PDA

View Full Version : Put Saddam back in power with apology!



AnotherScorpion
04-13-2004, 04:57 PM
Iraq was much better under Saddam but now it's ruined!! Iron fist rules! I say put the dude back, Iraq needs Mr. tough Hussein not Mr. wuss Bremer III. A sincere apology should be issued to Saddam.

dave22
04-13-2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by AnotherScorpion
Iraq was much better under Saddam but now it's ruined!! Iron fist rules! I say put the dude back, Iraq needs Mr. tough Hussein not Mr. wuss Bremer III. A sincere apology should be issued to Saddam.

I agree, these people don't want freedom, wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. We have him in custody, we could put him back in power, give him a few billion dollars and tell him we're truly sorry. He'll whip the country back into shape in a matter of weeks.

Ruthless4Life
04-13-2004, 05:27 PM
Yes, George W Bush should offer an apology through live TV from the Oval Office, with Saddam next to him, and apologize to Saddam himself and hug him in tears. When, Saddam would pull out a switch blade, and points a gun at Bush's head, and out of no where, Saddam Fadayeen would break the door open and rush into the room to blind fold and arrest Bush. All this on live TV. Then, Saddam would turn back to the TV, and addresses the audience: "Dis es Saddam. Ass yeu know aldready, I am now yurr nest President." All of a sudden, a suicide bomber in white robes gets in front of the camera and breaks the camera....

dave22
04-13-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Ruthless4Life
Yes, George W Bush should offer an apology through live TV from the Oval Office, with Saddam next to him, and apologize to Saddam himself and hug him in tears. When, Saddam would pull out a switch blade, and points a gun at Bush's head, and out of no where, Saddam Fadayeen would break the door open and rush into the room to blind fold and arrest Bush. All this on live TV. Then, Saddam would turn back to the TV, and addresses the audience: "Dis es Saddam. Ass yeu know aldready, I am now yurr nest President." All of a sudden, a suicide bomber in white robes gets in front of the camera and breaks the camera....

That would never happen, because the only English that Saddam know is, "DON'T SHOOT, I'M SADDAM HUESEIN!!!!!!!"

BigKazWSM747
04-13-2004, 06:09 PM
It is now quite apparent the true feelings of a good many of you that were pro-iraqi war. You wanted nothing more than arab submission to USA. I can't believe I actually listened to you, dave, when you said you supported the war even without the WMDs because it took that tyrant out of power. You simply wish to supplant the tyrant with one of your own, or now because you think we are too 'weak' you want us to put someone with an 'iron fist' in there.

You care nothing for people, if they get in the way of your agenda you think they are the enemy and any means are justified for you asserting your will upon them. If you would even suggest this for your international agenda, then I fear what you would deem necessary for your domestic agenda.

You are no better than Saddam or those religious fanatics. If you represent the 'true' Americans then I am ashamed to call myself one. From now on any time you try to use morality to back up your opinions, you will have to answer to what you have repeatedly said in these threads.

dave22
04-13-2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
It is now quite apparent the true feelings of a good many of you that were pro-iraqi war. You wanted nothing more than arab submission to USA. I can't believe I actually listened to you, dave, when you said you supported the war even without the WMDs because it took that tyrant out of power. You simply wish to supplant the tyrant with one of your own, or now because you think we are too 'weak' you want us to put someone with an 'iron fist' in there.

You care nothing for people, if they get in the way of your agenda you think they are the enemy and any means are justified for you asserting your will upon them. If you would even suggest this for your international agenda, then I fear what you would deem necessary for your domestic agenda.

You are no better than Saddam or those religious fanatics. If you represent the 'true' Americans then I am ashamed to call myself one. From now on any time you try to use morality to back up your opinions, you will have to answer to what you have repeatedly said in these threads.

It's called reality, and the reality is that the result of Saddam beign booted out of power is chaos. Why should we sacrifice soldiers so that these people can be free?? When apparently they don't even want freedom, they want an Islamic govt. A govt. like the one in Iran, where a bunch of Mullahs are in charge, and women will still be treated like ****.

We should have just focused on Afgahanastan, and said **** you to the people of Iraq, because they aren't civiliazed enough to have a democracy. We are losing more soldiers in Iraq, than we are in Afgahanastan, and that's sad. And we're going to lose more, because now we're not going to leave when June 30th comes around.

What happened when we entered Baghdad?? Muesems and hospitals, and Saddam's palaces were looted, and riots broke out all over the place. Shows you how civiliazed these people are when they rob from a hospital. Then what do they do?? They blame the coalition forces.

I've changed my stance because I'm tired of seeing guys who are in their 20's who could have had a successful future being killed by animals who do things like blame 9-11 on Israel, burn and mutilate those who are trying to help them. The Iraqi police just stood there, and let it happen.

Reborn79
04-13-2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by dave22
It's called reality, and the reality is that the result of Saddam beign booted out of power is chaos. Why should we sacrifice soldiers so that these people can be free?? When apparently they don't even want freedom, they want an Islamic govt. A govt. like the one in Iran, where a bunch of Mullahs are in charge, and women will still be treated like ****.

We should have just focused on Afgahanastan, and said **** you to the people of Iraq, because they aren't civiliazed enough to have a democracy. We are losing more soldiers in Iraq, than we are in Afgahanastan, and that's sad. And we're going to lose more, because now we're not going to leave when June 30th comes around.

What happened when we entered Baghdad?? Muesems and hospitals, and Saddam's palaces were looted, and riots broke out all over the place. Shows you how civiliazed these people are when they rob from a hospital. Then what do they do?? They blame the coalition forces.

I've changed my stance because I'm tired of seeing guys who are in their 20's who could have had a successful future being killed by animals who do things like blame 9-11 on Israel, burn and mutilate those who are trying to help them. The Iraqi police just stood there, and let it happen.

First off, put yourself in their shoes. There is an invading military whose 'war' destroyed buildings, cut power, ruined sewage facilities, and generally ****ed up life for everyone.
They then claim to know what is best for you and tell you what you want.

NO **** they are mad, and rightfully so (though I don't agree with their tactics). We, as usual, are acting as the superior people, knowing what is best for the Iraqi populace even though it is clear they want otherwise.

Now for your second paragraph...wait!?! Ignore Iraq?!?! But...but..they had WMDs! They were supporting terror! They were destabilizing the middle east! How could we ignore them?!?


And no **** places were looted. That would happen anyplace when the local police force is utterly gutted and there is no one to enforce law and order. That is human nature; there will always be a group of people who take advantage of situations for personal gain.

...and for your final paragraph. Tired of seeing soldiers dying? Well, I'm sorry...but we could have saved over 10,000 lives and billions of dollars by not starting this war in the first place. Think of that when you go to the polls in November to vote for Bush.

batfonso
04-13-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by AnotherScorpion
A sincere apology should be issued to Saddam.

I think that there should be a press conference where Bush and Saddam stand in front of the press and then just as Bush is about to say that he is going to apologize, instead he takes a wild swing at Saddam and knocks him the **** out. He then looks in the camera and goes, "What the hell are any of you going to do about it?".

dave22
04-13-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
First off, put yourself in their shoes. There is an invading military whose 'war' destroyed buildings, cut power, ruined sewage facilities, and generally ****ed up life for everyone.
They then claim to know what is best for you and tell you what you want.

NO **** they are mad, and rightfully so (though I don't agree with their tactics). We, as usual, are acting as the superior people, knowing what is best for the Iraqi populace even though it is clear they want otherwise.

Now for your second paragraph...wait!?! Ignore Iraq?!?! But...but..they had WMDs! They were supporting terror! They were destabilizing the middle east! How could we ignore them?!?


And no **** places were looted. That would happen anyplace when the local police force is utterly gutted and there is no one to enforce law and order. That is human nature; there will always be a group of people who take advantage of situations for personal gain.

...and for your final paragraph. Tired of seeing soldiers dying? Well, I'm sorry...but we could have saved over 10,000 lives and billions of dollars by not starting this war in the first place. Think of that when you go to the polls in November to vote for Bush.

Democracts/ Republicans are two sides of the same coin. This war still would have happened if Gore was president. Also, Iraq wasn't destabilzing the middle east, it was unstable to begin with.

As for Afgahanastan, I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that the N. Alliance aren't angels, and they'll only be in power, until some other faction kicks them out.

TranceNRG
04-13-2004, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by dave22
I agree, these people don't want freedom, wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. We have him in custody, we could put him back in power, give him a few billion dollars and tell him we're truly sorry. He'll whip the country back into shape in a matter of weeks.


freedom has many different angels...
I don't think they want American way of freedom.

Crimson-Model
04-13-2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
...and for your final paragraph. Tired of seeing soldiers dying? Well, I'm sorry...but we could have saved over 10,000 lives and billions of dollars by not starting this war in the first place. Think of that when you go to the polls in November to vote for Bush.
Big ass bump.

dave22
04-13-2004, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
freedom has many different angels...
I don't think they want American way of freedom.

And what kind of freedom do they want?? Do they still want women to know their place?? Do they still want them to cover up, even if they don't want to cover up? Do they want a democracy? And what do the Kurds want, oh that's right they want their own little country, I'm sure that Turkey would love that idea, a free independent Kurdish state, right below them.

And if they don't want America's freedom, then they should immigrate here. It's pretty hypocritical for people to burn American flags, and chant, "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!" And then come and immigrate here.

Aray
04-13-2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Democracts/ Republicans are two sides of the same coin. This war still would have happened if Gore was president. Also, Iraq wasn't destabilzing the middle east, it was unstable to begin with.

As for Afgahanastan, I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that the N. Alliance aren't angels, and they'll only be in power, until some other faction kicks them out.

How if Gore was President, would there still have been a war in Iraq? The main reason why there was an Iraq war was because Bush wanted to take out Saddam. There have been reports about Bush preparing for this war Pre-911. I doubt we would be in this situation if Gore was President.

Crimson-Model
04-13-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by dave22
And what kind of freedom do they want?? Do they still want women to know their place?? Do they still want them to cover up, even if they don't want to cover up? Do they want a democracy? And what do the Kurds want, oh that's right they want their own little country, I'm sure that Turkey would love that idea, a free independent Kurdish state, right below them.

You do know that Saddams Iraq was more accepting towards women, you'll see exactly what I mean after the US leaves and a majority govt is put in place. They'll probably make women all wear clothing that covers everything but the eyes, they'll also be less accepting towards foreigners than in Saddams era...

t0mmy
04-13-2004, 08:23 PM
i never thought i'd vote for saddam hussein, being an iraqi citizen and all, but he gets my vote now

dave22
04-13-2004, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Aray
How if Gore was President, would there still have been a war in Iraq? The main reason why there was an Iraq war was because Bush wanted to take out Saddam. There have been reports about Bush preparing for this war Pre-911. I doubt we would be in this situation if Gore was President.

Because despite what you think, Gore was actually a hawk. Besides we have all read the quotes that dems have made about how Saddam needed to go.

dave22
04-13-2004, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Crimson-Model
You do know that Saddams Iraq was more accepting towards women, you'll see exactly what I mean after the US leaves and a majority govt is put in place. They'll probably make women all wear clothing that covers everything but the eyes, they'll also be less accepting towards foreigners than in Saddams era...

I think that I heard that as well, women were allowed to join the army, become lawyers, teachers, etc. It's really kind of sad, imagine what Iraq might have become if it wasn't for the Iraq-Iran war, it was on its way to achieving prosperity.

Starsky
04-14-2004, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
...and for your final paragraph. Tired of seeing soldiers dying? Well, I'm sorry...but we could have saved over 10,000 lives and billions of dollars by not starting this war in the first place. Think of that when you go to the polls in November to vote for Bush.


Yeah, we should have just put Iraq on the back shelf. Just let it fester, let Hussein become regional strongman with WMD. Oh thats right, your dogma is that he didn't have the ability to make them. It has become the religious dogma of the Left that Hussein couldn't simply make more, provided his original stock was depleted or gone. He still retained this ability.

supergarr
04-14-2004, 12:18 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

philly007
04-14-2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Ruthless4Life
Yes, George W Bush should offer an apology through live TV from the Oval Office, with Saddam next to him, and apologize to Saddam himself and hug him in tears. When, Saddam would pull out a switch blade, and points a gun at Bush's head, and out of no where, Saddam Fadayeen would break the door open and rush into the room to blind fold and arrest Bush. All this on live TV. Then, Saddam would turn back to the TV, and addresses the audience: "Dis es Saddam. Ass yeu know aldready, I am now yurr nest President." All of a sudden, a suicide bomber in white robes gets in front of the camera and breaks the camera....

Now that would make for a great reality TV show... or even series. Oh, and I would want to see Saddam's hench men feed those criminal Enron executives into the Iraqi plastic shredder. They could flip a coin to determine if the criminal gets put into the shredder head first or feet first. Aw heck, just put those bastards in feet first.... :eek: ****

philly007
04-23-2004, 04:56 AM
Hey, this is interesting:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/04/22/Iraq.rebaathification/
From 'de-Baathification' to 're-Baathification'?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "The remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime know they
have no future in a free Iraq," U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
said Thursday, restating the U.S. stance even as coalition officials in
Baghdad confirmed that some of Saddam's former Baath Party loyalists may
be allowed to take back their old jobs.

It's seen as a potentially significant change in postwar strategy.

Civilian administrator Paul Bremer now wants to allow former Baath Party
members to serve in the Iraqi military and government establishment.

SteakNPotatoes
04-23-2004, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
Yeah, we should have just put Iraq on the back shelf. Just let it fester, let Hussein become regional strongman with WMD. Oh thats right, your dogma is that he didn't have the ability to make them. It has become the religious dogma of the Left that Hussein couldn't simply make more, provided his original stock was depleted or gone. He still retained this ability.

Bwahahaha. You must get tired of smelling like ****, because your nose is lodged so far up GWB's ass.

He does not have WMD, he does not have the equipment to make WMD. If he had anything like that he would have used it against our troops when they were invading Baghdad.


He still retained this ability.
Yeah, and so does every other country with a couple hundred million to spend.

ironhead31
04-23-2004, 06:42 AM
With all those idiots over there back stabbing our marines from behind children,churches and other public places this stuff is getting out of hand. So what the hell put Saddam back in,pull out,regroup then go back in and bust his ass again. To tell you the truth I would never trust any of those people over there.You try to help them out,show them how real freedom is suppose to be and they do nothing but stab you in the back! Sure there is some good people over there but there is also plenty of *******s too.

drags
04-23-2004, 07:29 AM
yes but it was wrong of America to impose their system on an entirely different people. Iraq is thousands of years old while The USA is only a few hundred years. Don't forget that there will be permanent military presence of 100,000 soldiers in iraq for the next 50 years...is this freedom?????????

ironhead31
04-23-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by drags
yes but it was wrong of America to impose their system on an entirely different people. Iraq is thousands of years old while The USA is only a few hundred years. Don't forget that there will be permanent military presence of 100,000 soldiers in iraq for the next 50 years...is this freedom????????? Yes,if they would stop,step back and look at the situation a little I think that they would see that that are a hell of alot freer than they where before.

Ak47
04-23-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by ironhead31
Yes,if they would stop,step back and look at the situation a little I think that they would see that that are a hell of alot freer than they where before.

But what if Iraq doesnt want democracy? Its not the only form of productive government out there, how about we let the people decide for themselves instead of forcing a new system on them, i mean, doesnt that go against the principles of democracy in its own right?

dave22
04-23-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by drags
yes but it was wrong of America to impose their system on an entirely different people. Iraq is thousands of years old while The USA is only a few hundred years. Don't forget that there will be permanent military presence of 100,000 soldiers in iraq for the next 50 years...is this freedom?????????

Now that was just stupid, we're not going to be there for 50 years. Also, I really don't give a **** on how old Iraq is, it's still a ****hole, with a ****ed up population.

HELL, even Bill Maher said to put Saddam back into power.

drags
04-23-2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Now that was just stupid, we're not going to be there for 50 years. Also, I really don't give a **** on how old Iraq is, it's still a ****hole, with a ****ed up population.

HELL, even Bill Maher said to put Saddam back into power.


hahaha look at germany, japan and south korea how long have american troops been there for? the USA has no intention of moving out of those countries either. Of course it would be a ****hole after all the civilian infrastructure has been targetting so that the rebuilding contracts can be given out to companies.

TranceNRG
04-24-2004, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Now that was just stupid, we're not going to be there for 50 years. Also, I really don't give a **** on how old Iraq is, it's still a ****hole, with a ****ed up population.

HELL, even Bill Maher said to put Saddam back into power.


tsk tsk

why you so mad?

weren't you one of the pro-war, let's liberate, let's democritize, let's bring a model for middle east, people.

JohnnyLaw
04-24-2004, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by drags
yes but it was wrong of America to impose their system on an entirely different people. Iraq is thousands of years old while The USA is only a few hundred years. Don't forget that there will be permanent military presence of 100,000 soldiers in iraq for the next 50 years...is this freedom?????????


Iraq became an independant state in 1932.....which means

A) "Iraq" isnt thousands of years old.

and

B) Your a douchebag and no longer allowed to talk.

drags
04-24-2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by JohnnyLaw
Iraq became an independant state in 1932.....which means

A) "Iraq" isnt thousands of years old.

and

B) Your a douchebag and no longer allowed to talk.

ok then your one of those know it alll people that can't attack an argument but more rather attack the person, well it does reflect how much you really do have in your head. WHen i said that iraq was thousands of years old i meant the actual culture and people but seeing how your so smart you would of already picked up on that yeh.

BIONIC MAN
04-24-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by AnotherScorpion
Iraq was much better under Saddam but now it's ruined!! Iron fist rules! I say put the dude back, Iraq needs Mr. tough Hussein not Mr. wuss Bremer III. A sincere apology should be issued to Saddam. THEY WOULD be better off letting his sons run the country , wait a minute there dead well they would still be better. while we apoligize to sodamn isane he could apoligize to the kurds in PERSON of course i would like to see that in person. yes his sons practiced STATE sponsored rape and had soccer teams massacred for losing,YOUR BRILLIANT GREAT POST.

JohnnyLaw
04-24-2004, 06:51 PM
How is correcting your incorrect statement not attacking your argument?

And "iraqi" culture is no older than anglo-saxon culture idiot. There were no white people a thousand years ago? There were no Africans or people of a Hispanic nature a thousand years ago? They sprung out of the ground? Your argument is weak sauce I assure you.


PS you are still a douchebag.