Bon Voyage

Post by **eXg. Pun1sher** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:51 pm

jonnyh84 wrote:How about sentencing to death the people who put him into power, gave him money, as well as military, economic, and political support throughout the most brutal period of his autocracy?

Who did that ?

PuN

JUDGE · Post by **JUDGE** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:07 pm

jonnyh84 wrote:How about sentencing to death the people who put him into power, gave him money, as well as military, economic, and political support throughout the most brutal period of his autocracy?

I've met a man who fought for Germany in WW2 , and let me tell you not everyone who has to fight for evil people are evil. He was badass, and unfortunatly was forced to fight for the nazis.

eXg. sabooya · Post by **eXg. sabooya** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:25 pm

eXg. Pun1sher wrote:
jonnyh84 wrote:How about sentencing to death the people who put him into power, gave him money, as well as military, economic, and political support throughout the most brutal period of his autocracy?
Who did that ?

PuN

OK I ADMIT IT it was me

Veloc1ty90 · Post by **Veloc1ty90** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:45 pm

sabooya wrote:
eXg. Pun1sher wrote:
jonnyh84 wrote:How about sentencing to death the people who put him into power, gave him money, as well as military, economic, and political support throughout the most brutal period of his autocracy?
Who did that ?

PuN
OK I ADMIT IT it was me

SAB!!! we had an agreement.......

general icon · Post by **general icon** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:05 pm

wat they should really do is cut his balls off burn his feet put a broken broom stickup his crack scalp him use a firing squad then hang him and bury him

eXg. sabooya · Post by **eXg. sabooya** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:14 pm

general icon wrote:wat they should really do is cut his balls off burn his feet put a broken broom stickup his crack scalp him use a firing squad then hang him and bury him

ok thats a bit mean...
I don't believe killing the guy off is a good punishment. I'd rather die then live the rest of my life in a cell, and then die.

Contro · Post by **Contro** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:47 pm

This guy is very dangerous Sab... he has a lot of supporters, even now. If we were to put him in a cell, there's always a chance that he could escape using aid from supporters, or perhaps even rescued. Death is the only sure way of eliminating him.

Post by **eXg. CrUsH** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:39 pm

R.I.P

eXg. sabooya · Post by **eXg. sabooya** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:30 pm

cd\ Contro wrote:This guy is very dangerous Sab... he has a lot of supporters, even now. If we were to put him in a cell, there's always a chance that he could escape using aid from supporters, or perhaps even rescued. Death is the only sure way of eliminating him.

well thats my view on death penalty in general.

BugZz · Post by **BugZz** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:31 pm

eXg. Pun1sher wrote:
jonnyh84 wrote:How about sentencing to death the people who put him into power, gave him money, as well as military, economic, and political support throughout the most brutal period of his autocracy?
Who did that ?

PuN

we did we help in the isreal war. we gave him our tanks and s**t. we even back him up with OUR military. kinda funny how we want him dead. when HE was one of OUR ALLIES!

jonnyh84 · Post by **jonnyh84** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:27 am

eXg. Pun1sher wrote:
jonnyh84 wrote:How about sentencing to death the people who put him into power, gave him money, as well as military, economic, and political support throughout the most brutal period of his autocracy?
Who did that ?

PuN

Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush I, and other higher level officials in the US government. Might be worth mentioning that these same cats still run the show down there, as I'm sure you no doubt know. In any case, the initial pretext was that Iraq staved off Iran — which it attacked with U.S. backing — but the same support continued well after the war was over.

Now, those responsible for the policies of accommodation are bringing Saddam to the bar of justice.

Rumsfeld, as Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, visited Iraq in 1983 and 1984 to establish firmer relations with Saddam (at the same time the administration was criticizing Iraq for using chemical weapons).

Powell was Bush I's national security adviser from December, 1987, to January, 1989, and a few months later became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Cheney was Bush I's defence secretary.

Thus, Powell and Cheney were in top decision-making positions for the period of Saddam's worst atrocities, the massacre and gassing of the Kurds in 1988 and the crushing of the Shiite rebellion in 1991 that probably would have overthrown him.

Today, under Bush II, Powell, Cheney and others constantly bring up those atrocities to justify beating the devil — rightly, though the crucial element of U.S. support of Saddam during this period is missing.

JUDGE · Post by **JUDGE** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:52 am

We supported Bin laden too back when Afghanistan was fighting Russia. Not directly , but you know what I mean.

motionOne · Post by **motionOne** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:57 am

jonnyh84 wrote:
eXg. Pun1sher wrote:
jonnyh84 wrote:How about sentencing to death the people who put him into power, gave him money, as well as military, economic, and political support throughout the most brutal period of his autocracy?
Who did that ?

PuN
Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush I, and other higher level officials in the US government. Might be worth mentioning that these same cats still run the show down there, as I'm sure you no doubt know. In any case, the initial pretext was that Iraq staved off Iran — which it attacked with U.S. backing — but the same support continued well after the war was over.

Now, those responsible for the policies of accommodation are bringing Saddam to the bar of justice.

Rumsfeld, as Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, visited Iraq in 1983 and 1984 to establish firmer relations with Saddam (at the same time the administration was criticizing Iraq for using chemical weapons).

Powell was Bush I's national security adviser from December, 1987, to January, 1989, and a few months later became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Cheney was Bush I's defence secretary.

Thus, Powell and Cheney were in top decision-making positions for the period of Saddam's worst atrocities, the massacre and gassing of the Kurds in 1988 and the crushing of the Shiite rebellion in 1991 that probably would have overthrown him.

Today, under Bush II, Powell, Cheney and others constantly bring up those atrocities to justify beating the devil — rightly, though the crucial element of U.S. support of Saddam during this period is missing.

I think all of that is a bit of a stretch. I know there are a ton of "sources" that claim all this, but it has to be pure speculation. Believe me, I'm no Bush fan, but I still think he's capable of only so much. I'd go as far as saying that Bush may have turned a shoulder to certain events, but orchestrating them? Doubtful. He's our PRESIDENT! You're saying he supported Iraq in order to bring them to power, in order to bring their leader to death? All over oil (I'm assuming)? If it were over oil, why aren't we paying like $.50/gallon now? Prices are still ridiculously high compared to what they were say, during the Clinton administration. Show me some kind of reputable, FACTUAL source, and then we're going somewhere..

jonnnyh · Post by **jonnnyh** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:45 pm

I think all of that is a bit of a stretch. I know there are a ton of "sources" that claim all this, but it has to be pure speculation. Believe me, I'm no Bush fan, but I still think he's capable of only so much. I'd go as far as saying that Bush may have turned a shoulder to certain events, but orchestrating them? Doubtful. He's our PRESIDENT! You're saying he supported Iraq in order to bring them to power, in order to bring their leader to death? All over oil (I'm assuming)? If it were over oil, why aren't we paying like $.50/gallon now? Prices are still ridiculously high compared to what they were say, during the Clinton administration. Show me some kind of reputable, FACTUAL source, and then we're going somewhere..

Several things to say. Since you apparently have no mechanism for functional logic, or reading comprehension.

You put the word sources in quotations like this, "sources", this being your method of expressing your distrust in their validity. I didn't supply a single source for anything I said, so whatever sources you're thinking of are a creation of your own imagination. To find a source, ask your parents, ask anyone you know who is older than 30, ask a history teacher, ask a librarian, ask your doctor, read an encyclopedia, dig up old news papers. You'll find out, quite easily, that these were the people in power during the period of Saddam's worst atrocities. You then go on without explaining yourself and say that it "must be all speculation". YES, it is JUST 'purely speculation' that Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush Sr held the highest decision making positions in the White House. Are you fucked? It's a fact of history, undeniable. Those people mentioned above DID have the jobs that I stated. Bush Sr was the president before Clinton, did you know that? Christ. Requesting reputable, "FACTUAL" sources to validate the fact that they held these jobs is as easy as picking up a history textbook, or an encyclopedia, or like I said, asking your parents. Just say, Mom, Dad, was George Bush's dad president before? Then ask your history teacher if Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld ever worked for him. If you still haven't found out, try reading any history textbook you can get your hands on that deals with US Foreign Policy that covers events up to the year 1990 or more. Since you don't read s**t, and don't even think about anything unless it's blasted to you from CNN, here is a video that might help you out.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... +saddam%2C

Did I mention anywhere in my original statement that Bush 'orchestrated' the massacre and gassing of the Kurds in 1988 and the crushing of the Shiite rebellion in 1991? NOPE. They gave him the money, weapons, and political support to do whatever he wanted. Now if you don't believe this, which shouldn't come as a surprise to me, since your dead mind doesn't even understand sentences, then you can simply look at the fact that they did nothing about it - as a direct result of them supporting him, mind you - but this is just something special for you "non-believers" to think about. If what you think is true, that A) They were in power during the time and B) The massacre and gassing of the Kurds in 1988 and the crushing of the Shiite rebellion in 1991 was carried out by Saddam Hussein, and C) America views itself as the moral center of the universe and has unrivaled strength and capacity to exercise its moral superiority (example: Vietnam, Grenada). Then I must ask you this: Why didn't they D) Do anything about it? Why would they stand back and 'turn a shoulder' to it, if America boasts constantly about being freedom-bringing, peace-loving, anti-tyrant, anti-terrorist, wonderful zealots of human kind. Why just sit back idle and f**k the dog? Why not drop a bomb on Saddam's house? Oh right, probably because Rumsfeld was inside.

The extent of which you don't know is a measure of other peoples torture. In simpler words. The less you know, the less you can complain, and the less you can complain, the worse things your elected officials can get away with. Pretending that all these things weren't happening in the 1980's, and then using them now as a reason to execute Saddam Hussein is complete utter hypocrisy. I'm sure you stopped reading this by now, since you don't care about anything but your vapid trivial 'amuse-myself till i die' life.

eQuals · Post by **eQuals** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:00 pm

I'm pretty sure "sources" meant evidence that they put him to power, directly...not evidence they had their jobs.