View Full Version : HANG 'EM HIGH!!!
unstable bob gable
11-05-2006, 11:37 PM
Looks like Saddam is gonna meet his end swinging on a rope. Cool beans! :)
Firebird67dude
11-05-2006, 11:41 PM
YES. I hope they telivise it.
Brando56894
11-05-2006, 11:51 PM
Looks like Saddam is gonna meet his end swinging on a rope. Cool beans! :)
yea i saw that earlier on the news
JerzLT1
11-06-2006, 06:59 AM
yeah in about 20 years after all the appeals... the marine that found him should have put him out of his misery
bad64chevelle
11-06-2006, 07:06 AM
Nah, I think the long agonizing dread would be the BEST way for him to go out. However, we should have taken him out the FIRST time we were over there.
Rich189
11-06-2006, 07:17 AM
i dont think he cares much if he dies or not as long as its quick.... i beleive they should torture him like he did to his people but people say thats inhumane :{
LS1Hawk
11-06-2006, 07:33 AM
Yeah, and I heard this morning it's causing a stir now because of the decision to hang him. Give me break! That's nothing compared to what he had done to his people.
WayFast84
11-06-2006, 08:38 AM
I personally think they should quarter him..
Savage_Messiah
11-06-2006, 01:06 PM
I agree with what jon said there... for the record.
BUT this thread needs some devil's advocate...
Yeah, and I heard this morning it's causing a stir now because of the decision to hang him. Give me break! That's nothing compared to what he had done to his people.
Why is it that he was such a bad person and we're over there to save them, yet he was the only person who could keep Iraq under control? He sure did a better job than what we're doing
and that's why i broke out the popcorn, i knew someone would say that :lol: This reminds me of the time when US killed Escobar but somehow there's more cocaine now. Suddam and Escobar ruled with fear once they're removed no one gave a **** anymore.
:popcorn: *waits for someone to call me stupid and tell i don't know anything cuz im 20*
I say someone should give him herpes, put lice in his hair + beard and let him sit in a cell with hands chained to a wall of poison sumac so he cant itch himself :rofl:
Knipps
11-06-2006, 02:06 PM
I say someone should give him herpes, put lice in his hair + beard and let him sit in a cell with hands chained to a wall of poison sumac so he cant itch himself :rofl:
&& throw in some chinese water torture just for kicks
JL8Jeff
11-06-2006, 02:13 PM
There is no simple solution for the Iraq situation and that's all there is to it. At least he was found guilty and that's a good first step. I think they said his appeal situation is a limited amount of time vs the way we are here. All these politician's running for office that say we shouldn't be there or we should pull out are all full of crap and have no idea what it takes to get the job done right. They're just trying to buy votes by saying they are/were against the Iraq war. If we pull out now, Syria and Iran will take over the place.
Lt1_8U
11-06-2006, 03:13 PM
my teacher was aying at first they were thinking of puting a cover over his face, like they do when they normally hang people, but people would think it wasnt really him. So now they should be doing it without a face cover and they willl prob have still shots, or maybe a video.
hopefully they will use the short rope, let that bastard choke a little :mrgreen:
Savage_Messiah
11-06-2006, 10:15 PM
There is no simple solution for the Iraq situation and that's all there is to it. At least he was found guilty and that's a good first step. I think they said his appeal situation is a limited amount of time vs the way we are here. All these politician's running for office that say we shouldn't be there or we should pull out are all full of crap and have no idea what it takes to get the job done right. They're just trying to buy votes by saying they are/were against the Iraq war. If we pull out now, Syria and Iran will take over the place.
The simplest solution woulda been to not let another bush into office...
:popcorn:
WildBillyT
11-06-2006, 10:25 PM
There is no simple solution for the Iraq situation and that's all there is to it. At least he was found guilty and that's a good first step. I think they said his appeal situation is a limited amount of time vs the way we are here. All these politician's running for office that say we shouldn't be there or we should pull out are all full of crap and have no idea what it takes to get the job done right. They're just trying to buy votes by saying they are/were against the Iraq war. If we pull out now, Syria and Iran will take over the place.
I agree. And not to get too political, but note on how this decision came out right before elections...
qwikz28
11-06-2006, 10:32 PM
what if we put him back in power and get out of iraq? no use in spending money/lives to what saddam was doin just fine before us
Savage_Messiah
11-06-2006, 10:52 PM
I would actually like to know (in terms of averages) how many Iraqis he killed vs. how many we have, manner of death aside.
I would actually like to know (in terms of averages) how many Iraqis he killed vs. how many we have, manner of death aside.
i bet it would be pretty close, i might even give a little nod to the US side...
Brando56894
11-06-2006, 11:59 PM
i still dont understand all of this war in iraq ********, it was pointless.
WayFast84
11-07-2006, 07:34 PM
Why did we go their 3 years ago??
I dont remember the reason..
Savage_Messiah
11-07-2006, 11:59 PM
Why did we go their 3 years ago??
I dont remember the reason..
they have weapons of mass destruction!
oh wait that'snot it... uhh... saddam is a bad guy and needs to be taken out!
country is now in civil war and more people than before hate us? Uhmmm... we're there to enforce democracy! (nevermind the facts that 1. democracy has to be instilled by the people and 2. democracy is NOT ALWAYS THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT... uh oh I'm unpatriotic :roll:)
uh... well uh... we're their only hope for peace, so we have to stay there until there is peace! ignoring the fact that our being there is the reason for the turmoil....
etc etc
they have weapons of mass destruction!
kasey your not one of those people are you>?
we know he had wmd's because he USED THEM on the kurds, and wether we could find them or not thats fact.
and the man had a mig squadrun hidden in the sand in the desert, you think he cant bury some 50 gallon drums...
WayFast84
11-08-2006, 08:22 AM
o yeah now I remember, and with the first few days of the war, i remember hearing that they used some illeagle missel or some****.
kasey your not one of those people are you>?
we know he had wmd's because he USED THEM on the kurds, and wether we could find them or not thats fact.
and the man had a mig squadrun hidden in the sand in the desert, you think he cant bury some 50 gallon drums...
:lol: a mig squadrum? are u talking pre-gulf 1 war? cuz saddam had a 3 plane airforce of MIG-21s, do you know how out dated those are. it was introduced by the soviets in 1959(!!!) for gods sakes. It has almost no nav system on board and no computers, its a "pilots plane" in todays world it would get shot out of the sky faster then i can take a dump.
WMDs? :lol: other countries have them too, is US gonna attack them? nope. Best example is North Korea, they have NUKES (a real wmd) and they black mail you for stuff they want/need and you give it to them so they can "stop" their program. and when we talk about wmds i hope you dont mean that ****** mustard gas they had, cuz that's just pathetic - ak47 killed more people in its history.
:popcorn:
:lol: a mig squadrum? are u talking pre-gulf 1 war? cuz saddam had a 3 plane airforce of MIG-21s, do you know how out dated those are. it was introduced by the soviets in 1959(!!!) for gods sakes. It has almost no nav system on board and no computers, its a "pilots plane" in todays world it would get shot out of the sky faster then i can take a dump.
:popcorn:
and we still use
f-16 introduced in 79
b-52h introduced in 1955
f-15 introduced in 1972 (to **** with migs)
and we still use
f-16 introduced in 79
b-52h introduced in 1955
f-15 introduced in 1972 (to **** with migs)
to rival mig-21 US produced f-4 phantom, and not any of those planes. f-4 is not in service anymore. Further more your planes have been modified and i bet they're far from what they used to be in the 70s. Also the fact that you have 100's of them + superior training vs what? 3 mig force? f-22 will take them out faster then they know its there. I doubt Saddam has done anything to their planes due to the bans placed on any kinda dual tech entering iraq after gulf1. And the only countries that still use mig21s as their defense are pretty much 3rd world and are not a real threat to the U.S.
ohh one other thing. mig 21 was placed IN SERVICE in 1959. all those aircraft are much younger. F-15 might have been introduced in 1972 but it was put in service 17 years later in 1989! are you trying to compare 1959 technology to 1989?
i can look up other aircraft if you want me too, but im more then sure they were created to fight other planes then mig21's, as i already said thats what f-4 were all about.
iwas bored...
this are the countries that use mig21s currently. How many of them do you consider threats (besides almighty n. korea)? hell so you even know where they're located? :rofl:
Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Cambodia (grounded),Croatia, Cuba (most grounded), Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Laos (grounded), Libya (most grounded), Madagascar (grounded), Mongolia (grounded), Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Knipps
11-08-2006, 11:21 AM
ohh one other thing. mig 21 was placed IN SERVICE in 1959. all those aircraft are much younger. F-15 might have been introduced in 1972 but it was put in service 17 years later in 1989! are you trying to compare 1959 technology to 1989?
i can look up other aircraft if you want me too, but im more then sure they were created to fight other planes then mig21's, as i already said thats what f-4 were all about.
iwas bored...
this are the countries that use mig21s currently. How many of them do you consider threats (besides almighty n. korea)? hell so you even know where they're located? :rofl:
Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Cambodia (grounded),Croatia, Cuba (most grounded), Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Laos (grounded), Libya (most grounded), Madagascar (grounded), Mongolia (grounded), Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Eastern Europe, Middle East, Asia, Africa, (plus Cuba)
Eastern Europe, Middle East, Asia, Africa, (plus Cuba)
if that was your attempt to tell me where the countries are located. thats a poor job. i meant if i gave u a map of the world can you point to it? and this is not what its all about... but nice try i guess, as they teach in US high school trying is for winners :lol:
Knipps
11-08-2006, 11:33 AM
if that was your attempt to tell me where the countries are located. thats a poor job. i meant if i gave u a map of the world can you point to it? and this is not what its all about... but nice try i guess, as they teach in US high school trying is for winners :lol:
i wasn't about to go into an indepth description of where each country is located...
i dont think tsar was really asking anyone to tell him where the countires were located...it was a retorical question, lol.
edit: btw that was my 5,500th post... and see, i have no need to make a whole thread about it like brando :-D
i dont think tsar was really asking anyone to tell him where the countires were located...it was a retorical question, lol.
ding ding ding, this mad gets a cookie! :lol: the reason i included that in there is because majority of people in US dont even know where vietnam is and you people had a war there. but lets continue with our previous disscussion. i dont wanna give out geography lessons.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.