 | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —John Neal
|
| | | (...) It matters a great deal to the Iraqi people. "Death of the kids"? Or how about "death of the murderous, sadistic thugs"? Look how pathetically partisan you've become-- criticizing the deaths of 2 pieces of human excrement. Sad, really. I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | (...) From: (URL) did not identify the other two who were killed. U.S. officials said Tuesday that one appeared to be a bodyguard, the other a teenager who may have been Qusay's son." I wonder if the kid died trying to cover his father, is spite of (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) Your certainty confounds me AGAIN! There was no trial. There is no evidence. Sure, there are allegations. All I do know is that two persons alleged to be Saddam's children and likewise alleged to be criminals against humanity were killed. I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) So are you asserting that because they never had their day in court, they were innocent? (...) Your comparison is, if not completely laughable, not analogous. (...) Dude, to go out in a blaze of glory was their decision! I read a quotation (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) What ever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? BTW: How hypocritical will it be if (as has been suggested) Rumsfeld publishes pictures of their bodies? Scott A (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That can't be applicable, the institutions whose legitimacy for trial was recognized have been overpassed. Trial would therefore be a farce without an impartial judge. (...) No longer "if". IMO it's just a question of taste (or sensibility, if (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | (...) Y'know, I cannot recall a single instance before the administration of Shrub where the idea of detaining people in contravention of the most basic of all of our supposedly protected civil rights AND the idea of torturing them was part of every (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Wrong again, John...that blaze of glory seems to have been more of a fizzle. It appears they were taken out with an overwhelming amount of force. Of course, it may have been strategically better to have taken them alive too. Excessive Force? (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) A thoroughly good read as well: (URL) K (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) (URL) Kooties, Todd's crazy FTX wants you to use your angle brackets, k? -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Probably. But the impact of their deaths remains to be seen, alas. I am hopeful that the elimination of those two brutes will allow Iraq to begin to heal from the atrocities inflicted upon it by enemies both at home and abroad. However, it's (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed. (...) Fair enough. (...) Hindsight is certainly 20/20. I would be more apt to concede culpability if we actually had any idea as to his evil character, and even given that it is sometimes necessary to choose a lesser of 2 evils (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Business, sure, but look at the circumstances. Cheney was Secretary of Defense in Gulf War I and CEO of Halliburton in 1995, and in 1999 oil deals were struck with Iraq. Let's remember that this was during the time when Saddam was already (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Let me say this, Dave! I won't defend big business. I am not a fan of "big business", nor am I a fan of big government. "Big" in these areas is bad IMO, inevitabley leading to corruption and abuse of power. I don't know any specifics about (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Skeptical which way? (...) And neither do I. At the same time I don't believe in letting them off the hook and overtaxing the vastly less wealthy members of our society instead. The reality is that we have a corporate welfare scheme of untold (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) They were bad. Do I celebrate *anyone's* death? No. Do I put "..seriously thought that the death of those two rat b***ards..." No. I think that justice would be served if the couple in St Kitts were put to death, but I would not celebrate it. (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I was referring to your partisan liberalness. (...) I think you are unaware of how liberal your ideas actually are. I know I'm conservative; I'd bet you think you are pretty moderate... (...) No (thanks to the Israelis). Your refusal to come (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | (...) And the memory loss from the right must have the same short-life: the inspections were there to confirm the known WMD had been destroyed, and logic says what was destroyed can no longer be found. Can you prove those WMD were not destroyed? (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) And yet you still keep on missing the point--you didn't give the inspectors this long to do their job--doing their job without the support and 'proof' that you "Mericans supposedly had, btw, (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) The Sons of Saddam seem to have forgotten that trite statement. Or perhaps, "He who lives be the sword, dies by the sword." So, yes, it's trite, but it also kinda backfires against David since it can also be used to explain why it happened. I (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Yeah, I was called in on that characterization as well by Dave! What I meant basically was that sometimes violence can beget peace. How about it is good to resist against evil, even if that means going to war. But I think we are of the same (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Saddam wasn't particularly unstable. His actions are fairly predictable, in fact. I suppose any dictatorship is inherently unstable, but that is hardly a valid excuse in and of itself (see: all the other dictatorships that the U.S. has no (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
