Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-30 09:10:43

Since Bush gets the blame by many liberals for the Iraq War, then you must also give him credit for bringing justice to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hessein is one of the few mass-murdering dictators ever tried for his crimes and punished. While others sought to "manage" such ruthless villains or contain them, George Bush actually brought him to justice and if it weren't for George Bush, Saddam Hussein would probably still be running Iraq even today, plotting against us, and causing us trouble while some weakling US President hemmed and hawed not knowing what to do, sending negotiators and introducing meaninless watered down resolutions in the UN condemning Saddam Hussein's action but doing little else. This is what it takes to bring justice to the Muslim World, where ruthless dictators get away with mass murder all the time. George Bush plowed against the tide of history rather that swim with its inexorable currents as most liberals seems to prefer to do. George Bush was an actor on the World stage, who definitely changed the currents of world history and not just part of the scenery as many of the reflexive "antiwar" people would prefer.

With Saddam Hussein dead, the Iraqis can't go back, the Sunnis have nothing really to fight for, any more acts of violence on their part is just a further nail in their own coffin as they are outnumbered by the shiites. Saddam was killing the Kurds and Shiites, he was ruthlessly liquidating them. What the Bush Administration did was put the power with the majority where it belongs, and toppled this regime held together with terror and force, this was going to happen anyway eventually, but we got to shape the direction in which the dominoes fall. George Bush paid a high price for this victory, and he expended alot of political capital. The question is what are the Democrats going to do about it? Even they cannot bring back the dead. If the Democrats are really serious about cutting off funds to Iraq, then that gives the Iraqi government one year to get into shape as fiscal 2007 is already paid for by the lame duck Congress. The Dems can cut off funds by 2008, but it remains to be seen whether this will have the desired effect of producing chaos in Iraq sufficient to topple the democratic government elected by the majority of people in Iraq. If the democrats can't succeed in toppling the Iraqi government and installing a ruthless tyrant like Saddam or in making Iraq into a safe haven for terrorism, then I don't know what the Democrats are going to do.

What if the Democrats succeed and Al Qaeda stages and plots a 9/11 attack from Iraqi soil in America, perhaps toppling the Empire State Buliding this time, what are the Dems going to do then? Are they just going to blame Bush and do the "I told you so" dance, or are they going to do something to safegard their constituents like maybe get on their knees and grovel before the high throne in Iraq begging the terrorist leader to please spare the American People? Is that the outcome they want just to get at Bush? Lincoln had a saying, "Those that serve their party best serve their country first." Of course Lincoln was a Republican so the Democrats aren't going to listen to him.

Stormrage · 2006-12-30 16:57:50

Really justice? Seeing that Life under US occupation is worse then Life under Saddam.

List of US casualties. Notice an Increase? Don't make me show you the Iraqi casualty graph.

The violence in Iraq will just continue. The Sunni don't want a secular government any more. Now thanks to the Invasion they want an Islamic country. Well done bush. You managed to turn them away from the secularity that you want Iraq to be. Now Al qaueda is in Iraq. Before when Bush was lying there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they are rooted in Al Anbar and they are stronger then ever. Stronger then they were in Afghanistan. They now also know more tricks and new ways to make explosives. They also have a new pool of recruits.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-30 17:38:58

Really justice? Seeing that Life under US occupation is worse then Life under Saddam.

What's worse, a random terrorist bomb that just may get you as you happen to walk by, or Saddam's secret police hunting you down? Notice how the Nazis killed more Jews than terrorists did, that is because terrorists don't have the government that you live under on their side, they can only place a carbomb next to your house and hope that you are inside when it does off, and then evade authorities, but if it is Saddam's government that is out to get you, they are the authorities, their is no police to call because they are out to get you. I think you would be significantly safer if it is only a terrorist group out to get you rather than the government.

List of US casualties. Notice an Increase? Don't make me show you the Iraqi casualty graph.

Well of course their are more casualities for US soldiers after they got into the war than before. How many American casualities were their in World War II before we got involved in World War II?

The violence in Iraq will just continue.

Spoken like a true Defeatocrat. Seems like the only tone we hear coming from the Defeatocrats are ones of despair and hopelessness. Defeatocrats are always the ones saying we can't do it, its no use, give up! Looks like you've fallen under the influence of Sauron, such hopelessness and despair, your so down, you won't even lift a finger in your own self-defense. Might as well put your head down on the chopping block right now so that your enemy can cleave it off cleanly and quickly. Tsk tsk tsk.

The Sunni don't want a secular government any more. Now thanks to the Invasion they want an Islamic country.

What they want doesn't count since they are in the minority. In a democracy a minority doesn't gewt to rule over the majority, nor does it get to impose its religion over them, and now thanks to Saddam's death they no longer have a leader to rally behind, there is no chance of freeing him from prison and putting him back in power. All their violence does now is make the majority more angry at them, their is no telling what the majority might do to the minority once it gets angry enough, and with the US supply this government with weapons, the Sunni minority can hope for no succor. If the Shiites can live with the Sunnis because they as a group are too violent well, something may be done about it. Violence should avail the Sunnis nought, if they become refugees, that outcome would largely be of their own doing because of the hatred the raised through their violence. Who in the world cares about a bunch of homeless stateless Saddamites?

Well done bush. You managed to turn them away from the secularity that you want Iraq to be. Now Al qaueda is in Iraq.
Before when Bush was lying there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they are rooted in Al Anbar and they are stronger then ever. Stronger then they were in Afghanistan. They now also know more tricks and new ways to make explosives. They also have a new pool of recruits.

The Iraqis know what we will do to them if they host Al Qaedam, we aren't just going tro sit there and let them take pot shots at us.

John Creighton · 2006-12-30 22:15:45

Really justice? Seeing that Life under US occupation is worse then Life under Saddam.
List of US casualties. Notice an Increase? Don't make me show you the Iraqi casualty graph.
The violence in Iraq will just continue. The Sunni don't want a secular government any more. Now thanks to the Invasion they want an Islamic country. Well done bush. You managed to turn them away from the secularity that you want Iraq to be. Now Al qaueda is in Iraq. Before when Bush was lying there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they are rooted in Al Anbar and they are stronger then ever. Stronger then they were in Afghanistan. They now also know more tricks and new ways to make explosives. They also have a new pool of recruits.

That is an interesting graph. When you listen to the media you would think the country was spiraling out of control yet the US casualty rates seem to be remaining constant. I find it odd you say the Sunni’s don’t want secular government. It is not like they have the numbers to force there will on the rest of the people. If the Sunni’s have no will to compromise then they are to blame for whatever consequence could come in a future Iraqi civil war. If Al Qaeda is stronger then ever then so must be the American’s otherwise why don’t we see a significant escalation in the causalities.

Commodore · 2006-12-31 14:27:13

If the Sunnis wanted a religious goverment, why didn't they have one under Saddam?

The militias and extremists, backed by Iran and Syria, Al-quida, and others are trying, and in many circles succeding in wearing out our patience. The average Iraqi has very little to say on the matter, and is just trying to survive.

We have to ask ourselves if we really want to let ourselves lose to Iran and Syria and Osama.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-31 14:58:21

If the Sunnis wanted a religious goverment, why didn't they have one under Saddam?
The militias and extremists, backed by Iran and Syria, Al-quida, and others are trying, and in many circles succeding in wearing out our patience. The average Iraqi has very little to say on the matter, and is just trying to survive.
We have to ask ourselves if we really want to let ourselves lose to Iran and Syria and Osama.

The Democrats think they have a winning strategy for them, and that is to lose. Many of them look wistfully to the year 1968, the year the tide of war turned against us. Losing is an easy strategy for them to follow, since it doesn't require any military expertise on their part. Ever since Vietnam, the Democrats have been trying to lose every single war the United States ever got involved in. If ever an enemy needs an ally against us, they need never look any farther than the left wing of the Democratic party, they don't give a damn about the United States, they only want the political power so they can spend our tax money on their cronies.

Stormrage · 2006-12-31 19:45:43

What's worse, a random terrorist bomb that just may get you as you happen to walk by, or Saddam's secret police hunting you down?

Damn it. You really know how to piss me off. You just answered your own question. A random terrorist bomb is much worse because it is random. It goes after people doing their normal activity. During the Saddam era. The security forces would only come after you if you did something that threatened Saddams power. Which means that you knew what you were doing before you did that.

Looks like you've fallen under the influence of Sauron, such hopelessness and despair,

please. Don't corrupt The Lord of the Rings.

What they want doesn't count since they are in the minority. In a democracy a minority doesn't gewt to rule over the majority, nor does it get to impose its religion over them, and now thanks to Saddam's death they no longer have a leader to rally behind, there is no chance of freeing him from prison and putting him back in power. All their violence does now is make the majority more angry at them, their is no telling what the majority might do to the minority once it gets angry enough, and with the US supply this government with weapons, the Sunni minority can hope for no succor. If the Shiites can live with the Sunnis because they as a group are too violent well, something may be done about it. Violence should avail the Sunnis nought, if they become refugees, that outcome would largely be of their own doing because of the hatred the raised through their violence. Who in the world cares about a bunch of homeless stateless Saddamites?

They are a minority that are heavily armed. A minority that have the backing of the entire Arab nations.

The Iraqis know what we will do to them if they host Al Qaedam, we aren't just going tro sit there and let them take pot shots at us.

Yeah. The troops will die. Most of the US deaths come from the Al Anbar province. That province is so out of control Al Qaueda were patrolling the streets announcing that they are creating a new nation.

I find it odd you say the Sunni’s don’t want secular government. It is not like they have the numbers to force there will on the rest of the people. If the Sunni’s have no will to compromise then they are to blame for whatever consequence could come in a future Iraqi civil war. If Al Qaeda is stronger then ever then so must be the American’s otherwise why don’t we see a significant escalation in the causalities.

Well lets see. The Kurds want their own country. The Shias want their own Islamic Republic. The Sunnis want their own Islamic Republic. Can the Sunnis force their will on the entire nation? Probably not. But can they make Iraq ungovernable? Oh yes they can.

If the Sunnis wanted a religious goverment, why didn't they have one under Saddam?

Saddam wanted a secular government. Most sunnis couldn't really care since the US sanctions were making their lives a living hell. After the invasion they got influenced by Al Qaeda.

You know Tom. Your the kind of guy that is going to get American troops killed. Your an idiot who talks out of your ass and you don't think what you say thoroughly.

John Creighton · 2006-12-31 23:04:54

What's worse, a random terrorist bomb that just may get you as you happen to walk by, or Saddam's secret police hunting you down?
Damn it. You really know how to piss me off. You just answered your own question. A random terrorist bomb is much worse because it is random. It goes after people doing their normal activity. During the Saddam era. The security forces would only come after you if you did something that threatened Saddams power. Which means that you knew what you were doing before you did that.

To each there own. Not everyone would agree with you:

'"Give me liberty or give me death" is a famous quotation from a speech made by Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

The speech was given March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, and is credited with having single-handedly convinced the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution delivering the Virginia troops to the Revolutionary War. In attendance were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Reportedly, the crowd, upon hearing the speech, jumped up and shouted, "To Arms! To Arms!"'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_li … e_me_death

“The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself…."-John Stuart Mill (1868)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-01-01 03:51:20

Since Bush gets the blame by many liberals for the Iraq War

It's not just Liberals that bash Junior nowdays

Republicans and Independants are also sick of him

Senator Specter, a Republican of Pennsylvania is critical of his leadership

McCain, a guy who did fight for his country unlike Jnr, thinks he botched Iraq doesn't think much of torture in CampX-ray

Greenspan thinks he made a balls of the Economy

Pentagon IG reports critical of his leadership

General Anthony Zinni thinks Iraq is a disaster

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina thinks Bush has made a disaster of legal issues

Schwarzenegger doesn't think much of his CO2/ClimateChange policy

Dennis Hastert who was shocked Bush wants US port secuirty to go to the foreigners like the Arabs

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill who thinks he has run up huge defictis and made a balls of the Katrina disaster.

Peter T. King who thinks Bush has done little in social security reforms and doesn''t think much of the Mexican wave crossing the US border

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the WMDs will never appear

Trent Lott was never a big fan of George Bush

Richard A. Clarke thinks he has killed too many American troops

John Warner of Virginia has been most critical of the president's position on tribunals

Even his Daddy doesn't think the way he has run the Whitehouse

Chuck Hagel is no fan of his foreign policy

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-01 14:22:54

What's worse, a random terrorist bomb that just may get you as you happen to walk by, or Saddam's secret police hunting you down?
Damn it. You really know how to piss me off. You just answered your own question. A random terrorist bomb is much worse because it is random. It goes after people doing their normal activity. During the Saddam era. The security forces would only come after you if you did something that threatened Saddams power. Which means that you knew what you were doing before you did that.

Basically if Saddam thinks you are a threat, he'll kill you, and if Saddam is very paranoid all the worse for you, if someone whispers in his ear saying your a threat then your dead. If one of your relatives does something threatening to him, he may come after you, torture you, or execute you just to get back at your relative. If you belong to a troublesom minority, such as the Kurds, then he will come after you whether you did anything threatening or not. Saddam ran prison complexes that specialized in execution and torture, this isn't a random bomb placed here or there to kill some passer by, Saddam's execution squads were systematic and ruthless. I'd rather take a chance with a random bomb attack than have Saddam's police specifically trying to hunt me down or kill my relatives. If Saddam thinks your a threat whether its your fault or not, he will kill you, since he has control over the entire country and can muster the resources of his nation to track you down and kill you. Terrorists don't control the countryside, they skulk and must evade capture by the authorities while planting a bomb, and since they are on the run, they can't devote their full attention to killing you, no matter how much they may want to. Your chances against terrorists are significantly higher than against the state.

Looks like you've fallen under the influence of Sauron, such hopelessness and despair,
please. Don't corrupt The Lord of the Rings.

Remember that king who despaired against fighting the forces of darkness, he was the one under the influence of Sauron, he wouldn't lift a finger and refused to defend his kingdom, because he thought all was hopeless, that is pretty much your attitude towards fighting terrorism, all you see is gloom and doom, and so long as that is all you see, you don't try very hard to find a way to win, and that is my criticism of you and your attitude. Your "get Bush" all the way, and you don't care about the rest of the World, just so long as you get Bush. Since finding a way to fight terrorism wouldn't be helpful in getting Bush, all you do is despair and see gloom and doom. Well I don't share your attitude, my feeling is if the war isn't going well, we should find better Generals and a better strategy, we have enough resources for winning, and no excuse for losing. These are stateless criminals we are fighting, so if one strategy doesn't work you try another, you don't give up and surrender like a General Charles Lee. The problem I have with many Democrats is that they are too quick to declare a War unwinnable when they encounter the slightest obstacle. You also focus on our casualities, but have you ever considered their's. I'm sure we're killing way more of them than they are of us. FDR never shared your attitude.

What they want doesn't count since they are in the minority. In a democracy a minority doesn't gewt to rule over the majority, nor does it get to impose its religion over them, and now thanks to Saddam's death they no longer have a leader to rally behind, there is no chance of freeing him from prison and putting him back in power. All their violence does now is make the majority more angry at them, their is no telling what the majority might do to the minority once it gets angry enough, and with the US supply this government with weapons, the Sunni minority can hope for no succor. If the Shiites can live with the Sunnis because they as a group are too violent well, something may be done about it. Violence should avail the Sunnis nought, if they become refugees, that outcome would largely be of their own doing because of the hatred the raised through their violence. Who in the world cares about a bunch of homeless stateless Saddamites?

They are a minority that are heavily armed. A minority that have the backing of the entire Arab nations.

And who has more and better weapons? The Arab countries or us? If the Arabs arm our enemies, they become our enemies, and then we can go to war against them. The Germans fought a nasty way against us, even when they were cut off from our oil supplies, we have enough oil supplies to run our military equipment, we have a strategic reserve, and we can invade a number of other arab countries with oil fields, if they supply our enemies, they themselves become beligerants, and we would be well justified in invading them, so maybe they'd better just back off if they don't want a confrontation with us. I say again, the Sunnis may have the backing of the Arab countries, but the Iraqi government has the backing of us, even if our troops pull out, there is no reason why we can't just keep on sending their government money and equipment, they already have an army, and they can recruit and train more if they have too. I'd say right now the Iraqi government has the upper hand, and we're in there for at least another year. It would take a miracle for the Sunni insurgents to win, and I don't believe in miracles.

The Iraqis know what we will do to them if they host Al Qaedam, we aren't just going tro sit there and let them take pot shots at us.

Yeah. The troops will die. Most of the US deaths come from the Al Anbar province. That province is so out of control Al Qaueda were patrolling the streets announcing that they are creating a new nation.

I find it odd you say the Sunni’s don’t want secular government. It is not like they have the numbers to force there will on the rest of the people. If the Sunni’s have no will to compromise then they are to blame for whatever consequence could come in a future Iraqi civil war. If Al Qaeda is stronger then ever then so must be the American’s otherwise why don’t we see a significant escalation in the causalities.
Well lets see. The Kurds want their own country. The Shias want their own Islamic Republic. The Sunnis want their own Islamic Republic. Can the Sunnis force their will on the entire nation? Probably not. But can they make Iraq ungovernable? Oh yes they can.

No, what they might accomplish is changing the requirements for governing Iraq, namely getting rid of them so Iraq can be governed. If the Sunnis refuse to get along, they will be kicked out amd made into refugees. Smart people know when to stop fighting, stupid people go the way of Hannible and Carthage.

If the Sunnis wanted a religious goverment, why didn't they have one under Saddam?
Saddam wanted a secular government. Most sunnis couldn't really care since the US sanctions were making their lives a living hell. After the invasion they got influenced by Al Qaeda.

You know Tom. Your the kind of guy that is going to get American troops killed. Your an idiot who talks out of your ass and you don't think what you say thoroughly.

Casualities are primarily the result of the way we conduct the war, mainly that we've been trying to rebuild all parts of Iraq and get the 3 groups to get along with each other, and this has provided some groups the opportunity to take pot shots at us. If we simply sided with one group and allowed the larger to crush the smaller however they saw fit and supplied them with plenty of weapons to do it, our casualities would be much less, but by following this moral high ground we've incurred higher casualities. You liberals would complain if we fought in a way that explosed our troops less. You want to limit our ability to fight in such a way that we can't possibly win, and then you want to declare the war unwinnable. If our main defense strategy is to run away, then soon we will be without a country. Our best hope is to fight in such a way as to make our enemy not want to mess with us in the future, and with these wars avoided, we also avoid casualities. But your too much in the here and now. In the very short term, retreat always saves some soldiers lives, but in the long term of losing the war, but you can't see past the tip of your nose.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-01 14:36:34

Since Bush gets the blame by many liberals for the Iraq War
It's not just Liberals that bash Junior nowdays
Republicans and Independants are also sick of him

Senator Specter, a Republican of Pennsylvania is critical of his leadership
McCain, a guy who did fight for his country unlike Jnr, thinks he botched Iraq doesn't think much of torture in CampX-ray
Greenspan thinks he made a balls of the Economy
Pentagon IG reports critical of his leadership
General Anthony Zinni thinks Iraq is a disaster
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina thinks Bush has made a disaster of legal issues
Schwarzenegger doesn't think much of his CO2/ClimateChange policy
Dennis Hastert who was shocked Bush wants US port secuirty to go to the foreigners like the Arabs
Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill who thinks he has run up huge defictis and made a balls of the Katrina disaster.
Peter T. King who thinks Bush has done little in social security reforms and doesn''t think much of the Mexican wave crossing the US border
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the WMDs will never appear
Trent Lott was never a big fan of George Bush
Richard A. Clarke thinks he has killed too many American troops
John Warner of Virginia has been most critical of the president's position on tribunals
Even his Daddy doesn't think the way he has run the Whitehouse
Chuck Hagel is no fan of his foreign policy

There are two kinds of critics of George Bush:

One kind are the ones who criticise him for not winning, they think some heads should roll and that some key people should be replaced and perhaps some troops added to get the Job done. John McCain is of that category

The other kind oppose the war and therefore want us to lose it, Nancy Pelosi is of the later category, she would just cut off the funds and make us lose.

Now I have no problem with the people who are impatient with our lack of progress, for I am sometimes impatient myself, but I don't understand those people who want to cut and run, who have wanted to quit and give up even from the very beginning. You see the Democrats have fallen under the sway of the Cult of the Loser, it all started at the end of the Vietnam War, the Democrats have found that by being anti-War and causing us to lose, they can end the War and thus get elected. In the case of Vietnam, losing the War had no serious direct consequences for us, so they could gain their seats in congress this way and without much effort, since they don't need to know how to beat the enemy, they just need to know how to quit and say retreat, by calling for quiting and retreating, they get elected. Unfortunately this becomes a bad and dangerous habit, they get so they want to lose every war America fights in, they root for the enemy to beat us so the War can end, and they hate every success out Army has in the field, as they feel it does nothing but prolong the war. The problem is there can sometimes be serious consequences for losing a war and our troops can't always just go home anf forget about it.

Rxke · 2007-01-02 02:06:06

Democrats want to lose the war...

You sound like a broken record. A very boring one to boot.

Get over it. This is a board about Mars not about endless meaningless political quabbling

Stormrage · 2007-01-02 04:43:16

Basically if Saddam thinks you are a threat, he'll kill you, and if Saddam is very paranoid all the worse for you, if someone whispers in his ear saying your a threat then your dead. If one of your relatives does something threatening to him, he may come after you, torture you, or execute you just to get back at your relative.

Omg you love to make shit up don't you? To be a threat you actually have to be a threat. Or you have to be in a group that threatens Saddam's power.

f you belong to a troublesom minority, such as the Kurds, then he will come after you whether you did anything threatening or not.

First of all there are millions of Kurds. Saddam only started a campaign to kill them when they were supporting the Kurdish terrorist group Peshmerga who captured the Kurdish town Halbja (the town that got gassed) for Iran during the Iraq Iran war. He started the Al Anfal campaign to wipe out future recruits for peshmerga and to make an example.

I'd rather take a chance with a random bomb attack than have Saddam's police specifically trying to hunt me down or kill my relatives.

I don't think you understand. If you do nothing and you live your life normally. Saddam won't touch you. Now days in Iraq it is impossible to aviod the violence unless you escape to Syria or to Kurdistan in the north.

Saddam ran prison complexes that specialized in execution and torture, this isn't a random bomb placed here or there to kill some passer by, Saddam's execution squads were systematic and ruthless.

Oh you mean just like the Americans?

Terrorists don't control the countryside,

Are we talking about the same country? Al ANBAR PROVINCE IS OUT OF CONTROL. There are so many training camps in Iraq that USA. The Iraqi government wanted to pacify Baghdad. What did the Americans do? They took troops from Al Anbar and moved them into Baghdad. Baghdad is still violent and more Insurgent camps have sprung up. Now the insurgents are getting highly trained. They don't hide from the coaltion forces anymore. In November there was a battle between highly trained Sunni Insurgents and the Coalition forces that lasted for 40 hours. So much for hiding.

No, what they might accomplish is changing the requirements for governing Iraq, namely getting rid of them so Iraq can be governed. If the Sunnis refuse to get along, they will be kicked out amd made into refugees. Smart people know when to stop fighting, stupid people go the way of Hannible and Carthage.

Oh really? Please tell me how you are going to kick them out. Since the most sunnis aren't even involved in the insurgency yet. I find your statement just like everything else you write. Crap.

I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore. I'm afraid i'll end up in a kramer styled outburst.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-01-02 08:15:22

Oh really? Please tell me how you are going to kick them out. Since the most sunnis aren't even involved in the insurgency yet. I find your statement just like everything else you write. Crap.
.

Nevermind him, I think Tom is the Ultimate Troll. The die hard GW Jnr fans are all bark and no bite ! However I think many Chinese take comfort that as long as Neo-Con conservative idiots like Tom keep voting the next American leader into office, then China has a great chance in becoming the next Superpower.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-02 09:46:47

Democrats want to lose the war...
You sound like a broken record. A very boring one to boot.
Get over it. This is a board about Mars not about endless meaningless political quabbling

That's because you don't like to hear it, it is very true though, just look at what the Democrats are doing, isn't their actions consistent with someone wanting to lose the War? I don't see them coming up with alternate strategies and other ways to win. When they were out of power some of them criticised George Bush for not sending enough troops, now that they are in power, you don't hear them clamoring to send more troops now. It is always too late when they assume the reins of power and all they can do is retreat. Perhaps you don't want to win either, that's why it sounds like a broken record to you. The truth is not always entertaining nor does it always make people comfortable.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-02 10:06:10

Basically if Saddam thinks you are a threat, he'll kill you, and if Saddam is very paranoid all the worse for you, if someone whispers in his ear saying your a threat then your dead. If one of your relatives does something threatening to him, he may come after you, torture you, or execute you just to get back at your relative.
Omg you love to make shit up don't you? To be a threat you actually have to be a threat. Or you have to be in a group that threatens Saddam's power.

And that group includes people who are no threat to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein decides who he thinks is a threat to him and the process he uses to decide doesn't have to be fair or judicial, and as a dictator he is answerable to no one but himself. Saddam Hussein killed children and people's relatives. How did they threaten him? If you belong to a group that Saddam Hussein doesn't like, you can't simply disassociate yourself from that group. If Saddam is coming after you and your family for whatever reason, there is very little you can do about it except leave the country before the capture you. People are born being Kurds, individual Kurds hunted down by Saddam's forces were simply guilty of being Kurds, it is not something that you actively do that draws his attention. Most of the people Saddam Killed, he probably didn't even know outside of the fact that they belonged to a ethinic group or tribe.

f you belong to a troublesom minority, such as the Kurds, then he will come after you whether you did anything threatening or not.
First of all there are millions of Kurds. Saddam only started a campaign to kill them when they were supporting the Kurdish terrorist group Peshmerga who captured the Kurdish town Halbja (the town that got gassed) for Iran during the Iraq Iran war. He started the Al Anfal campaign to wipe out future recruits for peshmerga and to make an example.

And that is the sort of "Justice" that you support? Can't be bothered to find the individual terrorists, just kill all the Kurds, and if your a Kurd, just stop being one and Saddam will leave you alone, yeah right.

I'd rather take a chance with a random bomb attack than have Saddam's police specifically trying to hunt me down or kill my relatives.
I don't think you understand. If you do nothing and you live your life normally. Saddam won't touch you. Now days in Iraq it is impossible to aviod the violence unless you escape to Syria or to Kurdistan in the north.

Plenty of Kurds did nothing and they were still killed by Saddam's troops just for being Kurds. Now if Saddam thinks your ethnic group is someone he doesn't like, he will send troops to kill you too. You think that just because your ethinic group is not on someone's hit list that your safe? Someone can always add that ethinic group to their hit list and go after you.

Saddam ran prison complexes that specialized in execution and torture, this isn't a random bomb placed here or there to kill some passer by, Saddam's execution squads were systematic and ruthless.
Oh you mean just like the Americans?

Now you are operating in fantasyland. The United States doesn't run and didn't run any Death camps.

Terrorists don't control the countryside,
Are we talking about the same country? Al ANBAR PROVINCE IS OUT OF CONTROL. There are so many training camps in Iraq that USA. The Iraqi government wanted to pacify Baghdad. What did the Americans do? They took troops from Al Anbar and moved them into Baghdad. Baghdad is still violent and more Insurgent camps have sprung up. Now the insurgents are getting highly trained. They don't hide from the coaltion forces anymore. In November there was a battle between highly trained Sunni Insurgents and the Coalition forces that lasted for 40 hours. So much for hiding.

They are never so secure that they can operate out in the open like Saddam Hussein could. Saddam Hussein didn't have an army that was out trying to arrest him when he was murdering the Kurds, he didn't have to move from place to place and look for safehouses while he was in power. When he was a fugitive that was a different story, but that is not what we're talking about. Saddam Hussein as a head of state was not a fugitive, his police weren't out hunting for him, they were working for him.

No, what they might accomplish is changing the requirements for governing Iraq, namely getting rid of them so Iraq can be governed. If the Sunnis refuse to get along, they will be kicked out amd made into refugees. Smart people know when to stop fighting, stupid people go the way of Hannible and Carthage.

Oh really? Please tell me how you are going to kick them out. Since the most sunnis aren't even involved in the insurgency yet. I find your statement just like everything else you write. Crap.

Your probably not going to listen, but I didn't say we were going to kick them out, this ungly business is probably best left to the Iraqi government and only if the Sunnis do not stop fighting and killing. The rest of the Iraqis have a right to live you know, and if the Sunnis do not quit fighting something is going to have to be done about them. If they don't like being a minority, they can move to another country where they are not. What they are fighting for is their "right" to rule the country as a minority, and they have no such "right", the best that can be done, if they do not lay down their arms is to forcibly remove them and deport them. They themselves present this choice if they refuse to agree to anything reasonable or democratic.

I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore. I'm afraid i'll end up in a kramer styled outburst.

Primarily because you don't like hearing what I have to tell you as it does not agree with your predetermined conclusions, any bit of evidence that does not fit, you reject. As far as your concerned, the United States of America is this evil thing, and no tidal wave of evidence that suggests otherwise is going to change your mind.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-02 10:35:31

Oh really? Please tell me how you are going to kick them out. Since the most sunnis aren't even involved in the insurgency yet. I find your statement just like everything else you write. Crap.
.
Nevermind him, I think Tom is the Ultimate Troll. The die hard GW Jnr fans are all bark and no bite ! However I think many Chinese take comfort that as long as Neo-Con conservative idiots like Tom keep voting the next American leader into office, then China has a great chance in becoming the next Superpower.

That's not a choice that America makes, that is a choice that China makes by following the right policy, our choice of US President makes little difference in that regard.

Stormrage · 2007-01-04 10:21:21

I'm embarrassed that i even responded to you in the first place. Your probably going to tell me next that USA saved Britians ass during WW1 and ww2.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-04 10:30:56

I'm embarrassed that i even responded to you in the first place. Your probably going to tell me next that USA saved Britians ass during WW1 and ww2.

That's pretty much what we did, the Germans would have won if we weren't there.

Stormrage · 2007-01-04 10:50:06

Yep that confirms Tom. Your brain is limited to what you want to hear. USA joined both wars after UK spent several years saving the world. Especially in World War 2. When UK spent years being the only thing that stopped the free world from succumbing to the Nazis. USA only joined the war when the tide was turned against the Nazis. My last reply to you.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-04 11:42:39

Yep that confirms Tom. Your brain is limited to what you want to hear. USA joined both wars after UK spent several years saving the world. Especially in World War 2. When UK spent years being the only thing that stopped the free world from succumbing to the Nazis. USA only joined the war when the tide was turned against the Nazis. My last reply to you.

Yeah, that's right the UK single-handedly beat the Germans without Lend-Lease, and it had the Nazis begging for Mercy when the USA joined in the African campaign. That is your revisionist history, not mine! Seems you seek to diminish the role of the USA in everything you say. I don't know why you hate my country so much, but I think you are off your rocker. The USA saved the World from certain tyranny in World War I & II, you just can't accept that, so you make up your own history. If the UK was beating Germany handily, then I think the USA would prefer to stay out of both wars, that was certainly their initial inclination, the main impetus for us getting involved was the perception that the UK might be defeated and we would have to face the Germans alone, but if it looked as if the British were winning all by themselves, then I think the US would have stayed out of the War and avoided the casualities, and in the case of Pearl Harbor, we could have confined our attacks to Japan if it looked as if the UK didn't need our help. That is your revisionist history however and not mine, and your version of events did not happened however much you'd like to diminish the role of the United States in the World. And I'm sure the British would have beaten the Russians to the Moon too.

Commodore · 2007-01-04 18:59:54

Perhaps Stormrage would have perfered the Soviets won the war.

Number04 · 2007-01-04 20:48:38

Rather then get into a tit for tat argument here, i would like to bring up an actual bit of conversation.

No one here will argue that Saddam was a just and fair ruler. He did commit awful crimes that i think he should be accountable for.

BUT!

It looks to me that it did a good job of running the country. (minus his lust for war) Before you explode, hear me out.

Currently, we have civilians being killed in the thousands per month. There is rampant crime by militia groups, outsiders (Iran and the like) and even US solders. There are power outages, people don't have running water and have the risk of being blown up while buying food.

Now, Saddam's methods were no doubt harsh and I am no way saying it's right, but it may be the only way to pacify the region.

Just like on the play ground, it could be said that the "kids" or "factions" won't get along unless you threaten to slap them.

Discuss.

clark · 2007-01-05 07:07:09

Yes, I agree with Number04.

Saddam was a remarkable administrator of Iraq. He effeciently and expertly engaged in the slaughter of ethnic groups in a noble bid to keep the peace.

Saddam wisely created a society of fear where people who were simply suspected of disloyalty disappeared into the night, and/or their family imprisoned, jailed, tortured, and dumped in an anonymous mass grave.

After all, Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler improved the German economy, Stalin had vision, Mao believed in the people, and Pol Pot was keeping the peace.

While perhaps their methods are a bit, shall we say, morally questionable, let us all agree that they got things done!

Really people, find the silver lining before you condem. Seriously.

Brought to you by the people who believe 2+2 = 5, a subsidiary of the Flat Earth society.

dicktice · 2007-01-05 07:22:30

Very interesting. Now let's congratulate the Brits on having just paid off their WWII debt to the U.S., eh?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-12-30 09:10:43

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#2 2006-12-30 16:57:50

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#3 2006-12-30 17:38:58

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#4 2006-12-30 22:15:45

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#5 2006-12-31 14:27:13

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#6 2006-12-31 14:58:21

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#7 2006-12-31 19:45:43

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#8 2006-12-31 23:04:54

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#9 2007-01-01 03:51:20

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#10 2007-01-01 14:22:54

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#11 2007-01-01 14:36:34

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#12 2007-01-02 02:06:06

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#13 2007-01-02 04:43:16

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#14 2007-01-02 08:15:22

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#15 2007-01-02 09:46:47

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#16 2007-01-02 10:06:10

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#17 2007-01-02 10:35:31

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#18 2007-01-04 10:21:21

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#19 2007-01-04 10:30:56

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#20 2007-01-04 10:50:06

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#21 2007-01-04 11:42:39

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#22 2007-01-04 18:59:54

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#23 2007-01-04 20:48:38

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#24 2007-01-05 07:07:09

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

#25 2007-01-05 07:22:30

Re: Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush

Board footer