A world with Saddam

[Nylo]

It's 2006 and Saddam Hussein is still the leader of Iraq. What do you think the world would be like if the United States never occupied? Would Saddam be more powerful now than he was in 2002? Would the world think differently of the United States? Or would shit still be the same?

[HighlyIllogical]

We'd be held in GREAT esteem, assuming we had fixed up Afghanistan. Afghanistan would probably be better off, there'd be no problem with North Korea or Iran.

[Reverend-Kyle]

I think the United States would have more troops to harass another nation with and there'd be one less nation forced into the global capitalist system.

I think the "world" (I doubt most of the world gave/gives a shit about Hussein) would be better off if Hussein was still in power. Saddam was/is a dick like most leaders, but it's not like there was no safety for Iraqis in general.

One example is that Saddam was a secular leader, even though he did/does subscribe to a particular religion (like us civilized folk in the West). He was secular enough to keep extremist groups like al-Qaeda out. That's a plus, isn't it? But how is it now?

Presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens: All synonyms for murderer. The mainstream media is racist. Don't think that Hussein is really any different from Bush, Harper, Blair, or any other whitey/leader. Having white skin doesn't make a thousand murdered lives any more just.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 7/7/06 10:21 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: We'd be held in GREAT esteem, assuming we had fixed up Afghanistan. Afghanistan would probably be better off, there'd be no problem with North Korea or Iran.

It's hard to say that Afghanistan would be in much better shape. It's true that we would have focused a lot more on afghanistan, but remember how persitent they were against the USSR. That mountainous terrain makes very good hiding ground for the Taliban, and it is likely that we'd still be fending off Taliban fighters who would be hard to track down, though we'd certainly have an easier time securing the populous sections.

[rainmaker]

I beleive if we stayed the course, we might have found bin Laden by now, and extracted out of Afghanistan, and the campaign ended at that. I beleive Hussein would be more powerful, but he would post no IMMEDIATE threat to the U.S. (with that said, it could skyrocket into the current North Korea situation [that is, if you feel the North Korea situation as even the slightest threat] - it's anyone's guess) Iran might not be as irate about the current nuclear situation, and nobody can guess anything about North Korea - it would be a lot easier to deal with North Korea fighting a war in Afghanistan, with different terms, than it would in Iraq. Overall, a lot less troops would be dead, a lot less people oppressed, and perhaps the end of a supposed "war."

However, had we not found bin Laden, I feel that we could potentially find him. I don't think the bastard should ever be given up on, but that's a personal view that I won't elaborate.

That's just my educated guess - no one in any way can be sure.

[The-Last-Cynic]

At 7/7/06 10:46 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/7/06 10:38 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens: All synonyms for murderer.

murderer?

The mainstream media is racist.

How so?

Don't think that Hussein is really any different from Bush, Harper, Blair, or any other whitey/leader. Having white skin doesn't make a thousand murdered lives any more just.

Who did Bush murder?

It's a stretch but Bush and anyone else who knows about the new WoT methods can be charged with war crimes. Obviously it won't happen, but it's not just fiery rhetoric either.
Source

[Reverend-Kyle]

At 7/7/06 10:46 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/7/06 10:38 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens: All synonyms for murderer.

murderer?

Not literally, of course. I was trying to make a point, and I'm sure you knew that.

The mainstream media is racist.

How so?

Look at how terrorism is portrayed. Who is shown to be the terrorists? But if you look for an accurate definition, I'm sure you can find that terrorists exist outside the Middle East.

Don't think that Hussein is really any different from Bush, Harper, Blair, or any other whitey/leader. Having white skin doesn't make a thousand murdered lives any more just.

Who did Bush murder?

It all depends on how you view the military. Bush is the head of the military, so he's responsible for every one the military has killed since he's been in power as far as I'm concerned. He gave the orders or allowed the orders to be given. He is responsible.

It's a matter of opinion.

[wesdood]

At 7/7/06 10:46 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

Don't think that Hussein is really any different from Bush, Harper, Blair, or any other whitey/leader. Having white skin doesn't make a thousand murdered lives any more just.

Who did Bush murder?

he ordered lots of murders. i'm sure you know about that.

[Memorize]

Now we're comparing Bush to Saddam...hey I finally agree with Liberals, America IS stupid. AHH, get it off, it's rubbing off on me!

Only a complete fucking moron would compare Bush to Hitler and/or Bush to Saddam.

*rubs nose pointing to Reverand_Kyle*

[Jayemare]

At 7/7/06 10:20 PM, Nylo wrote: It's 2006 and Saddam Hussein is still the leader of Iraq. What do you think the world would be like if the United States never occupied? Would Saddam be more powerful now than he was in 2002? Would the world think differently of the United States? Or would shit still be the same?

Hopefully we would be in a country that actually has some oil, like Venezuela...and republicans would be a lock for 2006 and 2008

[Buffalow]

These types of arguements always turn into Bush flame wars.

Bush =/= Saddam.

Bush didn't gas his own people.
Start a pointless war ( Iran-Iraq War )
Get Captured in a hole near Baghdad on December 13, 2003

[JMHX]

At 7/8/06 01:35 AM, Dinodoode wrote:
Get Captured in a hole near Baghdad on December 13, 2003

You know they didn't actually catch him in a hole?

[Buffalow]

At 7/8/06 01:37 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/8/06 01:35 AM, Dinodoode wrote:
Get Captured in a hole near Baghdad on December 13, 2003

You know they didn't actually catch him in a hole?

O RLY

[JMHX]

YA RLY

By the way, Wiki =/= Decent Source

[Buffalow]

Saddam's lies, and a conspiracy.

Yup, those make Wikipedia look like shit.

[JMHX]

At 7/8/06 01:44 AM, Dinodoode wrote: Saddam's lies, and a conspiracy.

Yup, those make Wikipedia look like shit.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when it popped up in the Christian Science Monitor I took notice.

[sdhonda]

You know they didn't actually catch him in a hole?

Ya, they did.

He was being hid by several loyalists in a barn. As the special ops team approached, they moved him to a two meter deep hole, with a small light and rifle.

The troops found the two guys, tortured them for a half hour, and then one of them relented and pointed out the hole. The troops opened up the hole, told saddam its up, and he eventually came out slowly. The guards pulled him out, and one of the Iraqi guides began beating the **** out of him. After he got in a few punches, the US troops stopped him. They then carried him to a helicopter.

[lapis]

Whatever money he was making with smuggling and scamming the Oil-for-Food programme was not enough for him to build an army that would have been a serious threat to other nations in the region. He still wouldn't have had Weapons of Mass Destruction and there would still be no lasting ties to Islamist terror organisations.

Iraq would be a lot more stable but the repression of the Shi'ite majority in his country would remain to be a ticking bomb. The Kurds were already somewhat autonomous before the invasion but they profited most from the regime change in Iraq. Saddam's psychopathic son would still be alive but I doubt that he could achieve the about 30 civilian deaths daily that we see now. Although Ahmadinejad would probably still have been elected Iran wouldn't nearly have had such an incentive to pursue the possession of Nuclear Weapons. The US would have had a few extra hundreds of billions of dollars that they could have spent on more fruitful goals or given back to the public in the form of tax cuts. Anti-Americanism might be less prevalent but these sentiments always remain and erupt every now and then when the US government decides to do something the rest of the world doesn't approve of.

[Demosthenez]

I am willing to venture, with the actions we have taken before, epsecially in Latin America, during neo-con like governments, Hugo Chavez's existence and government would be in extreme peril. He probably would have been blown up in a plane, like what happened to Omar Torrijos or Jaime Roldos or tried to be killed like Fidel Castro or overthrown like Mossadegh or Salvador Allende or tried to be overthrown like the Sandanistas. Or maybe outright invaded like Noriega.

At 7/7/06 11:36 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Look at how terrorism is portrayed. Who is shown to be the terrorists? But if you look for an accurate definition, I'm sure you can find that terrorists exist outside the Middle East.

ARABS FOR THE MOST PART ARE THE TERRORISTS.

Shut the PC crap up. It doesnt take an Einstein to see "Oh gee look, Al Qaeda has done damn near every major terrorist attack against America and American soil for the past 2 decades, I wonder if we should then presume most of the terrorism is coming out of the Arabian Peninsula. Oh wait, we cant do that, it aint fair. It aint PC. We better put as much resources to trackin down terrorism in Mongolia. That would be unracist."

Please.

At 7/7/06 10:38 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens: All synonyms for murderer. The mainstream media is racist.

HAHA conspiracy nut. Watch out for the stealth Jews, they will steal your organs when you sleep and kill your children and sell your wife into slavery.

Don't think that Hussein is really any different from Bush, Harper, Blair, or any other whitey/leader.

Yeah, he is. Bush NEVER gassed his own fuckin people. Harper NEVER set up secret prisons to torture his political enemies. Blair NEVER started a war that killed more than a million people over 8 years that deployed WMD's. All of them never took part in ethnic cleansing.

I am no fan of Bush. But honestly, the fuck are you talking about.

Having white skin doesn't make a thousand murdered lives any more just.

Please, tell us the thousands of murdered lives Bush has on his hands.

At 7/7/06 10:21 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: We'd be held in GREAT esteem, assuming we had fixed up Afghanistan.

No we wouldnt. Great esteem? No. We have already forgoteen 9/11, the world would too. Just because we had some political capital then doesnt mean TIME wouldnt wear it away. We would be looked at like we were before 9/11. America. Powerful, arrogant, stupid, fat, America. Does it matter if the people who say that are wrong? No. They justify those opinion with anecdotal evidence so it makes me believe those same people would not like us to begin with.

Afghanistan would probably be better off

I will give that.

there'd be no problem with North Korea or Iran.

Hell no. Hell hell hell hell no.

[ErwinR0mmel]

Hmm I wonder why so many people are blaming the media for portraying Muslims as terrorist... Here I watch CNN, the BBC, Sky news and some other big international names and I've never seen them portray muslims as terrorists. Hmm maybe it's the american media because all i get here are the international versions.

[Reverend-Kyle]

At 7/8/06 12:50 AM, AccessCode wrote: Now we're comparing Bush to Saddam...hey I finally agree with Liberals, America IS stupid. AHH, get it off, it's rubbing off on me!

Only a complete fucking moron would compare Bush to Hitler and/or Bush to Saddam.

*rubs nose pointing to Reverand_Kyle*

Perhaps. Or maybe someone who views leaders as murderers would do that. But maybe those two are the same things, huh?

At 7/8/06 01:35 AM, Dinodoode wrote: These types of arguements always turn into Bush flame wars.

Bush =/= Saddam.

Bush didn't gas his own people.
Start a pointless war ( Iran-Iraq War )

I can't say that the latest Gulf War doesn't have a point, but as far as I see it, its point isn't valid. What do you suppose the purpose of Gulf War II: Beyond Thunderdome is? How can you tell?

Get Captured in a hole near Baghdad on December 13, 2003

At 7/8/06 04:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I am willing to venture, with the actions we have taken before, epsecially in Latin America, during neo-con like governments, Hugo Chavez's existence and government would be in extreme peril. He probably would have been blown up in a plane, like what happened to Omar Torrijos or Jaime Roldos or tried to be killed like Fidel Castro or overthrown like Mossadegh or Salvador Allende or tried to be overthrown like the Sandanistas. Or maybe outright invaded like Noriega.

At 7/7/06 11:36 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Look at how terrorism is portrayed. Who is shown to be the terrorists? But if you look for an accurate definition, I'm sure you can find that terrorists exist outside the Middle East.

ARABS FOR THE MOST PART ARE THE TERRORISTS.

No. This isn't true -- it's only true insofar as that is your interpretation of reality. I view government agencies that kill and murder to create change as terrorists... Muslim or otherwise.

Shut the PC crap up. It doesnt take an Einstein to see "Oh gee look, Al Qaeda has done damn near every major terrorist attack against America and American soil for the past 2 decades, I wonder if we should then presume most of the terrorism is coming out of the Arabian Peninsula. Oh wait, we cant do that, it aint fair. It aint PC. We better put as much resources to trackin down terrorism in Mongolia. That would be unracist."

Please.

I'm not being PC. I'm taking a different view of reality; one that you seem to disagree with and, because of that, you are trying to label me as something undesirable as to devalue my opinion.

At 7/7/06 10:38 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens: All synonyms for murderer. The mainstream media is racist.

HAHA conspiracy nut. Watch out for the stealth Jews, they will steal your organs when you sleep and kill your children and sell your wife into slavery.

You're doing it again. I'm not a conspiracy nut, and I explained (eventually) why I said what I did.

Don't think that Hussein is really any different from Bush, Harper, Blair, or any other whitey/leader.

Yeah, he is. Bush NEVER gassed his own fuckin people. Harper NEVER set up secret prisons to torture his political enemies. Blair NEVER started a war that killed more than a million people over 8 years that deployed WMD's. All of them never took part in ethnic cleansing.

By the definitions we in the West have received, they have never done these things. But if you boil it down, yes they have. The United States and Canada are fucking built on ethnic cleansing. No, Bush and Harper aren't responsible directly for that, but they perpetuate a system that is.

I am no fan of Bush. But honestly, the fuck are you talking about.

I'm saying that murder is murder no matter who does it, and it's always bullshit.

Having white skin doesn't make a thousand murdered lives any more just.

Please, tell us the thousands of murdered lives Bush has on his hands.

Every dead Iraqi killed during this Gulf War, every dead Iraqi killed since 2000 because of US policies and sanctions. Every dead anyone who died as a result of Bush's actions/inactions.

At 7/8/06 06:34 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/7/06 11:36 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote:

At 7/7/06 10:46 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/7/06 10:38 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens: All synonyms for murderer.

murderer?

Not literally, of course. I was trying to make a point, and I'm sure you knew that.

Well, it was a crappy and poorly executed point, as comparing world leaders to murderers just because they're world leaders, tends to kill one's credibility.

I guess a crappy and poorly executed point deserves an equally crappy and poorly executed response.

As far as I can tell, my comparison of world leaders to murderers was/is just, but I would like to know why you think it isn't.

The mainstream media is racist.

How so?

Look at how terrorism is portrayed. Who is shown to be the terrorists? But if you look for an accurate definition, I'm sure you can find that terrorists exist outside the Middle East.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that a majority of terrorists tend to be Arab. That's not racist, that's fact. Of course there are some non-muslim insurgents, but their numbers simply don't compare to what we're used to seeing.

Look outside Iraq. Look outside the United States.

Yes, we do have extremists all over the world, I agree, few people wouldn't. But reporting on terrorists who are indeed Muslim, that it not racist, that would be reporting what happened.

Yes, that's right. I wouldn't disagree with that.

Also, Islam isn't a race, it's a religion...

No, it wouldn't be racism, and thanks for pointing that out. But downplaying and putting less focus on certain actions by certain groups of people gets the same job done.

It all depends on how you view the military...

In that sense every single other war president is a murderer...

I have no idea if anyone who thinks all wars are unjustified also deny the Holocaust. I don't, but you're doing the same thing as FAB0L0US. Why would you connect people who think all war is unjust with people who deny the Holocaust?

[Buffalow]

At 7/8/06 08:19 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote:

At 7/8/06 01:35 AM, Dinodoode wrote: These types of arguements always turn into Bush flame wars.

Bush =/= Saddam.

Bush didn't gas his own people.
Start a pointless war ( Iran-Iraq War )

I can't say that the latest Gulf War doesn't have a point, but as far as I see it, its point isn't valid. What do you suppose the purpose of Gulf War II: Beyond Thunderdome is? How can you tell?

What the fuck are you talking about? They are two completely different wars.

[Demosthenez]

At 7/8/06 08:19 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: No. This isn't true -- it's only true insofar as that is your interpretation of reality. I view government agencies that kill and murder to create change as terrorists... Muslim or otherwise.

OK, great dictionary boy. Your interpretation of "reality" is not "real" so to use words like "murderer" and "terrorist" and "racist" to "Bush" and the "media" is false.

You cant make up meanings of words and then use these made up meanings of words to justify why leaders like Bush and Harper and Blair are murderers and terrorists and killers like Saddam and Bin Laden are.

I'm not being PC. I'm taking a different view of reality; one that you seem to disagree with and, because of that, you are trying to label me as something undesirable as to devalue my opinion.

Yes, your opinion is ridiculous if it rests on meanings of words you have twisted to suit your purpose.

You got a problem with the way Webster defines "reality" take that up with them.

You're doing it again. I'm not a conspiracy nut, and I explained (eventually) why I said what I did.

You called the mainstream press racist. Yeah, that qualifies as conspiracy level nuttery.

The United States and Canada are fucking built on ethnic cleansing. No, Bush and Harper aren't responsible directly for that, but they perpetuate a system that is.

What the hell you want them to do, hand the land back to the Indians and say "Shit, my bad bros. We really fucked up back then so. . . yeah. . . friends?"

Every dead Iraqi killed during this Gulf War, every dead Iraqi killed since 2000 because of US policies and sanctions. Every dead anyone who died as a result of Bush's actions/inactions.

That isnt murder. It is unfortunate but that does not qualify as murdered people.

Again, you can not selectively redefine words to suit your aims.

[Reverend-Kyle]

At 7/8/06 09:27 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/8/06 08:19 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: By the definitions we in the West have received, they have never done these things. But if you boil it down, yes they have. The United States and Canada are fucking built on ethnic cleansing. No, Bush and Harper aren't responsible directly for that, but they perpetuate a system that is.

Prove it.

I'm going to have to retract part of that statement. Bush and Harper are responsible. Native reserves, where living is encouraged through monetary incentive, that are kept in poor repair and located in areas where basic needs cannot be met are a form of ethnic cleansing.

I'm saying that murder is murder no matter who does it, and it's always bullshit.

But it's not always wrong, as sad as it is to say. Some people are simply to evil that they are willing to kill others. If you kill in self-defense, especially when it's a terrorist, then it is fine.

Self-defense might be fine, but to say it's fine to kill someone is not. It pays no attention to the reasons or conditions behind the actions. So you're left with a dead being and nothing else. Not that I would expect anyone to allow themselves or others to be killed while the wonder about the social/psychological aspects of the situation they are in.

Maybe we shouldn't look at it in terms of 'right' or 'wrong' but usefulness. If someone breaks into your house to steal some money to pay off a debt, is it really useful to kill him/her? Maybe he or she is acting in self-defense by breaking into your house. If that can be conceptualized as self-defense, do they have a right to kill anyone who tries to stop them?

I don't know. There's a difference between a drug addict breaking into your house and a terrorist. But I suppose both might develop out of oppressive social conditions... Killing a person doesn't solve those social conditions. (But unless everyone can agree to that, it's not really useful.)

At 7/8/06 06:34 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/7/06 11:36 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote:

At 7/7/06 10:46 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/7/06 10:38 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens: All synonyms for murderer.

murderer?

Not literally, of course. I was trying to make a point, and I'm sure you knew that.

Well, it was a crappy and poorly executed point, as comparing world leaders to murderers just because they're world leaders, tends to kill one's credibility.

I guess a crappy and poorly executed point deserves an equally crappy and poorly executed response.

You don't seem to understand. You don't simply use inflammatory rhetoric (ie all leaders are murderers) w/o any real evidence behind it, and when someone calls you on it you don't just say "Well, I'm not being literal". That's BS, if you have somethign to say make it something important, and not something you can back up on.

Saying all is a bit of a stretch, that's what I wasn't being literal about. I still think it's apt, though. It depends on how you construct murder, of course -- which is a legal term, so I probably should have called them killers.

What makes someone a killer for you? The direct taking of a life with their hands? What about actions that lead to a death? How about inaction? If I can stop you from dying by selling my gold thrown to give you money to buy bread, but you die because I refuse, whose fault is it? If I send you to the guillotine because I don't like what you're saying, am I not a killer?

How many rulers have acted in this way? Most?

If I don't like the leader of a country and I send my troops to remove him and they kill people in the process, aren't they killers? Am I a killer because I allowed -- told them do it?

The mainstream media is racist.

...
What is your point exactly? We all already know that there are terrorists outside of the United States, but a majority of terrorists are Muslims, that is a fact. Facts are not racist, no matter how much they seem that way.

Facts can be racist. They can be bent and created. Wasn't it a fact that Africans were somehow less than human and didn't feel pain like Europeans did? Wasn't it a fact that anyone who lived outside of Rome was a barbarian?

No, it wouldn't be racism, and thanks for pointing that out. But downplaying and putting less focus on certain actions by certain groups of people gets the same job done.

The media could report about the KKK, or the IRA, or any other extremist organization, but that doesn't mean they're anti-islam (or w/e you wanna call it), unless you can prove that the media's actual intent is to make all Muslims look like terrorists.

Why would you connect people who think all war is unjust with people who deny the Holocaust?

Because only a complete and utter tard would believe WWii wasn't justified while acknowledging the Holocaust was going on. At least when you're denying the Holocaust you're hiding in ignorance, but with the other option you're just plain stupid

I don't think World War II should have happened. Germany should have never been put in a situation that allowed Hitler's extreme ideas to gain popularity. Does that mean the Holocaust shouldn't have been stopped? No... what the fuck? How can you think someone who is complaining about -- and is against -- killing would want the Holocaust to continue?

Imagine it, if you will:

"Man, I know Hitler killed 6 million Jews, 12 million people total, and had aspirations of world domination, but I just don't think that we should've taken him out. We should've given diplomacy at least one more try. I know it didn't work with Poland, but maybe if we gave him France, then he'd stop.

Whatever.

At 7/9/06 12:17 AM, Dinodoode wrote: What the fuck are you talking about? They are two completely different wars.

I know the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf Wars are different wars. I wasn't talking about the Iran-Iraq war, I was talking about the latest Gulf War.

[Reverend-Kyle]

At 7/9/06 01:31 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 7/8/06 08:19 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: No. This isn't true -- it's only true insofar as that is your interpretation of reality. I view government agencies that kill and murder to create change as terrorists... Muslim or otherwise.

OK, great dictionary boy. Your interpretation of "reality" is not "real" so to use words like "murderer" and "terrorist" and "racist" to "Bush" and the "media" is false.

Exactly. I'm glad we're on the same "page".

You cant make up meanings of words and then use these made up meanings of words to justify why leaders like Bush and Harper and Blair are murderers and terrorists and killers like Saddam and Bin Laden are.

Oh... I'm not allowed, but Bush is allowed to. Why? Because power creates truth, I suppose.

I'm not being PC. I'm taking a different view of reality; one that you seem to disagree with and, because of that, you are trying to label me as something undesirable as to devalue my opinion.

Yes, your opinion is ridiculous if it rests on meanings of words you have twisted to suit your purpose.

You got a problem with the way Webster defines "reality" take that up with them.

Words are always being twisted to suit a purpose. If you watch/read the news, you should be used to it.

So when the Earth came into being, the definition of reality was fixed as written by Webster, a constant carved into our collective consciousness.

Does that make sense, or is it possible that individuals -- through their differing life experiences -- might interpret actions and events differently?

George W. Bush, for example, seems to think terrorists attacked the World Trade Centers and Pentagon because they hate our freedom and way of life. To me, they attacked these places because they see violence as a legitimate response to oppression and having the United States military in the Middle East.

Why do I think this? Probably because this is what some (if not all) of the Islamist extremist terrorist groups have said.

Have any of these groups claimed to hate American freedom? Not likely, but millions are going to believe it because Bush said so.

You're doing it again. I'm not a conspiracy nut, and I explained (eventually) why I said what I did.

You called the mainstream press racist. Yeah, that qualifies as conspiracy level nuttery.

The United States and Canada are fucking built on ethnic cleansing. No, Bush and Harper aren't responsible directly for that, but they perpetuate a system that is.

What the hell you want them to do, hand the land back to the Indians and say "Shit, my bad bros. We really fucked up back then so. . . yeah. . . friends?"

Yes.

Every dead Iraqi killed during this Gulf War, every dead Iraqi killed since 2000 because of US policies and sanctions. Every dead anyone who died as a result of Bush's actions/inactions.

That isnt murder. It is unfortunate but that does not qualify as murdered people.

If you don't like the definition of murder, take it up with Webster.

Again, you can not selectively redefine words to suit your aims.

Yes you can. We do it all the time because words are social constructs that gain meaning and connotation through use among/between people. Look at marriage. In some societies, hasn't the definition changed to suit someone's aims?

[JakeHero]

Can't be sure whether or not Iraq would be more powerful or even more or less so of a thread.

I do think the world would hate us equally as much. Iraq is just their little excuse for hating us. Jealousy can do that to a people.

[Altarus]

At 7/8/06 01:42 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: YA RLY

By the way, Wiki =/= Decent Source

I can't decide which is more funny and absurd about Saddam's tale. The fact that he said he was tortured for months of the fact that he said he was inside a house kneeling and praying when the US caught him.

[Demosthenez]

At 7/9/06 10:54 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Oh... I'm not allowed, but Bush is allowed to. Why? Because power creates truth, I suppose.

Show me one instance where this has been done. Anyways, no, what creates truth is the commonly accepted meanings of words, not the ramblings of someone accusing someone of murder with a made up definition of murder.

Words are always being twisted to suit a purpose. If you watch/read the news, you should be used to it.

How do you expect me to take you seriously when you admit to twisting meanings of words?

Have any of these groups claimed to hate American freedom? Not likely, but millions are going to believe it because Bush said so.

I dont ever remember the reason we attacked Bin Laden and his terrorists was because he was trying to kill our freedom so I fail to see how the analogy matters. We attacked them because they attacked us.

Yes.

OK, you be the first one. Lead us in this glorious Revolution of displacing the most humans in human history.

If you don't like the definition of murder, take it up with Webster.

mur.der- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Dictionary.com

mur.der- the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Webster

No, I am pretty sure you are the one with the definition problem.

Yes you can. We do it all the time because words are social constructs that gain meaning and connotation through use among/between people. Look at marriage. In some societies, hasn't the definition changed to suit someone's aims?

No, you cannot change the meanings of words like murder and terrorist to call our leaders that. I cant call a fuckin piece of cake, pizza, because I want everyone to start calling cake, pizza. Its ridiculous.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 7/7/06 10:43 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

I highly doubt that. This isn't the first time America has had problems with North Korea, Clinton made a deal with Kim Jong Ill back in `94 I think and that didn't work out so well.

Kim is both looking for attention and, since we won't invade Iran because it may have nukes, then he thinks, oh, if I have nukes, they won't invade me.

My opinion though? Umm... Saddam still wouldn't be building WMD's. He may or may not giving harbor to Al Queda.

Supporting Palestinian suicide bombers, yeah, letting Zarqaui live in his country (assuming he knew about it, or that his security services did), yeah, but building WMDs, naturally, no. And hell no supporting al-qaeda.

[The-Hydra-of-Spore]

At 7/7/06 10:46 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/7/06 10:38 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: Presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens: All synonyms for murderer.

murderer?
Metaphor alert.

The mainstream media is racist.

How so?

Don't think that Hussein is really any different from Bush, Harper, Blair, or any other whitey/leader. Having white skin doesn't make a thousand murdered lives any more just.

Who did Bush murder?

I wouldnt call MURDER, Its Manslaughter really and he killed inocent Iraqy women and children and men.