I think this all story revolves around Bush and saddam.... and lolz about I think the above Quote seems to be right when I read that judge was changed three times. Is this funny ??
'' I know you have give the help in US Army Save-a-family. But taking the war one sided is not good. Do you think that Saddam Followers will stop fighting for iraq. Also will they stop from attacking the countries who helped US. The Answer is No. Tony Blair had his part after Iraq war -- bomb blasts. Killing People when the things can be solved through Pressure is no good. And The meaning of Soldier has changed alot in these centuries. Soldiers are no more invaders. They are living beings. Do you even know that Young guys who just got married months ago were killed. They left behind their wife and parents. If BUSH had applied proper pressure of war on Saddam. Saddam would have agreed easily. '' Here, and I am sorry if it sounds harsh, you are showing a complete lack of information when it comes to definitions and differentiating. Do I think Saddam's followers will ever stop? I sure do. The followers of Saddam form a small gang of criminals that can be stopped. They are cowards who still can not believe that they no longer control the whole population. The car and suicide bombers who attacked in the US, Madrid, london, and are regularly attacking in Iraq and Afghanistan are called Radical Muslims. See the difference between Saddam's followers and Radical Muslims? The first are followers of a dictator who gave them a whole country to play with, and like any other followers of any fallen dictator in history, they try to fight back after the intial falldown and just stop after a while. The serious problem is Radical Muslims and neither Bush nor anybody else know how to stop them anytime soon. Keep in mind that their fighting and the US existence in Iraq have nothing to do with each other. They have a goal of killing anybody who does not believe in what they believe, and that is pretty much the whole world. Its a war against humanity that has nothing to do with Iraq. ''Killing People when the things can be solved through Pressure is no good. And The meaning of Soldier has changed alot in these centuries. Soldiers are no more invaders. They are living beings. Do you even know that Young guys who just got married months ago were killed. They left behind their wife and parents. If BUSH had applied proper pressure of war on Saddam. Saddam would have agreed easily.'' Killing people when things can be solved by pressure is certainly not good. However, do you know that the whole world was trying to pressure Iraq for 12 years before the war began? It seems like you do not. Do I even know that recently married young guys are getting killed in Iraq? Hmmm no I thought they were made to fight. Thanks for letting me know they are living beings, I did not realise that. Now seriously, do you know anything about what the soldiers suffer? Who said that soldiers are not to be felt bad for? Who said we should not feel horrible for them? What I said is that every soldier should realise that death is a possibility when joining the military, and if they think that their families would suffer and that their families are more important than fighting for their country, like most of us do, then they should not join. They join because they know the risks, they are unbelieveably brave, and love their country. Unlike most of the people, I literally cry for their deaths. Not because I am nice or I just really care, but because I know exactly how it feels to lose the lives of such bright people, be it family members or friends. I really do. They should not die that way, especially that they had previously enjoyed a peaceful life in their country. I had a very close friend when I helped the Marines as a translator. He was an 18 years old real man who had just gotten married before being deployed in Iraq. I was 15, and I used to play Xbox with him at the base as my Southern city was peacefull and troopers had not much to do. He, however, had to change places later on, and was sent to Al-Ramadi. Several months ago, my brother called me to say that he had received a call informing him about the death of my friend. That brave and wonderful person I know was killed at the age of 21 by the terrorists. Trust me, I even know that. ''If BUSH had applied proper pressure of war on Saddam. Saddam would have agreed easily.'' Where do you live? Saddam would have agreed easily? Do you have any idea about what Saddam is? I wouldve understood you and said ''he just does not know'' if I did not write a long post telling you about what Saddam has done just yesterday, but I now think you are just being ignorant. Again, years of pressure. You may argue, like some others, that it was not the proper form of pressure. Can you tell me what is the proper form of pressure? I have yet to hear anybody give a logical alternative solution. ''Also US Army killed thousands of Iraqis ... why didnt they kiled Saddam also. This thing makes me laugh.'' Instead of wasting your time laughing, you should take a few hours to learn why killing a dictator who suppressed people for tens of years, and who people want to be trialed for killing their sons and killing a whole country, is not the same as killing the thousands you claim the Americans have killed. Innocent people were killed by the Americans, but you can not compare them to the numbers the terrorists and Saddam have killed. Realising the difference comes from learning about the recent history, learning a bit about psychology (to learn why it is so imporant for the families of the victims that he is not just killed without being questioned and humiliated,) and using some common sense. ''Man they are playing the Justice Justice Game. All BUSH wants to show is his part of being a justified President. It was like if BUSH won the war he'll have the solid support of US citizens for the votes and getting elected again. Saddam ruled Iraq from a long time back. No one had any problems with Iraq. Only Bush and his father have the problems. Whenever they are in power they just do what they like. They even ignore UNO. UNO was built because of WW I and WW II. Main purpose to solve out problems with discussions than Weapons.'' If Bush got things well done in Iraq, he wouldve definitely gotten the votes of the majority very easily. It is simple: You do well, we vote for you; You do not, we do not. That's what's great about Democracy. Now, If I were an American, I would oppose what Bush is doing to some degree simply because I believe that the billions spent covering the costs of the war could be better spent on other things if the war did not take place in the first place. Things like helping the poor people of America and provide them with food and education. He, however, saw a legitimate threat and decided to act. Also, long term benefits are to be gained if Iraq gets to be a success. He definitely did not go to Iraq to help the Iraqi people, but here is how it goes: Every human being works to receive benefits. You and I study and work because we want to receive benefits, we want to have things we dream of, a life that is happy, and not be looked at as nothing. However, there are two types of human beings: 1) Those who work work for their benefits, and along the way damage others. And; 2) Those who work for their own benefits, and along the way they help others. The same rules apply with states and countries. I believe that Bush belong to the second group. He went to Iraq for the benefit of his own country, and along the way helped Iraqis get rid of one of the most criminal individuals of the entire history of humanity. You ask me what are the benefits to the US? While many think it is oil, and it could be, I personally believe that a democratic Iraq that can spread its democracy to the rest of the Middle East can be the most precious prize. Think about less world troubles, less misunderstanding, and even money coming from trading and things alike. Iraq only had problems with Bush and his father? I have to repeat my sarcastic question: Where do you live? Did you know that Iraq cut relationships with most of the countries of the world, attacked Iran and started a war that lasted for 8 years, attacked Kuwait and killed its people, and even bombed other countries during the rule of Saddam? How is that not a problem? The last thing: I definitely agree with you with having to respect the UN. However, if the UN does not agree on punishing a criminal leaders because some of its members are benefiting from him (talk oil coupons given by Saddam for countries like France and Russia,) then I see no legitimate reason to respect its decisions. Please, do not talk about anything that you know nothing about. I am not trying to disrespect you, I only want you to know before you debate against something. Have a great day.
I agree that killing anybody is always a poor solution, but I also believe that Bush may himself be guilty of many crimes, domestically and internationally. There is enough evidence to at least warrant an investigation. In this case, if Saddam can be put to death, Bush shouldnt be immune if he is guilty of war crimes himself.
Save a family Your post is very mature indeed. Thanks for taking your time and energy to write that down. I do agree to with you. If it would have been oil he was going for then people should be heading back to school again. Just by simple math, first, the war costs more than the oil supply for the next 1000 years he and his crownies could eventually get. Second, and which is my opinion from the very beginning, there should have been double the number or more of troops from the beginning. There would be peace for years now already. It were the many European countries I have to blame, not all, but most, including Russia, China and a few others from Asia who blocked the neccessary efforts.
I wont say much ..... but BUSH is the real guy.. he did all the damage: Iraq war was is only chance to get his respect back in the eyes of people. Do you know US spent more in Army than anything else. The latest weapons, autopliot space crafts and a civilian defense minisiter. Afgan war did enough damage to US economy. I think you know about that. Whatever destruction BUSH did was for his own favour. Bush says he has the latest Technology with Satellites to track everyone. Then why didnt was he able to track down laden. Guys its all a trick .... he plays War war and gets himself elected everytime. In John Kerry and George Bush election, Bush ignited the emotions and got the votes. BUSH is power hungry guy... he cares for no one. And uses everyone he likes...
If anyone deserves it, Saddam does. He's on par with Hitler. He killed more of his people as a percentage than Hitler did even. Not as many as Stalin, but more than Hitler. Gotta love your false ideal of "tolerate everything". If you tolerate evil, you are encouraging evil. By making evil think there are only weak punishments and "rehab" waiting for it, you are emboldening evil. Granted I'm sure your viewpoint comes from the apathetic "there is no evil" argument. Yet only evil would say there is no evil. So you can either be wrong or neutral. (since your "right" is to say there is no "right or wrong")
Oh my goodness. I didn't notice the poll part about hanging bush. That's treasonous! Seriously do you hate your leader that much? Hate isn't a way to get me to vote democratic... all I see on these forums from democrats is hate, hate, hate. Really depressing. It's like I have to vote for a naughty boyscout (reps) or terrorists (dems). Just great. Lemme guess 9/11's a conspiracy and Iraq is for oil. Some people are so clueless. You do realize anyone who says those things would be dead if they were true. It's a contradiction. Unless of course you're suggesting the public just "figured it out" on their own. Haha. Those genius balding conspiracy theorists! And I'm sure aliens rule us too. My my. I'm so glad FDR did not have to fight off the internet and the retards that buy into anything in World War Two. loose lips sink ships, except this time they'll blow up cities...
I don't know about all that... But getting back to Saddam, if they need any help hanging the bitch - I'm in.
Uh wasn't that a bullet to the head in a mass shallow grave or was that to his own people that did not agree with them.
i think he should die for the crimes he committed but he didn't get a fair trail, even the judge was not impartial as he had been arrested by Saddam and lost his business
So, Everybody is enjoying the Verdict... well I think Saddam wont die that easily coz he's got an appeal left behind. That will easily cover a few ore months. And also I read that some countries are reacting against the decision. ... anyone else heard about that....
Since when should someone not be executed just because you think someone else is "more evil". You can't dispute the genocide and huge numbers of people he killed and oppressed. I just don't get how you can say Saddam shouldn't be held accountable just because you personally feel there are worse people in the world. Its two completely different issues. Thanks save-a-family for what was a great read from a perspective that matters. All apologies for yfcadmin who seems to think trying to belittle you (calling you a moron) somehow helps his crusade.
Well guys this a discussion thread... I have no personal Movtive in this. I dont know who heck is giving me negative points.... and typing in long words with that negative point. If you want to say something then make your point like Save-a-family did. And dont act stupid and start fighting. Its discussion forum and not a Flame forum. Somebody already gave me 5 negative points. Act wise and if you have guts then post your views instead of giving me red.
@yfs1: dude I am not asking to change the verdict but to check out the BUSH era too. He aint that inoccent as he looks.
The title of the thread is not I find it dispicable the way you dismissed save-a-families experience. A guy loses a big part of his family directly because of Saddam Hussein and you still insist to him that his agreement with the verdict that will eventual lead to the perpetrators death is invalid. If Bush never invaded Iraq, this guys family would have still been killed.
@yfs1: Yeah you do have a point. But you see I never dejected Save-a-family's post. Its all about discussion.