SG Broadband Community

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _saddam_dc

I think it's because Bush, as we've all seen, is terrible when it comes to debate. Say what you will about Saddam, but he's there's no denying he's more intelligent than GWB.


"Boy, it sure is getting dark over there."

maybe he doesn't want to pander to a piece of **** fanatical dictator. There is NOTHING to debate.

As has been pointed out many times before, Bush is a fighter pilot. While his service was in the Guard/Reserves (not sure) he did accomplish this feat. Becoming a fighter pilot aint easy dude....and you have to have some intelligence. I think Bush is more than able....and I also believe he has alot of smart people around him....people that were handpicked by himself.

Saddam on the other hand.........

yeah no kidding. you think thats him being scared. come on man give me a break. Saddam is a worthless loser, theres nothing to debate. Saddam kills his own people period.

Originally posted by Monoceros

It's amazing what Al Gore can do with PhotoShop.

Hey, he did INVENT the internet. At least that what I'm told, and I *always* believe what I'm told.

So far I haven't heard a valid reason as to why there shouldn't be a debate. Now if someone said a Bush loss would result in weakened support, that would at least make sense.

As far as what he does in his own country, it's not our concern. Stalin killed lots of Russians, we didn't do anything except give him land. Militants in Africa kill lots of civilians and rape women every day, we don't do anything. How is Saddam different?

Could the reason be...that Iraq recently switched over to accepting only Euros when it comes to oil sales? This in turn weakens the US dollar over the course of US/Europeon trade. Could that be the reason the US (and US junior, UK) want war, while France, Germany, Russia, etc., don't? Hmmmmmm...

Originally posted by Monoceros
Militants in Africa kill lots of civilians and rape women every day, we don't do anything.

Check your facts.

Are you saying we do? What about the 99% we do nothing about?

Originally posted by Monoceros
Are you saying we do? What about the 99% we do nothing about?

Ok let's debate.

Originally posted by Monoceros
So far I haven't heard a valid reason as to why there shouldn't be a debate. Now if someone said a Bush loss would result in weakened support, that would at least make sense.

How would we decide a winner? lol

Originally posted by Monoceros
I think it's because Bush, as we've all seen, is terrible when it comes to debate. Say what you will about Saddam, but he's there's no denying he's more intelligent than GWB.

Goofy pictures aside, what parameters are you utilizing in your comparison of GWB and Hussein intellect?
Saddam is enjoying the fruits of his clandestine deals with certain European countries. He has received positive ink from said nations who once joined in opposition to him. It is reminiscent to the Newsweek magazine issue with a sunny smiling Timothy McVeigh on the front cover. A cruel mass murderer made warm and fuzzy by a wholly fatuous and obtuse world.

shant,
david

The problem with Saddam is that he has openly said its a good thing to kill Americans. He has been making weapons to do such things. Its not 100% a sure thing but there are hints at ties to Al-Queda. The man revels in our pain. That scares the heebie-jeebies out of many an American citizen.

Yes oil figures in. Yeah Bush is tied to oil. Yes Bush stands to make an a$$load of money from a succesful roust of that lovely man Saddam, but there is SOOOOOO much more than just oil. The stability of the region, our(USA) financial whereabouts, the don't foget the biggest doozie of em all....nukes. If that moron gets his grubby paws on a nice thermo, G-d knows what he will do with the thing. Imagine a 10 megaton blast in London. It would plunge the world in chaos. Why even consider letting him have the chance?

Get in, get him out. Get the nasty toys out of the region and try our damndest to show other wanna-be despots we mean business. Sometimes sittin on yer thumb will hurt you more than gettin your hands dirty at the beginning of the problem.

Where should we hold this debate? Let's invite Saddam to the UN!

"Why is Bush afraid of Saddam?"



That is one of the dumbest things I've heard yet.

Originally posted by Monoceros
So far I haven't heard a valid reason as to why there shouldn't be a debate. Now if someone said a Bush loss would result in weakened support, that would at least make sense.

As far as what he does in his own country, it's not our concern. Stalin killed lots of Russians, we didn't do anything except give him land. Militants in Africa kill lots of civilians and rape women every day, we don't do anything. How is Saddam different?

Could the reason be...that Iraq recently switched over to accepting only Euros when it comes to oil sales? This in turn weakens the US dollar over the course of US/Europeon trade. Could that be the reason the US (and US junior, UK) want war, while France, Germany, Russia, etc., don't? Hmmmmmm...

Valid reason for no debate. What would be the purpose? Question, who is meant to abide by conditions of surrender? Who has not met with these conditions?
As for your examples:
We gave the USSR nothing, they took land and the rest of Europe sat by idly (sounds familiar?). No one outside of the Soviet Union knew of the atrocities commited by Stalin until after his death. I concur that the heinous crimes in Africa requires the world's attention. This would include an indifferent Europe who put into play the politics that has caused most of the strife.
As I remember, Iraq is not permitted to sell oil save for trade for necessities.... not for dollars rubles euros or wampum. The aforementioned countries have wittingly violated the terms meant to unseat Hussein.

shant,
david

Goofy pictures aside, what parameters are you utilizing in your comparison of GWB and Hussein intellect?

A fair question.

I judge Bush on his speeches and reactions to events. Like most people, I had no idea who GWB really was before the election. My first impression of him stems from debates...where he was simply inable to do anything productive. He ignores what doesn't support his view and repeats what does, hoping that drowns out the opposition. This has held true throughout his presidency and we're seeing it right now. The one area where he is shrewd is using tragedy to further his agenda. Raising the terror level while support for the war was mediocre...brilliant!

Saddam, well, he's harder to gauge, but his staying power and presence are telling. To hold Iraq together, a country internally divided and externally opposed, says a lot about his ability to keep things going. If Bush thinks he has his hands full with domestic policy, he's mistaken.

Are the lens caps are still on. Or is that a View Finder

BTW, Monoceros...
Like the nick. I do appreciate your opinion regarding the war.

Originally posted by Monoceros
A fair question.

I judge Bush on his speeches and reactions to events. Like most people, I had no idea who GWB really was before the election. My first impression of him stems from debates...where he was simply inable to do anything productive. He ignores what doesn't support his view and repeats what does, hoping that drowns out the opposition. This has held true throughout his presidency and we're seeing it right now. The one area where he is shrewd is using tragedy to further his agenda. Raising the terror level while support for the war was mediocre...brilliant!

Saddam, well, he's harder to gauge, but his staying power and presence are telling. To hold Iraq together, a country internally divided and externally opposed, says a lot about his ability to keep things going. If Bush thinks he has his hands full with domestic policy, he's mistaken.

Did you forget when Saddam had his opposition executed on the spot? Do you remember the TV clips of his cohorts being escorted out the door to meet their demise? Saddam rules out of fear. If that's intelligence than there is no point in this conversation.

Saddam has this nifty thing that Bush does not when it comes to domestic policy.

In simple terms, it goes like this....

Hey, you do what I say, or yer gonna die. End of story. No debate, you do what 'ole Hussein says, or you are simply NO MORE.

Bush has to do business in a framework. Channel his resources and craft compromises. Saddam, does what needs to be done, with little or no regard to pulic dissent or protest. Election? Pffft! He has no congress or house to convince, it just gets done.

Originally posted by Monoceros
To hold Iraq together, a country internally divided and externally opposed, says a lot about his ability to keep things going.

One could say the same about Hitler.

If you think that's all there is to staying in power...well, you're wrong. All it takes is one person on the inside to betray him and he's dead. It's happened throughout history. Obviously, this hasn't happened to him, so he must be respected and intelligent enough to understand all the personal (not political or military) underpinnings required for continuous rule.

Bush has to do business in a framework.

You mean like arresting arabs and sending them to our military base in Cuba (where torture probably takes place) for an indefinite period of time, without a trial?

Originally posted by Monoceros
A fair question.

I judge Bush on his speeches and reactions to events. Like most people, I had no idea who GWB really was before the election. My first impression of him stems from debates...where he was simply inable to do anything productive. He ignores what doesn't support his view and repeats what does, hoping that drowns out the opposition. This has held true throughout his presidency and we're seeing it right now. The one area where he is shrewd is using tragedy to further his agenda. Raising the terror level while support for the war was mediocre...brilliant!

Saddam, well, he's harder to gauge, but his staying power and presence are telling. To hold Iraq together, a country internally divided and externally opposed, says a lot about his ability to keep things going. If Bush thinks he has his hands full with domestic policy, he's mistaken.

No real proof, save perceptions. I must admit, GWB cerebrum does not impress me all that much. I would say that he does have an exceptional core of advisors with whom to confer. I do agree that America is finding itself returning to 1950's fear of annihilation. Along of course, with all the governmental justifications. Two monthes ago 4000 Iranians who were awaiting Visa renewal and came forward when asked, found themselves deported. Any different than the lynching of Germans during WW1 or Japanese interment amidst WW2? I have a dear friend panicked that she and her family may find themselves at the wrong end of an American pogrom..... and she hates Saddam Hussein.
Saddam's ability to survive has less to do with intellect than animal craftiness and the greed of turncoats. If he were smart, he would never have crossed the US, by invading Kuwait.

shant,
david

Originally posted by Monoceros
If you think that's all there is to staying in power...well, you're wrong. All it takes is one person on the inside to betray him and he's dead. It's happened throughout history. Obviously, this hasn't happened to him, so he must be respected and intelligent enough to understand all the personal (not political or military) underpinnings required for continuous rule.

It doesn't take an abundance of intelligence to pacify lapdogs and KILL malcontents....that's dictator 101

Originally posted by Monoceros
If you think that's all there is to staying in power...well, you're wrong. All it takes is one person on the inside to betray him and he's dead. It's happened throughout history. Obviously, this hasn't happened to him, so he must be respected and intelligent enough to understand all the personal (not political or military) underpinnings required for continuous rule.

Saddam is surrounded by like minded individuals...look at his son Udday.....he rapes and murders on a daily basis. So his staying power is the result of a group of murderers....who rule by fear.

You are contradicting yourself here. If there is that one person who could kill Saddam, then that would be evidence of Saddams own stupidity to select such a person.

This is why we want regime change...not just to depose of a leader but rather the entire leadership.

Originally posted by UOD
Saddam is surrounded by like minded individuals...look at his son Udday.....he rapes and murders on a daily basis. So his staying power is the result of a group of murderers....who rule by fear.

You are contradicting yourself here. If there is that one person who could kill Saddam, then that would be evidence of Saddams own stupidity to select such a person.

This is why we want regime change...not just to depose of a leader but rather the entire leadership.

Originally posted by Monoceros
If you think that's all there is to staying in power...well, you're wrong. All it takes is one person on the inside to betray him and he's dead. It's happened throughout history. Obviously, this hasn't happened to him, so he must be respected and intelligent enough to understand all the personal (not political or military) underpinnings required for continuous rule.

Fear of death of self and family is a powerful motivator. History is replete with despots using this method quite efficaciouly.

shant,
david

Saying betrayal doesn't take place because they're all like-minded sounds logical, until you factor in human desire. People always want power, especially when they're close to it.

Originally posted by Monoceros
Saying betrayal doesn't take place because they're all like-minded sounds logical, until you factor in human desire. People always want power, especially when they're close to it.

Which is why those who assume command are often no better than the despot they replaced.
Again, fear for family is a powerful motivator to behave. Stalin was a master of it.

Originally posted by Monoceros
Saying betrayal doesn't take place because they're all like-minded sounds logical, until you factor in human desire. People always want power, especially when they're close to it.

Saddam is feeding their desire....to act in the most uncivilized manner.

I'm sure he pays them well also.

Besides, no one could do the power grab alone....Udday is always watching.

But at the same time, the inner circle which helps to protect Saddam, could just as easily overthrow him and assume command. Staying on top is a rare social skill, one which very few people in history have possessed.

Again, this doesn't make him a great person, but I fully believe he's more capable than Bush in whatever he takes on.

Originally posted by Monoceros
Staying on top is a rare social skill, one which very few people in history have possessed.

but I fully believe he's more capable than Bush in whatever he takes on.

Maybe for a dictator.

Saddam has no noble endeavors to speak of.

I respect your opinions but if you are trying to change our minds, it is an exercise in futility. All you are doing is solidifying our position against Saddam.

Originally posted by Monoceros
But at the same time, the inner circle which helps to protect Saddam, could just as easily overthrow him and assume command. Staying on top is a rare social skill, one which very few people in history have possessed.

Again, this doesn't make him a great person, but I fully believe he's more capable than Bush in whatever he takes on.

They lack the cult of personality (second time I get to use this phrase in as many days ). Saddam is the dictatorship focus. Many long standing monarchies and despotisms a in the annals of history and business. When place in a position of near unlimited wealth and amorality, their success is assured.

Originally posted by Monoceros
But at the same time, the inner circle which helps to protect Saddam, could just as easily overthrow him and assume command. Staying on top is a rare social skill, one which very few people in history have possessed.

Again, this doesn't make him a great person, but I fully believe he's more capable than Bush in whatever he takes on.

Hmmm, this sounds familiar.....ahhhh, now i remember, castro.

Castro's another story, one which I don't wish to delve into at this point, but I will say most of Cuba's financial failings aren't of their own doing.

Originally posted by Monoceros
Castro's another story, one which I don't wish to delve into at this point, but I will say most of Cuba's financial failings aren't of their own doing.

Cuba lacks the natural resources. In addition, the US has maintained a stranglehold that they could not effect on Iraq. We should let up on Cuba.... They are no longer a threat.

shant,
david

Seems to be a problem with our past two presidents...I recall a picture where Clinton also used binoculars with the lens caps still on. LOL

Photo-ops just invite this kind of stuff...

Originally posted by Monoceros


Could the reason be...that Iraq recently switched over to accepting only Euros when it comes to oil sales? This in turn weakens the US dollar over the course of US/Europeon trade. Could that be the reason the US (and US junior, UK) want war, while France, Germany, Russia, etc., don't? Hmmmmmm...

Finally, someone these boards with the same mind set as me.

i outright think that GWB will be proved HORRIBLY wrong if he was in a Debate with Saddam. in fact, if the US is so GREAT and MIGHTY, and knows whats BEST, i think they wouldve done the interview and tried to 0wn saddam.

guess not, the US is failing guys, look past CNN.