Originally posted by Prince TKSaddam is history. He should be tried in an international court of law.
With bombs killing an average of 50 people a day in Iraq (a small minority of them poor Americans and Britons who would be better off in their countries getting on with their lives) It is apparent that the situation in Iraq is getting out of hand.
The bombs in Bali, Spain and London compound what I'm saying above.
I'm one of those who would conside ...[text shortened]... r, things might get better for all (Iraqis, Americans, Britons etc).
Prince TK.
Prince TK.
Bush and Blair should be tried (for illegally ivading a sovereign state), by a truly impartial international court.
Hundreds of millions of people agree with you.
The good citizens of the USA need to reduce their drinking of huge amounts of coffee and soft drinks just long enough to gain clarity and ignore the rhetoric of their media and Bush.
The Bush, along with Saddam, would get what they deserve.
Originally posted by FreaKinGeniusI have a few disagrements with what you said saddam was not a communist, he was in fact far from them maybe you called him one as you don't understand communsim and you fear what you don't understand. Also saddam didn't have any nuclear weapons and ok lets assume he did and we havent found them, he didnt use them did he?If a leader of a country starts two wars aganst the will of the inhabitants does that make the ruler a tyrant? Also you called saddm a tyrant which would imply he forceably gained control of the power but then you imply that the people of iraq wanted him as a leader.Lastly im not going to degrade you but i think you should find out a little about communsim before you use it as an insuilt.
youre an idiot for making this thread. people dont agree with bush, but at least hes not a tyrant. saddam was a freakin communist dude. oh yeah lets have a communist for president. youre a dumb ass. and oh yeah lets put him back in iraq just so he can be pissed at us for bein captured and kill our people with his nuclear weapons.
One more thing you claim to be a christain but wasnt jesus main message not to judge people? and you seem to of over stepped that be a rather large margin. Correct me if i am wrong as i am not a christain although thats the message ive picked up as the main one
Also i appoligise for my sloppy spelling but i need some sleep and wanted to type this before retiring
Originally posted by Will EverittHe was not a communist..
I have a few disagrements with what you said saddam was not a communist, he was in fact far from them maybe you called him one as you don't understand communsim and you fear what you don't understand. Also saddam didn't have any nuclear weapons and ok lets assume he did and we havent found them, he didnt use them did he?If a leader of a country start ...[text shortened]... appoligise for my sloppy spelling but i need some sleep and wanted to type this before retiring
He belonged to Al-Ba'th Party... very close to communism, but not quite.
Originally posted by KneverKnightNot a bad idea....you Canucks gonna provide the grenades? 😉
Release Sadaam?
Hell yes! Get him back running Iraq and back him to the hilt! Give him a year to clean all the foreign terrorists out and meanwhile sell him arms and then invade Iran with him! Do the job right this time. Piece of cake.
Send Ghaddaffi a fresh supply of Depends.
Then, park a few Trident subs off the shore of North Korea, re-commission the Missouri and shell Kim's palaces with her.
Case closed.
Originally posted by FreaKinGeniusWhat nuclear weapons?
youre an idiot for making this thread. people dont agree with bush, but at least hes not a tyrant. saddam was a freakin communist dude. oh yeah lets have a communist for president. youre a dumb ass. and oh yeah lets put him back in iraq just so he can be pissed at us for bein captured and kill our people with his nuclear weapons.
Have you seen them?
Has any American seen them?
Or do you just blindly accept what your idiot president tells you?
Years on and the premise for the invasion, the so called WMD have STILL not been found and you come off saying Iraq will destroy everyone with nuclear weapons.
Quite clearly, the only idiot here, IS YOU.
It's a no win situation either way you look at it. First of all, Sadam did kill thousands of innocent people while he was in power. There are many documented cases of murder, brutality, and various types of harsh treatment by Sadam and his followers. However, without his dictatorship and harsh rule, the country is in dismay. At the present moment, the country is experiencing a great deal of difficulty without his regime. In the long run, however, I think that the country will be better off without him, but it will take a great deal of time. Anybody who feels that Sadam was or ever would be a good leader, in my opinion, is ingnorant.
How can anybody say that Iraq was a "sovereign nation" prior to this war? I agree with Cyka that it is a no win situation in Iraq. Imagine if we never invaded Iraq. Democrats would still be bitching about how we need to get involved and do something about Iraq. If Clinton and the UN didn't allow Sadam to break so many sanctions, then we wouldn't have as many problems as we do now in Iraq. I can't even understand how people can say that Iraq was a great, "sovereign" country prior to this war. People who say that need to think twice about what they just said.
As much as I usually disagree with the conservatives, I think invading Iraq was the right move and had to be done sooner or later. My only criticisim is that we should have gotten more help out of our allies and NATO once the UN refused to act. On the same note, I think pulling out now is a horrible idea. We should have tried Sadam in an international court, although maybe the idea is that the Iraqis will execute him. Bush and Blair may be sneaky, lying bastards, but they didnt commit any atrocities.
Originally posted by shavixmirTony and Bill????? Our governments????? Have you moved, Shav.
I heard today that Saddam's standing trial on those meagre charges, because Britain and the US know that if he stood accused of larger charges both Tony and Bill would be in the docks.
Surely our governments wouldn't be so hypocritical!?!?
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowHi Umbrage,
[b]As much as I usually disagree with the conservatives, I think invading Iraq was the right move and had to be done sooner or later.
Just curious about why you think invading Iraq was the right move and had to be done sooner or later.
The only reason I ask is no-one over the years has given me a reasonable answer to this very basic question.
Thanks in advance.
Invig
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowapart from saying bush and blair are liars i agree with you. Your post gives you alot of credibility (to me) as it appears you look at events in an unbiased way, and you think for yourself unlike so many other posters here.
As much as I usually disagree with the conservatives, I think invading Iraq was the right move and had to be done sooner or later. My only criticisim is that we should have gotten more help out of our allies and NATO once the UN refused to act. On the same note, I think pulling out now is a horrible idea. We should have tried Sadam in an internation ...[text shortened]... xecute him. Bush and Blair may be sneaky, lying bastards, but they didnt commit any atrocities.
Originally posted by invigorateyou on the other hand seem to take an ideological slant to every thing you say. Can you explain the statement "invading a sovereign state"? This statement gives your posts no credibility whatsoever. Saddam was in direct violation of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the first gulf war; it was only after the 18th violation that action was taken. He was not cooperating with inspectors. He was aiding terrorists including al Qaeda. Is it not possible for you to look at this objectively?
Saddam is history. He should be tried in an international court of law.
Bush and Blair should be tried (for illegally ivading a sovereign state), by a truly impartial international court.