Saddam will be sentenced on Sunday

[Carol&Marc 0]

...worth noting. That Richard Perle...what an appeaser to Saddam's regime.

Whenever I saw that guy on TV he, like Cheney, had the air of a deeply unpleasant person.

NICE making decisions BASED on AIR? Very intelligent way of judging.

Decision - try "opinion". Then tell me that you don't judge others by how they come across to you in their interactions with others.

If you have an objection to my opinions - at least object to them with some substance and not solely based on petty dislike. You're a grown man for God's sake - stop acting like a ###### child.

Child? LOOK -up, ACTIONS speak louder than words! you judge people by facial expression? thats very adult like!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

...worth noting. That Richard Perle...what an appeaser to Saddam's regime.

Whenever I saw that guy on TV he, like Cheney, had the air of a deeply unpleasant person.

NICE making decisions BASED on AIR? Very intelligent way of judging.

Decision - try "opinion". Then tell me that you don't judge others by how they come across to you in their interactions with others.

If you have an objection to my opinions - at least object to them with some substance and not solely based on petty dislike. You're a grown man for God's sake - stop acting like a ###### child.

Child? LOOK -up, ACTIONS speak louder than words! you judge people by facial expression? thats very adult like!

Hmmm... how is it a person forms first impressions again?

Now you mention it - where did I say "facial expressions". I said "he had the air of a deeply unpleasant person". If you really want to know it was based on how he spoke to, and behaved towards people interviewing and debating him.

Edited November 5, 2006 by erekose

[Carol&Marc 0]

...worth noting. That Richard Perle...what an appeaser to Saddam's regime.

Whenever I saw that guy on TV he, like Cheney, had the air of a deeply unpleasant person.

NICE making decisions BASED on AIR? Very intelligent way of judging.

Decision - try "opinion". Then tell me that you don't judge others by how they come across to you in their interactions with others.

If you have an objection to my opinions - at least object to them with some substance and not solely based on petty dislike. You're a grown man for God's sake - stop acting like a ###### child.

Child? LOOK -up, ACTIONS speak louder than words! you judge people by facial expression? thats very adult like!

Hmmm... how is it a person forms first impressions again?

Now you mention it - where did I say "facial expressions". I said "he had the air of a deeply unpleasant person". If you really want to know it was based on how he spoke to, and behaved towards people interviewing and debating him.

Having an air about someone is very general and could speak to many things and is always based on what the observer thinks, and is usually preconceived by the observer before hand.

There you go again splittin those short-n-curlies again

Whenever I saw that guy on TV he, like Cheney, had the air of a deeply unpleasant person.

now you change it, oh and I didnt say anything about really wanting to know,the truth came first and then you changed it once I called you on it! Its nice to see someone judging another based on how they look, so when they do begin to speak you already gottem chalked up for bein an a$$hole.

[GaryC 7]

Well, as expected he was found guilty and sentenced to death.

You gotta wonder about Ramsy Clark. Makes you wonder just who's side he is on.

Before the session began, one of Saddam's lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the courtroom after handing the judge a memorandum in which he called the trial a travesty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_.../saddam_verdict

[dani_christine 0]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

hmmm...if i recall...Germany was never a threat to the US. Hitler never did a thing to threaten Americans. Oh, and the Germans were "better off" with Hitler in power, right? i mean, he fixed their economy. he fed the people when they were starving. just an upstanding citizen, right?

well, that is, if you can overlook the fact that he was evil and millions of innocents died because of his "leadership".

get a clue. sometimes we have to act to enforce right over wrong--good over evil.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

hmmm...if i recall...Germany was never a threat to the US. Hitler never did a thing to threaten Americans. Oh, and the Germans were "better off" with Hitler in power, right? i mean, he fixed their economy. he fed the people when they were starving. just an upstanding citizen, right?

well, that is, if you can overlook the fact that he was evil and millions of innocents died because of his "leadership".

get a clue. sometimes we have to act to enforce right over wrong--good over evil.

Seems you got some clue getting to do yourself. Saddam was no Hitler. Not even close.

Edited November 5, 2006 by ET-US2004

[dani_christine 0]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

hmmm...if i recall...Germany was never a threat to the US. Hitler never did a thing to threaten Americans. Oh, and the Germans were "better off" with Hitler in power, right? i mean, he fixed their economy. he fed the people when they were starving. just an upstanding citizen, right?

well, that is, if you can overlook the fact that he was evil and millions of innocents died because of his "leadership".

get a clue. sometimes we have to act to enforce right over wrong--good over evil.

Seems you got some clue getting to do yourself. Saddam was no Hitler. Not even close.

you know...you're right.

at least, under the Nazis...there were many advances in science. Education was top priority. The economy was booming. The arts were celebrated and encouraged.

Saddam was definitely no Hitler.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

hmmm...if i recall...Germany was never a threat to the US. Hitler never did a thing to threaten Americans. Oh, and the Germans were "better off" with Hitler in power, right? i mean, he fixed their economy. he fed the people when they were starving. just an upstanding citizen, right?

well, that is, if you can overlook the fact that he was evil and millions of innocents died because of his "leadership".

get a clue. sometimes we have to act to enforce right over wrong--good over evil.

Seems you got some clue getting to do yourself. Saddam was no Hitler. Not even close.

you know...you're right.

at least, under the Nazis...there were many advances in science. Education was top priority. The economy was booming. The arts were celebrated and encouraged.

Saddam was definitely no Hitler.

Saddam was, first and foremost, contained and as such no danger to the region, let alone the world.

Edited November 5, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Having an air about someone is very general and could speak to many things and is always based on what the observer thinks, and is usually preconceived by the observer before hand.

There you go again splittin those short-n-curlies again

now you change it, oh and I didnt say anything about really wanting to know,the truth came first and then you changed it once I called you on it! Its nice to see someone judging another based on how they look, so when they do begin to speak you already gottem chalked up for bein an a$$hole.

You're the one changing it. The statement I made was so general and off-hand, that its hard to see how you can infer much from it.

In any case - how can you "call someone" on a first impression? I'm really curious. Do you never have a conversation along the lines of "I don't think I'll like this guy because...".

Well I've heard both Cheney and Perle speak on a number of occasions - and they didn't come across positively to me.

As with the other thread it seems you just want an argument - you don't actually want to discuss the issue. As it is I'd suggest you find a better argument to "call me on" - because this one seems extremely weak.

How's about I extend the same courteousy your way - YOU have the air of a deeply unpleasant person (based on your interactions with me and others). The sort of deeply unpleasant person who calls someone "anti-american" without any real justification for it.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Saddam was, first and foremost, contained and as such no danger to the region, let alone the world.

i wonder how many from kuwait would agree with that

[Carol&Marc 0]

Saddam was, first and foremost, contained and as such no danger to the region, let alone the world.

i wonder how many from kuwait would agree with that

Saddam defender? seems he loves the guy.

[eric&gen 0]

He should be put back in power under heavy US Goverment watch to make sure he dont step out of line so he can bring back IRAQ in place so what if he killed a few people that aint nothing compared to whats going on today in IRAQ.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Saddam was, first and foremost, contained and as such no danger to the region, let alone the world.

i wonder how many from kuwait would agree with that

Since being pushed back out of Kuwait in 1991 until the attack by the US on his country, just how often has Saddam posed an actual threat to Kuwait? I don't hink that Kuwait was all too concerned about Saddam anymore. Interestingly, Kuwait is not to be found as a member of the "coalition of the willing" either.

Saddam was, first and foremost, contained and as such no danger to the region, let alone the world.

i wonder how many from kuwait would agree with that

Saddam defender? seems he loves the guy.

You really don't understand a thing, do you? Saddam's military was defeated in a matter of days. That's not the type force with which he could have threatened anyone. Hence, he was contained and did not pose any threat to the international community. The invasion was unnecessary and wrong and has left the country and the region in worse shape than it was before. The fact that it deteriorated our own security situation is but the icing on Bush's ** up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Saddam defender? seems he loves the guy.

That comment is about as true and justifiable as it would be if I called you a Hitler lover.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Saddam was, first and foremost, contained and as such no danger to the region, let alone the world.

i wonder how many from kuwait would agree with that

BTW do you think we would have gone to war in 1991 if Saddam's invasion of Kuwait hadn't jeopardised our economic relationship with Saudi Arabia and specifically OPEC?