Printable View
Explain exactly why you think he is or is not dead.
I personally beleive he is dead or he would be giving live interviews pouding his chest about how great a job his army is doing or some such non sense.. or at the very least he would be spouting propganda about Isreal or something trying to get the islamic peeps riled up.
I don't think he's dead, because he is a cockroach, and you know how hard it is to kill those bastards.
I am thinking the same thing Memnoch1207 is. I actually hope that guy was hurt bad in the first bombing, and is suffering. Then when we do find him, I hope he has a gun in his hand and the lucky troop gets to get some revenge for having to be over in the desert for so long sucking up the blowing sand and being away from his worried family.
Think about those bragging rights...."Ya, I killed Saddam, what are you going to do to me?"
NO
HoneyBee ????
No I don't think he's dead, because it was so blatantly obvious what the US was going to do, just like in Afghanistan, I'd say he's living it up in another country.
You'll never find Saddam or Osama Bin Laden.
We may not find him, but somebody will...We're not the only enemies they have.Quote:
You'll never find Saddam or Osama Bin Laden.
You're the only ones that are bothered to look for him.
No muslim would turn in Osama Bin Laden.
Saddam on the other hand.
Meh. If he went to one of those arab princes, they might take good care of him.
If he is alive i find it real funny how he is calling for his people to rise up against America and a start a jihad and asking them to suicide bomb while he hides out in some deep bunker or orther country.
We really don't care if saddam lives or dies as long as he's out of power, i mean we already offered to let him leave and he refused.
Dead.Quote:
Originally posted by venerable bede
HoneyBee ????
.
Mr. Bush too seems to be releasing bold statements from the security of his White House, Camp David and other strongholds, not afraid of anyone because he's got beefed up security around him. At least Saddam is in the middle of the battle scene :)Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
If he is alive i find it real funny how he is calling for his people to rise up against America and a start a jihad and asking them to suicide bomb while he hides out in some deep bunker or orther country.
We really don't care if saddam lives or dies as long as he's out of power, i mean we already offered to let him leave and he refused.
You never cared about Saddam anyways :)
.
He is dead or badly wounded. You wouldnt show a nation that dont like him the face or a wounded leader would you :) :) :)
Saddam is the goal HB no matter what you have made up :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No he hasn't made anything up.
A huge number of people are very critical of why the US is bothering to do this.
Could be for oil, could be to save face after afghanistan, could be for anything.
Since when does the US launch a large-scale invasion of a country, completely out of the blue, entirely off its own bat, for completely selfless reasons ?
it couldn't be to protect us and other countries for chemical or biological weapons... it is only for oil... thats all we want. give it to us NOW!Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
No he hasn't made anything up.
A huge number of people are very critical of why the US is bothering to do this.
Could be for oil, could be to save face after afghanistan, could be for anything.
Since when does the US launch a large-scale invasion of a country, completely out of the blue, entirely off its own bat, for completely selfless reasons ?
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meas....statue.ap.jpg
But there's no proof that he has them, and there's no proof that he would ever use them on anyone.
There are lots of countries around the world that are far more dangerous and that have far more dangerous weapons.
This war has started because you couldn't find osama bin laden.
So, to save face, you know Iraq probably has lots of chemical and biological weapons in storage there, and if you go in, you can say 'hey look at what we've found'.
You don't give a flying **** about the UN - if you did you wouldn't have this war.
Talking about saving the Iraqi people is just a handy propaganda tool.
If he's such a threat to everyone - why now ?
Why not last year, or the year before that, or five years ago ?
yes tell that to the Kurds that he launched chem weapons at...Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
But there's no proof that he has them, and there's no proof that he would ever use them on anyone.
the war started because we dont want someone like Saddam giving people like Osama Bin Laden weapons to use against us..
oh yeah and we want oil.. and to colonize..
1) So he used them in the past. So what. The US has done some pretty deplorable things in the past too.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
yes tell that to the Kurds that he launched chem weapons at...
the war started because we dont want someone like Saddam giving people like Osama Bin Laden weapons to use against us..
Oh and if you had of supported the uprising that probably wouldn't have happened.
2) But there are plenty of other countries around the world with equally deadly weapons.
Saddam hasn't been spoken of or heard of for over ten years.
He wouldn't bother attacking you.
And Osama would never buy anything off him - reason being that Osama is warring a jihad - so it makes absolutely no sense.
Do you think Saddam has in his arsenal chemical or biological weapons and other weapons that were banned??
Yes I believe he probably has tonnes of chemical and biological weapons buried in bunkers or something.
But I don't think he'd ever sell it to anyone.
I highly doubt the US and other nations will feel secure with your reasurances that he wouldnt sell any. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Yes I believe he probably has tonnes of chemical and biological weapons buried in bunkers or something.
But I don't think he'd ever sell it to anyone.
This from the same regime that uses human shields, gasses their own people, uses torture and rape to control the population, and countless other atrocities.
X
Yes leave the poor dictator alone. He’s only responsible for killing over 1 million people. He’s hardly up to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao numbers yet. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
1) So he used them in the past. So what. The US has done some pretty deplorable things in the past too.
Oh and if you had of supported the uprising that probably wouldn't have happened.
2) But there are plenty of other countries around the world with equally deadly weapons.
Saddam hasn't been spoken of or heard of for over ten years.
He wouldn't bother attacking you.
And Osama would never buy anything off him - reason being that Osama is warring a jihad - so it makes absolutely no sense.
X
1) Look at russia. It could rebuild its economy if it sold plutonium.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
I highly doubt the US and other nations will feel secure with your reasurances that he wouldnt sell any. :rolleyes:
This from the same regime that uses human shields, gasses their own people, uses torture and rape to control the population, and countless other atrocities.
But you aren't attacking them are you ?
2) So? There are a lof of regimes that do and have done that.
This point has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I never said leave him alone.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Yes leave the poor dictator alone. He’s only responsible for killing over 1 million people. He’s hardly up to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao numbers yet. :rolleyes:
Why can you pro-war see just black and white.
Support a coup in the country and help the people overthrow them.
And dont complain about what happened last time - that was america's fault.
Actually the failed coups were the fault of the UN because they didn’t sanction the removal of Saddam from power only the liberation of Kuwait. Had the US gone in and helped to remove Saddam from people against UN authority you would have been the first person to complain.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
I never said leave him alone.
Why can you pro-war see just black and white.
Support a coup in the country and help the people overthrow them.
And dont complain about what happened last time - that was america's fault.
X
It is not as sudden as you think!!!!
Saddam has had a year to prepare for this war and the US knew well before then what he was up to. Just because the press dont tell us things doesnt mean it isnt happening. Wake up!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Saddam is guilty of murder on MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY people. The right thing to do is stop him before he does it again, does it matter if he uses WMD if he still kills people??? :mad: :mad: :mad:
No we wouldn't - because you told the Iraqi people you would help, and they accepted your help.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Had the US gone in and helped to remove Saddam from people against UN authority you would have been the first person to complain.
No Russia is busy selling weapons to countries they are not supposed to under the UN's nose. I still think its quite amusing that the countries that were against action in Iraq is the same countries that have been secretly selling weapons to Iraq. France, Russia, and Germany have all been selling weapons to Iraq after the Gulf War despite UN sanctions and wishes. Maybe they were worried about us finding the Made in Russia, France, and Germany stickers on all of the weapons they have sold them the past few years.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
1) Look at russia. It could rebuild its economy if it sold plutonium.
But you aren't attacking them are you ?
2) So? There are a lof of regimes that do and have done that.
This point has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
X
1) Yes it is sudden.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
It is not as sudden as you think!!!!
Saddam has had a year to prepare for this war and the US knew well before then what he was up to. Just because the press dont tell us things doesnt mean it isnt happening. Wake up!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Saddam is guilty of murder on MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY people. The right thing to do is stop him before he does it again, does it matter if he uses WMD if he still kills people??? :mad: :mad: :mad:
2) A year? That [i]is[/b] sudden.
3) So? So have lots of other people.
The morally right thing to do would stop him, but you have no right to enter someone else's country with no proof of anything to get rid of him.
And he hasn't used weapons of mass descruction in god only knows how long.
Wait you wouldn’t complain if the US went against the UN's wishes to free the Iraqi people???? Isn’t that what the US is doing now? You really are a confused individual. It sucks being trapped in a quandary you have created for yourself isn’t it :)Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
No we wouldn't - because you told the Iraqi people you would help, and they accepted your help.
X
Or maybe they want to keep making money off of Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
No Russia is busy selling weapons to countries they are not supposed to under the UN's nose. I still think its quite amusing that the countries that were against action in Iraq is the same countries that have been secretly selling weapons to Iraq. France, Russia, and Germany have all been selling weapons to Iraq after the Gulf War despite UN sanctions and wishes. Maybe they were worried about us finding the Made in Russia, France, and Germany stickers on all of the weapons they have sold them the past few years.
Who cares. They legitimately objected to the war, and provided peaceful solutions, but they were ignored.
No I haven't created a quandry.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Wait you wouldn’t complain if the US went against the UN's wishes to free the Iraqi people???? Isn’t that what the US is doing now? You really are a confused individual. It sucks being trapped in a quandary you have created for yourself isn’t it :)
I wouldn't complain if the Iraqi people requested help from the US and the US helped them.
That would have absolutely nothing to do with the UN.
However, unilaterally going into a country and starting a war - that does have something to do with the UN.
I'm afraid the only thing they provided was a way to exploit Iraq for their own personal gain. Don't fool yourself those countries were not for peace. They were for cheap oil and defense contracts. Kind of a terrible thing leaving the top mass murderer in power just so you can have some cheap oil.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Or maybe they want to keep making money off of Iraq.
Who cares. They legitimately objected to the war, and provided peaceful solutions, but they were ignored.
X
They never said to just leave him in power.
It was about a war in Iraq - not about leaving him in power.
And even if they wanted to leave him in power - so what ?
Right he's killed lots of his own people.
That doesn't give anyone the right to go in there and bomb the country.
So why didn’t the UN authorize it? Probably because France, Russia, Germany, and China would have blocked it to get their hands on the cheap oil.....wake up and just admit it the Iraqi people want Saddam gone, they would ask for help if only they were not so severely repressed by the most brutal regime that currently exists on the planet.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
No I haven't created a quandry.
I wouldn't complain if the Iraqi people requested help from the US and the US helped them.
That would have absolutely nothing to do with the UN.
However, unilaterally going into a country and starting a war - that does have something to do with the UN.
X
We were "giving peace a chance" last year, and the year before that, and five years ago.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
If he's such a threat to everyone - why now ?
Why not last year, or the year before that, or five years ago ?
that is the most ignorant statement I have ever head I thinkQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
And even if they wanted to leave him in power - so what ?
Right he's killed lots of his own people.
That doesn't give anyone the right to go in there and bomb the country.
ok then.. lets put him in control if Ireland :rolleyes:
I’m afraid you are mistaken. They wanted Saddam in power because it was with his regime that they had all the defense and oil contracts with. They were willing to leave him in power, the top mass murderer still alive on this planet just so they could have their cheap oil and defense contracts. Its when the US and UK brought up the topic of regime change you saw France, Germany, Russia, and China resist the most. Like I said don’t be fooled into thinking they wanted peace of any kind or the removal of Saddam. They wanted to keep Saddam in power for their own gain. IF you ask me you should be upset about something like that. I know I am.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
They never said to just leave him in power.
It was about a war in Iraq - not about leaving him in power.
And even if they wanted to leave him in power - so what ?
Right he's killed lots of his own people.
That doesn't give anyone the right to go in there and bomb the country.
X
Why is it ignorant ?Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
that is the most ignorant statement I have ever head I think
ok then.. lets put him in control if Ireland :rolleyes:
Waht right do you have ?
what right does he have to kill tons of his people?Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Why is it ignorant ?
Waht right do you have ?
They're his people and its his country.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
what right does he have to kill tons of his people?
Its no excuse, but its an internal affair until you're requested to help.
So if you see someone on the street getting murdered and they don’t ask for help you would just walk on by would you? They could be gagged and not able to cry for help just as the Iraqi people are repressed and cannot do the same. The victims of atrocities rarely have a voice in the world, that doesn’t mean you should just ignore them.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
They're his people and its his country.
Its no excuse, but its an internal affair until you're requested to help.
X
That analogy just doesn't map to the war at hand.
The quantities are just too large.
No they shouldn't be ignored.
But that's what you're doing too. You're ignoring any opinions they might have.
By ignoring people like that we become as bad as the people that do it. We have a right to stand up for one another (Concept called alliances) therefore if we genuinly are attacking for the rights of the Iraq people to be free then what right do you have to stop us??? ;) ;) ;)
Saddam is considered a threat by many and even more want to see him gone. The difference between us and you is that we have a shorter temper!!! Doesnt mean we a wrong because we want to kill a murdered and a threat to the world.
Yes he may never strike but i dont want to sit here 10 years from now watching my telly (3d maybe :D :D ) as nuclear explosions destroy the world. No longer can we wait for people to start a war and then retaliate because weapons of today can wipe us out if we are not quick enough to stop them!!! :) :)
There are far more countries in the world that really don't like the US and who already have, or could gain posession of, nuclear weapons or otherwise.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Yes he may never strike but i dont want to sit here 10 years from now watching my telly (3d maybe :D :D ) as nuclear explosions destroy the world. No longer can we wait for people to start a war and then retaliate because weapons of today can wipe us out if we are not quick enough to stop them!!! :) :)
A pre-emptive strike should only be used when there is proof enough that an attack is imminent.
Not because someone could in theory do something in the future.
That kind of thinking is exactly the reason how Hitler was allowed to come to power and kill millions. Why not learn from History instead of ignoring it.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
There are far more countries in the world that really don't like the US and who already have, or could gain posession of, nuclear weapons or otherwise.
A pre-emptive strike should only be used when there is proof enough that an attack is imminent.
Not because someone could in theory do something in the future.
X
I agree that Saddam is the goal. But he is not the ONLY goal, and most probably he is just ONE OF the goals.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Saddam is the goal HB no matter what you have made up :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.