Son of Saddam

Jamie Hale

... "Take him downstairs and finish the job," Uday screamed. Fade to black. Exuberant announcer: "First there were the doped up West Germans. Then the Russian mob figure-skating fiascos. But none as bad a... *music swells* ... Son Of Saddam. A FOX exclusive. Watch for it Thursday night after COPS." J

"You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant."

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

That is one sick bastard. I hope they nail him before this is all over (if they haven't already, but that's probably wishful thinking). Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Stan Shannon

Yeah, that sounds like the kind of guy who could be safely "contained" and dealt with by diplomacy. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Brit

Yes, it makes a mockery of Islam whenever one of those Muslim clerics declare a Jihad against the US for the invasion of Iraq. The moral of the story is: if an Arab kills a million Muslims they shrug, but if a non-Muslim goes to remove that very same megalomanic, expansionistic, mass-murdering Arab leader, it is grounds for jihad. At least some Muslims recognize the obvious: How otherwise could we confuse protecting a land which is one of the glories of Islamic civilization with protecting a war criminal and an enemy of mankind? How could we have allowed someone like Saddam Hussein to become a symbol for pan-Arabism and Arab dignity? We are talking of a man obsessed with waging war against his neighbors. The obsession was first seen in the war with Iran — lasting for eight years, resulting in over 1.5 million people killed and hundreds of thousands taken prisoner and ending in Kuwait where a brutal Iraqi invasion unleashed a wave of murder, plunder and rape. It is tragic indeed that we have failed to make a distinction between Iraq the country and Saddam Hussein the ruler. If we honestly want to preserve Iraq as an entity and protect its people, we must admit Saddam’s crimes against his own people — one of which involved killing them with chemical weapons. We must ask who else but Saddam violated the sovereignty and sanctity of neighbor and kinship? Who else but Saddam has brought the armies of the world into our region? Is there any hope for us to learn the obvious lesson? - Bander bin Abdullah bin Mohammed ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

Doug Goulden

I thought you were opposed to the war;);P Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Well in truth I don't like it one bit but there was no alternative put forward that would work either. Now our troops are out there, the worst possible thing that could happen would be for the politicians to call them off before they finish the job. The sooner Saddam and his goons are brought before a war crimes tribunal the better. Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Doug Goulden

I'm proud of yah, I'm going to make you an honorary Conservative:laugh: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: Conservative it's funny how these days a "Conservative" is someone who promotes promotes radical violent governmental overthrow - in other countries :) ;P -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: a "Conservative" is someone who promotes radical violent governmental overthrow That would be a Conservative violent governmental overthrow ;P Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Alvaro Mendez

It's true, most conservatives support the overthrowing of radical violent governments. ;P Regards, Alvaro

That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable. -- despair.com

Chris Losinger

Alvaro Mendez wrote: It's true, most conservatives support the overthrowing of radical violent governments. even that sounds like a 'liberal' idea. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Jason Henderson

I'm proud of the fact that I'm this type of conservative. :cool:

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Doug Goulden

And thats bad?:laugh: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

You'd have to put damn good glue on that label to get it to stick! ;) I appreciate the sentiment though. :) Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Doug Goulden

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: You'd have to put damn good glue on that label to get it to stick! Judging from your bio and website you might be right, but I'm willing to risk it.:-D Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Am I that obvious? :laugh: Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

John Carson

Brit wrote: Yes, it makes a mockery of Islam whenever one of those Muslim clerics declare a Jihad against the US for the invasion of Iraq. The moral of the story is: if an Arab kills a million Muslims they shrug, but if a non-Muslim goes to remove that very same megalomanic, expansionistic, mass-murdering Arab leader, it is grounds for jihad. Of course the US supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Hypocrisy all round it seems to me. John Carson

Brit

John Carson wrote: Of course the US supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Hypocrisy all round it seems to me. The US supported preventing Iran from gaining Iraqi territory, and that's all. Further, it was in an Iraq that was pre-Anfal campaign (the campaign to grind Kurds into submission) and pre-Kuwait invasion. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

John Carson

Brit wrote: The US supported preventing Iran from gaining Iraqi territory, and that's all. Further, it was in an Iraq that was pre-Anfal campaign (the campaign to grind Kurds into submission) and pre-Kuwait invasion. "that's all"! Iraq was at war with Iran. US companies (and those from other nations) supplied Iraq with the means to produce chemical weapons. The US (and other governments) allowed this in full knowledge of the "dual-use" nature of what was being supplied. Further, in full knowledge of the fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran and in full knowledge of the fact that Iraq was a brutal dicatorship, the US supplied Iraq with satellite intelligence to assist Iraq in the prosecution of the war. So the fact that the US was trying to prevent the loss of Iraq territory makes everything OK does it? You referred to Saddam Hussein being responsible for the loss of a million Muslim lives. Almost all of them were lost in the Iran-Iraq war with US support for Iraq (both military and economic). This support (especially economic support) continued right up until Iraq invaded Kuwait. No doubt you can convince yourself that the US was making the best of a bad situation. What puzzles me is that you appear puzzled that much of the rest of the world takes a different view to your own on the Iraq question. Let us do a quick review of US policy toward Iraq. First, we have the policy toward Iraq in the 1980s, as already discussed. Then we have the US-led UN attack on Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait. I believe that the attack was justified, but it cost many thousands of Iraqi lives and is unlikely to have won the US many fans within Iraq. After the conclusion of the Iraq war, the first Bush administration urged Iraqis to revolt against Saddam Hussein. The Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north did as urged. The US did not lift a finger to help and they were slaughtered by the Iraqi government forces. More dead bodies. Eventually the US/Britain/France imposed no-fly zones in the north and south. Better late than never. In similar fashion, the Clinton administration, via the CIA, encouraged the development of internal opposition groups but, in March 1995 and the summer of 1996, stood by while the Iraq regime crushed them. Little wonder that the anti-Saddam groups regard the US as an unreliable ally As part of the post-Kuwait settlement, sanctions were imposed on Iraq which have been estimated to have cost the lives of more than half a million childr

Brit

I'm well aware of US policy in the Middle East. No, things are not as bad as people make them out to be. Why can I make that statement? Because there's been a lot of BS statements about US involvement in Iraq that aren't true. (1) The US gave money and loans to Iraq. Yes, but the critical detail is this: the US gave agricultural loans. A little known fact is that Iraqis were eating large amounts of US-grown food. (Oh the horror!) This is contrary to the generally accepted idea of the US supplying arms. "Many in the American government, including Presidents Bush and Reagan, also hoped that U.S. aid would gradually cause Hussein to moderate his ways and even play a positive role in the Middle East peace process." (2) The US supplied chemical weapons or precursors to Iraq. The US did not supply chemical weapons to Iraq, and the dual-use technology can be made to sound sinister, but the term is a little vague. For example, chlorine is used in water purification, but it's also a major component in chemical weapons. So - after the first Gulf War, the US banned selling chlorine to Iraq. What happened? There was a backlash by Muslims claiming that the US was preventing the Iraqis from getting clean water - and therefore, responsible for their deaths! Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess. Further, I've seen people pointout the sale of insecticides from the US to Iraq. That is, technically, a dual-use item because it can be used to kill soldiers (and apparently, Saddam used it for that purpose), but you have to ask the question "Where do you draw the line?" because dual-use covers a broad range of products - some of them have an obvious civilian use, but no obvious military use. It seems to me the only solution is not to deprive the Iraqis of dual-use technology, but to remove the person who is determined to use everything as a killing device. (3) The US armed Iraq. Wrong again. Countries like Russia and France were the biggest arms dealers in Iraq. You might've noticed that Scuds are Russian weapons. Also, the Iraqi military uses T-72, T-62, T-54 tanks (Russian), Chinese-built T-55 and T-54 tanks, MIG fighters (Russian), Mirage fighters (French), and Chinese-built Mig-21s, and AK-47s (Russian). in 1987 the Soviet Union, having provided more than US$8 billion worth of weapons since 1980, was Iraq's most important arms supplier. In early 1987, Moscow delivered a squadron of twenty-four MiG-29 Fulcrums to Baghdad. Considered the most advanced fighter in the Soviet arsena