Yes, they used kids music and metallica as torture to get the Iraqi POWs to talk. Our music is like a soul vice to them. It's great.

1) Yeah, he should just lie down and he ha sno right to defend his country.
4) The US sold WMD's/ingredients for WMD's to him and this also happend:
5) He provided proof, reports etc. It's just that you chose to not belive him. He let the inspectors in several times.
6) Again, "Operation Occupation of Iraq" didn't mean he was nto allowed to defend himself.

what's the truth serum?

Sodium Pentothal (what is commonly called "truth serum") is not what many people think it is. It can reduce one's inhibitions but can't take away one's self-control. You can't use it to prevent someone from lying.

Also, IIRC, administering drugs to a POW against his will violates the Geneva Convention.

Some info:
(from http://www.scienceweb.org/tv/highincident.html)

Remember, the pictures that we see of him are the pictures "they" want us to see of him.

Maybe this was just a misunderstanding of what he meant by "Gulf War" but, if not, you need to read up on your history a bit. The Gulf War was set in motion August 2, 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US did very little in the way of attacking Iraq beyond what was necessary to push them out of Kuwait. So, if by defending his country you mean continuing to fight for the ability to continue his crimes, then I suppose you're right. But we never say that someone who murders a police officer resisting arrest "had a right to defend himself." Why? Because he was defending actions which were ultimately wrong, whatever they may be. Same with the Gulf War. Saddam was defending his ability to invade a small neighboring country. He had no right to invade it and thus had no "right" to defend himself.

The UN refused to believe him as well. And he never provided all the proof and documents they asked for. This is an indisputable fact. Maybe it's true - maybe he didn't have WMDs anymore, but either way, proof has never been provide of ALL of their destruction.

Whether or not he had WMD's at the time of this war, I can'ty answer that for sure. I know what I think. But there are certain indisputable facts that apparently you're missing if you think that Iraq was "defending" itself from some injustice in the first Gulf War and if you think they provided proof of the destruction of their WMDs.

Believe whatever you want about the justification of this war. There isn't any PROOF that either side is correct. But believe what you will while understanding that Saddam instigated the first Gulf War - and NO ONE disagrees with this, except perhaps Saddam - and that while they may or may not have had WMDs anymore, proof was never provided.

Opinions are a lot more valid when they're based off the correct facts.

Let's just give him to the Mossad for a weekend and get it over with.
.
.
.
.
. . . . if we haven't, already.

Saddam did instigate it, but the US allowed it to happen. Saddam told the American ambassador (April Glaspie) that he was going to invade Kuwait. Part of her response:
Two days before the war, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before Congress:
Essentially giving Saddam the green light. If the US was really concerned about the protection of Kuwait, we could have just stated then that we would retaliate against an Iraqi incursion and stopped the whole thing without firing a single shot.

That the Bush Sr. administration allowed it to go ahead makes them, in my mind, partially responsible, even if the primary responsibility is Saddam's. It seems clear that, for some reason (oil, perhaps?) the President was interested in having a war.

truth serum = yes

They have very good stuff. even if they just used sodium pentathol, that would work well, plus you don't have any memory of it afterwards, so he wouldn't even know he gave it up.

They release the false statement that "he isn't telling anything" so that the people he's giving up under drugs won't run so far or fast. This probably won't do much good though. Somehow he isnt' saying much, yet they are capturing many others in rebel leadership because of "papers" they found. yeah, papers...

of course they will. Theyd break fingers and toes and use bamboo shoots in the finger nails and japanese water torture if they thought they could get away with it.

Just think a few more seconds and this thread would be a moot point and Saddam would have been splattered all over the inside of his little rat hole from the grenades that were just about dropped in there.

Personally I think he should be raped publicly, beaten publicly, have all of his bones broken publicly, then be raped again and left laying in the dirt to slowly die. and that would be the nice things I would have done to him.

Yep, you got it. It was all Bush Sr.'s plan to make a war. Nevermind the fact that it was NOT the president who gave Saddam the "green light."

Nevermind the fact that the UN (not the president) gave him an entire month to pull out or face military retaliation. Set on Dec 17th, they gave him until Jan 15th.

Yeah, the ambassador fucked up. But please, there's no Right-Winged conspiracy.

Iraq agreed to a Soviet peace plan that would have met all of the UN requirements on Feb. 21 1991. (http://www.moqatel.com/Mokatel/data/...Docs18_1-1.htm)

It was past the Jan. 15th date but would have ended the conflict without ground combat, which started on the 23rd. Nevertheless, the President refused to accept the plan, preferring to use force. There was clearly more at stake than forcing Iraq to meet UN demands -- something Bush Sr. decided was worth risking American soldiers in a ground attack.