NationStates Jolt Archive

Saddam has been hanged as of 10pm EST. Go to CNN or Fox for the news.

Saddam Hussein is dead. Just that. The water is hot. The water is cold. Saddam Hussein is dead.

Hate to admit it... But part of me will miss the bastard. He was someone I grew up hearing about.

Already been posted go to "Ding Dong the witch is dead"

I rule.

Iraq is expected to turn into an orgy of senseless violence, looting, and mass hysteria (Well, more than before) in...

Iraq is expected to turn into an orgy of senseless violence, looting, and mass hysteria (Well, more than before) in...

So far, no reports of violence.

Ah good... Another incident of pointless bloodshed to celebrate.

Bread and circuses, I suppose.

Saddam has been hanged as of 10pm EST. Go to CNN or Fox for the news.


I heard the unofficial announcement on Fox (of course). Still waiting for official confirmation. I've got my dancing shoes on :D

Ah good... Another incident of pointless bloodshed to celebrate.

Bread and circuses, I suppose.

Yea, it's a shame that Saddam got justice for his roles in the death of the kurds.

CNN is now waiting for pictures or videos.

Damn you beat me. I'm so upset now. The trial was an absolute joke. I really hope Iraq becomes a living hell where you can;t walk outside without being shot five times and blown up thrice.

Saddam has been hanged as of 10pm EST. Go to CNN or Fox for the news.

That's what he gets for attacking us on 9/11 and then targeting us with his huge stockpile of nukes.

The first (and possibly last, thereby only) positive consequence of the iraq war.

Don't you hate it when they mess up your fine thread title?

*shakes fist*

I heard the unofficial announcement on Fox (of course). Still waiting for official confirmation. I've got my dancing shoes on :D

It has now been confirmed by his lawyer, the state TV, and the military of Iraq (forgot who in the Iraq military). He is dead.

Yea, it's a shame that Saddam got justice for his roles in the death of the kurds.

CNN is now waiting for pictures or videos.

Revenge=/=justice

That's what he gets for attacking us on 9/11 and then targeting us with his huge stockpile of nukes.And don't forget his attack on Pearl harbor, and above all : the Flood...

Yea, it's a shame that Saddam got justice for his roles in the death of the kurds.

CNN is now waiting for pictures or videos.

Actually this was just for what he did to the Shittes. The trial over the Kurds was never finished. Strange isn't it.

If only the US justice system disposed of killers this quickly!

Props to the Iraqi court.

The only positive thing about this is that US administration will no longer
be able to claim that the insurgency is made up of supporters of Saddam.
So we know its not made up of foreign fighters
we know its not made up of dead enders
we will know its not made up of Saddam supporters

What misdirection will they come up with now?

My money is on aliens.

Actually this was just for what he did to the Shittes. The trial over the Kurds was never finished. Strange isn't it.

Well whatever the trial was over, justice has been served. He has taken thousands of lives, so he paid with his own.

If only the US justice system disposed of killers this quickly!

Props to the Iraqi court.

What... in the middle of a trial? That is speedy!

Well whatever the trial was over, justice has been served. He has taken thousands of lives, so he paid with his own.

gw bush next is he?

Yea, it's a shame that Saddam got justice for his roles in the death of the kurds.

Funny you should mention that. The haste to waste him determines that he will now never be tried for his most heinous crimes. Genocide against the Kurds.

I can't possibly agree with a death sentence. I'm opposed to all forms of democide.

If Dubya still has his "mission accomplished" banner?

Already been posted go to "Ding Dong the witch is dead"

I rule.

Can I have a link please? Some friends here in the pad want to see it and there some Iraqis here that want to see it.

Revenge=/=justice

It was the dictionary definition of justice.

Ah, to see how many problems this use of the barbarism that is the death penalty (not to mention the travesty of that kangaroo court) fails to solve and how many new ones it causes.

Yes, that trial was so lame and stupid, you can clearly see they wanted to kill him so bad they came with any motive they could. Its like trying to send a drug lord to prison because of a car ticket.

Ill miss the old guy. The world needs just as many vilains as it needs heroes.

It has now been confirmed by his lawyer, the state TV, and the military of Iraq (forgot who in the Iraq military). He is dead.

:D Just got back from dancing in the street. Now I've got my best bottle of bourbon and I'm drinking to his arrival in Hell. Burn, baby, burn :p

Iraq is expected to turn into an orgy of senseless violence, looting, and mass hysteria (Well, more than before) in...

-2 years. They did that well before he was executed. Any way, goodbye Saddam. I can't say I will miss you.

Saddam Hussein is dead. Just that. The water is hot. The water is cold. Saddam Hussein is dead.

Is that how one says it? as simply as that?
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

for the cleopatra reference, I love you forever.

Can I have a link please? Some friends here in the pad want to see it and there some Iraqis here that want to see it.what link?

TIME PARADOX.

Oh...Wait...No, that's for when that other guy is dead.

SADDAM HUSSEIN = DEAD MAN'S SUSHI

A coincidence? I think not...

Ill miss the old guy. The world needs just as many vilains as it needs heroes.

You guys might feel differently if someone you loved was among the 2 million people for whose deaths he was responsible.

Your willingness to make excuses for evil is disturbing.

Saddam Hussein
1937-2006
The world will not miss you.

But GEORGE W BUSH = HE BUGGERS, OW!

...perhaps this deserves its own thread...

:D Just got back from dancing in the street. Now I've got my best bottle of bourbon and I'm drinking to his arrival in Hell. Burn, baby, burn :p

Ah now at least we know where you are.

When he does arrive could you ask him exactly how much support he
got from the US in his many crimes.

It's funny how CNN went from "EXECUTED" to "EXECUTION REPORTED" back to "EXECUTED" ... :p

I am amaze to see how many people actually, what symphatize with Saddam?

Go to Iraq, talk to one of the families who had members who was killed by his regime, and then you come back here and tell me that he didn't deserve death.

Fact: The entire civilized world has unanimously abolished capital punishment for quite some time now. The United states is the only exception.

I am amaze to see how many people actually, what symphatize with Saddam?

Go to Iraq, talk to one of the families who had members who was killed by his regime, and then you come back here and tell me that he didn't deserve death.He's gone now. He's now a funny pal for cartoons and the like.
It's OVER.

Damn you beat me. I'm so upset now. The trial was an absolute joke. I really hope Iraq becomes a living hell where you can;t walk outside without being shot five times and blown up thrice.

...I don't.

Revenge=/=justice

thank you. QFT.

Well whatever the trial was over, justice has been served. He has taken thousands of lives, so he paid with his own.

he, personally took thousands of lives? I'd be suprised if he, personally, did much anything. the people who were complacent with his government actually *did* it. he's a scapegoat. please don't confuse that with me claiming he's innocent, becuase he certainly isn't. still, he did not directly take the vast majority of those lives - he might not have personally killed anyone at all. justice, getting back exactly what you put out, does not exist, and never has.

It was the dictionary definition of justice.

which is rather a misleading one. there's more than one reason they say "justice" is blind.

Well whatever the trial was over, justice has been served. He has taken thousands of lives, so he paid with his own.

So have many other world leaders, past and present, all across the globe. Justice isn't served if it is one sided. If Saddam was supportive of the US, he would be in power today and eventually died a comfortable death regardless of his abuses.

Fact: The entire civilized world has unanimously abolished capital punishment for quite some time now. The United states is the only exception.As if there were a "civilized world". Bullshit. :rolleyes:

You guys might feel differently if someone you loved was among the 2 million people for whose deaths he was responsible.

Your willingness to make excuses for evil is disturbing.

Where does your two million figure come from?

The best I've been able to get were 1 million killed in the Iran Iraq war
and 300,000 otherwise

But Saddam has not been executed for the 1 million killed in the war
and he has not been executed for crimes against the Kurds
He has been executed for the killing of 148 Shias in the town of Dujail
after an attempted assassination of him there.

Fact: The entire civilized world has unanimously abolished capital punishment for quite some time now. The United states is the only exception.

and Iraq.

Your willingness to make excuses for evil is disturbing.

Get ready for the real fun: an orgy of moral masturbation by the anti-death penalty fanatics and absolutists, shrieking and screaming about how morally superior they are for opposing capital punishment under any circumstance and about how nothing can possibly justify the deliberate killing of a human being.

That's going to be more enjoyable than contemplating Saddam fitted for a suit of flame. :D

Yea, it's a shame that Saddam got justice for his roles in the death of the kurds.

CNN is now waiting for pictures or videos.
And what shall be the "justice" for all the Iraqis who have died as a result of an unmerited invasion by US forces?

Fact: The entire civilized world has unanimously abolished capital punishment for quite some time now. The United states is the only exception.

While i'm against the death penalty, i'd like you to define "civilized". You've made a blanket statement there that unjustly eliminates a lot of nations from that title. I don't think there are many nations composed entirely of hunter-gatherer tribes anymore.

and Iraq.

Iraq is hardly civilized. To even attempt contradicting this is absurd.

And what shall be the "justice" for all the Iraqis who have died as a result of an unmerited invasion by US forces?

*shrugs* A country under the people's control instead of being ruled by an evil, abusive, and controlling dictator?

Capital "punishment" - a joke.

I am amaze to see how many people actually, what symphatize with Saddam?

Go to Iraq, talk to one of the families who had members who was killed by his regime, and then you come back here and tell me that he didn't deserve death.

I've got a suggestion for you
go talk to one of the families who had members killed by your regime

But you can't, if you did go to Iraq to talk to ordinary Iraqis you would be
kidnapped and most likely killed. You would also probably be putting
the Iraqis you visited at risk too.

Whereas bad as Saddam was, when he was in power, you could have done
so in relative safety and security, although you would also have probably
put those you visited at risk too.

*shrugs* A country under the people's control instead of being ruled by an evil, abusive, and controlling dictator?

By the people you mean the United States????

Damn you beat me. I'm so upset now. The trial was an absolute joke. I really hope Iraq becomes a living hell where you can;t walk outside without being shot five times and blown up thrice.

I'm supposing you're one of those bleeding hearts, compassionate, human rights types? Very opposed to death and bloodshed, I'm guessing?

Fact: The entire civilized world has unanimously abolished capital punishment for quite some time now. The United states is the only exception.


You do realize that it was the Iraqi court that sentenced him to death and it was the Iraqis that carried out that sentence, right?

*shrugs* A country under the people's control instead of being ruled by an evil, abusive, and controlling dictator?

If you think that Iraq is under the people's control then you are sadly mistaken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Op6UlJpolE

I am amaze to see how many people actually, what symphatize with Saddam?

Go to Iraq, talk to one of the families who had members who was killed by his regime, and then you come back here and tell me that he didn't deserve death.

there is no perversion, crime, sin, transgression, or sickness that does not exist in seed form in every living being. it was circumstance that it was sadam doing those things, not you or me. the only difference between any of us is dumb luck.

Fact: The entire civilized world has unanimously abolished capital punishment for quite some time now. The United states is the only exception.

I agree with the sentiment, but lets not start flinging around words like "civilised", please. civilisation is only a measure of how far your shit and your sin is carried away from your nose and your conscience. there's no substantial difference.

While i'm against the death penalty, i'd like you to define "civilized". You've made a blanket statement there that unjustly eliminates a lot of nations from that title.

Civilized as in nations that do not suffer from widespread abuses of human rights and indignity.

Get ready for the real fun: an orgy of moral masturbation by the anti-death penalty fanatics and absolutists, shrieking and screaming about how morally superior they are for opposing capital punishment under any circumstance and about how nothing can possibly justify the deliberate killing of a human being.

That's going to be more enjoyable than contemplating Saddam fitted for a suit of flame. :DPure overexaggeration of human life, although humanity is very obviously a disgrace for the planet.

Yea, it's a shame that Saddam got justice for his roles in the death of the kurds.

CNN is now waiting for pictures or videos.
Well whatever the trial was over, justice has been served. He has taken thousands of lives, so he paid with his own.Death is never justice. Death is a mode of revenge.

:D Just got back from dancing in the street. Now I've got my best bottle of bourbon and I'm drinking to his arrival in Hell. Burn, baby, burn :p

I sincerely hope someone tap dances on your grave some day.

Ah now at least we know where you are.

When he does arrive could you ask him exactly how much support he
got from the US in his many crimes.
Good one!! :)

Death is never justice. Death is a mode of revenge.
I sincerely hope someone tap dances on your grave some day.And now lean back on your couch and have more chips.

So the Iraqis did it. Saddam's as dead as a doornail. It is rumored that shortly before his execution he was heard singing a Christmas song. It goes as follows.

*to the tune of Feliz Navidad*
This tie is too tight,
Ths tie is too tight,
This tie is too tight,
The Iraqis hang me,
I die tonight.

I want to wish you a mery *hee-gaa-gurk*

Get ready for the real fun: an orgy of moral masturbation by the anti-death penalty fanatics and absolutists, shrieking and screaming about how morally superior they are for opposing capital punishment under any circumstance and about how nothing can possibly justify the deliberate killing of a human being.



Death being fairly absolute surely would mean supporters of murder like yourself
are the absolutists.

Nothing does justify cold blooded premeditated murder.

Whether the people doing it are your friends or not
whether the victim was a bad man or not.

Ah now at least we know where you are.

Do you have any idea how asinine that statement is? For the record, I'm in Red-County California. You know, one of those counties that voted for Bush.

When he does arrive could you ask him exactly how much support he got from the US in his many crimes.

Actually, he'll probably have a good long talk with Joe Stalin about how much support they each got from the US for fighting a common enemy, and how much they regretted later opposing the US, and how much it sucks that they're roasting on the coals and their regimes are on the ash-heap of history while the US is still going strong and dominating the world :p

Death being fairly absolute surely would mean supporters of murder like yourself
are the absolutists.

Nothing does justify cold blooded premeditated murder.

Whether the people doing it are your friends or not
whether the victim was a bad man or not.Grow up.
Death penalty is wrong because no justice system is flawless, but not because death isn't an appropriate punishment for certain crimes.

I am amaze to see how many people actually, what symphatize with Saddam?

What do you mean by sympathize? Do you mean I remember that he was a human being who suffered when he was hungry, bled when he was cut, and put his pants on one at a time? Do you mean that I oppose killing anyone for any reason, even stupid "justice" which is just revenge to make the bloody minded feel better about their petty little world? If so, yes.

Do you mean that I sympathize with his actions? No. What he did was wrong.

There is just not justification for capital punishment.

You do realize that it was the Iraqi court that sentenced him to death and it was the Iraqis that carried out that sentence, right?

Yes I do. It couldn't have been any other way. While Saddam deserved an exemplary sentence for his crimes, I cannot in good conscience, be the least bit satisfied with a sentence of capital punishment. Adding to this sentiment is the fact that Saddam's was never properly tried to completion for his worst crimes.

I cannot ever condone democide. All of the western world's leaders will be denouncing this. Except for Bush of course. Again. The US is the exception of the first world when it comes to the usage of the death penalty.

Do you have any idea how asinine that statement is? For the record, I'm in Red-County California. You know, one of those counties that voted for Bush.

Actually, he'll probably have a good long talk with Joe Stalin about how much support they each got from the US for fighting a common enemy, and how much they regretted later opposing the US, and how much it sucks that they're roasting on the coals and their regimes are on the ash-heap of history while the US is still going strong and dominating the world :p

Well red is the primary color the places being discussed have in common.

You didn't mention how the common enemy was a jumped up failure
with a desire to control the rest of the world (shades of Bush there)
and who had declared war on the U.S. before it deigned to help
its friends fight against him.
An Austrian I believe.

You didn't mention your state's governor either.
Where's he from again?

But heck they're both republicans so any similarities must be accidental.

Joe Stalin was a nasty piece of work, he murdered millions.
Whereas it will take the US at least another year to reach their first
million in Iraq.

Countries with ambitions to dominate the world always fail, someday
the US will be trying to hold onto its prestige by clinging to the coattails
or India or China the same as the UK (once the premier power in the world)
clings to the US (it's ex colony) now.

What do you mean by sympathize? Do you mean I remember that he was a human being who suffered when he was hungry, bled when he was cut, and put his pants on one at a time? Do you mean that I oppose killing anyone for any reason, even stupid "justice" which is just revenge to make the bloody minded feel better about their petty little world? If so, yes.

Do you mean that I sympathize with his actions? No. What he did was wrong.

There is just not justification for capital punishment.Oh, I'm so touched by what you say. I think I need a handkerchief....

OK. And now will you please tell what's so valuable in a human that not even his own crimes justify punishment.

http://www.punk-rock.com/pictures/deadman.gif

Oh, I'm so touched by what you say. I think I need a handkerchief....

OK. And now will you please tell what's so valuable in a human that not even his own crimes justify punishment.

He did not say that his crimes did not merit punishment

capital punishment is merely a name given to state sanctioned murder.

Life imprisonment with work details building schools and homes
in northern Iraq might have been an appropriate punishment

Instead all that has happened is yet another killing in Iraq

:D Just got back from dancing in the street. Now I've got my best bottle of bourbon and I'm drinking to his arrival in Hell. Burn, baby, burn :p

I'm sure his reunion with Regan will be a warm one.

So, Saddam Hussein was hanged for the murder of 143 people. What about Bush who has killed some 700,000 people?
This trial was very unfair. Saddam's defense was not allowed to present evidence and witnesses.
Bush and Blair shall be hanged!
Amen.

:D Just got back from dancing in the street. Now I've got my best bottle of bourbon and I'm drinking to his arrival in Hell. Burn, baby, burn :p

That's it: New Mitanni, you're on my ignore list.

As for Saddam: he should not have been killed. He should have been jailed for life. The death penalty does not work for any reason, and destroying a sentient life is not justice. PERIOD.

Justice has not been served; rather, a misplaced thirst for vengeance has been slaked.

He did not say that his crimes did not merit punishment
capital punishment is merely a name given to state sanctioned murder.
Life imprisonment with work details building schools and homes
in northern Iraq might have been an appropriate punishment
Instead all that has happened is yet another killing in IraqAnd? It was just.
I suppose you eat meat? Let me tell you: that killing is less justifiable than hanging a genocidal freak.

Ahh well - chips to Sadamm, he was cool while he lasted in my dictatorial eyes.

I just hope the media doesn't make him out to be the "most evil dictator in the world...a real barstard to all, regardless of any evidence to suggest againt that" or some crap like that (which of course will happen anyway)...

Still no reports of violence.

Let me ask this:

Which is a worse punishment:

1. An instant, fairly quick death, of which Sadaam was actually looking forward to, and hoped would be his sentence(As what his brothers whom met with him earlier had said that he stated).

2. Rotting in prison for the rest of your life knowing very well that you will never be free, knowing very well that everything you have built up is now brought down?

I would think the second. Then you have years to brood on what you've done.

And? It was just.
I suppose you eat meat? Let me tell you: that killing is less justifiable than hanging a genocidal freak.

There is no justice in murder.

That you can laugh, gloat or justify the murder of anyone
no matter how much you may dislike them or what wrongs they have done
makes you no better than him.

Let me ask this:

Which is a worse punishment:

1. An instant, fairly quick death, of which Sadaam was actually looking forward to, and hoped would be his sentence(As what his brothers whom met with him earlier had said that he stated).

2. Rotting in prison for the rest of your life knowing very well that you will never be free, knowing very well that everything you have built up is now brought down?

I would think the second. Then you have years to brood on what you've done.

Wow, could we have a more biased choice?

Which is a fitting punishment.

1. That Saddam (who killed thousands of his own people) was tried sentenced, and appealed before being hanged deserved death for his heinous crimes.

2. That he be locked up, being fed 3 meals a day, and probably an hour outside, all funded by the Iraqi government which is supported by the Iraqi people, and thus the people who lived under his rule are now supporting him. Also rob the people of any closure?

There is no justice in murder.

That you can laugh, gloat or justify the murder of anyone
no matter how much you may dislike them or what wrongs they have done
makes you no better than him.

No the fact that I don't kill my fellow man makes me better than him.

Fact: The entire civilized world has unanimously abolished capital punishment for quite some time now. The United states is the only exception.

Fact: the Iraqis tried, sentenced and executed him, and a stay was filed by the US. Go figure.

So, Saddam Hussein was hanged for the murder of 143 people. What about Bush who has killed some 700,000 people?
This trial was very unfair. Saddam's defense was not allowed to present evidence and witnesses.
Bush and Blair shall be hanged!
Amen.

How do you state that Saddam trial was unfair, yet automatically state, without any evidence, that Bush killed 700,000 people, which even if you count the deaths in Iraq, Afganistan, 9/11, of both muslims and american soldiers, is still desperately exaggerated. And how is Blair considered to be a "murderer". Why do you show mercy to Saddam Hussien, yet none to Bush or Blair.

Anyways, about the execution. I believe that only time will tell whether it will help the situtation in Iraq, or end it. On one side, no longer will there be Saddam Hussien supporters and people will realize their is no chance of resurrecting their great leader.

However, the execution, will only fuel anger to people who were pro-Saddam and anti-Bush(in other words, people like you). Saddam might die a martyr, to those who feel he was unfairly killed, despite the chance to give him justice.

Let me ask this:

Which is a worse punishment:

1. An instant, fairly quick death, of which Sadaam was actually looking forward to, and hoped would be his sentence(As what his brothers whom met with him earlier had said that he stated).

2. Rotting in prison for the rest of your life knowing very well that you will never be free, knowing very well that everything you have built up is now brought down?

I would think the second. Then you have years to brood on what you've done.

OF COURSE option 2 is worse. That's why so many prisoners spend years and years appealing their death sentences--so they can suffer a worse punishment than "an instant, fairly quick death." :headbang:

There is no justice in murder.

That you can laugh, gloat or justify the murder of anyone
no matter how much you may dislike them or what wrongs they have done
makes you no better than him.no human is "better" than another. that's also exactly why societies of humans don't have to accept those who think they are better and commit crimes for their personal advantage or for no reason at all.

Actually, he'll probably have a good long talk with Joe Stalin about how much support they each got from the US for fighting a common enemy, and how much they regretted later opposing the US, and how much it sucks that they're roasting on the coals and their regimes are on the ash-heap of history while the US is still going strong and dominating the world :p

wouldn't "dominating the world" suggest that the US is a "regime" itself?
and therefore bad...

No the fact that I don't kill my fellow man makes me better than him.

He did not directly kill the people he was executed for killing either.
But you pay your taxes and fund the people who killed tens of thousands
to capture him, your representatives arranged for him to be tried in
a court they approved of for a crime they had minimal part in rather
than in the appropriate court for his biggest crimes which they had
a great deal of involvement with.
You glorify the murder and laugh and gloat just as he did.

You kill your fellow man by proxy.
I'm not sure if that is more cowardly than doing it yourself.

While it does not make you worse than him,
it does not make you better than him either.

I am amaze to see how many people actually, what symphatize with Saddam?

Go to Iraq, talk to one of the families who had members who was killed by his regime, and then you come back here and tell me that he didn't deserve death.I have no sympathy for him. Being against the death penalty is not sympathy any more than killing someone is justice.

And now lean back on your couch and have more chips.

Uh huh. If you mean to imply that I bitch and do nothing, you'd be wrong. But amazingly, I have no need to prove myself to you.

Saddam has been hanged as of 10pm EST. Go to CNN or Fox for the news.

Absolutely not. :mad:

I trust the BS tabloids reporting about Hillary CLinton's secret affair with aliens than I trust Faux.

But back on topic, the trial was a joke, and three guys are dead, all for Bush's interests.

He did not directly kill the people he was executed for killing either.
But you pay your taxes and fund the people who killed tens of thousands
to capture him, your representatives arranged for him to be tried in
a court they approved of for a crime they had minimal part in rather
than in the appropriate court for his biggest crimes which they had
a great deal of involvement with.
You glorify the murder and laugh and gloat just as he did.

You kill your fellow man by proxy.
I'm not sure if that is more cowardly than doing it yourself.

While it does not make you worse than him,
it does not make you better than him either.

I support capital punishment, because some people will never be rehabilitated, they'll never be able to function in society, and they're a danger to the general population as well as the prison population, and thus they are sentenced to death. Saddam was one of those people.

Well, this sucks. Saddam was the best leader Iraq ever had, and could have been a valuable ally in the region. Instead, the US had to think with their dicks instead of their heads, as usual.

But how do we know wether he was Saddam Hussein or one of his doubles?
:-)


Anyway, I'd really like to see his former accomplices on trial, too. Donald Rumsfeld comes to mind :-)

But how do we know wether he was Saddam Hussein or one of his doubles?
:-)


Anyway, I'd really like to see his former accomplices on trial, too. Donald Rumsfeld comes to mind :-)

DNA is your friend.

Well, this sucks. Saddam was the best leader Iraq ever had, and could have been a valuable ally in the region. Instead, the US had to think with their dicks instead of their heads, as usual.

If he was the greatest leader Iraq ever had, then damn....

Still no reports of violence.

Still no reports to speak of period. CNN, in the absense of the ability to actually report from within Iraq beyond th Green Zone, keeps showing a clip of a party of Iraqi ex-pats dancing in Dearborn Michigan.

Now THATS reporting. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, in Iraq, their correspondants discuss that they are hearing gunfire outside the Green Zone and are assuming that it is from Shias in celebration.

Still meanwhile, this is the second most holy holiday for the Sunnis, so one might expect that they will attend to their religion first.

Of course, in a final show of great class it has been reported from witnesses that the members of government in attendance at the execution danced and shouted shia slogans around his still-warm corpse, and are now refusing to release it to his family.

Proving, of course, that this execution was the dispassionate result of true justice rather than a vengeful kangaroo court ....

OF COURSE option 2 is worse. That's why so many prisoners spend years and years appealing their death sentences--so they can suffer a worse punishment than "an instant, fairly quick death." :headbang:

The point is, he WANTED the Death Penalty when he knew it was going to happen. He was GLOATING about how he was going to be executed.

Second, most appeals are done to get the person out of punishment, period.

Let me ask you, if you had a choice:

Would you rather live your entire life, having no freedom, being locked away, knowing you were going to die, or rather have a fairly quick and painless death(Hanging, when done right, kills instantly)?

After a few years in prison, you will be HOPING to die soon, especially when you know very well there is no way you can get out.

Still no reports to speak of period. CNN, in the absense of the ability to actually report from within Iraq beyond th Green Zone, keeps showing a clip of a party of Iraqi ex-pats dancing in Dearborn Michigan.

Now THATS reporting. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, in Iraq, their correspondants discuss that they are hearing gunfire outside the Green Zone and are assuming that it is from Shias in celebration.

Still meanwhile, this is the second most holy holiday for the Sunnis, so one might expect that they will attend to their religion first.

Of course, in a final show of great class it has been reported from witnesses that the members of government in attendance at the execution danced and shouted shia slogans around his still-warm corpse, and are now refusing to release it to his family.

Proving, of course, that this execution was the dispassionate result of true justice rather than a vengeful kangaroo court ....

You tried living under his regime for 30 years and then we see how you react when he's dead. :rolleyes:

There is no justice in murder.

You can keep saying "capital punishment = murder" until Saddam gets up out of his grave and ascends into the heavens, and it will still be nonsense and you will still be laughably wrong. But please keep doing so. You're a funny guy. Really, I enjoy your posts :D

That you can laugh, gloat or justify the murder of anyone
no matter how much you may dislike them or what wrongs they have done
makes you no better than him.

Two can play that game, mate. I could say that it's people like you who are "no better than him," by going to the most extreme lengths to unjustly prolong the lives of actual murderers so they can live out their lives in comfort while their victims continue lying dead in the ground, and that your devaluation of the lives of the victims is disgusting and morally bankrupt.

But I won't say you're "better" or "worse" than anyone else. I'll just say that you're dead wrong, misguided and living in darkness.

I support capital punishment, because some people will never be rehabilitated, they'll never be able to function in society, and they're a danger to the general population as well as the prison population, and thus they are sentenced to death. Saddam was one of those people.

Your argument makes no sense unless you are simply terrified.

Are you one of those people who cowers in fear from the bogeyman.

Saddam deposed was an old and powerless man.

The only place there would have been any danger to anyone was if out and
about in Iraq with people who hated him (rightly) trying to kill him. It would
have been a danger to him and to anyone around him.

If he had been removed to an international court to be tried for his
international crimes he would have been no threat to anyone.

You do realise that when as a child you fell and hurt your head on the
table.
Your mother smacking the table for hurting you was because you were
so young you needed the irrational to feel better.
You are supposed to be all growed up now and the irrational should have
no place in your life.

Put your fear aside and try and look at things rationally.

I wonder who is next to be the scapegoat for the 9/11 attack. You serve me Saddam’s head on a silver platter (CNN and Fox) and I'm not satisfied because I expected Osama instead. I suspect, there’s a foreign element out there that really wants Iraq to disintegrate into a full blown civil war. There’s a foreign element that wants a weak Iraq in the Middle East.

You tried living under his regime for 30 years and then we see how you react when he's dead. :rolleyes:

Please go and live in Iraq outside of the Green zone for a week.

I support capital punishment, because some people will never be rehabilitated, they'll never be able to function in society, and they're a danger to the general population as well as the prison population, and thus they are sentenced to death. Saddam was one of those people.

Well, although I have no moral problems with capital punishment, I have one serious one(In most cases concerning it), and that is the possibility of innocence will always be concern(for you average day citizen), and there are those currently on, and there have been those executed, whom were innocent of what they were accused of. But that IS a seperate issue altogether from this, as Sadaam quite obviously did, at least to an extent, what he was accused of. However, I don't really see how doing exactly what he wanted them to do was necessarily punishment.

Also, years in solitary would remove him from the wolrd, as well as the prison population, and would be a far greater punishment in my eyes than a quick death.

You can keep saying "capital punishment = murder" until Saddam gets up out of his grave and ascends into the heavens, and it will still be nonsense and you will still be laughably wrong. But please keep doing so. You're a funny guy. Really, I enjoy your posts :D


so you think saddam's going to heaven?
he can't have been all that bad of a guy after all

I wonder who is next to be the scapegoat for the 9/11 attack. You serve me Saddam’s head on a silver platter (CNN and Fox) and I'm not satisfied because I expected Osama instead. I suspect, there’s a foreign element out there that really wants Iraq to disintegrate into a full blown civil war. There’s a foreign element that wants a weak Iraq in the Middle East.

There's always Kim Jong Il, the Iranian President... and I'm sure many, many more we can ride on. But I digress.

The point is, he WANTED the Death Penalty when he knew it was going to happen. He was GLOATING about how he was going to be executed.

Second, most appeals are done to get the person out of punishment, period.

Let me ask you, if you had a choice:

Would you rather live your entire life, having no freedom, being locked away, knowing you were going to die, or rather have a fairly quick and painless death(Hanging, when done right, kills instantly)?

After a few years in prison, you will be HOPING to die soon, especially when you know very well there is no way you can get out.

No, I'd be making the best of it, eating three squares a day, enjoying the use of the prison gym, library and recreation facilities, communicating with friends and family in the outside world, and hoping that my case would eventually come before some panel of raving ideologues and outright idiots like the 9th Circuit Court of Schlemiels who would manufacture a reason to turn me loose. Or in Saddam's case, until (1) my minions eventually regained power and turned me loose or (2) enough fools worldwide pressured the Iraqi government to turn me loose, so I could try to regain power at that point.

But more to the point, I wouldn't ever be faced with that choice because I don't plan on committing premeditated murder!

sic semper tyrannis

Good riddance. I can't think of a nicer guy for it to have happened to.

You tried living under his regime for 30 years and then we see how you react when he's dead. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, I hear that it was a horrid, secular society where people had jobs, water, power, and other icky evil things like that.....

Clearly things are SOOOOOO much better now...


Especially when proving that the new bosses can have people killed after lame show trials just as well as he could.

I am not defending Saddam, nor will I miss him. However moving forward by sinking to his level is a piss-poor way to work towards building anything better. What does it prove? Nothing. What does it solve? nothing. Where does it lead? Directly to round two of the administration of the country where the lives of political opponents are worthless.

This is something to cheer about?

Hardly.

You can keep saying "capital punishment = murder" until Saddam gets up out of his grave and ascends into the heavens, and it will still be nonsense and you will still be laughably wrong. But please keep doing so. You're a funny guy. Really, I enjoy your posts :D



Two can play that game, mate. I could say that it's people like you who are "no better than him," by going to the most extreme lengths to unjustly prolong the lives of actual murderers so they can live out their lives in comfort while their victims continue lying dead in the ground, and that your devaluation of the lives of the victims is disgusting and morally bankrupt.

But I won't say you're "better" or "worse" than anyone else. I'll just say that you're dead wrong, misguided and living in darkness.

Yes I agree with your logic
Opposing killing people makes you as bad a person as one who kills people.
Opposing theft makes you as bad as thief
Opposing rape is one and the same thing as being a rapist.

You have defeated me with your logical arsenal.

I admit defeat.

You are quite right too that if you lock up a murderer for life it
does not bring the dead back to life unlike executing him does.

so you think saddam's going to heaven?
he can't have been all that bad of a guy after all

LOL.

No, that was just a way of saying "an infinitely long time," because that's how long it's going to be before Saddam does any such thing.

If he was the greatest leader Iraq ever had, then damn....

Surprised? Check the history books. Iraq has had one dictator after another since it was formed in 1932. Saddam's reign was peaceful. Women had actual rights that they don't have in other Arabian nations, for one. Of course it was hardly fantastic. I'd never even THINK of living under him. He was a cruel dictator. But he was still the best leader Iraq had. He kept the peace. He kept the lid on chaos from popping off and plunging the region into its current civil war. And we fucked it up. No surprise given the man we have for a leader.

You have defeated me with your logical arsenal.

I admit defeat.

I accept your surrender. Now go home and rethink your life.

Oh yes, I hear that it was a horrid, secular society where people had jobs, water, power, and other icky evil things like that.....


A privileged elite had such delights, but most of the people were either Shi'a and Kurds who spent their lives in misery, or Sunnis who had been drafted to go off to fight the war with Iran. Sure, it was secular, but so was the USSR. If you think Iraq was a pleasant place under Mr. Hussein, rethink that.

I don't think Iraq has a history of being a nice place since the European powers ripped the Ottoman Empire to pieces, because after that it was a country that was specifically designed (by Great Britain, thankyouverymuch) to be riven by ethnic conflict, so as to keep the people from uniting against their colonial occupiers and get them to fight themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I think almost everything we've done regarding the removal of Mr. Hussein from power has been handled atrociously (and that, in my opinion, it would have probably been best to just leave him there), but don't sugar coat his time in power to try to make a point. You're just insulting us if you do that.

Surprised? Check the history books. Iraq has had one dictator after another since it was formed in 1932. Saddam's reign was peaceful. Women had actual rights that they don't have in other Arabian nations, for one. Of course it was hardly fantastic. I'd never even THINK of living under him. He was a cruel dictator. But he was still the best leader Iraq had. He kept the peace. He kept the lid on chaos from popping off and plunging the region into its current civil war. And we fucked it up. No surprise given the man we have for a leader.

He fought an 8 year war with Iran and a few years later invaded Kuwait

what kind of definition of peace do you have?

He fought an 8 year war with Iran and a few years later invaded Kuwait

what kind of definition of peace do you have?

Not to mention that Saddam was so far, Iraq's only dictator. Iraq before Saddam was a constitutional monarchy then a republic. Then Saddam came and overthrew the Republic via a bloody revolution.

...put his pants on one at a time?

One pair at a time! Truly, he was the avant garde dictator.

Death as punishment for crime is pointless, but in this case, it was important for the future of Iraq that he never have the oportunity to escape and influence again.

He fought an 8 year war with Iran and a few years later invaded Kuwait

what kind of definition of peace do you have?As long as the US is not the target of war, Kyronea counts that as peace, it seems.

Not to mention that Saddam was so far, Iraq's only dictator. Iraq before Saddam was a constitutional monarchy then a republic. Then Saddam came and overthrew the Republic via a bloody revolution.Err... no. He supplanted Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath#The_Iraq-based_Baath_Party

He fought an 8 year war with Iran and a few years later invaded Kuwait

what kind of definition of peace do you have?

Well, the Iraqis are extremely happy. They're celebrating in the streets.

Hooray, he's dead.

As I said in a different thread: one Iraq-related problem down; one million more to go.

This is a sad day indeed. I, in no way excuse the actions of Saddam... However one must come to terms that Iraq was invaded illegally. Saddam posed no threat. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was the boogie man of the day. And without WMD.

I wonder who will be next? Surely it won't be bin Laden, after all he was the one who master-minded the 9/11 attacks. Hated Saddam in fact. I'm sure Al Qaeda will be celebrating along with the American government who lied, cheated and stole to get the American people and the most valued treasure (their children) into this war.

But there are absolutes that can not be ignored. Saddam was a puppet of the American government. Came to power in a CIA backed coup. That Saddam was doubled crossed by Bush # 41. Given the green light by the 41st president to invade Kuwait and then stabbed in the back.

One may not look at the reality of the WMD used on the Kurds, supplied by Reagan and company. Heck we don't even have to think of how the American government pushed Saddam into the war with Iran on the premise of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

As it was right after the American hostage crisis and Americans had an axe to grind with Iran. In fact we will even pardon the American government for playing two ends against the middle and also supplying Iran. Who really was responsible for these acts? Saddam the puppet? Or the American government?

Yet today the secrets that the Americans so wished to cover up with Ollie North and others, how the American government played a far greater role in this then they will ever admit. After all, they will write the history won't they?

Today proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the Bush #43 administration was no better than the man they hung like a dog tonight. A man who played his part and then was back stabbed by his masters in America.

You know I could even accept what happened tonight if perhaps two other things had happened. One, that Saddam had been given a fair trial.. which he was not. And two, that George W. Bush was next in line for the hanging chamber.

Look at the history and it's all very clear, we have become no better than the people we claim to fight and the end game will not be pretty.

Time to found the "Saddam Hussein died for you" society.

Saddam posed no threat.He is the reason for 1.3 million deaths.

He fought an 8 year war with Iran and a few years later invaded Kuwait

what kind of definition of peace do you have?

The first with Chemical weapons supplied by us, and the second was started with approval from Bush.

The US isn't exactly innocent in the matter.

He is the reason for 1.3 million deaths.

He meant to us. The reason why we went to war was because he was a "threat" to us. First, it was WMD's which did not exist, so they went to the idea he was involved with 9/11. That proved to be bull, so now we have "freeing" the Iraqi people. I highly doubt the motives for us to go to war were simply humanitarian.

Saddam was a puppet of the American government.

No, he wasn't. He received far more support from the Soviets and the French than he did from the U.S. And while Saddam and the U.S. often had common interests in the 1980s, and we extensively supported him, he did not take orders from anyone but himself. He worked with us when it suited him, but didn't when it didn't suit him.

Came to power in a CIA backed coup.

Source?

No, he wasn't. He received far more support from the Soviets and the French than he did from the U.S. And while Saddam and the U.S. often had common interests in the 1980s, and we extensively supported him, he did not take orders from anyone but himself. He worked with us when it suited him, but didn't when it didn't suit him.



Source?
There is no source cause its simply not true.
BTW, the CIA did quite a nice job in Somalia don't you think?

That's what he gets for attacking us on 9/11 and then targeting us with his huge stockpile of nukes. reminds me of a Poll... millions of idiots beleived just that.. (I thing it was more than a third of US citizens) those idiots most likely voted for Bush.

I bet they are happy with his execution.

A privileged elite had such delights, but most of the people were either Shi'a and Kurds who spent their lives in misery, or Sunnis who had been drafted to go off to fight the war with Iran. Sure, it was secular, but so was the USSR. If you think Iraq was a pleasant place under Mr. Hussein, rethink that.

I don't think Iraq has a history of being a nice place since the European powers ripped the Ottoman Empire to pieces, because after that it was a country that was specifically designed (by Great Britain, thankyouverymuch) to be riven by ethnic conflict, so as to keep the people from uniting against their colonial occupiers and get them to fight themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I think almost everything we've done regarding the removal of Mr. Hussein from power has been handled atrociously (and that, in my opinion, it would have probably been best to just leave him there), but don't sugar coat his time in power to try to make a point. You're just insulting us if you do that.

I'm not sugar-coating his tenure. I was being facetious in response to the person I quoted.

All that happened this evening was that the punishment was carried out on a sentance passed by a kangaroo court, run by judges and prosecuters trained by americans in a trial organized by americans under a new constitution and legal framework co-written by americans after the invasion of a country by americans under false pretenses.

When asked about the execution, of course, the American state department's reposnse was "gosh, gee-wilikers - this has nothing to do with us! It's an Iraqi matter!"

What a fricken joke...

There is no source cause its simply not true.
BTW, the CIA did quite a nice job in Somalia don't you think?

Sure it is. Wiki is the fastest source I can think of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadaam_Hussein

Go down to the Rise to Power part.

He is the reason for 1.3 million deaths.

How does that make him a threat to America?

Sure it is. Wiki is the fastest source I can think of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadaam_Hussein

Go down to the Rise to Power part.

Funny, it mentions us supporting Ba'athists, but says nothing about our role (or lack thereof) in his attaining the presidency.

Source?

Not hard to find.. learn some history...

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

It even has a catchy tune.. turn up your speakers....

Don't be so naive! :rolleyes:

How does that make him a threat to America?

cos they were complicit with 1 million of those deaths with their
support for the Iran Iraq war.
There was some complicity or at least responsibility in some of the other
actions like gassing of kurds using helicopters from the states no
mention of where chemical and biological weaponry originated from.

The first with Chemical weapons supplied by us, and the second was started with approval from Bush.

The US isn't exactly innocent in the matter.

Check my posts to see that I don't disagree with you.

But describing life in Iraq under Saddam's rule as peaceful
considering the 8 year war that cost hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives
seems how should I put it , sheer madness.

In fact it is only by comparison to life in Iraq post US invasion that
it could seem peaceful, but that is a bit of an extreme comparison.

cos they were complicit with 1 million of those deaths with their
support for the Iran Iraq war.
There was some complicity or at least responsibility in some of the other
actions like gassing of kurds using helicopters from the states no
mention of where chemical and biological weaponry originated from.

no mention?

REad the Reigel report. It clearly itemized the shipments of WMD from the US to IRAq during that war.

Check my posts to see that I don't disagree with you.

But describing life in Iraq under Saddam's rule as peaceful
considering the 8 year war that cost hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives
seems how should I put it , sheer madness.

In fact it is only by comparison to life in Iraq post US invasion that
it could seem peaceful, but that is a bit of an extreme comparison.

Well, "peaceful" I don't agree with, "stable" is a bit better term. Even that is a bit of stretch when compared, to say the US(However, hte US is hardly peaceful, but that's another story). Really, the statement was that it was "better" under Sadaam than other leaders of the country since it's inception, however, "better" in this sense hardly means "good", or even "fairly decent". Just not necessarily as bad as before, however even saying that makes it sound at least somewhat decent, which it wasn't.

And here I go rambling again...

Not hard to find.. learn some history...

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

It even has a catchy tune.. turn up your speakers....

Don't be so naive! :rolleyes:

Unbelievable. Pure unadulterated propaganda. Amazing that you would submit such a thing as that as a form of proof or evidence. Would you like the rest of us to start linking to all of the poppycock flash sites on the web as further evidence that your evidence is not evidence?

*snip*

You win.

One pair at a time! Truly, he was the avant garde dictator.

Well, you know. The new in thing with dictators is to put all their clothes on at once (it means they have more time to find a rock to hide under). In North Korea they sell tickets to the "Dressing of Dear Leader" where Kim Jong Il demonstrates the art of dressing in the "blink of an eye" (surpisingly enough, the number of Clockwork Orange machines purchased in North Korea increases exponentially with the Dear Leader's age) citizens are asked polls like:

"Does Dear leader:
A) Have incredible pecs.
or
B) Have an amazing washboard stomach?"

Unbelievable. Pure unadulterated propaganda. Amazing that you would submit such a thing as that as a form of proof or evidence. Would you like the rest of us to start linking to all of the poppycock flash sites on the web as further evidence that your evidence is not evidence?

Different from the uncorraberated propaganda about how Iraq had WMD's and was involved in 9/11 how? Now saying it is necessarily true, however I wouldn't put it past our government to do something of the sorts. It wouldn't be the first, or even the worst thing our country has doen.

But describing life in Iraq under Saddam's rule as peaceful considering the 8 year war that cost hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives seems how should I put it , sheer madness.

I've seen this sentiment a couple of times, and I don't quite understand it.

Though a nation is at war, this does not necessarily reflect upon the lifestyles of normal citizens. Think of the US right now. It's at war, but the majority of citizens are living ordinary peaceful lives.

A nation at war doesn't mean it is not at peace, internally.

(I am not claiming that Iraq was at peace internally; I'm just pointing out that participation in a foreign war does not equate to non-peace within the country.)

How does that make him a threat to America?

Stop confusing the issue with your logic!

I've seen this sentiment a couple of times, and I don't quite understand it.

Though a nation is at war, this does not necessarily reflect upon the lifestyles of normal citizens. Think of the US right now. It's at war, but the majority of citizens are living ordinary peaceful lives.

A nation at war doesn't mean it is not at peace, internally.

(I am not claiming that Iraq was at peace internally; I'm just pointing out that participation in a foreign war does not equate to non-peace within the country.)

Stop blatantly serving our own purposes when we do this, would be good.

How does that make him a threat to America?Oh, only threats to America are indeed threats...? Past, present, and future?

Unbelievable. Pure unadulterated propaganda. Amazing that you would submit such a thing as that as a form of proof or evidence. Would you like the rest of us to start linking to all of the poppycock flash sites on the web as further evidence that your evidence is not evidence?

Hahaha, perhaps you missed many of the sources provided at the bottom of each statement on the pages.. you know.. like PBS Frontline.. if I recall correctly, quite a conservative source! Doh!

This is what happens when people choose not to educated themselves on an issue. Ignorance!

One can understand Americans being so upset for being so wrong. I don't blame you for grasping at straw-man arguments.

Stop blatantly serving our own purposes when we do this, would be good.

Blah. I editted that part out and made a whole new thread for it. My first one.

Stop confusing the issue with your logic!

I'm sorry. Silly me bringing those pesky little things called "facts" into an internet discussion.


I should be ashamed..... :D

I'm sorry. Silly me bringing those pesky little things called "facts" into an internet discussion.You didn't. You or Stephistan said Saddam Hussein was never a threat. That's a lie.

I should be ashamed..... Indeed.

I'm sorry. Silly me bringing those pesky little things called "facts" into an internet discussion.


I should be ashamed..... :D

I think it's catching.... I seem to be bothered by those facts myself... if only for historical accuracy....;)

I'm sorry. Silly me bringing those pesky little things called "facts" into an internet discussion.


I should be ashamed..... :D

You should. You vile little man.

Thanks for the memories of the children you murdered, the mass graves, and the country you ran into the ground so you could be rich.

Thanks for the nightmares Americans have about your missiles and your gas.

Thanks for the panic people feel when they hear whistles and sirens.

Here's to the Iraqi conscripts your Fedayen fanatics forced to fight my friends at gunpoint.

Here's to the good people of Iraq who won't have to suffer under you any more.

Here's to my friends Kevin Waruinge and Ryan Smith who died helping to free the country you oppressed.

Here's to you dead at the end of a rope you blood thirsty murdering motherfucker.

Oh, only threats to America are indeed threats...? Past, present, and future?

No, you pointed out the death toll in direct response to the section of another person's quote that you extracted which stated that "he was no threat".

This implies that your death toll was being presented as a refutation of that statement, in other words that he WAS a threat.

Now then, please explain
a) how he was a threat.
or
b) what your response was supposed to be taken as if I miscunstrued your intent.

You didn't. You said Saddam Hussein was never a threat. That's a lie.

Indeed.

Go right ahead and find where I said that. I dare you.


EDIT: Oh, I see where you have corrected that.

So now you want to blame me for the posts of someone else?


How cute.

Hahaha, perhaps you missed many of the sources provided at the bottom of each statement on the pages.. you know.. like PBS Frontline.. if I recall correctly, quite a conservative source! Doh!

This is what happens when people choose not to educated themselves on an issue. Ignorance!

One can understand Americans being so upset for being so wrong. I don't blame you for grasping at straw-man arguments.

You're funny. Conspiracy theorists always think everything they say is the truth... And call everyone else ingnorant in self-defense, instead of actually proving their claims.

Here’s some help for you:

Propaganda works only when the target audience wants it to work

Education is a prerequisite for propaganda.

Absorb/disseminate large quantities of second-hand, unverifiable information.

The graduate student applies the same principles of school to other media, such as the television, radio, magazines, and so forth. The three things listed above happen to every student in every type of school. And almost every person has gone to school. So almost every member of modern society is conditioned by the school to be receptive to propaganda.

Or here, since you like conspiracy theories so much, perhaps you would like to invent your very own the next time you post…
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/old_conspiracy.html

Go right ahead and find where I said that. I dare you.Stephistan said that and you supported his claim.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12148259#post12148259

Stephistan said that and you supported his claim.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12148259#post12148259


Still putting words in my mouth I see..... is reading that difficult for you? Or just comprehension?

Now then, where did I support that specific claim by Stephistan?

Oh right, you won't find that either.

Nope, all I did was point out the inherent rediculousness of YOUR response.

Oh, but going back, the exact quote by Stephistan is:

This is a sad day indeed. I, in no way excuse the actions of Saddam... However one must come to terms that Iraq was invaded illegally. Saddam posed no threat. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was the boogie man of the day. And without WMD.


This quote does not say that Saddam was NEVER a threat. It clearly relates to his status at the time of the invasion given the use of the term "posed" which indicates a specific temporal moment.

Mind you, from America's perspective he never was a direct threat anyway as he has never had the ability to project force on an intercontinental basis - so I DO tend to support even your blatantly incorrect interpretation of Stephistan's statments anyway.

Thanks for the memories of the children you murdered, the mass graves, and the country you ran into the ground so you could be rich.

Thanks for the nightmares Americans have about your missiles and your gas.

Thanks for the panic people feel when they hear whistles and sirens.

Here's to the Iraqi conscripts your Fedayen fanatics forced to fight my friends at gunpoint.

Here's to the good people of Iraq who won't have to suffer under you any more.

Here's to my friends Kevin Waruinge and Ryan Smith who died helping to free the country you oppressed.

Here's to you dead at the end of a rope you blood thirsty murdering motherfucker.

Oh, unlike sending 3000 American kids to their deaths based on a lie? Not to mention over 20,000 injured? How does a president explain his lie to a family who lost their children for that lie?

The administration of Gitmo... the elimination of Habeas Corpus that was enshrined in the American constitution?

The army of Abu Ghraib torture... secret prisons in East Europe?

Maybe the fact that Bush is spying on his own citizens?

The complete lack of adherence of the Geneva Conventions and International law?

The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Or the hundred of thousands Iraqi men, women and children killed...

Saddam had nothing on the American administration.

The list really does go on!

And the usual "Saddam was the US's puppet" nonsense.

Who gave him over 40B in aid alone? The Saudi's, Kuwait, and the UAE
Who provided the overwhelming majority of his military supplies? The Soviets, French, Egypt, and China.
Who provided him w/ nuclear technology(promptly blown up by the Isreali's)? The French
Who provided him with the majority of his chemical weapon capabilities? Singapore, Netherlands, Egypt, India, and Germany.

I guess some people need to "educate" themselves.

You know, I was a little sad that 'ol Saddam was killed. It's strange to think that the man who was the constant bogeyman of the 90's is gone, the tyrannical dictator of the Iraqi people.

I felt sorry for him. Why? Because that's what he deserves, pity.

I laugh a little bit when I hear people complain about the fact that he was actually judged, sentenced, and executed, as if there was some horrible presumption in it. The logic goes something like this:

Step 1: Saddam has 148 men and young boys executed, then nerve-gasses thousands of Kurds who didn't like him. He is also a dictator, not allowing free elections, imprisoning and toruting anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Step 2: Bad naughty Bush invades Iraq under false pretenses.

Step 3: Saddam executed for previously listed crimes by an Iraqi court.

Step 4: Outrage.

What the fuck? Where the hell is the outrage over the fact that this dictator's henchmen took young men and fathers away from their families and had them killed for opposing him?

Why the hell are the people who decry Bush for not doing something about Darfur morally outraged over the fact that Saddam Hussein was deposed and executed for crimes against humanity? Why is their no outrage over the fact that people like Pol Pot, who was responsible for the slaughter of millions of his own people, was allowed to go free? Why is there no outrage over the fact that the Iranians are allowed to stone women who have been raped, and do so on a regular basis?

I'm all for humanity to the fellow man, and justice and truth, and by no means do I support Bush and the war in Iraq. But it disgusts me that there are people who apologize for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack), and somehow think that the President Bush is worse.

That's all.

Oh, unlike sending 3000 American kids to their deaths based on a lie? Not to mention over 20,000 injured? How does a president explain his lie to a family who lost their children for that lie?

The administration of Gitmo... the elimination of Habeas Corpus that was enshrined in the American constitution?

The army of Abu Ghraib torture... secret prisons in East Europe?

Maybe the fact that Bush is spying on his own citizens?

The complete lack of adherence of the Geneva Conventions and International law?

The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Or the hundred of thousands Iraqi men, women and children killed...

Saddam had nothing on the American administration.

The list really does go on!

Boy, look at these red herrings.

You're right. The American administration is nothing in comparison to Saddam.

You're funny. Conspiracy theorists always think everything they say is the truth... And call everyone else ingnorant in self-defense, instead of actually proving their claims.

Here’s some help for you:

Propaganda works only when the target audience wants it to work

Education is a prerequisite for propaganda.

Absorb/disseminate large quantities of second-hand, unverifiable information.

The graduate student applies the same principles of school to other media, such as the television, radio, magazines, and so forth. The three things listed above happen to every student in every type of school. And almost every person has gone to school. So almost every member of modern society is conditioned by the school to be receptive to propaganda.

Or here, since you like conspiracy theories so much, perhaps you would like to invent your very own the next time you post…
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/old_conspiracy.html

Well, that's a lovely treatice on propoganda.

Pointless, useless, and totally beside the point, but lovely.

But I suppose it beats actually doing as you suggest and educating yourself with specific references by which to refute the claims made in that montage?

Nahhhhh, that would be too much work.....

Here's another thought for you: Calling something propoganda doesn't make it so.,

You know, one more thing.


I'm tired of hearing all the apologists who say "well, the US supported him!"

Bullshit. Guns and money do not equal mass murder. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Did Ronald Reagan send orders to Saddam Hussein ordering him to kill thousands of Kurds with nerve gas? Fuck no.

When you are the leader of your people, you damn better well take responsibility for your actions as leader.

Bush, I'm looking at you now. The buck stops with you.

Boy, look at these red herrings.

You're right. The American administration is nothing in comparison to Saddam.

Main Entry: red herring
Function: noun
1 : a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2 [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue


If I'm reading this correctly... then it is you that has no facts to back up anything you say.. I understand emotion can get the best of people.. such as it seems to have with you. It's okay, if my country messed up this bad I'd probably try to find "red herrings" too. :rolleyes:

Still putting words in my mouth I see..... is reading that difficult for you? Or just comprehension?

Now then, where did I support that specific claim by Stephistan?

Oh right, you won't find that either.

Nope, all I did was point out the inherent rediculousness of YOUR response.

Oh, but going back, the exact quote by Stephistan is:

This is a sad day indeed. I, in no way excuse the actions of Saddam... However one must come to terms that Iraq was invaded illegally. Saddam posed no threat. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was the boogie man of the day. And without WMD.


This quote does not say that Saddam was NEVER a threat. It clearly relates to his status at the time of the invasion given the use of the term "posed" which indicates a specific temporal moment.

Mind you, from America's perspective he never was a direct threat anyway as he has never had the ability to project force on an intercontinental basis - so I DO tend to support even your blatantly incorrect interpretation of Stephistan's statments anyway.The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was - besides the alleged possession of WMD - to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. That would have been unnecessary if he posed no threat at all. Stephistan didn't say to whom Saddam supposedly posed no threat.

Who provided him with the majority of his chemical weapon capabilities? Singapore, Netherlands, Egypt, India, and Germany.

I guess some people need to "educate" themselves.

HAven't read the reigle report (http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html) have you?

Or, how about this well-cited condesation of the chronology (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php)

Which is not to say that others weren't involved too, but trying to paint the US as a minor player in this is fricken hilarious!

Guns and money do not equal mass murder.Not necessarily. But would you honestly think that somebody like Saddam Hussein would just hoard the guns and the money somewhere and not use them?

Saddam is dead?

Great, now we just need to find those WMDs. Erm, discover those connections to Al Queda. Erm, wait, no...what?

Oh, right, we went there to remove Saddam for humanitarian reasons. That's it. Just ignore all that stuff we said before to convince you not to complain too much. Mission accomplished, yo!

Civil war? What are you talking about? That's a totally different thing.

The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was - besides the alleged possession of WMD - to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. That would have been unnecessary if he posed no threat at all. Stephistan didn't say to whom Saddam supposedly posed no threat.

Oh yes, I soooooooooooooo clearly remember the focus of all those press conferences and briefings to the UN by people like Colin Powell focusing on the concern for IRaqi's, and the need to liberate them...... :rolleyes:


Hey, let's go back and read the 2003 State of the Union address on the subject shall we? And let's see how much of that was focused on his concern for the need to liberate IRaqis?

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)



Oh, I see. Had Saddam been able to convince the world that he had no WMD (which he kept saying that he didn't have), then according to GW there would be no reason to remove him from power!

In other words, it was about the threat - NOT the liberation.


But hey, you can go on believing the revisionist crap about that being the reason for this war if you like. Can't stop a person from beliving whatever dumb-assed ideas they want to....

I think the answer is quite simple. Impeach Bush #43. What he has done is far worse than anything Nixon ever did.

Of course it won't bring back all the dead Americans & Iraqi's...

I know, why not just blame Clinton for it? He seems to have been Bush's scapegoat since he was appointed president in 2000 after losing to Gore anyway.

Ya, that's the ticket, it's Clinton's fault.. I figure it will come up sooner or later, might as well get it over with now..lol ;)

Not necessarily. But would you honestly think that somebody like Saddam Hussein would just hoard the guns and the money somewhere and not use them?

You mean actually use them? Maybe, to fight the Iranians with them, like we wanted him to? Y'know, instead of lining up his own people and executing them? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign)

I like how there's a difference when we give weapons to countries like France and Japan and when we give weapons to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, as if it's somehow our fault that people misuse them.

It's much easier to blame the person who wasn't actually involved.

Impeach Bush #43.

Amen.

You know, one more thing.


I'm tired of hearing all the apologists who say "well, the US supported him!"

Bullshit. Guns and money do not equal mass murder. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Did Ronald Reagan send orders to Saddam Hussein ordering him to kill thousands of Kurds with nerve gas? Fuck no.

When you are the leader of your people, you damn better well take responsibility for your actions as leader.

Bush, I'm looking at you now. The buck stops with you.

No, but giving weapons and funding someone whom we know has a "shady" humanitarian record doesn't exactly make you innocent.

If you put a gun in the hands of a sociopath, knowing full well he is a sociopath, would you not at least be partly to blame for his actions?

And I'm not going to get started on Raegan. Many of the things his administration did could be considered outright horrendous.

Whatever anyone says, the bastard deserved to die. I personaly would have liked to have seen him tortured for ours while body parts were slowly removed.

No, but giving weapons and funding someone whom we know has a "shady" humanitarian record doesn't exactly make you innocent.

If you put a gun in the hands of a sociopath, knowing full well he is a sociopath, would you not at least be partly to blame for his actions?

And I'm not going to get started on Raegan. Many of the things his administration did could be considered outright horrendous.


I don't disagree with you. America has done some downright shitty things, and I'm not going to defend the government.

My issue is with the groups that deny all wrongdoing that wasn't cause by America. I'll let them in on a little secret- all their problems aren't all caused by America or Israel.

Methinks the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban, and Augusto Pinochet were a teensy bit worse than Ronald Reagan.

To put it simply, Saddam was weighed, measured, and found wanting. He was punished by his own people for crimes against his own people. I don't see how people think he deserved anything less than what he got.

Well whatever the trial was over, justice has been served. He has taken thousands of lives, so he paid with his own.


When do we get to see dubya pay for his crimes?

I think the answer is quite simple. Impeach Bush #43. What he has done is far worse than anything Nixon ever did.

ROFLMAO!

This thread just keeps getting better.

And just so you know: taking out the Saddamite regime was a GOOD thing. Unless you happen to be a Saddamite, that is :p

When do we get to see dubya pay for his crimes?

There are none, and never. Deal with it.

Whatever anyone says, the bastard deserved to die. I personaly would have liked to have seen him tortured for ours while body parts were slowly removed.

With that kind of attitude you would have gone far in Saddam's Iraq.
And you may have earned yourself an internship at the whitehouse,
heck why aim low you could even get secretary of defense.

Thanks for the memories of the children you murdered, the mass graves, and the country you ran into the ground so you could be rich.

Thanks for the nightmares Americans have about your missiles and your gas.

Thanks for the panic people feel when they hear whistles and sirens.

Here's to the Iraqi conscripts your Fedayen fanatics forced to fight my friends at gunpoint.

Here's to the good people of Iraq who won't have to suffer under you any more.

Here's to my friends Kevin Waruinge and Ryan Smith who died helping to free the country you oppressed.

Here's to you dead at the end of a rope you blood thirsty murdering motherfucker.

Say it loud and say it proud!

And may your friends rest in peace. All true Americans appreciate their sacrifice.

...

Thanks for the nightmares Americans have about your missiles and your gas.

Thanks for the panic people feel when they hear whistles and sirens.




This really says it all about why certain large groups of United States citizens
are so pro killing and pro bush

FEAR

They are afraid and lashing out at anything even vaguely related to their fear.

The neocons have taken advantage of this cowardly streak to further their
own aims. But in the good ol US of A
fear supports their foreign policy.

Say it loud and say it proud!

And may your friends rest in peace. All true Americans appreciate their sacrifice.

I appreciate their sacrifice just fine.

However, I do not appreciate a government which seems to like to send our fighting men and women into a country, poorly equipped and with a terrible battle plan, occupation plan, and virtually no exit plan, for a war whose purpose has been debunked(It was not about "freeing" the Iraqi people-that was just a side-effect), and whom outright lies to the American people to try and justify our purpose in Iraq.

Is it good Sadaam is gone? Hell yes. However, I feel that our Government is performing a great disservice to our military men and women with being complete and total incompetent bafoons, putting at greater risk than they should be.

When do we get to see dubya pay for his crimes?

Well seeing how Dubya isn't a sick satanical bastard who killed Kerry and Gore (Yes Saddam did kill political opponents) or kill innocent civilians for his own sick amusement, or hell, even set up fake trials in the 'guise of "justice", I doubt you can put Dubya, no matter how bad of a President he may be, on the same level as Saddam. Any attempt to do so just makes you look like an idiot and a jackass.

Ashes to Ashes Dust to Dust, lets throw this bastard into the Earths crust!

Well seeing how Dubya isn't a sick satanical bastard who killed Kerry and Gore (Yes Saddam did kill political opponents) or kill innocent civilians for his own sick amusement, or hell, even set up fake trials in the 'guise of "justice", I doubt you can put Dubya, no matter how bad of a President he may be, on the same level as Saddam. Any attempt to do so just makes you look like an idiot and a jackass.



:D

I don't disagree with you. America has done some downright shitty things, and I'm not going to defend the government.

My issue is with the groups that deny all wrongdoing that wasn't cause by America. I'll let them in on a little secret- all their problems aren't all caused by America or Israel.

Methinks the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban, and Augusto Pinochet were a teensy bit worse than Ronald Reagan.

To put it simply, Saddam was weighed, measured, and found wanting. He was punished by his own people for crimes against his own people. I don't see how people think he deserved anything less than what he got.

Odd that you should include Pinochet (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm) as something somehow seperate from the US.

But I agree, there are many bastards worth discussing. But the corollary to your (valid) issue with those who only want to discuss the faults of the US are those americans who insist that we can't discuss Americas failings unless we discuss every other failing of every other country concurrently.

Frankly, there is a place for all of those discussions.

But this thread is not about the Khmer, the Chileans, or the Afghanis. It's about IRaq, and the US involvement therin is a valid component of the discussion.

There were so many things I wanted to say about this, but I think it can be summerized simply enough with this:

Dear Saddam,

Allah Ackbar, muther fucker.

This is a sad day indeed. I, in no way excuse the actions of Saddam

To paraphrase Master Yoda, "You do! Revealed, your sympathies are."

However one must come to terms that Iraq was invaded illegally.

Nope. Legal, UN-approved, US Senate-approved.

I wonder who will be next?

In no particular order: Kim Jong-Il; Bashar Assad; the supreme fuehrer of Iran, Khamanei, and his butt-monkey A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket; and Nasrallah in Hezbollastan. Get ready to start crying over their demise too :p

But there are absolutes that can not be ignored. Saddam was a puppet of the American government. Came to power in a CIA backed coup. That Saddam was doubled crossed by Bush # 41. Given the green light by the 41st president to invade Kuwait and then stabbed in the back.

You are absolutely on crack.

Heck we don't even have to think of how the American government pushed Saddam into the war with Iran on the premise of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

No, he saw weakness in Iran and an opportunity to take advantage of it, grab the Shatt al-Arab and make other gains.

After all, they will write the history won't they?

Yep, we sure will.

Today proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the Bush #43 administration was no better than the man they hung like a dog tonight. A man who played his part and then was back stabbed by his masters in America.

Do you make up facts in all your posts, or only in the ones where you hysterically represent for tyrants and shriek about dat bad ol' Dubya? The fact is that the Iraqis tried, convicted and strung up Saddam, according to the statute they themselves passed after democratically electing their own new government. The fact that you don't like it is too damn bad. And the US was no more Saddam's "master" than we were Joe Stalin's "master" in WWII.

You know I could even accept what happened tonight if perhaps two other things had happened. One, that Saddam had been given a fair trial.. which he was not. And two, that George W. Bush was next in line for the hanging chamber.

YOU could accept it? :rolleyes:

I don't know what's funnier: that statement, or the idea that anyone gives a rat's ass if you "accept it"! In fact, at this point I can hardly type, I'm laughing so hard!

Look at the history and it's all very clear, we have become no better than the people we claim to fight and the end game will not be pretty.

It won't be pretty, alright--for the enemy. :mp5:

We will prevail, and all the while we'll be laughing at the wailing and gnashing of teeth exemplified by this thread.

May he rot in statist Hell.

Well seeing how Dubya isn't a sick satanical bastard who killed Kerry and Gore (Yes Saddam did kill political opponents) or kill innocent civilians for his own sick amusement, or hell, even set up fake trials in the 'guise of "justice", I doubt you can put Dubya, no matter how bad of a President he may be, on the same level as Saddam. Any attempt to do so just makes you look like an idiot and a jackass.

Well, aside from the fact that you're entirely correct..

What do you call the products of the MCA of 2006?

And, frankly, the man deserves no eulogies of any kind. That doesn't mean that killing him was morally justified. It wasn't. It just means that he was a tyrant who commited despicable acts in his time as Iraq's "President".

Well seeing how Dubya isn't a sick satanical bastard who killed Kerry and Gore (Yes Saddam did kill political opponents) or kill innocent civilians for his own sick amusement, or hell, even set up fake trials in the 'guise of "justice", I doubt you can put Dubya, no matter how bad of a President he may be, on the same level as Saddam. Any attempt to do so just makes you look like an idiot and a jackass.

Yes Saddam did kill political opponents, and was supported by the US having done so.
Killed innocents, yes he did and was supported by the US having done so.
The US has of course killed a great many innocent civilians in Iraq to date.
Fake trials in the guise of justice hmmm
Guantanamo just comes floating into mind.

Bush is by no means on the same level as Saddam though, because these
policies and actions are not Bush's, that man can barely tie his own shoelaces.

May he rot in statist Hell.what is that :confused:

Say it loud and say it proud!

And may your friends rest in peace. All true Americans appreciate their sacrifice.

No. All true Americans realize that calling Bush a fucker, or realizing that a war can be wrong in no way reflects their opinions of the troops. None of the above are related.

what is that :confused:
Where Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro, Pinochet and all their like-minded friends will go. Bush is too dumb to get booked in there.

Yes Saddam did kill political opponents, and was supported by the US having done so.
Killed innocents, yes he did and was supported by the US having done so.
The US has of course killed a great many innocent civilians in Iraq to date.
Fake trials in the guise of justice hmmm
Guantanamo just comes floating into mind.

Bush is by no means on the same level as Saddam though, because these
policies and actions are not Bush's, that man can barely tie his own shoelaces.

There are always civilian casualties in war, and what people seem to forget about this war, is that the civilian and the people who are attacking our troops, look the same. The insurgents in Iraq don't wear uniforms they blend in with the normal law abiding civilian. Am I excusing the men and women in uniform for when they do kill innocent civilians, no. But some of the people on here believe that our soldiers should be able to pick out the bad guys from the good guys, even though they look the same!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/iloveny/2004/iraq_diary/images/150/iraqi.jpg

Iraqi man going to the market, or an insurgent carrying explosive going to blow up the market?

As for Guantanamo, Well, you tell me what we should do with people we capture and believe to be important to us, but if we release them, they'll go back and try to kill our men and women in uniform?

As for Guantanamo, Well, you tell me what we should do with people we capture and believe to be important to us, but if we release them, they'll go back and try to kill our men and women in uniform?what to do with the POWs?

simple.. treat them like POWs.

As for Guantanamo, Well, you tell me what we should do with people we capture and believe to be important to us, but if we release them, they'll go back and try to kill our men and women in uniform?

How about fair and prompt trials? 3 years of being stuck in jail without a single court hearing is appalling, even by governmental justice system standards.

And none of that "you can't use that as a defense cause it undermines our national security, even if you did undergo it" rubbish the Bush admin is pushing.

Find them guilty and charge them or find them innocent and release them. Good money lies on the facts that the Bush admin can't even find enough to charge them for jaywalking, much less terrorist links and are hoping that they'll quietly die so they won't have to do anything about it.

Bush may not be actively gassing these people, but he certainly isn't doing anything that can be called "fair and just" with these actions.

How about fair and prompt trials? 3 years of being stuck in jail without a single court hearing is appalling, even by governmental justice system standards.

And none of that "you can't use that as a defense cause it undermines our national security, even if you did undergo it" rubbish the Bush admin is pushing.

Find them guilty and charge them or find them innocent and release them. Good money lies on the facts that the Bush admin can't even find enough to charge them for jaywalking, much less terrorist links and are hoping that they'll quietly die so they won't have to do anything about it.

Bush may not be actively gassing these people, but he certainly isn't doing anything that can be called "fair and just" with these actions.

They do have a right to a speedy process, I'll agree to that.

Well the result of the trial was decided before it even started, so no surprise here. Don't misunderstand me, despite being against the death penalty Saddam was guilty of many crimes indeed. It is just interesting that the US made sure the trial procedure suppressed the details that the US mainly supplied the arms and chemical weapons used against Iran and his domestic opposition, mainly the Kurds.

The US of course was opposed to the radical islamist regime in Iran so they supported and actively supplied Saddam with the arms which caused the deaths of over a million people, so the hypocrisy in US foreign policy is of course very evident.

If the trial itself was taken to the International Commission for War Crimes, of course these details would have come out, because the trial in Iraq was US controlled.

There are always civilian casualties in war, and what people seem to forget about this war, is that the civilian and the people who are attacking our troops, look the same. The insurgents in Iraq don't wear uniforms they blend in with the normal law abiding civilian. Am I excusing the men and women in uniform for when they do kill innocent civilians, no. But some of the people on here believe that our soldiers should be able to pick out the bad guys from the good guys, even though they look the same!
Actually they don't they believe that.
Mostly people believe your country illegally invaded Iraq
which would be a war crime and anything and every other crime you commit
while there is part of the whole.

In other words, get your occupation troops out and there won't be any
accidentally killing civilians and there won't be dead american soldiers either.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/iloveny/2004/iraq_diary/images/150/iraqi.jpg

Iraqi man going to the market, or an insurgent carrying explosive going to blow up the market?
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/capt.sge.ovn25.100504155834.jpg
American soldier - noble and courageous girl willing to fight for truth justice and the american way or disgrace to her country ?

Or the man whose picture I cannot find at the moment
Spc. James P. Barker
Another fighter to free Iraqis from tyranny
or someone who rapes a 14 year old girl with his mates and then kills
her and her family.


As for Guantanamo, Well, you tell me what we should do with people we capture and believe to be important to us, but if we release them, they'll go back and try to kill our men and women in uniform?


You hold them as prisoners of war until the war is over with full
red cross access
or you hold them as criminals subject to the normal laws and standards
of justice that apply in your civil courts.

How many have been held for years and then released because
they weren't important and had nothing to do with any attempt
to kill the people you used to illegally invade another country.

Actually they don't they believe that.
Mostly people believe your country illegally invaded Iraq
which would be a war crime and anything and every other crime you commit
while there is part of the whole.

I have an uncle who was in Iraq, trust me, the insurgents blend in with the crowd, they don't wear a uniform. This is what is known as Guerilla Warfare.


In other words, get your occupation troops out and there won't be any
accidentally killing civilians and there won't be dead american soldiers either.

We can't pull out now, If we do, we'd be leaving behind a giant mess. Even though the war is unpopular, if we pull out now, we'd never hear the end of it.


http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/capt.sge.ovn25.100504155834.jpg
American soldier - noble and courageous girl willing to fight for truth justice and the american way or disgrace to her country ?

She was brought to Justice for her crime.


Or the man whose picture I cannot find at the moment
Spc. James P. Barker
Another fighter to free Iraqis from tyranny
or someone who rapes a 14 year old girl with his mates and then kills
her and her family.

He was also brought to Justice.

You hold them as prisoners of war until the war is over with full
red cross access
or you hold them as criminals subject to the normal laws and standards
of justice that apply in your civil courts.

How do you know we don't allow them full red cross access?

How many have been held for years and then released because
they weren't important and had nothing to do with any attempt
to kill the people you used to illegally invade another country.

That's war for you. Sometimes you have to hold on to a guy for a long time to make sure he has nothing of value, and poses no threats. This isn't a movie, or TV show, or a video game, where everything is quick and actiony. Nothing gets resolved in neat little packages either. Sometimes the process is long and hard.

We can't pull out now, If we do, we'd be leaving behind a giant mess. Even though the war is unpopular, if we pull out now, we'd never hear the end of it.


Mantra: "You don't change horses in the middle of the stream".

Response: "You do if your horse is drowning".

Mantra: "You don't change horses in the middle of the stream".

Response: "You do if your horse is drowning".

People are always saying that we're creating new terrorist.

Look at Iraq, and the shape it's in now. Do you really want us to leave it like that? What do you think is going to create more terrorist. A country that is destabilized for a short period of time, or for a long period of time?

It's interesting how the right media would over-emphasis Saddam's domestic suppression, and not mention the million plus Iranians that died essentially with US bullets and chemical weapons, just because the US did not like the democratic Islamic regime in Tehran, and Saddam was more than willing to invade.

People are always saying that we're creating new terrorist.

Look at Iraq, and the shape it's in now. Do you really want us to leave it like that? What do you think is going to create more terrorist. A country that is destabilized for a short period of time, or for a long period of time?
As it stands now, Iraq is destabilized, and Afghanistan is rapidly moving in that direction. Without major policy shifts in BOTH regions, neither will be a "short period of time"

To build on GnI, the horse is under water, and we are still on the saddle. How much longer are we going to hold on?

As it stands now, Iraq is destabilized, and Afghanistan is rapidly moving in that direction. Without major policy shifts in BOTH regions, neither will be a "short period of time"

To build on GnI, the horse is under water, and we are still on the saddle. How much longer are we going to hold on?

Well what would you suggest we do?

People are always saying that we're creating new terrorist.

Look at Iraq, and the shape it's in now. Do you really want us to leave it like that? What do you think is going to create more terrorist. A country that is destabilized for a short period of time, or for a long period of time?

Would be a fine and dandy thing
except
your forces are the primary destabilising forces in the country.

The situation gets worse year on year with you there.
Where you shouldn't have gone in the first place
which you did ignoring all advice that was contrary to your wishes
including the warning that you would destabilise the country and create
terrorism.

If the US was not on the security council with a veto
the US would right now be the subject of numerous resolutions
If the US did not have the most exceedingly well equipped armed forces
with the most advanced and destructive weaponry that it has no
hesitation in using against men women and children from any country
that scares it, it would right now be facing a legal coalition expelling you from Iraq
just as you were the primary nation in the legal coalition expelling Iraq from Kuwait

The US are a criminal element in this situation and the situation cannot improve
while they remain.
As we told you before you invaded
just after you invaded
before your first year was over
before your second year was over
before your third year was over
etc etc

Like capone saying he wouldnt leave chicago until all this mob violence was going on

Well what would you suggest we do?

At this point? Here it goes.

admit to the international community (UN and otherwise) that we messed up. We declared war on bad evidence, and handled said war poorly. Ask for help.

If that help comes, great. Stabalize Iraq with international help. If it does not come, pull out. We aren't helping at this point.

If we get international aid, reduce the US troops in Iraq and send some to Afghanistan along with new troops. Without international aid, redeploy most troops to Afghanistan.

We cannot win both wars alone at this point. If we get international aid, great. Try for both. If we can't get international aid, then cut our losses and take the best bet.

At this point? Here it goes.

admit to the international community (UN and otherwise) that we messed up. We declared war on bad evidence, and handled said war poorly. Ask for help.

If that help comes, great. Stabalize Iraq with international help. If it does not come, pull out. We aren't helping at this point.

If we get international aid, reduce the US troops in Iraq and send some to Afghanistan along with new troops. Without international aid, redeploy most troops to Afghanistan.

We cannot win both wars alone at this point. If we get international aid, great. Try for both. If we can't get international aid, then cut our losses and take the best bet.

If we pull out, what will happen to Iraq?

If we pull out, what will happen to Iraq?

internal collapse fueled by civil war. in such a system as iraq, where the two main political parties are 1) greatly different in populace and 2) differ greatly in beliefs, theres really no other way this is gonna go down.

We can't pull out now, If we do, we'd be leaving behind a giant mess. Even though the war is unpopular, if we pull out now, we'd never hear the end of it.



Now I realise why that argument seems familiar.

Mom: Bud go to bed.
Bud dashes around his room messing it up, socks on floor, unmaking the bed etc
Bud: Mom I can't go to bed while my room is a mess. Look the bed isn't even made.

Two options

Mom knowing what Bud is like takes the strap to him and has him go to bed in
the spare bedroom . (Modern parents may dispense with the physical punishment as long as they ensure he is in bed ontime regardless.)
or Mom being a dimbleberry agrees with him and brings him cocoa and biscuits
to help him through the hours of tidying while watching the tv.

If we pull out, what will happen to Iraq?

Nothing much worse than what would happen if we remain. At this point, it is either currently IN civil war, or rapidly moving to said civil war. We do not have the man power there currently, nor coming through the ranks, to do much anything to stop this. We are literally clawing for any kind of control, and got getting a grip. We just don't have the number of troops we need.

Iraq, most likely, will undergo years of civil war (this has never been much of a concern, as there have been dozens of civil wars in Africa that the US has never so much as mentioned). The way I see it, we end up with an Islamic state similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia, and a Kurdish state similar to Turkey. That is, however, an internal issue, as are all civil wars.

And just so you know: taking out the Saddamite regime was a GOOD thing.
Perhaps for a pro Bushie living comfortably in "red county California", especially if one happens to buy American stocks:

Windfalls of War (http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/report.aspx?aid=338)

WASHINGTON, July 7, 2004 — More than 150 American companies have received contracts worth up to $48.7 billion for work in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the latest update of the Center for Public Integrity's Windfalls of War project.

This figure represents an increase of 82 companies and more than $40 billion since the Center first released its study of contracts awarded to U.S. companies for postwar work in Afghanistan and Iraq on Oct. 30, 2003.
Might as well "capitalize" on others misfortunes? I can see how the war would be of great benefit for some Americans.

Unless you happen to be a Saddamite, that is :p
Or any other Iraqi for that matter.

Perhaps the biggest benefit that Iraqis have these days, is the numerous craters left by exploding American bombs. All Iraqis have to do is gather up their tens of thousands dead and throw them in the American made craters, and cover them up. At least they don't have to dig. Mass graves American style.

Nothing much worse than what would happen if we remain. At this point, it is either currently IN civil war, or rapidly moving to said civil war. We do not have the man power there currently, nor coming through the ranks, to do much anything to stop this. We are literally clawing for any kind of control, and got getting a grip. We just don't have the number of troops we need.

Correct


Iraq, most likely, will undergo years of civil war (this has never been much of a concern, as there have been dozens of civil wars in Africa that the US has never so much as mentioned). The way I see it, we end up with an Islamic state similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia, and a Kurdish state similar to Turkey. That is, however, an internal issue, as are all civil wars.

Similar to Turkey?
Or actually Turkey given their attitude towards the Kurds?
Maybe a deal with Iran to slice up that northern part of Iraq between themselves,
but who gets the oil?

Probably the defining event of 2006, and Saddam will not see the daylight of 2007.

Saddam has been hanged as of 10pm EST. Go to CNN or Fox for the news.
Yay. But he's like a weed. A dozen more will pop into place. Why? It's the Middle East...

Mattorn;12149090']Yay. But he's like a weed. A dozen more will pop into place. Why? It's the Middle East...

Osama's still around! But probably really sick and dying now.

Perhaps the biggest benefit that Iraqis have these days, is the numerous craters left by exploding American bombs. All Iraqis have to do is gather up their tens of thousands dead and throw them in the American made craters, and cover them up. At least they don't have to dig. Mass graves American style.

Well those as well as
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4915047-102275,00.html

Similar to Turkey?
Or actually Turkey given their attitude towards the Kurds?
Maybe a deal with Iran to slice up that northern part of Iraq between themselves,
but who gets the oil?

Similar to Turkey in that it will be a state that attempts to "westernize" and secularize, but will still have Islamic roots and some Islamic culture.

I don't think Iraqi's or Persians should have control over Kurds, and the Kurds have demonstrated a desire for self-rule.

Probably the defining event of 2006, and Saddam will not see the daylight of 2007.

Surely the defining event of 2006 was the US presidents change of language
from
Absolutely, we're winning (November 8th 2006)
to
we are not winning (December 20th 2006)
in the space of only 1 election.

Similar to Turkey in that it will be a state that attempts to "westernize" and secularize, but will still have Islamic roots and some Islamic culture.

I don't think Iraqi's or Persians should have control over Kurds, and the Kurds have demonstrated a desire for self-rule.

They have and to be frank they deserve to have self rule and a nation of their own.
But no one has any intention of letting them have it, particularly Turkey.
I doubt Iran would be terribly keen either. The rest of Iraq wouldn't want
them to take an oilfield either.

If we pull out, what will happen to Iraq?

If we stay, will our presence in any way stabalize Iraq (Hint: The answer is probably not)?

Well those as well as
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4915047-102275,00.html
That and more (http://www.fsteiger.com/Saddams_mass_graves.html).

If we stay, will our presence in any way stabalize Iraq (Hint: The answer is probably not)?

Yea, but is it really worth pulling out when the job isn't done? I mean if we pull out we're leaving behind a destabilized country that lost any chance of stabilizing itself.

Yea, but is it really worth pulling out when the job isn't done? I mean if we pull out we're leaving behind a destabilized country that lost any chance of stabilizing itself.

Look it's really simple

The war was about control of oil.

If the US totally pulled out of Iraq then they would not control the oil.

Any truly democratically elected government would most likely not favour
the US and their oil requirements. They would much more likely favour Iran.

The US does not now have and never has had any intention of completely
withdrawing from Iraq.
What they want to do is stay in Iraq where they can exercise power
if needed but letting one group or other of Iraqis deal with rebels or insurgents
or anything else tricky.

Ergo the permanent military bases and the truly massive embassy (or alternative government)

If America did completely withdraw from Iraq it would be a resounding defeat for them.
It is what needs to happen for international law to have a chance to come
into the ascendant, it is highly unlikely to happen.

Look at Iraq, and the shape it's in now. Do you really want us to leave it like that? What do you think is going to create more terrorist. A country that is destabilized for a short period of time, or for a long period of time?

Iraq is in a worse shape now, than it was under Saddam.

The longer we stay there, the more fucked up the whole thing gets. We've watched this happen... it isn't conjecture.

I've been advocating we get out since we got in. I'm still advocating it now. So, do I really want us to 'leave it like that'? Hell yes!

People are drawn into terrorism by inequalities in lifestyle (we aren't helping that), by feelings of disenfranchisement (we aren't helping that), by feelings of having been failed (we certainly aren't helping that), and by feelings of persecution (we are making that worse).

I don't see how us leaving Iraq can be worse than us staying.

Yea, but is it really worth pulling out when the job isn't done? I mean if we pull out we're leaving behind a destabilized country that lost any chance of stabilizing itself.

And? Maybe this isn't apparent to you yet, but the war is lost. We no longer have the resources at our command to "win" Iraq. It's over. The best we will every be able to do is restabalize Kurdistan. The "Surge" to retake Iraq would have to add 50,000 troops for 18 months. That is absolutely outside of our current military capability.

Moreover, we were morally obligated to set up an Iraqi government and let them sink or swim under their own power. They have sunk. That's not our problem.

And? Maybe this isn't apparent to you yet, but the war is lost. We no longer have the resources at our command to "win" Iraq. It's over. The best we will every be able to do is restabalize Kurdistan. The "Surge" to retake Iraq would have to add 50,000 troops for 18 months. That is absolutely outside of our current military capability.

Moreover, we were morally obligated to set up an Iraqi government and let them sink or swim under their own power. They have sunk. That's not our problem.

Not even. We were 'morally obligated' to nothing. We fought a war against the government of another nation (which is a bizarre concept, I'll grant). Once our mission was achieved, it could be argued our need to be there was satisfied.

If we felt a moral duty to the people of Iraq, most of it could probably have been ameliorated by pumping billions of dollars of aid into the region. That might even have helped strengthen a provisional government.

Instead, we have pumped billions of dollars into (Haliburton and) killing Iraqis.

Yea, but is it really worth pulling out when the job isn't done? I mean if we pull out we're leaving behind a destabilized country that lost any chance of stabilizing itself. its all clear now...

... whatzefuckwazalldat

Not even. We were 'morally obligated' to nothing. We fought a war against the government of another nation (which is a bizarre concept, I'll grant). Once our mission was achieved, it could be argued our need to be there was satisfied.

If we felt a moral duty to the people of Iraq, most of it could probably have been ameliorated by pumping billions of dollars of aid into the region. That might even have helped strengthen a provisional government.

Instead, we have pumped billions of dollars into (Haliburton and) killing Iraqis.You did more than just fight a war against the government of another nation, you devastated another country, because you weren't bright enough to study your perceived enemy sufficiently before striking (I may quote one of may favorite authors thus: "the hasty stroke oft goes astray"). You have more than just a moral obligation to stabilize Iraq. You messed up, now tidy up.
You will be forever judged by what you leave behind.

And? Maybe this isn't apparent to you yet, but the war is lost. We no longer have the resources at our command to "win" Iraq. It's over. The best we will every be able to do is restabalize Kurdistan. The "Surge" to retake Iraq would have to add 50,000 troops for 18 months. That is absolutely outside of our current military capability.

Moreover, we were morally obligated to set up an Iraqi government and let them sink or swim under their own power. They have sunk. That's not our problem.95% true.

war is lost? True
cannot win there? True.
We were responsible for keeping the peace and order? True

That's not our Problem?
I do not agree... We destroyed Iraq institutions and insfraestructure.. We destroyed the lifes of millions.. It is all a direct consequence of US attacking them..

We must leave now (yesterday)... but its not "because its not our problem".. Its simply because our soldiers there.. are not making things better. their presense is like fuel to the fire

Good riddance.
I've been partying too hard this year - way too many ex-tyrants kicked the bucket. I need to change my habit of drinking and dancing whenever a tyrant or former tyrant dies.

95% true.

war is lost? True
cannot win there? True.
We were responsible for keeping the peace and order? True

That's not our Problem?
I do not agree... We destroyed Iraq institutions and insfraestructure.. We destroyed the lifes of millions.. It is all a direct consequence of US attacking them..

We must leave now (yesterday)... but its not "because its not our problem".. Its simply because our soldiers there.. are not making things better. their presense is like fuel to the fire

...and last I knew we were also rebuilding the infrastructure that was destroyed.

One less mass-murdering former-dictator on the earth. Can't say I don't approve of that. Hope some good use can be made of the event over there.

Saddam Hussein is dead, and now all of his victims are coming back to life - plus, his former supporters are really going to work to rebuild a war torn iraq!


Killing the guy was politically useless. Oh well, who cares about some dead derka derka.

Sure it is. Wiki is the fastest source I can think of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadaam_Hussein

Go down to the Rise to Power part.

Now can you show me that part that says Bush #41 gave permission for Iraq to invade Kuwaitt?

Saddam Hussein is dead, and now all of his victims are coming back to life - plus, his former supporters are really going to work to rebuild a war torn iraq!
Killing the guy was politically useless. Oh well, who cares about some dead derka derka.The execution of Saddam Hussein is not supposed to be of political use. It was punishment for his deeds and the deeds he was responsible for.

You're funny. Conspiracy theorists always think everything they say is the truth... And call everyone else ingnorant in self-defense, instead of actually proving their claims.

Here’s some help for you:

Propaganda works only when the target audience wants it to work

Education is a prerequisite for propaganda.

Absorb/disseminate large quantities of second-hand, unverifiable information.

The graduate student applies the same principles of school to other media, such as the television, radio, magazines, and so forth. The three things listed above happen to every student in every type of school. And almost every person has gone to school. So almost every member of modern society is conditioned by the school to be receptive to propaganda.

Or here, since you like conspiracy theories so much, perhaps you would like to invent your very own the next time you post…
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/old_conspiracy.html

Yes!! So kids stay out of school and everyone else bury your head in a pile of leaves deep deep in the forest and you too shall be propaganda free!!

At this point? Here it goes.

admit to the international community (UN and otherwise) that we messed up. We declared war on bad evidence, and handled said war poorly. Ask for help.

If that help comes, great. Stabalize Iraq with international help. If it does not come, pull out. We aren't helping at this point.

What would international help in Iraq provide that the US couldnt on its own?

If we get international aid, reduce the US troops in Iraq and send some to Afghanistan along with new troops. Without international aid, redeploy most troops to Afghanistan.

We cannot win both wars alone at this point. If we get international aid, great. Try for both. If we can't get international aid, then cut our losses and take the best bet.

Are you aware that most if not all of Afghanistan is under full UN mandate and military control and in fact we have very few US troops there because is an international presence. Afghanistan is no longer a "US" war or problem. Its been given to and accepted in full by the UN. So the recent "failures" in Afghanistan is now on the Worlds sholders not ours. And if they cant get it right in Afghanistan what makes you think they would do any better then the US in Iraq?

Now can you show me that part that says Bush #41 gave permission for Iraq to invade Kuwaitt?

Damn. I know this one. I don't have the source off hand but as far as I recall, it was either an Ambassador or a member of the State dept (I know it was a woman - that I'm positive about) that when asked by the Iraqis "would there be a response if we moved to reclaim our territory?" [Kuwait used to be part of Iraq before the British drew another line on a map] and the response was something along the lines of:

"There shouldn't be a response" which is international politcs is pretty much a green light. About 2-3 days later, the invasion began.

That's off the top of my head, I'll try to find a book for that source, though I am sure that it is pretty widely known.

[quote]Fact: The entire civilized world has unanimously abolished capital punishment for quite some time now. The United states is the only exception.

Hooray for self-righteous moral onanism!

BTW, Iraq =/= the United States.

[quote]he, personally took thousands of lives? I'd be suprised if he, personally, did much anything. the people who were complacent with his government actually *did* it. he's a scapegoat. please don't confuse that with me claiming he's innocent, becuase he certainly isn't. still, he did not directly take the vast majority of those lives - he might not have personally killed anyone at all. justice, getting back exactly what you put out, does not exist, and never has.

You know who else never personally killed any of his victims? Hitler.

Also, that's not the definition of justice.

which is rather a misleading one. there's more than one reason they say "justice" is blind.

There's nothing misleading about it. Justice is simply punishment for a crime as assigned by an arbiter of the law, in this case a court system operating with government approval.

If Saddam was supportive of the US, he would be in power today and eventually died a comfortable death regardless of his abuses.

Probably. Does this change the fact that he's evil and deserved to die?

Where does your two million figure come from?

The best I've been able to get were 1 million killed in the Iran Iraq war
and 300,000 otherwise

I have about a million for the Iran-Iraq War, as well as a hundred thousand Kurds, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims (people originally thought this number was no higher than 150,000, but after the invasion, the discovery of mass graves led to an upward revision of 300,000). As many as 200,000 Iraqis and Kuwaitis killed in the first Gulf War, including retributions against supporters of the U.S. after the Arab street pressured them to withdraw without deposing Hussein. And more than half a million dead from sanctions that could've been averted if he'd complied with the UN's demands.

But Saddam has not been executed for the 1 million killed in the war
and he has not been executed for crimes against the Kurds
He has been executed for the killing of 148 Shias in the town of Dujail
after an attempted assassination of him there.

...

So?

Death is never justice. Death is a mode of revenge.

Uhm... prove it?

Seriously, pure philosophical pap is not a valid substitute for debate.

Death being fairly absolute surely would mean supporters of murder like yourself
are the absolutists.

Uh, again, it's not murder, which is by definition against the law.

Nothing does justify cold blooded premeditated murder.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with Hussein's execution.

Also, you seem to have nothing to say for his bountiful mass murders.

And finally, you guys would make wretched leaders. Have any of you got a single pragmatic bone in your body? Or is your concept of leadership just dredging up some worthless abstract one-liners and then applying them without modification to every person and nation in the world?

Adding to this sentiment is the fact that Saddam's was never properly tried to completion for his worst crimes.

Again.... soooo? Killing 150 people is bad enough. It's a safe bet he'd have been executed if he'd been tried for the other 1,999,850+.

I cannot ever condone democide.

Do you even know what that word means?

Countries with ambitions to dominate the world always fail, someday
the US will be trying to hold onto its prestige by clinging to the coattails
or India or China the same as the UK (once the premier power in the world)
clings to the US (it's ex colony) now.

Please, if the US wanted to dominate the world, they'd install a military governor in Iraq and start razing whole cities. They wouldn't dick around with this silly "democracy" nonsense.

Of course they wouldn't have started with some backwater shithole like Iraq, either.

Grow up, kid.

capital punishment is merely a name given to state sanctioned murder.

Again, no it isn't, murder being by definition against the law.

And since every post past page 5 is pretty much pointless repetition of everything I've already rebutted, I'm done with this thread.

Odd that you should include Pinochet (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm) as something somehow seperate from the US.

But I agree, there are many bastards worth discussing. But the corollary to your (valid) issue with those who only want to discuss the faults of the US are those americans who insist that we can't discuss Americas failings unless we discuss every other failing of every other country concurrently.

Frankly, there is a place for all of those discussions.

But this thread is not about the Khmer, the Chileans, or the Afghanis. It's about IRaq, and the US involvement therin is a valid component of the discussion.

Pinochet was never tried by his own people for the crimes he committed, although they sure as hell tried. Maybe he was a bad example, but how is Saddam Hussein any different than Pol Pot? Sure, maybe fewer people died under his regime.

And I am not one of those people. Yeah, America's fucked up big time. But that's part of being a nation composed of people- you make mistakes. Have we supported some bad people? Yeah. But, should we take responsibility for the atrocities committed by other nations? No.

Sure, Bush's pretenses changed when there were no WMDs found. But I find it laughable that the same people who argue for US support in Darfur, and the abrogation of support for the Chinese Communists based on human rights issues, oppose the war in Iraq that deposed a tryannical monster.

HAven't read the reigle report (http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html) have you?

Or, how about this well-cited condesation of the chronology (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php)

Which is not to say that others weren't involved too, but trying to paint the US as a minor player in this is fricken hilarious!

None of which disputes what I said.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif

I am amaze to see how many people actually, what symphatize with Saddam?

Go to Iraq, talk to one of the families who had members who was killed by his regime, and then you come back here and tell me that he didn't deserve death.
Why do you support revenge?

Main Entry: red herring
Function: noun
1 : a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2 [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue


If I'm reading this correctly... then it is you that has no facts to back up anything you say.. I understand emotion can get the best of people.. such as it seems to have with you. It's okay, if my country messed up this bad I'd probably try to find "red herrings" too. :rolleyes:

I understand that you have to exxagerate and make things up to support your BDS.

I guess all those facts about who primarily supplied Iraq don't matter or that fact that there aren't pits full of bodies of Bush's opponenents in the US, the Gov't doesn't raid the homes of hundreds of people, never to be seen or heard from again, nor has he tried to commit genocide on a third of the US population.

It's about as stupid as the Isreal = Nazi thread.