The Hussein execution is so on schedule ***UPdated He's dead***

[Gamingphreek]

Lol, since the U.S. invasion, 600,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have died, couple more years and more Iraqis will be dying due to the Invasion than Saddam's 30 year rule.

They are dying indirectly as a result of the invasion. The killing of Iraqi civilians, unlike the millions that Saddam killed, was not the US's primary objective.

-Kevin

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Lol, since the U.S. invasion, 600,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have died, couple more years and more Iraqis will be dying due to the Invasion than Saddam's 30 year rule.

They are dying indirectly as a result of the invasion. The killing of Iraqi civilians, unlike the millions that Saddam killed, was not the US's primary objective.

-Kevin

what was the U.S's primary objective?

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Lol, since the U.S. invasion, 600,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have died, couple more years and more Iraqis will be dying due to the Invasion than Saddam's 30 year rule.

They are dying indirectly as a result of the invasion. The killing of Iraqi civilians, unlike the millions that Saddam killed, was not the US's primary objective.

It was just an added bonus

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Lol, since the U.S. invasion, 600,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have died, couple more years and more Iraqis will be dying due to the Invasion than Saddam's 30 year rule.

They are dying indirectly as a result of the invasion. The killing of Iraqi civilians, unlike the millions that Saddam killed, was not the US's primary objective.

It was just an added bonus

Oh give me a break. You honestly think that Bush and the Generals said "Ok, we are going to just go over there and MOW DOWN civilians for no apparent reason??". STFU and get out of here with that as it is essentially an accusation of murder.

As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed. However, in addition to that I have to acknowledge that there were definitely some economic ties to Iraq (Oil).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: fallenangel99

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
wtf r u talking about aidanjm Saddam Hussein ordered many mass killings of innocent ppl. he is believed to have ordered killings that ended up being around 2 million people. only 400,000 have been I.D.ed so tell what r u smoking when u mean that there is no justice

Lol, since the U.S. invasion, 600,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have died, couple more years and more Iraqis will be dying due to the Invasion than Saddam's 30 year rule.

Oh well, let's see if things calm down over there since majority of Iraqis wanted him dead.

The 600,000 figure is BS. Nobody in the world believes that many people in Iraq have died in three years. Even the people who did the study admited that they had a politcal bias against the war.

The most widely believed figure is still 50,000-60,000. At most maybe 100,000 have died. And those people are being killed by other Iraqis or outsiders, not the US and its Allies.

I am guessing by your post that you want the US to stay in Iraq, since our leaving would send this death toll even higher. Am I right about this?

 

[Aimster]

The 600,000 figure might be accurate if the Iraqis actually fought the U.S.

I believe the only major battle in this war was the 15 village idiots firing their guns at a supply convoy

The U.S for the most part is not killing civilians. They are fighting insurgents.
The civilians are dying from terrorists

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed. However, in addition to that I have to acknowledge that there were definitely some economic ties to Iraq (Oil).

You mean our close allies Syria and Iran?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Lol, since the U.S. invasion, 600,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have died, couple more years and more Iraqis will be dying due to the Invasion than Saddam's 30 year rule.

They are dying indirectly as a result of the invasion. The killing of Iraqi civilians, unlike the millions that Saddam killed, was not the US's primary objective.

-Kevin

what was the U.S's primary objective?

Get that WMD.

Apparently Saddam himself was the WMD.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed. However, in addition to that I have to acknowledge that there were definitely some economic ties to Iraq (Oil).

You mean our close allies Syria and Iran?

Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

-Kevin

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed. However, in addition to that I have to acknowledge that there were definitely some economic ties to Iraq (Oil).

You mean our close allies Syria and Iran?

Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

-Kevin

Iraq's military was destroyed during the Gulf War.

I think if we armed ATOT with 9mm we could have taken them out.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed. However, in addition to that I have to acknowledge that there were definitely some economic ties to Iraq (Oil).

You mean our close allies Syria and Iran?

Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

-Kevin

Iraq's military was destroyed during the Gulf War.

I think if we armed ATOT with 9mm we could have taken them out.

Well apparently it, or at the very least, its supporters weren't as you can see today.

-Kevin

 

[dahunan]

So, you think spending $300,000,000,000 and 3000 soldiers lives was worth it for us to help out Syria and Iran .... lost.. way lost..

Not to mention .. making America look more and more like warmongers and killers -- see how scared it made Iran - NOT

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed. However, in addition to that I have to acknowledge that there were definitely some economic ties to Iraq (Oil).

You mean our close allies Syria and Iran?

Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

-Kevin

Iraq's military was destroyed during the Gulf War.

I think if we armed ATOT with 9mm we could have taken them out.

Well apparently it, or at the very least, its supporters weren't as you can see today.

-Kevin

They have weapons, but in no way are those weapons a threat to nations such as Iran or Syria.

Iraq was only a threat to Iran before the Gulf War. Iraq had a million man army with the best Russian weapons money could buy. His army could have eventually pushed all the way to Israel.
However, the U.S had stealth weapons and the air domination destroyed Iraq's military. Iraq was surprised that the U.S had these weapons (first time ever used), and therefore their military was not ready for such a surprise.
After the Gulf War Iraq was never able to rearm themselves because of UN sanctions and because they were dirt no longer rich.

The U.S is scared to invade Iran. What makes you think a post-Gulf War Iraq would have any luck doing so?
The same goes for Syria. Saddam hated Persians, not Arabs.
He invaded Kuwait for oil. Syria has nothing.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

-Kevin

He had far, far less ability to invade Syria or Iran than they (particularly the latter) had to invade Iraq. He also had a demonstrably far less evolved WMD program than Iran, in spite of our country's generous provision of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq during the Reagan administration.

I'll also point out that, by the criteria you have raised, we should presumably also attack China, North Korea, and a host of other countries, which have the ability to attack, and demonstrated hostile intent toward, their neighbors.

 

[Lemon law]

No NO NO------you don't attack countries that can fight back---that gets a lot of your people killed----you only attack countries that have sham armies---but first you spend weeks and months telling the world how tough and evil they are with the propaganda arm of your intelligence services ---and then go in with a light force to attack the non-existent army your real intelligence had already told you was the true state of affairs, and when you win against token resistance---you blame your own intelligence propaganda arm for having it wrong.

Its all in my steal other countries assets for dummies book.--------but looks like GWB just skimmed it and missed the chapter on things you gotta do right or it all comes crashing down.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

There may be a cell-phone video of the execution.

**WARNING** Alleged video of Sadam being hanged **NSFW**

I don't know how you would confirm if it's real or not.

Edit: Guess it's been posted already.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed.

So why can't THOSE countries fight the war themselves?
Why didn't THOSE join the US led coalition?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No NO NO------you don't attack countries that can fight back---that gets a lot of your people killed----you only attack countries that have sham armies---but first you spend weeks and months telling the world how tough and evil they are with the propaganda arm of your intelligence services ---and then go in with a light force to attack the non-existent army your real intelligence had already told you was the true state of affairs, and when you win against token resistance---you blame your own intelligence propaganda arm for having it wrong.

Its all in my steal other countries assets for dummies book.--------but looks like GWB just skimmed it and missed the chapter on things you gotta do right or it all comes crashing down.

Well, MAYBE...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

Is Iraq the only country you can think of that had potential to invade neighboring countries?

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

Like what? Like the fact that he was no longer useful to us politically?

 

[blackllotus]

What do those of you who supported the invasion of Iraq think of the fact that some of our "friends" in the war on terror are just as bad to their people as Saddam was (ex: Saudi Arabia and Egypt)?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Of course, Sr.'s speaking skills were no match for Clinton, which obviously cost him his second term.

Oh, I'd like to think that the Iran-Contra coverup and pardons, and the nation tiring of the endless republican debt increases and a lack of positive policies played a role, too.

And, the nation's hope that the end of the cold war could lead to a new world peace and 'peace dividend', which the democrats could best do, but only partly did.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed. However, in addition to that I have to acknowledge that there were definitely some economic ties to Iraq (Oil).

You mean our close allies Syria and Iran?

Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

-Kevin

Did we recognize them as countries when we armed Saddam when he fought Iran?

Do we recognize them now as talks of Iranian invasions take place with the same WMD bullsh*t pretext?

If you actually beleive we invaded Iraq because of anything to do with Syria or Iran, you must be delusional.

Iraq was invaded with the sole purpose of removing the non-existant WMD's that Iraq was about to use on America and Israel.

Once it was revealed to the world, how incredibly wrong American intelligence turned out to be, the reasons seemed to change, from liberating Iraq, to removing Saddam, to spreading democracy, to anything that could fit.

The trial of Saddam was a joke. Judge Judy would have done a better job.

He was the scapegoat for everything wrong with the country after the occupation, and idiots around America and the world, who are no way tied to him, who don't know anyone tied to him, who have no family or friends who are even from the middle east, want to see him suffer for his crimes are cheering and celebrating his death, why?

Were they cheering this much when milosevic died? probably not.... why, because the tv channels weren't constantly reminding them of how bad he was.

The real weapons of mass destruction are the powers of the American media mixed with the stupidity of most of the people.

 

[tomywishbone]

"Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reasons to invade Iraq:

1... WMD's............................ Lie.
2... Saddam was behind 9/11....... Wrong.
3... Saddam was friends with Osama.. Wrong.
4.... To protect Syria & Iran...............:laugh::laugh:

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

As for our purpose I personally believe that it was to remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to the surrounding nations. The man had to be removed. However, in addition to that I have to acknowledge that there were definitely some economic ties to Iraq (Oil).

You mean our close allies Syria and Iran?

Just because they aren't our allies doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to them. We recognize both Syria and Iran as countries. Just because we disagree with most everything does not mean that we want a foreign dictator, who has already proven to be horrible, to invade them or attack them.

LOL. Sadaam posed very little threat to Iran or Syria. He couldn't have sustained a military campaign against either of them post-Gulf war if he wanted to. His army was left too badly weakened after coalition forces drove it back to central Iraq.

If anything, it was politically in our interest to keep Sadaam in power. Our strategy through the '70s and '80s was to enable a strong dictator in Iraq to provide a buffer from the religious zealots in Iran and Syria. Now that there is no brutal Sadaam to keep Iraq united we left a vacuum in the power structure of the Middle East. This is a more volatile situation than we had when he was in power.

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

Here you are closer to the truth. I believe that a major reason was to save face for George's daddy, who regretted not removing Sadaam from power years ago, which he didn't do because of the reasons I stated above. That, and to create a money-making opportunity for other interests in the U.S.

 

[Lemon law]

To Icepick---who writes--Irregardless, Saddam needed to be removed for many other reasons.

Maybe we all need to put ourselves in the position of the man or woman that needs removed---because someone arbitrarily comes up with a reason.---or just needs your possessions.

Who decides if those reasons are valid---or does might make right?---many a slippery slope there.

And at the rate the USA is running amok, there will come a time when the rest of the world decides the USA has to go---and can easily do it with just economic means.
When you are outnumbered 19 to 1--are treating other countries like unruly children---and act like a lying disruptive sociopath idiot---you can bet it will happen.