As you all know that Saddam Hussain and his step brothers are hanged to death so pplz wut do you think ?wuz it really necessary to kill him??????

A little late, but yes. Tortured...then killed.

__________________

+1000

How about this sick individual and those around him constantly watched and witnessed and chose torture to individuals, so i fucking think so.

This is the same guy who ordered genocide on an entire fucking race of people, so i think yes.

__________________

let me think about it......YES....he killed over 180 000 peoples...so its not so bad to be hanged and not tortured before being hanged


p.s. is it too long to write WHAT and not wut...

__________________

To be fair, you really can't order genocide on anything less than an entire race of people. He's just a victim of semantics.

Anyway, yes, he deserved to be executed if anybody has. The only way I can even conceive of considering him not worthy of execution is if you believe nobody should ever be executed under any circumstances, especially considering that, in this country, we routinely execute people who have killed 1/180,000th of the people whose deaths he's responsible for.

There are three ways you could ask that question.

1. "Was it really necessary to kill him... because he hadn't been subject to a halfways decent judicial process?"

2. "Was it really necessary to kill him... because of the morality of killing people, regardless of circumstance or of the motives for revenge, justice or similar?"

3. "Was it really necessary to kill him... in the sense that the execution was premature, insufficient to provide a public record of atrocities for the benefit of people who had suffered under his regime etc.?"

Hard to argue with the fact that the man was a douchebag who needs killing more than metal_monkey does. Moral equivalence isn't so interesting here, and I have no interest in defending him or the qualities of humanity that make them worth keeping alive in general. What is interesting (and quite depressing) is the dumb-arse, slipshod, horribly offensive way the act was done.

Read about the meaning of executing someone on Eid here and here.

The execution, done the way it was, fulfilled a symbolic and religious purpose that REALLY wasn't productive or necessary. Then again, the vast majority of decisions made in this fucking shambles of dumb witless cuntery some call a war are exactly the same. The fact that they fucked up the management of the execution surprises no-one.

They really should have smuggled him aboard a submarine, put him in a burlap sack and shot him out of a torpedo tube at 1800 ft. at an undisclosed date and location, to sink to the bottom of the Gulf with the rest of the turds and waste. Silent. Secret. Drowned. And very, very dead.

__________________

Yes, poor Saddam Sadist for being subjected to cruel language.

Once again though, there is the in my oppininon legitimate question wether death penalty is something we want to keep in our societies. Locking them away and put them to hard work for their entire lives - though I recognise I'm affected by growing up in a country that banned the death penalty a long time ago I believe this would be a better way to go down.

As for Saddam personaly, though the fucker deserved what he got, the cirumstances and the preludium was a sad example of blindly vengeful stupidity. The trial ended before all his crimes were fully exposed and formally he wasn't even convicted for a long row of atrocities; this will stir up conflicts in the future, count on it. What's worse, considering human logic, we now have a martyr instead of an old man withering away behind bars.

__________________

The only thing that surprised me about the ham fisted execution is that they didn't tie his body to the back of a pick-up and drag him through the streets shooting their AK47's aloft!

__________________

it was about time that ass hole got killed

I liked him. I agreed with everything he ever did and I'm so sorry he died. At least he will still live on in my heart, and in the life size cardboard cutout I have of him stuck on the ceiling above my bed.

__________________

I bet you have a target drawn on him, too.

__________________

Ha ha. yeh I do. It's like a competition - 100 points for mouth/eyes 50 points for rest of the face.










My dad always beats me at it.

__________________

Umm, maybe you didn't quite phrase that last statement right or maybe you did.............!

__________________

Ha sorry for the confusion.

I didnt mean anything sick by that. I simply meant that my father constantly beats me at the game where we have to lie on the bed together and aim our ejaculate towards a cardboard cutout of Saddam Hussein.

__________________

Dude... you lie in bed together with your dad wacking it to a cardboard cutout of Saddam Hussein?!??? And I thought I had a dysfunctional family...


Anyways, glad he's dead!!

__________________

They should have killed him publicly. But not on Eid, apparently. Should've given him to the Iraqi government long ago, also. It's not as though he'd be any less dead if he'd been killed a few days earlier and the Iraqis had held him for a significant amount of time. But instead we let people like the writers of the second article spit hystrionics like so much winter phlegm.

Nah here in the UK it's common father and son bonding experience, though in my youth it was Diago Maradona

__________________

"The family that plays together stays together." ???


ew

I didn't pay much attention to the why's, but did The Pres. actually say the Iraqi's botched the hanging?

__________________

They should have left his ass to the Kurds. they would have set him on fire and dragged his ass through the streets behind a nissan patrol.

On another note, he should have been dead quite a while ago. His execution was pretty much fucked up but at least he's dead.

They should have waited till all the trials were through. In that part of the world not having the person still alive who is on trial, chances are the trial will never go on, and many important facts, information, and insight into what went on will never be known or properly documented.

Besides that why not keep him alive for science, I'd sure it would be interesting to study him as a mental patient.

__________________

To me anything short of death allows for escape and furthering a proven demented person's cause.

__________________

serves him right. if only we could have killed him 180000 times , he didn't get near his fair share of punishment or torture. He was gone in 30 painfu seconds

__________________

so fucking true
eat this (that is sadam) (that is me)

I play the same game, but I shot my cum at it.

Why was he executed before the end of the trial? Maybe America was getting twitchy about something...

Either way, the cunt got what was coming to him, but it's folly to believe that the end result justified the means in which it was arrived.

__________________

I know a guy just like that, i think he's called George Bush or something like that.

Anyway did you guys see that he admitted he was wrong killing those 4.5 million people by throwing coke bottles at them (i think my source on this is pretty unreliable) and said he would take full responsibility for it? WTF does that mean? A written apology letter? He doesn't take responsibility for anything. He's basically saying "fuck you" and steps all over the Iraqi people dropping the billions of dollars he made on the increased oil prices due to the war in Iraq.

Regardless of my feelings about the president that is just the stupidest comment ever, yet you commonly hear pot shots taken at George Bush and comparisons that are just totally unfounded and ridiculous in nature.

I don't care about anything else you posted, hell i didn't even finish reading it because comments like that definately are precursors for anything else you have to say being simply ignorant. Cunt.

__________________

Yes, because you being superior to me in every aspect gives you the right to decide what posts here are correct in everyone's opinion.

I'm not saying they're correct, but from the Iraqi footage I've seen things are pretty bad, and I'm saying if Bush decides to put all the responsibility on him for those actions to rid soldiers of their responsibility he should be punished like everyone else breaking the Geneva convention..

You know Bush? Or you think the guy you knows name is G. Bush? Weird.
I think Sadaam is more on the same page as Hitler.

Bush is fucked up, but not as barbaric as Sadaam.

__________________

Saddam is worse, by all means. Bush doesn't hang around drinking champagne, smoking cigars and slowly killing people with a stick - But since he claims responsibility i think he should be punished for the actions he claims responsibility for.

all i gotta say is the trial did not go well in demonstrating how the new iraqi government tries criminals and administers justice.

the country HAS to be safe enough for defense lawyers to do thier jobs<some were killed>. the courts have to be organized enough where the judges are impartial, defendant cant scream down the entire court, or decide to not show up when they feel like it. guys like saddam gotta face all the charges even if digging up the past events reveal the US in a bad light.



cant have mickey mouse court.

__________________

Thats right because thats what i said. No, but regardless what you said was absolutely moronic. All you did was make yourself a wide open target to get completely flammed.

There is a difference between "taking blame" and creating genocide. All you did was compare a brutal dictator to a twice elected president to a free country and not only in doing that attempted to do it in the most eye catching sort of way.

Thats sensationalism and stupid.

Also you are completely and totally overblowing what he said and using it as ammunition against him. Breaking the geneva convention eh? And what exactly do you know about the geneva convention or ANYTHING about it?

You haven't made ONE good point.


And to Low-Tech. Most definately. Unfortunately it is and was a tricky situation that almost seems to have little answers. Although i guess one could say that one of the best things to do was increase security around the lawyers but even then with increased security doesn't guarrentee their safety.

The only other possibility is to do it outside the country, but where at? And how why do it outside of the country where the crimes were committed? I guess you gotta give up one or the other in that situation. (Give up security of the trial, or give up the country in which the trial takes place)

__________________

there is alot of talk on whether the trail should of been brought to the hague.

1>the milosovich trail was a three ring circus

2>its up to the iraqi people, not the US

3>it would give the general impression the iraq government is a stooge of the west, cant administer its own justice and needs europe and the US to do its job for them.

4>the US would be in a weird, hypocritical position since it doesnt recognize that court. i believe its the same court bush snubbed.

if the iraqis had more charges and trails, which due to saddam's vast resume of mass killings would be decades worth of litigation.......each trail could of been better, more organized, very boring and methodical....like a real objective trail should be. could of demonstrated thier resolve to redress every murder, every crime and by the time he is executed most of iraq would have theoretically moved on with thier lives, granted the situation on the ground improves over years<maybe NOT a decade of trails, but you know>. it would also demonstrate the progress of what these trails will become, if they ever do.....which hopefully they will, basically the final say on saddams reign, his regime, all his cronies and yes men brought to justice by the people of iraq.

this is what i thought was gonna happen. since high profile trails in america last so damn long and since most states take a long, long time to eventually execute the condemned.

__________________

I guess thats what happens in a heated country especially one thats used to killing people without any regards to the "sanctity of life." (Actually more like the entire region)

Its most definately up to teh Iraqi people, and maybe it should be questioned whether or not their "country" was "competent" enough to MAKE the decision in the first place. I think thats a fair question to ask.

__________________

I realize that we came in there and made a mess of things (I support the cause however), but seriously the (now) free people of Iraq have got to pull their shit together. Now is another perfect time for muslim extremists to root themselves back into power and if we pull out or the Iraqi's keep this up, it will all turn back to shit

__________________

Maybe Saddam and Hitler have become fuck buddies in hell, while they both string Stalin by his testicles to the ceiling. WHAT FUN!

__________________

No matter what he did he should have been killed after eid its pretty lame killing someone on the main religious event

Hundreds of bad people wrapped millions of ignorant people around their shit-stained fingers with one single act of poorly timed, state sponsored murder. The irony is delicious.

Fuck everyone in this thread including me.

When a criminal suffers the ultimate punishment of death, should they then be forgiven for what they have done?

__________________

Whether one forgives him is subjective. But the role of the punishment in this case is retribution, so legally I guess, he is forgiven somewhat.

I was watching the History Channel yesterday with my hubby and they were talking about drugs in history. When it came to Hitler they talked about how he and his troops were heavy amphetamine users. No wonder the guy was fruit loops. He was just a gang leader in a uniform and got a bunch of crackheads to go along with him.

__________________

Nope, he just got the majority to follow him...Germany wanted revenge for all the retribution they were forced to pay.

__________________

Can the Nazis. And you'd be surprised how many historical figures were amphetamine users without being genocidal maniacs.

Requiem, you're an idiot.

and Jopop is too

why is it so especially cool to hate the president, it's not even rebellious anyomore

__________________

yeah, you're right.

I mean he's a sack of cum but you guys chose him! I was shocked when he was re-elected. Seriously...

I hope he's done something good in your own country, he certainly hasn't been any good for the world's view on the USA and he has only made foreign relations, especially with Europe, a whole lot worse.

I'm probably supposed to care, but it's too easy to not give a fuck about that.

__________________

Agreed.

I'm not gonna get too indepth about this but why should we prevent giving somebody aide for fear that state-sized governments get unhappy with us for removing a financial partner (who happens to be a dictator)?

__________________

Typical American response.

*high fives Def*



OBAMA 2008!!

__________________

Obama are you kidding me? haha

The only person that has even a chance of winning is John McCain.

__________________

Shit almost all of the candidates will be the same....propaganda and an assload of things said that they cant even do.

__________________

Well yeah, but even i would and probably will vote for John McCain, and thats saying alot. Considering i don't vote.

__________________

anybody remember how saddam got to be the iraqi president in the first place? Oh yeah, CIA funding and training. He was another one of america's patsies for a while before he decided to actually do something, and was the first man to fully control Iraq (semi peacefully --> as in without skirmishes here and there... just torture dens ) in how many years?

And the IRAQI's executed him BEFORE his trial finished because the mighty U.S. of A. wanted to postpone his execution.

Somebody told me that they were guna attempt to rescue him, but i think thats a crock of shit, and yeah... wow... i started this post 8 hours ago, and am finishing it drunk... uuughhhhh

__________________

OBAMA 2008!!!!

"Obama gets support from 17 percent of registered Democrats"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11...2008/index.html

LOL.


Yeah, John McCain will probably take it before Clinton..he's about the only Republican that Democrats would actually consider as president.

However, I will not back down.. "If you want to find Osama, vote Obama"

__________________

Since his black may end up a victim of assassination . Let us not forget there are still some hardcore racist in good old' US. That would be some fucking Irony, guys black gets shot for it, Bush gets involved in war, basically sends couple thousand good troops to the slaughter and lives to fight another day!

__________________

Eh thats a tasteless trivial ... joke or whatever you are attempting.

I don't see obama, clinton, or that spanish fellow winning presidency. To be honest i don't even see a democrat being president this next term. The democrats (if any side to oppose the "republican side" ) are about the sorriest unsupported group ever. Sure there are democrats but the large portion of those who support democrats are "non republicans" which aren't a strong enough party.

And its very apparent how "strong" the democrat party is when they can't seem to come up with a single idea to solve problems other than saying something isn't working. This isn't a political thread so i won't get into it, but if the democrats want to be taken seriously they need to start acting like it, because with people running lose like Kerry, "they'll" never win.

Regardless, i feel best man for the job is John McCain. I've heard alot of good things, and regardless of that he presents himself as somebody who desires to make the right choices and do whats right. (not saying by any means my current command in chief is anything but the same, i'm just saying that for once i feel motivated enough about a presidental candidate)

I wish good ol teddy was running... roosevelt that is.

__________________

bush is actually a large reptile from outerspace

and he psychicly navigated those planes into the towers.

hilary clinton will be buried by the iraq war, shes gonna run on a pro-war platform and if elected, will try every shortcut,every compromise possible and when that doesnt work....4 years time......next election<when the polls are down> they<senate,house...everyone> are gonna pull the plug...withdraw from iraq into afganistan....game fucking over.

this is my prediction, she's gonna win<i aint fucking voting for her>.....the republicans had thier way for nearly the entire bush reign, an entire presidential tenure, nearly an entire senate and house control.........they got everything they wanted and used everything they wanted. so where does that bring us.?

2 unresolved wars, OBL still on the loose.

bush spent his "political capital"........and also spent his parties as well.



hitler was just a trendsetter.

everyone had thier dr. feelgood back in the day......kennnedy,nixon,stalin,mao.....all the cold warriors.

they put most truck drivers to shame.

__________________

wasnt hitler a drug free vegitarian? I can see his troops being amphetamine users, but not him... he wanted to stay sharp... and was also a HUGE prude. I love how Churchill was an alcoholic and loved his rye, and Roosevelt (i think... not too sure about this one) had something like 2 or 3 martini's a night... it might be the other way around...

oh, and didnt the US airforce give their F-117 pilots amphetamines in the first iraqi war to keep them up for the long flight?


anyways... wouldnt it be fucked if both Obama and Clinton were elected? First woman and black man pres/vp. Thats FUCKED. Like, 2 completely huge historical events happening at the same time. I doubt it will happen though.

__________________

Like i said last night at a party if i saw hilary clinton or John Kerry walk by they'd probably get hassled and maybe cut. haha

I don't see hilary clinton winning because even democrats don't like her.

__________________

Hitler definitely did amphetamines. What about a stimulant makes you think that he wouldn't use one to remain alert and sharp? But the major thing to understand about this all is that you should stop talking about Nazis in this thread.

John McCain is Barack Obama. Don't get your hopes up for either one.

Saying that the democrats are perceived as not having their shit together, and that this will bar them from being elected, loses a lot of credibility after they won the house and senate. The major thing they have going for them is that people are exhausted with the way things are going - as low-tech said, Republicans have had their way for almost a decade now and have nothing to show for it and it takes a fool not to recognize this very public fact - and are ready for anything they can believe to be a significant change. It doesn't matter that there isn't a definite plan if the alternative is a definite plan that's been disastrous. I'm not saying that the Democrats will definitely win this election, I'm just saying that, countering their wishy-washy image is the fact that the goodwill of the people, as far as the Republican party is concerned, is very nearly spent.

Plus it's just time for the drunken beggar on horseback to lean to his left.

Also, Saddam is still dead.

Twice told. I hear ya, PST.

__________________

this whole invasion has gone to shit.
we went in, the people got impatient, troops weren't making progress and were dying, however we did topple a dictator, but to actually solve this, it is going to take a lot more than one more republican in the white house. Pulling out, to me, would be absoulutely disastrous despite the short sighted goodwill of saving troops. if we pull out, all the work we've done collapses, we've stirred a hornets nest (i think it was about time), and honestly i think the reason we haven't had recent attacks is because terrorists think we'll do something about it. But public support is so anti-bush it would be impossible to continue this, i think the weapons are in syria and iran, (which governmentally funds terrorist gruoups), but if we did go there, everyone in america would either be blindly obedient to the cause, cuz bush keeps god in the south, or they would be against it, (the hardcore anti-bush kids). This is not a good situation, because the american public is so goddamn indifferent, especially my generation, i know i sound like a republican prick/ nerd, but no one in my generation cares about this, they just say 'BOOSH SUXXS' or "BOOSH KILLES TRUPES" or something rolling stone would say. This isn't about fads or popularity whether it is the start of the war of east aagainst west (that everyone knows is coming), or a desert shield fucked up, it is a WAR!!. People need to see farther than they are right now, stop caring about fucking hobos who are addicted to heroin, and start caring about entire countries gone to hell

__________________

I'm surprised no one mentioned that Saddam was not executed for genocide. That trial never happened, he was executed for ordering the killings of a few hundred people because of an assassination attempt on him. Now think about, what would happen if a group tried to kill George Bush?

Obama won't will. He is black.

McCain will not get the demo vote, he at one point in time had great demo support but of late he was come out and called for troop increses and is trying to line himself up for the GOP vote.

It is quite a ways away from the elections and I can see Clinton and Obama basiclly canceling themselves out and neither one going to far. Besides Hilary is a bit to center for me. We need a raging liberal.

__________________

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/ <--- BOOSH SUXX

__________________

Yeah that's all true. She's also completely against violence in video games...what a whiny old cunt.

Canada's PM is widely look downed upon, he barely scraped by.. He's a hard lined conservative...oddly enough leader of our "Progressive Conservative" Party. LOL. The only reason he is in power due to this big corrupted sponsorship scnadal, which the last party in office(the Liberal party) had about $355million in tax payer's money which went "misguided".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/h..._cp_5990651.jpg

I vote for to what can be considered Canada's socialist party. NDP.

__________________

I actually watched a co-speech with Bush and Canada's PM a while back about lumber, I must say he could speak well, than again he was being directly compared to bush.

__________________

We don't need a raging liberal as it doesn't even remotely reflect the general population of America, therefore that would be stupid.

__________________

haha, yes, he can speak well. Run a company well? Maybe not so much. Parliament spent millions reopening the gay marriage ordeal recently, under Stephen Harper's accord...there was an in-house vote and it well, it lost again. HOMOPHOBE!

http://www.maxpower.ca/wp-content/u...rper_cowboy.jpg

Many Canadians don't approve of him because of his George Bush backing. It's best for us as remaining close allies, but the majority of us are more liberal and disagree strongly with a stern "republican/conservative" stance on things. Many Canadians feel close with America, but obviously don't want to feel pressured into things way over our little heads.

Although, that being said...Alberta is our oil mecca like Texas is to America. We have conservative rednecks here as well.

<3 D3M0CR@X.

__________________

Actually, it most likely does. Since the majority of people who vote are middle class/upper class, and the majority of the population does not vote, you can't say that. Get rid of the apathy in ghettos, the idea of "Nothing is going to change" and you would get a very liberal president. Why? Because some people don't want big Phar. companies raping them, they want national healthcare, they want a liberal.

__________________

It wasn't so shocking for me considering the meander-speak, metrosexual bitch the Dems. had to oppose him. It looks like the Dems. will be much better represented in '08 though. (yes that includes Clinton)

__________________

So if clinton wins would this make her the first female and also the first bi sexual to be in the white house?

__________________

The Dems really aren't in a much better position now, though they seem that way (but this early before the last election they seemed all right too; it was when Kerry got set as the definite candidate and started campaigning from that position that shit started rolling). Republicans are in a significantly worse one than before. Too early to say how much this will all matter.

I won't even deal with JOAMdude's response, but I'll note that you're a dumbass if you think of every country that hates us in the Middle East as being, for that reason, 'on the same team.' Very foolish, this sort of oversimplification. I think it's a continuation of the same mistake made in the 'war on terror' rhetoric, which ends up with us treating an agile virtual enemy as though it were a concrete, unified, traditional one. And staying that particular course just because we're already partway down it is as dumb as sticking your hand further into the running insinkerator because you're trying to get your wedding ring that fell down the drain, writ large.

a raging liberal would never get in, fuck that.

you guys have to remember, iraq war strategy is the key issue, NOT whether or not we should continue the occupation. dems hint at withdrawal for that good ol' disenfranchised vote, the good ol' disillusioned angry teenager vote. its a ruse, total bullshit.

hilary is a pro-business democrat.....neo-liberalism........total centrist.

that means no universal healthcare, pro-war, higher taxes....we pay alot of rent in iraq so expect the spending be insane<as it already is>, they may dress down the patriot act a little........im willing to bet she'll do fuck-all about these new powers bush took alot of shit for in order to get. bill clinton<read "the underboss" of hilary> was as much a liberal as bush is in actuallity....a conservative. yeah sure, on social issues, but the economics are basically the same and bush already placed "facts on the ground" in iraq/afganistan noone can walk away from or avoid.


being prez in 08 is not an enviable position.

__________________

PST, i am not being sarcastic in saying this but, if the weapons had been moved to syria from iraq and iran has government funded terrorists ( urban guerilla warfare soldiers), then, how is it not a unified effort against the US, im not talking a bout a unity of nations, im talking about a group that resides in those particular nations

__________________

Actually you can't call non-votes democrat votes. Its the same tactic the entertainment industry uses to sensationalize their "plight" of "losing money" to people downloading.

You think there are THAT many votes in the ghetto? And why do you assume they are LIBERAL votes?

So you just said the majority of the people in the upper and middle class vote right? But you turned around and said that the majority of the population doesn't vote. So in otherwords the middle class isn't the majority of the population, (yet thats the definition of middle class) and you've hented that the majority of the united states (if voted) would vote democrat? Thats either what you just said, or accidently leading to and that being said shows your "facts" more like ridiculous opinion make absolutely no sense and are just you saying stuff out of your ass.

You think conservatives are like "PLEASE 'Phar. companies ' rape us in the ass?"

The way you talk you act like everybody wants to be a liberal, like its some sort of a fucking god like status. I'm not going to say this is why i don't like democrats because i don't like conservatives either, but you definately nowadays hear a holier and "smarter" than thou attitude from democrats more often.

__________________

i dont get the "WMD movemnet to syria" claim

if you knew a world power was comming to invade your country and "liberate" it, why would you move your most effective weapons<that you know, you could use to kill the enemy, as many as you can before you fall from power and become hunted like a dog> somewhere else only so they arent found?

it makes no sense.

it already doent mean anything that we didnt find an active WMD program.

saddam most definately used something on the troops during the gulf war. the whole "gulf war syndrome" phenomenon.

i dont think it was all just burning oil. if smoke from burning oil was that hazardous we'd use like it was a WMD for christsakes and this is not top mention the purpose of burning those oil fields was to give cover from strategic bombing and thier own people were exposed to a far greater extent.

__________________

Well for one you don't get "anything" because you're not in the need to know. No offense but lets face it the people that make those kind of calls know waaaaaaay better about whats going on than me and you.

But you do bring up an intresting idea though Its so easy to look at this from hind sight and say he was going to get ejected from power and be "run like a dog" when nobody could tell the future. I'm almost willing to guarrentee saddam wouldn't think we would actually eject him from power, and to be honest even now i'm still kind of surprised we did.

Also using chemical and biological weapons would be the sure fit way of telling hey LOOK we have them after all, and SERIOUSLY get a beat down from the rest of the world. I mean think about it. If a country started using banned weapons do you think there would be any gloves still on in the fight? Also it is known that his weapon systems have signficantly deteriorated from the gulf war and his means of dissemenation of those types of weapons was nearly completely irradicated or unreliable.

I'm almost positive i've heard Iraqi scientist come over here and tell us that they had them, and i've heard it more than once.

__________________

do you not consider yourself a republican? ya sound like one

__________________

The surprising thing is not that they would send their weapons to another country, which makes sense for the reasons tmfreak gives. The surprising thing only comes in when you know a very, very little about the area. Like that Syria exiled or otherwise surpressed every pro-Iraqi in the country and joined in the '91 Gulf War against Iraq, or that Iran has historically been Saddam's greatest adversary in the region and has wanted him dead since 1979.

So, let's play the logic-game: We think Saddam moved his weapons because he believed he could best weather the storm in this way, after which he would get his weapons back and continue being the bastard we all know him to be. To carry out this nefarious plan, he decided to move the weapons to countries that hate him, woud like him dead or at least out of power, and have historically taken up arms against him. Let me know if you see any flaws in the logic.

Which brings me to my earlier point, which can be stated this simply: the fact that three people hate you does not mean that they can't all hate each other and having nothing to do with one another.

Aside from that, in a democracy, we are in the need to know if the reason for which we've gone to war is bogus. We should have known about the Gulf of Tonkin incident immediately, rather than decades later. We should know now if we're having sunshine blown up our ass. Beyond that, we need to get rid of this bullshit that has it that Muslim states are homogenous and terrorist organizations act more or less like more familiar enemies, such as the armies of foreign states (check out this cool link). We are in a need to know these things, and we should be made to 'get' them if they're actually more than bullshit.

I'm sure that, in DEAD's post, the people getting reamed and the people voting are sets with very little overlap. I expect that the people who don't vote wouldn't be so overwhelmingly liberal, though; that's just a sweet pipe dream ('the people who wouldn't stand up to be counted agree with me').

I can't comment on tmfreak being a Republican or not, but since he implied that the majority of what Bush was doing was the right thing to do, I'm not sure how different you should consider him.

To set this record straight, i definately don't party line with any one. I find i'm all over the place as it comes to issues, mostly because i am a person who (at least ATTEMPTS) to make my decisions based on logical arguements to what could be the way to go.

I'm
-Pro abortion (to the point where i think they should be ultra legal, EXCEPT after 2nd trimester unless serious complications will utmostly arise. in otherwords if you don't know by 6 months whether you want a kid oh fucking well) Also i think morning after pills should be regularly taught in schools as well
-Pro promiscuous sex
-Pro euthasian
-Pro "taxes" (in other words i don't like tax cuts really)
-And i'm content with the amount our "soldiers" get paid.
-Pro State health care (for majority of minor stuff, and i don't really see this as being too liberal, as its more socialist)

If that does NOT make me a republican i sure as hell don't know what would be.

On the other hand
I'm
Pro Space Spending
Pro Increase in military budget
Pro Veterans Benefits
Pro closing fucking holes in free handouts I.E. wellfare
Pro Death Penalty
Pro Speeding up the Death Penalty, (with increase in pay for appointed lawyers)
And some other things but i think i got my point across.

Its not about being conservative or liberal or democrat or republican. Anybody who is one way purely is obviously does not act like a real person. It just seems too unfeasable to think that somebody could honestly agree with every single one narrow ass view of thinking.

__________________

ok well, let me take back gulf war syndrome comment since it it entirely speculation on my part.

i just seriously doubt saddam would move what would be his chemical and biological weapons program, the equipment, stock and weapons out of the country.

lets just leave it at that.

__________________

Well I mean its still a highly confusing thing, because intel (even still today) says he had em.

Another big thought is they buried it under the sand. We're still finding so much shit buried under the sand, and its highly doubtful we'll ever find all of the stuff the buried.

Who buries jets? hah

(another post later after class)

__________________

Youre far to concerned with the term liberal. What I'm saying is that poor people want universal healthcare (why? because THEY DON'T FUCKING HAVE ANY NOW, I don't have healthcare right now), they want more social programs, they want more funding for schools, not wars. It's the poor that fight these wars because they join the military for an education (I'm not saying they don't know about the risk of war) and money and get shipped off.
Because they want these things, they would vote liberal, not because its some great title or for any stupid media raped idea, but simply because they are going to vote for someone who will HELP them.

YES, there are that many votes in the ghetto, and YES they would be liberal. How do I know this? 1. I grew up in a poor area of the coal region, where most of the coal has been mined, no mine job, no jobs. 2. I did political canvassing (door to door talking with people) for the AFL-CIO for 5 months in some of the poorest, high density areas of Philadelphia. Not to be harsh, but are you really that fucking stupid to think someone who lives off a government check every 2 weeks is going to vote republican(lets not get into why they are living off it)?

Stop trying to pick out petty little things, my point was the majority of the people in the US do not vote, but the people that do vote are mainly those from the middle and upper class. Add in the poor vote to the nearly 50/50 split and you have Demos winning.

And yes, Republicans want phar companies to rape you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112...co/congress_rdp

"Let us not solely entrust the negotiations of drug prices to the very companies who profit from the sales of these drugs," said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri, one of 24 Republicans to vote for the new legislation.

Not a single Democrat voted against the bill and all 170 no votes were cast by Republicans."

You get the holier than thou attitude because republicans are pieces of shit. They vote to move jobs overseas (see CAFTA), cut Medicaid, cut funding for schools, and LOOOOVVVVEEEEEEE tobacco and drug companies. If you don't believe me check out the voting record of some Rep. Senators, Rick Santorum from PA is a great one. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legisl...tes/vr_memb.cfm


By the way, I'm a registered independent and hate both parties and the whole idea of just a two party system.

Also, I don't think it would be overwhelming liberal, but it would be liberal.

__________________

i think the reason they like drug companies isn't because they like them anymore than any other company, but those are the ones that get the most crap because they are dangerous, and far right politics is very pro-free market

don't yell at me please

__________________

They like them because they contribute millions of dollars to their campaigns.

__________________

In response to Deads post.

You are about one of the most SENSATIONALIST people i've EVER heard. Why don't you start fact checking yourself because your posts really stink of shit.

People only join the military because they are poor eh? Look that one up and stop repeating bullshit you hear everyday. I'd love to see you say that to ANY service member. Just fucking one. Please do.

So your SINGLE example is supposed to completely prove your point? So because of your one experience in a single demographic compeltely and totally answers everybodys vote right? So the average joe republican (regular ol citizen) wants to be "raped by companies"? Bullshit. Also republicans are the ones sending jobs overseas? More bullshit. And lastly do you not realize all these things you talk about need to be paid for? Increased taxes signifcantly to increase handouts how exactly do you propose we pay for this? Or do you just plan on putting the country further into debt?

I nit picked what you said because its clear you are just blowing smoke out your ass so i called you on it. You are just like everybody else who is full of angst, hatred, and completely against Union between the country. You're just another person who spews out anti-republican propaganda.

__________________

PLEASE point out where i said every person joins the military because they are poor. Thats right, I didnt. I simply said that many poor people join the military for the aid to get an education, not because they want to defend the country.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE POOR DEMOGRAPHIC THE ENTIRE TIME. This was my whole fucking point, the poor dont vote, there are a lot of poor people, most poor people would vote demo. Christ. And yes I understand these things need to be payed for, and they were being payed for UNTIL REPUBLICANS CUT THEM OUT OF THE BUDGET TO FUND THE FUCKING WAR. And whats wrong with raising taxes? Maybe raise taxes in the richest country of the world so people are not starving and homeless in it? God forbid Jay-Z couldnt get that 42 inch plasma in the back of his stretch hummer because of it.

And you never specified you were talking about average joe republican until now, whom in reality seems to want to be raped by phar companies since they do that thing, hmm whats it called, oh yeah VOTE IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.

Rep doesnt send jobs overseas? CAFTA (for the second time).

Please, don't try taking away from what i'm saying with some bullshit personal insults, you sound like one of those retarded pundits on [insert big name news channel]. Also did you miss the part when i mentioned how I hated both demos and reps?

Finally, please stop misinterpreting what I'm saying and than arguing whatever stupid shit you decided to twist my posts into. This is like yelling at a brick wall, just constantly having to word things differently in hopes you will actually get the point.

__________________

i think military is mostly working/middle class, usually from rural/suburban areas.

a more important point is that most of the people serving are young, when i see footage of iraq, i see high school kids driving tanks, on patrol, in shootouts.

its just kinda gives me pause, im alot older than the average soldier.

this causes me to think the average age of insurgents/mujahdeens.

its not just the poor people who dont vote in large numbers relative to population.

the actual majority vote for reagan and clinton was like 20something percent of the population.

__________________

You did too just say the poor comprise the military. You JUST SAID "its the poor who fight these wars." So if thats not what you mean then start saying what you mean.

Also cutting funds to support anti-terrorism is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. Seriously. You act as though you can just cick this entire thing off like a fucking light switch, and your so dead wrong that it is comprehensable to think about how you could honestly think the way you think. So we just "leave" Iraq, which i pressume is your "Strategy" and then what? Lets think about this for about 10 seconds.

Next there are people in all demographics that dont' fucking vote. Thinking that if purely the (non majority) demographic votes that it will substationally change the view of the country I think is completely unfounded. You show me evidence where it would completely swing this countries opinion and I'll agree. Until then its a completely hypothetic, unrealistic opinion. Period.

You act as though tax increases are only for the rich. Well thats bullshit because once again the middle class carries the weight of the country so how is it only Jay Z is being effected? According to you.

Also its widely WIDELY known that those in this country who are poor are MUCH better off than other places in hte globe who are poor. It is also widely known that if you are poor you can raise yourself up in this country and not be. And dont' say you can't because i can list numerous people who have done it. I find it hard to just give away money to those who barely attempt to pull themselves up, and or make CORRECT choices in life. Fuck that. I work too hard for that shit.

Anyways, i'm done talking to you and about this. Everytime you post on this forum its some sort of "government conspiracy" or "the man is coming to get me thing."
Pah hogwash.

__________________

Just remeber the US is in great dept guys, the government is not even sure if we will be able to pay it off. I think we have the greastest dept out of all the industrial nations....But to me thats still no reason to cut funding when people who have a job have went and done their job they were sent for(army,marines,navy,airforce) I mean i look at it from the stand point that looks like some people in the government are turning their back on the WAr. TO FUCKING LATE! Its started, now we have to finish it. I mean you just cant pull out of a country that is in danger of Civil War, Being takin over by muslin countrys especially Iran. It will just lead to bigger and worse problem in the future. I think people are just not thinking it through clearly. Their worried now, just think if we pull out, we will be real worried then.

If they would take some of this campaign money that could support the war for ages . 10 million from Hilary, 10 million from Obama, 10 million from the those 2 rep. canidates. Man o Man....

__________________

Since the 'poor ... join the military for an education,' I'm guessing DEAD might have a strange definition of poor. That said, I've never met anybody in the military, and I've met quite a few, who joined up despite having many job and college opportunities without it. I have met a lot (and I do mean A LOT) who joined up to trade a few years military service for job training and college money and certainly with no intention of fighting in a war that (at the time) wasn't obviously coming.

Even if we didn't know a lot of people like this personally, since the military is voluntary, it takes looking at its recruitment tactics to see what it thinks works for it; and - surprise! - they recruit harder in poorer areas and dangle college in front of people. If that's what the people whose job it is to get people to join the military seem to think works, who are we to disagree?

And it's one thing to spend a lot of money on anti-terrorism. It's another thing to waste a lot of money ineffectually and claim that, because you're working towards ostensibly positive ends, the waste is always unquestionably justified. 'Anti-terrorism' is a blanket statement, and being dumb in your 'anti-terrorist' work is just as bad - worse, really, since by your own claim it's so much more important than virtually anything else - as being dumb in anything else. And we have so far spent a lot of time and money being very dumb in something important.

40 million is not very much in terms of national defense budgets.

I'm going to leave this for a little while longer, but since we're really not talking about Saddam anymore and the State of the Union address gives you an excuse to start a new thread to be political in, somewhat more on topic, I'd like you to start doing that.

Well pst you are right i should have narrowed what i meant by "anti-terrorism", especially since i just said say what you mean. Essentially i mean pro-active means of fighting terrorism. I think its a good belief among those who serve int he military that they would rather die and sacrifice to save those who don't. (civilians)

Its fairly clear that the pro-active nature of "bringing the fight to them" has resulted in a less of a chance of an attack in this country. (and possibly else where.) Why? Because the fight is there, its much easier to go to Iraq and fight the west than to come to a country with legal processes to get into.

But regardless of that. It is now 2007 and 2001 was 6 years away. I think its now is probably far enough away from the events that happened to barely justify saying they had "no intention of fighting a war" now, because if that was the choice they had made well they're good and out by now.

Reardless of that fact, by joining the military you swear an oath to protect the country. I think its trivial whether they joined for college money or not (even if i basically did myself), like you said PST its a volunteer force. There was no draft, there was nobody telling them they had to join, so there is no excuse somebody should be allowed to give along the lines of "oh i didn't want to go to war, i just wanted money" when they joined the military because the nature of the job. I think that makes decient sense.

To proaz post. I think there should be a cap on campaign spending, its kind of mockery of the purpose of the system. I understand there are rules in place and so on but maybe significant change is needed. Mayyyybe the government should spend the money on the candidates? I know this seems radical but maybe you go before a committee or something they chose who might be qualified (at least enough to run) then they're a candidate. Each one can only spend the money given to them by the government to run. Kind of like "american idol" haha but without all the ridiculousness. If they find out you've spent any money outside of the set given then your disqualified. Or maybe even the government doesn't give you any money, but you just have a pure cap, but only those chosen by the committee should be allowed to run.

But on topic.....

With Saddam dead it definately does bring alot of intresting things into the mix with probable clash for "desired" land. Now that he doesn't have his thumb surpressing any Muslims of the shia muslims, and if we decide to leave too early, its probable that the government might last 10 seconds. There should definately be increased diplomacy between all the countries neighboring Iraq, but even that seems like it'll hardly prevent a clash from all sides.

__________________

well officers all went to college first, so there is a large percentage of people who decided to join up instead of finding a job relating to their degree. my dad is was one of them..he got a ba in business from the university of michigan..then him some brothers, and friends joined the military. he continued while in the marines and got his masters in business..but i think he'd have done that anyway.

i do see your point though...its not like they'd waste their time asking paris hilton if she'd like a career in the marines. also, i guess the recruiters have quotas they have to meet..so once they figure out where they have the most success, they stick with it.

and yea..you are right, i don't see what this has to do with saddam being hung.

maybe we should just make an official politics thread to cover all the bases.

Revert all posting to politics thread if its not about Saddam.

__________________

sigh, just to make it clear the government has the ability to pick and choose who they raise taxes on. Ben Stine actually proposed a great idea or taxing people in the top 1 percent a certain percentage of their taxes. Say you would pay 35 percent of your income as taxes, you would than be taxed 25 percent of the 35 percent. It's quite a good idea. I'm totally opposed to raising taxes on middle class, but not for the upper. I'm very biased because like I said I grew up pretty poor (my dad worked 14 hour days at his own business as a car mechanic in a small town so my mom could stay home and raise me so please don't pull the whole 'work hard blah blah blah') and I've worked a lot in very poor ghettos often being invited into people's homes and seeing how terribly they live. And on the other end of the spectrum, I've done fund raising in places like Suburbs or Princeton New Jersey where these people's electric bill to run the Winter Wonderland they have going on their front lawn cost more than some people's houses. I'm sorry, but there is something wrong with that.

Also, I never said people here are worse off, but it's not right.

I'll drop the military argument, but regardless all the other points I made (which you failed to address) still stand.

No government conspiracy, just things are fucked up.

__________________

Hey i take back a few things i said, i shouldn't have made "shots" at you personally.

Now we are GETTING SOMEWHERE haha.

I most definately feel you, but somehow (personally) i don't see taxing the rich unless you tax them ungodly it actually bring signifcant income into the country. I mean i'm not an expert on money or claim to know much at all about finance or economics, but it just doesn't seem like it would do enough good to warrent REALLY raising taxes. Should they raise taxes? Probably.

Hell my friend was saying that it was a stupid idea for X country to adopt increased traffic fines for those who are rich. I say fucking UBER slam them. They can pay for it so they do whatever they want. Look at all these celeberties. Sure i'm sure they pay a little bit of money, but come on they by no means are as wrecked as ANYBODY else who drives drunk.

__________________

Not really. The Madrid and London bombings have already occurred since the invasion of Iraq and there have been major bombing campaigns averted by British police. We're no better off than before - except for the oil billions, of course.

__________________

edit: pah

__________________

I am speechless...

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/933...3abc/index.html

__________________

Whoever allowed that to be put on the net should be shot as in whoever shot and aired that film. Talk about jackasses. Bust them for child endangerment and publicly humiliate them. Kids playing is one thing. Someone taping something like that is absolutely beyond words referring to stupidity.

__________________