Saddam - sentenced to death for killing 148

[MDC 7,889]

They had the same intel.

 

No, they didn't.

 

Still no lie to show?

 

I've posted links before and you deny it. Why waste my time?

 

BTW: for the first 30 posts of this thread lies had nothing to do with you wanting Bush either executed or thrown in jail, it was only after you realized I painted you into a corner on the whole innocent civilian death issue that you pulled "Bush lied, people died" BS out of your ass.

 

 

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Pulled the "innocent civilian" thing out of my ass? That was my point from the beginning - Saddam is going to be hung for directly ordering the death of 150 people. Bush will suffer no punishment for his indirect responsibility for the deaths of thouands. Seems to me that Bush's crimes are worse than what Saddam will be put to death for.

 

Naturally you have nothing to say about this.

[Vikings4ever 568]

Team Revell brought up WWII. I'm not a fan of the comparison. In WWII we were fighting a mortal threat posed by actual nations and we'd been attacked. In Iraq we're policing sectarian violence while fighting insurgents and some foreign terrorists for ambiguous reasons. Apples and oranges.

By the time we nuked Japan, the war was all but over. The Axis in Europe was defeated, Japan's waters had been mined, and the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Japan.

 

The only questions left were how many were going to die, and who was goinmg to come out as top dog in Japan.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Still no link to a lie?

 

Ok, I'll try to help. Please show me ANY lie in here:

 

President Bush mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

 

Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

 

"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

 

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

[MDC 7,889]

Still no link to a lie?

 

I've posted them before. You didn't want to hear it so now I won't waste my time.

 

I'm going to lunch. I'll check back to read your latest dodge and weave when I get back.

[Craven Moorehead 0]

There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, maybe there never was for all the pubic knows. Pack up your sh!t and go home.

 

also have a nice day.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Bush will suffer no punishment for his indirect responsibility for the deaths of thouands. Seems to me that Bush's crimes are worse than what Saddam will be put to death for.

 

I thought you said Bush shouldn't be punished for innocent civilian deaths:

 

"No because that happens in every war."

 

Make up your focking pea-brained mind.

[surferskin 31]

I've posted them before. You didn't want to hear it so now I won't waste my time.

 

I'm going to lunch. I'll check back to read your latest dodge and weave when I get back.

but i thought the only reason you created this thread was to waste your time?

[Uh-huh 0]

Still no link to a lie?

 

Ok, I'll try to help. Please show me ANY lie facts in here: (every post ever made by Fluffy, the Lyin' Reclinin' Lemmin')

 

 

Compared to you, Pinocchio was a model of integrity

[MDC 7,889]

I thought you said Bush shouldn't be punished for innocent civilian deaths:

 

"No because that happens in every war."

 

Make up your focking pea-brained mind.

 

Hey what a shock - Recliner Pilot takes a piece of a post out of context and posts it here in a deliberately misleading way. I'm stunned.

 

I realize you prefer to think in black and white and don't have much of a handle on things like nuance, so I'll try this again:

 

Bush should not be punished just for innocent civilian deaths because ever war has casualties. He should be punished for deliberately misleading us into an unnecessary war.

 

I hope you understand now. I'm going to get some tacos.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Hey what a shock - Recliner Pilot takes a piece of a post out of context and posts it here in a deliberately misleading way. I'm stunned.

 

I realize you prefer to think in black and white and don't have much of a handle on things like nuance, so I'll try this again:

 

Bush should not be punished just for innocent civilian deaths because ever war has casualties. He should be punished for deliberately misleading us into an unnecessary war.

 

I hope you understand now. I'm going to get some tacos.

 

 

For your position to hold water you would need to show a lie.

 

Lie? Got any lies?

 

No. That's what I thought.

 

Owned!

 

[Snuff 10]

 

He should be punished for deliberately misleading us into an unnecessary war.

 

 

Deliberately?

Proof? Link?

 

How was your tacos?

[GobbleDog 1,010]

He should be punished for deliberately misleading us into an unnecessary war.

 

Even if that's 100% right (and I don't believe it is), it's un-provable.

[Uh-huh 0]

 

I hope you understand now.

Fluffy the Lemming's shtick is based entirely on getting attention by lying, misinformation, and misrepresentation, so I say the chances of that are lower than a snowball's in hell.

[parrot 789]

Bush used the Nigerian uranium claim in his State of the Union even while he knew it to be suspect at the very least. While it could be debated ad nauseam whether this constitutes a "lie" - which is RP's whole game - it certainly wasn't the whole truth. The Bush adminstration shaped and cherry-picked the intel to suit their case, there's really no debate about that with anyone other than a hard-core Bush backer.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Hey what a shock - Recliner Pilot takes a piece of a post out of context and posts it here in a deliberately misleading way. I'm stunned.

 

I realize you prefer to think in black and white and don't have much of a handle on things like nuance, so I'll try this again:

 

Bush should not be punished just for innocent civilian deaths because ever war has casualties. He should be punished for deliberately misleading us into an unnecessary war.

 

I hope you understand now. I'm going to get some tacos.

 

Your thread TITLE says: "no punishment for killing thousands".

 

The words "lie" or "misleading" are nowhere to be found.............or at least not until post 29, well after you were shown to be an idiot for wanting a Commander in Chief punished for civilian deaths.

 

Nuance that, poosay.

 

 

 

 

Where are the lies????????

 

 

Still no link to a lie?

 

Ok, I'll try to help. Please show me ANY lie in here:

 

President Bush mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

 

Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

 

"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

 

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

[Uh-huh 0]

Your thread TITLE says: "no punishment for killing thousands".

 

The words "lie" or "misleading" are nowhere to be found.............or at least not until post 29, well after you were shown to be an idiot for wanting a Commander in Chief punished for civilian deaths.

 

Nuance that, poosay.

Where are the lies????????

I see Lyin' Reclinin' Fluffy Lemmin' is about to go postal. Mildly entertaining.

[Mark Buffington 3]

I still think the bombing of Hiroshima was despicable.

 

at you accusing me of changing the subject. I started a thread about Iraq and you want to talk about WWII.

 

Why would anyone want to discuss the thread topic when you make idiotic statements like bombing Hiroshima was despicable?

 

Have you ever been to Pearl Harbor? Have you ever met any PH survivors? It's really sad what a scumbag you are.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why would anyone want to discuss the thread topic when you make idiotic statements like bombing Hiroshima was despicable?

 

Have you ever been to Pearl Harbor? Have you ever met any PH survivors? It's really sad what a scumbag you are.

 

The idiot didn't even know it saved American soldier's lives.

[parrot 789]

Why would anyone want to discuss the thread topic when you make idiotic statements like bombing Hiroshima was despicable?

 

Have you ever been to Pearl Harbor? Have you ever met any PH survivors? It's really sad what a scumbag you are.

I don't get the connection here; did bombing Hiroshima somehow undo what happened at Pearl Harbor?

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Japan.

 

The Soviet Union didn't exist and Russia wasn't preparing to attack anybody. Russia declared war only after the bombing of Hiroshima so that they could weasel their way to the bargaining table in order to re-claim lands in Manchuria and Sakhalin Island lost to Japan.

[MDC 7,889]

Even if that's 100% right (and I don't believe it is), it's un-provable.

 

So what? We only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion but everyone knows he was a gangster, just like everyone (who's being honest with himself) knows that Bush is a liar.

 

Why would anyone want to discuss the thread topic when you make idiotic statements like bombing Hiroshima was despicable?

 

Have you ever been to Pearl Harbor? Have you ever met any PH survivors? It's really sad what a scumbag you are.

 

Let me get this straight - bombing cities full of civilians and killing hundreds of thousands of people is OK, and saying otherwise makes me a "scumbag." Am I right? You have a really interesting view of morality.

 

No I have not been to Pearl Harbor. That was despicable, too.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So what? We only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion but everyone knows he was a gangster, just like everyone (who's being honest with himself) knows that Bush is a liar.

 

Be honest with yourself, you can't show a lie can you?

[MDC 7,889]

Be honest with yourself, you can't show a lie can you?

 

I've already posted you dozens of links to Bush's public comments that were lies but you claimed he was "duped" by bad intelligence (and never explained why he presented questionable intelligence as fact). We both know that nothing short of me linking you to a YouTube clip of Bush admitting to lying would convince you, and even then you'd blame YouTube for media bias.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

So what? We only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion but everyone knows he was a gangster, just like everyone (who's being honest with himself) knows that Bush is a liar.

 

And so far they've only got Hussein on these 148 murders but everyone knows he killed [tens? hundreds? of] thousands during his reign of terror.

 

Let me get this straight - bombing cities full of civilians and killing hundreds of thousands of people is OK, and saying otherwise makes me a "scumbag." Am I right? You have a really interesting view of morality.

 

No I have not been to Pearl Harbor. That was despicable, too.

 

I don't know if you are a scumbag or not (I've got a pretty good idea) but what you are is ignorant, along with a few others in this thread. The argument isn't, or shouldn't be, about the nuclear weapons. If you want to argue something intelligent then it would be the decision to force and unconditional surrender.

 

As it was, that was the policy and America was bombing Japan back to the stone-age well before the August 6, 1945. The nuclear devices dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in fact destroyed less of those cities than if they had been attacked with conventional weapons, which at the time was napalm. Japanese cities were built of wood and paper and suffered terribly from the napalm attacks.

 

Additionally, casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were close to 1 million Americans. After the successful capture of Iwo Jima, which is considered part of the Japanese mainland and tantamount to attacking Tokoyo, the kind of defense we could expect to see in an attack of teh Japanese home islands was evident.

 

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to a swift end while saving both Japanese and American lives.

 

Torrid would tell you they were unnecessary because it wasn't an unconditional surrender and that Japan was prepared to surrender prior to the bombs but both of those statements are untrue.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

Looks like MDC's lil fishing escapade has ended with him being eaten by a shark.

[MDC 7,889]

And so far they've only got Hussein on these 148 murders but everyone knows he killed [tens? hundreds? of] thousands during his reign of terror.

 

Sorry - I thought my point was obvious but I should remember to never take a single thing for granted here.

 

Saddam was convicted of the murder of 148 people and he'll be sentenced to death for that crime alone. Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, but he'll get nothing. Why do people here seem to consider Saddam's murder of 148 to be a crime punishable by death, but they don't even consider Bush's actions to be a crime?

 

I don't know if you are a scumbag or not (I've got a pretty good idea) but what you are is ignorant, along with a few others in this thread. The argument isn't, or shouldn't be, about the nuclear weapons. If you want to argue something intelligent then it would be the decision to force and unconditional surrender.

 

As it was, that was the policy and America was bombing Japan back to the stone-age well before the August 6, 1945. The nuclear devices dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in fact destroyed less of those cities than if they had been attacked with conventional weapons, which at the time was napalm. Japanese cities were built of wood and paper and suffered terribly from the napalm attacks.

 

Additionally, casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were close to 1 million Americans. After the successful capture of Iwo Jima, which is considered part of the Japanese mainland and tantamount to attacking Tokoyo, the kind of defense we could expect to see in an attack of teh Japanese home islands was evident.

 

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to a swift end while saving both Japanese and American lives.

 

Torrid would tell you they were unnecessary because it wasn't an unconditional surrender and that Japan was prepared to surrender prior to the bombs but both of those statements are untrue.

 

Your estimates are just that - estimates. It is debateable that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives and it's been debated for decades. The big moral issue I have with it is the decision to murder hundreds of thousand civilians as a way to bring the enemy to its knees - big difference between that and killing the same number of men on the battlefield IMO, one reason why the 9/11 attacks were so despicable. HTH.

 

Looks like MDC's lil fishing escapade has ended with him being eaten by a shark.

 

It's been a boring day in the boat. Not one single person has even addressed my point.

[Toro 3]

I'm going to lunch.

 

How was the beer?

[GutterBoy 2,900]

It's been a boring day in the boat. Not one single person has even addressed my point.

 

That's because your point is foolish, Bush was never convicted of the murders of thousands of people, now please just shut up.

[MDC 7,889]

That's because your point is foolish, Bush was never convicted of the murders of thousands of people, now please just shut up.

 

That's right he wasn't convicted. And the same people at FFT who think Saddam should be hung for ordering the deaths of 148 people don't even think Bush should be investigated for making questionable decisions that killed thousands. Why is that? Oh yeah cause he has an ® after his name so he's above the law. Great stuff.

[Strike 6,023]

 

It's been a boring day in the boat. Not one single person has even addressed my point.

 

A point has to have some logic to it. This supposed "point" is as worth discussing as the one the other day (may not have been from you) comparing the number of casualties in Iraq to the number of people killed on 9/11. There is no logical connection between the two issues so the discussion is moot.

[MDC 7,889]

A point has to have some logic to it. This supposed "point" is as worth discussing as the one the other day (may not have been from you) comparing the number of casualties in Iraq to the number of people killed on 9/11. There is no logical connection between the two issues so the discussion is moot.

 

We invaded Iraq supposedly to prevent another 9/11 style attack from happening. We've learned that Iraq posed no real threat to us, the war has actually increased the threat of terrorism, and more soldiers have died in the war than on 9/11. You don't see what they have to do with each other?

[GutterBoy 2,900]

That's right he wasn't convicted. And the same people at FFT who think Saddam should be hung for ordering the deaths of 148 people don't even think Bush should be investigated for making questionable decisions that killed thousands. Why is that? Oh yeah cause he has an ® after his name so he's above the law. Great stuff.

 

If you think Bush should be investigated for leading the country into war, fine, start a thread about it. But to suggest that he should Bush should be equally punished for killing thousands of Iraqis is asinine, and one of the reasons you are a bored joke.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

That's right he wasn't convicted. And the same people at FFT who think Saddam should be hung for ordering the deaths of 148 people don't even think Bush should be investigated for making questionable decisions that killed thousands. Why is that? Oh yeah cause he has an ® after his name so he's above the law. Great stuff.

 

You are way off base on this one. Saddam was convicted for ordering the direct murder of 148 people.

 

GWB did not make a unilateral decision to invade Iraq. While he might have misled some folks along the way (and that is certainly debatable), his intent was not to needlessly kill anyone. There is a HUGE difference there.

 

For you to try to tie the two events together makes any effort to question Bush's actions seem like they are coming from idiots.

[Toro 3]

one of the reasons you are a bored joke.

 

Actually, I think it's the whole blowup doll/mascara/welching/secretary thing.

[Strike 6,023]

Actually, I think it's the whole blowup doll/mascara/welching/secretary thing.

 

There can be multiple jokes

[MDC 7,889]

If you think Bush should be investigated for leading the country into war, fine, start a thread about it. But to suggest that he should Bush should be equally punished for killing thousands of Iraqis is asinine, and one of the reasons you are a bored joke.

 

I didn't suggest he should be equally punished - I asked why he gets no punishment whatsoever for a crime that IMO seems to be at least as bad.

 

Actually, I think it's the whole blowup doll/mascara/welching/secretary thing.

 

That's highly original. This must be another example of my stalking you.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

IMO

 

 

I think that this is where your argument falls completely apart.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

I didn't suggest he should be equally punished - I asked why he gets no punishment whatsoever for a crime that IMO seems to be at least as bad.

That's highly original. This must be another example of my stalking you.

 

And what crime is this?

[Toro 3]

SUXBNME's left ass cheek > MDC

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

SUXBNME's wart on left ass cheek > MDC

fixed