WMD The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein Videos

davevelasco Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Are you denying that your people has no poverty??? is that an offense to say USA has no social security system and people asking for money in the streets, and/or have no way to pay their debts on real states? Latin America are facing extreme poverty, extreme hunger, that's why people rather to die trying to cross the borders than staying in their countries. But is a reality that the whole world is managed by a bunch of unconscious people who don't care but for their own good

l8rthen Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - davevelasco, I did not say that that there was no poverty in my country. What was in question was that you said all the people (including USA) are hungry, homeless, ad nauseum. This simply is not true. The fact that your people flock to the US means that there are oportunities here to earn a good income and to have nice things. You seem to be an embittered soul who gets caught up in negative destructive class warfare thinking.

davevelasco Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - All you can see is owning things? Latin people are willing to earn more money in US than they do in their own countries. But that's a dream, an illusion. They SURELY earn more than they can in their own countries, but you buy an avocado for 10 times we do in my country. If you can buy nice things it is because your philosophy is "You are what you own". I am not against high classes. I am against POLITICAL CLASS, because they create levels of humans based on OWNING THINGS.

davevelasco Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - I8rthen, While we spend letters and thoughts trying to defend what we believe, they are planning on our futures without asking to us. They represent us, but they are not our leaders, they don't know how to do so. More than the half of your country voted against Bush, and even so, he won the elections. so how can he be a leader? how can he represent the will of the american people?

davevelasco Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - I8rthen,I am sorry, but I did not use the word nauseum (since I do not know the meaning of that word), and if you believe there is no hungry and homeless people in your country, you should try to come out from your bubble and face the truth.

l8rthen Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - davevelasco, why twist what I say? There is nothing wrong with earning a nice income of having nice things ( nice pickup and not a piece of shit that breaks down on often. Again, you institute class war that does not allwo people to improve themselves. You have to work hard to earn more. You can buy a house, a cllege education for your kids, etc, You are building for the future so that your kids and their kids can have better future. comprende?

l8rthen Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - davevelasco, Forget about nitpicking on Bush. Make yourself better. Work hard, Provide and plan for your childrens future. Give up the class warfare that will only keep people inpoverished. Work so that all win. Forget about what only benefits you.

l8rthen Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - davevelasco, you ned to go back and read what I wrote. Of course there are homeless people in all societies. Some choose to be so. There are both private organizations and public organizations to provide assistance. But so what? The goal should NOT be to provide free housing or whatever, the goal should ALWAYS be to encourage people to be responsible and to pull their own weight. Comprende?

davevelasco Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - I8rthen,I cannot deny what you say. you think as Capitalist, and so do I. I work for my country, for my region, for my city, but the world is falling in pieces, thinking only about your and your kids future is not the reality of our times. With global warming there may not be a future even for us! we have to face the world's reality and work TOGETHER for the future, if we don't do it, the governments wont do that neither.

xyzllii Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - So what is different about Hussein than any other of the World Leaders. Napolean. Churchill. Kennedy. BUSH. !!! THEY ALL WANT POWER ! At least Hussein ran a secular country.

raZrantZ Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - yz eugenicz iz still with uz ... raZ rantZ chantZ ...

noallo690 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - good comment

monspile Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - very ruler try to get power but they use power for the shake of their civilians not to throw chemical bombs and mass destruction weapon on them.Napolean.Churchillthese all ruler gained power but they never killed village and village of their own country after getting the power.Hitler even had good relation with many countries but iraq never had good relation with their own neighbor do u feel proud of your saddam. see the video how ppl kicked ass of saddam idol it shows how much they loved saddam

monspile Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Anyway i liked your choice. you should get leader like criminal and underworld DON. who executed his first murder at the age of 10....keep it up and this time try to find some leader who executed murder at the age of five years..if you do not get tell me i ll send some thieves from our country, give them power so that they can play football with your head

ciscokid998 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Rather than to leave a comment on this thread challenging some opinions left here. I would rather suggest to those people who side with Saddam and other radicals to watch another video by Evan Sayet - watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c . Sayet say's it better than I ever could.

pheil58 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - just a ganster running a country

lsucdhild1 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Do u even know what that word means?

Ericjpomeroy Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Yeah, cause CNN isn't propaganda. Just the most biased news network on TV.

lsucdhild1 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - "Do you?" Ha, I'll take that as a no. Propaganda is when you deliberately spread ideas and rumors in a way to help or harm a person/group/government/etc. This documentary, which I doubt you watched the whole thing, shows you all the FACTS that for some reason no one wants to talk about. Its no different than a documentary about Hitler and the holocaust, just not nearly as extreme. Would that be propaganda too, in your opinion? I really find it disturbing how you fell u need to defend this guy

hointer Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - TBH AMERICA AIDED SADDAM ALOT

burbonboy Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - You neo-cons are a lot like Liberals,,so I wouldn't talk If I were you. You get so emotional over one video. You care more about investing Billions in Nation Building,rather than spending some of that money on things that the U.S. needs!!

digging4gold Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - The original reasons Bush & Cheney gave for invading Iraq were: WMDs (didn't exist) and links with al-Quaida (also didn't exist). Yes, Saddam was very bad man who did some very bad things. But if that's a justification for invading and overthrowing a leader then one has to ask why Saddam was singled-out. Why has the US not instigated regime change in Saudi Arabia, or in some countries in Africa & South America? Why not Israel? Why did they take so long to take action against Milosevic's Serbia?

digging4gold Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - If the US is going to judge countries against a yard-stick of "crimes against humanity" then surely they should be invading places all over the world? The real reasons for Bush's invasion of Iraq were: Oil and political capital. To try to overlay a moral justification to the (illegal) invasion of Iraq is completely wrong. However, the world is certainly a better place without Saddam. Although I don't think anyone can really say that Iraq has become a better place since his overthrow....

ciscokid998 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Saddam attacked his neighbors, was an Arab Baath party nationalist, model his ambitions after Hitler, tried to circumvent every U.N. resolution, didn't abide by the treaty signed after the 1st gulf war. shot at U.S. aircraft over the no fly zones, tried to lead the Arabs & provoked Israel to start a war. Paid families of terrorist who attacked Israel. Was previously caught lying about possessing WMD'S. Used WMD'S. All previous efforts to contain & get Saddam to cooperate failed.

mkoppel2040 Says:

Sep 6, 2008 - Well. we can all agree that the end justified the means then, couldn't we?