To all you ignorant...

No thanks politician will do just fine for him.
less emotive.
less likely to cause me to jump to conclusions about him simply because of his demonised description.

Well what can be expected from a person who displays such an obviously limited intelligence. You know Lupe once you kill those brain cells they don't grow back. Lay off the juice and save what's let.

"Well what can be expected from a person who displays such an obviously limited intelligence."

how about an uninspired insult as opposed to a serious addition to the debate?

Pleases Lupe, you aren't contributing, open your eyes. You always post with a heavy biased, that is why you annoy so many people. This is the last I'm going to say on this, it just isn't worth the hassle arguing with someone like you. You obviously have some problem with the US which goes back past 9/11. You should deal with it yourself rather than truing to get your posts up.

Ultra and I are having a conversation regarding Saddam his position in Iraq and his rights as a democratically elected leader, I might not like the fact, but its a fact none the less.

you can join in that discussion or you can get lost, really doesn't make any difference to me.

But please don't just stand there being sanctemonious, makes you look dorky.

Well done Mad Scientist you have passed with flying colors. But now that you identified me tell me one thing where were you at the time? Behind your computer playing command and conquer?

The same questions goes to you too Ultra. And as for what you said you mean the next is Iraq, the Chinise, the Korean, basicly the blacks the reds the yellows and what is left from other color exept the white. Yes we are going to kick their butt. The Arian Race. Isn't it a bit more like Hitlers ideas what you are saying? We started from Saddam and then you ended up saying about the left wing believers? Let me tell you what I have learn in my school years Fashism doesn't have a color. It can be red, black or blue. And this time I hope you did understand the question. If you want to judge somebody look for your own problems first because you will find similarities!!!

Saddam, an elected leader ? You're playing with the words Lupe. Sure, he has been elected, you right. BUT HE WAS ALONE ON THE RUN AND IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE " VOTE 4 ME OR DIE " !

I didn't see any opponent to Saddam ? If you saw one, just let us know about him.

And you Dragon73, remove your head from your ass and breath some fresh air, you need it !!!

external image

MS really cool!!!
Ultra thanks for your input, you showed me your inteligence. Apparently, in your case, the best defence is attacking? Not bad, but the questions are still standing!!! And by not answering you are more or less accepting what I'm saying.

...........................................

"Saddam, an elected leader ? You're playing with the words Lupe. Sure, he has been elected, you right. BUT HE WAS ALONE ON THE RUN AND IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE " VOTE 4 ME OR DIE " "

Your missing the point.

I can't prove that Bush got in to power democratically, I can't prove he didn't intimodate opposition, or voters or rig the elections. I can't prove blair didn't either.

Similarly, although its pretty obvious saddam did get elected unfairly, I can't prove this.
no one can.

The problem here is that a democratic election hinges on one very flimsy suposition. that the election is actually democratic.

If one starts suggesting that one countrys democratic election was rigged then we must also accept that other democratic elections may also have been rigged, This isn't a question of not liking who got into power or which party you support its a question of supporting the democratic process.

If we stop supporting the democratic process in one country, then it undermines the process in all other countrys allowing any loosing party to claim they did so due to foul play on the part of the other party.

If, instead of going home with their tail between their legs grumbling that the person they voted for didn't get into power, the voters of the loosing opposition rose up and shouted foul play, we would have anarchy on our hands, especially in the US where the election was so close it could split the country in two.

There is more at stake here than Saddam and Iraq, If we don't show parity in our dealings with the democracys of other countrys no matter how obvious it is that the democracy is a sham, we open up a huge can of worms both at home and abroad.

BTW there was an opposition to saddam, his name escapes me, he pulled out just before the vote, however I do remember him saying that he didn't mind.

his view was that he risked his life by staying in however no matter how rigged the election, the fact that there was one had introduced the concept of democracy to the people of Iraq, and that over time, this would lead to a more democratic system.

I believe he was right.

Unfortunately we're about to # that up by bombing any chance they had of evolving that wa back to the stone age...again.

1) Thislink will help you.

2) Lupe, I agree with you. But I think that Bush won legally and didn't cheat. You, you think that he didn't have to win, but Gore had to win. That's where we don't agree.

3) I know and I agree.

4) Yes, the republicans won and the democrat are not happy. And of course, they do everything to split the country in 2 sides. They are not fair losers. Did you ever see republicans who were acting ( when they were not winning ) like the democrat acted when Bush won and Gore losed ?

5) " democracys of other countrys ". Wich others country ? Irak ? Iran? Cuba ? NK ?

6) He was probably a Saddam pupet, and if not, Saddam is not stupid. The guy knew that Saddam would never do anything against him, because the worldwide was looking at these so-called elections. Saddam had to prove that he is/was a " democrat ".

It's strange. We want the same thing ( peace, no more wars, no more terrorisms, no more fanatism ), but we don't agree on how to reach these points.

I wonder why.