|Anyone find it odd that||Dorf411|
Dec 24, 2003 3:58 PM
|when Sadaam was caught by our great soldiers that he had $750K (if I recall correctly) of United States currency. He didn't have $750K worth of worthless Iraqi money he had the same wonderful cash we use here in the US. Isn't that funny that this dumb bastard had to resort to our money instead of his own?|
|Not at all odd||Dave_Stohler|
Dec 24, 2003 9:22 PM
|He went into hiding just as his regime was crumbling, and, as a result, "his" money would then be worthless. Therefore, he chose the single most recognized currency in the world, namely, the US dollar.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Why did you find it odd?
|Good point I guess I should have said||Dorf411|
Dec 25, 2003 7:41 AM
|Isn't it ironic?|
|If he had Euros it would have been a million by now. nm||divve|
Dec 24, 2003 10:54 PM
|A little less jingoism, a little more thought...||retro|
Dec 25, 2003 9:24 AM
|I'm not at all a Saddam sympathizer, but this post is an example of the danger of lifting your opinions from political speeches. That "dumb bastard" was smart enough to take over a good-sized country and run it for 20 years, to jerk the United States around like a puppet for a decade (he got most of his weapons from us, when Reagan was president and Bush I was vp), to come away from the first gulf war with his power intact, to build palaces worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to evade the world's most powerful army for eight months, and to get $750,000 in cash together in the first place. People are still blowing things up and killing Americans in his name, even though he's powerless now.
It's a huge underestimation, dangerous and stupid to call him "dumb." That's like calling the 9/11 terrorists "stupid" or "cowardly," which a lot of people still do. They gave their lives for a cause they believed in and, with an investment reportedly less than $250,000, caused the U.S. close to a trillion dollars in direct and indirect damage and military expenditures. We should be that smart.
|A little less jingoism, a little more thought...||Pygme|
Dec 25, 2003 12:48 PM
|You may not be a Saddam Sympathizer but you are a woefully misinformed person.
"was smart enough to take over a good-sized country and run it for 20 years," Smarts had nothing todo with it. It was brutality. You wouldt call a rapist smart would you?
"jerk the United States around like a puppet for a decade" Wrong again, he jerked around the UN. Big differnce. Only when the current Administration was fed up did it change.
"(he got most of his weapons from us, when Reagan was president and Bush I was vp)" This statement is beyond belief! Can you name one weapon he has in his inventory that was US made? He has T-72's, T-72's, T-54s, Grails, ZSU's, BMP's which are all soviet made. He has Mirage jets and exocet missiles-French made. He has fitters, frogfoots, fencers, and migs, all soviet made. He has Scuds in any number of variants all Chineese made. Etc Etc
"to come away from the first gulf war with his power intact, to build palaces worth hundreds of millions of dollars" Yes, the palaces were built from the OIL for FOOD program which had oversight from the UN. There was so much curruption there that the only ones who rival the amount of money he was making was the adminstrators of the fund.
" evade the world's most powerful army for eight months" Where is he now? Where was he hiding? The unabomber was on the loose for 20 years. Eric Rudolph for 5 years- both in the US.
"and to get $750,000 in cash together in the first place." See UN OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM.
"People are still blowing things up and killing Americans in his name, even though he's powerless now" Duh, arabs have been blowing up things from the time they discovered explosives. With or without him, they will continue this lunacy.
"It's a huge underestimation, dangerous and stupid to call him "dumb." That's like calling the 9/11 terrorists "stupid" or "cowardly," which a lot of people still do" They are, and they will alwasy be. They accomplished nothing but the first step to their own destruction.
"caused the U.S. close to a trillion dollars in direct and indirect damage and military expenditures. We should be that smart." That is an investment, had we done nothing, the cost would be infinately more in both money and human lives.
|Can you see AT ALL through those rose-colored glasses?||retro|
Dec 25, 2003 1:47 PM
|Aw, look, I'm not going to spoil Christmas by arguing with you. I didn't really mean to post in the first place--I was looking for something else and that caught my eye. But you and the original poster are exactly where the Bush administration needs you to be: Everybody who thinks like us is smart, benevolent, right and has God on their side, and everybody who disagrees is misguided, evil and/or a traitor. Don't you have any trouble at all believing that the 5 percent of the world's population that happens to live between Canada and Mexico are the only ones who matter?|
Dec 25, 2003 2:28 PM
|Any chance that maybe YOU could run for president?|
|Can you see AT ALL through those rose-colored glasses?||Dorf411|
Dec 25, 2003 6:22 PM
|Now where did you come up with all of that information about the original poster? You are the one that talking about the Bush administration, I never once mentioned the Bush administration. I guess it was foolish of me to think this could be a simple discussion of how when the US troops are hot on the heels of Sadaam he has to resort to using the currency of the same country that is chasing him down while still in his own country. My mistake, I was so bored and forgot that this board is so full of extreme activists.|
|It's not Christmas any more where I live, so I can jump in here.||purplepaul|
Dec 25, 2003 10:23 PM
|I find it ironic and amusing that those who hate us beyond reason also rely on us, our currency, technology, grain, computers, etc. If they had any sense of the ridiculous, they'd give up in shame or go live on a mountain somewhere WITHOUT cars and satellite phones.
There is no doubt the US has been duplicitous in its dealings with many people, starting with the American Indian. But there isn't a country on Earth that is any cleaner and most are, to indulge in extreme understatement, FAR worse. Why do I say this? Well, because living in a country doesn't make one inherently evil or corrupt. That comes from being human. And Americans are just humans like everybody else. Sometimes I truly believe that our critics from without and within forget that. And people in other countries aren't automatically pure, either. Our power and position as leaders in this world make us visible targets when our failings show. There's nothing wrong with that. But I wonder if this is the first time that the truly powerful have become the scapegoats.
So, what would one expect from a country's leader? To say that we're a bunch of liars who don't deserve our place in the world? Not going to happen. The Germans tried it and have vowed to never do that again.
Now, I've never thought that a critic of America was necessarily traitorous. But I am offended that someone who takes pride in the great things that are a big part of this country, that keep people from all over the world coming here, or trying to, by the millions, that he is accused of looking through rose colored glasses. You can see so clearly how biased he is, why can't you see how biased you are?
|Can you see AT ALL through those rose-colored glasses?||Pygme|
Dec 27, 2003 6:40 AM
|You see, you are assuming a lot. There are many many things that I disagree with the Bush adminstration about. But I give credit where credit is due. (Just the same as I did with the previous administration.) For the record I am disgusted by this Admin's immigration policy and the 400 Billion dollar prescription drug plan (that will be well over a trillion dollars before it is done) to name just two.
Get off of your idealogical high horse and you will recognize when YOU are telling lies.
|Oh yeah, retro.||Pygme|
Dec 27, 2003 6:43 AM
|Before I fall into your trap, I noticed that you did not try to factually dispute my points. You took the typical loser-of-the-argument approach of personal insult in order to marginalize the advesary and then changed the subject.|| |