...a sense of humor is an excellent trait indeed.

Land of the free, just not the land of the free thought...

No, I too would not place him in the same league as Saddam, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation, that's all.

 

I hate politics...

 

don't ya mean: "ih8politx"

Not much hypocrasy. I think the timing could have been better....oh like say, I don't know....maybe 15 years ago when we were already there would have been better, but nonetheless, Sadaam had to go. I just wouldn't have done it right now. I think what would have been better would be to have focused efforts on finding Osama, instead of making up a connection between 9/11 and Iraq that didn't exist, but that was pretty much a lost cause to begin with.

 

Well... I guess now theres a big issue regarding the video that was leaked....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16438087/?GT1=8921

Looks like the politics in Iraq are upset about this...

 

 

So somehow you think it that the murder of 300,000 Iraqis by Saddam is a greater evil than the 655,000 Bush is responsible for since this latest illegal U.S.-led invasion began in 2003?

Please explain.

 

here we go...

 

Why do you care, since by your own admission you "hate politics"?

What did Saddam do that Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Blair have not done?

If Saddam can be sentenced to death for his responsibility in the killing of 148 Shiites, what about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair’s responsibility for the Iraqi civilians slaughtered by Bushs invasion of Iraq?

 

Well, for starters, Sadaam ordered the murder of 99% of those 300k. His son's the rest of them.

Secondly, Bush has only created the power vacuum and hasn't done much to make sure insurgents don't take up the space.

Thirdly, Bush isn't killing the Iraqis, insurgents are killing them.

So, the difference is gross negligence vs. psycopathic serial killing.

 

So intent resolves one of guilt?

Seems to me that murder by way of a drunk driver (or any number of other crimes) gets the same punishment even if a death was caused "by accident".

 

video now avaliable.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...al&sa=N&tab=wv

 

i dont care... I said here we go... Im simply waiting for the _____ing match to insue

 

warning, graphic analagy ahead...very graphic

Intent is everything. It doesn't resolve one of guilt, but it does change things. If you were simply negligent, and accidently slipped while holding your newborn and fell and killed it, would that person be as bad as someone who slipped into a delivery room, grabbed the baby and then slammed into onto the ground? Of course not. One's a tragic accidnet, and the other is a tragic psycophatic event. Both babies are dead, do to hitting the ground, but the two events are world's apart.

told ya it was graphic

 

If intent is everything than Bush should be on trial for counseling, aiding, and abetting torture. No doubt as to intent in Abu Ghraib.

 

I'm not in complete disagreement with that. But the question is now, how do you go about doing that without being assured that you won't be labled an Enemy Combatant of the United States of America, with all of the perks and benefits that go along with it? We seem to have backed ourselves into a corner until 2008.

 

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Those idiots at Abu Ghraib were acting out on their own and possibly under the direction of a few twisted morons in charge at that place. I'm sure the things done there bothered the president as much as it did you or I.
Let me explain something to you. The president (no matter who that is at the time) doesn't go out and spy on anyone. He doesn't hide in the dark or gather information from locals. There are people who do that for the government. All ANY president can do is make the best decisions he can based on the information provided to him. When that information was brought back to the president AND congress, they COLLECTIVELY voted to invade Iraq. And they did so with the backing of dozens of allied countries. I've seen the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. I've seen the terrorist devices designed specifically to bring down airplanes which were discovered in several locations within Iraq. I personally am damned glad we did what we did.
For you to sit there and spout off all that ignorant garbage about our president being a murderer and a war criminal makes me sick. Maybe you don't agree with his politics....that's certainly your right as an American. But you don't have the decency to show any respect for a person who is making hard decisions that you wouldn't have the ***** to make. I didn't like Clinton's politics or his personal character, but I wouldn't speak about him the way you have about Bush. No matter how I felt about Clinton, he was still the President and he deserves some respect.

 

Thank you so much.

 

The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, albeit aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war, designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals, evolved into ever more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war.

Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions.


Ever hear of the Downing Street Memo? It is now in the public record...a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:

--Bushs long-standing intent to invade Iraq.

--Bushs willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war.

--The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force.

--The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war.

--The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society.



Unless that information is based on lies, i.e. Downing Street Memo.

What did that really accomplish though? Are the Iraqis better off today then they were before we invaded?


You may disagree with it, but ignorant it is not.

Pointing out someones wrong doings does not make them disrespectful in my eyes. In fact, it makes them true Americans unwilling to let current (and past) administrations trample over the ideals that made this nation great.

You really don’t know what decisions I would or would not make.

Well, I am certainly no fan of Clinton, but he never invaded a sovereign nation while he was President.
Maybe if more people did speak out instead of 'tow-the-line', this nation could return to its former glory.

 

That's a stretch. To say that, because the CIA has questionable interigation tactics, a few regular service men and women did what they did there, is crazy. There is no bigger person to blame here. Those were disturbed people who were placed in a position of power over those prisoners and they were not properly supervised. No matter how badly you want it to be Bush's fault, it simply isn't.

Heard of it? Yes. Familiar with it? No.

I believe what you are referring to is the enforcement of UN imposed military sanctions and no-fly zones dating back to Desert Storm. Saddam kept testing the rules. Should we have ignored that?

I can't say. Ask the families of those who were torturded by Saddam.


What "soverign nation" is that? Kuwaite? No, wait....that was Saddam's Iraq who invaded them.

 

damn......i kinda figured sumthin like this happen by the end of this thread....... face it they both suck, saddam sucks more then bush but bush still sucks....either way they both are still sucking,... well one still is........ bush put the troops over there and we lost american soldiers lives......saddam was a power hungry tyrant and kept killing his people for more power and people would continue to fear him..... it doesnt matter how you look at it they are both guilty of murder be it direct(saddam) or indirect(bush) but becuase bush is a president and he himself didnt order the killing of iraqs he wont get tried for murder....... as for hanging what a great idea reason being becuase if they had to inject him twice it would cause a riot for it being inhumane..... im done... oh yeah only 18 and this is PURELY