PDA

View Full Version : The Saddam and George Show


Pages : [1] 2

vampireuk
03-05-03, 01:01 PM
The Saddam and George show

Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined Saddam
Hussein's challenge to a televised debate, Tim Dowling exclusively
reveals what could have happened had they met

Tim Dowling
Tuesday February 25, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first televised
debate between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, live
from United Nations headquarters in New York. We will
begin with a brief opening statement from each of you.

Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome my
evil friend to the UN, one of the great American
institutions for the propulsion of freedom throughout
the world.

Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in today's
debate we may find some common ground between the
Iraqi people's commitment to peace and human progress
and America's desire to destroy the Middle East.

Bush: Do I answer that?

Blair: No. The first question is quite simply this: do
you have any links with al-Qaida?

Bush: I do not.

Blair: The question is for President Saddam.

Saddam: As I told Mr Tony Benn clearly and simply, if
I had links with al-Qaida and I enjoyed those links
then I would not be ashamed to tell the world, but
since I am ashamed to tell the world of this, it
follows that I have no such links.

Bush: Neither do I.

Blair: The second question is for Mr Bush. Mr Bush, if
America and Iraq were to go to war tomorrow, who would
win?

Bush: That's easy. America, right?

Saddam: Even I knew that one.

Bush: That's because the great United American States
of America are on the side of rightliness and
Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil made up of
Iraq, North Korea and... how many are in an axis?
Three?

Blair: I think you're allowed as many as you like.

Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France.

Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that Iraq
is not part of any Axis of Evil.

Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania?

Blair: Let's move on. Saddam, are you willing to
destroy your stockpile of Samoud 2 missiles in
accordance with UN weapons inspectors' orders?

Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq possessed
these so-called weapons, we would never destroy them,
but since we do not have any such weapons, we are
happy to comply, even though these non-existent
weapons certainly do not exceed the proscribed range
of 150 kms. I've tested them myself, and we don't have
any.

Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr
President, is there any way that Saddam Hussein can
avoid war, and what steps must he now take in order to
reach a negotiated solution?

Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First Saddam
must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated
compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully,
in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B,
which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then
he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other
weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found,
to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally,
there is one more task he must perform, which I am not
at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be
enough.

Blair: The translator would like to take your answer
home with him and work on it over the weekend.

Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature.

Saddam: OK.

Blair: Sorry, but I'm not sure that "disarmature" is a
word. I defer to the UN Keeper of the Dictionary, Mr
Richard Stilgoe.

Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means, "the
action of disarming" according to the OED.

Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off.

Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it.

Bush: Too late.

Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an
anagram of 'Demands a Sushi'?

Saddam: Yes, I've heard them all.

Bush: I don't eat sushi. Is there a fish option?

Blair: I'd like to remind everyone at home that the
Monica Lewinsky-Tonya Harding fight follows after the
break.

:D

UDawg
03-05-03, 01:18 PM
LOL funny stuff!!!

The only problem I have with it is that it puts President Bush and Saddam equal. They are not equal.

vampireuk
03-05-03, 01:23 PM
Well they both have a IQ lower than a welsh P.E teacher:D

PsychoSy
03-05-03, 01:27 PM
Oh, their equal allright if you care to dig deep enough in Bush's closet. :angel:

digitalwanderer
03-05-03, 01:40 PM
LOL!

Thanks, I liked. :)

jnd3
03-05-03, 01:53 PM
HA! With a few rare exceptions (Dave Barry (http://www.davebarry.com), P. J. O'Rourke (http://www.groveatlantic.com/grove/wc.dll?groveproc~genAuth~568~0), Scott Ott (http://www.scrappleface.com), James Taranto (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/) ), our pals across the pond have got a corner on news-related humor (or humour, if you prefer).

But something tells me that no matter how deeply we'd look into Bush's closet, we wouldn't see torture, rape, mutilation and murder that we know reside in Saddam's closet (heck, they're practically in his front hall).

Cheers,
JND

UDawg
03-05-03, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by jnd3
HA! With a few rare exceptions (Dave Barry (http://www.davebarry.com), P. J. O'Rourke (http://www.groveatlantic.com/grove/wc.dll?groveproc~genAuth~568~0), Scott Ott (http://www.scrappleface.com), James Taranto (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/) ), our pals across the pond have got a corner on news-related humor (or humour, if you prefer).

But something tells me that no matter how deeply we'd look into Bush's closet, we wouldn't see torture, rape, mutilation and murder that we know reside in Saddam's closet (heck, they're practically in his front hall).

Cheers,
JND

Ya, what he said.

vampireuk
03-05-03, 02:34 PM
Lets keep this as a joke guys, we dont need this sparking into another huge debate:)

|JuiceZ|
03-05-03, 02:42 PM
hehehe, even though I rarely agree w/ how Bush is protrayed I found that quite funny :D

UDawg
03-05-03, 02:46 PM
My last comment was a little sarcasim. Maybe I should have put a :rolleyes: in there.

I love political humor no matter who is the subject.

vampireuk
03-05-03, 02:48 PM
In that case you will love this:D

link (http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html)

nin_fragile14
03-05-03, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by vampireuk
In that case you will love this:D

link (http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html)
Haha!

PsychoSy
03-05-03, 11:01 PM
But something tells me that no matter how deeply we'd look into Bush's closet, we wouldn't see torture, rape, mutilation and murder that we know reside in Saddam's closet (heck, they're practically in his front hall). [/B]

Front hall, hell! Check the drapes!! :D :p :afro:

1stFlight
03-06-03, 09:57 AM
Sure about that? The Washington Post just had an artcile about how we're torturing people now. Even if it isn't Americans doing it, the Bush administration is condoning it. So let's see, what does that leave rape?

Morally speaking we're getting closer to our enemies than any search.

Originally posted by jnd3
HA! With a few rare exceptions (Dave Barry (http://www.davebarry.com), P. J. O'Rourke (http://www.groveatlantic.com/grove/wc.dll?groveproc~genAuth~568~0), Scott Ott (http://www.scrappleface.com), James Taranto (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/) ), our pals across the pond have got a corner on news-related humor (or humour, if you prefer).

But something tells me that no matter how deeply we'd look into Bush's closet, we wouldn't see torture, rape, mutilation and murder that we know reside in Saddam's closet (heck, they're practically in his front hall).

Cheers,
JND

UDawg
03-06-03, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Sure about that? The Washington Post just had an artcile about how we're torturing people now. Even if it isn't Americans doing it, the Bush administration is condoning it. So let's see, what does that leave rape?

Morally speaking we're getting closer to our enemies than any search.

They should have thought of that before they murdered 3000 of our brothers and sisters and children. I have no pitty for them.

Let me get this straight. My son who is 3 1/2 is living his life just as happy as a puppy with a chew toy. He is blown to bits because you think it is inhumane not to torture a terrorist who might have information that could foil the plot to blow up my inocent son? I question you morality. I seriously do or do you think my son had it coming because America had been "unjust" in the past? :rolleyes: Torture them then throw their bodies over board when done.

jnd3
03-06-03, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Sure about that? The Washington Post just had an artcile about how we're torturing people now. Even if it isn't Americans doing it, the Bush administration is condoning it. So let's see, what does that leave rape?

Morally speaking we're getting closer to our enemies than any search.
Got a link? I saw a column (i.e. an opinion piece) on the topic at WaPo, and I saw a CNN report that the latest hairy-backed crazy is being interrogated with "all appropriate pressure", but not full-bore torture (and believe you me, the NY Times and WaPo, not to mention the Guardian in the U.K., would be all over that like a pit bull on a pork roast, or white on rice, if pork offends you :rolleyes:...). The normal stressing type of interrogation techniques (sleep deprivation, being forced to stand or kneel, loud music, bright lights, etc.) is a far cry from car batteries and buckets of water, heated metal stakes, acid, watching your family get raped and murdered, etc.

The former is, in my opinion, acceptable, while the latter is not. There are some depths to which we should not sink.

Cheers,
JND

1stFlight
03-06-03, 11:14 AM
Who's "They" keep your head man, we are responsible for killing dozens of their 3 1/2 year olds. How should, "they" feel about us. And 20 of them killed 3,000 of our brothers and sisters, not the other 1.2Billion of them.

For torture link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48626-2003Mar5.html)
this link referenced an article writen on the Dec26 2002, by the Washington Post about how we do it. Basically, we don't do it here,we have someone else do it. That only makes it arguably better, not morally.

Unfortunately, we (U.S.A) have sown A LOT of ill will towards us. We supported Saddam fro mthe start, gave him the WMD's we're after, supported the overthrow of democratic governements in the ME because they didn't agree with us,. and just recently sold Israel the helicopters used to fire missles at civilian targets.

You want to pick a bone, pick one with the people in charge. It is next to impossible to supress a people indefinately. Eventually they will come after you, and that's what 9/11 was all about.

Unfortunately, we'd have to pay to see it, but here's the snippet. Gee, at least we admit we're breaking International treates and our own laws.

Using Physical Force on Prisoners in the Terror Fight
Article 4 of 9 found

December 31, 2002; Page A16
Section: Editorial
Word Count: 549

The Dec. 26 front-page article "U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations" reports a frightening situation. Employees of the American government are justifying their breaking of international treaties and U.S. laws by "expressing confidence that the American public would back their view." And their use of torture is approved by a superior who says, "I don't think that we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this." This rejection by the

Originally posted by UDawg71
They should have thought of that before they murdered 3000 of our brothers and sisters and children. I have no pitty for them.

UDawg
03-06-03, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Who's "They" keep your head man, we are responsible for killing dozens of their 3 1/2 year olds. How should, "they" feel about us. And 20 of them killed 3,000 of our brothers and sisters, not the other 1.2Billion of them.

For torture link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48626-2003Mar5.html)
this link referenced an article writen on the Dec26 2002, by the Washington Post about how we do it. Basically, we don't do it here,we have someone else do it. That only makes it arguably better, not morally.

Unfortunately, we (U.S.A) have sown A LOT of ill will towards us. We supported Saddam fro mthe start, gave him the WMD's we're after, supported the overthrow of democratic governements in the ME because they didn't agree with us,. and just recently sold Israel the helicopters used to fire missles at civilian targets.

You want to pick a bone, pick one with the people in charge. It is next to impossible to supress a people indefinately. Eventually they will come after you, and that's what 9/11 was all about.

Unfortunately, we'd have to pay to see it, but here's the snippet. Gee, at least we admit we're breaking International treates and our own laws.

Using Physical Force on Prisoners in the Terror Fight
Article 4 of 9 found

December 31, 2002; Page A16
Section: Editorial
Word Count: 549

The Dec. 26 front-page article "U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations" reports a frightening situation. Employees of the American government are justifying their breaking of international treaties and U.S. laws by "expressing confidence that the American public would back their view." And their use of torture is approved by a superior who says, "I don't think that we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this." This rejection by the

Where are you from, N.C.? I'm just curious.

vampireuk
03-06-03, 11:28 AM
When you support the torture of another person you become as bad as the terrorists.

sytaylor
03-06-03, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by vampireuk
When you support the torture of another person you become as bad as the terrorists.

Theres a difference between not-intervening and supporting. People really do trip themselves up over what has been allowed in the past, but when you look at it from a perspective of solve the big crimes first the little ones later theres really not that much you can do.

On the one hand you want the USA to not interfere, yet on the other them not interfearing makes them as bad as terrorists?

Sorry, don't buy it

vampireuk
03-06-03, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by sytaylor

On the one hand you want the USA to not interfere, yet on the other them not interfearing makes them as bad as terrorists?

Sorry, don't buy it

wtf are you on about? I posted about the torture of terrorists and saying if you support it you are as bad as them. Where have I said I do not want the USA to intefere. I have said quite clearly I agree with them going after terrorists:rolleyes:

UDawg
03-06-03, 11:54 AM
You know I am sick and tired of you kids loosing your cool in these forums. :p ;) :D

sytaylor
03-06-03, 11:56 AM
Admitedley you never mentioned the USA specifically but thats where the thread was going, hence thats how i read it. If i read wrong... my mistake

:beer:

vampireuk
03-06-03, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by UDawg71
You know I am sick and tired of you kids loosing your cool in these forums. :p ;) :D

roflmao:D

Admitedley you never mentioned the USA specifically but thats where the thread was going, hence thats how i read it. If i read wrong... my mistake

No problem, it happens:cool: :D

jnd3
03-06-03, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Unfortunately, we (U.S.A) have sown A LOT of ill will towards us. We supported Saddam fro mthe start, gave him the WMD's we're after, supported the overthrow of democratic governements (italics mine) in the ME because they didn't agree with us,. and just recently sold Israel the helicopters used to fire missles at civilian targets.
Ummmm, the only democratic government in the Middle East is Israel. And if you say Iraq is a democratic government, we'll have to send Mr. Flibble to put the smackdown on you! :p

Cheers,
JND