• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraqi Court: Execute Saddam within 30 days

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up." [/B]

and there you have it. The Navy wanted a mission accomplished banner and the white house had it made for them. Thanks, kid.
 
They could care less about our troops..........They have total disdain for them.........
You're posts are so full of sh!t...have you any sense of reality or are you in some bizarro world where everyone agrees with you?

It's so odd to see someone so out of touch with reality. If nothing else you're consistent...
 
Everyone said Saddam had WMD, even your daddys Clinton and Kerry.........
But only one of the idiots went to war over it....and it's come back to bite him on his butt and has cemented his place as the worst President at least since Hoover and maybe ever....so every time you write your bullshit about Kerry et al remember that your lover Bush is the very worst at his job, proven fact and that the odds that anyone else who might have been elected would have done worse are slim to none...unless you're a brainwashed Republican...right Navy Pride?
 
But only one of the idiots went to war over it....and it's come back to bite him on his butt and has cemented his place as the worst President at least since Hoover and maybe ever

I've heard you make this claim dozens of times, and its really starting to grate on me. Do you have a cite for this statement that you claim over and over again, or do you concede that it's simply based on your own ridiculous assertion?

Because the traditional historical rankings of presidents continually place Bush in the middle of the pack, right above or below Clinton. I'm curious to see what hidden data you have that refutes all these historians.
 
I've heard you make this claim dozens of times, and its really starting to grate on me. Do you have a cite for this statement that you claim over and over again, or do you concede that it's simply based on your own ridiculous assertion?

Because the traditional historical rankings of presidents continually place Bush in the middle of the pack, right above or below Clinton. I'm curious to see what hidden data you have that refutes all these historians.
From your cited site:

Ranking at the bottom of most polls are Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. In recent public polls, George W. Bush has been ranked low.
Source: Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The latest survey in your link from the WSJ was actually conducted in early 2005. Now let's look at a Zogby poll from early 2006 (so it doesn't even take into account Bush biggest failures which have occurred in 2006:

Source: Zogby International

Note how poorly "W" does compared to the others listed....
 
Note how poorly "W" does compared to the others listed....
Which has what, exactly, to do with the execution of Saddam?

Oh that's right. No matter the thread topic, spew your hate for the president.
 
Which has what, exactly, to do with the execution of Saddam?

Oh that's right. No matter the thread topic, spew your hate for the president.

Because he wants George Bush to be tried, and executed. Thats the underlying theme here.
 
Because he wants George Bush to be tried, and executed. Thats the underlying theme here.
Drudge is reporting that Saddam will be executed in the next 48 hours. Champs will go into a deep mourning.
 
Despite continual explosions of depravity in displayed moralistic values, people still surprise me.

First, America, the greatest force for good in history, is chastized by our critics for toppling a brutal dictator. Were it not for the freshmen's mistake of offering up "WMD" as an excuse over serving decency, the world's greatest representation of slothful worthlessness wouldn't have their comfortable exhonerations from helping their fellow man. Our critics are those that have a historical love affair for dictators. Those that have enough integrity to stand out from under our wing as they criticize practice their own brand of dictatorships within their own populations.

Second, those countries that criticized us for the act itself also now show discomfort that a brutal dictator will be hung for his sins by the people he sinned. We hear the Global Left cry wildly about how he did not receive a fair trial or that he was just simply misunderstood as he practiced villiany under the protection of "soveriegnty." Of course, they seek the high ground by casually mentioning that, "Oh yeah...I agree that he was a bad guy." Tell it to the Kurds and the Shi'ite in Iraq. Tell it to the Muslims in Kuwait. Tell it to the Iranians. Tell it to the Israelis.

The truth is that the Global Left is moraly bankrupt and haven't the will to enforce the cherished values they pretend to hold. The hate that exists world wide for America is a product of our past century achievements and their failures. We Americans have wrecked socialistic theories of governance and brutality alike. From Berlin's iron fist to Paris' needs to satisfy security at all cost and from the failed communist model in the former Soviet Union to the religious monopoply on display in the ME - the distaste our critics feel for their ruined parties is grand. It is so grand that bringing a tyrant, who merely practiced the perfected skills of European power, to justice is even stripped away from America. Germany may hold the crown, but much of the world has an obsession with vilifying America and Israel. So much, that the mere hint that an enemy of the free world will pay for his crimes.

But, there is also another aspect to people's distaste for world events today. The Global Left like to pretend that they are all a part of the same organization of higher authority over those of us who act on their imagined beliefs. They like to pretend that the world is full of simple misunderstandings that a nice hot cup of tea and some crumpets will fix. But, according to the gutters of the globe from where I have seen the world, good and evil is very much at hand. The third world is covered in blood which is the legacy of all those European countries who graced the world with colonialism. After vacating so much stolen land and leaving power vacuums or creating frankenstien's monster states, people were left to sieze power through any means necessary. Whether they used religion, militant power, or superstition that reach back so far that it is mostly myth, the world is a bloody mess for which the guilty have washed their hands. In the wake of European colonialism, the historical art of embracing the most powerful dictator no matter what he did so as long as he killed selectively (America was also guilty of it for a brief period during the Cold War), became foreign policy. Our efforts to build an inclusive world organization in the UN have failed humanity. The UN has become a tool for protecting apprentice Hitlers. In the struggle between good and evil Americans and all others who stand fro true freedom needs to be on the side of a different future, not of a club of "great" powers whose memberships was frozen in the wake of WWII.

But after all is said and done and in the face of the world we live in, some people only have enough strength to announce that Saddam Hussein, considered one of history's worst dictators, had an unfair trial and will hang for his crimes against humanity. Our critics-unwittingly, but some consciously-have chosen evil over good. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
But only one of the idiots went to war over it....and it's come back to bite him on his butt and has cemented his place as the worst President at least since Hoover and maybe ever....

Highly erronious and obtuse.

Your statement should say..."Only one had the courage to act on true Liberal conviction, but screwed up the process."

Taking out Saddam Hussein was a virtuous act in a wildly moraly confused world. What has bit him in the butt was the absence of wisdom before the invasion, during the invasion, and through the occupation.

There is absolutely nothing moral about leaving a dictator to fester.
 
First, America, the greatest force for good in history, is chastized by our critics for toppling a brutal dictator. Were it not for the freshmen's mistake of offering up "WMD" as an excuse over serving decency, the world's greatest representation of slothful worthlessness wouldn't have their comfortable exhonerations from helping their fellow man. Our critics are those that have a historical love affair for dictators. Those that have enough integrity to stand out from under our wing as they criticize practice their own brand of dictatorships within their own populations.

Well first of all it's not clear that "you help your fellow man" in Iraq. Because no knows yet what the end result will be. The only thing clear is that the Iraqies have payed a very high price for being "helped". Also if you primary mission was to help your fellow why did you choose Iraq and you know that for the cost of Iraq war it would be possibility to do enourmous amount of other "helping". But back to this thread:

Second, those countries that criticized us for the act itself also now show discomfort that a brutal dictator will be hung for his sins by the people he sinned. We hear the Global Left cry wildly about how he did not receive a fair trial or that he was just simply misunderstood as he practiced villiany under the protection of "soveriegnty." Of course, they seek the high ground by casually mentioning that, "Oh yeah...I agree that he was a bad guy." Tell it to the Kurds and the Shi'ite in Iraq. Tell it to the Muslims in Kuwait. Tell it to the Iranians. Tell it to the Israelis.


Well yes the trial was chaotic and having defence lawyers killed and threathen is not the best they to have a fair trial. But I don't think it's make the trial unvalid and I think few people belive it. But maybee you have sources on that like for example from Daily Mirror.

Your next claim I think is much more hard to swallow. Because I don't now anybody that seriusly say that Saddam was misunderstod and that his crimes was ok because of soverignity.

No the problem is to fold:

First is it really enough to just find a "legal way of convicting/killing" him? Should not all his big crimes been documted and tried in court so the victims and there relatives can get they day in court and be honored.

Second the death penalty. That yes I understand why people would like death penalty ecpecially sens a tyrant like Saddam. But still I'm against it even in this case by principle. That he should never by free again but death penalty isn't a part of a civilized society (not saying that countries that have death penaltys can't be civilized).
 
GySgt,

It seems to me that virtue had little to do with it. Will you not admit that removing Saddam was not an act of kindness. Rather a means to an end that had nothing to do with Iraq or its people. Intent is important when you are talking about someone's actions. Do you really believe our inent was to help Iraq?

Keep in mind that I don't doubt that people such as yourself went to Iraq to help. However as a nation, as a government I don't believe that was the case. Most Americans supported the war for selfish reasons. Most Americans now want out of Iraq for selfish reasons. The majority of the civilian government also makes it decisions based on selfishness. Do you disagree?

Thanks,
 
From your cited site:


Source: Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The latest survey in your link from the WSJ was actually conducted in early 2005. Now let's look at a Zogby poll from early 2006 (so it doesn't even take into account Bush biggest failures which have occurred in 2006:

Source: Zogby International

Note how poorly "W" does compared to the others listed....

Do you see the difference between the polls conducted of scholars and historians and the polls conducted of the average joe schmo on the street? I couldn't care less what the average person thinks, as public opinion is fleeting.
The current president carries a high negative rating, as 40% said his performance has been either below average or a failure. Clinton suffered much the same negative effect when he was in office, and those negative opinions of the Clinton years have only recently started to soften. As late as 2003, 39% said they considered him a below average or failed president.

Does that mean that in 2003 Clinton was somehow a failure, whereas now he's great? No, it means the public is dumb.

Nothing there offers any support for your tired claim that Bush was "the worst president in history."

Anyways, this is getting pretty off topic. My bad, all, I'll leave it.
 
Wonder what the typical Iraqi citizens reaction will be like when Saddam's death sentence is actually carried out? Will Iraq explode? Will the execution be televised?

I myself won't shed a tear for Saddam but I'm sure many so called 'Christians' here on this forum and in the country will dance and cheer as if they genuinely cared, they will be fulfilled because their leader (Prresident Bush) will have have been fulfilled, alas President Bush can direct another "Mission Acomplished" banner to be hung somewhere in the White House for him to stand under.

...

"We'll implement the verdict by the power of the law," Juhi said. He did not elaborate...

They will make him a martyr.
 
Highly erronious and obtuse.

Your statement should say..."Only one had the courage to act on true Liberal conviction, but screwed up the process."

Taking out Saddam Hussein was a virtuous act in a wildly moraly confused world. What has bit him in the butt was the absence of wisdom before the invasion, during the invasion, and through the occupation.

There is absolutely nothing moral about leaving a dictator to fester.
Here's why I disagree. Had Bush stated that was his objective instead of making up reasons to attack Iraq I would be less of a Bush basher. The reality is that Bush and his evil tribe purposely distorted and manipulated the truth in order to start a war....unprecedented in modern US history and since the real truth has been exposed all the more infuriating.

Not to mention the incredibly inept execution of the entire Iraq project. Could it have been done worse if you tried? How pathetic is it when you're so full of yourself that you actually try to change the way a culture has behaved for thousands of years? Believing that we would be greeted as liberators...believing that, as Rumsfeld said that "we go to war with the Army we have not want we want," believing that Iraqi oil would pay for entire escapade etc. etc. is why I think you're incorrect.

No doubt that Saddam was about as evil as it gets...no American I can think of has ever been close to his horrific crimes. However, again, we are not the world's policemen and that is not why we went to Iraq. We were told that Iraq was an IMMINENT threat to America which was what was justifying our invasion...and we were manipulated into a war that we do not need to be fighting.

Hell....what about all the other places in the Middle East, Africa, South America and the Asia that have equally or almost equally brutal leaders? Our interests can be preserved and protected in many ways...but going to war in Iraq was not one of them and you cannot convince me that we are safer today than when Saddam was ruling Iraq....and that is the bottom line...
 
The reality is that Bush and his evil tribe purposely distorted and manipulated the truth in order to start a war....unprecedented in modern US history
:shock:

LBJ? Gulf of Tonkin?

:shock:
 
Is it too late to pick Hussein in the "Dead Pool?"
 
:shock:

LBJ? Gulf of Tonkin?

:shock:
Good point and I agree in the most part....BUT....American soldiers were already there prior to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. LBJ and McNamara definitely manipulated the truth too, no doubt about it...but he didn't start the war it had already been raging for more than 10 years....

Versus Iraq where there was not a war, not a threat, nothing that justified an offensive attack which is where I differ.

Look, Saddam sucked the big one, big time but he was not an IMMINENT threat to the USA and no matter how many times someone tries to suggest he was the truth still remains the truth and Saddam was like a fly in a spider's web....alive but trapped and even if his desire was to rebuild he could not and was not at the time we invaded.
 
Look, Saddam sucked the big one, big time but he was not an IMMINENT threat to the USA
According to a current Dem presidential candidate, and the 2004 Democratic nominee for Vice President, Senator John Edwards, he was:

John Edwards, Dove?
"Although Democrats, including Kerry, had long paid lip service to a policy of regime change in Iraq, Edwards was one of the earliest and most outspoken Democratic hawks on Iraq following the September 11 attacks. On February 24, 2002, he described Saddam Hussein's regime as an "imminent threat" in an interview on CNN. "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.""

"Edwards continued: "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility." The war, he said, would not undermine U.S. efforts to get Osama bin Laden. "I believe this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Now tell the truth:
Did you vote for John in 2004?
If John the nominee in 2008, will you vote for him??
 
Saddam may have been hung and be dead already as we speak, death by execution! Imagine the chaos Iraq will go through in the next few days!

Nah, I don't think there will be much of a reaction in Iraq at all, in fact I predict that there will be little or no reaction to Saddams execution at all.

I think! :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom