Saddam Hussein Hanged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

I can think of the sacking of Rome in 387 BC by the Gauls. There were a few other sackings for the next thousand odd years. There are many other examples of the army doing things that upset delicate sensibilities.

---

:laugh: :laugh:

Yes, the Gallic army of Brennus that spent 7 months killing and plundering in Rome certainly tarnished the good name of the noble Gallic army... of Brennus that spent 7 months killing and plundering in Rome. :laugh:

And you're absolutely right that after seeing the coverage of CNN Ancient of the events of Brennus's siege, there was very little appetite for war in the ancient world for a very long time. Which of course made the subsequent Roman conquest of Italy and, later, the Mediterranean coast so much easier. "Hey, you wanna join our Republic/Empire?" - "Yeah, alright." :D And how surprised was Alexander when he marched into Persia, ready for glorious battle, only to hear the Great King's envoy say "Take what you want. We don't much fancy a conflict, after what happened in Rome" :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

How many blogs have been published worldwide as books, been nominated for and won prizes in literary competitions?

---

How many people have posted SPAM on this forum and not been sanctioned by the Moderators?

Ah, the cowards are at it again. This time with the inarticulate comment of "git." It must be painful to be so ignorant and have such a limited vocabulary. However it is amusing to read what this particular twit thinks is an anonymous comment.

Studiose, your knowledge of that era is to be commended!!!

I think....maybe you are pulling my leg....I am going to have a nap now, I think this thread just deralied itself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

Yes, but blogs are very yesterday. They peaked a few years ago, and they are fading. Check the metrics being reported in Wired.

---

Another negative REP for this post. I wonder who could have done it?

To all of the F.F.L.s, Antis, Flamers, those attacking Mark, Gannex, etc, Will Rogers said, "Actions speak louder than word, just not very often."

In the 2004 Presidential Election, I was the ninth busiest grass roots worker supporting the re-election of President Bush. Check out the archives on www.gop.org -- I use the same id as here. I held more parties and fund raisers than all but eight other people in the United States. My parties and fund raisers brought in more than $10,000,000.

In the off-year 2006 Election, I hosted functions and events to support the reelection of State Representative Ellyn Bogdanoff. Thanks in part to our efforts, she defeated her challenger 55% to 45%.

To all of the F.F.L.s, Antis, Flamers, those attacking Mark, Gannex, etc, match me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Studiose, your knowledge of that era is to be commended!!!

I think....maybe you are pulling my leg....I am going to have a nap now, I think this thread just deralied itself...

---

Thanks goodness for Google and Wickedpoedia. :laugh:

My parties and fund raisers brought in more than $10,000,000.[/QUOTE]



Wow! How about throwing a party for me? I'm easy, I'd settle for a couple of hundred thousand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

My parties and fund raisers brought in more than $10,000,000.

---

Wow! How about throwing a party for me? I'm easy, I'd settle for a couple of hundred thousand.[/quote]

Contact me offline with the details of the office you're planning to run for, and have your Party Chairman talk to me. We're already working on the 2009 Mayoral election, when term limits bounce Jim Naugle out of office. Will it be Christine Teel, Tim Smith, or ????

That tears it, Agwiii, you can adopt me, if you can raise that sort of money to get someone elected!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

I can think of the sacking of Rome in 387 BC by the Gauls. There were a few other sackings for the next thousand odd years. There are many other examples of the army doing things that upset delicate sensibilities.

---

Clearly, this response to my pal Studiose warranted negative feedback. It just goes to show the character of some people from the land of snowcones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

They didn't see anything Saddam didn't want them to see. Do you not remember the constant controversay about the "palaces" being off limits? You mean to say in a nation that is as large as France that something couldn't have been hid? If Saddam had no WMD's, and we know he had them once upon a time, (it wasn't fiction that he gassed the Kurd's with years ago)then why was he constantly putting restrictions on the inspectors and monitoring their movements? They rarely were able to get free of Baghdad. Iraq is a huge nation, and Saddam's efforts to interfere with their movements only heightened the suspicions that the West had about his motives. If you want to be open and honest with the UN, as Libya was in giving up their WMD's, you have no issue. Saddam didn't get this UN treatment because he is a swell guy you know, he invaded a nation for plunder and to steal its resources. The sanctions came out of that invasion. He was not to be trusted with good reason. By acting the way he did, he made things worse.

---

And when the coalition forces got to look for themselves, what did they find? Nothing.

And will you please stop stating that those of us who are against the conflict in Iraq are in some way pro-Saddam. This is generalising of the highest order, and actually quite offensive. I find it very hard to take your arguments seriously when you persist with this idea, which suggests that you have not read the substance of many of the things I've posted, for a start.

(Oh, and I find it difficult to be lectured on foreign affairs by a native speaker of English who can't use apostrophes properly.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

That tears it, Agwiii, you can adopt me, if you can raise that sort of money to get someone elected!!

---

Mark, I gave it serious consideration, but after one of Saddam's supporters pointed out that you "can't use apostrophes properly," I had to pass. :laugh: OMG, now we must deal with apostrophobes, as well as Saddamites and Fascists! You have opened Pandora's Box, my friend. :s mokin:

Can you steer this thread it toward Cambodia? I want to see the supporters of the killing fields try to spin their tales here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

Mark, I gave it serious consideration, but after one of Saddam's supporters pointed out that you "can't use apostrophes properly," I had to pass. :laugh: OMG, now we must deal with apostrophobes, as well as Saddamites and Fascists! You have opened Pandora's Box, my friend. :s mokin:

Can you steer this thread it toward Cambodia? I want to see the supporters of the killing fields try to spin their tales here.

---

Why persist in childish accusation against people that are trying to make a reasoned point? Ben said that he finds it insulting to be referred to as a Saddam supporter and you choose to reiterate it in the very next post :(

How sad and childish.

Agwiii. I would suggest that virtually everyone on this forum is against the actions of Saddam Hussein. He was a tyrant and guilty of Genocide against the Iraqi people. I cannot see why anyone would defend him.

However, the way the "War" has been conducted, the systematic failure by the US and UK Governments to successfully resolve the issues, the absence of a suitable exit strategy and the jovial manner that Saddam was killed all add to exacerbate the conflict. It has lead Iraq to the brink, if not past the point of no return that ends in bloody civil war.

Where is there any just cause or defensible action in this conflict? What are we trying to achieve?

It seems that Bush and Blair cannot make their minds up on the reason we went in, the reason we are still there and the reason to stay. Is it WMD, removing a tyrant, the war on terror? All of these arguments ring false.

Was it, and is it still the need of Oil and to have a geographical staging post in the middle east? Seems more likely.

I was in favour of going into Iraq and removing the Dictator. I believed that he should have been tried for his War Crimes in the Hague and sentences appropriately although under Iraqi rule, I recognise that they have the death penalty and that they imposed it. The manner this execution was conducted was disgraceful and added weight to the cause of the insurgents in Iraq.

Can you not see this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And will you please stop stating that those of us who are against the conflict in Iraq are in some way pro-Saddam.

---

:up:

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

:up:

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy

---

I'd like to add to that: "With you but not under you".

I'm sure most of the world will stand with the US if they feel the cause and the means are just, but they don't like to be told by the US president what to do or how to think. If you want help, ask don't demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Why persist in childish accusation against people that are trying to make a reasoned point? Ben said that he finds it insulting to be referred to as a Saddam supporter and you choose to reiterate it in the very next post :(

---

I have read the reasoned points have been made by Mark in Oshawa and Gannex. I've never accused either of them of anything other than logic and intelligence. In fact, I have often joined with them in support of some aspects of the arguments they presented. Some others do not fall into that category of making reasoned arguments. Some people even vandalize the original works of published authors and then try to justify their behavior. How sad and childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Agwiii. I would suggest that virtually everyone on this forum is against the actions of Saddam Hussein. He was a tyrant and guilty of Genocide against the Iraqi people. I cannot see why anyone would defend him.

---

Knock-on, that is an assumption. Making assumptions can be risky. Assumptions are either warranted or not. Reading the pro-Saddam posts here suggests that your assumption is not warranted.

I agree with you that I cannot see why anyone would defend him, but there are many that continue to support the Butcher of Bagdad.

During most, if not all wars in history, there have been Monday morning quarterbacks who -- despite not having enough information to make an assessment -- persisted in making public policy statements. War cannot be conducted by committee, or with 100% public disclosure. That would be handing the enemy a copy of your battle plan.

Can you not see this?

You list no flag on your profile, yet you criticize the conduct of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. If you are American or British, then I suggest that you get involved in your government and work to advance your position. If you are somewhere else and live under some form of self-determination government, then I make the same suggestion. Get involved and make a difference. If this is a salient issue to you, do something. I do! This forum is read by very few people and ranting about foreign policy here has no effect upon policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy

---

Arrows! That was silly, but typical leftist Colorado talk when it was published six-years ago, and it is even more-so today.

:laughs:

I agree with your post, BDunnell. Being against the war does not mean being pro-Saddam, and it is simplistic to suggest otherwise.

I also agree with you, Knockie, except for the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

It seems that Bush and Blair cannot make their minds up on the reason we went in, the reason we are still there and the reason to stay. Is it WMD, removing a tyrant, the war on terror? All of these arguments ring false.

Was it, and is it still the need of Oil and to have a geographical staging post in the middle east? Seems more likely.

---

As I have argued before in this thread, I think the primary motivation for the war was not WMD, removing a tyrant, the war on terror, or even oil. The primary motivation, I believe, was the neo-conservative doctrine that can be called the "Reverse Domino Theory". This is the notion that if a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous nation could be achieved in the heart of the Arab world, other Arab peoples might see that there is a better alternative for them than living under brutal dictatorships with warlike tendencies. Freedom and democracy might spread.

It was overly optimistic, as we all now see so tragically proved, but well-intentioned and not anywhere near as reprehensible a war aim as getting cheap oil would have been. BDunnell and you, Knockie, are fed up with posters who over-simplify the arguments of those outraged by the US, but I think there is insulting over-simplification also (not from you two, but from some others) on the other side when critics claim that all Bush was after was cheap oil, money for Halliburton, revenge for the attempt on his father's life, and so on. There's enough caricaturing of the other side's views on both sides, is what I'm saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

I agree with you that I cannot see why anyone would defend him, but there are many that continue to support the Butcher of Bagdad.

---

Nobody here supports or defends Saddam personally. We are defending international law and order. No government of any single country should have the right to try and depose the government of another sovereign country, no matter how bad they think it is. If you think they have that right, you must also admit that then the governments of Iraq, Iran, North Korea or China also have the right to try and depose the government of the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

...one of Saddam's supporters...

---

You seem desperate to reinforce one of the worst stereotypes of the Bush cheerleader — that everyone is 'either with us or against us'.

Do you seriously think that I support Saddam Hussein, and that I thought his actions when he was President of Iraq were a good thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You seem desperate to reinforce one of the worst stereotypes of the Bush cheerleader — that everyone is 'either with us or against us'.

Do you seriously think that I support Saddam Hussein, and that I thought his actions when he was President of Iraq were a good thing?

---

I don't know you. There are many who still support Saddam, and you could be one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Nobody here supports or defends Saddam personally. We are defending international law and order. No government of any single country should have the right to try and depose the government of another sovereign country, no matter how bad they think it is. If you think they have that right, you must also admit that then the governments of Iraq, Iran, North Korea or China also have the right to try and depose the government of the US.

---

Since you claim to be Finnish, of what possible impact is the US Patriot Act to you? Why don't you focus upon Finland's foreign policy -- tell us about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

Arrows! That was silly, but typical leftist Colorado talk when it was published six-years ago, and it is even more-so today.

---

In your opinion.

agwiii, as someone who clearly supports the Bush administration, IMHO you are providing a very poor advert for what it stands for. Democracy and freedom allow us to discuss, debate and exchange opinions, and yet many of your posts appear to be attempting to prevent discussion, debate and the exchange of opinions.

As you rightly say, this forum has no effect on foreign policy. It does, however, offer a window to the world where the opinions expressed here do exist.

As you also rightly say making assumptions can be risky, and yet you appear to be making the assumption that we should accept your opinion as the definitive one. It is not. It is just one of many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

Since you claim to be Finnish, of what possible impact is the US Patriot Act to you? Why don't you focus upon Finland's foreign policy -- tell us about that?

---

Well, for one the US has demanded the Finnish airline Finnair to gather and pass personal information of Finns traveling to the US on Finnair. And the procedures Finnish passengers have to go through when entering the US are demeaning and time consuming, I don't think Finland puts American visitors to Finland through the same kind of procedures.

Furthermore, I liked the Titus's TV series and think he's funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

In your opinion.

---

Arrows, Newspapers are not obligated to write the truth, or to publish both sides to a story. You chose to quote an ancient article in a leftist paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

agwiii, as someone who clearly supports the Bush administration ...

---

As Will Rogers said, "actions speak louder than words, just not very often." I have worked in a number of campaigns, and I'm happy to say, my candidates have won. If someone actually disagrees, then I challenge them to get involved, raise their issues, and do something to make a difference.

I sometimes agree with you, other times I disagree. Do I want to squelch your opinion? Absolutely not. My country's constitution would guarantee you freedom of speech, and while you're not here, that is my philosophy too. Do I want you to be my political clone? No, I just hope that whatever you believe, you put into action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Well, for one the US has demanded the Finnish airline Finnair to gather and pass personal information of Finns traveling to the US on Finnair. And the procedures Finnish passengers have to go through when entering the US are demeaning and time consuming, I don't think Finland puts American visitors to Finland through the same kind of procedures.

---

You are arguing that a sovereign nation does not have the right to protect its borders and establish policies for entry to that country. Nobody put a gun to the head of those on Finnair to enter the United States. If they don not want to accept our laws, the solution is simple -- do not travel to the United States.

Does Finland have the right to establish entry policies for Finland? Of course, they do!

Finland's entry laws with respect to citizens of the United States are irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever they are, we would obey the law, or not go to Finland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

How sad and childish.

Agwiii. I would suggest that virtually everyone on this forum is against the actions of Saddam Hussein. He was a tyrant and guilty of Genocide against the Iraqi people. I cannot see why anyone would defend him.

---

:up:

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

You are arguing that a sovereign nation does not have the right to protect its borders and establish policies for entry to that country.

---

Of course they do. And I think I have the right to criticize it verbally, not violently. In return, I don't have that much problem with the US criticizing other countries verbally as long as they are open to dialogue and keep their military inside their own borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Of course they do. And I think I have the right to criticize it verbally, not violently. In return, I don't have that much problem with the US criticizing other countries verbally as long as they are open to dialogue and keep their military inside their own borders.

---

War is simply the continuation of politics using other means, and it will be probably remain a part of human civilization.

so said a certain Charlie from Clausejoke, amongst other things, some 200 years ago :up:

(yes I googled it :p : )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

so said a certain Charlie from Clausejoke, amongst other things, some 200 years ago :up:

(yes I googled it :p : )

---

"Only" 200 years ago? Here's what Jefferson Davis said about slavery some 150 years ago (yes I googled it :p :)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

so said a certain Charlie from Clausejoke, amongst other things, some 200 years ago :up: (yes I googled it :p : )

---

But you forgot to make a point! :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

"Only" 200 years ago? Here's what Jefferson Davis said about slavery some 150 years ago (yes I googled it :p :)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

---

Perhaps you do not realize this, but the Confederate States Of America are no longer in existence. :p : (except in Talledega)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

And the procedures Finnish passengers have to go through when entering the US are demeaning and time consuming

---

I am Australian and live in the US. I have to go through the same entrance procedures as every other non-US citizen/permanent resident. In fact, because I am on a work visa I have to endure sometimes more. The fingerprinting and digital photo are fast and painless. I do not find these procedures to be invasive or demeaning.

I would like to know if you have a personal experience that differs? And does this personal experience apply to ALL Fins just because they are Finnish? Because I in my many experiences of this procedure over the years have not witnessed any form of singling out of certain people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

"Only" 200 years ago? Here's what Jefferson Davis said about slavery some 150 years ago (yes I googled it :p :)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

---

See, Eki, that's why the Confederacy lost. That Davis fellow never knew when to keep his mouth shut. He needed a spin-doctor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvracin

I am Australian and live in the US. I have to go through the same entrance procedures as every other non-US citizen/permanent resident. In fact, because I am on a work visa I have to endure sometimes more. The fingerprinting and digital photo are fast and painless. I do not find these procedures to be invasive or demeaning.

I would like to know if you have a personal experience that differs? And does this personal experience apply to ALL Fins just because they are Finnish? Because I in my many experiences of this procedure over the years have not witnessed any form of singling out of certain people.

---

The last time I was in the US was in the year 2000, that was before the 9/11 attacks. Even then I had to first fill out some forms with stupid questions in the plane that anyone could lie to. Then I had to wait for ages in a line in the middle of the night (Finnish time) in the customs until I had to explain a customs official why I had dared to enter their precious country and where I will be staying during my visit. In the other countries I have visited, I have just walked through the customs, maybe had my luggage X-rayed or my passport stamped if asked to. Nowhere else have I gone through that kind of 3rd degree interigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

Perhaps you do not realize this, but the Confederate States Of America are no longer in existence. :p : (except in Talledega)

---

My point was: If an idea is 200 years old, maybe it's about time to reconsider it?

Double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

The last time I was in the US was in the year 2000, that was before the 9/11 attacks. Even then I had to first fill out some forms with stupid questions in the plane that anyone could lie to. Then I had to wait for ages in a line in the middle of the night (Finnish time) in the customs until I had to explain a customs official why I had dared to enter their precious country and where I will be staying during my visit. In the other countries I have visited, I have just walked through the customs, maybe had my luggage X-rayed or my passport stamped if asked to. Nowhere else have I gone through that kind of 3rd degree interigation.

---

Yep, thats how I feel and thats why they can stick their Disneyland Forida, and their Universal Stoodios and their other important contributions to world culture up their collective butt......though Im also banned after outstaying my welcome.