What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Saddam Hussein executed today before dawn

  • Thread starter Finch
  • Start date
  • #21
Read this article I think it says it all.

Pay close attention to why Bush sr. asaid he didn't go after Saddam.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Departments
War Against Iraq

Bush Sr. Said In 1996 That War With Iraq `Would Turn Entire Arab World Against Us’
by Jason Leopold
March 6, 2003

Former President George Bush predicted in 1996 that if the United States were to engage in another war with Iraq, one aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the “entire Arab world would turn against us” and the U.S. would alienate its allies in the international community.

“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero," Bush said in an interview with the BBC marking the five-year anniversary of the Gulf War.

Moreover, Vice President **** Cheney said at an energy conference six years ago that hundreds of thousands of United States soldiers and Iraqi civilians would die if a war in Iraq were ever fought on the streets of Baghdad.

“To have brought the (Gulf) war into the populous Iraqi capital of Baghdad where Hussein is based would have involved a different type of military operation than in the desert, and would have put large numbers of Iraqi civilians and hundreds of thousands of our troops at risk of being killed,” he said.

Cheney, the former chairman and chief executive of oil conglomerate Halliburton Co. and former defense secretary under the first President Bush, was referring to the 1991 Gulf War when the U.S. liberated Kuwait. Cheney also said in 1997 that if the U.S. were to engage in another war with Iraq and try to remove Saddam Hussein from power the international coalition “would come apart,” a situation currently in the making as U.S. relations with France, Germany and Russia are becoming increasingly strained because our allies will not back a U.S. led coalition to attack Iraq.

Despite the dire warnings Bush Sr. and Cheney made six years ago, the current Bush Administration appears to be on course to launch a full-scale war with Iraq, one that appears to be more about finding Saddam Hussein and assassinating the Iraqi President than destroying any weapons of mass destruction that may or may no be hidden somewhere in the country.

Until that goal is achieved, the U.S. and the rest of the world will never be safe or at peace; statements made repeatedly by Republican hawks since the end of the first Gulf War.

“Unless we can take out Saddam Hussein, we are going to have to live with Saddam Hussein (for a long time),” said James Schlesinger, former defense secretary under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, at a conference in 1998. Schlesinger noted however that the countries of the region “don’t want us to attack Iraq.”

“We keep getting waved off,” he said.

If the U.S. decides to attack Iraq this time around urban warfare appears to be inevitable, according to news reports that quoted senior defense officials.

Cheney said in 1997 that President Bush was not willing to sacrifice U.S. soldiers’ lives by allowing combat to spread to Baghdad in an effort to locate Saddam Hussein, a situation which the current Bush Administration seems willing to do now.

“From the standpoint of the president, the question was how many additional (U.S.) lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And his answer was, `Not very many,' “ Cheney said.

Cheney said six years ago that capturing the Iraqi president would be very difficult and would likely involve a large number of civilian casualties.

“The only way to make certain you could get him was to go occupy all of Iraq and start sorting through Iraqis until you find Saddam Hussein,” Cheney said in 1997.

If the U.S. does invade Iraq, the Bush Administration said the war won’t last more than two months and will not involve a large number of U.S. or civilian casualties.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell warned President Bush last year that if the U.S. starts a war in Iraq without the support of a majority of our allies in the international community, which is the case now, it would be “much more complicated and bloody” than the first Gulf War. </div>
 
  • #22
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
I don't know of any conspircy theroy.

You want facts? ok.

Fact one, more americans voted for Gore that Bush.

Fact two, the supreme court decided the out come of the election.

Plain and simple, no conspircy, no therory.
</div>

How is a president elected?:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
No, it was men that was directed by Osama Bin Laden, who is still running around free and still killing Americans.
</div>

You said:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
I also wonder what they would think about a person murdering 3000 or more Americans, and a president lets him off scott free while going after a personal vendetta.

In my opinion Bush has as much or more blood on his hands than Saddame. 2000 of those lives are American.

I think that every person that lost somebody in 9/11 should demand that Bush be arrested for his war crimes and the crimes he has committed against the American people.
</div>

Care to fill us in?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
True. But I have never seen one shred of evidence that Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. That's why I said the victims families of 9/11 should demand Bush be arrested. Bush played a bait and switch scam. Tryed to say 9/11 was caused by Iraq, when it was Al quieda.
</div>

No one said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The fear here was that if he did infact had WMDs that he could give them to terrorists. If we sat around and did nothing we would have people like you jumping up and down saying we didn't do anything and allowed it to happen.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
We had all that evidence and we never found a single one.
Bush is proven to be a liar, do you really think I believe that Iraq had WMD's?

If you'll notice, for the things that I have no real evidence of I used terms like , In my opinion and I believe, but you are taking everything I said as I meant them as fact.
</div>

We didn't end up finding what we expected to find. Your right. However this doesn't mean they weren't there. They could have been moved out of Iraq to Syria or Iran. Or they could have been destroyed during attacks. Either way everyone agreed that the intel at that moment of time was strong enough to go to war with Iraq. It wasn't a lie. Even if WMDs were found we would still be in the same position as we are now. To think we went over there to just take some weapons out of Saddams hands would be closed minded.
 
  • #23
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">To think we went over there to just take some weapons out of Saddams hands would be closed minded. </div>

I don't think that. I think Bush went over there to get revenge for saddam putting a hit out on his dad. And to make sure a bush took out Saddam. The reason we were there was to kill him. That's why before the war started, they got some intel that saddam was in a house and they bombed the house. They got some intel that he was eating at a resturant in bagdad and bush decided to bomb it even after he was warned that they were not sure if he was there and if they bombed it there would be a high number of civillians killed. Bush did it anyway.

To believe that we were there to stop another 9/11 is like a lamb being lead to a slaughter.
 
  • #24
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In my opinion Bush has as much or more blood on his hands than Saddame. 2000 of those lives are American.</div>
I think he is refering to the Iraq war casulty count.
 
  • #25
I agree, George W. Bush commited crimes against humanity. He attacked a country with out a clue as to do with it once we had taken over. This has resulted in thousands of american deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. The lack of order over there is his fault, he sent all forms of police and army home once saddam was gone and had no plan for rebuilding law and order. I really think everyone should pressure their represenatives in congress to draw up articles of impeachment to remove our the president. Of course he didnt mess around with an intern so its gonna be tough. Isnt it sad that as a country we are more conerned with what a president does in the bed room than we are with how many hundreds of thousands of people he gets killed.

As for the WMD I can assure you that they were not sent to Iran or Syria. The only way Saddam would have sent weapons of mass destruction to either of those countries would have been if they were on the business end of a missle. The fact that you suggested that implys you do not have the slightest clue as to how these countries used to get along with Iraq. They were a charge created on evidence that we, the public, have never seen with makes me wonder what it was. If this intel actully existed why havent they released it to show us how justifed the war was?

Also the best connection Iraq has to terrorism is all of it that was created in Iraq after we invaded. So unless you agree with our president, who seems to believe every muslim has a bomb straped to their chest you will agree there was no terrorist threat before we invaded. Currently though Iraq is a hot bed for terrorism, isnt that wonderful our "war on terror" has actully increased the number of terrorists and created a larger terror problem. GO TEAM!!!! we sure are doing a good job over there. LOL
 
  • #26
It's possibly about globalism, the New World Order, and puppet governments being built that will play ball with the elite.
infowars.com
prisonplanet.com
savethemales.ca
cuttingedge.org
 
  • #27
Those links are absurd. Seriously.

I'm a feminist. Maybe the New World Order will give me a seat of power. Afterall, my grandfather was a Freemason.

Maybe they conspiracy theorists need to find a hobby. I hear Stamp Collectors are pretty mellow.

If we didn't have religious zealots, islamic or otherwise, and conspiracy theorists trying to spread their word and save our souls, I wouldn't have anything to complain about.

I think that's why I watch FOX when I'm in the mood to get pissed off at someone.
 
  • #28
Jesuits killing William Tyndale was absurd and trying to suppress the bible.
 
  • #29
By the way the absurdists spreading this news will never be mainstream media covered, at least not in a positive way. These people are viewed conviently as terrorists by the guv under the patriot act. It is considered a radical message that big brother is still watching and those sites may be monitored and you may go on alist ala Hooverism.
 
  • #30
That's my take. Please don't shoot the messenger, even if you think that's absurd or negative.
 
  • #31
Nah, I don't think you're a terrorist. I can't imagine how anyone would.

I may go on a list? I'm sure I'm already on a list somewhere lmao.

I hate the patriot act, too.
 
  • #32
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I wonder what our forefathers would have thought about the supreme court deciding our president when the majority of Americans voted against that person.
</div>

Untrue. the majority of Americans voted for Bush.
thats a fact.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I also wonder what they would think about a person murdering 3000 or more Americans, and a president lets him off scott free while going after a personal vendetta. </div>

Osama was captured and Bush let him off scott free?
wow..I must have missed that.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In my opinion Bush has as much or more blood on his hands than Saddame. 2000 of those lives are American.
</div>

sick..as in mentally ill.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">him off scott free while going after a personal vendetta.

In my opinion Bush has as much or more blood on his hands than Saddame. 2000 of those lives are American.

I think that every person that lost somebody in 9/11 should demand that Bush be arrested for his war crimes and the crimes he has committed against the American people. </div>

lie..no crimes have been comitted by our president.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bush let a terriost that has killed thousands of Americans go, and used the blood of the people killed in 9/11 to get the congress to vote to go to war with Iraq based on lies.</div>

again..when was Osama captured??
I cant believe I missed that!

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't know of any conspircy theroy.

You want facts? ok.

Fact one, more americans voted for Gore that Bush.

Fact two, the supreme court decided the out come of the election.

Plain and simple, no conspircy, no therory.</div>

Ozzy, let me explain this thing called "math" that we have here in the real world..
you see, things get added up..we call that "addition"..
lets say you have one apple, and I gave you another, that would be "1+1 =2"..we would say "Ozzy has two apples"..do you follow? good!
Another thing we have over here in the real world is this thing we call an "election"..thats where people cast "votes"...now try to pay attention, because this goes back to "math" again..
If one person gets MORE votes than another, that means the person who got MORE votes "wins"..(I know its complicated..sorry..)
now, in the presidential election of 2004, president Bush got 62,040,606 votes.

Kerry, his "opponent", got 59,028,109 votes.

62 million is "more" than 59 million..its a "bigger" number..
that means more people voted for Bush, which is why he won..

I know in your world complicated ideas like this, concepts we like to call "reality", are difficult for you to understand..
keep trying though! maybe someday you can join the rest of us over here in "reality"..good luck!

source for vote numbers:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Scot
 
  • #33
OOh boy, you sure must be embarrassed after acting so condescending.

We are talking about Bush and Gore.

I like both of you but this that was sooo funny lmao
boogie.gif


HAPPY NEW YEAR! LET'S USHER IN A WHOLE NEW YEAR OF SEX DRUGS AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS!
 
  • #34
About osama...
Its easy to hide when you have worldwide acess and people who would keep your secret with their life.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I know in your world complicated ideas like this, concepts we like to call "reality", are difficult for you to understand..
keep trying though! maybe someday you can join the rest of us over here in "reality"..good luck!
</div>

Wow That was as dripping with condescension and such in a very belittling way. While I do agree with you, it makes it hard to support your position. Next time, lets try to make something that is based on trying to clarify instead of trying to make the other look like a idiot.
 
  • #35
Ok where do I start. Well JLP already covered the gore kerry thing. I'll practice on my math and you practice on your reading skills. Apearently they are lacking just a bit.

Let me say this again since there are some people that are slow to comperhend.

Gore recieved more votes than Bush. 543,816 more to be exact. Over half a million people. See, I think I'm catching on to this math thing. I have to admit though I didn't count them myself, I got my info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Osama was captured and Bush let him off scott free?
wow..I must have missed that.</div>

While you were buying all the republican lies I guess you did miss the fact that Bush didn't even put in 1/10th the effort to catch Bin laden as he did Saddam. In my opinion that is not only a crime, but it's a slap in the face to every family that lost a person in 9/11.


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> lie..no crimes have been comitted by our president.</div>

I guess we'll just have to let history decide that.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
QUOTE
In my opinion Bush has as much or more blood on his hands than Saddame. 2000 of those lives are American.


sick..as in mentally ill.</div>

I'm so glad that we agree that Bush is mentally ill.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">again..when was Osama captured??
I cant believe I missed that!</div>

Again work on your reading comperhensive skills. Keep working on it and I'm sure you'll get it. It's important to remember though that spell check can't help stupidity.
 
  • #36
I just re-read my post and i think i was not clear in one important regard.

scottychaos,

I would certainly suggest that you think about what you are doing when you pull down heavy sarcasm on a fellow member of Terraforums. It not only brings the "wrath" of the other members and Staff down upon your shoulders, it makes you look pretty small as well.
Please refrain from such attacks in the future.

Finch
 
  • #37
<div>
(Outsiders71 @ Dec. 31 2006,11:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sigh...not the 9/11 conspiracy?!?! Oh and it was an American pilot who crashed into the towers as well right!  You make pro ponderous claims with no facts or evidence.  Just some loopy conspiracy theory that we allowed it to happen!</div>
Don't you even read the newspaper? I can give you some slack for all the whining that comes from the left, but really, these things have been documented and substantiated. Not just by the media, but by the government itself. I feel compelled to refer to this declassified White House memo:
0409041pdb1.gif

0409041pdb2.gif

Which is the conspiracy theory - that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, or that the intelligence committee preparing the president's daily briefs has planted this incriminating memo in their records in order to make Bush look bad?
~Joe
 
  • #38
Didn't the terrorist come into america via the northern boarder?

Why then are the republicans complaining about terrorist coming to america via the Mexican boarder? Hello? Is this opposite year or something?
 
  • #39
ooohh!! we were talking about the 2000 election being stolen!
sorry, my mistake.
its hard to keep all the crackpot theories straight!

I just assumed we were talking about the 2004 election, because everyone knows that election was stolen as well..
so BOTH the 2000 and the 2004 elections were stolen by the republicans? of course..why not..if you are going lie and claim one was stolen (nevermind those pesky facts) why not go all-out and claim BOTH were stolen?

ok then..since I already fully proved that the 2004 election was NOT stolen, I guess I must do the same with the 2000 election, fortunately, its very easy.

yes, technically Gore got more "popular votes"..but that doesnt matter...because we have this thing called "The Electoral College"...now I know those of you who believe the 2000 election was "stolen" have never heard of the Electoral College (and its clear you have never heard of it because you DO believe the 2000 election was stolen!)
I wont try to explain how it works, because there are a ton of webpages that can do it better and in more detail than I could here, so just google it.

But because of the Electoral College. which was set up, on purpose, but our founding fathers, four times in American history a president was elected who did NOT get the majority of the popular vote! in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
In each of those elections, even though the guy who got LESS votes became president, there was no "mistake" made!
nothing was "stolen"!
the system worked exactly as it was designed to work..
the same thing happened in the 2000 election.

2000 Election.
Gore got more popular votes.
Bush won the Electoral College.
The result? Bush legally, morally, constitutionally, and in all other ways legitimately won the election of 2000.

2004 Election.
Bush got more popular votes.
AND Bush won the Electoral College.
The result? Bush legally, morally, constitutionally, and in all other ways legitimately won the election of 2004.

stupid facts..I know they really annoy those of you who hate Bush.

ok, I have a challenge, for Ozzy, or anyone who believes these lies.

You think the election was stolen?
2000 and/or 2004?
PROVE it!
lets see some facts that back it up..

Second, "IMPEACH BUSH!"
I see that all over..obviously Ozzy believe it, he says it in every post he makes..
but again..I notice the people who are always screaming "IMPEACH BUSH" never seem to offer any clear reasons WHY he should be impeached?? (I know the reason..because there are none!)
so lets have some clear laws that were broken.
some clear, obvious crimes comitted by Bush, that would justify impeachment.
and you cant just say:
"Reason 1. Bush strangled a puppy on live TV"
thats not good enough! because maybe strangling a puppy isnt an impeachable offence?
So I require three things.
1. The exact crime comitted.
2. proof it happened.
3. proof that crime is an impeachable offense.

go to it!
smile.gif


Scot
 
  • #40
I disagree with people who say the Bush administration was unprepared after ignoring warnings such as that memo. They responded with stunning speed - ramming through their wish list of Patriot Act, government reorganization, tax policies, etc. They definitely were ready to act.
 
Back
Top