Saddam will be sentenced on Sunday

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

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?

ah so it's all about oil still to you? i guess the looting and raping of the country didn't matter much in your eyes

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

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?

ah so it's all about oil still to you? i guess the looting and raping of the country didn't matter much in your eyes

Oh dear Charles. Your words in my mouth, again eh? Stop trying to moralize something that never had any moral basis of justification to begin with.

As for the Kurds... what's the betting that you never complained about that back when Saddam was our bosom-buddy.

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

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?

ah so it's all about oil still to you? i guess the looting and raping of the country didn't matter much in your eyes

Oh dear Charles. Your words in my mouth, again eh? Stop trying to moralize something that never had any moral basis of justification to begin with.

As for the Kurds... what's the betting that you never complained about that back when Saddam was our bosom-buddy.

me putting words in your mouth? you're the one mentioning opec, and opec does what? oil? hmmm. fairly straightforward connection there with the dots, eh?

lemme see. saddam our bosom buddy. was that before the attack on the stark or after?

he was killing kurds after the first gulf war, btw

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

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?

ah so it's all about oil still to you? i guess the looting and raping of the country didn't matter much in your eyes

Oh dear Charles. Your words in my mouth, again eh? Stop trying to moralize something that never had any moral basis of justification to begin with.

As for the Kurds... what's the betting that you never complained about that back when Saddam was our bosom-buddy.

me putting words in your mouth? you're the one mentioning opec, and opec does what? oil? hmmm. fairly straightforward connection there with the dots, eh?

lemme see. saddam our bosom buddy. was that before the attack on the stark or after?

he was killing kurds after the first gulf war, btw

Yes he was - but he was doing it before too, no to mention the forced deportations. Does the Iran/Iraq war ring a bell?

So why do you think we "liberated Kuwait"? Actually - lets ask the more interesting and obvious question: Why did Saddam want it? Not for beach front property I think.

[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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

Congratulations on missing the point yet again. You're running up some kind of record on that one.

Our invasion of Iraq was never, ever about the Kurds. Nobody even pretended that it was. They have not only had hard times under Saddam but still have hard times in Turkey - don't look now but that's one of our NATO allies. Not that anyone is doing anything about the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. But that's really besides the point altogether.

Saddam was a brutal dictator keeping his regime going with an iron fist. No doubt about that. I've never said anything else. He was and still is a very bad guy.

What he was not, though, following the defeat over his illegal invasion of Kuwait, was a danger to the region or the world. He was, internationally speaking, as contained and harmless as anyone could possibly be.

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

Congratulations on missing the point yet again. You're running up some kind of record on that one.

Our invasion of Iraq was never, ever about the Kurds. Nobody even pretended that it was. They have not only had hard times under Saddam but still have hard times in Turkey - don't look now but that's one of our NATO allies. Not that anyone is doing anything about the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. But that's really besides the point altogether.

Saddam was a brutal dictator keeping his regime going with an iron fist. No doubt about that. I've never said anything else. He was and still is a very bad guy.

What he was not, though, following the defeat over his illegal invasion of Kuwait, was a danger to the region or the world. He was, internationally speaking, as contained and harmless as anyone could possibly be.

That doesn't seem to stop people masturbating the shrivelled genitalia of the "humanitarian" argument.

[mawilson 2,133]

That doesn't seem to stop people masturbating the shrivelled genitalia of the "humanitarian" argument.

That's it erekose - no more Borat movies for you and your impressionable young mind.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That doesn't seem to stop people masturbating the shrivelled genitalia of the "humanitarian" argument.

That's it erekose - no more Borat movies for you and your impressionable young mind.

[dalegg 143]

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?

That's a trick question. If Kuwait didn't offer anything worth having an economic relationship with the U.S and Saudi Arabia, Saddam wouldn't have invaded them, therefore we would not have needed to go to war with him.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

That's a trick question. If Kuwait didn't offer anything worth having an economic relationship with the U.S and Saudi Arabia, Saddam wouldn't have invaded them, therefore we would not have needed to go to war with him.

Yes. So the humanitarian "we're doing it for the Kuwaitees" isn't really true is it. Neither did we did we do gulf war 2 for the Iraqis.

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

Congratulations on missing the point yet again. You're running up some kind of record on that one.

Our invasion of Iraq was never, ever about the Kurds. Nobody even pretended that it was. They have not only had hard times under Saddam but still have hard times in Turkey - don't look now but that's one of our NATO allies. Not that anyone is doing anything about the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. But that's really besides the point altogether.

Saddam was a brutal dictator keeping his regime going with an iron fist. No doubt about that. I've never said anything else. He was and still is a very bad guy.

What he was not, though, following the defeat over his illegal invasion of Kuwait, was a danger to the region or the world. He was, internationally speaking, as contained and harmless as anyone could possibly be.

I just think its total foolisness how ET can dismiss 180,000 deaths so easily just based on us not going their for that peticular reason.Also its ironic for you to say he was contained and not a threat. I beleive the U.S. accidently posted on a website some of Saddams how to make a nuke papers. I also love the token Saddam is a bad guy line.For you to equate Saddams treatment of the kurds with Turkey (NO COMMENT) Saddam gave the Kurds a hard time.We give each other a HARD TIME here but what Saddam did was a lot bigger than a hard time. He tried to extinguish them from the face of the earth! I would gladly show you some pics of the hard time he gave them. Lets not forget UDEA and COOODAY! Saddams lovely and gracious sons, The ones that loved to visit the little girls schools for an afternoon of fun, what the hell they were just givin them a hard time?

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

Congratulations on missing the point yet again. You're running up some kind of record on that one.

Our invasion of Iraq was never, ever about the Kurds. Nobody even pretended that it was. They have not only had hard times under Saddam but still have hard times in Turkey - don't look now but that's one of our NATO allies. Not that anyone is doing anything about the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. But that's really besides the point altogether.

Saddam was a brutal dictator keeping his regime going with an iron fist. No doubt about that. I've never said anything else. He was and still is a very bad guy.

What he was not, though, following the defeat over his illegal invasion of Kuwait, was a danger to the region or the world. He was, internationally speaking, as contained and harmless as anyone could possibly be.

I just think its total foolisness how ET can dismiss 180,000 deaths so easily just based on us not going their for that peticular reason.Also its ironic for you to say he was contained and not a threat. I beleive the U.S. accidently posted on a website some of Saddams how to make a nuke papers. I also love the token Saddam is a bad guy line.For you to equate Saddams treatment of the kurds with Turkey (NO COMMENT) Saddam gave the Kurds a hard time.We give each other a HARD TIME here but what Saddam did was a lot bigger than a hard time. He tried to extinguish them from the face of the earth! I would gladly show you some pics of the hard time he gave them. Lets not forget UDEA and COOODAY! Saddams lovely and gracious sons, The ones that loved to visit the little girls schools for an afternoon of fun, what the hell they were just givin them a hard time?

The war wasn't justified in moral terms. As such you can't sit back and say that the shifting justifications and bad (cherry-picked) intelligence don't matter.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That doesn't seem to stop people masturbating the shrivelled genitalia of the "humanitarian" argument.

That's it erekose - no more Borat movies for you and your impressionable young mind.

(I just saw the movie this afternoon...holy cow...that scene of the 2 wrestling had me squirming in my seat).

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

Congratulations on missing the point yet again. You're running up some kind of record on that one.

Our invasion of Iraq was never, ever about the Kurds. Nobody even pretended that it was. They have not only had hard times under Saddam but still have hard times in Turkey - don't look now but that's one of our NATO allies. Not that anyone is doing anything about the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. But that's really besides the point altogether.

Saddam was a brutal dictator keeping his regime going with an iron fist. No doubt about that. I've never said anything else. He was and still is a very bad guy.

What he was not, though, following the defeat over his illegal invasion of Kuwait, was a danger to the region or the world. He was, internationally speaking, as contained and harmless as anyone could possibly be.

I just think its total foolisness how ET can dismiss 180,000 deaths so easily just based on us not going their for that peticular reason.Also its ironic for you to say he was contained and not a threat. I beleive the U.S. accidently posted on a website some of Saddams how to make a nuke papers. I also love the token Saddam is a bad guy line.For you to equate Saddams treatment of the kurds with Turkey (NO COMMENT) Saddam gave the Kurds a hard time.We give each other a HARD TIME here but what Saddam did was a lot bigger than a hard time. He tried to extinguish them from the face of the earth! I would gladly show you some pics of the hard time he gave them. Lets not forget UDEA and COOODAY! Saddams lovely and gracious sons, The ones that loved to visit the little girls schools for an afternoon of fun, what the hell they were just givin them a hard time?

The war wasn't justified in moral terms. As such you can't sit back and say that the shifting justifications and bad (cherry-picked) intelligence don't matter.

I forgot you are the master of morality, your morals are obviously different!

[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

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.

previous question of

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

asked and answered.

you can ask the kurds if you need further evidence in regards to your question

have a nice day

Congratulations on missing the point yet again. You're running up some kind of record on that one.

Our invasion of Iraq was never, ever about the Kurds. Nobody even pretended that it was. They have not only had hard times under Saddam but still have hard times in Turkey - don't look now but that's one of our NATO allies. Not that anyone is doing anything about the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. But that's really besides the point altogether.

Saddam was a brutal dictator keeping his regime going with an iron fist. No doubt about that. I've never said anything else. He was and still is a very bad guy.

What he was not, though, following the defeat over his illegal invasion of Kuwait, was a danger to the region or the world. He was, internationally speaking, as contained and harmless as anyone could possibly be.

I just think its total foolisness how ET can dismiss 180,000 deaths so easily just based on us not going their for that peticular reason.Also its ironic for you to say he was contained and not a threat. I beleive the U.S. accidently posted on a website some of Saddams how to make a nuke papers. I also love the token Saddam is a bad guy line.For you to equate Saddams treatment of the kurds with Turkey (NO COMMENT) Saddam gave the Kurds a hard time.We give each other a HARD TIME here but what Saddam did was a lot bigger than a hard time. He tried to extinguish them from the face of the earth! I would gladly show you some pics of the hard time he gave them. Lets not forget UDEA and COOODAY! Saddams lovely and gracious sons, The ones that loved to visit the little girls schools for an afternoon of fun, what the hell they were just givin them a hard time?

The war wasn't justified in moral terms. As such you can't sit back and say that the shifting justifications and bad (cherry-picked) intelligence don't matter.

I forgot you are the master of morality, your morals are obviously different!

Not really - I just listened to GWB's shifting logic over several months. Start with 9/11, continue with WMD and links to Al Qaeda, end with "we must liberate the Iraqis".

Edited November 6, 2006 by erekose