Saddam Executed.

[The Doctor]

It's official. Saddam Hussein was executed today by hanging.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam

Personally I'm relieved but a bit worried about the retaliation this may cause, even though it was inevitable.

[KirbyRockz]

I couldn't find anything positive about Saddam or anything positive he's done.

Come on, there has to have been something. =\

[Todd]

I couldn't find anything positive about Saddam or anything positive he's done.

Come on, there has to have been something. =\

He hasn't done anything positive.

[Zak]

Is it really bad to actually want to see it? I have this odd curiosity. I hope I'm not like insensitive or something.

[Akidfrompa]

I want to see it too.

I just wish they went with the origional plan and did the iron maiden.

[Evil Angel]

He hasn't done anything positive.

well he has done more positive things that the cowboy ruling the US.Iraq may not have been safe during his regime for the americans and kurds but it was more liberal than any other arab state.I've been there once in 2000 and i found it perfectly safe.

[Daniel]

...and now all hell breaks loose.

[Dedicated]

It's awesome news. He had it coming.


And I'm suprised that it isn't on YouTube or something already haha.

[Chris(tmas)]

well he has done more positive things that the cowboy ruling the US.Iraq may not have been safe during his regime for the americans and kurds but it was more liberal than any other arab state.I've been there once in 2000 and i found it perfectly safe.
Yeah, as a tourist :lol: When you live there, you've got nothing to say.

[Andrea]

And I'm suprised that it isn't on YouTube or something already haha.

There is a video on there of him getting the noose put around his neck. Then it cuts away to show him already dead.

*shudders*

[Linja]

Yeah, that aired this morning on TV. I'm just happy I was asleep, I had this morbid urge to watch it but it would probably have given me nightmares.

I don't know, couldn't they have set a firing squad on him?

[El Muerto]

They probably wanted to give him the taste of his own medicine ;)

Nevertheless, I think that the death sentence was the worst possible solution. They should have sentenced him to 150 years, lock him in a cell, throw away the key and let him talk to cockroaches until the end of his life. Just to show the world that they're above it all.

[Christopher]

Everyone's better of now he's dead.

He's one of the people that never should've lived because he didn't do anything good ever... I wish him the best in his after life and I hope it will be just as horrible as the things he's done to people.

[El Muerto]

Who's better off now? Are you going to live better now? Are you feeling safer now that he's dead?
I don't approve the things he did, that's for sure, but I also don't think that Bush and american government are much better than him. America helped him become what he was and now they made a media spectacle by hanging him. It's never about Saddam or Bin Laden. It's always about profit.

[User Name]

Everyone's better of now he's dead.

He's one of the people that never should've lived because he didn't do anything good ever...

So I guess both you and Todd knew the guy as a child then? What a ridiculous statement. You only know of what he did during his rise to power and what he did when he actually got there.

[El Muerto]

Well Hitler also probably did something good when he was a child but who cares about that?

[User Name]

So what you are trying to say then, is that what he was notorious for outweighs any redeeming actions that he may have done?

[El Muerto]

Exactly. He killed and tortured thousands and thousands of people in most disgusting ways. Plus he hasn't repented and doesn't even feel sorry about that.

[Luke]

@Cameron:

I hate the death penatly, I think it's the worst damn thing ever because I feel taking away someone's freedom is more than enough punishment, however this guy deserved to die no matter what good things he may have done.

I'm slightly concerned to what this could potentially lead to though, although I dunno why anyone would wanna rebel against is sentance, he was an evil bastard and probably wouldn't give a shit if people supported him or not.

[User Name]

Giving him the death penalty was the easy way out. It would have been more fitting of him to spend the rest of his days in prison.

[El Muerto]

@Cameron:

I hate the death penatly, I think it's the worst damn thing ever because I feel taking away someone's freedom is more than enough punishment, however this guy deserved to die no matter what good things he may have done.

I'm slightly concerned to what this could potentially lead to though, although I dunno why anyone would wanna rebel against is sentance, he was an evil bastard and probably wouldn't give a shit if people supported him or not.
Who would wanna rebel? How about millions of muslims?


Giving him the death penalty was the easy way out. It would have been more fitting of him to spend the rest of his days in prison.
I agree with you on that.

[Christopher]

Oh, come on. Another endless discussion?

There's no answer to the question if the dead penalty is good enough of a punishment or not?
Do you know what it's like to be dead or even locked up for life? I think it's horrible either way...

He was supposed to be punished for the terrible things he did. Did he do good things? Not that I know of, but if he did. Why didn't he do only good things?

I just think the world would've been better off without him, yes, like Hitler. Like any person who's done terrible things to hurt others.

I couldn't decide if he got the dead penalty or not. Neither could anyone on here.

In my opinion he's gone, that's good. He'll never come back, that's even better.

[Luke]

Who would wanna rebel? How about millions of muslims?
I don't get the motive behind that.

[User Name]

In my opinion he's gone, that's good.

Agreed. He's nothing more than a peice of history now. Even hating him, I would say, is pointless.

[Todd]

So I guess both you and Todd knew the guy as a child then? What a ridiculous statement. You only know of what he did during his rise to power and what he did when he actually got there.

Yes, I'm sure he did SOMETHING good as a child before he got power and became an evil dictator.

And for what it's worth, despite the fact that Saddam is a disgusting asshole, I did not support his execution. It's the easy way out, I say let him rot in a jail cell.

[El Muerto]

I don't get the motive behind that.
Well first of all, executing him during their celebrations is a direct slap in the face, you must agree.
Second, although many people hated him, there are a lot of people who supported him and many of them are in high positions. There are people who support him only because they hate america.
Not to mention the terroristic organisations. We could only hope they don't do something huge again.
World is pretty shitty place right now.
All in all, you can't stop killing by killing some more.

[Chris(tmas)]

I don't get the motive behind that.
dont we all :lol:

To be hanged is the easy way out yeah. He was killed in a blink of an eye. He doesnt deserves that. He deserves the rest of his life to be in jail.

[El Muerto]

dont we all :lol:


I hope both you and hellflame are right :)

[Chris(tmas)]

I hope both you and hellflame are right :)
I dont get the motive behind it but im sure they will blow up something, may it be in Iraq or somewhere else. You can expect one of those :P

[El Muerto]

Haven't they already blown something up earlier today? I think I heard it in the news...

Well now that Saddam is gone, Serbia can finally rule the world :)

[JJ]

Giving him the death penalty was the easy way out. It would have been more fitting of him to spend the rest of his days in prison.

agreed - glad he's gone though

[Chris(tmas)]

Haven't they already blown something up earlier today? I think I heard it in the news...

Well now that Saddam is gone, Serbia can finally rule the world :)
Yeah, 3 attacks in Baghdad, but thats daily :P

[Zak]

Giving him the death penalty was the easy way out. It would have been more fitting of him to spend the rest of his days in prison.

That's exactly what I think.

[Omar]

Who's better off now? Are you going to live better now? Are you feeling safer now that he's dead?
I don't approve the things he did, that's for sure, but I also don't think that Bush and american government are much better than him. America helped him become what he was and now they made a media spectacle by hanging him. It's never about Saddam or Bin Laden. It's always about profit.

At least someone here understands the situation.

Trust me, we (as in Americans) were better off with him locked away in jail on another continent than dead. We've just sent a message to the rest of the world that we won't tolerate anyone opposing our bullshit--or else you'll be hanged.

And if anyone should have been hanged, it should have been Bush.

[Zak]

I just don't understand hanging. You think living your life in an isolated environment being practically tortured is worse than just dying and getting everything over with faster?


...Oh, yeah, well I guess Bush thinks he's going to hell.

[Derek The Infamous]

For those who want to see the video, don't. The ending is highly graphic.

[LPHahnLP]

At least someone here understands the situation.

And if anyone should have been hanged, it should have been Bush.

how could you possibly make a statement like that? If you believe people deserve to be hung because of their politics, then you have no value of life nor do you believe in free speech and diversity. And if you honestly believe that the U.S. Government has commited crimes against humanity to that degree, obviously Bush cannot be the only one to blame since we designed our government to avoid that. You would have to execute every cabinent member, every member of congress, and all of the supreme court justices. That was the point of the establishing democracy, to prevent any one person to have supreme power nor responsibility. And no matter how much you wish to argue it, our government still is based on checks and balances.

I'm not saying that our government is peachy right now, but saying statements like that are ridiculous. You will see when the Democrats take control of Congress and everything remains the same - but then of course everyone will still blame Bush for every single problem in the country.

[Louis]

For those who want to see the video, don't. The ending is highly graphic.

I was going to say the same.

[Chris(tmas)]

For those who want to see the video, don't. The ending is highly graphic.
You play Dead Rising :lol: come on.

The video wasnt that bad. You just see him laying down with the rope around his neck.

[Testament]

The video didn't seem that bad...

[Derek The Infamous]

I didn't like seeing someone dead and like..knowing they're dead. Creeped me out.

[El Muerto]

how could you possibly make a statement like that? If you believe people deserve to be hung because of their politics, then you have no value of life nor do you believe in free speech and diversity. And if you honestly believe that the U.S. Government has commited crimes against humanity to that degree, obviously Bush cannot be the only one to blame since we designed our government to avoid that. You would have to execute every cabinent member, every member of congress, and all of the supreme court justices. That was the point of the establishing democracy, to prevent any one person to have supreme power nor responsibility. And no matter how much you wish to argue it, our government still is based on checks and balances.

I'm not saying that our government is peachy right now, but saying statements like that are ridiculous. You will see when the Democrats take control of Congress and everything remains the same - but then of course everyone will still blame Bush for every single problem in the country.

Yeah, and Santa exists ;)


Edit: I din't watch the video, and I'm not planning to watch it ever. Why would anyone want to see someone being executed? Sick world, I tell you...

[.Amanda.]

Omar, so you're saying that Bush deserves to die more than a man who directly ordered the mass killings of civilians? Give me a break.

[Omar]

Omar, so you're saying that Bush deserves to die more than a man who directly ordered the mass killings of civilians? Give me a break.

No, it's called sarcasm. I am, and have always been, vehemently against the death penalty.

And think before you speak please. The death toll in Iraq has already reached more than 3,000. Saddam was hanged for the killings of 128 people. Regardless of numbers, neither of these leaders are/were admirable. So, by your logic, if you are going to hang one, why not the other?

[.Amanda.]

Bush never said "Oh hey, I'm going to kill you!"

That's the difference.

There was no draft initiated, so if you're playing that side, it was those peoples' free will.
However, if you're playing the side of innocent civilians in Iraq? 1.) Not all of them were so innocent. 2.) Bush did not kill them. And if you're about to say "Well, Saddam never killed those people either he just gave the order." Allow me to cut you off at the pass. THIS IS WAR. Of course there will be casualties. Saddam was not at war with those people. I'm not saying "oh haha lol war means they all must die hahaha omgz." No. But people are going to die. That's just how it is.

[El Muerto]

Bush never said "Oh hey, I'm going to kill you!"

That's the difference.

There was no draft initiated, so if you're playing that side, it was those peoples' free will.
However, if you're playing the side of innocent civilians in Iraq? 1.) Not all of them were so innocent. 2.) Bush did not kill them. And if you're about to say "Well, Saddam never killed those people either he just gave the order." Allow me to cut you off at the pass. THIS IS WAR. Of course there will be casualties. Saddam was not at war with those people. I'm not saying "oh haha lol war means they all must die hahaha omgz." No. But people are going to die. That's just how it is.


I really, really don't want to offend you but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about ;)

[Omar]

Bush never said "Oh hey, I'm going to kill you!"

That's the difference.


So, you're saying the difference between them is not in their actions, but rather in their words? Then you agree that their actions are one and the same? Wouldn't words, then, seem trivial if both are allowing men and women to needlessly die?

I'd make an argument that actions speak louder than words, but that seems unecessary.

N.B.: I'm not playing anyone's side other than my own. So many people make this mistake of choosing "sides", rather than forming an opinion for themselves.

[.Amanda.]

Omar, it'd be so nice if you read the rest of a post before replying to it.

[Omar]

Omar, it'd be so nice if you read the rest of a post before replying to it.

Do you honestly believe I read only the first two sentences and made a reply from that? For shame.

Bottom line: this is a place for discussion, but our comments are turning it into a quarrel. I'm not going to challenge you on this anymore, because frankly, I can't understand what exactly your saying or trying to say, but I don't feel its coherent enough to elucidate your perspective. Your last sentence completely jumps into vague territory and tries to alleviate responsibility altogether (but from who, I don't know).

I'm going to simplify my basic assertion below, in the hopes it will reach you successful. Please direct any further comments to my PM box.

Both Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush have allowed the unnecessary deaths of many innocent men and women (although their relative innocence is besides the point). If you feel it just to hang Saddam Hussein, on the aforementioned grounds, then you need feel the same way concerning Bush. I am not saying Bush should be hanged. I'm simply stating that, if you intend to hold impartial politics, you must recognize both these men as promoters of death, who deserve equal punishment (wherever it may lie).

Now if you only meant to say that seeing the video of a man's death didn't bother you, perhaps that's another matter altogether, and I won't dare comment on that.

[.Amanda.]

1.) I am in no way quarrelling. I see this as no more than a discussion. I hold no hard feelings, I am just stating an opinion.
2.) You mean to tell me that by going to war, Bush promoted death? So we should have executed every president who has ever declared war on another country since Saddam was executed? I'm not trying to ask these questions to sound smart in any sense of the word. I just honestly do not understand how that makes sense.

[Omar]

1.) I am in no way quarrelling. I see this as no more than a discussion. I hold no hard feelings, I am just stating an opinion.
2.) You mean to tell me that by going to war, Bush promoted death? So we should have executed every president who has ever declared war on another country since Saddam was executed? I'm not trying to ask these questions to sound smart in any sense of the word. I just honestly do not understand how that makes sense.

Some people, such as myself, feel their deaths were unnecessary. Death is, of course, always a payment in war, however, I'm not so sure I can classify this as a war, at least in the traditional sense of the word. I see this as more of an invasion, than two countries in opposition.

My point, as stated in my original post, was that executing Saddam, particularly at that time, was a poor choice, and reflects badly on America since we held custody of him until his final moments. Bush and his regime promote death by allowing him to die (Saddam's lawyer made an appeal to an American judge in his final hours, which may have been wrongfully denied on its grounds). This sends a very scary proverbial message to other countries. Though we may have stopped one tyrant, we could easily be giving rise to another.

[Todd]

1.) I am in no way quarrelling. I see this as no more than a discussion. I hold no hard feelings, I am just stating an opinion.
2.) You mean to tell me that by going to war, Bush promoted death? So we should have executed every president who has ever declared war on another country since Saddam was executed? I'm not trying to ask these questions to sound smart in any sense of the word. I just honestly do not understand how that makes sense.

I don't support the death penalty, so no, we should not execute Saddam or Bush, but they should all be held responsible and receive equal punishment, and if that punishment happens to be execution, then yes, hang Bush and any other president who has declared war or is responsible for as many innocent deaths that these 2 are. I won't support their death, but one can't be an insane madman and the other a hero.

[.Amanda.]

hang Bush and any other president who has declared war

That's the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

[Todd]

That's the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

Why? Has war EVER benefited anyone?

[F-ck Casey]

Well, I know I'm pretty glad that America isn't still under British rule... and that Hitler didn't win World War II.

[Tomi]

Why? Has war EVER benefited anyone?
In the past, yes.

[Todd]

Well, I know I'm pretty glad that America isn't still under British rule... and that Hitler didn't win World War II.

If there was never war, chances are that Hitler would have never have come to power and who knows if America would have been under British rule, because who knows if Britain would have existed.

[F-ck Casey]

Your disdain for politics astounds me. Rather than list the reasons why war doesn't actually benefit anybody, instead, you just play the "What If?" game.

War is natural.

[Testament]

if you don't fight war sometimes, you can really fuck your country over.

[Todd]

Fine, I'll concede that maybe wars like the American Revolution were useful. But the Iraq war serves no purpose, and leaders on both sides deserve the same punishment for the thousands of civilians they have killed.

[Louis]

I find it, oddly enough, rather humorous that topics such as these always end up as heated debates and arguments. You can say as much as you want that you're just talking, but from what I see here, everyone wants their point made.

The fact is, guys, that this man was executed and that there is nothing you could do about it. The fact is, we elected George W. Bush two times in a row to be our leader, our president. There is nothing you can do about it. We could try as much as we could to impeach him. It won't happen. He's going to sit in the White House for another 2 years and there is nothing you can do about it.

Whoever decided Saddam to be executed felt that it was the only way to carry out a just punishment for Saddam's crimes against humanity. This was their opinion, and they carried it out. Whether you like it or not, it happened. For some, justice was done. For others, it was not.

I'm going to touch on several topics here, so here I go.

George W. Bush: From what I see here, most, if not all of us, seem to agree that George W. Bush is not a great president. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of you seem to have a lot of hate for this man. Some people say this man is killing innocent people every day. That, my friends, is not true.

Every soldier who is sent to Iraq made the decision to join the armed forces and fight for their nation. They knew what was going to happen. They knew that whether they liked it or not, they would most likely end up fighting in Iraq. They are dying because they made that decision to risk their lives.

Those killed under Saddam's rule were personally chosen by Saddam to be executed. It wasn't their decision, it was his. Bush doesn't want people in America, or Iraq, to die. Saddam did. If we were to compare the leadership of Bush and Saddam, Bush is a better leader. To some of us, he is a moronical man who lacks intelligence. But, would you rather have a man who personally decides to kill you for believing in something you don't, or a man who, even though he seems to lack intelligence, still has you live in a free nation?

I say freedom.

In some sense, the Bush administration's view on the war on Iraq is a sign of ignorance, but also a sign of understanding. I can understand Bush's idea of making Iraq a democratic nation and ally against the war on Terror, but we can all agree that there are too many troops being sent and too little troops being taken out. They're understanding, but also ignoring, the fact that troops and civilians are being killed each day. It's too early, yet too late. We're too far in to make a mass removal, but we're not far in enough to store democracy to this nation.

I'll tell you right now that if you think Bush is a bad man, he isn't. He's not a murderer. He's not murdering your soldiers. Saddam was murdering innocent people for beliefs. I don't see Bush handpicking people out for their beliefs, and having them killed.

Bush > Saddam.

Now, let's touch on this concept of War. For those who say war was unnecessary. I don't know about you, but War, despite how many lives were ended and scarred because of them, but think about where you are now and what you're doing. This dates back to the days of the Revolutionary War. If wasn't for that, we might still even be under the control of Great Britain. If it wasn't for the civil war, slavery would most likely still be legal. If it wasn't for World War II, Hitler could have conquered more nations and killed more people, and killed more Jewish people. Face it, if it wasn't for war, this world would be in a far worse condition than it is now.

Like said before, War is natural. It is inevitable, and we cannot avoid it. No matter how much we want it, you're not going to get World Peace. We cannot all agree. We have our beliefs and we have our grudges and that is how life is, whether you like it or not.

For those of you saying this War on Terror in Iraq isn't a war, it is. It's a war. We're fighting insurgency in a country just like we were fighting dictatorship prior. Like any other war, soldiers are dying and civilians are too. It happens, and we cannot avoid it, no matter how much we hate it. And I'll tell you, one side will end up victorious. Whether it takes a few weeks or a few years, either the insurgents or the U.S. will come up victorious. It's a war, just like World War I, and World War II, and the Civil War and the Revolutionary War and the Vietnam War. It's war.

And I'll get back briefly on the topic of the thousands of people dying (what Omar mentioned): Yes, both leaders basically allowed these people to die. But think of it this way. Our citizens had a choice. Theirs didn't.

Saddam was executed for a reason. We're fighting this war for a reason. And whether you like it or not, they have/are happened/happening. There is nothing you can do to stop it.

Such is life. And whether you're ready to accept it or not is your business. Instead of criticizing other people for their opinions, think about whether you're ready to accept the fact that life is like this, and it will never change. And think about other people's feelings and opinions. Either way, we all have to accept life. It's your choice, people. It's your choice.

[Chris(tmas)]

Fine, I'll concede that maybe wars like the American Revolution were useful. But the Iraq war serves no purpose, and leaders on both sides deserve the same punishment for the thousands of civilians they have killed.
Id rather see 3000 people dying, than seeing Saddam develope a nuclear weapon to launch it on countries. And it doesnt matter if there were weapons found or not, it was preventive.

[Todd]

Id rather see 3000 people dying, than seeing Saddam develope a nuclear weapon to launch it on countries. And it doesnt matter if there were weapons found or not, it was preventive.


Saddam was never going to develop a nuke, I'd be more worried about Iran or North Korea.


And may I remind you that the last country to use a nuke was the U.S. and it was used to kill around 300,000 people?

[Omar]

Here's where I disagree:

Dateline aired a segment recently which showed many a young man and women registering for the army because they needed money for school. They were promised by the admission officer that they would not be deployed in Iraq (as shown in the hidden camera), and hence joined. Several of them have since died. I question the necessity of their deaths. These men and women, I feel, were decieved into registering due to their circumstances.

Yes, they choose (in a very loose sense of the word), but essentially, both Bush and Saddam have arbitrarily and uselessly allowed men and women to die. To those who say there is a difference between allowed (Bush) and command (Saddam), I say that you fail to see the point. A good leader is supposed to protect, first and foremost; neither did. Who cares whether it was allowed and ordered? They made it happen.

Chris: I don't understand what you're saying. So we should kill any leaders who have, or could potentially create nuclear weapons? So Roosevelt should have been killed for dropping the bomb in Japan? So Reagan should have been killed for doing business with Saddam way back when?

Ditto Todd's remark. The UN is very much concerned with Iran and North Korea because they are promising threats. The Iraq war was a useless one. I pray for those we've lost there, and those still fighting the few floundering militants we've termed "the enemy."

[Friskey™]

I find it, oddly enough, rather humorous that topics such as these always end up as heated debates and arguments. You can say as much as you want that you're just talking, but from what I see here, everyone wants their point made.

The fact is, guys, that this man was executed and that there is nothing you could do about it. The fact is, we elected George W. Bush two times in a row to be our leader, our president. There is nothing you can do about it. We could try as much as we could to impeach him. It won't happen. He's going to sit in the White House for another 2 years and there is nothing you can do about it.

Whoever decided Saddam to be executed felt that it was the only way to carry out a just punishment for Saddam's crimes against humanity. This was their opinion, and they carried it out. Whether you like it or not, it happened. For some, justice was done. For others, it was not.

I'm going to touch on several topics here, so here I go.

George W. Bush: From what I see here, most, if not all of us, seem to agree that George W. Bush is not a great president. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of you seem to have a lot of hate for this man. Some people say this man is killing innocent people every day. That, my friends, is not true.

Every soldier who is sent to Iraq made the decision to join the armed forces and fight for their nation. They knew what was going to happen. They knew that whether they liked it or not, they would most likely end up fighting in Iraq. They are dying because they made that decision to risk their lives.

Those killed under Saddam's rule were personally chosen by Saddam to be executed. It wasn't their decision, it was his. Bush doesn't want people in America, or Iraq, to die. Saddam did. If we were to compare the leadership of Bush and Saddam, Bush is a better leader. To some of us, he is a moronical man who lacks intelligence. But, would you rather have a man who personally decides to kill you for believing in something you don't, or a man who, even though he seems to lack intelligence, still has you live in a free nation?

I say freedom.

In some sense, the Bush administration's view on the war on Iraq is a sign of ignorance, but also a sign of understanding. I can understand Bush's idea of making Iraq a democratic nation and ally against the war on Terror, but we can all agree that there are too many troops being sent and too little troops being taken out. They're understanding, but also ignoring, the fact that troops and civilians are being killed each day. It's too early, yet too late. We're too far in to make a mass removal, but we're not far in enough to store democracy to this nation.

I'll tell you right now that if you think Bush is a bad man, he isn't. He's not a murderer. He's not murdering your soldiers. Saddam was murdering innocent people for beliefs. I don't see Bush handpicking people out for their beliefs, and having them killed.

Bush > Saddam.

Now, let's touch on this concept of War. For those who say war was unnecessary. I don't know about you, but War, despite how many lives were ended and scarred because of them, but think about where you are now and what you're doing. This dates back to the days of the Revolutionary War. If wasn't for that, we might still even be under the control of Great Britain. If it wasn't for the civil war, slavery would most likely still be legal. If it wasn't for World War II, Hitler could have conquered more nations and killed more people, and killed more Jewish people. Face it, if it wasn't for war, this world would be in a far worse condition than it is now.

Like said before, War is natural. It is inevitable, and we cannot avoid it. No matter how much we want it, you're not going to get World Peace. We cannot all agree. We have our beliefs and we have our grudges and that is how life is, whether you like it or not.

For those of you saying this War on Terror in Iraq isn't a war, it is. It's a war. We're fighting insurgency in a country just like we were fighting dictatorship prior. Like any other war, soldiers are dying and civilians are too. It happens, and we cannot avoid it, no matter how much we hate it. And I'll tell you, one side will end up victorious. Whether it takes a few weeks or a few years, either the insurgents or the U.S. will come up victorious. It's a war, just like World War I, and World War II, and the Civil War and the Revolutionary War and the Vietnam War. It's war.

And I'll get back briefly on the topic of the thousands of people dying (what Omar mentioned): Yes, both leaders basically allowed these people to die. But think of it this way. Our citizens had a choice. Theirs didn't.

Saddam was executed for a reason. We're fighting this war for a reason. And whether you like it or not, they have/are happened/happening. There is nothing you can do to stop it.

Such is life. And whether you're ready to accept it or not is your business. Instead of criticizing other people for their opinions, think about whether you're ready to accept the fact that life is like this, and it will never change. And think about other people's feelings and opinions. Either way, we all have to accept life. It's your choice, people. It's your choice.

Thank you for making that post, since I couldn't find the words to say it myself.

[Chris(tmas)]

Here's where I disagree:
Chris: I don't understand what you're saying. So we should kill any leaders who have, or could potentially create nuclear weapons? So Roosevelt should have been killed for dropping the bomb in Japan? So Reagan should have been killed for doing business with Saddam way back when?

Pretty much yeah. Why wait untill they drop the bomb, when we have the chance of stopping them.

[Todd]

Pretty much yeah. Why wait untill they drop the bomb, when we have the chance of stopping them.

The US is the only country in the history of the world who has used a nuke on another country. It would be very hypocritical for us to try to stop some other country from having one. The US needs to practice what they preach.

And, in the process of stopping Iraq from having weapons, we killed a ton of innocent civilians. All we did was kill them before Saddam had a chance to.

[.Amanda.]

Louis: Cheers to the most intelligent post made in this thread.

[Omar]

Pretty much yeah. Why wait untill they drop the bomb, when we have the chance of stopping them.

You can see why the rest of the world would find that view unfavorable, no? What's to stop them from thinking the same way and offing our officials? Or worse, dropping a bomb on us? Surely you wouldn't want that.

The thing is, your view promotes warfare, by acknowledging that all people possible of mass destruction should be eliminated pre-emptively. True, Saddam was entirely corrupt, however, after the Gulf War and Iran/Iraq situation his relationships with our countries have been relatively docile. Now, a decade later, enters the son of George Bush, who lead us during the original war, and he ironically decides to start war with Saddam under grounds of terrorism. Seems kinda fishy, eh?

There are other countries harboring terrorism. Why are they not included in this war, and further, if this is a worldwide effort, why are we going it alone? Just doesn't make much sense to me. I'm all for stopping terrorism, but this just seems to be a waste.

[Chris(tmas)]

Well, im not saying I support the war 100%. Im just saying that it was a good thing to capture Saddam, but hanging went too far. The reason to start the war in Iraq was, in my view, because Bush couldnt find Osama. But thats just my idea of it :lol:

Maybe i have a different opinion because im not a US citizen.

[.Amanda.]

You can see why the rest of the world would find that view unfavorable, no? What's to stop them from thinking the same way and offing our officials? Or worse, dropping a bomb on us? Surely you wouldn't want that.

The boy's Dutch. :lol:

[Evil Angel]

Yeah, as a tourist :lol: When you live there, you've got nothing to say.

well i strongly disagree...but then India was a real close friend of Saddam then and so the treatment that i received was probably better than how they would've treated americans