Flak
vBülletin Förum
There would be plenty of babes in my harem if I were Saddam. And I mean ladies.
What would you do if you are ... Saddam?
- Thread starter nihilistic
- Start date
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
That is absurd. Absolutely absurd. I don't know if I can be bothered to explain yet again why Bush and Saddam are poles apart. Suffice to say, Saddam has absolute power, Bush does not, and kicking people out of public spaces is not quite on the same level as gassing your own people.
Well im not even remotely impressed with Bush.
But i do think its a bit OTT to say he is as bad as saddam. Saddam has personally @taken a hand@ in torture after all.
Bush does scare me though to be honest. As im not convinced he will stop with iraq. Every muslim country he bombs outside the UN will cause more muslims to hate the USA and will result with more terrorists wanting to strike at her.
Ellie
But i do think its a bit OTT to say he is as bad as saddam. Saddam has personally @taken a hand@ in torture after all.
Bush does scare me though to be honest. As im not convinced he will stop with iraq. Every muslim country he bombs outside the UN will cause more muslims to hate the USA and will result with more terrorists wanting to strike at her.
Ellie
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
If there was a fairy that could make food out of piles of dirt then no one would go hungry but it ain't going to happen.
Flak
vBülletin Förum
I think you guys are missing the point here.
Nukes are not going to go away unless they are replaced by something far more powerful. But this isn't happening now.
Dirt may be turned into food someday by some sort of advanced technology (probably bio-technology). But this isn't happening now.
However, Saddam DOES have harems over there. Right this moment. I hereby volunteer to 'liberate' Saddam's harems. I do so strictly out of a love for my country.
Nukes are not going to go away unless they are replaced by something far more powerful. But this isn't happening now.
Dirt may be turned into food someday by some sort of advanced technology (probably bio-technology). But this isn't happening now.
However, Saddam DOES have harems over there. Right this moment. I hereby volunteer to 'liberate' Saddam's harems. I do so strictly out of a love for my country.
Hmm public opinion in USA would surely stop him once the casualties mounted up.
I mean, when fighting a rabble of an army like that in iraq casualties are probably going to be low. But trying to invade a country with a proffesional army would cause a lot of casualties on both sides, it prolly would escalate into a world war as well.
Plus if a matter of survival they might just use those nukes.
So i think those currently possessing nukes can afford to call his bluff ;p
Unless of course he is mad
Ellie
I mean, when fighting a rabble of an army like that in iraq casualties are probably going to be low. But trying to invade a country with a proffesional army would cause a lot of casualties on both sides, it prolly would escalate into a world war as well.
Plus if a matter of survival they might just use those nukes.
So i think those currently possessing nukes can afford to call his bluff ;p
Unless of course he is mad
Ellie
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
This is just so ridiculous. Do you really think the American taxpayers want to pay for them being the world's police? And the USA can't abolish the UN but it can ignore it. Though considering the amount of time and effort America has spent trying to get another resolution I highly doubt that will happen. There have been many wars since WWII that have not been authorised by the UN, this war isn't anything new. At least all the main players are using the UN as a forum for their discussions.
I can't decide whether you are ignorant or stupid. Bush cares about public opinion because Bush wants to be elected again, that's how democracy works. And that is why he has done his upmost to get American public opinion behind him and it looks like he has been successful. Public opinion matters at great deal to any politician (even dictators).
America will threaten NATO to disarm? Why? For what end? America doesn't have a monopoly on nukes, France, UK and Russia being the obvious examples of that. America simply can't conquer the world and there is absolutely no reason to think they would want too. Of the current world powers America has the least imperialistic history of them all. I think you need to go back to your tinfold hats and propoganda websites.
Yes. Nukes are needed for protection and unless that need is removed then they shall remain. I don't see how getting rid of nukes is any different to getting rid of armies. Sure it would be nice if it were possible but it simply isn't possible.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Originally posted by Elden
I'm not a lady, I'm a man
Why did you think that ???
From a girls POV 'babe' can be used for guys too.
I thought they would use this in Oz too, must be just a UK cultural thing.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Sure you are! We're ALL cynical!
When it comes to impeachment, he'll listen all right.
Not all of the USA are borgs. Not every American gets off on war.
And America must obey international rules like the rest of us. Despite all the macho rhetoric.
Otherwise the Yanks would have conquered the Middle East by last year.
They are most powerful sure, but not the only powerful nation on earth.
Shaitan
der Besucher
If nukes are gone there is no threat to any nation? Several millenia of history argue against you here.
Anyway, to the thread topic. I myself if placed in Saddam's position would continue what I had been doing for the past several decades. Give up as little as possible to allow my european allies the clout to protect me. Then I would obey just enough of the resolutions to get the economic sanctions lifted so I could save up and have the French build me another nuclear reactor.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
I have to agree!
Would Hitler have invaded Russia if he had been facing a swift nuclear retaliation?
Not a chance!
1.- Stack my army in cities with lots of short range missiles surrounded with anti thanks mines, and wait for terrestial assault.
2.- Hide some special force within normal population, so later on those guy will sabotage and organize guerrila warfare.
3.- Boomy trap all oil field.
4.- Try to get a secret alliance with NK, they need oil, irak need missile and nuclear weapon.
5.- Try to get an alliance with Iran, they are able to nuke US aircraft carrier in persic gulf and got a huge army to kick out US terestial force stack in koweit and saoudid arabia.
6.- Once World War 3 is well set up, just get a good laugh.
2.- Hide some special force within normal population, so later on those guy will sabotage and organize guerrila warfare.
3.- Boomy trap all oil field.
4.- Try to get a secret alliance with NK, they need oil, irak need missile and nuclear weapon.
5.- Try to get an alliance with Iran, they are able to nuke US aircraft carrier in persic gulf and got a huge army to kick out US terestial force stack in koweit and saoudid arabia.
6.- Once World War 3 is well set up, just get a good laugh.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Yeah but doesn't France also export arms to Israel? Maybe it is all part of a French plan. Arm Saddam then disarm him so that you can rearm again. That could be why they don't want him removed from power. But then that is being cynical.
No but I bet he would have used nukes against Russia if he had them (which he nearly did).
What exactly is Bush going to impeached for? Going against public opinion?
A lot of people seem to forget this important point.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
You are learning the basics of the Great Game or arms trading.
Then us!
Clinton was going to be impeached for canoodling with a fat secretary, so why not?
Mostly Americans.
Similar threads
