to get a real job and can afford to ski, with the way my senior year is goin though thats probably one of my few options

-switchskier88
 
^ I agree with this. As good as it may be to have deposed a despot, the supposed grounds for this war is the disarmement of Iraq based on the premise that they possessed WMD. I think it's so unfortunate that the successes and points of this war have slithered away from the original picture. The idea that this war was about liberating a people only came after we got over there. You can't blame a government for cheering the side effects of a war, but when you don't meet the primary objective that was set, you can't call it a success or that the original insertion has been justified yet.

 
My point, SUpilot, is that it's not our damn business deciding what government Iraq should have, dictator or no dictator. If Saddam Hussein's regime was really as terrible as we are all led to believe, then the people of Iraq would have taken matters into their own hands after decades of oppression. If they didn't, it's their own damn fault. It's not the U.S.'s job to civilize the poor tyrannies of the world with democracy. If they really want democracy, they can take it for themselves, because it's something that must be earned, not handed to you on a golden platter by US troops. That doesn't sound very liberal, or humanitarian for that matter, does it?

And that little jib about liberals being a drain or on the economy... well, I think that napalm that we should wake up and smell is probably way more expensive than our views, don't you think, SU?

By the way- it's good to have you back.

'If there's a nipple, download it, then delete it.' - Matt Harvey
 
'w/ the economy, I do think we need to get our country back on track before giving billions of dollars to Iraq, we deffinately need money, but 80 or whatever billion is not possible.'

Skierdave - what are you talking about? Our economy is just fine and I guarantee you that it'll keep rising. About this 80 billion dollars that Bush is supposedly throwing at Iraq.. Do you have any idea what's really going on with the money? If you had any comprehension on the true purpose of that money, then you wouldn't speak. Go look at the figures. Look at Bush's plan to see exactly what each dollar of that money is going for. The majority of that money is going to employ American companies to complete work over there, thus creating jobs and giving back to our economy.

Eat. Sleep. Breathe. Ski.

 
kamikaze:

Sometimes the general public overthrows an unwanted government..

August 19, 1991. The beginning of the end of the Soviet Union led by Boris Yeltsin and 100 000 other demonstrators.

..Sometimes they can't:

June 4, 1989 Tiananmen square, where thousands of pro-democracy demonstators were killed.

 
Why haven't they caught Osama yet. I don't know if you guys remember him, but he was the person who suposedly caused all of this mess?

 
Kami, well as usual i guess it comes down to opinions. I honestly don't believe it is feasible for a country Iraq of oppressed people to over throw the government. If the Iraqi government was weak then perhaps the people could intervene, but in this specific case I would say that any sort of movement to overthrow the government would be totally suppressed. The fear of what would become of these people that are a part of the uprise is the very same reason why these uprises don't occur. Saddam and his Iraq were very powerful. The entire military was his personal body guard. How do the oppressed people combat an entire army as large as Iraqs? I can't think of any examples of this being successful in history other than Uganda and other 3rd world countries (Even there the US was involved). I'll entertain your theory further by saying that okay lets pretend the people did overthrow the totalitarian state of Iraq. Then what? Chances are another dictator would rise to power and lead the country into another 2 decades of oppression. I don't under stand why every is so naive when it comes to this war. People think all american news is just a giant government led conspiracy set out to brainwash the world. Its horseshit and until your on the inside you wont ever realize that. I'll be the first to admitt bush isnt the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he is a damn good leader. There is more to life than articulation.

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
^GhostDragon, you make an excellent point of that Iraq money going to pay for US companies to rebuild Iraq, thus putting it back into ur economy, I never thought of it from that perspective, I thought it was all just goin to supplies and to Iraq themselves.

www.BottleCapProductions.com

info@bottlecapproductions.com

PROHIBITED to be released spring of 2004

we are about pure riding enjoyment!
 
why didn't that fellow post any pics of what saddam did to his own people? there were so many more deaths caused by him than by our removal of him. if it had cost a million lives to have removed hitler before the holocaust...wouldn't that have been worth it?

I only wish I political debating could be done with a machine gun. What happened to natural selection, where the idiots died of to make room fro thinking and rational beings?

Ha. Ha.
 
War was in the process since the end of the first gulf war, and Clinton set the precedence of hostility towards iraq.

_________________________

And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September the 11th, 2001 — to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities. - George W. Bush

 
this sin't just about facts or about resherch. this will sound really stupid but it is about the vibe you send out. If you be good to other people then they will generall be good. granted this isn't 100% the case all the time, it will cirtanly help. The reason all those countries hate us so much (or atleast one of them) is because we manipulate any country to what we want. The world is our pupit or robot shall we say. world domination, Hitler, Napoleon and all those other guys are easly comparible in opinion.

____________________

It is one of those times when you need to go get raiped.

ya, you know, those times

 
First off, Saddam is wrong, he killed thousands upon thousands in the name of power and control, everyone agrees that that is wrong, but here the US is killing innocent civilians in the name of good and peace, just seems a lil ironic.

Oh and ghostdragon, what kami means by spending money on our own country before iraq, i agree, why is the US intervening on other countries when there are thousands of americans who go hungry, are poor, our schools are losing money and have budget crisises, the cost of US living is rising faster than average american living wage, higher education is becoming much more costly each year even in public schools, many schools seeing 30% increases, social security is facing problems of not being able to afford to care for the baby boom generation of seniors coming up, and bush gives a tax break which benefits the rich? wow and you dont think this is messed up?

 
let me add on to what I said:

exept for this time is it mostly political as opposed to hitler and napoleon where it was war

____________________

It is one of those times when you need to go get raiped.

ya, you know, those times

 
you cant even compare saddam to hitler or napoleon, they were both ushered in by their own people after a time of desperation, and caused wars because they attacked other countries. OIF, iraq didnt attack anybody, and saddam was instated as dictator because of a coup-like succession to power.

so they touch there skis now?-my grandma after watching RFA
 
Petek...have you forgotten that Iraq attacked Saudi? He can't be compared with hitler or other dictators? I beg to differ on that. Have you gone ass backwards in your schooling?

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
i think that its funny, because in an ideal situation for bush, they would of killed him in a bombing, or something of that sort. but now that they captured him, tehy are gonna have to deal with him...

_______________________________________________________

The Official-royal nose-picking, wannabea highschool dropout, Gary Coleman-loving, Arnold-hating, college chick-dating, Montana boonies guy

Member of the 'lets help Sam loose some weight so he can possibly get a girl' Club.

Only Westcoaster in the Eastcoast Cult

 
you know whats weird. That If Iraq becomes free and they change their name to Babylon, that it is a sign of the apocolyse or somthing like that.

---------------
 
Yeah...and wasnt the world supposed to end in the Year 2000? Afterall Nostradamus got Hitler right among other things. Your such a dumbass.

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
This wasnt from Nostradamus. I was just repeating something that I heard. I found it interesting. take it easy

---------------
 
well I was sort of compairing the us to hitler however if you compare sadam to him that works to although he didn't kill nearly as many people.

____________________

It is one of those times when you need to go get raiped.

ya, you know, those times

 
volklpro you are on to something.

The United States will do whatever it takes to keep Sadaam quiet. He will never face an International War Tribunal because he will use it as a forum to say alot of bad things (concerning past close friends including France and the U.S. among others / a little ironic I think,) some of which may be true and others completely false.

Once they've milked him for information he's going to end up dead... *cough Jack Ruby *cough

 
Message from:

Ski-hobo

Date Sent:

2003-12-15 20:32:02

it from the bible you moron. I was just stating it as a fact.

the Iraq war is in the Bible? Calling Iraq Babylon is in the Bible? Terrible.

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
As far as im concerned, the recent capture of Saddam doesn't do jack. What damage was he doing sitting in a hole outside a city. Conducting terroist operations? No, he was trying to survive. Until you Bush provides solid evidence of WMDs, the whole pretext of this war is inexcusible. I congratulate them on a capture of an unliked leader, but this shouldn't be there scapegoat into accomplishing what they set out to do.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top