Saddam's Unhappy Crimbo, Puns Confirmed.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Seadog, Dec 26, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    The anti - Santa has paid Saddam a visit and confirmed his punishment, the big stand easy within thirty days.

    BBC- Saddam to Die.

    I hope his execution improves things in Iraq but I'm not holding my breath.

    So - does anyone else see something odd at the Human Rights groups calling for a re-trial? I mean, they screamed bloody hell about the countless murders that Saddam committed during his reign. Then they screamed about the deaths of innocent iraqis during and since the war and now they're screaming about the trial and sentence of the man responsible for most of the problems.

    Just exactly what does it take to make these people happy? :roll:

  3. World peace and everything made pink an fluffy. That might shut them up for nearly a Dog watch.
  4. A tragedy. For all his faults, at least he had a good record in maintaining law and order. OK he went a bit OTT, but unlike our so-called allies in the House of Sand, he didn't promote the theological ideology and culture underpinning Al Q. If you look at the death toll from that perspective you might wonder if members of the right family are facing the ignonomy of the gallows.
  5. Bang on 'Always', he did at least control the little gentlemen with tea towels on their heads! probably more dead now than during his reign - let's reinstate the sod and leave him to it - bet the problem would be sorted in weeks! And none of our people would get hurt!

    OOOOh that'll get someone going!!! :twisted:
  6. Must agree with AaC, and would like to think that someone in power with some common sense would agree with Walrus, but there is no chance of any of the lack lustre politicians that we are blessed with having either common sense or foresight. Imagine Bliar jeopardizing his (huge) pension and all the goodies to come from after dinner chats to the septics when he has "retired" from British politics, by speaking the truth now. He did, after all, state that he was quite prepared to see Saddam continue in power providing the WMD business (!) was sorted.

  7. As attractive as that may seem, it's now too late and not even a remote option. It would send totally the wrong message to all the other nasty buggers running other various countries. Leaving him alone is one thing but throwing him out, creating chaos, then putting him back is another matter all together.

    I do realise, of course, you were all being whimsical.
  8. Whimsical... is that a real word? :lol:
  9. Saddam is an old man, but if he walked out of prison now in his nix and sox the country would be back on it's knees in a heartbeat. Bush and co have fcuked this right up and we all know that the cycle of violence will continue until such time as the gloves come off and that means a hard bastard dictator takes over and stamps on the insurgants. As in all tribal cultures be it African or Arab, it is in their nature to fight until the strongest emerges. Sadly, democracy is not an option, they just dont have the education or genetics for it. I just hope I get to see the next dictator in my lifetime so our troops don't keep dying out there.
  10. Silver Fox
    Answer: ANARCHY? :wink:

    Ling I have to agree with you, the Tribal system is already in action in Iraq, as is everywhere else in the middle east. Rags will only ever follow the man with the biggest stick ! I watched all of the Shah's loyal followers become radical Muslims when Khomeini took over, and that was virtually overnight. The same will happen again when some one tops "Armoured Dinner Jacket", or when we finally leave Iraq.
  11. It's not about genetics Lingy! It's in part cultural and part historic. Attempts at using education as a tool for modernisation has, as with Sharist Iran, led to Islamic Radicalisation rather than the germination of a liberal-democratic ideal as the dominant force for change. There is no tradition or long history, as in the West, of struggling for liberty and free speech. Their struggle for change is relativly recent in historic terms and has taken a number of specific courses, all of which err towards dictatorships rather that a liberal approach to decision making and debating issues.

    On the tribal front I would not however fundamentally disagree, as Afganistan itself neatly illustrates, or increasingly Scotland v England? :wink:
  12. No competition there Steve, the English have their boot well and truly on the neck of the skirt wearers'. :lol: :wink:
  13. Instead of spending all this money protecting our (OIL) interests in the middle east we would be better off investing it in finding an alternative to oil. If we'd started doing this 40 years ago a solution would have been found and we would not have to kowtow to our so called middle eastern friends in an effort to preserve our oil supplies.
    It would be fantastic if oil suddenly became worthless.
    Just a dream though unfortunately.
  14. No argument here Slim, or with you come to that ACC.
  15. You hit the nail on the head Slim!We do have alternatives to oil,they have been in use in many Countries across the World.Brazil has been running it vehicles on alcohol made from wood for years,likewise the Germans and Austrians have been using rapeseed oil for at least 20 Years!I just fear its the Oil Comapnies and Motor Industry dragging their heels not to mention the loss of revenue for HM Robbers!I remember as a kid (1971)bing in a Taxi running on LPG,why hasnt this been pushed a lot more?????
    Easy answer,Shareholders payouts and HMG dont want it to happen!!!
  16. Agree with that.

    The problem is we interfere rather than taking decisive action. We should have either officially subjugated countries in the Middle East or kept out of it altogether. This ROE etc is a load of bollocks - its war for the cameras and it doesn't work. Its basics from WWI and II here folks - we killed alot of people to achieve our goals (Ardenne would never have happened in todays climate for example - too dirty) in those conflicts but in the end it had to be done and history tells us we were in the right.

    We (the developed world) created all our own problems in the middle east over time. Our cardinal sin is that we sold them gear that they weren't politcally and socially advanced enough to deal with and naturally it comes back to haunt us later. Its quite obvious really, you'd think the CIA, KGB would think more carefully before arming people who obviously we are going to have problems with - we are not friends. Now our troops are killed with our own weapons.

    As for going to war in Iraq specifically, i don't think we went to war for WMD or Oil, i think we went to war because Osama's made us look like a right load of berks and the American administration especially was always going to make someone pay and seeing as we didn't really like Saddam...
  17. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    the Sherminator wrote
    Other than the Malmedy Massacre (other side's doing) what was so dirty about the Ardennes Offensive ( if that's what you mean?).
  18. Perhaps its a referance to the Germans using English speakers dressed as US troops to stir it up behind the lines?
  19. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    Andym wrote
    My italics.

    Unless The Sherminator is German. Even at that the Germans didn't achieve their goals in the Ardennes and now, psyops is a fine art, not dirty at all. So it's back to what are you on about Sherminator?

    My 'off topic' alarm is sounding.

Share This Page