Zipperfish wrote:
Oooh, this is getting nasty.
Why, yes it is. And not wanting to be left out of the nastiness you added fuel to the fire with:
Zipperfish wrote:
Really, neither America, Britain nor Iran has much high ground here. All three states can be characterized by a propensity for war, torture and arbitrary detention. I have no sympathy for any of them.
Equating two democracies with a theocratic regime is not precisely logical, is it?
Zipperfish wrote:
Personally, I wish George W. had had the balls to take up Saddam on his challenge to a duel. If we settled more disputes that way, the world would be a better place. But Bush turns into a pussy as soon as someone asks him to fight.
But mayber we can get Blair and that wingnut Iranian guy to duke it out. Cage match. And they both have to wear ridiculous wrestling outfits.
Bush would've probably whacked the crap out of Saddam.
![[boxing]](./images/smilies/box2.gif "boxing")
In my personal experience it is the worst tyrants like Saddam or Manuel Noriega who fold and cry like a little baby when confronted by a real threat. These guys are quick to have someone else carry out their dirty work for them but they quickly cringe when their own hands might be sullied. They have lots of big words and bluster so long as it isn't
their butt on the line.
Saddam's true personality was best revealed when he first came into custody and had a medic checking him over - he looked helpless and lost like a little puppy. Without his army to back him up he wasn't much of anything.
His sons, I will note, died with their boots on and went down in a hail of bullets.
Saddam died ignominiously at the end of a rope whilst listening to the taunts and jeers of his fellow countrymen who no longer needed to fear the SOB.
It was an appropriate way for him to meet
Iblis.
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
