Saddams biggest mistake was that (like many dictators) he thought he could fuck with anyone and get away with it. sure he was left near-impotent after 1991, but when the 2000s came along he seemed to think he could refuse to co-operate with the UN and all other superpowers and ignore the outside world. eventually that idea that he didnt need to answer to anyone bit him in the ass.
he was a brutal dictator that mercilessly murdered his own civilians. definitely has blood on his hands.
Saddams biggest mistake was that (like many dictators) he thought he could fuck with anyone and get away with it. sure he was left near-impotent after 1991, but when the 2000s came along he seemed to think he could refuse to co-operate with the UN and all other superpowers and ignore the outside world. eventually that idea that he didnt need to answer to anyone bit him in the ass.
he was a brutal dictator that mercilessly murdered his own civilians. definitely has blood on his hands.
Wow. It's interesting to see a european with that viewpoint. I figured only Texans still had anything against Saddam.
I agree that Saddam was no nice guy, but he was no worse than many, many dictators out there whose cocks the US government sucks and swallows from on a daily basis.
And now that he's gone, Iraq is in an even worse state of affairs than it had been in before he was removed. And once the US occupation has run its course, one can only imagine what types of atrocities will occur under the reign of Iranian-controlled shiites.
So, it has never really been about the blood on Saddam's hands. It has been about the oil underneath Iraq and nothing else. Saddam could've been mother teresa and the US war machine would've still figured out a way into Iraq.
Wow. It's interesting to see a european with that viewpoint. I figured only Texans still had anything against Saddam.
I agree that Saddam was no nice guy, but he was no worse than many, many dictators out there whose cocks the US government sucks and swallows from on a daily basis.
And now that he's gone, Iraq is in an even worse state of affairs than it had been in before he was removed. And once the US occupation has run its course, one can only imagine what types of atrocities will occur under the reign of Iranian-controlled shiites.
So, it has never really been about the blood on Saddam's hands. It has been about the oil underneath Iraq and nothing else. Saddam could've been mother teresa and the US war machine would've still figured out a way into Iraq.
I don't know about the oil thing. I don't like Bush. I don't like his right wing views, I don't like his business connections, and I don't like his oil connections. For bush if not blair, oil may have played a part. I'm still not convinced though.
The best way to turn people against the war is to highlight the alliances you've mentioned. A big reason for those alliances is naivety. Blair at least (Bush may or may not know what he's doing) seems to think that sucking the cocks of people like the Taliban will solve the problem. Not only will it feed the oil theories, create the resentment it creates, but it will also bring terrorists up in another way - if it is ok to hang someone for converting from Islam, it is ok to blow up a train.
Alot of stuff in the anti-war movement clouds this and leaves many people ignorant to it - failure to give Al-Qaeda the condemnation it deserves (a failure which will influence future home grown suicide bombers), double standards connected to the above, the idea that no war can ever be justified (taking emphasis away from WHY THIS war isn't) and basically a failure to be a movement worth joining.
Sadly, a change in immigration policy may be the only answer. A thought, not a conclusion...
A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
While it is accepted these days to blame the death and destruction in Iraq on the Americans and especially BushCo, isn't there a case to be made that Saddam is the one who is responsible? And at the very least, isn't this worth talking about? I never hear anything about this in political discourse.
- It's pretty clear that Saddam was condemed by the UN and nearly every major country on Earth.
- Saddam refused to come clean about his weapons programs; stalling, lying and playing games with inspectors and the international community for over 15 years.
- Be it right or wrong, the United States decided to act with the purpose of removing him from power. This was cleary stated several times, and Bush even gave Saddam and his sons a 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country or face invasion.
Somebody please give me a legitimate reason why Saddam did not leave or come clean? His military was almost non-existant. He knew he and his sons would face certain death if invaded. Why is it that nobody blames fucking Saddam for this bullshit??????????? It is his ego, not Bush's that is to blame...
at the first sign of saddams genocide when he used biologicals (provided by clinton) to destroy villages; the world should have acted. candy ass countries like france will cry and moan when something happens on their soil. that's when they want everyones help. but will they help others? HELL NO.
saddam drew the line in the sand when he paid the families of the 9/11 hijackers. spit in my face and you'll never see the punch coming. any other president we ever had (except the do-nothing clintons) would have attacked iraq.
you can only poke a stick at a snake so many times before it strikes. saddam poked one time too many.
I don't know about the oil thing. I don't like Bush. I don't like his right wing views, I don't like his business connections, and I don't like his oil connections. For bush if not blair, oil may have played a part. I'm still not convinced though.
The best way to turn people against the war is to highlight the alliances you've mentioned. A big reason for those alliances is naivety. Blair at least (Bush may or may not know what he's doing) seems to think that sucking the cocks of people like the Taliban will solve the problem. Not only will it feed the oil theories, create the resentment it creates, but it will also bring terrorists up in another way - if it is ok to hang someone for converting from Islam, it is ok to blow up a train.
Alot of stuff in the anti-war movement clouds this and leaves many people ignorant to it - failure to give Al-Qaeda the condemnation it deserves (a failure which will influence future home grown suicide bombers), double standards connected to the above, the idea that no war can ever be justified (taking emphasis away from WHY THIS war isn't) and basically a failure to be a movement worth joining.
Sadly, a change in immigration policy may be the only answer. A thought, not a conclusion...
you fell short of bring up one point. oil is on it's way out. oil products are being banned everywhere (like plastic grocery bags). where i live and in a 100 mile radius; everyone is 100% solar. we're forcing people to cut emissions and not use oil from one side of our mouth and saying the war is because of oil out the other side of our mouths. wtf? oil companies are investing in alternative energy so they can continue to supply energy; something everyone will always need. it doesn't make sense to spend 20 billion to squeeze another 10 billion in oil out of the ground.
I agree that Saddam was no nice guy, but he was no worse than many, many dictators out there whose cocks the US government sucks and swallows from on a daily basis.
And now that he's gone, Iraq is in an even worse state of affairs than it had been in before he was removed. And once the US occupation has run its course, one can only imagine what types of atrocities will occur under the reign of Iranian-controlled shiites.
i dont know enough about the ins and outs of the oil argument, but i know that Saddam was (like u said) harmless compared to some of the people around him. But he incorrectly believed that he could ignore the world outside of Iraq, as he seemed to try avoid conflict with other countries in the aftermath of the Gulf War, keeping his oppression within his own country...seeing as thats the way Arabian dictatorships have historically treated their citizens i dont think Saddam thought he did anything wrong at all in the way he handled it.
but once the pressure started to build he seemed to try call everyones bluff about invading, and that cost him dearly. it could be said that he didnt protect his own country responsibly, and is probably to blame for the state of inequality that kurds still suffer.
Comments
he was a brutal dictator that mercilessly murdered his own civilians. definitely has blood on his hands.
Wow. It's interesting to see a european with that viewpoint. I figured only Texans still had anything against Saddam.
I agree that Saddam was no nice guy, but he was no worse than many, many dictators out there whose cocks the US government sucks and swallows from on a daily basis.
And now that he's gone, Iraq is in an even worse state of affairs than it had been in before he was removed. And once the US occupation has run its course, one can only imagine what types of atrocities will occur under the reign of Iranian-controlled shiites.
So, it has never really been about the blood on Saddam's hands. It has been about the oil underneath Iraq and nothing else. Saddam could've been mother teresa and the US war machine would've still figured out a way into Iraq.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I don't know about the oil thing. I don't like Bush. I don't like his right wing views, I don't like his business connections, and I don't like his oil connections. For bush if not blair, oil may have played a part. I'm still not convinced though.
The best way to turn people against the war is to highlight the alliances you've mentioned. A big reason for those alliances is naivety. Blair at least (Bush may or may not know what he's doing) seems to think that sucking the cocks of people like the Taliban will solve the problem. Not only will it feed the oil theories, create the resentment it creates, but it will also bring terrorists up in another way - if it is ok to hang someone for converting from Islam, it is ok to blow up a train.
Alot of stuff in the anti-war movement clouds this and leaves many people ignorant to it - failure to give Al-Qaeda the condemnation it deserves (a failure which will influence future home grown suicide bombers), double standards connected to the above, the idea that no war can ever be justified (taking emphasis away from WHY THIS war isn't) and basically a failure to be a movement worth joining.
Sadly, a change in immigration policy may be the only answer. A thought, not a conclusion...
at the first sign of saddams genocide when he used biologicals (provided by clinton) to destroy villages; the world should have acted. candy ass countries like france will cry and moan when something happens on their soil. that's when they want everyones help. but will they help others? HELL NO.
saddam drew the line in the sand when he paid the families of the 9/11 hijackers. spit in my face and you'll never see the punch coming. any other president we ever had (except the do-nothing clintons) would have attacked iraq.
you can only poke a stick at a snake so many times before it strikes. saddam poked one time too many.
you fell short of bring up one point. oil is on it's way out. oil products are being banned everywhere (like plastic grocery bags). where i live and in a 100 mile radius; everyone is 100% solar. we're forcing people to cut emissions and not use oil from one side of our mouth and saying the war is because of oil out the other side of our mouths. wtf? oil companies are investing in alternative energy so they can continue to supply energy; something everyone will always need. it doesn't make sense to spend 20 billion to squeeze another 10 billion in oil out of the ground.
i dont know enough about the ins and outs of the oil argument, but i know that Saddam was (like u said) harmless compared to some of the people around him. But he incorrectly believed that he could ignore the world outside of Iraq, as he seemed to try avoid conflict with other countries in the aftermath of the Gulf War, keeping his oppression within his own country...seeing as thats the way Arabian dictatorships have historically treated their citizens i dont think Saddam thought he did anything wrong at all in the way he handled it.
but once the pressure started to build he seemed to try call everyones bluff about invading, and that cost him dearly. it could be said that he didnt protect his own country responsibly, and is probably to blame for the state of inequality that kurds still suffer.
meant to focus on the "him not being as bad as some others" part.....oh well