Saddam: Convicted of crimes against humanity in connection with the killings of 148 people in Dujail = Executed 12/30/2006

GW Bush: 52060 Iraqi civilians confirmed killed by military intervention = business as usual!

In other news:

PS: Watching the South Park movie again is probably going to be funnier this time around.

48 thoughts on “SADDAMWNED

  1. what do you think his last words were?

    “execute these nuts bush” then grotesque hand gesters to his groin.

    #1 | Comment by Flyperte — December 29, 2006 @ 11:32 pm

  2. His last words were:

    “Fire up the dildo Satan!”

    Seriously, now Bigger, Longer & Uncut will make sense. Saddam in Hell was asking the audience for too much of a suspension of disbelief: Now it’s all good.

    Oh Bushie, why not do the honorable thing and shoot yourself with the gold .45 you swiped from Saddam’s palace?

    #2 | Comment by El Payo — December 29, 2006 @ 11:41 pm

  3. Justin,

    I have lost much respect for you. You do realize that although Saddam was tried for only those 148 deaths, that in fact he committed hundreds of thousands more, right? In fact if we were to try him for every murder he commited, his trials would last longer than his dictatorship. So, yes, he was only convicted for those 148 murders, but he committed many many more than that.

    I concede that things in Iraq are dire, however we have the right man in Dr. Robert Gates to right the ship.

    #3 | Comment by Texas — December 30, 2006 @ 12:07 am

  4. Yeah, since when did a community of closet pervs start getting political? Can we get some more shots of Jojo?

    #4 | Comment by Duffman — December 30, 2006 @ 1:03 am

  5. Let’s keep up the incisive and extremely fresh commentary. We may not agree on how young is too young, but I think we can all agree that Dubya McHitlerburton is really bad or something, like a murderer and he’s siphoning all the mideast oil into Texas and he won’t allow electric cars to exist or even be conceived of in the mind or whatever.

    Can’t wait until some dumbass ‘humanitarian’ group counts bodies in the struggle to eventually overthrow Kim Jong-Il, even though they can’t even enter right now to see what their reality is. “More than a hundred thousand people senselessly butchered by the sick invaders of the formerly peace-loving and idyllic North Korea this evening, where previously no one has ever been confirmed to have died…”

    Jimmy Carter for President FTW.

    #5 | Comment by Kewtr — December 30, 2006 @ 1:13 am

  6. What’s next? Limo cotch-shots of Michael Moore?

    #6 | Comment by double u tee eff — December 30, 2006 @ 1:44 am

  7. #5

    Yeah, all the criticisms of W are made up and frivolous.

    Keep telling yourself that, Bushbot.

    #7 | Comment by d00d — December 30, 2006 @ 2:02 am

  8. i wish they would try to kill me for doing my job. thats all the man was doing was being a dictator…sheesh. they didnt hang the guy that ordered the 2 a bombs to be dropped on japan…..oh no, that wasnt a crime against humanity at all…not at all…*cough*

    “saddam may have been evil, but atleast he knew he was evil.” – Xan

    #8 | Comment by Xan — December 30, 2006 @ 2:15 am

  9. The World Court has been considered competent enough to try the war criminals from the Baltics. But we have to jury rig a kangaroo court to execute Hussein. The USA will live to regret this crime, one of many, we’ve committed against the people of the Middle East.

    #9 | Comment by Bill Clay — December 30, 2006 @ 2:27 am

  10. “Executed 12/30/2006”

    If I’m not mistaken, he was executed TODAY, which would be 12/29/06

    Unless you are going by another time zone. Which you probably are.

    #10 | Comment by dex — December 30, 2006 @ 2:28 am

  11. I know when i want to take the pulse of the nation, i look to people that use AOL…it should be illegal to NOT sterilized

    #11 | Comment by MrBlack — December 30, 2006 @ 2:46 am

  12. I think it’s better when you guys contain your stupidity to jailbait actresses. Let’s not try to spread it around!! 😛

    #12 | Comment by council24 — December 30, 2006 @ 3:37 am

  13. Jesus, you’re discussing politics on a almost-kiddie-porn website.

    Get a life, dipshits.

    #13 | Comment by Brian — December 30, 2006 @ 4:45 am

  14. I concede that things in Iraq are dire, however we have the right man in Dr. Robert Gates to right the ship.

    Like that’s even possible at this point. How can you guys dress yourselves with your head so firmly up your asses?

    #14 | Comment by d00d — December 30, 2006 @ 5:00 am

  15. #13

    Please wash the sand from your vagina.


    #15 | Comment by d00d — December 30, 2006 @ 5:11 am

  16. i wonder if they would have convicted the president who dropped the TWO a-bombs on japan if it happened in todays society…hmm.

    #16 | Comment by Xan — December 30, 2006 @ 8:46 am

  17. Man, I fear for today’s youth, and their inability to compare events contextually.

    This is not a defense of Bush, this is simply an exercise in discrediting frivilous and stupid comparisons.

    1. The Japan and Iraq situation cannot be compared, because Japan was punished in the act of being an agressor nation, and the Iraqi regime was punished not for its agressor activites, but for its internal crimes.

    2. The A-Bombs were dropped on Japan during an act of active war, and the bombs were dropped by the defensive nation.

    3. A week before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, US bombers firebombed Tokyo resulting in 40,000 deaths. The Hiroshima bomb was designed to eliminate a naval industrial target, and the result was 70,000 deaths. The only thing that changed was efficiency.

    4. Saddam was charged with killing 148 people in a specific incident. This is akin to a serial killer being executed for his first killing, even though he has killed 100 people. If you’re seriously interested (and I know you’re not), if you check UN humanitarian reports you will find that estimates of people murdered under the Hussein regime number in the hundreds of thousands.

    5. I am not a Bush supporter, but any comparison of Bush’s death totals and Hussein’s death totals fail to regognize one serious logical connection – intent. Bush’s intent was to invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein, and the tens of thousands that have died have been unintentional byproducts of that desire. Hussein’s intent was to maintain his own power, and the hundreds of thousands that have were killed were done so intentionally to discourage further uprisings amongst non-Sunni and non-Baath party discontents.

    The point is…

    There are plenty of valid reasons to discredit Bush for what he has done in Iraq. You do yourself a disservice by ignoring those and relying on glib, flashy arguments.

    #17 | Comment by Jaquio — December 30, 2006 @ 9:10 am

  18. Fuck…

    I swear I hope I don’t come back here until there is something new to see. Last time I went off on a rasn like this it went on forever.

    Justin – this is your fault.

    #18 | Comment by Charlie — December 30, 2006 @ 9:30 am

  19. Just as a note, Bush also won Hero of the Year.

    17— /signed, except I am a Bush supporter (though hes not conservative enough as far as myself and my co-workers are concerned)

    The Atomic Bombs on Japan were justified, just as the First Crusade was, in their own time and context. You cannot look back at past events using modern judgements, because that often ignores the facts which underpinned the events. Plus, since the Emperor of Japan personally thanked us for dropping the bombs (rather then invading and basically destroying Japan), i think that gives you a good idea of the right/wrong of the situation. He enjoys still having people to be Chief of State over.

    #19 | Comment by Leif — December 30, 2006 @ 9:43 am

  20. Seriously, people. #17 has had the most reasonable post in this thread.

    For everyone else, owners of the site included, please hold off on discussing politics until your understanding of history extends beyond the context of the day you were born and the central focus of your day isn’t being the first to post Britney’s panty-less photos, alright?

    There are a great many things that George W. Bush can be criticized for, and neither the right nor the left are completely happy with him. But, when you resort to the same sort of off-the-deep-end arguments popularized on DemocratUnderground and OpEdNews, you only discredit yourselves.

    #20 | Comment by Seriously. — December 30, 2006 @ 10:49 am

  21. 600k dead on W’s watch in Iraq is the best estimate.

    The US CIA trained Saddam and gave him the poison gas to use on the Iranians and the rebelious Iraqis.

    As Curtis LeMay said about the firebombing of Japan–I’d be a war criminal if we had lost the war.
    The use of the A bombs can’t be justified in any military sense. The Japanese were already beaten at that point. Try reading The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb by Gar Alperovitz

    #21 | Comment by roscoe — December 30, 2006 @ 11:18 am

  22. #20- Please hold off on telling everyone else, owners of the site included, whether or not they are educated enough in your opinion to discuss politics. Because it makes you sound like a pompous cunt, alright?

    #22 | Comment by Bill Clay — December 30, 2006 @ 11:35 am


    justified my ass. i can see why other countries hate us Americans so much. they a-bombed japan to see what would happen, nothing more, nothing less.

    #23 | Comment by Xan — December 30, 2006 @ 11:50 am

  24. Xan – that is completely untrue. The bomb was dropped to bring a quick resolution to the war, because a ground campaign against Japan was almost impossible and likely to cause untold number of US Soldier deaths.

    I do think America owns a special place in hypocrisy for it’s continual stance of preventing nations from developing atomic weapons…while maintaining the title of ‘only country to ever use them’. However, so long as nations don’t reprise this weapon, however the methods, I’ll take that hypocrisy.

    #24 | Comment by smash — December 30, 2006 @ 2:22 pm

  25. The emperor = Bush

    Darth Vader = Osama

    Jabba the Hutt = Saddam

    …thats all I’m sayin’

    #25 | Comment by Xan — December 30, 2006 @ 4:32 pm

  26. #17 – your post was well-written and conveys a proper argument that the vast majority of people in America and around the world are unable to develop appropriate views on this and most other topics due to an inability to correctly define the problem based on a generally incomplete base of information and history.

    Having said that, I would partially disagree with your first point – not that the two incidents cannot be compared equally – they can’t. However, the set of circumstances that led to invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Hussein was that they were an aggressor nation.

    One of the biggest problems most people have in understanding the war is the lack of understanding of what led to it. When historians look at the Iraq War (or perhaps World War III) a hundred years from now, I believe there is no doubt they will consider the war as having started in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. All of this talk as to whether WMDs existed or what Hussein did to his own people is irrelevant to the fact that our involvement began when he decided he wanted to become Persia and control larger parts of the Mid-East oil base and invaded Kuwait, a precursor to his invasion of Saudi Arabia (which, by the way, he also did in that part of the war). It was at that point, not when he gassed a bunch of Kurds, that the US and world community got involved – to protect their oil interests (let’s not be children here, it’s in the national interest of the US and other world nations what happens to OPEC oil).

    When a cease-fire was signed at that time, Hussein, speaking for Iraq, agreed to several conditions, including no-fly zones in both the Northern and Southern regions of Iraq, as well as inspectors to determine if he had in fact destroyed his weapons of mass destruction, which he also agreed to do.

    Over the decade between the cease-fire and the resumption of military action, Hussein routinely violated his part of the cease-fire agreement, flying into the no-fly zones and not allowing inspectors free access to determine what happened to the WMDs we know he had.

    Whether it was the right decision on the part of President Bush and the US to resume hostilities and overthrow Hussein is not the point of this. It can certainly be argued either way. The point is simply that this is the result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – in other words, they were an aggressor nation.

    Hussein’s execution was a side-effect of this action – that is, once he was out of power, he could be punished by the state for what they determined was his unjustifiable, pre-meditated murder of civilians under his rule. The idea that we were displacing an unjust, evil regime is spin more than anything else, though it’s not untrue and was a nice side-effect – it simply wasn’t the nation’s actual motivation for the action.

    In Japan’s case, they attacked us directly. In Iraq’s, they attacked something vital to our national interest – the control over oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The fact that Bush (Sr) has ties to oil companies is coincidental. Any president would have had to intervene when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

    Again, this is not a justification of how the war’s been handled and the actions of the President, rather this simply points out that the set of circumstances that led up to it, rightly or wrongly, was the aggressive action of Iraq against US national interests.

    What’s a little scary about the whole thing is that the leadership of Iran would seem to have similar aspirations of becoming a modern-day Persia and controlling all of the regional OPEC oil (who wouldn’t?), and Iran would prove to be a significantly more formidable foe than Iraq, not to mention the instability of the region could easily lead to a similar event to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Serbia that led to World War I.

    That, by the way, is why all of the current talk of politicians and the Iraqi Study Group is rather stupid and short sighted. Regardless of whether we should have done anything in the first place, the only reason for us to be there now is to have a military presence in the area. Iraq is an ideal location for that function due to its central location and proximity to all of the potentially hostile areas in the region. If we were to just leave, all of the death and money spent would be in vein. It only makes sense if we maintain a base there, which, by the way, we already do in Germany, Japan, Korea, and virtually everywhere else we “liberated”. This idea that we’ve been there three or four years, we should get out (or “redeploy”) is shortsighted and not in our own best interest.

    #26 | Comment by anonymous — December 30, 2006 @ 4:55 pm

  27. Bush’s Official Dictatorship in America

    #27 | Comment by BigBlueBalls — December 30, 2006 @ 6:34 pm

  28. when has this become political? i come here for the ladies… that’s all.

    #28 | Comment by Greg — December 30, 2006 @ 7:06 pm

  29. so… how ’bout them local basketball team, huh?

    #29 | Comment by chino — December 31, 2006 @ 1:45 am

  30. nobody respects Satan any more. Poor guy. Ever since heavy metal stopped being popular the best he gets is some cameos now and again in not very good movies.

    #30 | Comment by DisconcertedGeorge — December 31, 2006 @ 3:22 am

  31. Gotta love the liberals train of thought sometimes: “I didn’t vote for him so he must be evil”. I also am a fan of the 52,060 deaths attributed to GW Bush (who doesn’t even have the power to declare war), including executions, roadside bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers, and Katyusha rockets (the latest in US Military technology). Why don’t we add heart attacks and strokes in there while we’re at it.

    #31 | Comment by Tony — December 31, 2006 @ 12:05 pm

  32. #31- And there’s no way 6 million people could have fit in those gas chambers. Hitler got a bad rap for people having heart attacks and strokes!

    #32 | Comment by Bill Clay — December 31, 2006 @ 12:19 pm

  33. #32, where you trying to make a point?

    #33 | Comment by Tony — December 31, 2006 @ 12:37 pm

  34. (tear) @ #.31

    #34 | Comment by Xan — December 31, 2006 @ 1:38 pm

  35. Well at least he didn’t shoot an unarmed prisoner like Kerry did. In his back.

    #35 | Comment by Jcush — December 31, 2006 @ 8:14 pm

  36. ‘Our’ involvment in Iraq began when the Allied powers (mainly Britain) carved out a country called Iraq in the 1920s. That’s also when they make a country called Kuwait –which was part of the Iraq territory when both were part of the Ottoman Empire.
    The US’s involvement began in earnest in the 50s when Hussein was trained by the CIA to be part of the assasination team that killed Kassem. Reagan, and the first Bush administration (with folks like Rumsfeld and Cheney running things) sent over poison gas and lots of arms to prolong the war with Iran.
    The first Bush administration told Hussein that the US wouldn’t be involved with border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait which Hussein apparently took as a green light to invade. The notion that there were troops massed on the border with Saudi Arabia was a lie. The no-fly zones were imposed by the US and Britain not the UN and were therefore against international law. The sanctions continued under Clinton killing probably a million or so Iraqis. Bush is responsible for at least 600,000 dead Iraqis according to the best estimate available.
    The notion that the US needed to drop the Abombs in order to avoid a bloody invasion of Japan may have been the answer to your 10th grade history test, but it was a lie told by the Truman administration and continued by the US government ever since. The bombs were dropped as a show of strength against the supposedly expansionist USSR.

    #36 | Comment by roscoe — December 31, 2006 @ 9:41 pm

  37. I see the liberal media has convinced the American public that the peace loving religion of Islam is innocent in all the many wars in the world. We now have a islamist congressman! All of Europe is frightened tostop the peace loving Islamists in their countries. Sad since they have 8 babies to every 1 european baby. Oh well,Bush is the big meanie. In WWII we lost 3000 troops many an afternoon in battle. Some can not get it throught thier head that
    we are in WWIII. Since we can never bamb a city in this was -Compared to Dresden.Germany- we will lose. With the media there to capture every “innocent women and Child” we are doomed. Palistinians use them for human shields.

    #37 | Comment by James — January 1, 2007 @ 1:43 am

  38. Keep on rambling incoherently repugs, and losing elections.

    #38 | Comment by d00d — January 1, 2007 @ 2:10 am

  39. No Dresden in Iraq? Haven’t you read about the Marines firing phosphorus and leveling the city of Fallujah? FoxNews makes you stupid.

    #39 | Comment by roscoe — January 1, 2007 @ 9:51 am

  40. I fucking love the internet. There’s got to be a rule of thumb developing for estimating the number of posts it takes for a message board on any site to turn into intellectual dick waving.

    Quote (And I have to say taken totally at random and not directed entirely at this particular poster, before the death threats or statements that denigrate my intellectual prowess, age, or (the real sucker punch) whether or not I have a girlfriend start to dribble through like diseased sperm from an octogenarian’s prick. Oh, and yeah, it’s “vain” in that context, dipshit): “here now is to have a military presence in the area. Iraq is an ideal location for that function BLAH FUCKING BLAH If we were to just leave, all of the death and money spent would be in vein. It only makes sense if we maintain a base there BLAH BLAH, by the way, we already do in Germany, Japan, Korea, and virtually everywhere else we “liberated”. This idea that we’ve been there three or four years, we should get out (or “redeploy”) is shortsighted and not in our own best interest”

    Great, you can read the news. I purposefully didn’t choose the post so blissfully lacking in self-awareness that I could actually see the beaming smile of the poster as he slapped himself on the back yet again for a job well done. That one was fucking lovely. A question I’d like to ask all of those who posted similar rambling shit :

    This is a website on the cutting edge of a new type of pornography made possible by high resolution digital cameras, a pornography of so much detail (PORES) that EARS become fap-worthy. Just WHO do you think your opinions – however well researched, valid and eloquently written – are reaching exactly? Are you trying to change the world by preaching to me, especially as I’m holding my dick in my hand because I’ve got an ultra close-up picture of Britney Spears’ scarred twat open on another tab? I obviously don’t give a fuck about that shit when I’m on here.

    Become a politian, write a PhD, give millions in philanthropic money-gestures to worthy causes and change the world by action, or, for the sake everybody who has ever had to trawl through somebody elses brain-wanking:


    #40 | Comment by monkeysee — January 1, 2007 @ 12:58 pm

  41. This is the perfect example of why the rest of the world considers the USA to be so out of control and dangerous. The great unwashed in America believe whatever they are forcefed by the media, and since the trauma of the WTC attack, the conservatives have done a brainwashing job unrivaled since the days of Goebbels. Bushie took advantage of 09/11 as surely as Hitler exploited the Reichstag fire. Hell, at the time the invasion of Iraq started, Bushie had convinced 75% of the American public that Iraq had attacked us on 09/11!

    #41 | Comment by Bill Clay — January 1, 2007 @ 2:34 pm

  42. I love the internet, too.

    What is perhaps the greatest part of it, aside from the revelation that however perverse you might be, there are literally thousands if not millions or billions of others with the same perversion, is that while anyone can tell me to shut up, I need not adhere to that demand.

    I would remind anyone who doesn’t appreciate this thread’s subject that it was the webmaster who brought up the topic, not any of us. As to whom we might reach, one can get a certain amount of satisfaction from barking at the moon – even if it is in vain (better? – maybe I meant it would be in vein, like the blood vessel that takes out the garbage…and notice how I managed to get a point across without calling anyone names?).

    If you don’t like the subject or the comments, feel free to skip it and go back to whatever turns you on.

    #42 | Comment by anonymous — January 1, 2007 @ 9:08 pm

  43. To make the comparison that Saddam is worse than Bush is just stupid. To think that our military is out killing Iraqi civilians on purpose is insulting. Saddam was as evil as evil can get.

    President Bush may be many things, but to make the suggestion that he is worse than Saddam is just bullshit.

    #43 | Comment by Cannon — January 2, 2007 @ 6:12 am

  44. I love it when you get political Justin.

    #44 | Comment by godard — January 2, 2007 @ 9:30 am

  45. I did notice, and you’re completely right of course. I was just trying to get a cheap rise out of somebody while hiding behind an (addmitedly thin) cloak of anonymity. I just liked the sound of the word “dipshit”, and it gave me an even cheaper thrill than being able to see a moderately famous girl’s nipple fuzz. The subject was clear, and I really should have clicked on another thread if I was likely to get incensed by a political discussion. However, being amongst the company of thieves (pervs) I thought that it’d be interesting to start a discussion that also looked at the absurdity of itself.

    The socio-political problems we deal with on a daily basis, whether through the media or through our lives, are real. Real people are dying. Probably, sometimes, good people are dying. If there’s anything left worth believing in (and it is just a belief after all), then it’s that good people should be saved.

    Is it possible that the greatest supporting evidence of how effectively the right-thinking public (in the moral, not political sense, and purely in support of the “good people should be saved” idea) have been pushed to the fringes of debate is that those people now discuss these views in places so far removed from political office that if anybody in office actually *did* read anything written here they’d probably finish up getting impeached? I’m all for barking at the moon, but that’s all it is. I’d rather fail in telling the entire internet (since the comment wasn’t directed at any target smaller, apologies if I was misinterpreted) to shut the fuck up, than fail by talking complete sense and absolutely nothing changing.

    What’s the point in hating Bush? We have to hate the system that got him in office in the first place, because there are a never ending supply of people just like him ready to warm their slippers on the oval office radiator.

    And now I should shut the fuck up. It’s just a small caesarian scar. She’s still good, she’s still good.

    #45 | Comment by monkeysee — January 2, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

  46. Monkeysee,

    For one-handed typing, that was an impressive series of posts.

    Dildo, the Feces Tossing Monkey

    #46 | Comment by DildoTheFecesTossingMonkey — January 2, 2007 @ 11:08 pm

  47. LoL anyone who thinks saddam only had 148 kills to his name is a fucking tard. No offence. Those were just the ones that they could easily prove thus making for the shortest possible courtcase. It completely ignores the thousands of Kurds killed in their rebellion and the thousands more killied in the Iran/Iraq war.

    So basically in summation it’s probably more like a tie than an outright Bush victory 😛

    #47 | Comment by Mr Pedantic — January 13, 2007 @ 1:07 pm

  48. Girls. Pictures of girls. Are you so brainwashed in your Bush bashing that you feel the need to take a break in the middle of looking at scantily clad, beautiful young girls to post biased, misleading political bullshit? Girls.

    #48 | Comment by James — January 13, 2007 @ 1:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *