So, how many did he kill?
 

No, not George W. Bush, we're talking about the piker, Saddam Hussein. How many did he kill in order to justify the death penalty?
Is that it, 140 people? Whoops, wait a minute, no testimony about the 1,000,000 killed by US government WMD's wielded by Iraq and used on Iranians, what's that all about?

Say it ain't so, Joe,

The last thing the US wanted was a legit trial.

Did you ever see the Monty Python sketch, where the guy goes in and pays for an argument?

Fastpat, sometimes I think you are being contrarian, merely for sake of argument alone, the issue be dammed.

If the penalty for killing one is hanging...and you killed millions...the point is rather moot after you hang for killing one...and only an idiot would argue for an additional million trials.

How many people have died as a direct result of Bush's folly in Iraq? I wonder if it's more than 140.

The philosophy of too many authority figures: Kill a man, you're a murderer. Kill many and you're a conqueror. Kill them all, you're a God.


Disclaimer, I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I hold both parties in equal contempt.

If you are claiming that Saddam only killed 140...you are sadly mistaken. that is just an attempt by unethical anti-war activists to mislead uninformed morons. 140 was only the number in the first case against him. They were linked together because they died the same time/way. There are other ongoing trials against Saddam regarding other murders...but I cannot imagine it will make much difference to him at this point.

The US would have executed SH for jaywalking just to cover up American involvement in his other shennanigans.

So, they execute him first, but other trials are still ongoing. How stupid is that? If they find him guilty a second time, what are they gonna do? Execute one of his aliases? LOL.

Aurel

The US didn't try him. The US didn't execute him.
Oh wait, the US does EVERYTHING.
:rolleyes:

If, (and it's a huge "if") there is to be peace in Iraq, it will be after cleaving the nation into three states. THAT task could have been done with the stroke of a pen at the conclusion of Gulf War I with no invasion of Bagdad.

Of course Saddam was a bad guy. The world is full of bad guys. If it's gonna cost $7 trillion and more than 3,000 lives to kill each one we need to rethink this nation building thing.

Sadly, the dyslexic miscreant in the Whitehouse thinks history will remember him as a great visionary. :rolleyes:

I'd be surprised if that's what he really thinks. Perhaps you're confusing him with the King of Legacy Building: President Clinton #1.

Come on Moses, there is no freakin' way Saddam would have allowed that. An all out invasion, overthrowing and occupation would have been required to accomplish it.

Guys, please. This is just part of a campaign. If you didn't take the bait, maybe he would find some other place to cast his long line of BS. I can't believe more of you suckerfish aren't on to this.

Anyone remember the comments about lowest common denominator in the Wal Mart thread? Well, here we are........the trash is looking after the dust.

He had no army. Certainly Kurdish independence would have been easily accomplished by decree at that point. Admittedly a Sunni/Shiite partition would have been trickier.

I agree that we could have done it, but not from outside the borders. And while I'll agree that he had no army with which to fight us, he certainly had one strong enough to quash any internal dissension of the Kurds or otherwise. There is just no effin way Saddam would have stood for a decrease in his empire. We stopped him from expanding and he could barely stomach that, but no way would he surrender any of his control without a gun to his head.

Unfortunately if divided into three parts, it makes some parts incredibly rich and some incredibly poor due to the abundance or lack of natural resources. It also would have made each part weak enough that they could never stand against neighbors (Iran, Syria, Turkey) and each would soon be absorbed..strengthening our enemies and destabilizing the region even more.

Also very true, we would end up with three "allies" to defend instead of one. I'm not saying it's not the best of a bunch of bad options, maybe it is but it's not without major risks.

Then again, who gives a schit? I mean really....., what concern is it of yours what other people choose to discuss? If I do not find a thread interesting, I don't read it. What a concept, huh? What I do not do, is drop into a thread to deride my fellow board members as "bait/suckerfish/lowest common denominator/etc...", and then congratulate myself on my keen insight into the dynamics of BBS behavior. :rolleyes:

You constantly remind us of your distain for the OT board, which is fine, but most of the people I know on Pelican who don't care for this simply do not participate. And that is a large number of people. The owner of the company participates here, as do many other people whom I do not consider "the lowest common denominator."

This is basically an ongoing cocktail party where people are having conversations, some are as frivolous as a fart joke and some are as serious as a death in the family or a divorce. What no one needs is someone walking around sticking his head into these conversations only to make an uninformed judgment about the people participating w/o contributing anything of value, ever.

It takes many different personality types to make a good party or salon, but the one type that is really death is the unrelentingly negative, "annoyed with life" energy that you bring. Do us a favor and carry out your threat to leave OT, or change your tune. I do not mean this as an attack, on the contrary I would tell a friend this face-to-face if they seemed as negative and depressed as you are here. You need to check yourself.

+1