So what? Saddam was a dick and deserved what he got. That's good enough of a reason for me. U.N should have taken him off years ago. One less power crazy dictator is good for everyone. At least now, Iraq has a chance to become a democratic society which would not have happened for very long time have Saddam stayed in power (even after his death).
Sweet Lord All mighty! Do you honestly believe that this Iraq conflict is about terrorism? Do you think that (secular) Iraq was part of "Jihadistan" and that was why it got invaded? Because if that was the reason then the US should have invaded Saudi Arabia and Iran first and then (maybe) Iraq. This line of thinking is totalitarian though. As for the Clinton/Allbright quotes. Don't worry. I regard Clinton and his staff as murderers too. The only difference being that Clinton can actually speak english To Zapmaster: "So what? Saddam was a dick and deserved what he got. That's good enough of a reason for me. U.N should have taken him off years ago. To be precise, Sadam was the dick US made him to be, for the purpose of fighting Iran. If that is a good enough reason for the UN to "take him off" then maybe the UN should also "take off" the people who funded Sadam. Doesn't that sound fair? It is different now isn't it? UN "taking care" of Sadam is fine. Some bad dictator in a far off country. How about dealing with the guilty ones here?
Mistakes were made, Saddam is not some kind of machine that U.S made. He is obiusly a bad guy who would have done anything to get more power (including nuking anything) and not giving a rats ass about his own people. Iran/Iraq war was Persian-Arab conflict that had been fueled by twentieth-century border disputes and Saddam being scared that new revolutionary leadership in Iran would threaten Iraq's Sunni-Shia balance and thus weaken Saddam. Not that that has anything to do with current Bush administration because it was not around at the time. Still, I see what you are saying, but if there was some kind of Godly perfect police to remove all goverments that did some dumb stuff, no goverment would remain.
There are many who would claim that, but I guess that is another discussion. That might have been partly the motivation behind the Iran-Iraq war. The other part, I believe, was USA's fear of muslim Iran (and its Oil), which is why Sadam was funded with all the toys he needed to keep anyone off his way (including the Kurds, who I'm sure the US didn't mean to hurt but who became "collateral damages"). I know what you mean. But surely there would have been some goverments left, somewhere, TIbet perhaps?
Well, U.S did not put him in power. He got there him self, by being a ruthless canaving pearson that he is. Yes, U.S supported Saddam during the war, but meaby if Iran's influnce did spread things would be even worse off today? Who knows. And U.S certainly did not give Saddam mustard gas which he used on Kurds. And I agree about Tibet goverment, considering their lack of existance .
You know I already given y'all all the linkys to all the stuff that I've been proving. So if you need proof of this and that, just read through every post that I've made. I don't think I need to post those links again.
errr, i wasnt talking to you, but.... are u nuts? sounds like you have no real argument buddy. you make it sound like only Saddam was taken out. you so easily fail to mention the 25,000 + innocent people that died. you need to examine your thoughts a little bit.
Pub users, I'm sorry it has come to this, but unfortunatly it is a result of multiple users not being able to argue with out flaming and insulting other members. Moderating this section takes more time than any other part of the forum, which to me is the opposite way round. So.. instead of sending pm's/warnings, mods and admins of this section will close any war threads without warning. Political threads and other border line issues may also be closed without warning. There will be no arguement of this decision. Any gross infringments of any of the above will most likely result in an automatic ban. Again, I'm sorry these actions have had to be made, but you have left us with no feasable alternative. Ant Hmmmmmmmmmm...........
So much for the rules. Might as well un-sticky that one and flush it down the toilet. Otherwise we don't know what to believe what the rules are. My previous question remains unanswered.. nm+, it would surprise me that you would just simply overlook that post. Perhaps you're afraid of how your answer might affect other people here...
To Macnaab311: Despite instances of flaming I think that this thread has been failry disciplined. Most of them were actually misunderstandngs instead of outright attacks. I don't think that there is any need to close this one. Besides this is the only political thread in the forum. Of course it will be more heated, of course it will require more observation. Otherwise, what's the point? Do you think that all Guru3D forum is good for is talking about chicks, PC hardware, movies, songs and la di da? I'd like to believe otherwise. I'd like to believe that Guru3D members are as intlligent as those of any other forum/community. I'd like to think that we can also be interested in Religion, Politics, moral issues etc. Sure they'll be some heated exchanges but then again we're not talking about our favourite song here, you know. These are seious issues and it is to the credit of the Guru3D members that they are interested enough to participate in them in any way they can. Closing down a thread is just the easy way out. Moderating it is constructive.
