GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Who thinks Saddam was better at running Iraq? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=363742)

AdPatron 09-29-2004 12:38 AM

Quote:

do you ty to trace the history of iraq? how it is when saddam lead?

Are you talking to me? If you are, no, I don't try. But I do know a good majority of their history from when Saddam tried to assassinate Abdul Karim Qasim to how he came into power.

(Some people like fiction, I like reading history books)

AdPatron 09-29-2004 12:44 AM

Quote:

At least when he was in power and abused prisonors no one knew about it.

Please. He video taped a meeting in 1979 where people had their names called out and then Saddam had them executed out back. In the end, hundreds of top ranking party members and army officers are executed. That idiot loved to video tape anything that he could use to show that he was in total power.

michel 09-29-2004 12:47 AM

I think it's too early to decide

AdPatron 09-29-2004 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by michel
I think it's too early to decide

Could be. But at least then we had more options.

Victor-E 09-29-2004 01:33 AM

Iran is the last country US needs to worry about. They haven't attacked another country for almost 1500 years. Which is a LOT more than what you can say about the US. The only war they had was with Iraq. And that was encouraged and brewed by the US, just like the massacre of the Kurds and Shiites during the first gulf war when we gave them the chemical weapons. Right now, Iran is NOT seeking nuclear weapons and only mindless sheep will listen to the US government propaganda, the same way they swallowed the chemical weapon stories about Iraq. They need nuclear "power" because their population has doubled in the last 25 years due to a massive influx of refugees from Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Azarbaijan and other countries. Iran's threat is only theological and ideological. They are the first ones who had the nerve to tell the US to get the fuck out of Middle East. But US won't leave unless they give them all their oil for free.

Sure Iraq "would" have been better without Saddam. But only if that country was allowed to take its natural course and evolve at its own pace. But compare to what has happened now, things would have been a LOT better if they were left alone. US is like a stupid spoiled fat brat kid who keeps coming into the lab and fucking up all the experiments then leaves with a face full of fudge and a trail of soiled diapers behind.

The saddest part is that all that's good about the US is also getting massacred by the bush doctrine and his mindless follower piglets. Everything beautiful in this country, including our integrity and even our sympathy has been burned to the ground. If flag burning is a crime, then bush is public enemy number one, because he's been wiping his ass with it for the last four years.

The ultimate truth is, bush will get away with this genocide because most Americans, even those who oppose him, don't mind so much if a few (thousand) non-white people got blown up as long as they get to put cheap gas in their cars and were somehow reassured that they are still the baddest jerk in town.

BeHeadR 09-29-2004 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CollegeSucks
When Saddam was in power, there weren't any insurgents. No bombings, kidnappings, most people didn't have any guns. The money used for the war could have been used just to keep an eye on him and we wouldn't have those 1000+ dead soldiers.

So, who thinks Saddam was better?

Wow you are wrong on a lot of points. PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE GUNS?!?!? are you on crack? Having a gun in Iraq is a sign of manhood -- if you don't have a gun you're a bitch (its the culture).

Saddam did keep things under control only becasue he ruled with an Iron hand -- personally I think it is the only way you can get sunni, shia, kurds etc. to fall in line.

AdPatron 09-29-2004 03:11 AM

Quote:

Wow you are wrong on a lot of points. PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE GUNS?!?!? are you on crack? Having a gun in Iraq is a sign of manhood -- if you don't have a gun you're a bitch (its the culture).

I corrected myself in another post. Saddam had a law banning guns except by certain people. Of course, people did have guns, they just kept them hidden from view. If you got caught with it, they'd beat the shit out of you. Saddam has always been scared of assassination.

BrainDead 09-29-2004 03:12 AM

i dont think so!

AdPatron 09-29-2004 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrainDead
i dont think so!

???

AdPatron 09-29-2004 03:18 AM

BTW, most of the guns Iraq's army had (and that are still floating around) were supplied by the US.

VeriSexy 09-29-2004 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CollegeSucks
Cool. I just added it to my netflix queue.
You will enjoy "Uncle Saddamn" It's a great documentary and you will see lot's of clips with Saddam and inside is huge palaces.

VeriSexy 09-29-2004 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrainDead
do you ty to trace the history of iraq? how it is when saddam lead?
Watch this :2 cents: :2 cents:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...24735?v=glance

Paul Waters 09-29-2004 04:38 AM

Saddam was the best dictator ally the US has had since Batista.

Daddy Bush really fucked up when he withdrew permission for Iraq to invade Kuwait.

Saddam was loyal, kept a secular state, the oil flowed, and he was willing to invade the enemies of the US for them.

They daddy betrayed him.

No wonder the arab world does not trust the Bush family. Except for the Saudi royal family, of course.

:2 cents:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123