Yes Orwell it's the endless swinging door of Washington's favoured 'friend' to dastardly 'foe'.

Consider when Saddam committed the gas attack on the Kurds in Halabja, the US government cynically tried to blame it on Iran.
They even continued to treat Saddam as a favoured friend with more weapons 20 months after the Halabja attack.

Interesting subject Waylander! I think the jury will always be out on that one. CIA agent Pelletiere investigated it and said that it was done by the Iranians. But then of course he could have been involved in a damage control propaganda effort because it Saddam did it then the US would have been complicit in supplying the stuff.

Are you familiar with the whole story? If not I will look it up for you on the internet or you could look it up yourself by searching for Halabja Pelletier or something of the sort. My own personal opinion? I have actually seen Pelletier interviewed on the question and I believed him when he said that it wasn't Saddam. I don't think we will ever really know for sure until the Iraq war is over and more people in the know come clean on the issue. We do know that the US kangaroo court which tried and executed Saddam stayed far away from the question. Saddam needed to be dead first. Your opinion?

Did you just call me an Islamist Fred, or make equal to them in thinking?

I have always envied you your world. Not living in Lithuania or Belgium, not that world, but the one in your head.

You should really consider writing children's books, they will make great fairy tales.

I can't believe how someone can reach your age and still be this clueless, not only about world issues, but about human nature as well.

Goodbye

PS: This is really a disgusting post

I said a US kangaroo court because that was in fact what it was but it's really not worth arguing further. I'm saying that the US couldn't allow Saddam to be tried on the Halabja gassing issue or the use of poison gas in any of his wars. It was necessary for the US to make sure that the issues dealt with were small issues relating to individual deaths which could be substantially proven with living witnesses. I make no mistake angry man, Saddam had blood on his hands but the scale paled in comparison compared to the US blood on it's hands on a much, much grander scale. And most importantly of all, it's simply hypocritical to even consider the issue when the US motives were not in the interest of aiding Iraqi citizens in the least.

Once again throws his hands against his ears and refuses to address the issue.



Blah blah blah.....as predicted complete avoidance of the simple logic:

If there was a reason to shut Saddam up, something damning he knew he could tell others - then why not announce that at anytime in the last 15 years?

If you can't answer this exceedingly simple question and if you can only "debate" by deciding your definitions -- even without a shred of proof -- are the only ones acceptable then how exactly are you here to "debate"....how exactly are you "open minded" or "critically thinking?"

You're not. You're acting like a baby.

I ask again now and 1000 posts from now - simple logic - you can either deal with it or you can't:

If there was a reason to shut Saddam up, something damning he knew he could tell others - then why not announce that at anytime in the last 15 years?




I look forward to more of your comical, "I'm right because I say I'm right",  posts. Very entertaining.


Ahk

I ask again until you answer:






Ahk

Look Fred, there's not much denying that the US demanded the offing of Saddam along with his sons to keep them quiet. To pretend that they have and had all the answers is just plain ridiculous. An 'is, is not' argument between us is only scratching the surface and unless we are to get into examining the facts more closely than you appear to be willing to do then it's a waste of time. Give me something to work with and I'll be more than happy to oblige. The simple fact is that the US should have ensured that Saddam was tried in an impartial world court for his alleged crimes against humanity and it should have been open to the scrutiny of the world. And the US had every right to demand that if what they charged and alleged was true. It's really completely incorrect according to any justice system to execute a person before the complete details of the alleged crimes are examined. I really wish you would at least relent a little on that so I could take you seriously.

Well that's great because it's not my intention to cause you discomfort. I do realize however why a troll would rush to make that assumption. No farthest thing from my mind. You've made a contention. I see what I think is a hole in the logic of that contention. I ask you about it. Either you can answer or you can ignore it or you can cop out. So far you continually choose to cop out. I am content with either. It just allows us to laugh harder when you proclaim it's everyone else who can't debate or face the tough questions.
Here's the question again:

 

You contend the US executed him to shut him up. Either you have reason to believe this or you are delusional. Since you can't seem to explain why there was a need to shut him after he had been captured when in fact he could've revealed any supposed information at any time with in 3 days previous to be ing captured....even though every television in the world was focused on him while he had his chance to say whatever he liked and instead preferred to point his finger at the judge insisting he had no right to do this because he was the 'lawful' president of Iraq....

...during all that he didn't say a peep yet you contend the US executed him to "shut him up".

You want me to listen more and talk less. I have listened. I want you to think before you talk. What are the chances of that happening?

Why would there be a need to rush to shut him up when he's had years and years before, during and after the invasion to say whatever he wanted - - in fact he did and didn't once mention your ambiguious unseen "secrets" you're so certain exist

Is it that my line of questioning is so completely base and simple it confuses you? Is the reasoning or logic so spartan that you assume it must be deceptive?





And predictably what do you do between your cop outs in your replies to me? You continue with the 'ad homen' attacks and name calling you so arrogantly proclaim you're above. I think if you can call me angry man, I can call you dickless punk? You see now how you are as responsible for the conduct here as anyone.

Also I am not understanding the logic here. Saddam is a murderer, but since there are other murderers existing he should be let go?


Ahk