Should Saddam Be...

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

@ 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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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