Bad-Bye, Bad-Riddance, and Fair Poorly. Its finally over.

It was a mistake to kill him. It was always destined to be a farce.
Sure he deserved it, many times over but in the grand scheme of things his death has caused more problems and solved few, if any.

The new Iraqi government has screwed up its first major test of 'justice' and allowed Saddam to die a martyr.

He should have been locked away and afforded every medical aid to ensure he became a decrepit senile old man. It's hard to have someone as your figurehead who pisses and shits themselves, dribbles and can't string a sentence of words together.

Yet another f^ck up. Bushy and Bliar prepare for ignominy.

ah .... That is the point I was trying to make.

It was a mistake....and the recording of the event sickened me

nuf said

MLF

I don't think Saddam's execution was a mistake. If you want to start pointing fingers, might as well go back to the Clinton Administration. Bush Jr. had to deal with Clinton's unfinished business (and you can throw Osama Bin Laden in that mess too).

The whole claim of WMD's isn't just a "Bushy" agenda. Clinton repeatedly uttered those very same words:

Quote:

---

If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program

---

Quote:

---

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors

---

Quote:

---

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people

---

and I love this one -

Quote:

---

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them

---

I can't even count how many times Clinton said "WMD" in this transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

So don't go yapping about how Bush Jr. just made up the WMD myth to attack Iraq. I believe it was Clinton's incompetence that forced Bush Jr. to have to deal with the mess left behind.

And as for letting Saddam live? Yeah that would work. Remember when they pulled a weak and sickly Saddam out of his underground hideout? The guy was still defiant and all that did was fuel anti-US opposition.

That's what we need. Let him live in a nice federal prison while our tax dollars feed and cloth him. Let him live so he can write a best-selling book that further undermines the already tarnished global image of the US.
Christ. Sometimes I swear people don't think before they post in here.

To all the anti-Bush lemmings. Try opening up a Poli Sci book and reading. The ignorant rants are getting old. "Bush invented WMD's to invade Iraq" "Bush Jr. is finishing daddy's war" "It was all for oil" "It's Bush's fault that the US is outsourcing so many jobs". blah blah blah. Just because you got into politics 2 years ago doesn't justify ignoring all political history prior to Bush Jr.

Just because I have a different outlook\opinion on things.....

doesnt mean I dont think :rolleyes:

MLF

Many valid points are being made, let's just please remember the object is to make a point, not hurl an insult. :)

ShagDevil: So it's all Clinton's fault? Hey, don't forget Bush Sr. in the list, eh? His administration continued to support Saddam with chemical and biological exports even after the alleged gassing of the kurds in Halabjah!

The difference between Clinton and Bush Jr. is that Clinton's administration, however much they talked about WMDs, didn't think the situation was so critical (and well-documented enough) to invade and take over the country. In contrast during the run up to the war, the Bush administration had glowing predictions of "We know where the WMDs are" and a "just you wait and see" thing going on. Furthermore, I believe that Clinton held that the situation was at least temporarily contained after Desert Fox.

Back to Saddam: There was no need to rush the trial, and no likelihood that Saddam could teleport out of jail and magically become dictator again. IMO it would have been far better to have a long, thorough trial, followed by life in prison. Instead we've got a situation where it looks almost like he was lynched by a crowd and men in masks rather than simple execution of (and by) the law.

What I find sad/stupid/funny is that a majority of westerner's think that Arabs should be able to form a democracy. What a concept, most Arabs excluding those that hold all the money haven't a clue what democracy is all about, they are purely tribal, and that's why those guards were letting Saddam have an earful.

This shite goes back before Christ, it's called blood feuds, why do you think they are having such a hard time convincing all the "warlords" in Afghanistan or along the Pakistan border to embrace Democracy, they aint stupid, they have built up their fiefdoms over centuries and they certainly are not going to let the white man ruin it for them.

until all the tribes are brought together (hell freezes over maybe first) and can live in harmony (buy a coke), there will never be a functioning democratic government in the middle east....maybe 2 or 3 hundred years from now...:rolleyes:

As for Sadddam, better a dead Saddam then a beacon of hope for his tribe by letting him live, sure he's a Martyr right now, but it will fade over time, but if he were allowed to live, he would be a sore point for all those who opposed him, either before the war or after...

Terr,

Quote:

---

Clinton's administration, however much they talked about WMDs, didn't think the situation was so critical (and well-documented enough) to invade and take over the country

---

But Clinton did see it as critical enough to launch a military campaign intent on crippling Iraq's ability to deploy/use weapons of mass destruction.
Now, I don't want to split hairs on what "invade" means. I believe you meant that Clinton had no intentions of occupying Iraq (Clinton did however hint at wanting to reform the Iraqi government).

Quote:

---

So it's all Clinton's fault?

---

I don't put sole blame on Clinton. Hell, we can go as far back as Ronald Reagan if we want to point fingers. I know Bush Jr is no saint. He's done quite a few things I disagree with. But, everyone has had a share in this debacle -from Reagan to Bush Jr.

I'm just tired of the blatent ignorance. When sh*t hits the fan, it's always Bush Jr's fault. It's permeating throughout this thread and it makes me nauseous that people have become so politically ignorant.

My apologies for lashing out and insulting anyone. But I feel equally insulted that so many people pretend to have a genuine interest in politics but don't take the time to actually read all the political history that occured long before Bush Jr. took office. Yet, they have no problem expressing their anti-Bush sentiments.

I dont like him....never have..

I didnt like his daddy either..

I guess I would be a democrat if I was american

I would have voted for Gore ...like the majority of americans did.....

MLF

Since this is a technology forum, I'll put it this way: both parties generate fatal errors. The democratic party appears more user-friendly. The republican party appears more secure. In each case, the raw data doesn't match windows API. Check for rootkits.