Should Saddam Be...

[tralalala]

1) yes, the USA should kill him immediately to prevent any arabs taking hostages for the release of the former dictator.

2) he should be tortured, and tortured a lot because he deserves it after what hes done.

3) he should be taken to justice for war crimes, and sentenced for an extremely high "paying penalty" and for some 100 lifeterms.

4) take the pig to texas, and give him the death sentence.

5) Other (please specify)


tralalala

[Rappy]

3 i don't believe in tourture or the death penalty

[bigboab]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 14:34
1) yes, the USA should kill him immediately to prevent any arabs taking hostages for the release of the former dictator.

2) he should be tortured, and tortured a lot because he deserves it after what hes done.

3) he should be taken to justice for war crimes, and sentenced for an extremely high "paying penalty" and for some 100 lifeterms.

4) take the pig to texas, and give him the death sentence.

5) Other (please specify)


tralalala
He should be taken to the USA and treated the same way as the former Shah of Persia who went to the USA.

[tralalala]

ill post my oppinion as soon as this topic is turned into a poll ;)
i just PMed jetje with the request

tralalala

[Alucard1475]

3) he should be taken to justice for war crimes

That's the most likely that's gonna happen. He aint any different to all of those mutherfucking dictators on this world.

[Snee]

Sure, on some level he deserves what he did to others, but on the other hand, what does that make us(western civilisation), if we administer that type of sentence.

We are better than him, I say :)

So I'll vote 3), since he shouldn't go free either.

[tralalala]

correction allucard: he is the one and only leader in the world that used chemical weapons against innocent people since world war 2!!!

he is extreme... crazy... mad.

still, ill post me "review" after this topic is turned into a poll


tralalala

[jetje]

as requested by tralala... just editted the choices a bit ;)

[bigboab]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 14:46
he is the one and only leader in the world that used chemical weapons against innocent people since world war 2!!!


What do you consider Agent Orange to be tralalala?

[Marius24]

i believe he should be tortured, have u heard what he has done to people.

[Marius24]

and then have number 4 done to him :)

[Snee]

:blink:

[james_bond_rulez]

We Canadians dont believe in death sentences. I think the best sentence for him would be life in prison for like 1 million years... <_<

[tralalala]

1) thanks jetje for making this a poll :)

2) imprisoning him for 1 million years would only be symbolic, and in other words - pointless... we are talking about a c-r-a-z-y person that killed, tortured, used c-h-e-m-i-c-a-l weapons on i-n-n-o-c-e-n-t people&#33;&#33;&#33;
he should be sentenced to give up his 6 billion dollars for either the people of iraq... or, for the people of iraq... or, for the people of iraq :shifty: or just use it for funding the war on terror.


tralalala


p.s: suggestion - pin this poll so it wont get shifted too far back?

[james_bond_rulez]

pin it? dont push ur luck.... <_<

:lol:

[Snee]

@tralala, I don&#39;t know if this poll is that important, the only reason the other Saddam thread is pinned is probably because people started new ones all the time yesterday as soon as it wasn&#39;t at the top.

But you could ask uNz[i] to put a link to this thread in his first post in that thread, or announce it yourself with a link there.

[Sparkle1984]

Originally posted by Marius24@15 December 2003 - 13:55
i believe he should be tortured, have u heard what he has done to people.
Wouldn&#39;t that show that the western leaders are no better than him? You can&#39;t just execute someone without giving them a trial, and anyway what you are suggesting would be against the international law. (If you were saying it in a serious way,and not just joking).

[tralalala]

good idea, ill request unzi to announce this poll in his pinned thread.


also, he really would deserve to be totured and to suffer a slow, eagering death... but unfortunately, we are civilized people who have rules, and our respect to humanity is a lot higher than some arab leaders (saddam, bin-laden, nasralla and quite a few more...)


tralalala

[Barbarossa]

I think they shoudl cover him in tinfoil and put him back on that pedestal, then let the angry mob drag him off it again with ropes and beat him to a pulp with their shoes....

[J'Pol]

He should be given a fair trial. This should be done by the people of Iraq.

If that is not possible then he should be tried as a war criminal. In front of an international tribunal. The USA and the UK and any of the allies who fought against him should not sit on the tribunal. It must be seen to be independent.

Assuming that there is a case to answer in both instances.

My personal preference is a trial, in Iraq, before Iraqi judges. If he is found guilty of offences then he should be punished accordingly. In my opinion this should not involve either the death penalty, or any sort of torture. I find both to be abhorrent.

It is perhaps ironic that organisations like Amnesty International, who have spoken out against the torture etc in Iraq for many years, will now be speaking on his behalf. To try to ensure that these very things do not happen to him.

When we torture and murder in the name of justice, we become no better than those who we fight against.

[Sparkle1984]

Very well said J&#39;pol. Your opinions on the subject are much more calm and well thought-out than all those from the hang&#39;em and bang&#39;em brigade&#33;&#33;

[Benno]

Originally posted by bigboab+15 December 2003 - 15:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab &#064; 15 December 2003 - 15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tralalala@15 December 2003 - 14:46
he is the one and only leader in the world that used chemical weapons against innocent people since world war 2&#33;&#33;&#33;


What do you consider Agent Orange to be tralalala? [/b][/quote]
tralalala are you ignoring this post intentionally? ;)

[j2k4]

As has been pointed out in many threads, the U.S. is totally responsible for creating Hussein in the first place, however I do not believe this in any way trumps the prerogative of the Iraqi people, therefore:

Saddam ought to be kept in U.S. custody until such time as an Iraqi authority exists to try him.

During this interim period, all measures and methods should be tried so as to extract every last shred of relevent information Saddam possesses.

The Iraqis should then try Saddam before the whole world, and whatever they decide as to his fate should be accepted by all.

The U.N., of course, should be encouraged to complain (albeit in vain) that they won&#39;t get a crack at him.

Then the Iraqis can make that decision, too.

The most important and salient concern in all of this is, however, to remember that the U.S. is to blame. ;)

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by j2k4@15 December 2003 - 16:03

During this interim period, all measures and methods should be tried so as to extract every last shred of relevent information Saddam possesses.

Does this include physical torture? In which case I&#39;d have to disagree :(

[muchspl2]

I say trail in Iraq, the 4 option is pointless, aren&#39;t they still trying milosevic ?

[TheDave]

take him to the hague, like anyone else would be

[tralalala]

me?? ignoring the thread?&#33; how did you reach that conclusion????

tralalala :huh: :o

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 17:30
me?? ignoring the thread?&#33; how did you reach that conclusion????

tralalala :huh: :o
You ignored this post...

http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=...ndpost&p=738180 (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=88031&view=findpost&p=738180)

edit: which was a reply to this post: http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=...ndpost&p=738173 (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=88031&view=findpost&p=738173)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by barbarossa+15 December 2003 - 13:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (barbarossa @ 15 December 2003 - 13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@15 December 2003 - 16:03

During this interim period, all measures and methods should be tried so as to extract every last shred of relevent information Saddam possesses.

Does this include physical torture? In which case I'd have to disagree :( [/b][/quote]
I wouldn't think that necessary, barbarossa.

Start with a little sodium pentathol, and go from there.

Although it sounds like his tongue is pretty loose already, judging from what we're hearing. ;)

[tralalala]

oh nigel123... ill tell you why i ignored boabs posts... simply because i actually have no idea who agent orange is/was... :strongsad: :sadwalk: :ooops: :helpsmile: :crazy: :confused: :bag: >_< :geek: :ermm: :wacko: :unsure: :( and even - :&#39;(


tralalala

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 17:09
oh nigel123... ill tell you why i ignored boabs posts... simply because i actually have no idea who agent orange is/was... :strongsad: :sadwalk: :ooops: :helpsmile: :crazy: :confused: :bag: >_< :geek: :ermm: :wacko: :unsure: :( and even - :&#39;(


tralalala
You&#39;d better go here...

What is Agent Orange? (http://www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnline/issue5/articles/ritchie_orange.html)

[uNz[i]]

Originally posted by SnnY@16 December 2003 - 01:23
....you could ask uNz[i] to put a link to this thread in his first post in that thread....
Done. ;)

Oh, and I voted for Saddam to be tried by the Iraqi people.
I think he&#39;ll get some pretty nasty just desserts from them. :devil:

[tralalala]

oh... now i see what agent orange was...
still, hussain was still one of the only leaders to use chemical weapons against innocent people... and, you must agree he was probably the most evil leader in the modern times...


if you like, i can give you some examples... just ask

tralalala

[bigboab]

I noticed nobody picked up the Shah comment that I made earlier on. Here is a short history lesson for members not aware of the Iranian otherthrow of opressive
rulers.

*******

1953: The Shah, backed by western allies, overthrows Mossadeq in a coup staged by Gen Fazlollah Zahedi.

1971: Diplomatic ties with Iraq are broken as the country occupies several Iraqi islands in the Gulf.

1978: Civil war looms as Ayatollah Khomeini leads Shi&#39;a opposition towards the Shah. Although in exile, he transmits his message through music cassettes, smuggled into Iran in small numbers and duplicated on a massive scale.

1979: The Shah flees and Khomeini returns. Hundreds of the Shah&#39;s supporters are executed. The Islamic Republic is chosen by referendum on a new constitution. Students storm the American embassy and take hostages in response to the Shah&#39;s admission into America.

The Shah died of cancer in America shortly after this. The point I was trying to make is that here was an uprising by Iranians to retake their country from western backed oppression. They wanted to try the former rulers for crimes against their countymen. What did America do? Gave the tyrant refuge. So can anyone explain why the reversal of policy?

[tralalala]

nope ;)

lol


but i guess no one was as bad as hussain, dont you think?
actully, heres a sub poll: how many support the war in iraq - 1)yes i support it
2)im against it


tralalala

[bigboab]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 20:53
nope&nbsp; ;)

lol


but i guess no one was as bad as hussain, dont you think?
actully, heres a sub poll: how many support the war in iraq - 1)yes i support it
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2)im against it


tralalala
Not exactly the place to hold a poll like that. Considering that most of the members on here are from the western world or support western policies.

In reply to your other question I can think of a couple offhand

Pol Pot
Idi Amin

No western intervention here I may add.

[Sparkle1984]

2) I&#39;m against it, even though I&#39;m from the west. For all the usual reasons that people oppose war. ;)
bigboab - just because many people here are from the west, doesn&#39;t mean they will support western policies. Indeed, I oppose most western policies as they cause harm to people in the developing world.

[Snee]

Originally posted by Sparkle1984@15 December 2003 - 22:18
2) I&#39;m against it, even though I&#39;m from the west. For all the usual reasons that people oppose war. ;)
bigboab - just because many people here are from the west, doesn&#39;t mean they will support western policies. Indeed, I oppose most western policies as they cause harm to people in the developing world.
What boab so "subtly" alludes to, is the fact that many of us have only seen the one side of this matter. And thus we do not have the whole picture.

[bigboab]

Originally posted by Sparkle1984@15 December 2003 - 21:18
bigboab - just because many people here are from the west, doesn&#39;t mean they will support western policies. Indeed, I oppose most western policies as they cause harm to people in the developing world.
I know that. But the majority unfortunatley would vote yes.

[mrlessk]

I&#39;m glad you asked.

Saddam Hussein should be turned over to the Iraqi Governing Council, tried by an Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal and brought to justice where most of the atrocities occurred....in Iraq.

His crimes against his own Iraqi Kurds and Shiite Muslims will sufficiently justify the death penalty thereby satisfying those in the Arab and Muslim world seeking retribution for his crimes against humanity and further will defuse the potential lashing out at the US and it&#39;s coalition in the event he was brought to stand trial in the Western world.

A win-win situation all around (with one exception....Saddam Hussein)

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
mrlessk

[Benno]

IMO he should be given to Iraqi justice as this was were he comitted his crimes. I, for my part, cant see how an american jury has the right to judge him by american laws. So to say its none of their business.

Im not judging the war itself thats another thing I just mean how can american judges judge him.

He restrained (?) the iraqui ppl and therefore they should judge over him.

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by Benno@15 December 2003 - 22:03
He restrained (?) the iraqui ppl and therefore they should judge over him.
I think the word you want is oppressed :)

I agree wholeheartedly.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Benno@15 December 2003 - 16:03
IMO he should be given to Iraqi justice as this was were he comitted his crimes. I, for my part, cant see how an american jury has the right to judge him by american laws. So to say its none of their business.

Im not judging the war itself thats another thing I just mean how can american judges judge him.

He restrained (?) the iraqui ppl and therefore they should judge over him.
I&#39;m all for letting the Iraqis have at him.
Islamic law is far harsher than US law.
They have no problem inflicting a little pain on your way off this mortal coil.

If you think we&#39;re barbarians, just wait.

[Rock Tonic Juice Magic]

FREE SADDAM

[Busyman]

Give him to Iraqi justice. The crimes he committed were against his own people. Who the hell is the US to actually judge him. I understand that he committed crimes in an international setting also (the invasion of Kuwait), so is that the reason to have an international trial? I say America needs to be fair with the country we were so called helping and screw the international trial option.

Many of those countries didn&#39;t want to help remove him from power anyway so they should just STFU&#33;&#33;

By the way I don&#39;t think my country should have been there in the first place. Now many of our and Britain&#39;s soldiers are sitting ducks. (for WMD&#39;s that so far aren&#39;t there)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by bigboab+15 December 2003 - 15:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab &#064; 15 December 2003 - 15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-tralalala@15 December 2003 - 14:46
he is the one and only leader in the world that used chemical weapons against innocent people since world war 2&#33;&#33;&#33;


What do you consider Agent Orange to be tralalala?[/b][/quote]
Agent Orange is a herbicide. The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people. Its&#39; carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.

Americans and Vietnamese were both exposed to the chemical, in fact, many Vietnam Vets still get yearly check-ups related to their exposure.

The active chemicals in Agent Orange are part of the dioxin family. Dioxins are deadly but this was not recognized until after the Vietnam war. In fact, in 1982 the government had to buy out Times Beach, Missouri because of dioxin contamination. It stands today, a ghost town.


So to compare dropping a known herbicide for this purpose versus using chemical agents for the specific purpose of instantaneous death is more than a bit harsh.

And yes, the US should pay the Vietnamese reparations for the unforseen, but very real long term effects of Agent Orange, it is the right thing to do.

[mustangchang]

Originally posted by hobbes+16 December 2003 - 01:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 16 December 2003 - 01:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by bigboab@15 December 2003 - 15:52
<!--QuoteBegin-tralalala@15 December 2003 - 14:46
he is the one and only leader in the world that used chemical weapons against innocent people since world war 2&#33;&#33;&#33;


What do you consider Agent Orange to be tralalala?
Agent Orange is a herbicide. The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people. Its&#39; carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.

Americans and Vietnamese were both exposed to the chemical, in fact, many Vietnam Vets still get yearly check-ups related to their exposure.

The active chemicals in Agent Orange are part of the dioxin family. Dioxins are deadly but this was not recognized until after the Vietnam war. In fact, in 1982 the government had to buy out Times Beach, Missouri because of dioxin contamination. It stands today, a ghost town.


So to compare dropping a known herbicide for this purpose versus using chemical agents for the specific purpose of instantaneous death is more than a bit harsh.

And yes, the US should pay the Vietnamese reparations for the unforseen, but very real long term effects of Agent Orange, it is the right thing to do. [/b][/quote]
hahahahaha everybody should get reparations shouldn&#39;t they lol.
As a matter of fact I just heard on the news that mail men that have been bitten by a dog in the last 40 years can pick up there reparations at their local bank lol give me a brake, your nuts dude :lol:

[Alex H]

@tarantula - There have been a few nasty guys in the last 50 years, Saddam is just up there with the worst of them.


In 1945, the United States and other Allies developed the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), sitting at Nuremberg, which contained the following definition of crimes against humanity in Article 6&copy;:

Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Source - Crimes Against Humanity by Cherif Bassiouni (http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html)

I don&#39;t think the Iraqi people are capable of objective reasoning in this case. A fair trial must have objective reasoning. The UN should be given juristiction over Saddam&#39;s trial.

And I&#39;ve noticed people saying he is "crazy". There is a big difference between sociopathic and insane. Sociopathic people are unable to empathise with other people and consequently relate to them in a very unsociable way.

Insane on the other hand is defined thus:

insane [ın&#39;seın]
adjective
1 a mentally deranged; crazy; of unsound mind
b (as collective n; preceded by the)
example: the insane

2 characteristic of a person of unsound mind
example: an insane stare

3 irresponsible; very foolish; stupid
in&#39;sanely adverb(ial)
in&#39;saneness noun


People can exhibit sociopathic behaviors without being totally insane. In fact:


A more severe allegation, however, comes from six senior U.S. professors, and whom some executives would consider friends - that a fair number of CEOs are sociopaths. The Academy of Management held a roundtable discussion with the subject, "What should be done about CEO pay?" The professors used research that suggests that 5 our of every 100 people in the same profession are sociopathic.

CEOGO (http://www.ceogo.com/CEOPAY/)

(Personally I think he should be shot at the next available dawn, but I&#39;m prepared to let go of my bloodlust in exchange for living in a civilized world).

[hobbes]

Originally posted by mustangchang@16 December 2003 - 02:30
hahahahaha everybody should get reparations shouldn&#39;t they lol.
As a matter of fact I just heard on the news that mail men that have been bitten by a dog in the last 40 years can pick up there reparations at their local bank lol give me a brake, your nuts dude :lol:
Sometimes when people contribute to a discussion they add their "2 cents", you, my friend, just added "no sense".

But I guess you are just being consistent with your signature, although I&#39;m not sure that "synical" is an English word. It may, however; have a very special meaning in your made up language.

I really appreciate the obvious amount of time and effort you put into such a well informed, tightly written and poignant response. It made me stop and reflect upon my life. What a nugget of genius you have bestowed upon us all. Thanks.

May I direct you toward the Lounge?

[Snee]

Originally posted by hobbes@16 December 2003 - 02:17
Agent Orange is a herbicide.&nbsp; The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people.&nbsp; Its&#39; carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.
This puts my opinion to shame, Agent Orange, was indeed not intended as a weapon. My support of the classification is thus officially withdrawn.

And I&#39;d like to add that you sir, are on fire tonight.


Sometimes when people contribute to a discussion they add their "2 cents", you, my friend, just added "no sense".

:lol:

[sparsely]

:lol: @ heared

[FatBastard]

Sadam today, Sharon tomorrow? Let&#39;s get all the war criminals, the ones on our side too. Sharon is one fat ugly crime against humanity.

[mustangchang]

Originally posted by hobbes+16 December 2003 - 02:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 16 December 2003 - 02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mustangchang@16 December 2003 - 02:30
hahahahaha everybody should get reparations shouldn&#39;t they lol.
As a matter of fact I just heard on the news that mail men that have been bitten by a dog in the last 40 years can pick up there reparations at their local bank lol give me a brake, your nuts dude :lol:
Sometimes when people contribute to a discussion they add their "2 cents", you, my friend, just added "no sense".

But I guess you are just being consistent with your signature, although I&#39;m not sure that "synical" is an English word. It may, however; have a very special meaning in your made up language.

I really appreciate the obvious amount of time and effort you put into such a well informed, tightly written and poignant response. It made me stop and reflect upon my life. What a nugget of genius you have bestowed upon us all. Thanks.

May I direct you toward the Lounge? [/b][/quote]
Oh no you got me lol, heres my 2 cents bucko :lol:

my 2 cents- What so you think any fucked up thing that happens to someone then should be automatically get payed for it, maybe you want the hand outs but most people want to go on living. Example my family is from Ireland and they moved here to America in the 1890&#39;s because of the potatoe famine which left my family dirt poor. But you don&#39;t see me or any other Irish person asking the British government for money because they opressed the people of Ireland. So unlike you I&#39;m not always looking to get payed, I&#39;m living to make my own. Thats my 2 cent packed nice and tight for your reading pleasure. :)

[hobbes]

my 2 cents- What so you think any fucked up thing that happens to someone then should be automatically get payed for it, maybe you want the hand outs but most people want to go on living. Example my family is from Ireland and they moved here to America in the 1890&#39;s because of the potatoe famine which left my family dirt poor. But you don&#39;t see me or any other Irish person asking the British government for money because they opressed the people of Ireland. So unlike you I&#39;m not always looking to get payed, I&#39;m living to make my own. Thats my 2 cent packed nice and tight for your reading pleasure.
Vietnam has a much higher incidence of birth defects today than other countries, as Agent Orange is still effecting these people. Perhaps you are not aware of the scope and severity of this unintentional but still significant health care problem.

The United States Government gives special compensation to American soldiers who were exposed to it and suffer because of it.

We should recognize this situation and make an acknowledgement to the people of Vietnam that we give a shit and contribute some financial support. Remember, we are effecting those we were allegedly there to protect ,as well as the "enemy".

Not being Vietnamese, but from the same area as yourself (though my lineage is not so pure), I fail to see how I would gain.

I have a secure career, I am self sufficient and I request no money, period. I would be the one paying, not the one receiving.

The "bucko" comment about my rabbit teeth, is surely beyond the pale.

[Cotton]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 14:34
2) he should be tortured, and tortured a lot because he deserves it after what hes done.

u cant torture no matter how much he deserves it, its just cant happen thats in violation of the laws which he is being prosicuted for breaking.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by SnnY@15 December 2003 - 18:28
Agent Orange, was indeed not intended as a weapon.
that&#39;s what napalm was for. but napalm only counts as a weapon, but somehow manages to elude classification as "chemical"... i suppose because napalm is more humane, and being burned alive is just a lot more fun than gagging on mustard gas. ;)

[mustangchang]

Originally posted by hobbes@16 December 2003 - 04:26

my 2 cents- What so you think any fucked up thing that happens to someone then should be automatically get payed for it, maybe you want the hand outs but most people want to go on living. Example my family is from Ireland and they moved here to America in the 1890&#39;s because of the potatoe famine which left my family dirt poor. But you don&#39;t see me or any other Irish person asking the British government for money because they opressed the people of Ireland. So unlike you I&#39;m not always looking to get payed, I&#39;m living to make my own. Thats my 2 cent packed nice and tight for your reading pleasure.
Vietnam has a much higher incidence of birth defects today than other countries, as Agent Orange is still effecting these people. Perhaps you are not aware of the scope and severity of this unintentional but still significant health care problem.

The United States Government gives special compensation to American soldiers who were exposed to it and suffer because of it.

We should recognize this situation and make an acknowledgement to the people of Vietnam that we give a shit and contribute some financial support. Remember, we are effecting those we were allegedly there to protect ,as well as the "enemy".

Not being Vietnamese, but from the same area as yourself (though my lineage is not so pure), I fail to see how I would gain.

I have a secure career, I am self sufficient and I request no money, period. I would be the one paying, not the one receiving.

The "bucko" comment about my rabbit teeth, is surely beyond the pale.
If you took the bucko statement personally I&#39;m sorry ;)

I am tired of fighting over this, we have our differences and I&#39;ll leave it as that.

[hobbes]

Sure, I don&#39;t come to the forum to argue anyway.

See you around.

The "bucko" comment was just a sly joke, as you perceived.

[FatBastard]

Originally posted by mustangchang@16 December 2003 - 12:54
... my family is from Ireland and they moved here to America in the 1890&#39;s because of the potatoe famine which left my family dirt poor. But you don&#39;t see me or any other Irish person asking the British government for money ..
Oh, so the British government started the potato famine did they? I was wondering about that.

[junkyardking]

I&#39;m agaist the death penalty, maybe they should make saddam do hard labor for the rest of his life, although exectuting him would bring finality to the situation.

Why were on the matter of evil dictators and the like, what about trying Harry Kissenger for war crimes he been behind some of the worse evil regimes in the last 50 years :angry:

[bigboab]

Originally posted by hobbes@16 December 2003 - 01:17
Agent Orange is a herbicide.&nbsp; The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people.&nbsp; Its&#39; carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.


If the Americans did not know the possible side effects of Agent Orange when it was dropped then it ceases to become a Herbicide and becomes a possible chemical weapon. It should never have been dropped. It is no excuse to say I did not know.
Saddam &#39;testing&#39; chemical weapons &#39;did not know&#39; the results. Albeit he knew what he was doing and his targets were human.

Britain are also guilty of this ignorance by giving their untested antidotes* to their troops to combat chemical warfare. As a result many british troops are now seriously ill as a result. My attitude is if you dont know dont use.


* I dont know if I have used the correct word here. So my apologies.

[uNdEaD$$$]

None of the above because none of them work

(1 Wow kill a guy for running his country the way he see&#39;s fit. Aren&#39;t we a redneck

(2 A perfect example of how to waste a option on a poll

(3 No because Iraq is silly savage country full of petty people who would have have their mother put to the death penalty.

4)Maybe but he&#39;ll be dead before they finish giving him a sentance. Which will be house arrest anyway.

5)Put somewhere were he can&#39;t rule a country like Switzerland

[Evil Gemini]

I wonder if Bruce Willis still wants that time alone with Saddam :lol: :lol:

[uNdEaD$$$]

Yer now thats Saddams all dirty and hairy Bruce won&#39;t want him anymore.

[Money Fist]

give him old fashion treatment

burn him as a witch&#33; LOL

[tralalala]

thinking of it now... the death penalty, as much as he would deserve it... just wouldnt satisfy anyone... it wouldnt be enough.
i say - take his 6 billion dollars for the iraqi nation, and sentence him for 100 lifeterms and let him rot in prison...
yes, that would satisfy me


tralalala

[bigboab]

I dont think that they could try him in the US under the normal US laws. Otherwise he would get off Scot free. It would appear &#39;to me&#39; that he has been illegally arrested.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by uNdEaD&#036;&#036;&#036;@16 December 2003 - 06:42
(1 Wow kill a guy for running his country the way he see&#39;s fit. Aren&#39;t we a redneck


You mean the editorial "WE" is a Redneck?&#33;? :huh:

[Wizard_Mon1]

they might aswell put him back in teh hole they found him and seel it up or put him in solitary confinement for life.

feed him spikey food like rose thorns and non hallucinagenic cactus

[DWk]

Taken to an international court... where he shall be trialed..... why? well he commit genocide not only in iraq but also in other countries (Kuwait ring a bell?)

[Benno]

Originally posted by uNdEaD&#036;&#036;&#036;@16 December 2003 - 11:42
(3 No because Iraq is silly savage country full of petty people who would have have their mother put to the death penalty.

sorry but that is pure bullshit.

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by DWk@16 December 2003 - 16:07
Taken to an international court... where he shall be trialed..... why? well he commit genocide not only in iraq but also in other countries (Kuwait ring a bell?)
If not Iraq, then Iran has the strongest claim to put him on trial, for his atrocities during the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980&#39;s.

Whatever happens, I think his death is the only likely outcome of this situation.

[DanB]

Originally posted by Rock Tonic Juice Magic@16 December 2003 - 01:48
FREE SADDAM
I think the work &#39;prick&#39; springs to mind here&#33;&#33; <_<


I dont really know which of these options would work, i honestly think they should have thrown that grenade into the hole anyway :)

He could cause America so much embarresment in a war crimes trail - Hey Mr Hussein you gassed all these people. I know, he replies, but it was with gas from the Americans.

That isn&#39;t going to go down well :rolleyes:

International War Crimes trial is about as much good as a chocolate teapot. Look at Milosovic&#39;s trial for an example of this&#33;

Given the choice I honestly think the leaders would have preffered him dead than alive.

[uNdEaD$$$]

Originally posted by Benno+16 December 2003 - 17:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Benno @ 16 December 2003 - 17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-uNdEaD&#036;&#036;&#036;@16 December 2003 - 11:42
(3 No because Iraq is silly savage country full of petty people who would have have their mother put to the death penalty.

sorry but that is pure bullshit. [/b][/quote]
Good and I hope you get cancer. ;)

Iraq is a silly violent country full of silly violent people who aren&#39;t fit to trial Saddam. Saddam will get off and live happily ever after, America economy will suffer due to the money it will cost to rebuild Iraq.

The only people who suffer is the American public, What great president this Bush fellow is and thanks to America&#39;s large population of idiots he will be voted president again come election time.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by uNdEaD&#036;&#036;&#036;+16 December 2003 - 14:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (uNdEaD&#036;&#036;&#036; &#064; 16 December 2003 - 14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Benno@16 December 2003 - 17:30
<!--QuoteBegin-uNdEaD&#036;&#036;&#036;@16 December 2003 - 11:42
(3 No because Iraq is silly savage country full of petty people who would have have their mother put to the death penalty.

sorry but that is pure bullshit.
Good and I hope you get cancer. ;)

Iraq is a silly violent country full of silly violent people who aren&#39;t fit to trial Saddam. Saddam will get off and live happily ever after, America economy will suffer due to the money it will cost to rebuild Iraq.

The only people who suffer is the American public, What great president this Bush fellow is and thanks to America&#39;s large population of idiots he will be voted president again come election time.[/b][/quote]
Congratulations, sir.

You demonstrate the singular ability to evince an absurd posture on two (or more, I can&#39;t be sure) opposing fronts.

You are afflicted with "Oxymoronic Conflictive Schizophrenia".

I have read descriptions of this rare malady, but never (&#39;til now, anyway) seen it up close.

You are indeed special&#33;

Please don&#39;t ever change. :)

[tralalala]

nice seeing you again j2k4... and phew... thank god people are pricking on someone elses neck now and not on me&#33;&#33;


tralalala

[uNdEaD$$$]

Originally posted by j2k4+16 December 2003 - 19:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 16 December 2003 - 19:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by uNdEaD&#036;&#036;&#036;@16 December 2003 - 14:51

Originally posted by Benno@16 December 2003 - 17:30
<!--QuoteBegin-uNdEaD&#036;&#036;&#036;@16 December 2003 - 11:42
(3 No because Iraq is silly savage country full of petty people who would have have their mother put to the death penalty.

sorry but that is pure bullshit.
Good and I hope you get cancer. ;)

Iraq is a silly violent country full of silly violent people who aren&#39;t fit to trial Saddam. Saddam will get off and live happily ever after, America economy will suffer due to the money it will cost to rebuild Iraq.

The only people who suffer is the American public, What great president this Bush fellow is and thanks to America&#39;s large population of idiots he will be voted president again come election time.
Congratulations, sir.

You demonstrate the singular ability to evince an absurd posture on two (or more, I can&#39;t be sure) opposing fronts.

You are afflicted with "Oxymoronic Conflictive Schizophrenia".

I have read descriptions of this rare malady, but never (&#39;til now, anyway) seen it up close.

You are indeed special&#33;

Please don&#39;t ever change. :) [/b][/quote]
Well whose one to show off big words.

Calling somebody stupid during an argument you looked mentally challenged if you can&#39;t think of something smart don&#39;t say anything at all.

Another thing I can&#39;t stand is people trying to act elitist, If you&#39;re that smart why are you posting on some board full of stoned teenagers. Go fuck off and go back to raping 5 year olds of whatever dolts like you do in their spare time. Oh Yeah

http://www.0wnag3.net/images/0wned.gif

[bigboab]

Originally posted by barbarossa@16 December 2003 - 17:43
If not Iraq, then Iran has the strongest claim to put him on trial, for his atrocities during the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's.


Who was supplying him with the weapons and chemicals during that war Barbie?
Should they not go on trial?

[uNdEaD$$$]

I think the suggestion of waiting till Iraq are much more civilized nation then letting them trial him is a good one.

[MagicNakor]

Oxymoronic doesn&#39;t mean stupid. I don&#39;t believe anyone called you stupid on this thread.

Have you been to Iraq, to say that they are uncivilized people?

Or is it simply another case of not understanding different cultures?

Regardless of what you may believe the board entire to be, the World News section is (was) happily devoid of "stoned teenagers."

:ninja:

[Benno]

Good and I hope you get cancer

Go fuck off and go back to raping 5 year olds of whatever dolts like you do in their spare time
-----------------------

Calling somebody stupid during an argument you looked mentally challenged if you can&#39;t think of something smart don&#39;t say anything at all.

eh?




MN fully agree with you


Or is it simply another case of not understanding different cultures?

[bigboab]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@16 December 2003 - 23:25
Oxymoronic doesn&#39;t mean stupid.
Oh&#33; yes it does when the word conflicting is put in as an addition.

[jetje]

guys back on topic, leave the personal attacks and stupid remarks away...
pm&#39;s has been sent to the ones that needed to get one ;)

[Alex H]

I hope he gets an international trial. Yes it will be long, maybe months or years, but it will give everyone time to go through the tones of evidence about how he actually committed the atrocities.

Prosecutor: "Saddam, you gassed the Iranians. Why?"

Saddam: "They shat me."

P: "So what did you do then?"

S: "Well, I asked the Americans if I could have some gas to kill the Iranians."

P: "And they said no, you can&#39;t have those sort of dangerous chemicals, didn&#39;t they?"

S: "No actually, they said they would sell me the chemicals on the provision that I knocked down the price of my oil. I thought, fair enough business is business, right?"

P: "Right. You also tortured tens of thousands of your own people. How did you accomplish this?"

S: "Well, a few years back, gee, it must have been...yeah, during the war with the Iranians&#33; Anyway, this nice guy called Don (http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg) came over here and said if I ever needed to learn how to torture people, he could get hold of some great people at the CIA."

P: "And you accepted?"

S: "Well I&#39;d seen the great work they had done at the School of the Americas so I reckoned they knew what they were doing."

P: "And the Kurds?"

S: "They still shit me."

P: "So you gassed them. I&#39;m beginning to see a pattern here..."

S: "Well the Americans had given me so many cool toys to play with I thought I&#39;d try to invent some new ones. I needed to make sure they worked properly, see the American stuff has had lots of testing. Anyway, the Kurds were just there, which shat me, so I gassed &#39;em."

P: "And Kuwait? You invaded another country. Why?"

S: "Well, they&#39;ve got a lot of oil and I wanted it."

P: "That&#39;s no reason to invade another...country...uh..."

S: "Yes it is actually. See, someone else has done that recently, you know like I did, saying they were a danger to my country."

P: "Call President Bush to the stand&#33;"


:D

[J'Pol]

So it&#39;s someone else&#39;s fault not the person who committed the atrocities.

The argument is old hat and specious.

That would be like accepting that if no-one made guns there would be no murders. The knife does a really good job as well, as does a stick, poison, the bare hands. It is the person who commits the act who is responsible for committing it. Whether or not certain things should be made in the first place isan entirely seperate argument.

In my view, the person who buys the weapon and then uses it is the guilty party.

Here&#39;s what we&#39;ll do - Drunk driver kills someone, call Ford / Chrysler / whoever made the car, to the stand. We can&#39;t go blaming the piss head. Or should we call the brewer. Just as long as it isn&#39;t the guy who got drunk and drove the car.

Stabbing, let&#39;s find who made the knife and try them, not the person who wielded it.

Like I said, to just use this as another cheap way to have a pop at the American&#39;s is really rather dull and predictable. There are plenty of other threads on that line. Even ones about who supplied the Arms in the first place.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by bigboab+16 December 2003 - 10:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab &#064; 16 December 2003 - 10:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 December 2003 - 01:17
Agent Orange is a herbicide. The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people. Its&#39; carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.


If the Americans did not know the possible side effects of Agent Orange when it was dropped then it ceases to become a Herbicide and becomes a possible chemical weapon. It should never have been dropped. It is no excuse to say I did not know.
Saddam &#39;testing&#39; chemical weapons &#39;did not know&#39; the results. Albeit he knew what he was doing and his targets were human.

Britain are also guilty of this ignorance by giving their untested antidotes* to their troops to combat chemical warfare. As a result many british troops are now seriously ill as a result. My attitude is if you dont know dont use.


* I dont know if I have used the correct word here. So my apologies.[/b][/quote]
Specious comparison, again. Saddam was honing his delivery of a known commodity. Agent Orange was inflicted upon friend and foe alike, knowing that it was an effective herbicide.

Scientific advancement is always one step ahead of experience. DDT was a great way to get rid of mosquitoes. It wasn&#39;t until the fish started popping up dead that we learned to appreciate the concentration of a toxin in the food chain.

In times of war, when results are the issue, it is difficult to tell people to study something for years, lest it have unforeseen side effects. Desperate times engender desparate actions, war is not civilized.

I did, of course, state that the Vietnamese should get reparations.

[J'Pol]

Sesame Street has been brought to you today by the word specious and the number 3.1428571428571428571428571428571

[Alex H]

I think a knife is a bit different to tonnes of toxic chemicals. The scale of the weapon make the situation different. Would you be a responsible world leader if you handed over a nuclear bomb to another country saying "Well, Merry Christmas&#33;"

And the other weapons bit. In Australia (Tasmania) a nutcase shot 35 people with automatic rifles. Days later, our version of the NRA said he could have done it with a spear. Not true. He had a superior weapon (than a spear) and was able to kill a greater number of people because of it. Soon after we banned them and deaths went down.

Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990602.html)

Now while there MAY be legitimate uses for assault rifles, I&#39;d like to know about the many legitimate uses for anthrax and bubonic plague.

When you&#39;re dealing with bigger and badder weapons, the supplier has just as much responsiblity as the user.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Alex H@17 December 2003 - 02:55
I think a knife is a bit different to tonnes of toxic chemicals. The scale of the weapon make the situation different. Would you be a responsible world leader if you handed over a nuclear bomb to another country saying "Well, Merry Christmas&#33;"

And the other weapons bit. In Australia (Tasmania) a nutcase shot 35 people with automatic rifles. Days later, our version of the NRA said he could have done it with a spear. Not true. He had a superior weapon (than a spear) and was able to kill a greater number of people because of it. Soon after we banned them and deaths went down.

Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990602.html)

Now while there MAY be legitimate uses for assault rifles, I&#39;d like to know about the many legitimate uses for anthrax and bubonic plague.

When you&#39;re dealing with bigger and badder weapons, the supplier has just as much responsiblity as the user.
What about cars.

Easily kill 35 people with a car. Plough into a bus queue.

Better yet a bus itself, do 70 in one go. Piece of cake.

Or a plane - hundreds, a boat - thousands.

So who do we try. The person responsible, or the person who made the thing they used. I know who I chose.


Would you be a responsible world leader if you handed over a nuclear bomb to another country saying "Well, Merry Christmas&#33;"

That is just trying to support your argument by saying something ridiculous.


And the other weapons bit. In Australia (Tasmania) a nutcase shot 35 people with automatic rifles.

He was quite right to shoot them if they had automatic rifles.


He had a superior weapon (than a spear) and was able to kill a greater number of people because of it. Soon after we banned them and deaths went down.

If banning the spear helped, then it was probably a wise thing to do.

Are you a mentalist at all.

[Alex H]

Look mate I&#39;m asking what a legitimate use for bubonic plague is. You&#39;re the one who started crapping on about knives and guns and stuff, and I pointed out that f there are less of these things then less people get hurt.

I will reluctantly admit that a boat is cartainly a dangerous weapon. It also has many other uses, like taking things from one place to another over the water. What else does anthrax do other than kill people? I could sell a boat with a clear conscience. Could you happily sell anthrax to someone?

Or is it ok to sell lethal chemicals, provied they are used to kill only certain groups of people?

I think you&#39;re getting vexatious litigation confused with arms dealing.

[the_faceman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@17 December 2003 - 01:04

And the other weapons bit. In Australia (Tasmania) a nutcase shot 35 people with automatic rifles.

He was quite right to shoot them if they had automatic rifles.

muahahaha.


anyways, he should get a fair trial, and it should be in an Iraqi court, with Iraqi officials. I only hope that if he was imprisoned indefinitely he wouldn&#39;t get the opulent surroundings given to the Lockerbie bombers. Prison should be punishment (in Saddam&#39;s case, it&#39;s not going to reform him) , not a holiday camp.

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@17 December 2003 - 02:04


Easily kill 35 people with a car. Plough into a bus queue.

Better yet a bus itself, do 70 in one go. Piece of cake.

Or a plane - hundreds, a boat - thousands.

So who do we try. The person responsible, or the person who made the thing they used. I know who I chose.


http://www.free2go.com.au/images/join/aboutfree2go/bargain.jpg
Buyer: Hey i want buy a car

Car salesman: what do you have in mind?

Buyer: just somthing to take children school and do the shoping, not too expensive mind you...

Car saleman: well i recommend this family station wagon only 10,000km on the clock just been serviced, 2 year gurantee... &#036;15,000

Buyer: okay but i was only looking at spending &#036;14,000.

Car saleman: sure let come back to the office and see what i can do....

on the other hand

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/imcenter/SaddamRummyhandshake.jpg

Saddam Hussain(ruthless dictator): Can you sell me some Athrax?

Donald Rumsfield: Sure thing what do you need it for?

Saddam Hussain(ruthless dictator): oh just research

Donald Rumsfield: *wink * wink No problem, DHL fine with you

Saddam Hussain(ruthless dictator): No problem

Donald Rumsfield: Anything else you need *wink

Saddam Hussain(ruthless dictator):Yeah also need some botuxm and the chemicals on this shopping list

Donald Rumsfield: No problem *wink *wink

:D

[Alex H]

Don: What do you want all those highly toxic and very lethal chemicals for?

Saddam: Umm, weed killer. I&#39;ve got some tufts of buffallo grass coming up in one of the palaces.

Don: Oh, thats ok then. Most people say genocide, and we can&#39;t sell it for that.

Saddam: Do short-range tactical missiles make good storange places for weed killer?

Don: Weeeell, not really, they have a habit of being launched before the weeds actually die, so no, I wouldn&#39;t reccomend it.

Saddam: Do you have a money-back policy if they get launched before I have a chance to use the anthrax on the weeds?

Don: Sorry. You bomb it, you bought it.

[sparsely]

george bush, tony blair, saddam, and that north korean dude should all be forced to hold hands, sing &#39;We Are The World&#39; and go through classic depth psychology as a group.

it&#39;ll be a recovery movie three years from now, and a global best seller when the script is released in a made-for-tv movie, ultimately
helping all economies. and who knows....somebody may develop a secret crush&#33; :wub:

[bigboab]

Hobbes everything that disagrees with you outlook is regarded as specious.

I dont think that it is specious do drop a known defoliage on forestation for the purpose of seeing the people who are hiding under it. Knowing as every little old lady gardener knows that you have to protect your eyes, skin and lungs when using these herbicides. If you still dont believe me then I suggest that you read this article written, I believe by the American Vietnam Vets, or on their behalf.


http://www.usvetdsp.com/agentorange.htm

I will take no further part in this thread because I believe that most people make up their minds on subjects and will not waver in face of facts. I will return to the Lounge where I belong. I am too old for this type of debate. I remember too much.


May I further add that there are no Mug-Wumpers in this thread. Just another one for JP. :lol:

[tralalala]

lol ill tell you something else now... i bet you all 100 bucks that after gerhard shredder, shirak and the guy from spain heard about the surprising person found in a hole... they probably shitted in their pants with embarrasment, dont you think??



tralalala

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by tralalala@17 December 2003 - 11:43
lol ill tell you something else now... i bet you all 100 bucks that after gerhard shredder, shirak and the guy from spain heard about the surprising person found in a hole... they probably shitted in their pants with embarrasment, dont you think??

eh? :blink:

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by Sparsely@17 December 2003 - 08:17
george bush, tony blair, saddam, and that north korean dude should all be forced to hold hands, sing &#39;We Are The World&#39; and go through classic depth psychology as a group.

it&#39;ll be a recovery movie three years from now, and a global best seller when the script is released in a made-for-tv movie, ultimately
helping all economies. and who knows....somebody may develop a secret crush&#33; :wub:
eh? :blink:

[j2k4]

Those of you who think you&#39;re being clever with the U.S./Saddam history:

Will you have similar contempt for Germany, France and Russia, who kept Saddam supplied with weaponry long after the U.S. stopped helping Saddam?

Will you point out this was done in the face of U.N. resolutions and embargoes to which they themselves were signatories?

I submit to you, in the absence of the covert support of these and other nations, Saddam might have dwindled on his own.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 08:06
but unfortunately, we are civilized people who have rules, and our respect to humanity is a lot higher than some arab leaders (saddam, bin-laden, nasralla and quite a few more...)
this struck me as implicitly racist. and incorrect, as well. the western world does not have greater respect for human rights than any other part of the world does-- we simply express our disdain toward humanity in a more elegant, polite manner. just because the west doesn&#39;t chop thieves&#39; hands off, that doesn&#39;t make it the perfect model of philanthropy.

i think the idea that countries like america are so much more civilized than the third world is based on veneer. it&#39;s totally superficial. at its core, humanity is inherently greedy and cruel across all lines & borders-- wearing a top hat & white gloves doesn&#39;t automatically make a person less of a savage than someone who wears a turban or a grass skirt. he might just be a savage with a good tailor.

[tralalala]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+17 December 2003 - 19:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 17 December 2003 - 19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tralalala@15 December 2003 - 08:06
but unfortunately, we are civilized people who have rules, and our respect to humanity is a lot higher than some arab leaders (saddam, bin-laden, nasralla and quite a few more...)
this struck me as implicitly racist. and incorrect, as well. the western world does not have greater respect for human rights than any other part of the world does-- we simply express our disdain toward humanity in a more elegant, polite manner. just because the west doesn&#39;t chop thieves&#39; hands off, that doesn&#39;t make it the perfect model of philanthropy.

i think the idea that countries like america are so much more civilized than the third world is based on veneer. it&#39;s totally superficial. at its core, humanity is inherently greedy and cruel across all lines & borders-- wearing a top hat & white gloves doesn&#39;t automatically make a person less of a savage than someone who wears a turban or a grass skirt. he might just be a savage with a good tailor. [/b][/quote]
well in that case my friend... you may go off to iraq (actually emigrate) and live there... if thats your oppinion of the western world.



tralalala

[hobbes]

Originally posted by bigboab@17 December 2003 - 12:33
Hobbes everything that disagrees with you outlook is regarded as specious.

I dont think that it is specious do drop a known defoliage on forestation for the purpose of seeing the people who are hiding under it. Knowing as every little old lady gardener knows that you have to protect your eyes, skin and lungs when using these herbicides. If you still dont believe me then I suggest that you read this article written, I believe by the American Vietnam Vets, or on their behalf.


http://www.usvetdsp.com/agentorange.htm

I will take no further part in this thread because I believe that most people make up their minds on subjects and will not waver in face of facts. I will return to the Lounge where I belong. I am too old for this type of debate. I remember too much.


May I further add that there are no Mug-Wumpers in this thread. Just another one for JP. :lol:
I believe the article clearly indicates that those who suspected agent orange might have side effects were covering it up and those dropping it on Vietnam were dropping for the purpose of deforestation.

It was not until later that the true perils of agant orange become known.

So agent orange WAS dropped as a herbicide, on both Vietnamese and American troops. Saddam was launching known deadly chemicals on his own people.

So if the comparison were to be valid, we must assume that the United States Government knew the dangers and decided to drop it on our troops anyway.

If they did not know, and were dropping it a herbicide, the comparison really falls apart, as the intents of the acts are quite different.


Yes, I got your "antidote" comment.

[Alex H]

@ j2k4 - The US is a member of the UN, and the UN said Iraq should have longer to prove they had no WMD. The US (and other countries, including my own) ignored them, just like everyone else with an agenda did.

@ hobbes - "Wow&#33; This Agent Orange stuff kills every plant it tounches&#33; Reckon it&#39;ll be ok for humans?"

Seriously if you invent something that radically changes the biological structure of everything it touches (like the subject dies) common sense dictates that it is a very dangerous substance and should be treated as such. Maybe the people who authorized it&#39;s use didn&#39;t know it was dangerous to humans, but they must have been pretty fucking stupid not to seriously question it. Knowing there may be dangers but not bothering to find them is even more irrisponsible than knowing them and doing it anyway.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Alex H@18 December 2003 - 02:46
@ j2k4 - The US is a member of the UN, and the UN said Iraq should have longer to prove they had no WMD. The US (and other countries, including my own) ignored them, just like everyone else with an agenda did.

@ hobbes - "Wow&#33; This Agent Orange stuff kills every plant it tounches&#33; Reckon it&#39;ll be ok for humans?"

Seriously if you invent something that radically changes the biological structure of everything it touches (like the subject dies) common sense dictates that it is a very dangerous substance and should be treated as such. Maybe the people who authorized it&#39;s use didn&#39;t know it was dangerous to humans, but they must have been pretty fucking stupid not to seriously question it. Knowing there may be dangers but not bothering to find them is even more irrisponsible than knowing them and doing it anyway.
A herbicide kills plants, antibiotics kill bacteria, cigarettes kill smokers.

I have no idea where you get the idea that it radically changes the biological structure of everything it touches? That doesn&#39;t even make sense.

If I were to spray you with agent orange, you might get blisters on your skin or ulcers in your nose/throat, but these would heal and you would not die. If you ate the stuff you would die, but that is not how most people were exposed to it. Most things in my cleaning room would injure my skin if I poured it directly on it, as would drinking the stuff kill me. People were not keeling over dead in Vietnam because of Agent Orange, that is just the problem, so they kept dropping the stuff for 5 or 6 years.

The problem was that the effects were quite delayed and took years to manifest in any measurable way.

The government was also giving soldiers cigarettes in their packs. So now we have hospitals filled with addicted smokers suffering the unknown (in 1960) but real consequences of that habit.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Consider that massive deforesting is not something that most people do. Someone suggests that clearing trees might help to prevent to enemy from hiding. Well, what do you have that really kills plants? Oh, agent orange, ok, lets do it. Should someone rush in and demand that a 10 year study needs to be done to look for potential adverse side effects, who is going to listen? The war would be over by then and the trees need to be killed tomorrow.

I imagine any herbicide dropped in that quantity would eventually be found to have unforseen negative side effects. Just as people learned later with DDT, as already explained. I was just pointing out that in wartime, we don&#39;t always have time for double blind randomized 10 year studies.

But my point about "intent", which is the most important, stands.

[abu_has_the_power]

i htink they should mate him with a frog. lol. jk. jk. i&#39;m canadian. got nothing to do with this stuff. but i guess a trial would be nice. international too. but death penality might not be necessary.

[Pitbul]

hes gonna be put in a Tribunal in Iraq. thats whats gonna happen and what should happen. he has done far worse to them then he has to anyother country. and believe it or not this is coming from an American :lol:

[atiVidia]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 09:34
1) yes, the USA should kill him immediately to prevent any arabs taking hostages for the release of the former dictator.

2) he should be tortured, and tortured a lot because he deserves it after what hes done.

3) he should be taken to justice for war crimes, and sentenced for an extremely high "paying penalty" and for some 100 lifeterms.

4) take the pig to texas, and give him the death sentence.

5) Other (please specify)


tralalala
personally, i think that this is all a gov. conspiracy to stop the bombings in IRAQ and say that the war is over, pull out, and have that bastard Bush reelected

what I think:

1) they threw a handpicked double into a hole, turned on the camera, and pulled him out

2) DNA Evidence: took a sample of the double&#39;s DNA and matched it with the double&#39;s DNA or:

Took the already-existing DNA of Saddam, copied it, and matched it to the original

3) The CIA has no excuse to interview "Saddam." The reason he is being "interviewed" by the CIA is so that the military doesnt find out that they "caught" the wrong man

4) Why isnt bush pulling back the troops now? if they think that "capturing" saddam would stop the attacks, then they should leave and reenter if the trouble arises yet again

[hobbes]

Originally posted by atiVidia@18 December 2003 - 05:19

personally, i think that this is all a gov. conspiracy to stop the bombings in IRAQ and say that the war is over, pull out, and have that bastard Bush reelected

what I think:

1) they threw a handpicked double into a hole, turned on the camera, and pulled him out

2) DNA Evidence: took a sample of the double&#39;s DNA and matched it with the double&#39;s DNA or:

Took the already-existing DNA of Saddam, copied it, and matched it to the original

3) The CIA has no excuse to interview "Saddam." The reason he is being "interviewed" by the CIA is so that the military doesnt find out that they "caught" the wrong man

4) Why isnt bush pulling back the troops now? if they think that "capturing" saddam would stop the attacks, then they should leave and reenter if the trouble arises yet again
Wow, just when you think you have read the stupidest thread ever, this post surfaces.

Why withdraw troops until your suspicions have been confirmed.

An idiot is counted amongst the wise when he is silent, learn this.

It is amazing what people will believe because they simply want to.

[FatBastard]

Originally posted by hobbes+18 December 2003 - 13:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 18 December 2003 - 13:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-atiVidia@18 December 2003 - 05:19

personally, i think that this is all a gov. conspiracy to stop the bombings in IRAQ and say that the war is over, pull out, and have that bastard Bush reelected

what I think:

1) they threw a handpicked double into a hole, turned on the camera, and pulled him out

2) DNA Evidence: took a sample of the double&#39;s DNA and matched it with the double&#39;s DNA or:

Took the already-existing DNA of Saddam, copied it, and matched it to the original

3) The CIA has no excuse to interview "Saddam." The reason he is being "interviewed" by the CIA is so that the military doesnt find out that they "caught" the wrong man

4) Why isnt bush pulling back the troops now? if they think that "capturing" saddam would stop the attacks, then they should leave and reenter if the trouble arises yet again
Wow, just when you think you have read the stupidest thread ever, this post surfaces.

Why withdraw troops until your suspicions have been confirmed.

An idiot is counted amongst the wise when he is silent, learn this.

It is amazing what people will believe because they simply want to. [/b][/quote]
A little harsh there Hobbes? The guy was only expressing an opinion. After all, everything he said is possible, even you have to admit that. Maybe you should apologise to him.

[hobbes]

I am sorry, a bit harsh. Still rather improbable, I believe.

[FatBastard]

Nah, on second thoughts, I think you were right the first time&#33;

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@17 December 2003 - 21:46
@ j2k4 - The US is a member of the UN, and the UN said Iraq should have longer to prove they had no WMD. The US (and other countries, including my own) ignored them, just like everyone else with an agenda did.


Alex-

I am well aware of how you view the United States&#39; actions vis a vis Iraq.

I asked specifically about France, Germany, and Russia, and their workarounds of the embargos.

Do they warrant your scorn too, or do you reserve that for the U.S.?

Also:

You obviously feel the U.N. was correct in allowing Saddam to flout all their precious resolutions for 12 years.

Is this an unspoken condition of all U.N. resolutions?

How much longer should they have waited before they acted?

What do you think might have finally precipitated action on the part of the U.N.?

If you do not wish to answer these questions, please cease and desist in questioning the "haste" of America&#39;s actions.

[FatBastard]

J2k4, does this insistance on conforming to UN resolutions extend only to Iraq?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FatBastard@18 December 2003 - 01:59
J2k4, does this insistance on conforming to UN resolutions extend only to Iraq?


Not necessarily, but for purposes here, let us say yes.

I am merely attempting to assay whether I am witnessing anti-U.S. bias or a more reasonably well-rounded cynicism; logic dictates if it&#39;s the latter, some well-warranted commentary as to France, Germany and Russia bearing some of the responsibility for Saddam ought to be forthcoming, yes?

An absence of same would indicate a bias, surely?

I don&#39;t believe my expectation is at all unreasonable, do you?

Please bear with my inability to attend immediately to this thread, as I trying to multi-task at the moment.

It&#39;s kinda fun. :)

Like juggling feathers.

[FatBastard]

I think the core of the problem here j2, is that people just don&#39;t believe the US and it&#39;s allies went into Iraq for the reasons given. That renders anything they say as suspect, and is treated with sceptisism. We know other countries flouted the rules, but they didn&#39;t invade on a false pretext, did they?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FatBastard@18 December 2003 - 02:57
I think the core of the problem here j2, is that people just don&#39;t believe the US and it&#39;s allies went into Iraq for the reasons given.&nbsp; That renders anything they say as suspect, and is treated with sceptisism.&nbsp; We know other countries flouted the rules, but they didn&#39;t invade on a false pretext, did they?
Okay, ignore the pretext.

You say the U.N. felt Saddam should have more time (I still find this amazing)?

The reason the U.N. was "irresolute" with regard to their own resolutions was because of the resistance of the aforementioned three countries.

It is very clear:

Had not France, Germany and Russia expressed a latent resistance to enforcement of the resolutions they were signatory to, we wouldn&#39;t be debating this.

For that matter, leave the U.N. out of it altogether; this stagnation was the result of a difference of "opinion" between those three and the U.S.

That would be a more accurate summation of the dynamic.

These three countries had motivations apart from the larger U.N., but for their purpose relative to Iraq, they were the U.N.

[tralalala]

in a way... everything IS possible...
even if its impossible to believe - a bit like a basketball team down by 2 with 0.5 secs to go and the other team score from full court length... near impossible... but the chance is allways there.


tralalala

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by tralalala@17 December 2003 - 10:10
well in that case my friend... you may go off to iraq (actually emigrate) and live there... if thats your oppinion of the western world.
i do not acknowledge or respect the "love it or leave it" slogan or any paraphrase thereof. it is a lazy cliché-- it&#39;s just an easy shortcut around the argument rather than seriously addressing it. just because someone fails to idealize or exaggerate the virtues of their homeland, that does not make them a traitor or undeserving of residence there.

and... uh... if i dislike the brutality of the west, i should move to a country that&#39;s been invaded, conquered and occupied by the united states? i appreciate the offer (especially if you meant that you wanted to pay for my plane ticket to iraq), but no thanks. though it might not be so bad, if i were to emigrate there in about 50 years. i imagine baghdad will be exactly like tokyo or west berlin by then. :lol:

[2Pac_4_Life]

i think he should be tortured. and then burned to death

[3RA1N1AC]

yeah or maybe some iranis could pop a few in his dome, drive-by style. er... i mean, 2pac-style. then he will be remembered as the greatest dictator ever, and continue oppressing the peasants from beyond the grave and release collaborations with new dictators who weren&#39;t even on the scene when he was alive. :lol:

[2Pac_4_Life]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@20 December 2003 - 13:15
yeah or maybe some iranis could pop a few in his dome, drive-by style. er... i mean, 2pac-style. then he will be remembered as the greatest dictator ever, and continue oppressing the peasants from beyond the grave and release collaborations with new dictators who weren&#39;t even on the scene when he was alive. :lol:
or he could be put in a special place where tourist and other people could go there and kick him in the balls.

lol :P

[tralalala]

Originally posted by 2Pac_4_Life+20 December 2003 - 15:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (2Pac_4_Life @ 20 December 2003 - 15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@20 December 2003 - 13:15
yeah or maybe some iranis could pop a few in his dome, drive-by style.&nbsp; er... i mean, 2pac-style.&nbsp; then he will be remembered as the greatest dictator ever, and continue oppressing the peasants from beyond the grave and release collaborations with new dictators who weren&#39;t even on the scene when he was alive.&nbsp; :lol:
or he could be put in a special place where tourist and other people could go there and kick him in the balls.

lol :P [/b][/quote]
Im likin the idea&#33;&#33;&#33; yeah, im likin the idea a lot&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D :lol: :P B)

anyway... dont you think that now he is captured his followers will take hostages for his retrieval to the iraqi leadership?


tralalala

[2Pac_4_Life]

Im likin the idea&#33;&#33;&#33; yeah, im likin the idea a lot&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&nbsp; &nbsp;

anyway... dont you think that now he is captured his followers will take hostages for his retrieval to the iraqi leadership?


tralalala

they might but he will never be a leader again

[SingaBoiy]

Originally posted by tralalala@15 December 2003 - 14:34
2) he should be tortured, and tortured a lot because he deserves it after what hes done.

^^^
v v v

[tralalala]

no, but that would be what they would want, and also the reason for taking hostages.
actually i think it would have been better for the US if they just shot him as they found him...


tralalala

[leonidas]

This thread is pointless. The real issue is people from Irak. Who cares about them at the moment ? :rolleyes:
Let&#39;s stop celebrate and start the real job without stealing this country&#39;s oil.


Here&#39;s my remark to the US government:

If I prevent an old mumy to be stolen her hand-bag by a thug in the street, I&#39;m not going to take out some banknote from the bag for reward. :lol:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by leonidas@22 December 2003 - 22:04
This thread is pointless. The real issue is people from Irak. Who cares about them at the moment ? :rolleyes:
Let&#39;s stop celebrate and start the real job without stealing this country&#39;s oil.


Here&#39;s my remark to the US government:

If I prevent an old mumy to be stolen her hand-bag by a thug in the street, I&#39;m not going to&nbsp; take out some banknote from the bag for reward. :lol:
Yes but it&#39;s even worse to take some of her money, without even giving her the protection.

That makes you as bad as the thug, analogy garcon.

[mcrosby]

Personally I don&#39;t think he had anything to do with the World Trade Centre bombing. I think we are going after the wrong man for that&#33;

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by mcrosby@23 December 2003 - 04:01
Personally I don&#39;t think he had anything to do with the World Trade Centre bombing. I think we are going after the wrong man for that&#33;
What on earth are you talking about.

What bombing - your fucking trolling isn&#39;t even accurate.

You are an insult to the memory of the people who died in those atrocities.

Shame on you.

[MagicNakor]

The World Trade Center was truck-bombed in 1993. 6 were killed and 1,000 injured.

However, I seriously doubt mcrosby was referring to that.

:ninja:

[leonidas]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+23 December 2003 - 00:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 23 December 2003 - 00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leonidas@22 December 2003 - 22:04
This thread is pointless. The real issue is people from Irak. Who cares about them at the moment ? :rolleyes:
Let&#39;s stop celebrate and start the real job without stealing this country&#39;s oil.


Here&#39;s my remark to the US government:

If I prevent an old mumy to be stolen her hand-bag by a thug in the street, I&#39;m not going to take out some banknote from the bag for reward. :lol:
Yes but it&#39;s even worse to take some of her money, without even giving her the protection.

That makes you as bad as the thug, analogy garcon. [/b][/quote]
http://membres.lycos.fr/coolingmasters/html/emoticons/zytrahus5.gif

I don&#39;t like my country&#39;s policy either, I said it many times :angry:

Anyway I&#39;m glad you agree on what I said http://membres.lycos.fr/coolingmasters/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif
:)

[Evil Gemini]

Originally posted by leonidas@22 December 2003 - 22:04
This thread is pointless. The real issue is people from Irak. Who cares about them at the moment ? :rolleyes:
Let&#39;s stop celebrate and start the real job without stealing this country&#39;s oil.


Here&#39;s my remark to the US government:

If I prevent an old mumy to be stolen her hand-bag by a thug in the street, I&#39;m not going to take out some banknote from the bag for reward. :lol:
I cant believe people are still saying that its about oil.

[leonidas]

Originally posted by Evil Gemini+23 December 2003 - 08:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Gemini @ 23 December 2003 - 08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leonidas@22 December 2003 - 22:04
This thread is pointless. The real issue is people from Irak. Who cares about them at the moment ? :rolleyes:
Let&#39;s stop celebrate and start the real job without stealing this country&#39;s oil.


Here&#39;s my remark to the US government:

If I prevent an old mumy to be stolen her hand-bag by a thug in the street, I&#39;m not going to&nbsp; take out some banknote from the bag for reward. :lol:
I cant believe people are still saying that its about oil. [/b][/quote]
Ha HA ahha Hahaaaa&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; That&#39;s hilarious&#33;

Not about oil he said......ahha he Hahaaaa&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Evil Gemini]

Have they stole any of it ?

[leonidas]

Sorry I don&#39;t have much time to explain it to you right now, I gotta go to work. Maybe someone could explain to him. Anyway you should read more about the subject and not just watch the TV news. :unsure:

[Evil Gemini]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah :)

[leonidas]

Originally posted by Evil Gemini@23 December 2003 - 09:15
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah :)
Basicaly, only US army officers are at the moment in charge of all the oil production/extraction sites in Irak, and exclusivity selling contracts have been signed between huges texan oil compagnies and the lame iraki authorities set up by the americans.

But ok... you&#39;re right, maybe they won&#39;t steel anything :lol:

[Evil Gemini]

But ok... you&#39;re right, maybe they won&#39;t steel anything

Im always right :rolleyes:

[leonidas]

Originally posted by Evil Gemini@24 December 2003 - 06:02

But ok... you&#39;re right, maybe they won&#39;t steel anything

You&#39;re such a mighty personn dear Leonidas :rolleyes:
I know :) keep kissing my foot slave&#33;

[Turkeyboy]

Originally posted by Evil Gemini@23 December 2003 - 16:41
I cant believe people are still saying that its about oil.
i cant beleive anyone still thinks it isnt about oil, everything else has been proved wrong. noones saying there stealing the oil just that they invaded iraq to protect the oil the us sees as being theres. the us uses more oil than any country in the world and there dependent on it. when they get kicked out of arabia they need somewhere to go. if they went in to liberate the people why didnt they say that when they went in?

[m.lawrence]

I don&#39;t see the need to "try" saddam at all.The U.S. turned saddam into this hitler type war criminal only because it failed to find any wmds&#39;,which was its&#39; original battlecry when bush originally started selling this war.So,now the attitude is like,o.k. we got saddam,the wicked tyrant/mass murderer/gasser of his own people/really,really evil guy and we,the glorious citizens of the united states of america are gonna "bring him to justice".Since when did the world give the u.s. the authority to overthrow the government of sovereign nations,hunt down its&#39; officials,and then drag them into some court to stand trial like common criminals?I do not want to give the impression I think saddam is a great guy but can someone please name me the leader of a nation on this earth who doesn&#39;t have innocent blood on his hands.If the u.s. has embarked on some crusade to rid the world of governments that do bad things and cause its&#39; people to suffer,then that is truly a noble and lofty goal,and I would be behind such actions 100%.Next up would be most of the governments of latin america,where many people live in abject poverty due to widespread governmental corruption.And of course Africa and its&#39; many countries that are seemingly in a constant state of suffering and war.Yes,the world will be a truly utopian wonderland after we bring all these nasty governments to justice.Yup,I&#39;ll just go over here and hold my breath.

[tralalala]

the point is - it was bombed (the WTC), and that was wrong - very, VERY wrong... it should have never happened if those al-qaeda people where humans.. its sad to see these people actually say they are proud in this....



tralalala

[MagicNakor]

The link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda is dubious at best.

:ninja:

[tralalala]

non related question to MagicNakor: do you always put that ninja emotion at the bottom of your posts? :huh:



tralalala

[MagicNakor]

Yes.

:ninja:

[hobbes]

Saddam should be made to work at Taco Bell until his death.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@11 January 2004 - 01:14
Saddam should be made to work at Taco Bell until his death.
A truly creative penalty, that.

The drive-thru guy, I think.

"Hi, Welcome to Taco Bell&#33;"


Or Pizza Hut&#33;

"Hi, my name is Saddam, and I&#39;ll be your server today....."

:D :D :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MagicNakor]

No. A call centre.

"City and listing please."

:ninja:

[clocker]

Originally posted by m.lawrence@26 December 2003 - 02:52
I don&#39;t see the need to "try" saddam at all.The U.S. turned saddam into this hitler type war criminal only because it failed to find any wmds&#39;
Your logic is faulty and your assertion is asinine.
Try to do better in the future.
Lord knows the US is a huge ( and deserving) target, but you have brought a knife to a gunfight pal.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@12 January 2004 - 23:05
No. A call centre.

"City and listing please."

:ninja:
Directory assistance?

How about a slot on the "help desk" at the Bureau of Vital Statistics in, say, Fairbanks, Alaska?

Or perhaps the Chamber of Commerce?

:D :)