Laughing at Saddam

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 21:57
VIEWED: 10444
PAGE 11 of 17

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

FLETCH2

Monday, January 8, 2007 11:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Why? What makes Saddam a human being? You say he was, so you must have some objective criteria.
What makes you a Human being?

Scientifically, just having the right genetic makeup. There isn’t any doubt Saddam was a human being, but you know what they’re like, every last one of them is smart enough and capable of any number of crimes when properly motivated.

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1297922&page=1

As for Saddam's fate, what did people think would happen when an Iraqi court started to try him. This is a part of the world where a woman can be beheaded for adultery and people's hands can be cut off for theft. Did anyone really think he would be acquited and if convicted did anyone believe he wouldn't be executed.

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What makes you a Human being?

I follow these rules. I do as little hurt to my fellow human beings as I can. I try to help as much as I can.

Some people do better at this than I. Some do worse. Some do so much worse that they drop below the line between human beings and animals in a human being suit. I consider Saddam one such. I'd like some one of you to explain to me why you think he should be considered a human being. Does anyone know?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Are we now discussing the death penalty? I just want to know 'cause I don't want to be accused of changing the subject again.

Actually, I think now we're discussing if Saddam was a human being. Several people have said he was, but only Fletch2 has offered a reason why, which relies strictly on genetics, not ethical or moral content.

Do you think Saddam was a human being, and if so, why?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:26 AM

Hi Citizen;

"I mean a small sparrow through your average Jet engine would make it turn itself inside out quite spectacularly, let alone a man, and a fairly substantial one at that."

I've seen what happens when a jet engine loses a turbine at 80% power. Not pretty at all but really really cool.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:42 AM

Though I don't claim to be a religious man, I do try to live my life by "judge not, lest thee be judged". Maybe it was my love for Metallica when I was a kid... I don't know.

All I got to say is that because I have a great distrust in our media and their disinformation and propoganda, I'm not entirely sure that he was this bad guy that we all say he is. I didn't know him personally, and I wasn't in Iraq to know how life there was. He never did anything bad to me and WE gave him weapons. He never had any nuclear weapons, just like he said the whole time.

We invaded them, pure and simple. I don't know why we did, though I have my suspicions. Saddam was a scapegoat and we made him a martyr now as well.

The misplaced hatered many here have had for that man is no different than the hatered many here have had for George W. Bush. Bush is the face of this war, but there were many driving forces behind him and he was just along for the ride. The President has the unique position of being able to take all the credit when things go well and also to take all the blame when things go bad, so the people behind the curtain are left to their own devices while he plays human shield for them.

I think it's funny how not one single person had anything to say to my last post about this earlier on the thread. Saddam was the only secular leader in the Middle East, and therefore, our greatest potential ally there. Since our goal seems to be to make Iraq a puppet state, I see no reason we couldn't have incorporated Saddam into it and keep him as leader out there. Our eyes and ears are everywhere. It wouldn't have been hard to monitor his activities and put him back in line if needed be.

His death was a shame, and the mass enjoyment which stemmed from it is even a greater shame on our nation. All of those taking glee in this happening seem to me to be nothing more than extras in 1984 that throw their books and cuss at Emmanuel Goldstein during the daily two minute hate. Dance puppets.

Now we're in the middle of an Iraqi civil war that we have no business being in. Bush wants to send out more troops, but the Dems say they won't approve more troops (unless valid reasons can be given why). But then that two faced bitch Pelosi says that she wants to increase military spending and make our military larger and stronger.

I for one don't want another dollar of my taxes going to this damn war or our army. When our efforts to convert everybody in the Middle East to our secular and materialistic ways fail, we will have them suicide bombing our malls and schools instead of each other because we couldn't just sit back and let them destroy each other and had to play nanny police.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:57 AM

Hi 6-string,

I'm not sure why nobody replied to your post. I would have expected a few disagreements from those who liked the execution. As for the others, perhaps they agreed with your general sentiment if not every last detail.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The thing that strikes me most is the materials that they used to make that engine. I mean a small sparrow through your average Jet engine would make it turn itself inside out quite spectacularly, let alone a man, and a fairly substantial one at that.

I’ve never heard of a bird as small as a sparrow causing that kind of damage, but certainly large birds like duck and geese can wreak all kinds of havoc on jet engines. But all of the damaged caused by bird ingestions, that I’m familiar with, are the result of in-flight collisions, which is really a different thing then a stationary event.

Every now and then there are stories of some poor dude getting sucked up by an engine. Surprisingly, it’s not always fatal, but I doubt its fun. Large engines like those on civilian jets seem to be the most deadly though; they can chew up folk pretty good. I found a couple of cases of stationary ingestion of civilian flight crew, all of them were fatal. The pictures were not pretty. Oddly, though there didn’t seem to be any visible structural damage to the engine, but the pictures probably didn’t tell the whole story, and I couldn’t find any technical report.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 2:56 AM

These are interesting -

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
These are interesting -

So if Saddam were sucked into a jet engine, would he be a pureed human being, and why?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I think it's funny how not one single person had anything to say to my last post about this earlier on the thread. Saddam was the only secular leader in the Middle East, and therefore, our greatest potential ally there. Since our goal seems to be to make Iraq a puppet state, I see no reason we couldn't have incorporated Saddam into it and keep him as leader out there. Our eyes and ears are everywhere. It wouldn't have been hard to monitor his activities and put him back in line if needed be.

You underestimate the stranglehold that Hussein had on Iraq and you overestimate the ability of the US to enact regime change through clandestine operations in that country. But setting aside these various misconceptions, for the moment, you’re right that the former Ba’athist regime in Iraq was secular, but you’re not about it being the only secular regime in the Middle East. There are actually several, most in fact. Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt are all secular regimes; some are allies, some are not. The largest misconception that you have is perhaps the notion that a regime in the Middle East need necessarily be a brutal ruthless dictatorship, like the former Ba’aths in Iraq, in order to be a US ally. I don’t think that’s true at all, and while it sometimes seems as if some foreign policy analysts would agree with you, I think that is an unfortunate attitude to take. It turns out that there aren’t any Arab regimes in the Middle East that are real liberal democracies, like Israel or Turkey, which makes it difficult for the US to put their support on Arab liberal democracies, but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be some day or that US foreign policy should necessarily support regimes that are the antithesis of.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE