freaking_out
Saddam's new life
another thing of mention is the sanctions that were imposed on iraq for a whole decade- sadam didn't get affected by this, but rather the ppl. did... it (the sanctions) caused around 1 million iraqi children to die.
Suddam Captured (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter zahid
- Start date
mic
Chronic Burper
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2003
- Messages
- 571
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
yeah.
there's something in the herald about how Bush, Blair etc wouldn't want an open trial cos Saddam would reveal all the dirty dealings he's had with US govts and companies.
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/16/1071336962712.html
there's something in the herald about how Bush, Blair etc wouldn't want an open trial cos Saddam would reveal all the dirty dealings he's had with US govts and companies.
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/16/1071336962712.html
...
^___^
Saddam is a smart man, somehow i think he is not over..the trial will be very interesting
jk
White tiger
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Messages
- 60
to AGB
i do admire bush. it was necessary for him to cut spending for welfare and education (i dont know about medical insurance) because there were more important issues, namely the war. believe it or not, bush's source of funds is actually limited.
->in my perspective, the war could have been avoided easily but bush admin simply ignored the chance of peaceful solution, which UN was more than ready to do...
furthermore, the war itself was not even justified....although bush admin claimed that saddam was connected with terrorist group like al-qaeda, that is completely non-sense cuz hussein was regarded as "westernised" in view of fundamentalists like bin laden...( and considering the fact that iraq was most westernised arab country under hussein's control compared to other nations like iran, it is not convincing to say that hussein was connected with 'em and supported their terrorist activities)
(the war itself could only be justified when it comes to punishing saddam who tortured millions of civilians...and as i mentioned in previous post, i have to admire bush for that)
well, talking about WMD... as we all know, US intelligent services are even capable of findind some man hiding in the hole in some countryside small house....but don't you think it is bit "weird" for them not to be able to find those huge "mass destructive" weapons yet??? well, unless they chose not to find any.....
what i wrote above simply proves the fact that the war was not inevitable....never.... and i know u r good at economics (i came to know it somehow
) so let me ask u one economics question.... what is economics all about? putting limited resources to most necessary place for maximised efficiency and satisfaction right??? when bush's finances were limited (with some huge economic problems like twin deficit etc) at that time, which would be more economically important, efficient and ethically justified???spending billions of dollars for "avoidable" war?? or increasing welfare/education funding for people's living standard???
thus i cant agree with you sayin "there were more important issues, namely the war"..... you must consider the fact that war was absolutely avoidable...... remember it was bush who ignored the claim of blix "there seems to be no WMD in iraq", and it was also bush who ignored UN proposal for peaceful resolution......
and no, he should not be admired for indirectly being responsible for the deaths of many people, he should be admired for the good he has done for the iraqi people. now i admit that liberating iraq was not his primary objective, but it is still something that he is doing which he does not have to do i.e. he could leave iraq right now in a state of anarchy, but he is choosing to stay there until a democratic system of govt can be implemented, and iraq is, figuratively speaking, 'on the right track'.
->in here, you must understand the reason for the state of anarchy... firstly, what do you think the reason for ruthless dictator like saddam to have been able to hold his power for a long time?? was it because iraqi people were stupid? or was it because hussein was not that bad??? no!!! it was because saddam hussein was the symbol of anti- US feeling in iraq who "greatly fought against american imperialism" in first gulf war in the viewpoint of iraqi people... saddam successfully used people's anti-US feeling to fuel his power and position and transfered people's dissent into anti US feeling...(just like well working propaganda...)
so, why the state of anarchy although the axis of evil saddam has been captured??? considering those facts about people's anti US feeling, what do you think the reason for those god damn mess in iraq?? because iraqi people are not fighting for neither fuking saddam hussein nor his bart party...but for their own freedom and independence against bush admin intervening on shaping new iraqi govt for US's benefit....
solution is simple, the main subject of rebuilding iraq should be iraq people...not US....bush must help the process, not dominate it..that's the way for president of world's strongest country to act like...don't you think?? im saying thatz what so-called "admirable leader" should do in this kinda situation.....
so solution for stopping the state of anarchy? needless to say, withdrawing all US troops...
also, i dont believe that bush is some kind of 'pure angel'. i honestly think that the reason he went to war was WMD. whether or not they existed is irrelevant, what matters is that bush and his crew were convinced they did. imagine a dictator who hates america, and is suspected of having WMDs. it doesnt take a genius to figure out that america could be in danger. also, add to that their fear of terrorism since september 11, and it isnt that hard to see why he went to war. but in saying that, there was also the opportunity to do some good for the iraqi people, and bush has relished that opportunity, and that is what he is doing now. i seriously doubt that this war has anything to do with oil. there is so much criticism about this oil issue, and given that there is an election next year, if bush does take the oil, i also have no doubt that he would not remain in office. the oil issue is rubbish.......
->what you said in "whether or not they existed is irrelevant" is absolutely IRRESPONSIBLE...that was the reason why the war broke out and that was the reason why thousands of civilians were meaninglessly killed....(and hans blix was the one who was responsible for finding out the truth in the name of UN, and he said "there seems to be no WMD.." what does this mean to you?)
and the oil.....why do you think oil issue is rubbish?? thats the source for iraqi people to make a living....while those giant TNC will do whateva they can do to take those oil field in iraq, all normal iraqil civilians can do is just simply to watch it and overcome worsened living standard.... although it could be rubbish to you, its the source of life for them to improve their living and rebuild their country...its not that trivial matter for them...thatz why people keep on mentioning about it and heavily criticising bush admin.....
i dont think that there is any country in the world who acts completely unselfishly. sure bush's main intention was not to liberate the people of iraq, however, what i admire about him is that he could have gone into iraq, killed/captured saddam hussein, then left with the country reduced to a pile of rabble, but that is not what he is doing, nor is it what he will do in the future. iraq is no longer a threat to the US' security. the only benefit of the US still being there is for the iraqi people.......
->as i mentioned above, i think that US troops staying in iraq would be no benefit for normal iraqi civilians at all....and although iraq is no longer a threat to the US or world security by removing those "WMD that has not been found yet", iraq has become another US state under US influences... please let me tell u what i think.... i think the new iraqi govt will be filled with bunch of iraqi people having full of respects and admiration for "great USA", and the resources of iraq like oil would be divided by the interests of global TNCs which will not give any benefits to iraqi civilians.... most importantly, there will never be the words "self-determination", "independence" in iraqi history...ever....
don't you think that is AS BAD AS saddam's control??
THAT is actually what is happening in iraq right now...
i do admire bush. it was necessary for him to cut spending for welfare and education (i dont know about medical insurance) because there were more important issues, namely the war. believe it or not, bush's source of funds is actually limited.
->in my perspective, the war could have been avoided easily but bush admin simply ignored the chance of peaceful solution, which UN was more than ready to do...
furthermore, the war itself was not even justified....although bush admin claimed that saddam was connected with terrorist group like al-qaeda, that is completely non-sense cuz hussein was regarded as "westernised" in view of fundamentalists like bin laden...( and considering the fact that iraq was most westernised arab country under hussein's control compared to other nations like iran, it is not convincing to say that hussein was connected with 'em and supported their terrorist activities)
(the war itself could only be justified when it comes to punishing saddam who tortured millions of civilians...and as i mentioned in previous post, i have to admire bush for that)
well, talking about WMD... as we all know, US intelligent services are even capable of findind some man hiding in the hole in some countryside small house....but don't you think it is bit "weird" for them not to be able to find those huge "mass destructive" weapons yet??? well, unless they chose not to find any.....
what i wrote above simply proves the fact that the war was not inevitable....never.... and i know u r good at economics (i came to know it somehow
) so let me ask u one economics question.... what is economics all about? putting limited resources to most necessary place for maximised efficiency and satisfaction right??? when bush's finances were limited (with some huge economic problems like twin deficit etc) at that time, which would be more economically important, efficient and ethically justified???spending billions of dollars for "avoidable" war?? or increasing welfare/education funding for people's living standard??? thus i cant agree with you sayin "there were more important issues, namely the war"..... you must consider the fact that war was absolutely avoidable...... remember it was bush who ignored the claim of blix "there seems to be no WMD in iraq", and it was also bush who ignored UN proposal for peaceful resolution......
and no, he should not be admired for indirectly being responsible for the deaths of many people, he should be admired for the good he has done for the iraqi people. now i admit that liberating iraq was not his primary objective, but it is still something that he is doing which he does not have to do i.e. he could leave iraq right now in a state of anarchy, but he is choosing to stay there until a democratic system of govt can be implemented, and iraq is, figuratively speaking, 'on the right track'.
->in here, you must understand the reason for the state of anarchy... firstly, what do you think the reason for ruthless dictator like saddam to have been able to hold his power for a long time?? was it because iraqi people were stupid? or was it because hussein was not that bad??? no!!! it was because saddam hussein was the symbol of anti- US feeling in iraq who "greatly fought against american imperialism" in first gulf war in the viewpoint of iraqi people... saddam successfully used people's anti-US feeling to fuel his power and position and transfered people's dissent into anti US feeling...(just like well working propaganda...)
so, why the state of anarchy although the axis of evil saddam has been captured??? considering those facts about people's anti US feeling, what do you think the reason for those god damn mess in iraq?? because iraqi people are not fighting for neither fuking saddam hussein nor his bart party...but for their own freedom and independence against bush admin intervening on shaping new iraqi govt for US's benefit....
solution is simple, the main subject of rebuilding iraq should be iraq people...not US....bush must help the process, not dominate it..that's the way for president of world's strongest country to act like...don't you think?? im saying thatz what so-called "admirable leader" should do in this kinda situation.....
so solution for stopping the state of anarchy? needless to say, withdrawing all US troops...
also, i dont believe that bush is some kind of 'pure angel'. i honestly think that the reason he went to war was WMD. whether or not they existed is irrelevant, what matters is that bush and his crew were convinced they did. imagine a dictator who hates america, and is suspected of having WMDs. it doesnt take a genius to figure out that america could be in danger. also, add to that their fear of terrorism since september 11, and it isnt that hard to see why he went to war. but in saying that, there was also the opportunity to do some good for the iraqi people, and bush has relished that opportunity, and that is what he is doing now. i seriously doubt that this war has anything to do with oil. there is so much criticism about this oil issue, and given that there is an election next year, if bush does take the oil, i also have no doubt that he would not remain in office. the oil issue is rubbish.......
->what you said in "whether or not they existed is irrelevant" is absolutely IRRESPONSIBLE...that was the reason why the war broke out and that was the reason why thousands of civilians were meaninglessly killed....(and hans blix was the one who was responsible for finding out the truth in the name of UN, and he said "there seems to be no WMD.." what does this mean to you?)
and the oil.....why do you think oil issue is rubbish?? thats the source for iraqi people to make a living....while those giant TNC will do whateva they can do to take those oil field in iraq, all normal iraqil civilians can do is just simply to watch it and overcome worsened living standard.... although it could be rubbish to you, its the source of life for them to improve their living and rebuild their country...its not that trivial matter for them...thatz why people keep on mentioning about it and heavily criticising bush admin.....
i dont think that there is any country in the world who acts completely unselfishly. sure bush's main intention was not to liberate the people of iraq, however, what i admire about him is that he could have gone into iraq, killed/captured saddam hussein, then left with the country reduced to a pile of rabble, but that is not what he is doing, nor is it what he will do in the future. iraq is no longer a threat to the US' security. the only benefit of the US still being there is for the iraqi people.......
->as i mentioned above, i think that US troops staying in iraq would be no benefit for normal iraqi civilians at all....and although iraq is no longer a threat to the US or world security by removing those "WMD that has not been found yet", iraq has become another US state under US influences... please let me tell u what i think.... i think the new iraqi govt will be filled with bunch of iraqi people having full of respects and admiration for "great USA", and the resources of iraq like oil would be divided by the interests of global TNCs which will not give any benefits to iraqi civilians.... most importantly, there will never be the words "self-determination", "independence" in iraqi history...ever....
don't you think that is AS BAD AS saddam's control??
THAT is actually what is happening in iraq right now...
Last edited:
Butterfly_Wings
Cornflake Girl
I wasn't trying to get into an argument, I was just making a comment. It wasn't meant to be deep.Originally posted by AGB
p.s. butterfly wings, you should read jk's post.... it = good argument, quite unlike yours
Have a nice day!
Last edited:
I dont think it matters. I doubt that we'll hear too much more from Saddam unless he's in an ad for Coke or Makkers.
As for leaders, it's good for the "three Anglos" as they were once called (Bush, Blair, Howard). Blair is good for Britain, Howard is too powerful for Aust. and Bush is a disaster for mankind.
This war was crap. There was no WMD threat. He didnt use them prior or during the invasion of his country. The US just had a bad accountant who couldnt find recipts.
I just hope GW passes an immigration law letting Arnee save manking from armagedon. lol
ps. i think that leading a nation through a crisis and having a crisis occur during your term are two very different things.
As for leaders, it's good for the "three Anglos" as they were once called (Bush, Blair, Howard). Blair is good for Britain, Howard is too powerful for Aust. and Bush is a disaster for mankind.
This war was crap. There was no WMD threat. He didnt use them prior or during the invasion of his country. The US just had a bad accountant who couldnt find recipts.
I just hope GW passes an immigration law letting Arnee save manking from armagedon. lol
ps. i think that leading a nation through a crisis and having a crisis occur during your term are two very different things.
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
LoL, can u explain how they gonna hire sadam for coke ad?
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
yeah!
Im saying that Bush is no hero for making some very bad decisions, and reacting in an unprecedented way to a lapse in his security.
You shouldnt be so preoccupied with institutions. So what if 'TIME' gave Rudy an award...does it affect you?...does time hold an influence in your life? are you a dosile cow-man who agrees with the first thing you read?
My point was that it depends on how you deal with a crisis that grants merit. It was previously implied that Bush is a hero for being in office while S11 occured, when really, he has handled it appaulingly.
Putting my theory to test for old Rudy: yes he was the incummbent mayor of New York at the time (first test of crisis occuring during office)---it is dangerous to give much merit just for that. Secondly, I dont think he was a total inspiration and wonder for dealing with the crisis. If im not mistaken, he was stuck in a buildng during it. The real kudos should go to the practical people (firemen and police). They were the only heros.
It all comes back to the US respect for authority and institutions. 'All hail pres. Bush for screwing the world in order to please dumb-ass middle-America' Incumbency alone is no reason for praise.
You shouldnt be so preoccupied with institutions. So what if 'TIME' gave Rudy an award...does it affect you?...does time hold an influence in your life? are you a dosile cow-man who agrees with the first thing you read?
My point was that it depends on how you deal with a crisis that grants merit. It was previously implied that Bush is a hero for being in office while S11 occured, when really, he has handled it appaulingly.
Putting my theory to test for old Rudy: yes he was the incummbent mayor of New York at the time (first test of crisis occuring during office)---it is dangerous to give much merit just for that. Secondly, I dont think he was a total inspiration and wonder for dealing with the crisis. If im not mistaken, he was stuck in a buildng during it. The real kudos should go to the practical people (firemen and police). They were the only heros.
It all comes back to the US respect for authority and institutions. 'All hail pres. Bush for screwing the world in order to please dumb-ass middle-America' Incumbency alone is no reason for praise.
Rorix
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,818
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Look, if you are trying to make a point, you are going to have to substantiate that point with some FACTS to convince me.
I'm using the man of the year award as an symbol of Rudy's achievements to respond to the point that having a crisis occur in your term = managing the crisis, or something of the like. Whatever I quoted above.
Evidence? You know, those giving praise are probably in a more qualified position to do so than yourself.
While I don't know of his direct contribution to the 9/11 crisis, I'm assuming his leadership in other areas such as reducing crime through cracking down on fare evasion on the subway was also demonstrated in the days after. I'd also tend to assume that he wasn't the Man of the Year for no reason.
Once again, facts.
= Jennifer =
Active Member
they took the samples from his sons Uday and Qusay
Nailgun
Cole World
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,193
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2016
A loong looong time ago.
Green Yoda
Hi Φ
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2015
- Messages
- 2,859
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2017
how did u even find this thread lmao
parad0xica
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 204
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
The dig is real
Nailgun
Cole World
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,193
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2016
what happened to you ahaha
you started off pree weird
now you're actually pree cool lel
parad0xica
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 204
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
lol, my initial intentions of giving birth to this account were unjustified and impulsive
I found no convincing reason on going further with what I was doing, thus I resorted to aborting the (malicious) mission
