Saddam being honored in Libya!

Gargantou

Gargantou

Companion Cube
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
9,581
Reaction score
9
Libya's government have decided to honor the deceased dictator with a statue of him, next to the national hero Omar Mukhtar, whom lead the resistance against the italian ocupation, like Saddam, Omar was also hung, but in 1931.
Libya declared a nationwide "morning" after Saddams death and the celebration of a religious celebration was cancelled.
Source: TT-Reuters

I find it sorta disgusting that they honor Saddam tbh, he killed alot of innocent people and was a disgusting(imo) person.
 
what the hell...
why WHYYY !?, that guy never did a good thing in his life, he keep killing innocent people in disgusting ways, he invaded Kuwait, Destroyed almost everything, and took Prisoners and killed alot...

and that stupid government go and honor him with a statue.
 
Next on the list: Libya.

That brings the total list to about 60 countries. Hell lets just nuke the whole world.
 
Libya's goverment is ****ed up. Lets invade it and set things straight.
 
Nope, Libya has good relations with the West now after surrendering their WMD programme.

Gaddafi is an old joker, he's distantly related to Mussolini, probably.
 
Hey.. if they want to throw up a statue for all the wrong reasons, be my guest. Let the history books show that they praised a murderer.
 
Man, if they erect a statue of him, that presents to us a great oppertunity to perform the ultimate mockery ever - When the statue is finished, send some guys in to knock over the statue!... Again! :-D
 
While I give no respect for that man as a brutal dictator that killed thousands of innocent people, I can't agree that executing is something anyone deserves. Rather imprisonment for life is something that'd be better(for him too, not in the meaning of saving his life, but of him understanding the errors of his way). Let God decide wheter his soul to be destroyed or go to heaven after he dies, we have no right to kill.
 
Yes...that's ironic how the fifth commandment is broken and people yell "hallelujah! good riddance!" .
A good question : Iraq and US government claims that his death is for the good of Iraq, what good is it? Imagine yourself as an Iraqi who had not only seen his own family die, his city burned and people shot nazi style (1 dead us soldier= 100 executed Iraqi citizens), which all happened mostly because of the invasion. Yes, Saddam was responsible for many deaths, but there was no terrorist attacks, no wars, no daily deaths during his regime, but wasn't the US government capable of just taking him down alone peacefully instead of killing more than 600 000 people and more than that provoking a home war that makes not only many iraqi's die daily, but also US soldiers.
Wars never brought anything, and never will. The only thing they bring is death and hatred.
 
Who cares about the fifth commandment? Are we all devout Christians all of a sudden?
Of course, we all know it would be really sensible, and of course completely plausible, to just assassinate Saddam and leave it at that. Never mind his military, his Republican Guard, the rest of his government, his family, and the rapid descent into complete and total anarchy such an action would inevitably create.
You have a strange definition of "executed", by the way. I suggest not using it to describe deaths as a result of war.
War never brought anything? What about the end of communism, fascism, Nazism and slavery? What about American independence?
Being a surrender monkey never brought anything except oppression and misery.
 
repiV said:
Who cares about the fifth commandment? Are we all devout Christians all of a sudden?
Of course, we all know it would be really sensible, and of course completely plausible, to just assassinate Saddam and leave it at that. Never mind his military, his Republican Guard, the rest of his government, his family, and the rapid descent into complete and total anarchy such an action would inevitably create.
You have a strange definition of "executed", by the way. I suggest not using it to describe deaths as a result of war.
War never brought anything? What about the end of communism, fascism, Nazism and slavery? What about American independence?
Being a surrender monkey never brought anything except oppression and misery.
Click to expand...

<3 :D
 
Strange definition? That they were executed, not killed? US soldiers literally executed about 100 iraqs for a few of their soldiers' deaths around a year ago. If you call that a result of war then USA is either nazi or something worse now, because that's exactly what the nazi's were doing in Europe.
And when did the war end communism anyway (i'm speaking of a military war, dummy)? And the "end" of Nazism was thanks to defence, not war. Nazi Germany only met it's doom with starting it.
...I see you're a very strange person, repiV. A surrender monkey? so you think that war is the only option? It's either war or surrender, right? There is always defence! And defence is not something when you attack first, it's something what you're supposed to do to make things right.
And another thing: we're perhaps not devout Christians, but at least we could TRY to be ones starting with death penalties. And those that are Atheists could at least use their...morals a bit to understand that this is not a right way to go.

P.S Saddam's military would just be needing a new leader, and with a bit of foreign secret "appointment" it is possible to do such things. Take Georgia and their US loving president. I remember how that prick got to power, and it wasn't quite constitutional.
 
Walter said:
Strange definition? That they were executed, not killed? US soldiers killed about 100 iraqs for a few of their soldiers' deaths around a year ago. If you call that a result of war then USA is either nazi or something worse now.
Click to expand...

The implication of your statement was quite clearly that 100 Iraqis are executed for every US soldier that dies.

And when did the war end communism anyway?
Click to expand...

With the fall of the Soviet Union.
Nice of you to ignore the rest of my points, though.
 
Walter said:
And when did the war end communism anyway (i'm speaking of a military war, dummy)?
Click to expand...

The Cold War was a military war. From the threat and deterrent of military force, to the incidents in which it turned hot such as Korea, Afghanistan in the 1980s and Vietnam.
The USSR collapsed because it lost power, and power is inevitably tied to military force.

And the "end" of Nazism was thanks to defence, not war. Nazi Germany only met it's doom with starting it.
Click to expand...

What? A war by definition must involve at least two parties. Whether you're defending or attacking, you're still involved in a war. And for your information, Hitler didn't "start a global war", he invaded Poland. After which, we declared war on Germany. Hitler actually wanted to be our ally.

...I see you're a very strange person, repiV.
Click to expand...

I'm strange? You're the one using the EDIT function to reply. What are you playing at?!

A surrender monkey? so you think that war is the only option? It's either war or surrender, right? There is always defence! And defence is not something when you attack first, it's something what you're supposed to do to make things right.
Click to expand...

You're preaching about war without even understanding what war is. Use the correct terms, and then get back to me.

And another thing: we're perhaps not devout Christians, but at least we could TRY to be ones starting with death penalties. And those that are Atheists could at least use their...morals a bit to understand that this is not a right way to go.
Click to expand...

"Their...morals". Hesitating, are we? Are all us atheists really just immoral devils that are going to spend an eternity in hell?
Just because someone doesn't share your morals doesn't make them immoral.

P.S Saddam's military would just be needing a new leader, and with a bit of foreign secret "appointment" it is possible to do such things. Take Georgia and their US loving president. I remember how that prick got to power, and it wasn't quite constitutional.
Click to expand...

That's a mind-bendingly simplistic way to look at the situation, and you don't even consider what such an action would ever actually accomplish.
 
Defense is still war. War is defense.
 
DigiQ8 said:
that guy never did a good thing in his life
Click to expand...
When Saddam came to power in Iraq the literacy rate in Iraq was appalling and girls didn't go to school. By the time America invaded Iraq in 2003 the literacy rate was 95% and approx 50% of Iraq's doctors were women. Iraq was much, much better (for the general population) under Saddam than with this war going on.
 
riomhaire said:
When Saddam came to power in Iraq the literacy rate in Iraq was appalling and girls didn't go to school. By the time America invaded Iraq in 2003 the literacy rate was 95% and approx 50% of Iraq's doctors were women. Iraq was much, much better (for the general population) under Saddam than with this war going on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because when the evil American SS went in to slaughter the Jews...I mean Iraqis, half the population suddenly forgot how to read and write and all the female doctors became slaves instead.

What's your point? :rolleyes:
 
his point is obvious ..things are much worse now


"Saddam being honored in Libya"

Is this really a surprise to anyone? I predicted saddam would be a martyr when he was first "captured" ..anyone following this war could have told you that
 
repiV said:
Yeah, because when the evil American SS went in to slaughter the Jews...I mean Iraqis, half the population suddenly forgot how to read and write and all the female doctors became slaves instead.

What's your point? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
My point is that he said Saddam "never did a good thing in his life". I am showing that he is mistaken. The second point I made was just stating that things were better under Saddam and was not a continuation of the first point. Sorry if multiple ideas in one post confuses you.
 
No shit things are worse now. It's a war! What do you expect?
It doesn't matter how just the war is, it's never going to be nice living in a warzone. "It's not nice in Iraq at the moment" isn't a valid argument for anything.
 
may I remind you that before the war there were thousands of people dying every month due to sanctions? it wasnt exactly a picnic before the war either ..but in any event the US/UK assured us all that Iraq would be a better place once elections took place and democracy took hold ..so why hasnt this materialised? why havent you secured Iraq? why are you losing this war?
 
CptStern said:
may I remind you that before the war there were thousands of people dying every month due to sanctions? it wasnt exactly a picnic before the war either ..but in any event the US/UK assured us all that Iraq would be a better place once elections took place and democracy took hold ..so why hasnt this materialised? why havent you secured Iraq? why are you losing this war?
Click to expand...

You want to know why we're losing the war?
Because we're not fighting it properly. It's as simple as that.
If we had taken the kid gloves off and fought the war properly, with serious military might, and gone out and ruthlessly hunted down terrorist cells instead of waiting for them to blow our troops up with IEDs, we would have utterly annihilated the insurgency a long time ago.
But if we did that, you'd be complaining that we weren't "humanitarian".
 
repiV said:
You want to know why we're losing the war?
Because we're not fighting it properly. It's as simple as that.
If we had taken the kid gloves off and fought the war properly, with serious military might, and gone out and ruthlessly hunted down terrorist cells instead of waiting for them to blow our troops up with IEDs, we would have utterly annihilated the insurgency a long time ago.
But if we did that, you'd be complaining that we weren't "humanitarian".
Click to expand...

well considering the invasion was illegal and you have no business being there "humanitarian mission" is about the only thing you have left, despite the fact that that as a motivation is just utter bullshit

and I thik you've already done enough damage without taking off your "kid gloves" ..I can imagine the body count were you any less careful

/sarcasm
 
CptStern said:
well considering the invasion was illegal and you have no business being there "humanitarian mission" is about the only thing you have left, despite the fact that that as a motivation is just utter bullshit

and I thik you've already done enough damage without taking off your "kid gloves" ..I can imagine the body count were you any less careful

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the damage is not being done by us at all, it's being done by terrorists running rampant. Terrorists we could have neutralised years ago if we actually fought this war like a war and not a police action.
To use your "indirectly responsible" logic, people like you who don't want to admit the reality of warfare and keep us from fighting properly, are the reason we are losing the war and the reason people are still dying in droves.
You really think the most powerful nation in the world, backed by an alliance of other powerful nations, couldn't take control of a small third world shithole if they really wanted to?

You asked why we were losing the war, I told you. Predictably, you go off on a tangent that makes whatever course of action we take wrong.
 
Maybe that's why you guys should have made sure the rest of the world agreed with your plan before deciding to invade?
 
AJ Rimmer said:
Maybe that's why you guys should have made sure the rest of the world agreed with your plan before deciding to invade?
Click to expand...

It was a bad plan, but that's completely besides the point.
If you're going to fight a war, fight it properly. The essence of war is violence, thus holding back on violence in war is the height of idiocy. You don't ever win a war by being "nice". A concept the majority of sheltered people in the West fail to grasp these days.
 
A proper invasion of iraq would have been:

#1. Go in blitzkreig style.

#2. Get saddam

#3. Establish puppet goverment, while making sure that it's stable enough to have multinational corporations invest in.

#4. gtfo and profit.
 
As i said, that wasn't a military war. Would it be, we'd probably not exist now.
Yes, Hitler didn't start a global war from day 1, BUT HE DID start it eventually.

I'm strange? You're the one using the EDIT function to reply. What are you playing at?!
Click to expand...

I use the edit button to add something more, or to fix spelling since i'm not a natural born english.

"Their...morals". Hesitating, are we? Are all us atheists really just immoral devils that are going to spend an eternity in hell
Click to expand...
?

Not all.

You're preaching about war without even understanding what war is. Use the correct terms, and then get back to me.
Click to expand...

...What?

It's quite common , at least here in Europe to understand that killing is immoral. That's why most of Europe(if not all) has no death penalty. Is it hard for the rest of the world to do the same.
 
Walter said:
As i said, that wasn't a military war. Would it be, we'd probably not exist now.
Yes, Hitler didn't start a global war from day 1, BUT HE DID start it eventually.



I use the edit button to add something more, or to fix spelling since i'm not a natural born english.

?

Not all.



...What?
Click to expand...

Well that was a real non-reply.

It's quite common , at least here in Europe to understand that killing is immoral. That's why most of Europe(if not all) has no death penalty. Is it hard for the rest of the world to do the same.
Click to expand...

Why should the rest of the world (in fact, the rest of Europe for that matter) believe what you do?
You're pretty high and mighty there with your Christian and Europe-centric snobbery; I suggest you get back onto the ground.
 
Killings undesirable, but all to often necessary. The same goes for war.
 
Killing is just a natural part of life. I mean if it isn't then you better not be killing any plants, flys, etc.. I mean do you think grass likes to get stepped on and eaten? How do you stop a cow from eating hay without killing it?

Do you eat beef?

On less your a monk who just eats rice please stfu about killing being immoral.
 
repiV said:
Well that was a real non-reply.



Why should the rest of the world (in fact, the rest of Europe for that matter) believe what you do?
You're pretty high and mighty there with your Christian and Europe-centric snobbery; I suggest you get back onto the ground.
Click to expand...

repiV, we can argue about it forever. It will lead us nowhere, we're completely different people, simple as that. :hmph:
 
Walter said:
repiV, we can argue about it forever. It will lead us nowhere, we're completely different people, simple as that. :hmph:
Click to expand...
Nope.
repriV's just too damned determined.
 
The man/woman has his own views on the world. The first Sticky isn't there just for nothing i guess :).
 
But really, what had his death brought? Was it worth killing him Especially during the home war :hmph: ?
 
It made me more happy. So well... i'm happy. It really brought happyness to some people.
 
Yeah, and in places like Iraq it brought strikes and more anger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top