Killing sadam

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Well Tex you will probably get banned now. Im guessing there is a good chance for this thread to die.

[Night181 0]

why would Tex get banned?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 04 2002,04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well Tex you will probably get banned now.  Im guessing there is a good chance for this thread to die.<span id='postcolor'>

Bring it on. If they are going to ban me for stating a fact, then I imagine that it might as well happen sooner than later.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Besides, a 24 hour ban is only fair. could be worse. see y'all on the flip side

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I got banned for stating the facts.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

This was a fairly sensible thread until you all started going on about getting banned, we were having some really good contributions. I hope we can start making decent ones again and stop the 'spam'.

About the Bullet vs. Bomb.

In the long run it probably wouldnt be cheaper. Think of how much money it takes to train a CIA Assassin, how much to smuggle them into the country and get to the target. All the money that would have to be spent on bribes.

With a plane, just pay for fuel and a GBU.

Also, as it has already been pointed out 1. It is illegal by US Law to assissnate him 2. It might actualy cause a negetive affect to kill him. What would happen if A. his crazy son gets in control and actualy starts throwing around all these WMD that Iraq supposedly has or B. America has to invade Iraq in the middle of a full scale Civil War.

Careful thginking has to be given to this.

[Night181 0]

ps. by law we cant assasinate him. untill not so long ago the CIA was allowed to do assasinations and the like (lots of plans to off Castro but none were actually implimented.A couple of the plans went so far as the material was sent to Cuba but they were all scraped before the green light went off. Since around the time that these CIA ops came into public light then it was stopped by predidential order. WE CAN NO LONGER ASSASINATE PEOPLE FOR ANY REASON. we can and do however have the government paying others to do it for us....CIA is especially good at that kinda thing.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I did talk about the price, and still I think it would be cheaper, but thats not the point. The point is it is the same to kill him with a bullet or bomb, there really is no argument. There would have to be many years of Military control to help Iraq get to a stable state, and you would really need to make a non-dictator goverment to help it. Use an American style, Brtitish style, just do not use the ones of many Middle eastern countries.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 04 2002,02:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to be like this but............OH RALPH WIGGUMS.......

Remember my little 24 hour ban for calling someone a fucking liberal????

I want the same treatment for being called and arrogant son of a bitch.

If you don't give me the same courtesy you will prove once and for all the left wing bias against any conservative voice on this forum.

Be a man.  Do what is right. (or would that be left?)

Tex. personally I don't care what you call me.  This forum is the most censored forum I have seen.  I would prefer everone to voice their true feelings instead of worrying about being banned by the almighty moderators.<span id='postcolor'>

sure i do. i remember you said will never come back!

since Tex insulted another forum member, he will be treated same.

also, you called us liberal hypocrits and so forth, so to make your statement to be true, i'll post restrict you half of Tex's sentence.(12hrs)

and if you want to voice your opinion, try having a black american goto a Republican convention in Alabama and have him criticize Bush. let's see what right wings to with it!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hussein is something of a personality cult. Without him, Iraq really has no defining characteristic. I mean, what do you think of when you think of Iraq? I can tell already: Saddam.

If you get rid of him, you suddenly have a country with a history of violent power struggles suddenly without its stabilizing factor.

But, I would imagine the psycho son would get assassinated fairly quickly, most likely by the military, who would want to take control so that they would have a say over whether they were going to go out and get ripped up by America again. But that's a big if, and if he is really as much of a psycho as they say, then better off to let dear old Dad stay in power.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 04 2002,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I did talk about the price, and still I think it would be cheaper, but thats not the point. The point is it is the same to kill him with a bullet or bomb, there really is no argument. There would have to be many years of Military control to help Iraq get to a stable state, and you would really need to make a non-dictator goverment to help it. Use an American style, Brtitish style, just do not use the ones of many Middle eastern countries.<span id='postcolor'>

What a silly thing to say...

Yet overwhelmingly typical.

Westerners make the assumption that we have the greatest system in the world.  And for our culture, it's probably true.  But making the presumption that inside every (insert non western ethnic group here) there is an America struggling to get out is just arrogant and presumptuous.  And wrong.

Have you ever considered that the folks in those Arab nations actually prefer their system??

It is possible you know.

SirLoins and Tex...

Ralph has chosen to PR you for enough time to consider your infractions.

To some the moderation might seem a little strict...but if you visit a lot of the less rigidly moderated forums, you'll find no end of nastiness.  And I for one find this community to be wonderful.  For the most part you dont NEED a lot of moderating and you are adults.  Yes, some of us disagree on the way the world is, but it would be awfully boring if we all got along Everyone is perfectly welcome to express how they feel about events, but when it strays into name calling, that's when it's gone too far.

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">SirLoins and Tex...

This is a warning. Any furhter outbursts in this thread will result in PR's. Tex, I am warning you because you are the antagonist in this case. SirLoins, I dont want you to flame him back and start a war. He's been admonished...and if Ralph chooses to PR him, then so be it.

To some the moderation might seem a little strict...but if you visit a lot of the less rigidly moderated forums, you'll find no end of nastiness. And I for one find this community to be wonderful. For the most part you dont NEED a lot of moderating and you are adults. Yes, some of us disagree on the way the world is, but it would be awfully boring if we all got along <span id='postcolor'>

Warin, don't dare warn me for something I didn't do! Ban me and I'll go peacefully. All I asked for was equal treatment from Ralph Wiggum. If you all can't be fair then you aren't worth my time.

[ralphwiggum 6]

and i post restricted Tex already.

if you want to be a badass, go ahead, but you are also causing public disturbance with prior record. next time, sentence will he harsher.

so sneakering is not flaming?

[Night181 0]

well....just a quick question here.....ok here goes... So if someone states their opinion on a political subject and and states or insinuates that they are a certain political party supporter (i.e. Republicion) and then i was to post something of the opposite nature and include in the post something about how i hate Republicions and they *insert some dirty phrase here* i would be banned??? sry not trying to get off topic and not trying to spam but since ive decided to take part in these forums i might as well ask so i dont get banned for reasons i dont understand.

[HellToupee 0]

Really the most obvious thing is saddam is sitting on a whole shitload of oil, us wants that thats y they were so quick to help out kuwait there jus pissed they didnt finsh the job, alaska is runnin dry what happens when US loses control of oil they depend on it so much, it is estimated that there is only 10yrs left of oil world wide, in our lifetimes its gona get very very nasty, everyone depends on oil there is gona be big wars for the last of it what we need is an alternative its a bigger threat than any saddam.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Night181 @ Oct. 04 2002,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well....just a quick question here.....ok here goes... So if someone states their opinion on a political subject and and states or insinuates that they are a certain political party supporter (i.e. Republicion) and then i was to post something of the opposite nature and include in the post something about how i hate Republicions and they *insert some dirty phrase here* i would be banned??? sry not trying to get off topic and not trying to spam but since ive decided to take part in these forums i might as well ask so i dont get banned for reasons i dont understand.<span id='postcolor'>

Not at all. Stating your dislike for something is perfectly acceptable.

Here are the standards as I see them:

-If you state an opinion, be prepared to back them up with reasonable discussion.

-Stay away from person comments. For example: Red necked Republicans are prejudiced and ignorant, while inflamatory isnt really over the line. When you make reference to a particular forum member, that is crossing the line.

And try to at least stay on the topic of the thread. That's the number one reason that threads get closed.

[HellToupee 0]

there r sum under the impression if u hate bush or disagree with what they are doing u hate america and its ppl.

[Night181 0]

ok then to stay one topic (thanks for all the quick responces to help me out btw) why is this topic being discussed still? it has already been stated that it is illegal for us to kill Sadam...thats it over and one with. unless we go to war with Iraq send troops in and he is just another casulty then we can do a thing to him.

[ralphwiggum 6]

they are debating if it is ok to assasinate Saddam.

and don't post offtopic-posts in a thread please you can use PM for that.

[HellToupee 0]

i say jus shoot the sucker, bombs kill civis invasions kill civis and iraqs army is conscipted, thats why my friend was so desprate to get outa iraq and i can see y i was jus sayin y us wants him dead, its not about saddam its about controlling the country, killing saddam might cause iraq to get sum one new in charge might even be a good person but us wont have control. They need to destroy iraq saddams jus a scape goat as ppl have said.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Night181 @ Oct. 04 2002,17:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok then to stay one topic (thanks for all the quick responces to help me out btw) why is this topic being discussed still? it has already been stated that it is illegal for us to kill Sadam...thats it over and one with. unless we go to war with Iraq send troops in and he is just another casulty then we can do a thing to him.<span id='postcolor'>

do u think they care about illegal, hell tryin to cover up a few misdrops in afganastian isnt leagal but they tried, and who has to know it was US behind assaniation, its not like news is gona say bush assinates saddam, that sorta thing would be easly covered up and there wouldnt be any sort of investiagaition that woulnt be biased or made to be false thru propanganda. These ppl wouldnt be to happy to have US take over as well, my iraq friend isnt to happy with what US has done to iraq and another invasion will really piss em off.

[foxer 0]

i thought this was funny.

[Balschoiw 0]

Mr Bush just stated that he will attack Irak in any case. With UN mandate or without it.

My question now. Who will stop this madman ? He is the agressor, not Irak. He insists on a war, not obeying any international law or authorities. Guess it´s time world public stands up against this madness. We do not talk about "surgical operations". We do talk about a dirty ground war. It is hard to believe a war can be started nowadays from the self called "No 1 in the world". This will US put on the shitlist of many , many countries and only strenghten terrorists worldwide. Maybe Bush wants to build a new enemy threat by acting like he does at the moment. He only forgets that this will be achieved with a lot of blood. Not only Irak´s blood, this time US will have to bleed also. In long term this will take a lot of aggression to US. Result of a policy of destruction. More and more countries get on distance with the US, as a logical conclusion of this mad behaviour.

Meanwhile Pakistan tests another Nuke. They are allowed to, cause they are US friend No 1 in that region since Afghanistan war and CIA connections are very tight to this country. Atta for example received 10.000 US Dollar from ISI ( Pakistani secret service) before 9.11. Do I have to mention that Pakistan finances it´s weapon research and state in general with Drug money ? All know about that and so it seems to be strange that there are no measures against them from US - side, as Bush declared to force the war on drugs also...

I ask you now . Which one of these two countries is more a threat ? Pakistan or Irak ? Pakistan plays around with Nukes and tests them to provoke India and to flame the border conflicts. If there are countries that are expected to use Nukes at the moment they are Pakistan or India, not Irak.

Where is Mr. Bush´s war on terrorism there ? Where is his "Defending of freedom" ? Where ?

I am UN trooper and we all agree that the war on Irak is enforced cause of different reasons that Mr Bush tells. You see , we have a lot of different nations here. We had alot of talkings about the currently provoked crisis as it directly affects us all. The result of all this talkings was that noone agrees with the current US foreign policy and the abuse of the "War on terror" by Mr Bush. We already received a note that enables us NOT to follow US-administrative orders.

I am with the UN for nearly 10 years now and never experienced anything like that. It is a shame that US public doesnt oppose more to their current president. They will have to pay a very high price for the current "Unfinished Business".

Noone can estimate the damage done to the world at the moment. This will show when the fire is started. One thing is clear to us at the moment. The Arab league will not accept a solo US run. What will they do ? Noone knows by now, but if you ever fought against a religouse driven soldier you will have an idea of what I am talking.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

It seems that the form of Goverment they use now does not work, so they should use a British or American style goverment.

[Balschoiw 0]

Neither British nor US government seem to work very well at the moment. Let the people decide on their own. They have different culture, religion, and attitude. If you want to contribute to countries aid them but dont crush them. That is the wrong way. If you think bombing and slaughtering is a way to "free" people you are definately wrong.

Anyway I lack to see the the conclusion between your comment and my post. Speak detailed.