Saddam Hussein executed

**gamerremag** · December 30th, 2006, 21:52

Originally Posted by lforster

produced and stockpiled for some evil deed.

yea bread, they were just playing nice with the WMDs, they werent going to do anything with them that was wrong. :rofl:

**lforster** · December 30th, 2006, 21:56

Just like UK and US stockpile nuclear weapons so they can be used for peaceful purposes yes.

**dafe1er** · December 30th, 2006, 22:02

Originally Posted by lforster

Just like UK and US stockpile nuclear weapons so they can be used for peaceful purposes yes.

No, we stock pile them so we can kill ass*****
that want to kill us. the biggest country in the world. duh!!!!I really don't know why you are acting like this, are you doing something to help the cause???? no probably not just like the rest of the liberals. why don't you go fight and try to help instead of trying to hurt all our troops that are there.???? if I wasn't the only child, I would go and help in a heart beat, but I can't so instead I stay here and support the one's that can. why not try helping SIR?

Dafe.

**souLLy** · December 30th, 2006, 22:08

so if he cooperated with the president, he'd be fine? what about all the cities he destroyed? if saddam was cooperating with you would you let him live? if he said that you and him would take over the world one by one by destroying everything in site, would you say that that was ok?

You misunderstand me.

Across the globe there are lots of nations with corrupt leaders who routinely torture thier people and commit atrocities daily. Why doesn't George Bush 'liberate' all of these nations? Because the reason he invaded wasn't to liberate those people, it was to get Saddam out of power and get in someone else who would continue keeping the people down but would give America access to cheap oil, cheap labour and allow the US government to have a military base in that country (always good things to have if you fancy continuing attacking countries in the area).

Yes Saddam was a wicked man and it's good he's not in power, but the reason why Iraq was invaded was nothing to do with that. It was a strategic military/economic move.

**lforster** · December 30th, 2006, 22:11

Originally Posted by dafe1er

No, we stock pile them so we can kill ass*****
that want to kill us. the biggest country in the world. duh!!!!I really don't know why you are acting like this, are you doing something to help the cause???? no probably not just like the rest of the liberals. why don't you go fight and try to help instead of trying to hurt all our troops that are there.???? if I wasn't the only child, I would go and help in a heart beat, but I can't so instead I stay here and support the one's that can. why not try helping SIR?

Dafe.

Hahah yeah if you read my previous posts I'm actually happy that everything happened the way it did, however you have to accept that it was based on a foundation of lies.
I will not shutup when it is a fact.

I support the efforts of the UK troops, and I'm sure the American troops are just lovely too (love the pictures they took of the Iraqi prisoners in various poses - good job there!)

**lforster** · December 30th, 2006, 22:12

Originally Posted by souLLy

Yes Saddam was a wicked man and it's good he's not in power, but the reason why Iraq was invaded was nothing to do with that. It was a strategic military/economic move.

Yeah that's spot on. You were wrong about the country being stable when you said that earlier though.

**shadowprophet** · December 30th, 2006, 22:14

Originally Posted by souLLy

You misunderstand me.

Across the globe there are lots of nations with corrupt leaders who routinely torture thier people and commit atrocities daily. Why doesn't George Bush 'liberate' all of these nations? Because the reason he invaded wasn't to liberate those people, it was to get Saddam out of power and get in someone else who would continue keeping the people down but would give America access to cheap oil, cheap labour and allow the US government to have a military base in that country (always good things to have if you fancy continuing attacking countries in the area).

Yes Saddam was a wicked man and it's good he's not in power, but the reason why Iraq was invaded was nothing to do with that. It was a strategic military/economic move.

How can anyone disagree with this comment?

I live in the U.S. This is exactly what happened...
Anyone who believes otherwise is either a fool. Or bleeding heart naive fool.

**gamerremag** · December 30th, 2006, 22:35

Originally Posted by souLLy

You misunderstand me.

Across the globe there are lots of nations with corrupt leaders who routinely torture thier people and commit atrocities daily. Why doesn't George Bush 'liberate' all of these nations? Because the reason he invaded wasn't to liberate those people, it was to get Saddam out of power and get in someone else who would continue keeping the people down but would give America access to cheap oil, cheap labour and allow the US government to have a military base in that country (always good things to have if you fancy continuing attacking countries in the area).

Yes Saddam was a wicked man and it's good he's not in power, but the reason why Iraq was invaded was nothing to do with that. It was a strategic military/economic move.

uh, America, kiking ass, one country at a time

jk yeahhhhhhhhhh you might hav a point

**souLLy** · December 30th, 2006, 22:58

Originally Posted by lforster

Yeah that's spot on. You were wrong about the country being stable when you said that earlier though.

well... I meant relatively so, there weren't mass killings going on at the time and it was certainly more stable than it is currently or anytime in the foreseeable future.

Lets hope things get a lot better from now on though...