[Golden Legacy]

Link

I'm sure many of you are already aware of this.
What are your thoughts, opinions?

[I'm Always BROKE]

Yeah I heard so in the news to.
However Im pretty much against it, it would just anger the terrorist even more. I myself am against the death penalty. I'd rather have Saddam just rot away in jail or something.

[Eugine]

I dunno... I won't kill someone like Saddam for some reason. I rather give him life in prison without social contact or something.

...but then, he deserves what he got if he did infact kill those countless amount of Iraqis.

[Saturos S.]

I'd rather have seen him in jail for the rest of his days because I'm against the death sentence.

And although loads of people were supressed under his regime, I still find it funny that the US went there in the first place as they didn't have a real reason except for the dictator and his deeds. There are other dictators in the world doing pretty much the same things. I think that the whole trial, and saddam put to justice stuff is just a 'little' show of the US goverment to show they weren't goofing off there in the first place.
To try and make people forget about that they didn't really have a good reason to be there.

So basicly I think it's good that the trial happened and everything but not the way it happened.

[TheEnglishman]

I would have preferred it if he'd been put in jail. This way he'll go straight away rather than spend the rest of his life stuck in one place.

[Ravenblade]

Impressed the court worked that fast but i, like most people here, disapprove of the death sentence. It would be nothing more than an act of revenge since he's not a threat to anyone anymore. I would have him locked up.

[Saturos S.]

It worked that fast because it was pretty much determined what his punishment would be. It would have been more fair if it had been an international court, like the one in Holland where the original trial would have been held. Because of course the new goverment was wanting him out of the way. They rose to might because of his abcense.

[Hotshot101]

Well in my opinion they should execute him because the way i see it is the terrorist are still fighting to get him free, if we kill him they will take it as a loss and leave us alone. So i say we should give him the electrict chair and send the little sucker to the devil already (no i am not getting into a religous debate).

[I'm Always BROKE]

Hotshot101, on Nov 5 2006, 10:47 PM, said:

Well in my opinion they should execute him because the way i see it is the terrorist are still fighting to get him free, if we kill him they will take it as a loss and leave us alone.

Well THAT's the big problem of executting Saddam! Terrorist wouldn't just give up. Would you do?
No, instead... They'll go all mad! Expect atleast one big attack from them... Those sort of people won't accept that.

[FlamingDuck]

Yeah, I'm not sure the death sentance is too smart a move. I'm sure he deserves it, but is that act of revenge worth the probable attack to follow? Angry terrorists, who already hate the US, may just go all out kamikaze syle on us. Which would most likely result in the deaths of many more innocen people. Locking him up in solitary for life would serve just as well. Actually, I don't know how likely a follow up attack would be, but its nopt worth the risk, in my opinion.

[Hotshot101]

Well they would hate us more but if we solitare him they will keep attacking us to spring him. The terrorists only reason for attacking us right now is to spring him so get rid of him one problem solved and mabye into another problem. Killing him though is better then having the chance of him being sprung and more blood being spilt over a long period of time.

[TheEnglishman]

DiddyKong, on Nov 5 2006, 09:51 PM, said:

Well THAT's the big problem of executting Saddam! Terrorist wouldn't just give up. Would you do?
No, instead... They'll go all mad! Expect atleast one big attack from them... Those sort of people won't accept that.

That's what I'm worried about. If anything Saddam could end up being a martyr to people for dying.

[Hotshot101]

Point is Saddam is still why the terrorist are causing all this trouble in Iraq we get rid of him who cares if he is a martyr i don't even think islamics believe in that junk. They will assume it as a loss and think he is with Allah instead where he really is. is in hell

[TheEnglishman]

Surely his death would spur them on to take revenge, rather than simply go 'ah well never mind'. They'll want to take action instead and lash out.
Still it is a very important event in Iraq.

[Hotshot101]

Ya well i still say he is better off dead then them breaking him out of jail.

[Toasty]

The way I see it, is either they will stop fighting because they'll have no cause, or half of them will try to pull some huge attack and the rest will just walk away.

And by the way, though I doubt he would end up in a federal prison (likely it would be military), do you know how nice they are? Hobos would commit a crime just to get into a federal prison because it's better than living on the streets.

[Sea of Time]

Hotshot, this isn't a movie, Saddam Hussein is not going to break out of a prison. *chuckles*

I think the death penalty is just in this case. I mean, if someone is going to get it, it better be Saddam.

[Ravenblade]

Mr T - we're not talking about Federal Prison though - he'd be locked up in an Iraqi Jail. The US, or any other country for that matter, isnt allowed to lock him up in their own prisons.

[Hotshot101]

Sea_of_Time, on Nov 5 2006, 08:06 PM, said:

Hotshot, this isn't a movie, Saddam Hussein is not going to break out of a prison. *chuckles*

I think the death penalty is just in this case. I mean, if someone is going to get it, it better be Saddam.

do you not get what i said? I mean the terrorist can stil break him out of where ever it don't matter if its a prison or what they will try and break him out, so its best to get him now.

[Ravenblade]

Yes but what would they do with him? He cant just walk back into Iraq and assume command of the nations army again can he? He'd just be some random old guy that they would have released for no reason other than that they could. And I agree with SoT, i very much doubt they'd manage it.

[My Best Wishes]

Oh a hanging, thats not very civil. What happened to the firing squad or the lethal injection. Still, he'll get what he deserves, eye for a eye and all that. He deserves to die IMO. If drug smugglers get the firing squad, then a murder and a tryant deserves far worse.

[Platinum Sun]

Stop being a wuss. The iraqi constitution dosn't have anything forbiding cruel and unusual punishment. They could put a tire around his nech and light it on fire if they wanted.

[Hotshot101]

yes true but when it comes to sweet revenge in execution form the electric chair will always be the most painful. And Terrorist break him out i know they won't really use him they will just do it mabye as a favor, anyway if we kill the guy they will launch an attack on us instead of just ransacking us and us losing a lot here and there.

[Someone Else]

In my moral standards, there are worse things than death. Emotional pain or elongated physical pain is worse , for example. Being locking up and kept away from society forever would be worse than death to me.

But whatever, as long as this man is out of the picture for good, I'm alright.

[Legendary Dragon of Golden Sun]

sry guys i am having to with the death sentence, however i would've chosen the electric chair or something. He deserved it for his horrid crimes, just remember how the ppl felt when they were tortured by him and those that could be dead. Saddam is getting what he deserves however i doubt the hanging is so much a great way to die but i would prefer something that makes him cry out in pain for the suffering of the ppl that were tortured by saddam. That wanker! I would give him a good beating and possibly rip out his skull and beat him to death with it. Otherwise agreeing with your point on the matter, yes indeed he should be locked up, somewhere away from civilisation, forgotten and indeed he would feel like he was hated. I am glad though that justice is served and though the terrorist are mad, whatever have they done for us? They just destroy our most treasured empires like a big kid walking and stomping over someones sand castle they just made and laughing at them and watching them cry. Terrorist are evil and nothing more I reckon and should be stopped at all costs. At least Ireland and Australia have not been touched by them.

Oh well I guess we can continue to mock Osama Bin Laden.

[Toasty]

One thing that would be worse, is to use the shock paddles (the ones doctors use to jumpstart your heart again) on his head 2 or 3 times daily. Or mabey repeatedly break his bones. Or give him radiation poisoning. All of that would probably be more just, since he did experiment on his own people, but whatever they do with him, as long as it is a fierce punishment. it's alright with me.

What can I say? I have a creative imagination.....<.<;;

[Legendary Dragon of Golden Sun]

Mr.T, on Nov 6 2006, 06:51 PM, said:

One thing that would be worse, is to use the shock paddles (the ones doctors use to jumpstart your heart again) on his head 2 or 3 times daily. Or mabey repeatedly break his bones. Or give him radiation poisoning. All of that would probably be more just, since he did experiment on his own people, but whatever they do with him, as long as it is a fierce punishment. it's alright with me.

What can I say? I have a creative imagination.....<.<;;

Indeed I would be the same i still feel he deserves more than the simple hanging, that sux. I would just have attacked by a Rottweiler on the man eating side and have it completely own Saddam. Or I would tie Saddam up and have him in a Monster Truck arena and watch him get owned big time like one of those monster derby arenas. Sorry if I don't sound humane but that is just how i feel for a remorse of those tortured, experimented and killed for Saddams pleasurement. He deserves much for his crimes.

[Hotshot101]

If they do lock him up (fat chance) i would like us to send him here and lock him up with a bubba (bubba: a random tuff guy who beats on you and is ***). Since he is sorta connected with the terrorists he will be treated very badly. Still i say he is better off dead.

[TheEnglishman]

If he was left in jail he'd have to live with all the stuff he's done for the rest of his life. If he's killed he'll only be in pain for about two or three minutes.

[Hotshot101]

Well yes, but that man has no regrets, also if you a christian or any other religion you will no he will burn perminatly in some abyss (hell). And when the verdict came down yesterday there was not as near trouble in Iraq. There was protesters but no terrorists. The execution is he will be hanged and probaly in public.

[Ravenblade]

You guys are aware that hanging is a pretty nasty way to die right? I would rather go by electric chair than be hung. Its ok if your neck breaks apparently but that doesnt always happen - and knowing the MIddle East, once he'd dead his body will probably be cut up and dragged through the streets and his head will end up on a spike.

I dont see how anyone from the Chritian world can support that - the Bible condemns the judging of other people, you're meant to leave it to God. Not that i wanna go all religious on you. I think if they have to kill him they should give him the firing squad like he asked - he still dies afterall - but no, people nowadays are just as psychotic as people in the old days and want to see everyone suffer. Yeah he was a bad man (we've been told) but is it really our place to say he deserves to have an awful death? All that shows is how we're just as messed up in the head as the freaking terrorists - we're meant to be the civilised part of the world people!

[Mindpatch]

He should be put in jail and then at the very end of his sentence he should be hung. On the other hand though, that's lowering myself to his level... I dunno about this one, I'll let you guys do the thinking. ;)

[Caael]

Kill him. I dont care about human morals, this guy isnt human. He is responsible for so many deaths, he should be killed.

But a better idea would be to lock him in a high security cell with a knife. If he doesnt think he deserves death, then he wont kill himself. I think he will though.

[Saturos S.]

With what would he be able to kill himself, put him in one of those bloody isolation cells in one of those suits. Bet you he'll go crazy, much worse then say crack to your neck or suffocate.

[Sea of Time]

Caael, on Nov 6 2006, 11:37 AM, said:

Kill him. I dont care about human morals, this guy isnt human. He is responsible for so many deaths, he should be killed.

I know it's immoral, I know it's ethically wrong, but I agree with Caael on this one. He has killed, literally, thousands of people. For someone as truly evil as this man, the only thing to do is kill him. It's better to get it over with now than have him rot away in a jail cell.

[My Best Wishes]

Raven already said it but I'm saying it anyway. Guys hanging isn't a nice way to go. If his neck doesn't break then he hangs there suffocating. Now that is not friendly, he's not getting of lightly. If he was in prison then he would be having the gift he took away from so many people, what entitles him to live even if it is in prison?

The guys getting what he deserves. I'd rather die then spend my whole life in prison especially a prison in a third world country, although I would rather not get hung.

[Hotshot101]

Ravenblade, on Nov 6 2006, 09:45 AM, said:

You guys are aware that hanging is a pretty nasty way to die right? I would rather go by electric chair than be hung. Its ok if your neck breaks apparently but that doesnt always happen - and knowing the MIddle East, once he'd dead his body will probably be cut up and dragged through the streets and his head will end up on a spike.

I dont see how anyone from the Chritian world can support that - the Bible condemns the judging of other people, you're meant to leave it to God. Not that i wanna go all religious on you. I think if they have to kill him they should give him the firing squad like he asked - he still dies afterall - but no, people nowadays are just as psychotic as people in the old days and want to see everyone suffer. Yeah he was a bad man (we've been told) but is it really our place to say he deserves to have an awful death? All that shows is how we're just as messed up in the head as the freaking terrorists - we're meant to be the civilised part of the world people!

I know it ain't realy Christian to judge people like that, but the Bible allows us to obey our laws and make the consiquences. Also really if you think about God judges him for the ultimate punishment of being condemmed to hell. God gets the real chance to do it not us.

[Toasty]

You know, an even worse way to go would be to starve to death. It's slower, and more painful than suffocation. Your stomach acids slowly eat a hole through your stomach, and you feel really weak, and it could last for days. But really, just get it over with and kill him. I bleieve in god, so I believe he'll be condemed to hell. And trust me, if you believe in the bible, and you've read the description, it beats any kind of torture known to man. That includes killing somebody with electricity and reviving him over, and over, and over again.
Basically, think of the absolute worst torture you can think of, then think of that being repeated for eternity.

[Hotshot101]

Aye it does say God is suppose to judge us, but it also says that if you disobeys the laws of man you will be punnished on earth by us

[pHantOm]

Personally I think after hes hung while hes still hanging there douse his body with some of his own gasoline then burn his carcass.

Middle Easterns seem to have a fetish for burning things (flags, hostages, rival religious members, etc) so I think they would enjoy the show.

[Hotshot101]

Ya i will agree. He does deserve it. also later you will probaly see them dragging his body threw the streets.

[Saturos S.]

Hotshot101, on Nov 8 2006, 02:08 AM, said:

Aye it does say God is suppose to judge us, but it also says that if you disobeys the laws of man you will be punnished on earth by us

I can't remember reading anything like that in my bible.
And although it's probablt coincendence, you said: "punished on earth by us." I hope you mean by us, mankind and not U.S. (United States aka America.) Cause I'd really hate the idea of America playing the global law enforcers.

[Hotshot101]

It means by man. This is sorta the meaning of one verse and of course God knew about the US, but he wouldn't make it as one country with that sorta power.

[Eugine]

Saddam might be hanged in 2hrs, watching news now... damn, that was so sudden.

[My Best Wishes]

Yea I just heard that on a hourly new's update. Although some official guy was on the air saying it won't have much effect seeing as Saddam is 'past his time'.

[Golden Legacy]

With all due respect, somehow, I really think the situation in Iraq was considerably better back when Sadaam was around.

Yes, he might have been responsible for the murder of a few hundred people, but that's nothing compared to the civil war between millions.


At any rate, yes, his hanging did come up so suddenly... word is that by tomorrow (Saturday), he'll be handed over to the Iraqi authorities before being hung.

[Eugine]

Foxnews is saying 'within minutes' the hanging may begin... So much mixed news (because I read what you said GL on some sites)...

Actually, as typing this they say he's dead... ;)

[Hotshot101]

heh what I heard, by that time tomorrow he would be dead. Oh well one less evil dictator, 2-3 more to go.

[Saturos S.]

I don't understand how you can talk so lightly about killing people, hotshot.

He got hung this morning, it was just on the news. No pictures though since the location was kept secret from the media. Probably the big marketplace.

[Hotshot101]

How could I talk so lightly about him? Well because when stuff like this happens I learn to move on. Sure there was something bad about it. His family and I regret having to hear about that, but its life. In my own area it is sad to see him go because he could have changed.

[Golden Djinn13]

Hotshot101, on Dec 30 2006, 10:58 AM, said:

In my own area it is sad to see him go because he could have changed.

I doubt the republicans would have given him a second chance to change. ;)

Anyway, there was no avoiding this and nothing could have stopped him from being killed, no matter how much defense they had for him. I kinda pity him.

[Golden Legacy]

I do too. Say what you will about him, he maintained Iraq and kept it thriving for 35 years.

[Hotshot101]

Golden Djinn13, on Dec 30 2006, 12:04 PM, said:

I doubt the republicans would have given him a second chance to change. ;)

Anyway, there was no avoiding this and nothing could have stopped him from being killed, no matter how much defense they had for him. I kinda pity him.

The we didn't have anything to do with his sentance, that was the Iraqies themselves. Besides thats not what I meant anyway. What I meant was he could have had a change of heart. Alot of criminals are visited by missionaries, even ones about to be hanged, and they become saved, which saves them from the true horror. Death is only the beggining of torment according to us. Now it really makes you want to pitty him.

[Saturos S.]

That's what so not justicy about it. It should have been an international court. The Iraqi government was bound to kill him since they came to power due to his... leaving. To get rid of the biggest part of saddam's support, they just needed to kill him.

[Hotshot101]

Well I guess the UN or whoever decided it was a national matter (by that I mean Iraq) and they wouldn't butt in.

[Golden Djinn13]

They say it was an Iraq that had him tried and executed, but lets be realistic, we all know America played a huge role in this. Who was the one that captured him in the first place?, and if America had wanted Saddam put in jail, then we all know that they would have stopped him from being killed. Besides, we all know that for now the Iraq government is pretty much a puppet to America, so whats the point in trying to say that they are settling their own matters.

[Hotshot101]

And where did you get that from? We turned him over to Iraq. They did everything themselves. My dad thinks we should just take over, but Bush is being nice. He is giving the Iraqies Iraq.

[Elliott]

I'd rather let the ******* rot away in a jail cell for the remainder of his life and be subjected to torture for 8 straight hours a day. The death penalty is too good for some people.

[Golden Djinn13]

It really is, cause there isn't any punishment. Saddam doesn't have to suffer anymore, so what was really accomplished here if you think about it.

[Elliott]

Exactly. He's not really paying his dues, or getting his comeuppance, but merely being removed from the world. It's not a punishment, it's just removing the problem. There is nothing wrong with that per say, but I feel that this man deserves more than just the termination of his life.

[Hotshot101]

Well let me put it to you this way. Would you prolong his real torture(christain view). He is going strait to hell no dout about it. He would eventually get there anyway, but still he is paying his dues in an eternaty of burning torment.

[Elliott]

Well when you can actually prove to me that Hell exists, I may consider altering my viewpoint on Saddam's punishment.

[Golden Legacy]

I still don't understand why none of you fail to acknowledge the positive things Saddam did.

Yes. Positive.

Under his reign, Iraq prospered. The education became the best in the Middle East, the standards of living for the majority of the people was raised considerably, and more importantly, Saddam held his people together.

Yes, he did terrible things. But to not acknowledge what he did for 35 years is an illusion, I think.

[Hotshot101]

heh heh. That is difficult given I am only 13 and I can't remember any of the verses, but I guess I could give one shot at it. To prove it to you I will use revalation as an example. Now take modern Israel. The bible says that within 70 years of the jews finally holding there land, He wouod come again. Isael has been a country since the 50s. The bible also says that the jews would come under a common language. When the jews got scattered all over the earth they lost the Hebrew language. Now there is someone in Israel offering to teach that language

To really tell you the truth. You can't really be convinced until you have faith that you can believe in something that you can't see.

[Elliott]

Hotshot101, on Jan 1 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

heh heh. That is difficult given I am only 13 and I can't remember any of the verses, but I guess I could give one shot at it. To prove it to you I will use revalation as an example. Now take modern Israel. The bible says that within 70 years of the jews finally holding there land, He wouod come again. Isael has been a country since the 50s. The bible also says that the jews would come under a common language. When the jews got scattered all over the earth they lost the Hebrew language. Now there is someone in Israel offering to teach that language

To really tell you the truth. You can't really be convinced until you have faith that you can believe in something that you can't see.

So you're using the Bible to prove to me that things from the Bible are reality? That's not very different from me saying that Hobbits exists, and then saying that because 'The Lord of the Rings' says they do, you should believe me.

Quote

Under his reign, Iraq prospered. The education became the best in the Middle East, the standards of living for the majority of the people was raised considerably, and more importantly, Saddam held his people together.

That's probably true, but the guy is still a piece of ****.

[Hotshot101]

Agatio, on Jan 1 2007, 12:25 AM, said:

So you're using the Bible to prove to me that things from the Bible are reality? That's not very different from me saying that Hobbits exists, and then saying that because 'The Lord of the Rings' says they do, you should believe me.

Well you didn't read the rest did you? I compared it to what is happening now, you will see that it is true. Also soon all of the arab countries will rise up against Israel.

[Elliott]

Hotshot101, on Jan 1 2007, 05:38 PM, said:

Well you didn't read the rest did you? I compared it to what is happening now, you will see that it is true. Also soon all of the arab countries will rise up against Israel.

I don't want to see this become a religious debate topic, so I will say just this: Nostradamus made some fairly accurate predictions, and even fortune tellers and fortune cookies get it right some times, but the fact remains that you cannot use the source to prove itself. The Bible was written by Christians, so it's subject to an enormous amount of bias. Anyway, let's move on, and discuss religion in the appropriate topics.

[TheEnglishman]

Agatio, on Jan 1 2007, 05:25 AM, said:

So you're using the Bible to prove to me that things from the Bible are reality? That's not very different from me saying that Hobbits exists, and then saying that because 'The Lord of the Rings' says they do, you should believe me.

Heh. Funneh.
I'd agree with GL on this one though. Even though Saddam did some pretty awful stuff, the country wasn't on the verge of civil war like it is now. I doubt Saddam's death will magically change his supporter's views, especially with the news that he was abused as he was died.

[Hotshot101]

Agatio, on Jan 1 2007, 12:50 AM, said:

I don't want to see this become a religious debate topic, so I will say just this: Nostradamus made some fairly accurate predictions, and even fortune tellers and fortune cookies get it right some times, but the fact remains that you cannot use the source to prove itself. The Bible was written by Christians, so it's subject to an enormous amount of bias. Anyway, let's move on, and discuss religion in the appropriate topics.

Who the heck is Nostradomus for one thing? And as I said I an't really convince you. That is within yourself. Soon you shall see it wasn't all made up. Thats all I shall leave in this topic.

The country wasn't and it isn't. from what I have heard we only have a few insurgens left in a few areas.

[TheEnglishman]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/6215005.stm
Seriously there are problems in Iraq. There was a report on the news last night which showed how the number of attacks have increased significantly since the invasion. There are now over 3000 American soldiers who've died in Iraq. I doubt only 'a few insurgents in a few areas' could cause this much damage.

[Aquamarine]

I'm amazed by how open-minded GL is. I once again agree with him, no man is completely good or completely evil. Good going, dude.

And I agree with Agatio about the religious thing, when Hotshot proves to me that Heaven and Hell exist I'll believe him, but as of now there are more things that point to the fact that those places do not exist.

Also, Hotshot is really starting to annoy many people here. I won't say the names of who he is annoying, but I am one of them. He is home schooled but still thinks he is smarter than everyone else here, he is overly patriotic(which annoys many people, no matter what country it is about), believes everything single thing politicians and the Bible say(which is possibly the stupidest thing a person can do) and on top of that can't even type properly. I actually think he's an okay guy, but needs to change his attitude.

Sorry, most of that was off topic...

[Hotshot101]

For 1 christianity is how I was raised and you don't know that it is or isn't true. I have been finding that perdictions about the rapture are coming true. Thats when I truly started turning

2nd I don't think I am smarter then you either. You would kinda think that because I defend what I think is right. I will admit we won't actually know what is really going on with the war until we actually go to Iraq and see. Of course we are pretty much a bunch of kids we wouldn't be able to do that.

Overly patriotic that the best you got. Cmon if I was that patroitic I would spam the crap out of this place.

I don't believe everything politicians say. Cmon I don't believe everything anyone says unless I have confirmed it myself. I don't even listen to the world news.

Last, but not least. SO WHAT IF I CAN'T TYPE RIGHT!?!?!?!?! Thats about the stupidest thing to complain about ever. If my typing annoys you, then you serously are annoyed way to easily.

Look Aqua if giving out my opinions and putting some of what I believe in it really annoys people. Then I say you guys need the attitude change. Cmon its not like I did anything wrong.

[TheEnglishman]

Hotshot101, on Jan 1 2007, 06:29 PM, said:

2nd I don't think I am smarter then you either. You would kinda think that because I defend what I think is right. I will admit we won't actually know what is really going on with the war until we actually go to Iraq and see. Of course we are pretty much a bunch of kids we wouldn't be able to do that.

He has a point there. The only true way to know about something is to go their and see it for yourself. I also guess you have a right to say what you believe, even if most people disagree.
I won't go into the rest of the stuff though. It isn't for this topic.

[Aquamarine]

I'm not annoyed by what he says, as everyone has a right to a different opinion and I like hearing different opinions. I'm annoyed by the way he says it. It seems as though he keeps laughing in everybodies face and won't admit that he is wrong about ANYTHING, even when it's something trivial and he so obviously is wrong. And not being able to type well and having to read through your post three times in order to fully understand it is annoying to lots of people.
I'm not the only person who Hotshot annoys, so it can't be something wrong with me. Many people here share different views on that me on many things, but they don't annoy me. How can that be?

I'm off topic again, sorry. I won't post here anymore if all I've got to say is about Hotshot.

[Hotshot101]

Admit I am wrong? I admit it when I know I am. Gotta come up with something better then that, because we both could be wrong. As I said before we won't know the truth till we see it ourselves. You can't take anything the media, I, or anyone else says to be real in polatics, because of biased lies. Trivival? What the heck do you mean? In the topics I have debated in, there was never anything trivial about them.

I seem to laugh, because I am really just enjoying the debate, because this is giving me practice in area I am quite needing it.

I don't get with the typing, because you guys are the first ones to complain about it. I still say that its a really petty thing to complain about a person. I they say, "nobody is perfect"

What I meant by your the ones that need a change, is because you all serously need to open your minds, to new things outside your own. You guys seem to act like you get annoyed, just because I don't go to public school and I don't believe everything you do. I expected more maturity out of a lot of people here. I guess I was wrong.

Now really think about it, before you cross my character again.

(this is really starting to get on my nerves)

[Elliott]

I have an extremely open mind believe it or not, though I am very quick to judge, and am very intolerant of stupidity. I think that yes, Saddam was probably doing a lot of work for the greater good of Iraq, but at the end of the day, the guy was pretty stupid and has gotten what's been coming to him. The country does seem to be worse of without him now though.

While he wasn't the nicest guy, he didn't really pose any major threat to American in the end (there wasn't any WMDs was there?), so for them to invade and kill all those people (I'm not saying that some of them didn't deserve it) on a false pretense is a bit of an embarrassment to to the U.S.

Eh, I'm just going on what I know. Current world politics / wars don't really hold my interest unless they directly influence me, and the situation that's been going on in Iraq for the past few years doesn't.

[Hotshot101]

We have no proof now that there are or aren't WMD's. Back when this war started, I think saddam blabed it or something came out he had them and he was going to attack America. Thats why we attacked Iraq in the first place. It was a gamble, becaue if he had them he could have easily shipped them somewhere, so we wouldn't find them. If he didn't have them. He bluffed us and made us attack for no reason.

[Saturos S.]

Hotshot101, on Jan 2 2007, 03:20 PM, said:

We have no proof now that there are or aren't WMD's. Back when this war started, I think saddam blabed it or something came out he had them and he was going to attack America. Thats why we attacked Iraq in the first place. It was a gamble, becaue if he had them he could have easily shipped them somewhere, so we wouldn't find them. If he didn't have them. He bluffed us and made us attack for no reason.

If did have them, then there's still a threat. They didn't find or dismantle anything. If America was going to attack me and I had WMD's. I'd probably give them to a terrorist organisation who hates America. So say he thought as my scenario suggests, America is still in danger of WMD's, if he had them.

[Hotshot101]

There was a rumor I heard that he gave them to Osamia Binladin. Then I heard something else saying there where in Syria or some arab country.

[Saturos S.]

Since the Iraq attack was based on rumors, the rumor of Syria having them should be enough to attack. So I guess we know who's next on America's list.

[Hotshot101]

Where we got the information from the WMD's didn't exactly come from rumors as I remember it. What I do remember is that we got a threat from Iraq that saddam would attack us with them. As for the rumors in Syria, I am not even sure that was the right country, but it is close to Iraq.

[Eugine]

North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran has nuclear weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons which arent sanctioned by the UN yet America isn't invading them. I guess they realise countries can pwn them after all ^^

North Korea nearly successfully launched a nuclear weapon, if successful it can do serious damage to Japan, yet you don't see Japan invading NK and trust me, the Japanese have a grudge for NK tenfolds greater than the one USA had for Iraq (did they even have one? o.o). They are atleast trying to do it diplomatically first, the USA didnt do anything diplomatically <__<

It comes down to the people, America's government is arrogant and feel military might is the solution and look at it, they're regretting it for sure. Now they've killed Saddam, and I'm sure they were in the leakage of the hanging (how the hell could someone enter there with a camera cellphone after being searched?) Rumours have it, America influenced the virdict and death penalty.

... I hope they know, atleast one child died while re-acting the hanging.

[TheEnglishman]

I heard that hanging was almost stopped due to all the taunts which were taking place. Maybe if they had, then there wouldn't be all this talk of Saddam's death not being dignified.

[Hotshot101]

We didn't get any sites of him dead though. Millitary might when needed is better then just talking the enemy to death.
We still did have anything to do with the hanging. The Iraqies made the verdict

Eugine, You can try to diplomatically talk to them. I think Bush forgot that, because of him trying to finish what his father did. I am sure thought we would have talked first, if it was another republican. Still peace talks don't always work because of stubborn people.

Japan will eventually attack, because if I know NK they won't stand down the program and they aren't going to listen to the UN (like the UN really does anything).

I don't know where you got the idea Iran had nuclear weapons, but I do know they will be next once Iraq is cleared(which if the democrats take over presidency then, it won't and America will probaly go through this mess again where the democrats are just going to be wimps).

[Mindpatch]

Agatio, on Jan 2 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

I have an extremely open mind believe it or not, though I am very quick to judge, and am very intolerant of stupidity. I think that yes, Saddam was probably doing a lot of work for the greater good of Iraq, but at the end of the day, the guy was pretty stupid and has gotten what's been coming to him. The country does seem to be worse of without him now though.

While he wasn't the nicest guy, he didn't really pose any major threat to American in the end (there wasn't any WMDs was there?), so for them to invade and kill all those people (I'm not saying that some of them didn't deserve it) on a false pretense is a bit of an embarrassment to to the U.S.

Eh, I'm just going on what I know. Current world politics / wars don't really hold my interest unless they directly influence me, and the situation that's been going on in Iraq for the past few years doesn't.

There were no WMD's but he made himself pretty suspicious, he wouldn't allow any american controll teams to make sure he didn't have nor make them.

[Hotshot101]

Well since we didn't see that is still meant to be unvealed now isn't it.

[Saturos S.]

For all we know America is making a doomsday weapon at some top-secret weapons research facility. I don't think that America would let any UN or EU controllers check it out.

Maybe that's how the former Iraqi government thought. We'll let you check ours if you let us check yours.

[Hotshot101]

Well you have one point that probaly whatthey thought. Although somewhat announcing it to the world and then hiding it would arouse suspicion.

[Ravenblade]

Saddam didnt let US control teams in but he *did* let the UN weapons inspectors in - who said there werent any WMDs. Quite why the US feels it should be able to send its own inspectors into random countries is beyond me.

And @Hotshot - you know Japan arent actually allowed to attack anyone right? They have a treaty with the US saying they cant. The US is meant to attack people for them...so...if anyone attacks NK, it'll be you guys =/

[Golden Djinn13]

Like Raven said, Japan barely even has a military. All they have is pretty much just a national guard if they can be called that. I doubt there will be any violence with North Korea as this situation progresses. Anyway, i'm betting that Saddam didn't let the U.S. in because he still held a grudge against us for the first war we had with him. Saddam probably didn't want to speak with our country let alone let them into his own country.

[Hotshot101]

Yes true. Japan made be up in smoke then if North Korea still holds that 600 year old grudge (Japan and Korea have been batting at this for more then half a century). Although I think Norht Korea mabye just trying to scare us.

[Ravenblade]

You know, if the US wanted to inspect Britain for weapons, I would oppose that and i hope the government wouldnt let you. I dont think it would either. I mean, if another random country suddenly decided the US was a threat to it and wanted to come in and go snooping around, you wouldnt let them would you?

[Hotshot101]

Well on one side it could be a scam to get information on the other side it could prevent a war. I would say no for safety reasons. I think they would to. Although most countries have nothing that personal to see the US as a threat.

[gsninja]

Eugine, on Jan 2 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran has nuclear weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons which arent sanctioned by the UN yet America isn't invading them. I guess they realise countries can pwn them after all ^^

If all three of those countries decided to team up against the U.S., still not 100%. The one country I believe can defeat the United States in war is China, through sheer force of numbers. However, I believe all countries, including the U.S., should stop flaunting military might, shut up, and negotiate world peace. Sadly, pretty much every country doesn't accept that, and they simply decide to just ignore what's right and act on their own interests.

Now, onto Saddam...I'm happy he's dead. I was laughing, I was happy, I was glad I knew he was dead. Although, from my moral standpoint and others', it was better Saddam should have been put in jail for life, it works fine with me that Saddam got sentenced to the death penalty. He had it coming, what goes around comes around, do unto others as you would have done unto you. Saddam killed tons of poeple, sinned his ass off, and tried to play the war game with the U.S. Well, the b**tard got killed off just the same.

I think the terrorists deserve the same fate: death by "revenge", or whatever. If you're reading this and you're someone with a bleeding heart...I don't really care. I don't think the U.S. should play it nicely and just watch over everything. Whoever shoots a U.S. soldier, someone else needs to shoot back, hunt the insurgents down. The Iraqi rebels need to be put down as quickly as possible, every country needs to see that.

As long as countries who despise the United States, like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, realize it's pointless to play the war game to win against the major world powers, the world will be much better off.

[Hotshot101]

I am sure everyone would just like the fighting to stop, but until people can settle their differences it isn't going to happen. To tell you the truth, the world would end before that happens.

I will admit we are playing the nice guy in this war. If I was incharge of this, those insugents would be long gone. Really my dad thinks we should just make Iraq a state and get this over with. I will say its a little over board, but he may have a point.

[Golden Djinn13]

Hotshot101, on Jan 9 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

I will admit we are playing the nice guy in this war. If I was incharge of this, those insugents would be long gone. Really my dad thinks we should just make Iraq a state and get this over with. I will say its a little over board, but he may have a point.

Add Iraq as a state?! If we did that, we might as well add Puerto Rico as a state...You know, why not every island that surrounds the U.S. as a state. While were at it, we might as well take Mexico and Canada, cause what are they gonna do about it. :P

Anyway, tonight Bush will tell the nation about his new plan for Iraq. Can't wait to see what thats about. :o

[Saturos S.]

Then second they do that, that's when you get world wars.

I'll personally have Europe charge into America.

[Hotshot101]

don't really think so. Also you guys have to remember we weren't the only people who invaded Iraq. We had Briton, Philpi, and a couple others. We are the only ones left, but still Europe had a hand in this.

[TheEnglishman]

Yes but many people in Britain were against the idea of going to war in the first place. Not only that but most of the people who did support the war originally just want our soldiers out of Iraq now.

[Hotshot101]

Still you jumped in to this mess, so your just as responsible for Saddam's hanging as we are.

[TheEnglishman]

Is it really fair to blame the entire country for the decision of its leader? As I said, many people accused the war of being illegal. However that didn't stop the Prime Minister from going into Iraq.
Also I didn't deny at any point that Britain have had a part to play in the events of Iraq, including Saddam's hanging. I just said that it wasn't a decision supported by everybody. Even Tony Blair has said that Saddam's death wasn't right.

[Hotshot101]

Whatever. Does this arguement really matter anymore? Saddams dead, and pointless pointing of words isn't going to change things in Iraq. So we might as well all live with it.

[Ravenblade]

Hotshot101, on Jan 10 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

don't really think so. Also you guys have to remember we weren't the only people who invaded Iraq. We had Briton, Philpi, and a couple others. We are the only ones left, but still Europe had a hand in this.

Um you arent the only ones left - last i checked the US military was pleading with the British government for us to remain in Iraq too.

If you add Iraq as a state, the whole Muslim world will rally against you and you'll be nothing more than Neo-Imperialists (which is against your constitution btw) and i dont think you could rely on Britain or anyone else to help you with that one, we wouldnt get involved at all.

Yeah Saddam is dead. I watched the video. I was really impressed by how a scared old man who was no longer any threat to anyone was laughed at, and then killed while he was mid-prayer :) It was one of the most disgusting things i'd ever seen. I felt ashamed that my country was affiliated with barbarism like this..

[Hotshot101]

What was barbarianism is what he did to the people of Iraq. Also from what the President of the US has said in a speech just 2 days ago, We aren't fidiling around with this anymore. We ain't going to rely on others anymore in this case.

[TheEnglishman]

Ravenblade, on Jan 12 2007, 09:21 AM, said:

I felt ashamed that my country was affiliated with barbarism like this..

That seems to be the view from Gordon Brown and Tony Blair as well. They've been publicly speaking about how they believed the manner of his death was not right and I can understand that.
@Hotshot: Whilst I agree that the things which Saddam did were barbaric, he did manage to hold Iraq together, which isn't occuring right now.

[Hotshot101]

The plan the Iraqi government has just might then. Part of it is the Iraqi's isn't trying to make this work. We have also had some terrorist bombing wich made some sectarians go beserk. Plus Insergents roming around.

[Saturos S.]

The main reason for the bombings is because the terrorists are anti-america. Because the new Iraqi government is supported by America. They attack the government because of using America;s support. Truth is, it will never calm down there till America's gone. And if they go, it'll take some time to calm done, if it calms down. So if America wants to help rebuild Iraq. They're going to need a hell of a plan. Which Bush's plan... isn't.

[Hotshot101]

If we leave now. Iraq is going to become a haven for terrorists, which will endanger countries through out the middle east. We aren't the only ones fighting terrorists. We Iraq will be torn apart.

[Saturos S.]

Terrorists are pretty safe through out the middle east. They're a still countries there who wouldn't mind taking terrorists in. The terrorists attacks have only become more because of America's presence. They want to get rid of America and it's supporters. I don't see that endangering the Middle East.

[Hotshot101]

Umm you know they bombed more then just us. They want the whole world to see there views. As I have said these terrorists are playing out a jihad and its against the entire world.

[Ravenblade]

A jihad that didnt exist until the US got itself embroiled in Middle Eastern Affairs. Now come on, are you honestly telling me its a total coincidence that all these terrorists suddenly popped up and decided they wanted to "convert" the world at the same time as the US got itself involved in the region?

The simple fact of this is whether you want to admit it or not, this is OUR FAULT. They way i look at it is, whether its our fault or not, i would rather the terrorists died than my family and friends did. I can see the US reasoning behind attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam, pity the Whitehouse doesnt have a brain between them cos the plan was absolutely pathetic; lets hope that if we do EVER get out of this, we dont end up making the same mistake again - that mistake being allowing the US to make foreign policy decisions :)

[Hotshot101]

Dude It has been around since Islamic religion exsisted. Most have dropped it, but some still keep it (as you see the terrorists). Read a history book on Islamics. I assure you it is in there (I just study this last semester).

Heck we didn't start this mess with the terrorists. They struck us first at 9/11, so naturally we fire back.

[Saturos S.]

Islamics?.. you mean muslims.

Are you seriously stating that blowing yourself up is part of the Islam? That it's something they've been doing for years?

And Iraq had very little to do with the war on terrorism. That was Afganistan. The Iraq war was against "WMD's."

[Ravenblade]

Um, Hotshot, you know Bin Ladens first tapes didnt say they wanted to bring death and destruction to us all. No, Funnily enough, they said they wanted to kick the US out of the region.

The US however, cant be told what to do by ANYONE and so started throwing its weight around like a petulant child. You think Afghanistan was the first time you guys were involved in the Middle East? Wrong - you've been there since the 1940s!

And um, this particular jihad is our fault. Quite how people like Saddam are meant to be able to keep up with the West's bizarre international policy; throwing weapons and money down their throats one minute and baying for blood the next, is completely beyond me. He was a victim of US Imperialism =/

[Hotshot101]

So what? All we had was a base in Sadia Araibia and that was it. We didn't do anything else till Bush Sr. attack Iraq the first time and we got into vietnam.

[Golden Djinn13]

Hotshot101, on Jan 12 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

Dude It has been around since Islamic religion exsisted.

If you don't mind, I'd like to take a direct quote from Wikipedia, since nobody can say this better than the article. :)


And I quote..."Some non-Muslims are confused about the meaning of jihad, due to media coverage of recent terrorist events mainly portraying 'jihad' as a declaration of 'holy war'. However, its definition is much broader, involving spiritual, political, and martial concepts." End quote.

If you look up on it you may see more. Anyway, I'd like to know what Vietnam has to do with our situation in Iraq and terrorism? I'm kinda confused with that statement.

[Hotshot101]

Nothing I forgot it wasn't in the middle east. Anyway I don't even listen to the media. I just studied this, and this is what it meant back then. Just some idiots tried to recosolidate the definition, but this is what the terrorists would see it as. And I quote "Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defence of Islam, the holy war. Despite the fact that Jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occurred, as exemplified by early extremists like Kharijites and contemporary groups like Egypt's Jihad Organization (which assassinated Anwar Al Sadat) as well as Jihad organizations in Lebanon, the Gulf states, and Indonesia." end quote. This is pretty much what my text book said.

[Saturos S.]

There's propoganda in American history books for the war? :)

You Americans are being brainwashed...

[Hotshot101]

Not really that book was printed before the war even started. We do have our share of librals.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Jan 2 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran has nuclear weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons which arent sanctioned by the UN yet America isn't invading them. I guess they realise countries can pwn them after all ^^

Good point here. Those countries all broke the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and on that note, they are probably, technically, greater threats than Saddam ever was.

Saturos Striker, on Jan 12 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

Are you seriously stating that blowing yourself up is part of the Islam? That it's something they've been doing for years?

And Iraq had very little to do with the war on terrorism. That was Afganistan. The Iraq war was against "WMD's."

Good call here. Terrorism is done by extremists, which are a part of every faith throughout history. Islam in no way endorses "blowing yourself up".

Golden Djinn13, on Jan 12 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

If you don't mind, I'd like to take a direct quote from Wikipedia, since nobody can say this better than the article. ;)
And I quote..."Some non-Muslims are confused about the meaning of jihad, due to media coverage of recent terrorist events mainly portraying 'jihad' as a declaration of 'holy war'. However, its definition is much broader, involving spiritual, political, and martial concepts." End quote.

If you look up on it you may see more. Anyway, I'd like to know what Vietnam has to do with our situation in Iraq and terrorism? I'm kinda confused with that statement.

Jihad, in its broadest sense, means a spiritual struggle. A person trying to find balance in himself, or trying to find out what his purpose is, etc. that could very well be viewed as an Inner Struggle.

The term is misinterpreted, and used to justify the actions of terrorists who actually don't represent what it really stands for.

[Hotshot101]

The term has been debated over, what it exactly means. I looked it up again. Jihad used to just be holy war way back during the times of the cruesades. Now its just scrabled up into a bunch of different things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

The Jihad did not involve blowing yourself up, but it did involve try to convert the world. The Islamics don't keep it anymore. The terrorists don't either, but doesn't change the fact that this may be a little to harsh.

[Yuki]

I'm really angry at how after Saddam was hung, America glorified his death. I was in Vegas when he was hung and for 3 hours, they ran a documentary of his life.

[Hotshot101]

What is this world coming to? Stupid librals.

[Ravenblade]

Y'know Hotshot, im a conservative >_> and i STILL disagree with your views.

There's nothing wrong with defending your country, but if there's genuinely something wrong with it then you have to accept that. The US is probably one of the more corrupt governments on earth, as it has the most to lose. If you dont like the criticism it takes, then when you grow up, make yourself the president or something and stop all the really really dumb foreign policy decisions >_>

[Hotshot101]

Well no country is perfect. I just don't get why people where mourning his death. He didn't do anything for them? So whats the point.

[Saturos S.]

Quote

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

I can see why people would mourn his death. Although he's loads of terrible things. He did quite a lot of good things too. What you can't say about the ruler of Rwanda for example.

[Hotshot101]

Wow, if he did all that, then why did he torture his people?

[Saturos S.]

It were mainly kurds that he tortured. What the jews were to hitler, the kurds were to him.

And everyone who threatened his power.

[Hotshot101]

Thats a dictator for you. He did make comunistic life a little easier, but not much.

[Saturos S.]

Dictators aren't per definition the bad people. They aren't perfect since they don't let the people decide. But some or a lot do good things or at least no bad things.

No good current dictators come to mind though. Kings in the middle ages were quite good for their people, some of them.

[Hotshot101]

Still they didn't allow a lot of rights a democracy does. Its kinda mental with dicatators, because they have no limits. Some may be good, some may just go corrupt and power hungry like Hitler.

[Saturos S.]

Hotshot101, on Jan 17 2007, 09:33 PM, said:

Still they didn't allow a lot of rights a democracy does.

That's why they're called dictators... o_o...They rule alone.

[Hotshot101]

I think you missed the point of that. I meant they don't allow as much rights as the US gets or any other country under democracy.

[Ravenblade]

Everyone knows that Hotshot - It may come as a shock to you, but even the people in Iraq knew that. The reason people dont want democracy even though it would bring more freedom, is because they view the west as being morally bankrupt with our out of control sex and violence. They dont want anything to do with our corrupt and evil ways, and see democracy as the reason behind this. And y'know something, great as democracy is, it IS the reason behind our out of control sex and violence.

[Hotshot101]

Not sure really why that would be a reason for out of control sex. You don't have a law about it, people are going to do it.

[Saturos S.]

Democracy gave them the freedom to do things for themselves. If your dictator doesn't like the idea, he forbids it and punishes wrong-do'ers.

In a democracy if one group said it wants to forbid due to... problems then the opposing group will just promote is as a limit of freedom. Thus winning votes of the western people, since freedom is so widely promoted here.

[Hotshot101]

Well nothing is ever perfect. With us we have one side or the other stalling for time. Its kinda unnessicary.