only bitches get kidnapped: the 3 amreekan soldiers

[vikingpower]

Not on this board. 

You are sick. 

delete me and join teh email list ... tis your call

[egj13]

delete me and join teh email list ... tis your call

what a sorry ass, all you can do is threaten e-mails?

[Dos Equis]

delete me and join teh email list ... tis your call

 

[headhuntersix]

Saddam was a dictator that did some horrible things to his own folks..might have had WMDs..had ambitions anyway..and was athreat to stability in the region. Besides not one of these groups has ever come out and said....'hey we exist to liberate Iraq from the oppresive occupation by America"..Nope they all declare a jihad and kill us and each other. Most of them kill us because we are in the way of killing more of their sunni or shite enemies...which of course is completely ridiculous if ur a true follower of the "Religion of peace'.

[vikingpower]

with an email address, especially a private one ... you can find out vast amounts of information about a person

ask flower for details

[headhuntersix]

Why would u bother screwing with someone....whats ur point.

[dkf360]

delete me and join teh email list ... tis your call

  BB just got OWNED!!!!

[Decker]

Saddam was a dictator that did some horrible things to his own folks..might have had WMDs..had ambitions anyway..and was athreat to stability in the region. Besides not one of these groups has ever come out and said....'hey we exist to liberate Iraq from the oppresive occupation by America"..Nope they all declare a jihad and kill us and each other. Most of them kill us because we are in the way of killing more of their sunni or shite enemies...which of course is completely ridiculous if ur a true follower of the "Religion of peace'.

I think you are mostly correct here.  I don't think Hussein was a threat to the area's stability though.  It seems evident that he was a major stabilizing force in the area. 
Now that he's gone, the middle east is a powder keg.

[Dos Equis]

I think you are mostly correct here.  I don't think Hussein was a threat to the area's stability though.  It seems evident that he was a major stabilizing force in the area. 
Now that he's gone, the middle east is a powder keg.

Saddam a stabilizing force?  He sure didn't stabilize the Kurds or Kuwait.  He was also about to invade Saudi Arabia before we stopped him. 

[240 is Back]

Saddam a stabilizing force?  He sure didn't stabilize the Kurds or Kuwait.  He was also about to invade Saudi Arabia before we stopped him. 

Is Iraq more or less stable without Saddam?

[Dos Equis]

Is Iraq more or less stable without Saddam?

It was unstable with him and it's unstable without him.  Although he may have prevented civil war, like many dictators before him, he was torturing and murdering his own people and pillaging his country's resources. 

But the point I was addressing was whether he was a stabilizing force in the region.  I think the answer is "no," in part because he invaded another country (Kuwait), was about to invade another (Saudi Arabia), dropped bombs on Israel, sponsored suicide bombers in Israel, and was trying to develop and/or obtain WMDs.   

[240 is Back]

It was unstable with him and it's unstable without him.  Although he may have prevented civil war, like many dictators before him, he was torturing and murdering his own people and pillaging his country's resources. 

But the point I was addressing was whether he was a stabilizing force in the region.  I think the answer is "no," in part because he invaded another country (Kuwait), was about to invade another (Saudi Arabia), dropped bombs on Israel, sponsored suicide bombers in Israel, and was trying to develop and/or obtain WMDs.   

I take that as you conceding Iraq was more stable under Saddam.

Is the region more stable now?

(Note: I'm all for the war because I like gas prices and my standard of living - saddam being offed was needed for that, so be it. But I have to disagree with you on the "we fixed everything in iraq" - more people die per day now, and the country is less productive now)

[Dos Equis]

I take that as you conceding Iraq was more stable under Saddam.

Is the region more stable now?

(Note: I'm all for the war because I like gas prices and my standard of living - saddam being offed was needed for that, so be it. But I have to disagree with you on the "we fixed everything in iraq" - more people die per day now, and the country is less productive now)

You take that as exactly what I said. 

I've already answered your question.  The region was unstable with him and is unstable without him. 

[gcb]

A valid point. To me, all the men fighting are just doing what they think is right/following orders etc.

One thing I don't get though, not your post but in general, is why the Iraqi's fighting back are called terrorists/insurgents? They are on their own country and fighting foreign invaders who broke international law and invaded their home soil.

That is true and to a certain degree it is spin, but they are killing a lot of iraqis while they are at it and don't forget about the sectarian violence between the sunis and shiites.

[240 is Back]

The region was unstable with him and is unstable without him. 

Okay.  But domestic violence in Iraq is worse now.  You cannot deny that.

[Dos Equis]

Okay.  But domestic violence in Iraq is worse now.  You cannot deny that.

I can neither confirm nor deny.  I don't know.  Domestic violence was committed by Saddam before he was overthrown.  I don't think you can simply do a body count comparison to determine whether one was "worse" than the other.  It was bad under Saddam and it's bad now.

[240 is Back]

I can neither confirm nor deny.  I don't know.  Domestic violence was committed by Saddam before he was overthrown.  I don't think you can simply do a body count comparison to determine whether one was "worse" than the other.  It was bad under Saddam and it's bad now.

if you believe this, you believe this. 

[Decker]

Saddam a stabilizing force?  He sure didn't stabilize the Kurds or Kuwait.  He was also about to invade Saudi Arabia before we stopped him. 

Your assertion is absurd.

How many civil wars broke out under Hussein?

Was Al Qaeda burgeoning in Iraq under Hussein?

He ruled with an iron hand but your contention contradicts the facts.

How do you know that he was about to invade Saudi Arabia?  On its face that is preposterous.

[headhuntersix]

I will concede that domestically things were more stable..that is the genocide(s) were very quiet and orerly compared to the chaos now.....As far as what decker says.....I think that post 911 things changed..i think Iraq saw an oppertunity to do damage to the US and would have funded more attacks and grown closer to groups like Al queda....Besides at that point OBL would have taken any allies he could....Iraq has proven to be a great recruiting tool for the group and would have provided them with a base of operations had the US not invaded. Further they could have been a conduit for any WMDs that Saddam had or wanted to build. Pure speculation based on historical evidence..I didn't come up with any of this crap....just stuff I've come across.

[OzmO]

How can we say the region was unstable with Saddam?

Westerners could travel there a were relatively safe. 

People (Iraqis) could drive on roads and not have to worry about IED's

People could go to markets and not have to worry about bombs

People could live in neighborhoods and not have to worry about getting bullied into supporting the local religious sect.



The only thing you couldn't was oppose Saddam politically.   Otherwise you get gassed.

[240 is Back]

How can we say the region was unstable with Saddam?

Westerners could travel there a were relatively safe. 

People (Iraqis) could drive on roads and not have to worry about IED's

People could go to markets and not have to worry about bombs

People could live in neighborhoods and not have to worry about getting bullied into supporting the local religious sect.



The only thing you couldn't was oppose Saddam politically.   Otherwise you get gassed.

LOL... remember the American reporters who would roam the streets of baghdad in 2000, 2001, and 2002?  They had a govt minder to ensure they didn't say the wrong thing, but they were free to walk down any street with their CNN/US flag on the van and had no worries.

Try driving thru poor side of baghdad today with your american flag on a white TV van.  You'd get dead quick. 

[OzmO]

LOL... remember the American reporters who would roam the streets of baghdad in 2000, 2001, and 2002?  They had a govt minder to ensure they didn't say the wrong thing, but they were free to walk down any street with their CNN/US flag on the van and had no worries.

Try driving thru poor side of Baghdad today with your American flag on a white TV van.  You'd get dead quick. 

When Cheney has to wear a bullet proof vest while exiting an Airplane and bombs go off in the "green" zone while he is there, it is safe to say it's unsafe anywhere.


Why people will still allow them selves to believe Iraq was unstable before the invasion is beyond me.

[Dos Equis]

Your assertion is absurd.

How many civil wars broke out under Hussein?

Was Al Qaeda burgeoning in Iraq under Hussein?

He ruled with an iron hand but your contention contradicts the facts.

How do you know that he was about to invade Saudi Arabia?  On its face that is preposterous.

Brush up on your history Decker.  Here is what I recall:

1.  Saddam gassed his own people.  

2.  He had torture chambers and tortured and murdered his own people.  He was actually tried and executed for murdering his own people.  Not much of a stabilizing force when you're murdering your own people.  

3.  He invaded a sovereign country - Kuwait - and only left when we kicked him out.  

4.  He was massing his troops on the Saudi border when we initiated Operation Desert Storm.  

5.  He dropped scuds on Israel during Desert Storm.  

6.  Hillary, Bill, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, Albright, Byrd, and a host of other Democrats all told the American people that Saddam had WMDs or was trying to obtain them.  Doesn't sound very stable to me.  

7.  Saddam gave financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.  

EDIT:

8.  He was pilfering his country's resources. 

Now, if you look at those facts and conclude that the region and Iraq was "stable," I'd say your position is absurd.  

[240 is Back]

some of the events you listed happened 20+ years before we invaded.

We had riots in Los Angeles 20 years ago.  Is America an unstable nation?

[OzmO]

Brush up on your history Decker.  Here is what I recall:

1.  Saddam gassed his own people. 

2.  He had torture chambers and tortured and murdered his own people.  He was actually tried and executed for murdering his own people.  Not much of a stabilizing force when you're murdering your own people. 

3.  He invaded a sovereign country - Kuwait - and only left when we kicked him out. 

4.  He was massing his troops on the Saudi border when we initiated Operation Desert Storm. 

5.  He dropped scuds on Israel during Desert Storm. 

6.  Hillary, Bill, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, Albright, Byrd, and a host of other Democrats all told the American people that Saddam had WMDs or was trying to obtain them.  Doesn't sound very stable to me. 

7.  Saddam gave financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. 

Now, if you look at those facts and conclude that the region and Iraq was "stable," I'd say your position is absurd. 

for the average Iraqi person is was very stable unless you were a Kurd and even then as long as you didn't speak out or try to over throw Saddam you were ok.

The examples you gave there were years old or didn;t have anything to do with Iraq other than torture chambers which were for political opposition and was a effective way of dealing with the secs in that country.

Those examples are moot and pale in comparison to what's going on there now. 

What had Saddam been doing since the year 2000 other than playing games with the UN inspectors?