Saddam's Execution

[marioGP87]

*sigh* either way im glad that idiot died. he killed 82,000 shiiti muslims (no, i'm not one of them), that's genocide!!!!!! he was like hitler (who died by killing himself by shooting himself).

[cC@Zz]

Originally Posted by marioGP87

*sigh* either way im glad that idiot died. he killed 82,000 shiiti muslims (no, i'm not one of them), that's genocide!!!!!! he was like hitler (who died by killing himself by shooting himself).

Well he himself didn't kill them but he was responsible for their deaths.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by cC@Zz

Well he himself didn't kill them but he was responsible for their deaths.

I guess we should hang Bush then because of all the deaths caused by the Iraq war, occupation, and following civil war?

[Amaste]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I guess we should hang Bush then because of all the deaths caused by the Iraq war, occupation, and following civil war?

To my knowlege Bush hasn't gone to Los Angeles and nerve gassed the entire city for ****s and giggles because he doesn't like the people there.
<.<

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Amaste

To my knowlege Bush hasn't gone to Los Angeles and nerve gassed the entire city for ****s and giggles because he doesn't like the people there.
<.<

No, he just called for the invasion, occupation, and overthrow of the government of a country who, despite being anti-America, was actually not militaristically hostile toward us prior to this.

And, unless I'm mistaken, Saddam did not kill people just for "****s and giggles". He did it because he had something to gain from doing it. Obviously, that is still terrible, but killing with reason is better than without, even if the reason is not justifiable to others.

ps

he doesn't like the people there.

Sounds a lot like Bush's (and many other ignorant American rednecks) mentality towards the people of the middle east.

[waffydude]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

And, unless I'm mistaken, Saddam did not kill people just for "****s and giggles". He did it because he had something to gain from doing it. Obviously, that is still terrible, but killing with reason is better than without, even if the reason is not justifiable to others.

...overthrow of the government of a country who, despite being anti-America, was actually not militaristically hostile toward us prior to this.

Just playing devil's advocate here... But wouldn't the fact that they are anti-America be a reason for Bush? That they, given the chance or opportunity, may be likely to be hostile toward America? Even if it's not justifiable to others- by your reasoning that wouldn't matter, as long as it's any reason at all.

I'm not taking either side as far as the war goes; I just don't think your argument is really the most logical way of putting it.

[Amaste]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

No, he just called for the invasion, occupation, and overthrow of the government of a country who, despite being anti-America, was actually not militaristically hostile toward us prior to this.

And, unless I'm mistaken, Saddam did not kill people just for "****s and giggles". He did it because he had something to gain from doing it. Obviously, that is still terrible, but killing with reason is better than without, even if the reason is not justifiable to others.

psSounds a lot like Bush's (and many other ignorant American rednecks) mentality towards the people of the middle east.

My bad, but i seem to remember a time not *too* long on the global scale when Saddam invaded a neighboring country then refused to give it back. Took a couple months of US positioning, 2 weeks of fighting and a pre-war trident surfacing to end that stand off :P Considering that plus the restrictions placed on him after said botched invasion, the 9/11 terror attacks, and the simple fact that the president is the son of the president who gave the orders to march on his country, i don't think its a far stretch of the imagination to think he would allow Al Qaeda members to hold up in Iraq. Granted Saddam wasn't a Mao (or even a Hitler for that matter) on the geonocide scale, thats still a hefty little chop off the top there.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Amaste

My bad, but i seem to remember a time not *too* long on the global scale when Saddam invaded a neighboring country then refused to give it back.

This has nothing to do with the United States. We made ourselves get involved. It's not as though the neighboring country was USA territory or even a close ally like UK is.

Considering that plus the restrictions placed on him after said botched invasion, the 9/11 terror attacks

The terror attacks of September 11th have absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, other than the fact that there are some retards out there that think Iraq had something to do with it.

and the simple fact that the president is the son of the president who gave the orders to march on his country

This is completely irrelevent.

i don't think its a far stretch of the imagination to think he would allow Al Qaeda members to hold up in Iraq.

What does this have to do with anything? We're not in Iraq because they may be harboring terrorist. The official reason now for the invasion was to liberate the people. Isn't doublethink great?]

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

This has nothing to do with the United States. We made ourselves get involved. It's not as though the neighboring country was USA territory or even a close ally like UK is.

Since when do we consider varying degrees of ally? An ally is an ally, and just because they're not as big as Britain doesn't mean we're any less justified in aiding them.

The terror attacks of September 11th have absolutely nothing to do with Iraq

No, but Iraq had PLENTY to do with the group that carried out those attacks.

Afro, do you understand that you're trying to put George W. Bush on the level of Saddam Hussein? Despite what holes in his argument that you may find or may make up, such a comparison is ludicrous, and you know that.

You started this argument because of a sentence that was poorly constructed, but which also didn't need to be better constructed due to the aforementioned ludicre that a poor construction might suggest!

Unless you actually believe that Bush is as evil as Saddam Hussein, just drop it, because this is a stupid and pointless argument.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

--Guido

[Afrobean]

Chill out, Guido. I'm just having some fun.

Obviously Bush isn't anywhere near as bad as Saddam. He's probably around half as bad as Saddam... at least Bush can make a claim of invading the country to liberate its peoples (wouldn't it have been hilarious if that had been Iraq's claim?), even if that "reason" is pretty much totally bunk.

[lord_carbo]

Hey where's that thing on Afro supporting the death of lots of people from some Chit Chat thread or something, where everyone made a huge deal about it?

Link plz

[shade11]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Yeah, let's just go over to the middle east and kill everyone because they all might have been behind 9/11.

...

I don't see why people are so happy about him being executed. What has he done that you have ever seen first hand? He could be a made up person and you'd never even know, so why care about it? Yeah, sure, I'm sure that he really is a real person and that he really did terrible things, but I just don't see how people can care when it doesn't affect them. I mean, I guess you could have a relative or friend in Iraq, but the US invaded Iraq, not the other way around. We instigated the fight.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Don't be so easily swayed. Support his execution, sure, that's fine, but be happy about it? That's just silly.

Afrobean actually proves a good point here. On one hand, yes he has done terrible things before. But on the other hand, Bush had no right to use the American troops and invade Iraq. Was Iraq really involved in this so called, "War on Terror?" I think not.

I'm not saying that Saddam isn't a bad person, and I'm not saying that he didn't deserve death. I am saying that Iraq was probably better off without America getting involved.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I guess we should hang Bush then because of all the deaths caused by the Iraq war, occupation, and following civil war?

Bush isn't my favorite president, but keep in mind Bush did not deliberately target the murder of civilians--Saddam did.

[shade11]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

Bush isn't my favorite president, but keep in mind Bush did not deliberately target the murder of civilians--Saddam did.

Yes but Bush did send thousands and thousands of troops to their demise.

[dballin4]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

Well, Bush asked for war, so he got war. And a good way to win war is to go for the opponent's leader......of course, Bush was about 2 years late. Moving on.

I think that what Bush didn't see is that Saddam has followers that can basically take his place. Captain Jack died, yet we still have those that support him, and he has a son to "take his place".

So, unless Saddam's death deals a great emotional blow to the loyalists, the war is probably gonna get worse.

Did you honestly just compare Saddam Hussein to Captain Jack?

As for this thread, I refuse to post anything before actually researching the topic. I have not done so, mainly because I don't really care about Saddam or the Iraqi government. If you want a purely opinionated statement on my feelings toward the War on Terror/Iraq, I think it's a bunch of bull****. We've got more domestic problems we should be worrying about before worrying about everyone else. If I decide to partake in this lovely, little argument you've got here, I'll look some stuff up. I'd advise the rest of you to do the same before making asses out of yourselves.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by shade11

Yes but Bush did send thousands and thousands of troops to their demise.

I'm not happy with his decision to go to war either, but there's a difference between what Bush did and what Saddam did. Saddam deliberately murdered innocent civilians. Bush--for all his failings--at least does military targets. Morally, he's still ahead of serial killers.

[FRANKKK]

yeah bush is dumb, but what Tisthammerw said, hes not murdering people like saddam did.