Fishflesh Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 who is the biggest 1 Bush 2 rumsfield 3 Shadam hoesein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Shadam hoesein? Ahahahah, worst spelling of name EVER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 he i am dutch! and for a dutch guy i can spell english very good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by NL_Ackbar he i am dutch! and for a dutch guy i can spell english very good! Hussein(sp?) isn't English. You left the 'y' off of 'hey'. Look at it this way you speak and write English a million times better than most Americans speak or write Dutch. When you put Hoesein I thouht he was trying to insult him. You know like 'Hoe'=sein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 i vote for dago................................................................................ bush=wants to disarm a possible terrorist threat, if you make the people hurt, they will turn over the terrorists, if they want to live which is a basic human want rumsfeld, he is doing what he feels is right MR so damn insane= if he would come clean with his weopons we could destroy them we know he had weopons, but he wont come clean and tell us where they are, or give us proof that they were destroyed, it is not good to argue with the worlds most powerful state, that would make him a moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Alright, i, of course, voted for Hussein. The way i see it, anyone who voted for Bush is obviously doing it just to spite him and/or the US, because you may not agree with him about this, but would you rather have Hussein? IF you answered yes then you go live in Iraq and starve, or get shot if you say about him what you say about Bush, or just get gassed by him for no real reason. I can see why you would disagree with Bush, but calling him worse than Hussein is pretty low of ya'll. As for Rumsfeld, he's just following orders, and quite nicely i might add. The war isn't ultimately his decision, and any protest or name-calling should not be directed at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 I vote for NL_Ackbar. For posting the poll, then spelling 2 of the 3 names wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Well, just on the spelling of Saddam's name. During my living in different places and contact with different people, I've seen many different ways of spelling the word that sounds like Saddam's last name does. Here are some I've come upon - Hussain, Hossein, Hussein. But I'm sure Hoesein is wrong...obviously a type... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 hoesein is it in dutch! give it a break Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 darnit i wanted a 'all of the above' answer. =/ i don't know who to choose they're all a bunch of *******s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 I voted Sadam, if he'd just turn over the damn weapons there would be no need for war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by NL_Ackbar he i am dutch! and for a dutch guy i can spell english very good! Yeah right ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 1. Rumsfield - He's a moron straight through, just look at his completely idiotic comments against Germany and France. 2. Bush - Just listen to his speeches, any european can see how moronic they are. 3. Saddam - He needs to be removed from power, yes. But that certainly doesn't make him a moron. Actually he's being pretty smart. Remember Hitler? Not to compare the two, but Hitler was a genious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 None of the above. I don't believe any of these men are stupid. That doesn't mean they are incapable of emotional misjudgements, or less-than-well-thought-out decisions however. President Bush seems to want to define the world in terms of black and white, good and evil; and we are by default always the good-guys, and those who see the world from a different point of view and disagree with our standards are automatically, by default, the bad-guys. Rumsfeld's comments and actions over the last few months have led me to believe his views are similar to the President's, (and perhaps the source) only even stronger, and not-at-all open for debate of any kind. What frightens me is that a viewpoint like that is dangerously bordering on being fascist. But he is not stupid. Saddam has seriously misjudged the world's tolerance for his actions, but he has managed to keep it going by playing games with the international community for over a decade. I would call that crafty, not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by edlib Saddam has seriously misjudged the world's tolerance for his actions, but he has managed to keep it going by playing games with the international community for over a decade. I would call that crafty, not stupid. Well, in a way, yes. Especially like when he held out on the missles just before everyone got angry to buy as much time as possible, then said he would destroy them to buy even more time and make people think their "pressure" is actually working. the missles are insignificant by themselves, so he knows he can give them up for more time. But at the same time he such an idiot to oppose the UN and attract this attention from America. If he were smarter, he wouldn't be in the mess at all in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith 8 Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 *Agrees with Young David* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy But at the same time he such an idiot to oppose the UN and attract this attention from America. If he were smarter, he wouldn't be in the mess at all in the first place. Maybe. But if he had disarmed completely when he was first ordered to after the Gulf War then it is HIGHLY possible that he would no longer be in power today. A Saddam without access to WMDs isn't much of a threat to the countries around him, especially Iran, or even to the forces to within Iraq that would seek to oppose him. I'm sure in Saddam's own mind disarmed = deposed (or dead.) I think he is smart enough to see this, and decided long ago to take his chances of defying the U.N. in order to stay in power. It's not a great decision, or a well-thought-out one, but up to this point it has worked for him. It gave him at least an extra decade in power that he most likely wouldn't have had otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.