Are we really liberators? US Troops break up Saddam birthday party in Tikrit.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez
My support of dictators? You obviously have a love for Saddam Hussein...

I have a love for Freedom of Speech, something a lot of people take for granted.

[QUOTE] Again Tass, it was the glorification of a former leader [/QOUTE]

Ok..We here in America can glorify former leaders of any country.

and I believe you are in no position whether to state if it doesn't pose a security threat. It does.

HOW?! The Iraqis werent killing or injuring anybody.......They are holding a CELEBRATION. Thats hardly a threat, Fez.

And what makes you think you are in any way more qualified than I am?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez
A portrait does not equal a prized possession.. they are probably hundreds and thousands of them floating around. I would of took the honors in destroying the portrait myself.

But it does belong to the Iraqis, NOT us. If the soldier who hacked it out OWNED it, then he would have the right. However, if I were to go to my next door neighbors house and destroy one of their pictures i thought was "anti-american", I would be arrseted for destruction of property

[Giancarlo]

OMG this is like arguing with my brother...

HOW?! The Iraqis werent killing or injuring anybody.......They are holding a CELEBRATION. Thats hardly a threat, Fez.

It does pose a threat as the situation could of been easily exploited by any gunman in the area. If nothing was done to dispersed the crowd, it would of turned a lot uglier.

But it does belong to the Iraqis, NOT us.

Doesn't matter.

I would of destroyed as many Saddam portraits as I could as the area was under martial law. De-Baathification must occur.

[Nubclear]

It does pose a threat as the situation could of been easily exploited by any gunman in the area.

So could pro-american demonstrations. Lets get rid of them, too

Doesn't matter.

Go to a random person house and destroy a random picture in their house.

Come back and tell me what happens

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez
De-Baathification must occur.

Thats up for the Iraqis to decide, because only an occupying power would do such a thing.

If the Iraqis pass laws, then they should do it. But if WE say so......thats not a very good reason

[Giancarlo]

Tass, you know that is a load of nonsense. Pro-American demonstrations? Those would happen in more secure areas, not in Tikrit which is the birthlplace of Saddam and his strong hold.

You are not gonna win this pal.

[Japher]

We've got a spitting match here!!!

Good Argument:
IMO after all the problems in Bagdad due to large parties that turned into riots that then lead to Iraq hatred of the US because everything was getting trashed - breaking up the party was a good idea. Good preventative measueres.

Bad Argument:
I also love freedom of speech, but they are not yet a part of the US ... So, what freedom of speech? They are under martial law!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Thats up for the Iraqis to decide, because only an occupying power would do such a thing.

Wrong again. It must occur.

If the Iraqis pass laws, then they should do it. But if WE say so......thats not a very good reason

It doesn't matter what other nonsense is out there.. the Baath Party in Iraq is like the Nazi Party in Germany after WWII. It had to be eliminated.

[Dis]

The U.S. is so bad. I am ashamed of the country I live in. hypocrites.

[Nubclear]

[]QUOTE] Those would happen in more secure areas, not in Tikrit which is the birthlplace of Saddam and his strong hold [/QUOTE]

Ah, so Baghdad is more secure than Tikrit?

So, what freedom of speech?

I dunno, the freedom of speech we PROMISED them?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez


Wrong again. It must occur.

Apparently Bush disagrees with you, as hes stated ITS UP TO THE IRAQIS TO CHOOSE LEADERSHIP Whether is be Baath or Nazi or whatever......

It's up to them as a newly liberated country

[Giancarlo]

Ah, so Baghdad is more secure than Tikrit?

Yes. There are more troops in Baghdad.

Apparently Bush disagrees with you, as hes stated ITS UP TO THE IRAQIS TO CHOOSE LEADERSHIP Whether is be Baath or Nazi or whatever......

George W. Bush doesn't disagree with me you blind dingbat. What he said was that the old leadership is gone with its baath party elements... so that means it is GONE!

You are delusional man.. you wanna give power back to the people the US was with war at?

[Japher]

I dunno, the freedom of speech we PROMISED them?

Very cute Tass. Surely you don't wrestle the gun out of your enemies arms, shoot 'em in the knees, then give them back there gun!

Freedoms will be had, but all in do time. Else... Ivory Coast Part Two

[Nubclear]

Yes. There are more troops in Baghdad.

And more Iraqis there, too

you wanna give power back to the people the US was with war at?

AH HA!!!

So the US was at war with the PEOPLE of Iraq? That would mean the US came as conquerors, because if they were at war with only the GOVERNMENT, then that would be justified in calling themselves liberators

[Boris Godunov]

Acknowledging Freedom of Expression comes secondary to preserving public order in Iraq right now, since the fighting isn't over, the whereabouts of Hussein are unknown and there is near-anarchy. Until the infrastructure is there to allow such expression without the risk of violence, I think it's understandable to break up such demonstrations (as peacefully as possible).