Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Osama bin Laden is the culpert for 911. Right?

Yes, Saddam Hussein is a very evil man, but why
is he the one that's going to hang?


( 70 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Dec. 28th, 2006 11:22 pm (UTC)
Because he tried to kill Bush Sr. after he left office and baby Bush holds a grudge. He could give two shits about Bin Laden or terrorists, he is just out to sooth his Yankee Pride.
Dec. 29th, 2006 01:24 am (UTC)
So then, does this mean that my brother is going to Iraq to fight a battle because of some feud between the clan of Bush and Hussein?!

I've come to finally realize that bin Laden has been neither here nor there to Bush. He just NEVER mentions that name! How odd!
Dec. 28th, 2006 11:27 pm (UTC)
The Italians have a word for it: Vendetta.

Dec. 29th, 2006 01:17 am (UTC)
The Italians have a great word for everything!
(no subject) - oninofro - Dec. 30th, 2006 03:12 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 28th, 2006 11:32 pm (UTC)
because bush is either unable (or more than likely) unwilling to track down bin laden.

say what you will about saddam (and personally i think he's a bastard), at least he kept order in iraq. by removing saddam, the u.s. has created a vacuum and now every faction is fighting for power in that country.

it always amuses me that the u.s. can never catch bin laden but they can always find every video bin laden leaves behind. i swear that man has more videos than tu pac.
Dec. 28th, 2006 11:54 pm (UTC)
How the hell did we end up in Iraq? And why the hell is Saddam gonna hang in a few weeks?

That's right! There are oodles of videos, and NO bin Laden!
(no subject) - neo_prodigy - Dec. 29th, 2006 12:28 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - hajiomatic - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:46 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - neo_prodigy - Dec. 29th, 2006 03:09 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ytterbius - Dec. 29th, 2006 03:11 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oninofro - Dec. 30th, 2006 03:21 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oninofro - Dec. 30th, 2006 03:16 am (UTC) - Expand
amen!!!!!! - neo_prodigy - Dec. 30th, 2006 03:50 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 28th, 2006 11:41 pm (UTC)
Becaauuuse... uhmmm... mission accomplished?
Dec. 29th, 2006 12:43 am (UTC)
Looks like the mission will be accomplished
Looks like the mission will be accomplished within the next 3 days!

So, was hanging Saddam what all this American bloodshed was about?
Dec. 28th, 2006 11:45 pm (UTC)
I have to admit that I have been feeling empathetic about him lately.....I wonder if the things he did were nessesary to keep the order...I mean how many people (civilians) has Bush's war resulted? How is it that they are better?

Dec. 28th, 2006 11:51 pm (UTC)
The more I listen to Bush, the more confused I become! :o(
(no subject) - donchep - Dec. 29th, 2006 03:50 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - hajiomatic - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:37 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 28th, 2006 11:53 pm (UTC)
Once upon a time, Saddam used poison gas on a bunch of his own people. The Kurds, I think it was.

But in reality, "somebody's gotta pay!" And Bush probably won't ever admit that he and the CIA are the ones that did 911. Just so he'd have an excuse to attack Iraq!

I read that Bush & Co. were planning on attacking Iraq even before 911. Which makes 911 awfully convenient for them.
Dec. 29th, 2006 01:27 am (UTC)
Re: Because
That just can't be possible! Bush says he's a Christian!!
Re: Because - ex_druid210 - Dec. 29th, 2006 01:29 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Because - playgirl - Dec. 29th, 2006 01:57 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Because - ex_druid210 - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 28th, 2006 11:55 pm (UTC)
Cowboys always shoot first and ask questions later.
Dec. 29th, 2006 01:55 am (UTC)
Aha! Now I see why mamas don't let your babies
grow up to be cowboys anymore!! :o(
Dec. 29th, 2006 12:09 am (UTC)
Because a court found him guilty and an appeals court upheld
the verdict.
He is guilty of murdering hundreds of thousands of his own
He learned how to maintain order the same way that Hitler did
and there was no love involved in that.
Dec. 29th, 2006 12:25 am (UTC)
Ok. But wasn't this war suppose to be - playgirl - Dec. 29th, 2006 12:36 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Ok. But wasn't this war suppose to be - buddave - Dec. 29th, 2006 01:19 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Ok. But wasn't this war suppose to be - donchep - Dec. 29th, 2006 01:46 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Ok. But wasn't this war suppose to be - playgirl - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:12 am (UTC) - Expand
That's not a dumb question... - stevie_stever - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:35 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: That's not a dumb question... - stevie_stever - Dec. 29th, 2006 05:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Ok. But wasn't this war suppose to be - (Anonymous) - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:38 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Ok. But wasn't this war suppose to be - hajiomatic - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - harley1456 - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:40 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - harley1456 - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:43 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tomcatshanger - Dec. 29th, 2006 03:14 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - harley1456 - Dec. 29th, 2006 04:28 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 29th, 2006 01:31 am (UTC)
Pretty much everyone who has replied is wrong. :) It's pretty simple actually. The trial has nothing to do with the USA. Saddam hussein was tried and convicted by an Iraqi Tribunal for crimes against Iraqis. And was personally found guilty of the proven deaths of something like 138 Shiites.
We had nothing to do with the trial itself. It's all done according to iraqi law. I don't like Bush but he has nothing to do with this whether we agree with the decision or not.
Dec. 29th, 2006 02:36 am (UTC)
right...you believe that? You believe that we would have kept hands-off if Iraq courts let him go? No way, we would fly his ass back here and convict him of something.......
(no subject) - donchep - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:44 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - harley1456 - Dec. 29th, 2006 02:48 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - donchep - Dec. 29th, 2006 03:01 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tomcatshanger - Dec. 29th, 2006 03:16 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - playgirl - Dec. 29th, 2006 08:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 29th, 2006 02:52 am (UTC)
Saddam is gonna hang 'cause he got caught.
Osama could be caught if the Pakistanis had any desire to fight the GWOT and the Taliban.
Which they don't.....'cause half of them are Pashtun like the Talian and they''re all are Muslim....

Let me put the 10th Mountain Div. into Pakistan at Spin Boldak, drop the 82nd Div (AIRBORNE!! HOOAH) into Quetta and push the Brits at Tora Bora and we'd flush the rascal out!!!
Dec. 29th, 2006 03:23 am (UTC)
Saddam's hanging has nothing to do with 9/11. It also has nothing to do with his failed assassination attempt (was there one?) on Bush 41. It has to do with the charges against him wherein over 100 Kurds were slaughtered. If it weren't for that charge, then it would have been for another one.

Osama bin Laden is a separate issue. His time will come.
Dec. 29th, 2006 03:26 am (UTC)
Why is he the one? Well, other than the fact that the US set the bedrock of the laws underwhich he was convicted, as well as having significant influence in the choice of elected leadership in Iraq, I don't know that we did too much to set him up.. there was no need.

He's going to hang because he lost, and his enemies are now in charge. He'll be dying in a more pleasant way than many of his victims.

Whether Bin Laden isn't hanging because they haven't caught him, or because he's a more politically difficult target, I don't know. Probably a bit of both.
Dec. 29th, 2006 08:50 pm (UTC)
Whether Bin Laden isn't hanging because they haven't caught him, or because he's a more politically difficult target, I don't know. Probably a bit of both.

Or perhaps bin Laden will never be caught because he has been much more humane to his people, while Hussein was a complete beast towards his.

Dec. 29th, 2006 03:30 am (UTC)
Various Iraqi factions want revenge on Saddam for what he did to them. They also want him dead to eliminate the possibility that he might regain power at some point.

The bigger reason is that the Bush administration and various Iraqi factions want him dead sooner rather than later to avoid further trials. A lot of people could be greatly embarrassed by things that would come out in court if Saddam was kept alive and tried for all his crimes. Many people in the Bush administration and their friends have blood on their hands for what they allowed and helped Saddam do to Iraqis and Iranians.

Basically, when you hear of Saddam's use of chemical weapons on Kurds, Shia, and other Iraqis keep in mind that the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations supplied him with those weapons so he could use them against Iran, i.e., so he could commit genocidal war crimes against Iran. Do you really think Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. would ever allow Saddam to be tried for the use of those weapons against Iran? The crime he is supposed to be executed for, and which was just coincidentally chosen as the first one tried, is one of the few crimes against humanity or war crimes he committed that the U.S. bears no responsibility for.
Dec. 29th, 2006 01:08 pm (UTC)
I guess all the most of the other people who have commented on this ( and obviously hate Bush, the current U.S. administration and probably anyone who doesn't share their paranoid world view) and yourself have missed the fact that Saddam was tried by the current Iraqi government for mass murder of Iraqis.

Maybe, just maybe, if Saddam had not ordered the deaths of 150 people in Dujail he would not have been tried and sentenced to death. Maybe if he had not used mustard gas and other chemical weapons on the Kurds, he would not have another trial going on right now. Maybe, if he and his sons had not run rooms for the purpose of raping and killing people, they would not have been so hated.
Dec. 29th, 2006 08:55 pm (UTC)
Yes, I found out earlier that it was the Iraqi Tribunal for crimes against Iraqis that sentenced Saddam to death.

It isn't that any of us hate Bush or his administration, it's just that we have no faith in them anymore.
Dec. 29th, 2006 06:07 pm (UTC)
Why we are in Iraq.
I'll take this to actually mean to ask why we are in Iraq to begin with. to that question, there is no single answer. I don't think there is any overall conspiracy, but rather a collection of various issues that all pointed in one direction and it was taken.

Certainly, some of th reasons date back to the first gulf war. Ever since we went in and didn't "finish the job", there have been elements in the military and government that have been expressing resentment we didn't do so ever since truce was called. Didn't help that Iraq has been firing missles at our planes ever since then. Nothing serious and they never managed to shoot one down, but still technicallity for war that I'm sure the pilots who were getting shot at and their officers were not happy about. I can't imagine any soldier getting shot at and not getting itchy to shoot back.

Then you had terrorism. Not Al-Queda and 9/11, but rather Hamas and other anti-Isreali groups that recieved large parts of their funding from Iraq. The idea being, take out Iraq, remove that funding, and those groups will lose funding not be able to agitate Isreal, and the region will have a chance to settle down and not create so many terrorists to begin with. After Hussein was removed from power, there was evidence that it did have this effect as less terrorism against Isreal was possible (now if only we could get Isreal to calm down).

Then there was threats of poison gas, nuclear bombs, etc. and if iraq ever did get them, that he would give them to somebody who might use them against us or somebody else which would draw us into a larger war. While we now know there were no WMD, up till and after the war, nobody was sure. The UN head of the team up till the war was saying, "we haven't found y, but we really can't tell because we are being prevented from looking by Iraq". If Saddam had kotowed to the UN, played it diplomatic and allowed them to look and convinced the UN there were no WMD, he'd still be in power. That he was being such a butthead about letting them look only served to convince people that he was working on them, and if he did have them, there was no telling what he would allow them to be used for.

Of course, why was Saddam being such a butthead? You can probably look back to the cause of the first Gulf War for this one. Before he invaded Kuwait, he was more than willing to deal with the US and play subserviant. He approached the US three separate times diplomatically, asking in no uncertain times, "do you care if we invade Kuwait?" All three time we said we didn't care and at least once with the specific reply "What you people do is no concern of ours." So he invades, and all of a sudden, he's Hitler incarnate to the US government for doing something he got our permission to do. I can't imagine he would trust us after that to bother to try make deals.

Dec. 29th, 2006 06:07 pm (UTC)
Re: Why we are in Iraq.
So, from there he made deals with others. Despite what people say about "unilaterally" attacking Iraq, pretty much everybody was in agreement that it was a good idea. Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia stood up for him. The only two countries who argued against the invasion were France and Germany. Guess who owned and opperated Iraq's oil feilds? Elf, which is a French/German multinational oil company. Russia also spoke out against it but they were a bit more honest about it and said they really didn't care so long as it didn't threaten their previous oil deals with Iraq (soem of which were made during the build up for the invasion).

Lastly, we did want to control the oil. Never let a liberal tell you we went in for "cheap oil". We went in for expensive oil. The last thing the US wants right now is cheap oil. If we had wanted that, we could have made a deal with Saddam to leave him alone and gotten all the cheap oil we wanted. We need to control the oil and in current case drive the price up. Although expensive oil slows our economy, it doesn't slow our economy near as much as the devloping ones in India and China. It is to our advantage to have high oil prices, to allow the American economy to remain on top and prevent comeptition from developing nations. It has long been our policy that we need to have a presence in the middle east so we can control the price and avaialbility of oil. Being in Saudi Arabia had other issues and the opportunity to move into Iraq where we could more or less do as we please and not irritate muslims for being in holy land, probably played a part.

What are we trying to do in Iraq? Pretty much exactly what they have said, trying to set up a stable democracy for the embetterment of their people. Policy since the fall of the USSR is that it serves America's interests most to have all the nations of the world stable and with a happy population. it is the sable and happy countries who provide a market for the goods we produce and make us money. Unstable and warring lands are nothing more than economies not open to us that threaten to spread and close off other economies and thus hurt our bottom line. If we could come in, set up Iraq as a stable democracy, chances are it would spread to surrounding countries, lessen religious zealotry, and stablize the region. Iraq was a good choice for this because they were the most Westernized country in the middle east. We have seen some evidence of this already IIRC as SA gives women the right to vote and other rights found in Iraq are starting to be demanded in neighboring countries.

And, if you need a last reason to have invaded Iraq, it's because the Baath party that ruled Iraq (and Syria) are quite literally Nazis. The Baath party was set up by agents sent by Hitler in WW2 as the Arabic arm of the Nationaist Socialism party.
Re: Why we are in Iraq. - playgirl - Dec. 30th, 2006 06:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Why we are in Iraq. - marc17 - Dec. 30th, 2006 07:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Why we are in Iraq. - playgirl - Dec. 31st, 2006 11:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 70 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com