Announcement

**SlowwHand** · July 25, 2003, 09:53

"What did I do wrong".

Believe it or not Sava, the U.S. used to really care what the U.N. thought.

**Pekka** · July 25, 2003, 09:53

Yes, they did some nasty stuff, indeed they did. They said the other one wasn't so bad though, but the other one was a maniac. But what do you expect? I'd have them eliminated (if I was in charge) even if they weren't public figures or proved to be very evil. If they were loyal to his old man, like most sons are, then *pop pop pop pop*. Why? Because they are still Hussein, they are going to continue the legacy, and if not physically, then symbolically.

This was one of the fears of just assissinating Saddam. His work would be continued by his sons. Of course they are not a match to Saddam, but they are good snacks along the way to taking the beast himself out.

**Sava** · July 25, 2003, 09:53

I just said that everyone used stuff like that as propaganda and it's normal. Read what people say not what you think they meant.

Good point. This is propaganda for Bushies... but it's still okay to celebrate the passing of these evil ****ers! Take it from a Bush-hater like me

**MikeH** · July 25, 2003, 09:54

Exactly.

**MikeH** · July 25, 2003, 09:55

I should know not to take Sloww seriously by now.

**problem_child** · July 25, 2003, 09:55

I don't have a problem with the 'Convince the Iraqis the monsters are dead' argument, but what excuse do some western papers have for showing the dead faces of the brothers emblazoned on their front page?

**SlowwHand** · July 25, 2003, 09:56

Originally posted by MikeH
I should know not to take Sloww seriously by now.

Cool. Another education complete.

**DinoDoc** · July 25, 2003, 09:56

Originally posted by Sava
Take it from a Bush-hater like me

I thought you liked bush. When did you start becoming more interested in Cheneys?

**Sava** · July 25, 2003, 09:57

Believe it or not Sava, the U.S. used to really care what the U.N. thought.

Each administration is different... IMO, I think part of the reason Bush I didn't go into Baghdad and take Saddam out in 1991-1992 is because he would have had to justify the cost in dollars and human lives in doing so. And the connections to Saddam and the US giving him weapons and aid would have come out and been terribly damaging to Bush and Reagan, and many of the people who were in the Bush admin were in that Reagan admin in some form or another. It was in their interests to let Saddam be and take him out later, after enough time had passed and enough documents were destroyed.

**Q Classic** · July 25, 2003, 09:57

i do have to say, those pictures are rather gruesome... i was surprised many newspapers and news outlets didn't seem to preface the images with some sort of warning...

**MikeH** · July 25, 2003, 09:57

Originally posted by problem_child
I don't have a problem with the 'Convince the Iraqis the monsters are dead' argument, but what excuse do some western papers have for showing the dead faces of the brothers emblazoned on their front page?

Make money selling papers. Encourage jingoistic celebrations.

**Sava** · July 25, 2003, 09:58

I thought you liked bush. When did you start becoming more interested in Cheneys?

touche...

actually it could mean I prefer trimmed/shaved!

**SlowwHand** · July 25, 2003, 10:01

In your opinion? I was alive and up walking around, and you were sucking your mama's ***, Sava.

Your opinion doesn't count for jack.

**Q Classic** · July 25, 2003, 10:02

least he's not an old fogey with addled brains.

**SlowwHand** · July 25, 2003, 10:04

HEY!

Announcement

Isn't anyone ****** off that the US has released pictures of Saddam's sons corpses?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment