20 June 2005, 21:18 UTC#1
saddamwe all knew he was a bit crazy, but he really is wtf is he thinkin
Image file not present in the recovered backup 20 June 2005, 21:21 UTC#2
lol he speaks nearly as bad english as 'soas'
QUOTE
"America, they dumb," he said. "They bomb wrong palace."
20 June 2005, 21:27 UTC#3
Everyone knows he is a phsyco, but this takes the biscuit. Interesting read

20 June 2005, 21:39 UTC#4
I think they should send him back to his own country...and have them deal with it...its not the US's job to control what happens in other countries..
20 June 2005, 21:43 UTC#5
agrees
20 June 2005, 21:48 UTC#6
QUOTE(WEAK @ Jun 20 2005, 10:39 PM)
I think they should send him back to his own country...and have them deal with it...its not the US's job to control what happens in other countries..
[right][snapback]102873[/snapback][/right]
If he went back to Iraq he'd be dead within minutes, they despise him.
Fuck it, send him back

20 June 2005, 21:48 UTC#7
QUOTE(WEAK @ Jun 20 2005, 11:39 PM)
I think they should send him back to his own country...and have them deal with it...its not the US's job to control what happens in other countries..
[right][snapback]102873[/snapback][/right]
Thats true, although the US has been helping out a lot, if it wasn't for America, Saddam would still have his reign of terror.
20 June 2005, 21:58 UTC#8
yeah, but iraq would still be a reasonably stable place unlike it is today, its a fuckin state coz of the yanks. they should of gone for somewhere like zimbabwe and take out that fruity mugabe character or the wee north korean dude instead of saddam.
20 June 2005, 22:00 UTC#9
We're all assuming its America's right to charge into a country and extract its government. Would you be so eager to back them if they decided YOUR government was treating you unfairly and needed to be disposed of?
Heh, I love playing devil's advocate

20 June 2005, 22:08 UTC#10
I'd fight against the goverment if I had no reason to be disposed of, the good guy always wins.
20 June 2005, 22:43 UTC#11
QUOTE(Rob - DR - @ Jun 21 2005, 12:00 AM)
We're all assuming its America's right to charge into a country and extract its government. Would you be so eager to back them if they decided YOUR government was treating you unfairly and needed to be disposed of?
Heh, I love playing devil's advocate

[right][snapback]102896[/snapback][/right]
True, but the situation of Saddam was a little more complex
20 June 2005, 22:46 UTC#12
QUOTE(gman @ Jun 20 2005, 11:43 PM)
QUOTE(Rob - DR - @ Jun 21 2005, 12:00 AM)
We're all assuming its America's right to charge into a country and extract its government. Would you be so eager to back them if they decided YOUR government was treating you unfairly and needed to be disposed of?
Heh, I love playing devil's advocate

[right][snapback]102896[/snapback][/right]
True, but the situation of Saddam was a little more complex
[right][snapback]102921[/snapback][/right]
Damn right it was, it was flooded with government bullshit about weapons and terrorists.
20 June 2005, 23:23 UTC#13
My understanding is that the purpose of the war was to take Saddam out of power because the government was positive he had weapons of mass destruction. When no wmds were found...the media and government then tried to make it out like we were there to make it a better place and help the civillians.
Saddam did some extremely fucked up shit, but its nothing new. 3rd world countries with dictators who slaughter their own people and fuck everything up are way to common.
If the US was to try to rid other countries of corruption, mass murder, and that other shit...we would be at war for the rest of our lives..
21 June 2005, 00:24 UTC#14
QUOTE(Nico @ Jun 20 2005, 09:58 PM)
yeah, but iraq would still be a reasonably stable place unlike it is today, its a fuckin state coz of the yanks. they should of gone for somewhere like zimbabwe and take out that fruity mugabe character or the wee north korean dude instead of saddam.
[right][snapback]102895[/snapback][/right]
I like your attitude
Image file not present in the recovered backup21 June 2005, 00:34 UTC#15
I don't think he ever had it to begin with, but I have a feeling he's definitly telling the truth about us KNOWING he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.
21 June 2005, 00:52 UTC#16
QUOTE
Tomm Today, 12:24 AM Post #14
QUOTE(Nico @ Jun 20 2005, 09:58 PM)
yeah, but iraq would still be a reasonably stable place unlike it is today, its a fuckin state coz of the yanks. they should of gone for somewhere like zimbabwe and take out that fruity mugabe character or the wee north korean dude instead of saddam.
I like your attitude
good choice my friend.
let's be honest, the yanks used saddam as a scape goat because they will never find osama. even though saddam has never had any dealings with osama in his puff.
21 June 2005, 01:14 UTC#17
QUOTE
let's be honest, the yanks used saddam as a scape goat because they will never find osama
yeah for real.