Saddam should be taken out back and shot, forget the trial!

[tallest1]

I'll admit, the whole shooting thing is probably not the way we should go. What I'm saying is that it would simplyify things greatly, and I think when we all look back on this ten years from now, we won't have gained that much useful information from him,

The guy has been killing people for 12 years. We could discover who he killed, when they were killed, how they were killed, and oh yeah, where the WMDs are, but it seems WMD's are a non-issue for Bush nowdays.

or he'll be turned loose or escape to kill more people

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!! Unless sadaam is a Terminator-esque robot from the future, thats not gonna happen.

..... and on a sidenote, I find it hilarious that people are using 12 year old evidence to argue that Iraq is a threat to us. If someone used 12 year old evidence to prove that, say, I was a moron - everyone would laugh their ass off at him.

 

[BlackJesus03]

Originally posted by: tallest1

I'll admit, the whole shooting thing is probably not the way we should go. What I'm saying is that it would simplyify things greatly, and I think when we all look back on this ten years from now, we won't have gained that much useful information from him,

The guy has been killing people for 12 years. We could discover who he killed, when they were killed, how they were killed, and oh yeah, where the WMDs are, but it seems WMD's are a non-issue for Bush nowdays.

or he'll be turned loose or escape to kill more people

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!! Unless sadaam is a Terminator-esque robot from the future, thats not gonna happen.

..... and on a sidenote, I find it hilarious that people are using 12 year old evidence to argue that Iraq is a threat to us. If someone used 12 year old evidence to prove that, say, I was a moron - everyone would laugh their ass off at him.

Hey moron, that 12 year old evidence is very f@cking relevent considering the fact that the very same dictator was ruling then. Plus, Saddam doesn't have to be the one to single-handeedly escape from prison. There are these things called friends (which I'm sure you know nothing about). These mythical, fantastic creatures have the ability to "bribe" and "threaten" people, as well as- wait- hold on- KILL THEM! Holy jumpin jehusafet!

jack@ss

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03

Originally posted by: tallest1

I'll admit, the whole shooting thing is probably not the way we should go. What I'm saying is that it would simplyify things greatly, and I think when we all look back on this ten years from now, we won't have gained that much useful information from him,

The guy has been killing people for 12 years. We could discover who he killed, when they were killed, how they were killed, and oh yeah, where the WMDs are, but it seems WMD's are a non-issue for Bush nowdays.

or he'll be turned loose or escape to kill more people

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!! Unless sadaam is a Terminator-esque robot from the future, thats not gonna happen.

..... and on a sidenote, I find it hilarious that people are using 12 year old evidence to argue that Iraq is a threat to us. If someone used 12 year old evidence to prove that, say, I was a moron - everyone would laugh their ass off at him.

Hey moron, that 12 year old evidence is very f@cking relevent considering the fact that the very same dictator was ruling then. Plus, Saddam doesn't have to be the one to single-handeedly escape from prison. There are these things called friends (which I'm sure you know nothing about). These mythical, fantastic creatures have the ability to "bribe" and "threaten" people, as well as- wait- hold on- KILL THEM! Holy jumpin jehusafet!

jack@ss

Unbelievable. You will support killing of 13000 innocent Iraqis still, and still give support to your leaders, who admittedly lied, and then still point a finger to Saddam? Why? How about this same "dictator" was provided military aid and weapons by the leaders of US not much before the first Gulf War? Was he not a dictator then? Dude, you really need some help. Your post reeks of rudeness. Shame other Anandtech members tolerate such language.

 

[Romans828]

Saddam is and was the enemy thats why.

He and ANYONE supporting him is the ENEMY....... to hard to grasp?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Romans828
Saddam is and was the enemy thats why.

He and ANYONE supporting him is the ENEMY....... to hard to grasp?

Enemy of who? The US? Or rather, Bush and Rumsfield and Wolfowitz? What are you talking about? Who else is the enemy? Syria? Iran? North Korea? Why are they the enemy? What did Saddam personally do to you? Or to America? Even the links to Al-Qaeda have been completely unfound, and proven to be lies.

The US needs an enemy every few years. Some years back, it was the Red Army. Suddenly out of the blue, after a period of 3/4 years of no UN Inspection, Saddam suddenly was a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, who had Nuclear weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction and the ability to deliver them in 45 minutes (according to Bush's pet puppy Blair). This after Iraq declared it DID NOT possess any WMD. On the other side, North Korea openly declared it had nuclear weapons. Which country was attacked? Iraq.

Come on buddy, what are you saying?

 

[d3n]

Iraq does have a role in the Global War on Terror weather you want to give credit to it directly or indirectly. Taking that into consideration the United States can not execute Saddam Hussein.

//rant time // (slightly off topic)

The United States has gone the right course I believe with its policy of taking direct action to remedy the underlying factors that breed Islamic extremist in Arab worlds.

Up front this meant an overwhelming show of force to demonstrate that this nation is not a meek diplomacy touting weakling that has only served to embolden the terrorist. This happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now it means establishing an Iraqi democracy in the heart of the Islamic world. If it is successful (only time will tell) then it will be a driving force for fundamental change in that part of the globe.

Most Islamic fundamentalist see an Iraqi democracy as an extremely vile thing because they have a vision of the whole world living under strict Islamic law. No open religious interpretations here... no room for even the whole of true Islamic teachings because it contradicts with their personal vendettas. Simply live by the strict interpretation of Islam from a select few or be condemned to death. Nothing will sway them from that perception. True Muslims will find violence intolerable. If the United States can help this section of the Muslim world prevail then terrorism will die on the vine.

It is not easy and might not ever become reality, but no other country on this planet can make it happen. If we don?t even try we sit here and wait to become a target again, because they will not give us the courtesy of simply 'leaving us alone' as so many in this country are screaming for us to do to them.

No nation lives in a bubble. That includes the United States. It can be reactive and erode away or it can shape policy across the globe to its desire in order to establish its own sovereign interests and give the people of this country the best possible place to live. The same as it has been doing for he past 200+ years. Learn your history.

To preserve any type of relationship with the moderate?s in the Muslim community the United States must let the Iraqi people decide what happens to him. This will make the Iraqi democracy credible because Saddams fate will have been decided by them and not the United States, at least not directly, and that will be all that counts for the brief period of time remaining for anyone still gives a damn about Saddam Hussien.

//rant over//

 

[BlackJesus03]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Romans828
Saddam is and was the enemy thats why.

He and ANYONE supporting him is the ENEMY....... to hard to grasp?

Enemy of who? The US? Or rather, Bush and Rumsfield and Wolfowitz? What are you talking about? Who else is the enemy? Syria? Iran? North Korea? Why are they the enemy? What did Saddam personally do to you? Or to America? Even the links to Al-Qaeda have been completely unfound, and proven to be lies.

The US needs an enemy every few years. Some years back, it was the Red Army. Suddenly out of the blue, after a period of 3/4 years of no UN Inspection, Saddam suddenly was a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, who had Nuclear weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction and the ability to deliver them in 45 minutes (according to Bush's pet puppy Blair). This after Iraq declared it DID NOT possess any WMD. On the other side, North Korea openly declared it had nuclear weapons. Which country was attacked? Iraq.

Come on buddy, what are you saying?

Holy crap. You have got to be kidding me. You sound like someone who has lived in Iraq for the past twenty years soaking up his propaganda like a good little girl. You could be Saddam's poster child for those who can't think on their own and use boring, overused rhetoric as a response to anything that pokes wholes in their obviously flawed arguments.

Let's just assume for one tiny second that Iraq did have WMD. Do you think they're just gonna say, "Oh alright guys, you got us. We do have biological and chemical weapons?" Of course not. Secondly, Saddam has caused incalculable strife in the world, and while there is no hard evidence he was involved with 9/11, he was and would have continued to be a serious threat to the free world.

Just look at the shape his country is in now? Women can't walk around with their heads uncovered and they can barely see(though I'm sure you'd like that since it would give you an excuse as to why they don't notice you), the education system sucks, and everybody makes like 10 bucks a month.

Now, while Romans and I have never seen eye to eye on anything, this time he's perfectly right. And i hope to h@ll that you don't live in the U.S., and if you do, get the hell out of here if you don't like it.So, from now on, lets just try to keep our mouth shut when we have nothing intelligent to say, and that way you'll look a lot less idiotic. (Should be nice for a change, huh?)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"Just look at the shape his country is in now? Women can't walk around with their heads uncovered and they can barely see(though I'm sure you'd like that since it would give you an excuse as to why they don't notice you), the education system sucks, and everybody makes like 10 bucks a month."



When did this start happening?

 

[BlackJesus03]

Iraq's economy declines by half


By Steve Schifferes
BBC News Online economics reporter



The security situation is still critical
The scale of the task facing the United States and the international community in Iraq has been highlighted by the first detailed figures since the conflict ended on the state of the Arab country's economy.
Iraq's economy will shrink 22% this year, having fallen 21% in 2002 and 12% in 2001, the United Nations and the World Bank have estimated.

The figures, which have been published ahead of a major meeting of donor nations, suggest that reconstruction work in Iraq will be slower to take effect than originally hoped.

Average income in Iraq fell from $3,600 per person in 1980 to between $770 and $1,020 by 2001 and will be just $450-610 by the end of 2003, the UN and World Bank said.

Even by the end of 2004, the two organisations estimate that average income could be lower than in 2001.

 

[BlackJesus03]

From the CIA world Fact book

Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 40.4%
male: 55.9%
female: 24.4% (2003 est.)

Good enough for ya?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Romans828
Saddam is and was the enemy thats why.

He and ANYONE supporting him is the ENEMY....... to hard to grasp?

Saddam was not always "the enemy". Back when he was at war with Iran he was an ally.

Wait, maybe your statement was meant to be sarcasm....

 

[Sultan]

BlackJesus03

Holy crap. You have got to be kidding me. You sound like someone who has lived in Iraq for the past twenty years soaking up his propaganda like a good little girl. You could be Saddam's poster child for those who can't think on their own and use boring, overused rhetoric as a response to anything that pokes wholes in their obviously flawed arguments.

Let's just assume for one tiny second that Iraq did have WMD. Do you think they're just gonna say, "Oh alright guys, you got us. We do have biological and chemical weapons?" Of course not. Secondly, Saddam has caused incalculable strife in the world, and while there is no hard evidence he was involved with 9/11, he was and would have continued to be a serious threat to the free world.

Just look at the shape his country is in now? Women can't walk around with their heads uncovered and they can barely see(though I'm sure you'd like that since it would give you an excuse as to why they don't notice you), the education system sucks, and everybody makes like 10 bucks a month.

Now, while Romans and I have never seen eye to eye on anything, this time he's perfectly right. And i hope to h@ll that you don't live in the U.S., and if you do, get the hell out of here if you don't like it.So, from now on, lets just try to keep our mouth shut when we have nothing intelligent to say, and that way you'll look a lot less idiotic. (Should be nice for a change, huh?)

None of your statements has any, ANY factual basis. By the assumption you made, about Iraq having WMD, the US went and killed THIRTEEN THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILIANS!!! So let us NOT assume things, please.

Women go around with their head covered in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and many other Muslim nations. I dont complain when women around here stroll along the beach wearing bikinis, why are you complaining. Not only is covering the heads part of the religion of those folk, it is also past of their culture. I dont think you have ever been to an Iraqi school, so keep your mouth shut about that too. Almost all of Africa makes less that $10 a month, what does that prove?

By the way, YOU are soaking up propoganda of YOUR government, a member of which just recently came out today and said the evidence used to support the US case in front of the UN were false. If you dont read news and want to see everything with eyes closed, keep your mouth shut.

On a side note, you should enroll in a school where they teach manners. You obviously lack decent manners, let alone any form of intelligence.

 

[josphII]

lets all vote for kerry so he can pull our troops out and reinstate saddam as the supreme ruler of iraq... because it was such a big mistake to liberate the iraqi's, right?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: josphII
lets all vote for kerry so he can pull our troops out and reinstate saddam as the supreme ruler of iraq... because it was such a big mistake to liberate the iraqi's, right?

What does Kerry have to do with this topic? I second your idea about pulling out the troops. I even think if you reinstate Saddam, his people can now do what they please with him. He does not hold any power or authority anymore over the Iraqi people. I second this idea as well. And yes, it was a big mistake to send troops there based on FALSE claims of WMD's. No one mentioned anything about liberation at the start of this war.

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: josphII
lets all vote for kerry so he can pull our troops out and reinstate saddam as the supreme ruler of iraq... because it was such a big mistake to liberate the iraqi's, right?

What does Kerry have to do with this topic? I second your idea about pulling out the troops. I even think if you reinstate Saddam, his people can now do what they please with him. He does not hold any power or authority anymore over the Iraqi people. I second this idea as well. And yes, it was a big mistake to send troops there based on FALSE claims of WMD's. No one mentioned anything about liberation at the start of this war.

American isolationism has always costs this country dearly. Our role as neutrals and arbitrators only served to escalate two World Wars to the point that millions of lives were lost. President Bush stated that you are either with us or the terrorist. Saddam Hussein was defiantly not with us. All evidence about WMDs aside , he did provide money to terrorist. If not indirectly supporting them in other ways. I despise war, but this country is in a war weather we would like to vote it out of existence or not in the upcoming election. We are not in a war with Islam but terrorist who manipulate the people of Islamic countries and blame non Islamic ideals for their problems in life. In the week following September of 2001 you may have seen a list on the news of 8 or 9 nation states that were blatantly friendly to terrorism. Largely, we have only addressed three so far.

To protect our families here in the U.S. and those of any 'democratic' country, every one of those 8 or 9 countries has to be changed in a fundamental way. Islamic traditions will always be sacred but the governments that are running these countries simply must not be allowed to sponsor terrorism towards Israel, the U.S., U.K., and any other democratic country that allows people to openly practice a religion other than Islam. There are hundreds of Islamic countries in the world but these 8 or 9, again, take direction from a select group of people that promote violence and hatred.

Now that Saddam Hussein is gone we have an opportunity to establish a friendship with Iraq. Perhaps over time Iraq will be a catalyst for peaceful change in the area. Democracy is catchy and hard to stop if it is working. When it is not, populations are open to hate mongering and dictatorships. Eventually, in that case, someone will find themselves at the tip of a bayonet or under the heel of a boot. Then you?ll have no choice but to use force? and probably with less favorable prospects.

 

[d3n]

yep

 

[Wolfdog]

So just because he gave money to terrorists he should be executed? Saddam is no better than Bush. You need not look back too far into the US's own history to see that american governmnets have done the EXACT same thing. Who do you think funded al quieda at its onset? Do you even remember the Iran-contra affair? Mr North purgering himself infront of the nation during Regans years? The us has sold weapons to terrorist or fundamentalist groups without hesitation.Made in America takes on a new meaning here guys. When the weapons of mass destruction were sold to the middle east in the 70's. The US has practiced selective genocide in past times also. So why not shoot them also? The US has taken away said "rights" when it suits thier needs to further thier own propaganda. Sucked to be American during WWII for the japaneese. Do you think that thier lives and the money that they lost was given back to them. Thier homes and buinesses? So give me a break when saying that they are some nebulous "evil" beast when the US isn't exactly practicing what is being preached. You should take personal pride in the fact that biological weapons were used to decimate the native american populations in the early days. Slavery anyone? Moving forward into the vietnam era there were many accounts of decimation of entire communities of innocent women and children. Sucks to be them? Saddam is such a small fish in the barrel compared to true emminent threats. North Korea comes to mind, but then again Bush doesn't have the cajones to root out that government. So he instead attacked one that couldn't even defend itself. All Iraq had was rocks and foul language. Based on a complete lie. If this all holds true with most of the statements above, maybe the world should band together and root out one of the worst evils in history. The US has propagated all this destruction.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03
From the CIA world Fact book

Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 40.4%
male: 55.9%
female: 24.4% (2003 est.)

Good enough for ya?

No, because I can quote statistics in a vacuum.

Women having to cover themselves in public, eh? This was a policy Saddam instituted? No.

Saddam was an SOB, but you are projecting. Fundamentalism may be on the rise, and if it is, the US opened the door for it surely as we did for Iran with the Shah. Islamic fundamentalism is prospering because we sowed the fields for it, not Saddam.

Sorry, but Bush gets credit for that.

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
So just because he gave money to terrorists he should be executed? Saddam is no better than Bush. You need not look back too far into the US's own history to see that american governmnets have done the EXACT same thing. Who do you think funded al quieda at its onset? Do you even remember the Iran-contra affair? Mr North purgering himself infront of the nation during Regans years? The us has sold weapons to terrorist or fundamentalist groups without hesitation.Made in America takes on a new meaning here guys. When the weapons of mass destruction were sold to the middle east in the 70's. The US has practiced selective genocide in past times also. So why not shoot them also? The US has taken away said "rights" when it suits thier needs to further thier own propaganda. Sucked to be American during WWII for the japaneese. Do you think that thier lives and the money that they lost was given back to them. Thier homes and buinesses? So give me a break when saying that they are some nebulous "evil" beast when the US isn't exactly practicing what is being preached. You should take personal pride in the fact that biological weapons were used to decimate the native american populations in the early days. Slavery anyone? Moving forward into the vietnam era there were many accounts of decimation of entire communities of innocent women and children. Sucks to be them? Saddam is such a small fish in the barrel compared to true emminent threats. North Korea comes to mind, but then again Bush doesn't have the cajones to root out that government. So he instead attacked one that couldn't even defend itself. All Iraq had was rocks and foul language. Based on a complete lie. If this all holds true with most of the statements above, maybe the world should band together and root out one of the worst evils in history. The US has propagated all this destruction.

I never said that we should execute Saddam Hussein. In fact if you look at my previous post from the one you comment on I explicitly state that the U.S. should not execute Saddam Hussein.
The U.S. has always done what was in its best interests, at times that has meant taking military action. Sometimes that meant making allies with organizations that probably should have been left alone. You mention the U.S. propagating destruction. I say that this points to the world we live in. Violence is not a localized failure. It is a global failure and everyone shares the blame.

Everyone guns for #1... and their are allot of guns in the world today.

 

[BlackJesus03]

Originally posted by: Sultan
BlackJesus03

Holy crap. You have got to be kidding me. You sound like someone who has lived in Iraq for the past twenty years soaking up his propaganda like a good little girl. You could be Saddam's poster child for those who can't think on their own and use boring, overused rhetoric as a response to anything that pokes wholes in their obviously flawed arguments.

Let's just assume for one tiny second that Iraq did have WMD. Do you think they're just gonna say, "Oh alright guys, you got us. We do have biological and chemical weapons?" Of course not. Secondly, Saddam has caused incalculable strife in the world, and while there is no hard evidence he was involved with 9/11, he was and would have continued to be a serious threat to the free world.

Just look at the shape his country is in now? Women can't walk around with their heads uncovered and they can barely see(though I'm sure you'd like that since it would give you an excuse as to why they don't notice you), the education system sucks, and everybody makes like 10 bucks a month.

Now, while Romans and I have never seen eye to eye on anything, this time he's perfectly right. And i hope to h@ll that you don't live in the U.S., and if you do, get the hell out of here if you don't like it.So, from now on, lets just try to keep our mouth shut when we have nothing intelligent to say, and that way you'll look a lot less idiotic. (Should be nice for a change, huh?)

None of your statements has any, ANY factual basis. By the assumption you made, about Iraq having WMD, the US went and killed THIRTEEN THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILIANS!!! So let us NOT assume things, please.

Women go around with their head covered in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and many other Muslim nations. I dont complain when women around here stroll along the beach wearing bikinis, why are you complaining. Not only is covering the heads part of the religion of those folk, it is also past of their culture. I dont think you have ever been to an Iraqi school, so keep your mouth shut about that too. Almost all of Africa makes less that $10 a month, what does that prove?

By the way, YOU are soaking up propoganda of YOUR government, a member of which just recently came out today and said the evidence used to support the US case in front of the UN were false. If you dont read news and want to see everything with eyes closed, keep your mouth shut.

On a side note, you should enroll in a school where they teach manners. You obviously lack decent manners, let alone any form of intelligence.

Hmmm... I don't think I ever complained about American women walking around in bikinis. Maybe you wanted me too, so you wouldn't have to feel so bad about YOU not wanting them to, as they don't usually fraternize with losers who seem to have a misplaced affinity for caps lock.

Furthermore, i realize that women do walk around with their heads covered as part of their religion, but also out of fear for their crazy ass government. And as to making arguments without any factual basis, maybe you were just so hotheaded that you didn't notice the post 2 ahead of your so incredibly eloquent fountain of crap. The average citizen in Iraq, according to that news story, makes less than 3600 a year, and falling. And yes, Africa is also very poor. Thank you for noticing. Notice that they aren't enjoying a very high quality of life there either, but what I was getting at was that the poor economy of the Iraqis was directly due to Saddam. They are neck-deep in exportable oil, but that doesn't help very much when your leader is building multi-million dollar palaces.

You seem to be very worked up over this. Usually people get overly-defensive when they know deep down they are fighting for a lost cause, or are wrong. Maybe its time for you to recognize this fact. And finally, not that this will change anything you think, but i regularly get my news not only from cnn and like organizations, but alternative, non-corporation owned, non-profit press. and to your statement about the civilians, thats too bad. But better them than us.

 

[BlackJesus03]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03
From the CIA world Fact book

Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 40.4%
male: 55.9%
female: 24.4% (2003 est.)

Good enough for ya?

No, because I can quote statistics in a vacuum.

Women having to cover themselves in public, eh? This was a policy Saddam instituted? No.

Saddam was an SOB, but you are projecting. Fundamentalism may be on the rise, and if it is, the US opened the door for it surely as we did for Iran with the Shah. Islamic fundamentalism is prospering because we sowed the fields for it, not Saddam.

Sorry, but Bush gets credit for that.

Bush sucks. We all know that . Stop beating a dead horse for christ sake. And good for you. Lots of people can come up with statistics. Its recognizing their meaning that gets most. So take a second look at them, and you'll learn something for once.

Your right. Saddam did not institute the policy of women covering their heads, but he sure as hell found other ways to discriminate against them, often using religion as an automatic basis for right. Check the literacy rate for women. 24%? And your telling me they were better off then, when they weren't allowed to go to school?

 

[CQuinn]

Your right. Saddam did not institute the policy of women covering their heads, but he sure as hell found other ways to discriminate against them, often using religion as an automatic basis for right. Check the literacy rate for women. 24%? And your telling me they were better off then, when they weren't allowed to go to school?

Better off than what? Again, compared to other countries in the region and other islamic nations in
general, Iraq came and comes across as a fairly progressive nation that actually had a conceptual basis
for equality among the sexes. Saddam discriminated against specific social groups, using tribal ties
to specific social structures within Iraqi society to maintain his base of power. I have seen no evidence
that he held a specific agenda against women as a whole (compared to Saudi Arabia for instance), and
in fact several of the prominent scientists that we were looking for to "prove" evidence of WMDs were
women.

Your original arguement is still getting weaker as we go along.

 

[BlackJesus03]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Your right. Saddam did not institute the policy of women covering their heads, but he sure as hell found other ways to discriminate against them, often using religion as an automatic basis for right. Check the literacy rate for women. 24%? And your telling me they were better off then, when they weren't allowed to go to school?

Better off than what? Again, compared to other countries in the region and other islamic nations in
general, Iraq came and comes across as a fairly progressive nation that actually had a conceptual basis
for equality among the sexes. Saddam discriminated against specific social groups, using tribal ties
to specific social structures within Iraqi society to maintain his base of power. I have seen no evidence
that he held a specific agenda against women as a whole (compared to Saudi Arabia for instance), and
in fact several of the prominent scientists that we were looking for to "prove" evidence of WMDs were
women.

Your original arguement is still getting weaker as we go along.

Sweet- you mean compared to countries that openly discriminated against their women, Iraq comes out on top? oh my god. what a relief. i was talking about compared to countries like the US and Britain-countries that actually matter in the grand scheme of the world and have taken steps over the past 100 years to equalize things. Of course Iraq is better than some. The issue is that they are worst that most.

And if you need specific evidence, how about that 24 % literacy arte among women? Now, you might actually have to do some critical thinking here. I know its tough, but try. Low literacy means low percentage and achievement in schooling. Now, it makes sense that if you aren't allowed to go to school, you probably didn't get much schooling, right? Very good, now, try to drive thorugh that headache and follow along here. Why wouldn't women be allowed to go to school? Because saddam didn't want them to? maybe, but the point is that they weren't allowed to go to school. Thats discrimination fo the highest sort me. Good job. You can go take a nap now.

 

[CurtisEbear]

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03


Sweet- you mean compared to countries that openly discriminated against their women, Iraq comes out on top? oh my god. what a relief. i was talking about compared to countries like the US and Britain-countries that actually matter in the grand scheme of the world and have taken steps over the past 100 years to equalize things. Of course Iraq is better than some. The issue is that they are worst that most.

And if you need specific evidence, how about that 24 % literacy arte among women? Now, you might actually have to do some critical thinking here. I know its tough, but try. Low literacy means low percentage and achievement in schooling. Now, it makes sense that if you aren't allowed to go to school, you probably didn't get much schooling, right? Very good, now, try to drive thorugh that headache and follow along here. Why wouldn't women be allowed to go to school? Because saddam didn't want them to? maybe, but the point is that they weren't allowed to go to school. Thats discrimination fo the highest sort me. Good job. You can go take a nap now.

Literacy arte eh? drive thorugh that headache? Kind of ironic coming from someone ranting about who is and isn't allowed to go to school....
shhhhhhhh...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CurtisEbear

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03


Sweet- you mean compared to countries that openly discriminated against their women, Iraq comes out on top? oh my god. what a relief. i was talking about compared to countries like the US and Britain-countries that actually matter in the grand scheme of the world and have taken steps over the past 100 years to equalize things. Of course Iraq is better than some. The issue is that they are worst that most.

And if you need specific evidence, how about that 24 % literacy arte among women? Now, you might actually have to do some critical thinking here. I know its tough, but try. Low literacy means low percentage and achievement in schooling. Now, it makes sense that if you aren't allowed to go to school, you probably didn't get much schooling, right? Very good, now, try to drive thorugh that headache and follow along here. Why wouldn't women be allowed to go to school? Because saddam didn't want them to? maybe, but the point is that they weren't allowed to go to school. Thats discrimination fo the highest sort me. Good job. You can go take a nap now.

Literacy arte eh? drive thorugh that headache? Kind of ironic coming from someone ranting about who is and isn't allowed to go to school....
shhhhhhhh...

It's no more ironic than you trying to correct someone's spelling by spelling something wrong yourself!