Quote :

"The USA never told Saddam to gas his own people..."

Of course we didn't. But just like the current war we caused is getting people killed in large numbers, our meddling in their affairs got a lot of Kurdish people killed.

If we go start an unprovoked war with N. Korea, and cause 500,000 dead due to collateral damage from a nuke, is that the fault of the crazy Kim Jong Il?

1/22/2007 12:52:58 PM

^you're god damn right its Kim Jong Il's fault if Kim Jong Il nukes his people

unless you're one of those "blame America first" people which I believe you probably are

Quote :

"Because there weren't news stories every day, every week, or even monthly for that matter since the intarweb has been around you morAn."

what? that sentence makes absolutely no sense

Quote :

"It was pointed out that he was quite tame in the years since sanctions started reigning him in."

"quite tame"...holy shit i would be willing to imagine that tens of thousands of widows and other people with dead family members would not consider the bloodthirsty dictator to ever be "quite tame"...why dont you go take a dump on all their graves to disrespect their lives a little more while you're at it, while you call Saddam "quite tame"...unbelievable...unfuckingbelievable

1/22/2007 12:55:59 PM

Do you have any links?

Or would you like to see someone else in this thread have an argument with themselves?

Who is posting under TreeTwista today, sounds like trikk.

1/22/2007 1:03:00 PM

Quote :

"^you're god damn right its Kim Jong Il's fault if Kim Jong Il nukes his people unless you're one of those "blame America first" people which I believe you probably are"

Do you know what collateral damage is?

1/22/2007 1:05:53 PM

its one thing for someone to argue whether or not Iraq is better off now that Saddam is dead/out of power, or if they were better of with him reigning as dictator

But for you to say he is "quite tame"...that is just unbelievable to me...do you not realize this guy was a demented dictator who would murder anyone who opposed him? Are you seriously trying to imply that this guy has at any point in his entire fucked up life been "quite tame"? Holy shit you are truly ignorant

^I thought you meant one of N. Korea's nukes...since the USA would not nuke N. Korea unless they were about to nuke us first

Quote :

"Who is posting under TreeTwista today, sounds like trikk"

who is posting under TypeA today? sounds like State409c...oh wait they actually are the same person

[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2007 1:06:24 PM

Have fun arguing semantics and word meaning with yourself, it's really about the only thing you do here productive, if you can call it that.

Your refusal to find any links to support the case you have made that Iraq is now better off has summarily owned you.

Those that think Iraq is worse off now than before have won this thread. And it might as well be locked.

1/22/2007 1:10:56 PM

wow...that coming from a 19-year old who thought Saddam was "quite tame" after he had gassed his people...truly you are an informed scholar who should be trusted

1/22/2007 1:14:54 PM

Quote :

"Your refusal to find any links to support the case you have made that Iraq is now better off has summarily owned you. Those that think Iraq is worse off now than before have won this thread. And it might as well be locked."

It's obvious to me that different people post under the TreeTwista alias. Both equally dumb.

1/22/2007 1:18:42 PM

why dont you do some kind of IP address query and prove yourself wrong

just cause your dumb ass (read, DUMB...like extremely stupid) has the need to create aliases doesnt mean everybody else does

haha also funny that somebody (an ADMITTED alias) with <3000 posts calls ME an alias when I have like 42,000 posts...funny stuff

[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2007 1:19:30 PM

Why are you so much more defensive about your alias status than you are about defending your point about the state of Iraq before and after Saddam?

Furthermore, I do not deny that I am State409c, so I'm not sure why your retarded ass insists on belaboring the point. It's moot.

On the other hand, it is quite obvious that multiple people are using your account.

[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 1:33 PM. Reason : a]

1/22/2007 1:32:39 PM

i already challenged you to do some IP address searching and see for yourself if anybody but me has EVER used this account

but since you said Saddam was "tame" I guess you are looking for some way to back out of the whole discussion

1/22/2007 2:28:31 PM

I'm waiting for you to come with some links to support your argument. Thats what we do here. If you don't want to do that, get out of the section.

1/22/2007 2:51:57 PM

i hate to do this. but, in his defence, i doubt more than one person uses treetwista

1/22/2007 2:57:30 PM

I dunno, sometimes he actually goes from attempting arguments like this

Quote :

"so when Kuwait requested our help in 1991 we just shouldve told them 'no' ?"

Quote :

"so we should've just let them continuously break UN sanctions with no consequences?"

Quote :

"what is the UN supposed to do, say "hey Iraq...I know you've been doing whatever you wanted and not paying attention to our sanctions which were voted on by numerous countries...so we will ask you again...please abide by our sanctions""

To typed diarrhea like this that adds zero (or negative really) to the argument

Quote :

""quite tame"...holy shit i would be willing to imagine that tens of thousands of widows and other people with dead family members would not consider the bloodthirsty dictator to ever be "quite tame"...why dont you go take a dump on all their graves to disrespect their lives a little more while you're at it, while you call Saddam "quite tame"...unbelievable...unfuckingbelievable"

Quote :

"But for you to say he is "quite tame"...that is just unbelievable to me...do you not realize this guy was a demented dictator who would murder anyone who opposed him? Are you seriously trying to imply that this guy has at any point in his entire fucked up life been "quite tame"? Holy shit you are truly ignorant"

1/22/2007 3:05:26 PM

i guess i would call the truth diarreha too if my mind was fucked enough to essentially say saddam wasnt that bad of a guy after he gassed a few hundred thousand of his own citizens

i guess i would also repeatedly make dumb false accusations about a user account when i couldnt back up my stance on defending saddam as "quite tame"

at least most people who think iraq is worse now will agree that saddam was a sick murderous bastard who was far from being even relatively nice

[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2007 3:50:48 PM

Quote :

""Your refusal to find any links to support the case you have made that Iraq is now better off has summarily owned you. Those that think Iraq is worse off now than before have won this thread. And it might as well be locked.""

You lost the thread. It's over. I'm not even reading what you post.

1/22/2007 4:20:56 PM

good

while you're at it maybe you can leave the thread since you havent said anything worthwhile the whole time you've been here

ps: RIP to Saddam...he was a good man who was "quite tame" since gassing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens

1/22/2007 4:41:42 PM

Until I see some links, this is all you get

Quote :

"""Your refusal to find any links to support the case you have made that Iraq is now better off has summarily owned you. Those that think Iraq is worse off now than before have won this thread. And it might as well be locked."" You lost the thread. It's over. I'm not even reading what you post."

1/22/2007 4:45:42 PM

Quote :

"i guess i would call the truth diarreha too if my mind was fucked enough to essentially say saddam wasnt that bad of a guy after he gassed a few hundred thousand of his own citizens"

jesus - nobody said he is a good guy or that he deserves the nobel peace prize. Everybody agrees he was a villainous, murderous bastard.

The question is, though, whether Iraq is better now than it was in early 2003, which it's obviously not. Yes, Sadaam kills hundreds of 1000s of people. Yes, he deserve to be out of power (a long time ago, at that). Yes, he is better off dead. But at what expense? At the expense of plunging the country into civil war with 100s to 1000s of people dying a week, people that would otherwise most likely be alive, albeit living under a repressive regime?

Saddam needed to go, but he also needed to go 20 years ago or 10. There was nothing pressing in March of 2003 that required our immediate involvement. And don't give me shit about Kurds crying over lost relatives - they've been doing that for 20 years. He wasn't actively killing Kurds by the thousand when we invaded. Not to mention, our entire justification of invading Iraq had nothing to do with what an asshole he is - it was because Bush thought the US was threatened, which it was not.

1/22/2007 4:56:08 PM

You just wasted your time with that one. He is going to pull out what you said about Saddam being a bad man and argue about how you're retarded for thinking that he wasn't a bad man.

1/22/2007 5:02:00 PM

Quote :

"Saddam needed to go, but he also needed to go 20 years ago or 10."

True, but in either case I expect we would have run into much the same scenario after he was gone, and we'd have people saying almost the exact same thing you are now.

1/22/2007 5:06:08 PM

well, if we hadn't gone in with too few troops and a cavalier attitude that we wouldn't be there "6 days, 6 weeks, I seriously doubt 6 months", the job probably could have been done with much less bloodshed.

But sure, maybe civil war is inevitable for people who live in the same country, yet hate each other so much. So in that case, what's the best way to solve it? Let a dictator "force stability" on the country, sometimes killing off people he doesn't like, or remove the dictator and attempt to "force democracy" on a group of people who seem to want to just kill each other instead. The only reason they weren't killing each other already is because saddam wouldn't have allowed it.

1/22/2007 5:11:48 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: True, but in either case I expect we would have run into much the same scenario after he was gone, and we'd have people saying almost the exact same thing you are now."

They were saying the same thing. Bush Sr.'s advisors dismissed the idea of toppling Saddam because they knew this would happen. The difference then? There were far more troops there to complete the mission and stabilize the country, not to mention undisputed international legitimacy.

And I'll chime in with this: at this point, Civil War or sectarian segregation, are the only ways out of this. More American boots aren't going to end this or even quiet it down for a little while.

[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ...]

1/22/2007 6:05:39 PM

So we should've just left Saddam in power? Kept delaying the inevitable? Kept putting a bucket on the floor instead of fixing the roof?

1/22/2007 6:10:47 PM

No, I'm saying that at this point, no amount of American force is going to end this fight. I doubt we have the collective will to send enough to even quiet it down a while. The best we can do at this point is to delay the inevitable partitioning of the country into three pieces, the borders of which will likely settled by violence between the factions.

1/22/2007 6:15:38 PM

Quote :

"The best we can do at this point is to delay the inevitable partitioning of the country into three pieces, the borders of which will likely settled by violence between the factions."

Will absolutely never happen, as I've explained many times in many threads. The second we do that, Turkey has made it quite clear that they will straight-up invade Kurdistan. Meanwhile, the fact that the populations are not distributed in anything approaching a clear-cut fashion (the line's fuzzy even by normal demographic standards) means that at best you're looking at a partition on par with India and Pakistan's, which means the same amount of violence under what barely qualifies as a different set of circumstances. These things would happen immediately. If anything, partition would speed up the inevitable, and throw in a few perfectly evitable things as well.

Quote :

"There were far more troops there to complete the mission and stabilize the country, not to mention undisputed international legitimacy."

I'll give you the troops, but while "international legitimacy" is important in a great many things and I do wish we had it, I don't think it would play too much of a role in Iraq's internal clusterfuck.

Quote :

"So in that case, what's the best way to solve it? Let a dictator "force stability" on the country, sometimes killing off people he doesn't like, or remove the dictator and attempt to "force democracy" on a group of people who seem to want to just kill each other instead."

The second one, because:

1) One way or the other it's going to be a place full of people that hate us. That's been inevitable for a long, long time. So I'd rather them be a country full of people so busy killing each other that they can't worry about doing anything to us. I'm NOT saying that Iraq was ever a direct or imminent threat, because it wasn't.

2) Eventually, Saddam was going to die, and his successor, and so on until -- probably sooner rather than later -- they ran into someone who wasn't strong enough to hold the country together. At that point the country would head straight into the shithole it currently occupies, only now under circumstances over which we have even less control than we do now.

3) If it was going to be a shitstorm anyway, I'd just as soon it happen in such a way as to show us as having a strict policy towards asshole dictators than as twiddling our thumbs.

1/22/2007 7:14:03 PM

Seems like to me, the bottom line for this thread is that the Iraqi people are worse off now than they were under Saddam.

1/22/2007 7:55:31 PM

^if you honestly think i'm trolling, is it going to do you any good to come in my threads and troll me? does that somehow have some merit of benefit to anyone?

1/22/2007 8:07:48 PM

Umm, I'm trolling?

Did you finally concede that Iraq is currently worse off now than before? I have yet to see a link.

1/22/2007 8:54:36 PM

how the hell is one link supposed to answer the thread's question? do you think everything is just black or white and can be easily simplified?

1/22/2007 8:59:06 PM

then why did you make the thread? When you made it 6 months ago, you seemed to have been pretty sure that it is better than when Saddam was in power, which implies that it was better in February, 2003 than it was then.

So what do you think now? Do you think things have deteriorated enough since August that it is now worse or at least the same before the invasion? Are the daily bombings now equal to the oppressiveness of Saddam?

[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2007 9:06:16 PM

One good link would be sufficient for me for your rebuttal of my extremely left leaning links. The ones you complained so vehemently about. You know, I requested you find something on the right to support your cause, since this is always about left and right. And you have succeeded in not providing one shred of any credible anything other than running your ignorant thc filled mouth.

All you have done is complained that I trolled you, and cursed, and blah blah blah. Same shit in every thread.

Occasionally, you'll have an epiphany and post something else in the thread, mildly related, such as this:

Quote :

"So we should've just left Saddam in power? Kept delaying the inevitable? Kept putting a bucket on the floor instead of fixing the roof?"

Then when someone asks you to address an original argument (you know, the subject of the thread), you reply with this level of shit

Quote :

"^if you honestly think i'm trolling, is it going to do you any good to come in my threads and troll me? does that somehow have some merit of benefit to anyone?"

Eventually it will become circular because I'm sure you'll point out something about cursing, or I am an alias of State409c, or you'll re-quote some other dumb shit you have said, ad nauseum.

1/22/2007 9:15:09 PM

Quote :

"So we should've just left Saddam in power? Kept delaying the inevitable? Kept putting a bucket on the floor instead of fixing the roof?"

why dont you try to answer these questions instead of just commenting on how they're good questions

if you're so convinced that iraq was better off with saddam in power, how long were you willing to go? dont you think eventually if there is a more stable govt with more freedom they will be far better off than either when saddam was in power or now? would you be more content with a backwoods greedy dictator than the necessary though violent struggles needed as a step towards a freer, and safer nation?

1/22/2007 9:44:58 PM

CREATE A NEW THREAD

HOW ABOUT ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT I AND OTHERS HAVE ASKED YOU MULTIPLE TIMES NOW

THEN MAYBE WE'LL CONSIDER ANSWERING YOUR INANE CRAP

1/22/2007 9:51:51 PM

maybe somebody with a brain (read, not this guy ^) would like to comment on ^^this post

1/23/2007 10:59:18 AM

It's been asked and answered multiple times in this and other threads. I think most people are waiting on you to defend your assertion that Iraq is better off now.

1/23/2007 11:01:55 AM

Quote :

"if you're so convinced that iraq was better off with saddam in power, how long were you willing to go? dont you think eventually if there is a more stable govt with more freedom they will be far better off than either when saddam was in power or now? would you be more content with a backwoods greedy dictator than the necessary though violent struggles needed as a step towards a freer, and safer nation?"

anyone care to comment on this? or is TypeAsshole going to try and tell me what can and can't be discussed in my thread?

1/23/2007 11:09:16 AM

Answer this:

"Are the Iraqi people better off now, in present day Iraq, than when Saddam was in power?"

And please at least attempt to find some information to support your opinion.

1/23/2007 11:17:13 AM

I think so because I think the current state of Iraq is a necessary step of the process of creating a freer Iraq..."its gonna get worse before it gets better"...it would be nice and convenient if we could setup a democracy there without anybody dying but its the real world and that stuff doesnt work

So if you're goint to comment, TypeA, please debate that with something of substance, instead of going on a cuss filled caps lock tirade and not adding anything new to the thread

1/23/2007 11:20:55 AM

Quote :

"LETS ALL TROLL TREETWISTA SINCE HE ISNT A PUSSY LIBERAL LIKE US...OMG HE DOESNT THINK BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER, WHAT THE FUCK IS HE THINKING...HEY GUYS LETS TROLL HIM ON THE INTERNET AND KEEP LOSING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS"

1/23/2007 11:30:59 AM

You do realize that 'better in the future <> better now', don't you?

You are a stupid moronic imbecile, if you think anyone on here will argue against you on the idea that a democratic stable prospering Iraq is worse than a dictator controlled Iraq. That isn't even up for debate.

What everyone has posted here, and what apparently has flown over your head for 6 pages now, is that present day Iraq, with all the killings, the death squads, the flickering power, the degrading health situation

IS WORSE THAN IT WAS UNDER SADDAM.


This is why you get labeled a troll, because no college educated person is this stupid, so you must be doing it on purpose. Which is it, are you really just a retarded fool, or are you trolling?

[Edited on January 23, 2007 at 11:34 AM. Reason : a]

1/23/2007 11:33:36 AM

Quote :

"with all the killings, the death squads, the flickering power, the degrading health situation"

oh suddenly you know everything...why dont you explain some specific things going wrong then smart guy?

you didnt mind the killings when they were ordered by the president? you didnt mind the death squads when they were commanded by the president? you didnt mind the areas of the country without power as long as saddam was in charge? you act like they had a good health situation in the first place? show us what you know, genius

1/23/2007 11:34:45 AM

Que?

1/23/2007 11:37:29 AM

About what I'd expect...wow, you typed 'what?' in spanish...how intelligent

1/23/2007 11:38:00 AM

The sad thing is, you're the only one that doesn't realize how terribly incapable of logical thought you are.

1/23/2007 11:41:58 AM

why wont you ever comment on what i say? why dont you address this civil war period as being a necessity to a better iraq? why are you so limited in the scope of conversation you will discuss in this thread? maybe because your thought process is so limited?

Quote :

"This is why you get labeled a troll, because no college educated person is this stupid, so you must be doing it on purpose. Which is it, are you really just a retarded fool, or are you trolling?"

Quote :

"Que?"

Quote :

"The sad thing is, you're the only one that doesn't realize how terribly incapable of logical thought you are."

whens the last time you made a comment that had anything to do with the thread?

[Edited on January 23, 2007 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

1/23/2007 11:43:33 AM

At 11:33:36AM

1/23/2007 11:52:40 AM

no

1/23/2007 1:21:16 PM

You do realize that 'better in the future <> better now', don't you?

1/23/2007 1:21:51 PM

Quote :

"better now"

Where do you see 'now'? Are you that limited in your train of thought that the only things you can even think about are the present? Do you think a war is won on a day-to-day basis? Do you think drastic, and necessary, regime changes happen overnight? You're stuck on "Iraq right now" and you fail to even consider the future...thats probably why you've failed to address any of my questions regarding the overall process of Saddam's Iraq, through this period, to the eventual goal of a freer and more democratic, and safer, Iraq...if you were a better poster than you perceive me to be you would at least comment on things like that in order to keep the discussion rolling, but its obvious you're content with just repeatedly calling me an idiot without adding anything new to the discussion whatsoever

If you simply perceive this thread as only having two correct answer choices of "Iraq with Saddam in power was better" and "Iraq right now is better" then you truly lack the intellect to post anything in TSB at all

1/23/2007 2:14:14 PM