T1B

Dr_Phibes wrote:148 people?

So the 300,000 number turned out to be bullshit? Doesn't seem so evil to me.

It's odd that such a minor 'evil' person would stir up the emotions of people who live on the other side of the planet and have really nothing to do with him - particularly when he hasn't killed any more people than the odd, hitchiker - kidnapper maniac you occasionally read about. And even then not proven by any existant decree.

You'd think he had killed the cat of everyone on this board personally.

Good point, Phibes...

The Clintons were responsible for at least that many deaths under their administration and you don't see them being hauled in front of a War Crimes Tribunal...

I agree.

Starving a million and a half innocent people is repulsive. - low intensity conflict is the method of Democrats and food is their political weapon.

C'mon you Republicans - Bush 06

Mister Bushice wrote:No way. Too many people are questioning this case, and most of Europe is against capital punishment, so you know they will step up to stop it. There will be something that occurs that will stop the proceedings.

And Fuck bush for trying to swing the election his parties way by having the verdict read two days before the election. Shows how desperate they are.

Oh shut the fuck up w/ your conspirancy theory. For someone who thinks Bush is dumb as a rock, you sure blame him for knowing a lot of stuff.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Yes, but if you've killed over 300,000 people - the evidence should be fairly obvious. Why has he only been 'convicted' under dubious circumstances for only 148 people?

Hell of a lot easier to convict him with solid evidence of killing 148 people than to try and put together a case proving it was 300,000.

If 148 is enough to hang him, who needs any more?

Besides, there was a second trial in the works for another mass killing if this one fell through.

mvscal wrote:

Jack wrote:My take is that Saddam WILL NOT be HUNG!!

Thus cementing your status as the single most idiotic sack of shit in human history. You do make a very compelling argument for compulsory eugencis, though.

Saddam swings in 60 days or less.

Can you give me my NFL pick of the week?

Considering how spot on you were about no prisoners from Guantanamo Bay would EVER be released, I'm guessing I should put this weeks paycheck on the team your picking!!

Whats the over under on Saddam being responsible for a Yankee flying a plane into a building in NYC?

////

IT ALREADY HAPPENED!! FUCKING HANG SADDAM NOW!!

Saddam vs. United States
3-0

(facts obtained by mvscal)

1. Oklahoma City Bombings
2. 911
3. Cory Lydell

Martyred wrote:Read it.

July 25th 1990 dialogue between Saddam Hussein and U.S, Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie:

GLASPIE: "I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Gee, a dumbfuck diplomat makes a ill advised remark at a cocktail party and a soverign country gets invaded by an agressor, which ends up drawing the USA into war. Who'd have thunk it?

-sin
Dean Acheson

Put a bullet through his eye socket, already. Don't fucking drag this out.

Why do you want to kill Martyred?

Because...I prefer Muffaletta to Cheesesteak.

He'll get off with a slap on the wrist: 30 Days in the Electric Chair.

mvscal wrote:

Cuda wrote:Gee, a dumbfuck diplomat makes a ill advised remark at a cocktail party and a soverign country gets invaded by an agressor, which ends up drawing the USA into war.

Odd that Marturd left out the remainder of the quote:

But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

Anyone who asserts that this conversation was a green light for an invasion of Kuwait is either a liar or an idiot.

You are the queer that stated Saddam would be dead by the end of the year.



Worst predictor EVER!

I'm going to have to add that to your long list of shit you dont know a fuck about, right next to your statement "knowone will be let out of Guantanamo Bay again" back in late 2004.

You really suck.

'Slinger, if you want your crush on mv to blossom into something greater, you need to adjust your approach a bit. You're trying to demonstrate personality traits that are far too similar to his, and you're clashing, not unifying. You need to balance things out. In other words, you need to be the bitch. Perhaps shower his PM box with stories of pizza deliveries gone bad. You know, make him laugh. E-cards and internet flowers are nice too.

\


Head of the Iraqi High Tribunal Aref Abdul-Razzaq al-Shahin expresses disdain for former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's manhood during a news conference at the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad December 26, 2006. An Iraqi appeals court on Tuesday upheld a ruling that Saddam should hang for crimes against humanity and said the sentence should be carried out in the next 30 days. REUTERS/Ceerwan Aziz (IRAQ)

IF Sadaam's sentence is carried out in the next 30 days, as the article says, then that would mean mvscal missed the date by approximately 20 days max (if it takes all 30 days) from his November 5 prediction of "within 60 days". That may seem like a lot to some of you, but it's a damn lot closer than anyone else predicted.

IndyFrisco wrote:IF Sadaam's sentence is carried out in the next 30 days, as the article says, then that would mean mvscal missed the date by approximately 20 days max (if it takes all 30 days) from his November 5 prediction of "within 60 days". That may seem like a lot to some of you, but it's a damn lot closer than anyone else predicted.

I bet if you return your Nintendo Wii in the next 90 days, they will replace it w/ a new one. How is that for going out on a limb?

It's in court orders, the faggot wont get it right and he's not Nostradomus.

IndyFrisco wrote:IF Sadaam's sentence is carried out in the next 30 days, as the article says, then that would mean mvscal missed the date by approximately

that much .....

:wink:

mvscal wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:You are the queer that stated Saddam would be dead by the end of the year.

I said 60 days, dumbfuck. That was in November. You know...less than 60 days ago.

You stated end of the year. I dont give a fuck about a post on a day when I decided not to take a shit and visit this cesspool. The fuck am I going to go back and search out one of your horrible fucking posts. I'd rather wish my dog Mr. Peepers (up and to the left), get fucked by Rosie O'Donnel wearing a strap on, while getting a tuna sampler from Ellen Degeneres.

The question is, will they broadcast it live?
And will any networks preempt a major bowl game to provide live coverage?

Mikey wrote:The question is, will they broadcast it live?
And will any networks preempt a major bowl game to provide live coverage?

My guess is there is about ....



that much chance of that happening.

Mr. Peepers!?!


you're a fuckin' jerkoff.

Sirfindafold wrote:Mr. Peepers!?!


you're a fuckin' jerkoff.

Good man... I got $500 saying dickslinger wouldn't last 5 minutes with Duke...

Another "Purple Finger" moment...

Gee, I'm sure this will put an end to the Resistance...



Playing right into the Iranian's hands, you dumbfucks. Right into their hands.

So guys, how is the Iraqi government working this? Do they announce the warranted date and time in advance or do they do it like Japan, where they just put out the press release after it's done?

In either case, I have just one thing more to say...

...¡¡Ayyyyyyyyyyy, PINATA!!

:twisted:

Dr_Phibes wrote:148 people?

So the 300,000 number turned out to be bullshit? Doesn't seem so evil to me.

It's odd that such a minor 'evil' person would stir up the emotions of people who live on the other side of the planet and have really nothing to do with him - particularly when he hasn't killed any more people than the odd, hitchiker - kidnapper maniac you occasionally read about. And even then not proven by any existant decree.

You'd think he had killed the cat of everyone on this board personally.

You need to read more post less. that was the result of just 1 trial.

Saddam is in the midst of a second trial charging him with genocide and other crimes during a 1987-88 military crackdown on ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq. An estimated 180,000 Kurds died during the operation.

More info Here

chargerfan wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:148 people?

So the 300,000 number turned out to be bullshit? Doesn't seem so evil to me.

It's odd that such a minor 'evil' person would stir up the emotions of people who live on the other side of the planet and have really nothing to do with him - particularly when he hasn't killed any more people than the odd, hitchiker - kidnapper maniac you occasionally read about. And even then not proven by any existant decree.

You'd think he had killed the cat of everyone on this board personally.

You need to read more post less. that was the result of just 1 trial.

Saddam is in the midst of a second trial charging him with genocide and other crimes during a 1987-88 military crackdown on ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq. An estimated 180,000 Kurds died during the operation.

More info Here

Oh, goody, will this one be about how we funded his little escapade and how those primitive fucks have killed more Americans then Saddam ever did?

Oh, boy oh boy I hope so!!

Oh, wait, its fox news.

Carry on with your little war to kill our volunteer army by sending them off to unpatriotic places, dont let me bother. Hopefully, we hand over this country soon to the arabs or koreans very soon. I cant to wait to see what you little antipatriotic fucks come up w/ for more suicidal endeavours then you have tried before. Only retarded fucks like you could somehow stir mideast backwardness into mideast enlightenment. Methinks you pussy fucks should have signed your daughters and sons up for an invasion of Saudia Arabia, but I forgot, you are all pussies.

Fuck the axis of Evil has never had it so great. N. Korea has nukes, Iran will get nukes. I cant wait till you pussy fucks ask France to launch their 2 nukes at us. Cuz, they will do it and only pussy fucks like you could ever make the French look so bad ass.

Carry on with your internet message board hardness. It's working quite well in free speech USA pussydom.

chargerfan wrote:
You need to read more post less. that was the result of just 1 trial.

Saddam is in the midst of a second trial charging him with genocide and other crimes during a 1987-88 military crackdown on ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq. An estimated 180,000 Kurds died during the operation.

Turks kill Kurds = Sell arms to Turkey

Saddam kills Kurds = Hang Saddam

Nothing like a consistent foreign policy, eh?

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:Turks kill Kurds = Sell arms to Turkey

Saddam invades America's oil rich allies = Hang Saddam

Nothing like a consistent foreign policy, eh?

It's perfectly consistent. Even a braindead mongoloid like Jimmuh Carter understood that much.

At what point did you think Saddam was going to "invade" Kuwait, and not sell America oil anymore?

mvscal wrote:Yes, that would be worst case scenario. I don't see it taking much more than a week or so to get some paperwork signed and construct a proper gibbet, though.

You mean like the one that awaits Cheney and Rummy?

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Nazi-Ex ... ct46gg.jpg[/img]

Why do you hate your country?

I just finished reading Bob Baer's Book "see No Evil"

Interesting stuff, but really an indictment of every administration since Carter forward with their blind eye to the emerging terrorist threat. After the Soviet breakup, the CIA lost all direction in identifying new threats and the process to deal with them.

Iran should have been target # 1 after Afghanistan, rather than Saddam. Iranian implication is implicit in almost every major attack on US interest since the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut.

Also Interesting that we could have supported an internal coup in Iraq (along with the Kurdish insurrection in the north) that would have disposed of Saddam in March 1995. The thousands of lives and billions of dollars lost since then are a constant reminder of the poor strategic vision of every administration since.

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote:Iran should have been target # 1 after Afghanistan, rather than Saddam.

Target #1 meaning what...exactly?

According to Baer's book, there were direct, verifiable links between Bin Laden and the Iranian Pasdran.
Given that Iran has had a hand in almost every major terrorist attack on US interests since the Beruit embassy bombing,
It would have made far more sense to level Tehran, who actually had a hand in 9-11, rather than Saddam.

Perhaps the powers that be concluded that an attack on Shia nation Iran, would have unified the entire Muslim world, when an attack on Iraq would not. IMO this was a mistake that is now coming full circle. Iran has strengthed it's power and influence to the point it now defies the UN on the nuclear enrichment program. We are now, via the Baker proposal, seriously considering "talking" to Iran (and Syria) which further legitamizes their standing among the Arabs. With the debacle Iraq has become, both here and abroad, we cannot rectify this situation now and Iran will only become stronger with their ties to the Iraqi Shia majority.

As I said, after we removed the Taliban, our next target should have been Iran.

I think it means that subsequent to Afghanistan, being element ZERO, in a ZERO based array, element 1 should have been Iran.

For instance, if I were to code a program and need an array of countries to overthrow ....

Addressing the concern of KC Scott, it should have been
This would then mean that in order to use the overthrow method, which accepts a string argument strCountry you would loop through the array ....


As it is the loop suggested provided the string "Iraq", because Iraq is string[1] or the second element in the array or the FIRST element AFTER Afghanistan.


While the syntax is adequate, I'm not a fan of static arrays when the data can change, as is the case in GeoPolitics. Secondly, the author might be unaware of the strategic or business logic necessity of having Iran set as a priority AFTER Iraq .... or strArray[2]

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote:As I said, after we removed the Taliban, our next target should have been Iran.

Target for what? Harsh language? Airstrikes? Special ops raids? Full scale invasion?

You also drastically overstate Iran's cache in Arab world which is predominantly Sunni and there is little love lost between Persians and Arabs.

Iran is not getting stronger. They are becoming increasingly isolated militarily, economically and diplomatically.

And how much of that could be attributed to our DIRECT presence in the region ?

"if Siracusa falls, all Sicily falls, and then Italy"

"if Iraq falls, all ???? falls, and then ????"

mvscal wrote:
Target for what? Harsh language? Airstrikes? Special ops raids? Full scale invasion?

Regime Change - The evidence of Iran's complicity should have been brought before the World, then a declaration of War made.

You also drastically overstate Iran's cache in Arab world which is predominantly Sunni and there is little love lost between Persians and Arabs.

Iran's influence, via Hizbollah, reverberates througout the entire region.
Their goal is to unite the Muslim nations via a shared hatered of the Jews,
and overthrow all Monarchies or democracies in the middle east, replacing them with fundamentalist based governments.

If your saying that other Middle Eastern Governments are not fans of Iran, I'm in agreement.

Iran is not getting stronger. They are becoming increasingly isolated militarily, economically and diplomatically.

But if your saying their support of the Muslim Fundamentalist uprisings throughout that region has lessened, or that they are in any way weaker or more vulnerable than they were after 9-11, then I'd disagree

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote:Regime Change -

I see. And how do you propose to accomplish this objective? No arm wavy generalities please.

No generalities were given. Regime change by any method necessar ie; full scale invasion.
Again, Iran, rather than Iraq should have been our target, after Afghanistan.

Then maybe you should take another look at the map and a first look at their tanking economy.

Iran oil revenue quickly drying up, analysts say
By Barry Schweid, Associated Press | December 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues, income could all but disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published yesterday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

Iran's economic woes could make the country unstable and vulnerable, and its oil industry could be crippled, Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, said in the report and in an interview.

Iran makes about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. In less than five years exports could be halved and then disappear by 2015, Stern said.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articl ... lysts_say/

Your taking this in a different direction, my point was Iran's influence via terrorism on the entire middle east.

Interesting article..... But do you really think Iran wants Nuclear technology for strictly civillian use?

Of course not.

As for waiting them out - Iran, just like Iraq during sanctions will move the oil they can produce.
It appears their production is dropping, but should demand spike, the revenue loss in production would be offset by increase in price.
And how best to cause that demand spike?

Continue to destabalize the region by any means necessary.
Perhaps they are attempting to do that now with the Nuclear issue.

Do you discount any and all possibilities that seizing Iraq is a key strategic milestone in the overall effort to contain Iran ?

Tom In VA wrote:Do you discount any and all possibilities that seizing Iraq is a key strategic milestone in the overall effort to contain Iran ?

No, I don't discount that at all.
My first opinion when we invaded, was it was the optimal position (Between syria and Iran) for us to set up a friendly Govt.

Obviously, I had no idea once we took Iraq, it would disolve into full on civil war.
Now, in hindsite, the best buffer to nuetralize Iran would have been to leave Sadaam in place.

Tom In VA wrote:"if Siracusa falls, all Sicily falls, and then Italy"

"if Iraq falls, all ???? falls, and then ????"

What does the fat fuck who used to play for the Ravens have to do with this?

I know that if he fell he could potentially take down an lot of territory, but all of Sicily?
I think not.

Mace wrote:

Mikey wrote:The question is, will they broadcast it live?
And will any networks preempt a major bowl game to provide live coverage?

If that's the case, let's hope it's the Iowa-Texas game at the Alamo Bowl.

Uhhh, he said major bowl game, Mace.