Saddam Hussein Hanged

[EuroTroll]

...about an hour ago, new agencies report.

Certainly a major milestone in the conflict, I wonder how it will influence the actions of various parties. Will it lead to more violence? Or can it be the beginning of something more positive?

[harvick#1]

I sure hope it doesn't lead to more violence, but I believe it will :(

[Ranger]

I think it's gotten to the point of the war that it doesn't really matter that much anymore. Fighting continues, US and allied troops are still being killed, and it's very likely that the US forces will be back there in another 10 years to overthrow the new leader.

What's more, it still doesn't answer that elusive WMD question, or bring America any closer to finding and elminating the terrorists.

[A.F.F.]

One less Hussein though...










Next !!!

[oily oaf]

Those of you familiar with my penchant for setting fire to young boys will no doubt be surprised to learn that I am firmly against the death penalty even for such an odious character as this.
If I thought for one moment that Saddam's demise would lead to peace for the long suffering people of this tragic land then I would put my personal opinions on state sponsored murder on the back burner and pull the lever myself.
I think we all know though don't we that this act will merely lead to more bloodshed and factional hatred among those who believe that acts of terror and barbarism will bring a solution to the problems that face Iraq today.
So excuse me if I don't fire my sawn off shooter into the London sky this morning my friends.
A barbaric end to a barbarian? Yes.
An end to the carnage? Just a new beginning I fear.

[penagate]

So how long until the video shows up on Youtube?

[Captain VXR]

Yay :D , bye bye Saddam.
Gay :mad: , hello new violence.

[canada]

Utterly pointless. More violence to come. Couldn't he just be locked away?

[Donney]

Death penalty is not the solution to any problem so more likely it will create more violence.

[Drew]

That's 2 dictators down (including that one in Turkministan that was just a ego tripper) there's plenty more left to go.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I won't be shedding any tears for this awful man, but I am against the death penalty, even in this instance.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The US troops who found should have shot him straight away.

[Ian McC]

I think in the general scheme of things it doesn't matter much now

[BeansBeansBeans]

The US troops who found should have shot him straight away.

I don't agree. The man needed to be tried for his crimes.

[pino]

I never liked him, and I condamn what he did, but I saw the video and I must say that he was cool and died with honour :up:

[Ian McC]

I never liked him, and I condamn what he did, but I saw the video and I must say that he was cool and died with honour :up:


Have they shown it on TV?

[pino]

Have they shown it on TV?

It's on an ital news web-site :)

[Ian McC]

It's on an ital news web-site :)


Ugh, I have no wish to see a man hanged, even if it is him.

[Dazz9908]

A tooth for a tooth, an Eye for an eye
Still this justice is the same he dished out. Makes out that we are no better than him.
Could just of let him rot away in a 6by4 cell. with no contact for the rest of his life.

[Lousada]

and I must say that he was cool and died with honour :up:

:confused:

[EuroTroll]

Makes out that we are no better than him.

Remember that both the trial and the execution were carried out by Iraqi institutions.

[Eki]

Remember that both the trial and the execution were carried out by Iraqi institutions.
Just like when Saddam was in power. Things haven't changed much.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't agree. The man needed to be tried for his crimes.

The trail was never going to be fair and the outcome was inevitable.

I've seen a video of the rope being placed around his neck but I don't think the actual hanging will be shown.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The trail was never going to be fair and the outcome was inevitable.

Would you favour a world where the state is able to execute un-armed suspects without trial?

[EuroTroll]

Just like when Saddam was in power. Things haven't changed much.

Interesting statement.

Before the invasion, Iraq was a stable dictatorship whose citizens could be executed basically because Saddam Hussein didn't like them. Now, Iraq is an unstable democracy whose citizens can only be executed if a court of law finds them guilty of a grievous crime.

Things haven't changed much...?

[Eki]

Interesting statement.

Before the invasion, Iraq was a stable dictatorship whose citizens could be executed basically because Saddam Hussein didn't like them. Now, Iraq is an unstable democracy whose citizens can only be executed if a court of law finds them guilty of a grievous crime.

Things haven't changed much...?
Saddam's regime had courts too. I'm sure Iraqi citizens can still be executed if those now in power don't like them and claim it's a grievous crime in the eyes of the current government. The claims about death squads in Iraqi police and torture in Iraqi prisons may not be totally ungrounded.

Saddam was hanged because he punished those who tried to assasinate him. I'm sure it was a grievous crime in his eyes. I'm sure every nation would punish those trying to kill their leader. For example, the man who tried to assasinate Ronald Reagan in the 80s is still in prison. Isn't it inhumane? You don't get that long prison sentence just for an attempted murder here in Finland.

[Drew]

I suppose before the overthrow, people had to watch out for the government, now it's just anybody you don't know.

I feel sorry for the Iraqi people that have to live with this :\

[EuroTroll]

Saddam was hanged because he punished those who tried to assasinate him. [...] I'm sure every nation would punish those trying to kill their leader.

Let's not forget that the punishment was the killing of 148 people without trial. Can you please list all countries that are likely to produce this kind of a response to an attempted assassination of their leader?


For example, the man who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan in the 80s is still in prison. Isn't it inhumane? You don't get that long prison sentence just for an attempted murder here in Finland.

Different countries have different punishments. The severity of punishments in Finland is by no means the universal ideal, but just one of the options.

There a significant difference, however, between trying someone according to the laws of a country and simply killing opponents. Surely you must realize that. :s

[TOgoFASTER]

Interesting statement. Now, Iraq is an unstable democracy whose citizens can only be executed if a court of law finds them guilty of a grievous crime.

Things haven't changed much...?

FOX News roundup time?
Seems there has been no shortage of executed citizens that are tortured and then shot in the back of the head, blown up etc. in Iraq daily.
Executed is the correct wording.
There has not been a need of a busy court doing overtime to bring it about.

Or is it just collateral damage?

[EuroTroll]

FOX News roundup time?
Seems there has been no shortage of executed citizens that are tortured and then shot in the back of the head, blown up etc. in Iraq daily.
Executed is the correct wording.
There has not been a need of a busy court doing overtime to bring it about.

Or is it just collateral damage?

No, it's murder. Carried out by persons who are not sanctioned by the Iraqi government.

[Eki]

Different countries have different punishments.
I think that answers your first question. Different countries have different punishments.

I'm sure you as an Estonian don't understand all aspects of the Iraqi mentality. In Iraq much of the population want to kill their neighbours who want to kill them. A dictator must be REALLY brutal to stand out from the brutality of an ordinary Joe (or should I say Ahmed) and rise up as the winner.

[Eki]

No, it's murder. Carried out by persons who are not sanctioned by the Iraqi government.
I'm quite sure the police under Saddam's rule didn't get a court order and a note from Saddam every time they wanted to kill someone either.

[EuroTroll]

I'm quite sure the police under Saddam's rule didn't get a court order and a note from Saddam everytime they wanted to kill someone either.

Are you, by any chance, aware of some instances of police violence in Iraq and are trying to give the impression that the current Iraqi administration is just as oppressive as the previous one?

[EuroTroll]

I think that answers your first question. Different countries have different punishments.

Indeed, if the killing of these 148 people was carried out according to the laws of Iraq at that time, my argument would be severely weakened. Was it?

[Eki]

Indeed, if the killing of these 148 people was carried out according to the laws of Iraq at that time, my argument would be severely weakened. Was it?
I think he just ordered his security forces to squelch an uprising. That could happen without a court order in any country experiencing a revolution and still be perfectly legal. Did the security forces use unnecessary force to complete their task? Possibly or maybe even probably.

[Tomi]

Interesting statement.

Before the invasion, Iraq was a stable dictatorship whose citizens could be executed basically because Saddam Hussein didn't like them. Now, Iraq is an unstable democracy whose citizens can only be executed if a court of law finds them guilty of a grievous crime.

Things haven't changed much...?

Unstable yes, but far from a democracy, or in how many democracys forming of government does foregin countries, in this case occuping forces get involved usually?

[Mihai]

I don't like executions but I believe that this is an important step in re-establishing law and order in Iraq. Most of you were born in democratic countries and you are not aware of one aspect in dictatorships.
Saddam led his country for so long and so successfully because he was feared by the all the people in the structures of power (the punishment was very often death for insubordonation). The fear accumulated over the years (especially that the population isn't very educated - you can lead better uneducated individuals) becoming a myth among his people.

Even when he was detained by the Americans, these poeple that still kept an influence among their ethnic groups still feared Saddam. They thought it's still possible for Saddam to make a hocus-pocus and return to power. And the consequences would have been dramatic for those who joined forces with the US-led coalition or the new Iraqi police. So it was necessary to send them a clear message: SADDAM IS NEVER GONNA RETURN.

It was the same situation 17 years ago during the Romanian revolution. Communist dictator Ceausescu was trialed (in record time) and executed for the same reason: he was feared by those who were leading important sectors of the Army or the economy. They shot him avoiding to hit his face so that everyone could see him dead on TV. He wasn't going to return to power. A reformist from the second row of the communist party assumed power in the country and everyone felt secure, joining the democracy. This is how it works!

[EuroTroll]

I think he just ordered his security forces to squelch an uprising. That could happen without a court order in any country experiencing a revolution and still be perfectly legal. Did the security forces use unnecessary force to complete their task? Possibly or maybe even probably.

I think you're trying to confuse. An uprising is a large popular movement whose aim is to replace the ruling regime with a new one. An assassination attempt is an action of under-ground rebels whose aim is to eliminate one (or a few) most hated member(s) of the ruling regime.

What happened in Dujail in 1982 was as similar to an uprising as a cat is to a tomato.

[Eki]

Unstable yes, but far from a democracy, or in how many democracys forming of government does foregin countries, in this case occuping forces get involved usually?
I think Estonia has experienced that kind of governments. But maybe Studiose is so young that he has forgotten.

[EuroTroll]

Unstable yes, but far from a democracy, or in how many democracys forming of government does foregin countries, in this case occuping forces get involved usually?

I think there are plenty of examples, for instance West Germany after WW2.

[EuroTroll]

I think Estonia has experienced that kind of governments. But maybe Studiose is so young that he has forgotten.

Eh? :confused:

[Eki]

I don't like executions but I believe that this is an important step in re-establishing law and order in Iraq. Most of you were born in democratic countries and you are not aware of one aspect in dictatorships.
Saddam led his country for so long and so successfully because he was feared by the all the people in the structures of power (the punishment was very often death for insubordonation). The fear accumulated over the years (especially that the population isn't very educated - you can lead better uneducated individuals) becoming a myth among his people.

Even when he was detained by the Americans, these poeple that still kept an influence among their ethnic groups still feared Saddam. They thought it's still possible for Saddam to make a hocus-pocus and return to power. And the consequences would have been dramatic for those who joined forces with the US-led coalition or the new Iraqi police. So it was necessary to send them a clear message: SADDAM IS NEVER GONNA RETURN.

It was the same situation 17 years ago during the Romanian revolution. Communist dictator Ceausescu was trialed (in record time) and executed for the same reason: he was feared by those who were leading important sectors of the Army or the economy. They shot him avoiding to hit his face so that everyone could see him dead on TV. He wasn't going to return to power. A reformist from the second row of the communist party assumed power in the country and everyone felt secure, joining the democracy. This is how it works!
I doubt Romania had at least three or four ethnic, political or religous groups ready to jump at each others' throats if given a chance. I think Yugoslavia was a better analogy to Iraq than Romania.

[Eki]

Eh? :confused:
Were not the Estonian governments between 1940 to 1991 influenced by the Soviet Union (= foreign invaders and occupiers)?

[EuroTroll]

Were not the Estonian governments between 1940 to 1991 influenced by the Soviet Union (= foreign invaders and occupiers)?

Well, the Council of Ministers of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was, in effect, a branch of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union in Moscow. But how does this relate to Iraq?

[Tomi]

I think there are plenty of examples, for instance West Germany after WW2.

Germany had just lost a war, it was spiltted up by the winners, hardly a democratic process by any standards.

[EuroTroll]

Germany had just lost a war, it was spiltted up by the winners, hardly a democratic process by any standards.

Alright. But Iraq's territory is intact and the legislative body is elected by the people in free elections. Why isn't it a democracy?

[Tomi]

Alright. But Iraq's territory is intact and the legislative body is elected by the people in free elections. Why isn't it a democracy?

In democracy and free clections any citizen can candidate, in Iraq this was not the case.

[Mihai]

I doubt Romania had at least three or four ethnic, political or religous groups ready to jump at each others' throats if given a chance. I think Yugoslavia was a better analogy to Iraq than Romania.

Actually Romania has three major ethnic groups and two of them jump at each others' throats in early 1990 (months after the revolution). The Romanians and the Hungarians. The other one is the gipsies that are largely politically neutral (although their leaders usually make alliances to the party who wins the elections).

The 'Yugoslavisation' of Iraq (splitting the country in several ethnic regions) was not an option for the Americans because that would have meant an independent Kurdistan (which is the most peaceful region of Iraq) and that would have upset Turkey. For decades, Turkey is US' main allie from the muslim countries and a 'model' promoted by the US for other muslim countries.

Read agains my lines, I didn't said the Romania was in the same situation as Iraq today, I just argumented the 'importance' of executing the dictator in both countries (since both Saddam and Ceausescu led the country in an opressive manner and they cultivated fear among the lower-ranks of the system).

[BDunnell]

Germany had just lost a war, it was spiltted up by the winners, hardly a democratic process by any standards.

Forgive me, but what did you expect them to do? The way the war in Germany ended created a messy situation in geographical terms, largely down to the behaviour of the Soviets. In the end, it was possible to contain the problems it caused without armed conflict ensuing. The key difference is that the East and West Germans didn't want to start a civil war with one another. I don't see what Germany has to do with this topic, quite honestly.

[EuroTroll]

In democracy and free clections any citizen can candidate, in Iraq this was not the case.

Yes, there is truth in that, but as far as I understand the only limit set to candidates was that they be over 30 years old and have a high school diploma. In my opinion that doesn't disqualify Iraq from being a democracy, as it doesn't favour one section of the population to another (except the educated to the uneducated, and the older to the younger :) ). Some restrictions are probably necessary and I guess every democracy has them. For example, convicted criminals are not allowed to stand for public office in any democratic country, I suppose, and a minimum age for candidates is also common.

[Eki]

Yes, there is truth in that, but as far as I understand the only limit set to candidates was that they be over 30 years old and have a high school diploma. In my opinion that doesn't disqualify Iraq from being a democracy, as it doesn't favour one section of the population to another (except the educated to the uneducated, and the older to the younger :) ). Some restrictions are probably necessary and I guess every democracy has them. For example, convicted criminals are not allowed to stand for public office in any democratic country, I suppose.
Saddam and other Baathists were excluded. I think they should have been given a chance to prove if they were as popular as they claimed to be.

[EuroTroll]

Saddam and other Baathists were excluded. I think they should have been given a chance to prove if they were as popular as they claimed to be.

OK, that's true and it's a valid point. I don't agree that they should have been allowed to run, but it does make the elections not entirely democratic. I guess I'll have to eat the words I posted in post #25 and replace them with...


Before the invasion, Iraq was a stable dictatorship whose citizens could be executed basically because Saddam Hussein didn't like them. Now, Iraq is an unstable country aiming at democracy whose citizens can only be executed if a court of law finds them guilty of a grievous crime.

Alright? :p :

[oily oaf]

I'm surprised that none of the Brits have expressed their surprise at the unedifying albeit compelling footage of Saddam in the moments leading up to his execution.
Poor taste IMHO especially in view of the fact that many children would have been watching.
Is this a new initiative in stark, graphic TV journalism I wonder?
What next? Noose At Ten?

It must be said and it gives me no pleasure to say it but the man met his fate with great stoicism and no little defiance judging by the steadiness of his bearing and the words of contempt on his lips as the noose was tightened around his neck.
I suppose he deserves some grudging credit for that.

[Eki]

This article summarizes Saddam quite well. Saddam was to the US what Ceausescu, Hoenecker et al were to the Soviet Union. When they were no longer useful, they could go:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec30/0,4670,SaddamAmericaapossVillain,00.html

U.S. Tolerated, Then Villified Saddam

Saturday, December 30, 2006

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — When U.S. leaders decided it was time to despise Saddam Hussein, he made the perfect villain.

He was cocky and cunning. He looked dangerous and deranged standing at rallies firing a gun into the air, conduct unbecoming a head of government.

He was Hitler Lite, or as the first President Bush put it, "Hitler revisited," lacking the endless armies, but close enough for U.S. purposes. He had a history of atrocities. His black mustache heightened the aura of menace.

America's quarter-century entanglement with the Iraqi leader ended Friday at the gallows.

His hanging closed the books on a man who dealt with and benefited from the United States, then defied it, then ran like a rabbit into a hole in the ground, reduced to his own army of one.

[Tomi]

Forgive me, but what did you expect them to do? The way the war in Germany ended created a messy situation in geographical terms, largely down to the behaviour of the Soviets. In the end, it was possible to contain the problems it caused without armed conflict ensuing. The key difference is that the East and West Germans didn't want to start a civil war with one another. I don't see what Germany has to do with this topic, quite honestly.

read a few posts back, then maybe you see why germany is in this topic.

[Tomi]

, but it does make the elections not entirely democratic. :p :

just like someone is just a bit pregnant.

[EuroTroll]

just like someone is just a bit pregnant.

Who? :uhoh:

:p :

[Hayden Fan]

Saddam's regime had courts too. I'm sure Iraqi citizens can still be executed if those now in power don't like them and claim it's a grievous crime in the eyes of the current government. The claims about death squads in Iraqi police and torture in Iraqi prisons may not be totally ungrounded.

Saddam was hanged because he punished those who tried to assasinate him. I'm sure it was a grievous crime in his eyes. I'm sure every nation would punish those trying to kill their leader. For example, the man who tried to assasinate Ronald Reagan in the 80s is still in prison. Isn't it inhumane? You don't get that long prison sentence just for an attempted murder here in Finland.


Saddams's courts were imaginably more biase than your probably think. He shot people himself. Saddam was hung for ordering the killings of Kurd in the 80's with biological weopons. But to your mention of Ronald Reagan. The man who tried to kill him was a psyhcopath. He wrote letters to actess Jody Foster saying he loved her so much that he'd kill the president. He was put into a mental institution and not a prison. He is currently out of that institution and lives with his elder mother.

[EuroTroll]

Saddam was hung for ordering the killings of Kurd in the 80's with biological weopons.

That's incorrect. He was sentenced to death for having over 140 civilians killed after the assassination attempt in 1982.

[Alexamateo]

Saddam was hung for ordering the killings of Kurd in the 80's with biological weopons.

He is/was actually in the middle of a second trial for these crimes. THose trials will likely continue for his co-defendents in spite of his execution.

[BDunnell]

It must be said and it gives me no pleasure to say it but the man met his fate with great stoicism and no little defiance judging by the steadiness of his bearing and the words of contempt on his lips as the noose was tightened around his neck.
I suppose he deserves some grudging credit for that.

Indeed. This is something that could very well be used by his supporters - the portrayal of Saddam as a hero even in the lead-up to his death.

[Hayden Fan]

Thank for the correction. Another thing American public schools have said to be true.

[Eki]

Saddam Hussein was responsible for the death of thousands of people and so is George W Bush. Bush most likely won't be executed or even imprisoned, but I hope he'll pay the piper when the Wicked Witch of Washington meets the Butcher of Baghdad in Hell.

[Dazz9908]

Remember that both the trial and the execution were carried out by Iraqi institutions.
YEah that's right ,
But!
Driven and pushed by the US Government, need to self Justify their case for war!
Saddam was born to the devil but so is Bush.
Who realy is the Evil Emperor.

[RaceFanStan]

What GW didn't understand is that Saddam Hussein was the man to rule Iraq.
GW will realize too late that Iraq isn't ready to be a democracy.
Iraq had to be ruled by an iron fist to keep the crazys suppressed.
Words like "insurgents" & "militant muslims" doesn't describe the people involved.
Iraq is now at war with itself & only a tyrant could keep those people inline.

The bottom line is that Saddam threatened GW's father's life.
GW got revenge by destroying order in Iraq & seeing the man that threatened his father was killed.
Iraq will never be stable again until another tyrant comes in & takes over where Saddam left off.

I cannot revel in Saddam Hussein's death, I think he was a victim of GW's revenge.
NO weapons of mass destruction were ever found, GW lied to the American people !
Furthermore Saddam Hussein had NO involvement in 911 even though GW tries to say he did !

Our troops will be in Iraq for 2 more years, GW will see to that.
The saddest part of it is that GW will never admit he lied or that he made a mistake. :s



Bill Clinton lied about being involved with Monica but at least no-one died when Clinton lied ! http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif

[Mihai]

Bill Clinton lied about being involved with Monica but at least no-one died when Clinton lied !

Actually Clinton started a conflict against the people of Serbia to cover the Sexgate in the eyes of the American voters and the rest of the world. Bombing big cities at night and bridges on the Danube, making thousands of civilian casualties.

[harsha]

well,when's the death sentence for Bush coming along :dozey:

[Mark in Oshawa]

What GW didn't understand is that Saddam Hussein was the man to rule Iraq.
GW will realize too late that Iraq isn't ready to be a democracy.
Iraq had to be ruled by an iron fist to keep the crazys suppressed.
Words like "insurgents" & "militant muslims" doesn't describe the people involved.
Iraq is now at war with itself & only a tyrant could keep those people inline.

The bottom line is that Saddam threatened GW's father's life.
GW got revenge by destroying order in Iraq & seeing the man that threatened his father was killed.
Iraq will never be stable again until another tyrant comes in & takes over where Saddam left off.

I cannot revel in Saddam Hussein's death, I think he was a victim of GW's revenge.
NO weapons of mass destruction were ever found, GW lied to the American people !
Furthermore Saddam Hussein had NO involvement in 911 even though GW tries to say he did !

Our troops will be in Iraq for 2 more years, GW will see to that.
The saddest part of it is that GW will never admit he lied or that he made a mistake. :s



Bill Clinton lied about being involved with Monica but at least no-one died when Clinton lied ! http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif


Stan, I beg to differ. The CIA was telling Clinton that Saddam had WMD's but Bill didn't want to invade. Was that smart? Maybe, but I think Bush was just going on the info fed to him, and lets face it, he did have a little more motivation to take Saddam down then Clinton.

Bill on the other hand just created uses for the US Navy's arsenal of Tomahawks every time he needed a diversion and people DID die. Just ask those poor buggers wiped out at some of the "terrorist camps" that were targets back then.

No, I wont miss Saddam at all, and I doubt the carnage on the streets of the Sunni dominent parts of Iraq will be less or more now that he is gone. The civil war that is going on at a street level is just an excuse for lawless thugs to kill and maim to suit their own agenda's. What must be said is this. Saddam got his trial. They didn't exactly rubber stamp his conviction, there was a lot of chances for Saddam to justify his actions but the fact remains, no one can say with a straight face that Saddam was doing anything but killing for the sheer point of creating his personal regime of terror.

Saddam's regime was killing close to 20000 people a year by some UN accounts, although of course, the true numbers may never be known. Uday and his brother were thugs in training so if Saddam died before the US invaded, the regime would continue on. Dictators in power to rule a "lawless" country are not superior to the mess they have now in Iraq. At some point, some form of government will get a handle on Iraq, and contrary to popular belief, it will not be an American puppet.

Lets not confuse the hatred some of you have for the US with the reality that is modern Iraq. The Americans didn't have a very good plan or really defendable goals in the court of public opinion, but who really is going to say Iraq was better off with Saddam?? Really, at least people in Iraq have a chance to fight for their freedom now. A democratic system was never going to be on any horizon for the people of Iraq without bloodshed, and while they may not get it this time, it will be at least fought for. Contrary to what you read in much of the press, Basra and the south, and the Kurdish lands to the north have done MUCH better and if there is chaos around the Sunni Triangle, it is the fault of Iraqi's at this point. If the US pulled all their soldiers out 2 mins past the time they caught Saddam, I doubt it would have made a difference. The people of Iraq have to come to the conclusion that they are tired of fighting, and it is obvious to me, that has not happened.

One other point. Capital punishment is not a great way to deal with a criminal. It is cruel, barbaric, and in the opinion of many, inhumane. Tell that to the families of those who lost loved ones to Hussein over the last 20 years. How many people are in that number? How about the ones he fed into recycling plant shredding machines? The women who were brutalized, raped and murdered? All you bleeding hearts out there were very content to look the other way when that was going on but now you cry over a thug being hung? Waste of a good rope if you asked me, I would have just tossed him naked into the streets of a Kurdish town and let them look after him....

I may not advocate Capital Punishment in civilized nations of the west, but in the case of a thug such as this, give me a break. IF they didn't hang his sorry hide, people in that country would keep waiting for him to take over again. They had to see him dead, and it was their courts, their people and their decision. Iam sure the Americans would have just dumped him in Gitmo if they had a choice....IF they really wanted him dead, their Marines would have done the job when he was in the hole...

[BDunnell]

Actually Clinton started a conflict against the people of Serbia to cover the Sexgate in the eyes of the American voters and the rest of the world. Bombing big cities at night and bridges on the Danube, making thousands of civilian casualties.

As much as I was not fully supportive of NATO involvement in the Balkans (and remember that it was a NATO action), I think there are sound reasons as to why there was less opposition to military action then than there were in relation to Iraq. I'm afraid I just don't believe the 'conspiracy theory' in relation to Clinton's reason for supporting that action.

[Eki]

As much as I was not fully supportive of NATO involvement in the Balkans (and remember that it was a NATO action), I think there are sound reasons as to why there was less opposition to military action then than there were in relation to Iraq. I'm afraid I just don't believe the 'conspiracy theory' in relation to Clinton's reason for supporting that action.
Yes there were reasons. That's why it was a NATO operation. In Iraq Bush couldn't even get NATO's acceptance. That's why he came up with the Coalition of the "Willing" from largely rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid and couldn't afford to say "no thanks".

[EuroTroll]

Yes there were reasons. That's why it was a NATO operation. In Iraq Bush couldn't even get NATO's acceptance. That's why he came up with the Coalition of the "Willing" from largely rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid and couldn't afford to say "no thanks".

Perhaps you should have a look at this (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm) table. The "rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid" don't form the bulk of the non-US force in Iraq by any means.

I agree with the first part of your post, though.

[Tomi]

Interesting table, quite many have by now already understood, that the WMD was a fairytale, and taken off.
studiose, whats estonias motives to be there? And will your government send more people there, if, how do they sell the idea to the estonians?

[jorgeamb]

Interesting event.. Husein gets executed, but others like Pinochet get prefferential treatment because they served well US (in general) and UK purposes during the Malvinas (Falklands). Even M.Thatcher made comments of sorrow after his death. Ask those who suffered his methods if they feel justices has been made..

And plenty of Argentinian butchers are still running around lughing their heads off. But who cares. Those were pro-western people preserving "freedom" and fighting comunism in that part of the world.

And we people like Castro and, now this goony Chavez.. But hey, we need these guys to justify our defense bugdet.. right??

Left or right, booo to dictatorships.

Husein was a butcher, yes, but so are others, and a blind eye is turned depending on who they served...

[BDunnell]

Stan, I beg to differ. The CIA was telling Clinton that Saddam had WMD's but Bill didn't want to invade. Was that smart? Maybe, but I think Bush was just going on the info fed to him, and lets face it, he did have a little more motivation to take Saddam down then Clinton.

It continues to amaze me that anyone even thought for a moment that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, given the fact (and it is a fact) that the Hussein regime was totally emasculated in this respect by the presence of the UN weapons inspectors, who actually did a very good job.


I may not advocate Capital Punishment in civilized nations of the west, but in the case of a thug such as this, give me a break. IF they didn't hang his sorry hide, people in that country would keep waiting for him to take over again. They had to see him dead, and it was their courts, their people and their decision.

With this as a starting point for Iraqi justice, how can the country hope to join the ranks of civilised nations in which capital punishment is deemed unacceptable?

[Tomi]

It continues to amaze me that anyone even thought for a moment that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, given the fact (and it is a fact) that the Hussein regime was totally emasculated in this respect by the presence of the UN weapons inspectors, who actually did a very good job.

Same here, really amazing, its also amazing that still about 50% of people of usa belives Iraq had something to do with the bombing of the twin towers, either they are morons or the press is pure crap over there.

[sxis]

BBC news reporting that someone smuggled a mobile phone into the execution and has released the video onto the web

[Ian McC]

What gets me is that none of the well paid analysts saw that Iraq would fall into anarchy when Saddam was removed, and if they did, why did no-one care?

[EuroTroll]

Interesting table, quite many have by now already understood, that the WMD was a fairytale, and taken off.
studiose, whats estonias motives to be there? And will your government send more people there, if, how do they sell the idea to the estonians?

Our troops are in Iraq purely to earn the good-will of our new NATO allies, and the government makes no secret of that. Most Estonians believe the war is based on nothing, but accept the presence of our troops. We want to be good, reliable allies. And we want to be become a prosperous and well-known European country. Then, so we hope, we will not be left alone again when Russia attacks again.

That's the bottom line. Our mission in Iraq has been extended until the end of 2007, and it can be extended again. It's the same with Latvia and Lithuania. The Baltic troops are also in Afghanistan and engaged in some of the most dangerous regions.

Another reason for our participation in these missions is, of course, that it's excellent training for our military and a great stimulus for development.

[Drew]

BBC news reporting that someone smuggled a mobile phone into the execution and has released the video onto the web

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6220829.stm

It doesn't include the final moment, btw. I'm sure that's somewhere else :)

[Tomi]

What gets me is that none of the well paid analysts saw that Iraq would fall into anarchy when Saddam was removed, and if they did, why did no-one care?

Thats not really true, here the military intelligence and professors of Islam has predicted everything on spot in advance what will happen in Iraq, they shot down the phony pics too already next morning, usa so proudly presented in UN, before the war.
Also here was people from the company that did build the analyse equipment UN used to search the WMD explaining how accurate it was, so it was quite clear there was nothing to find really.

[BDunnell]

What gets me is that none of the well paid analysts saw that Iraq would fall into anarchy when Saddam was removed, and if they did, why did no-one care?

Plenty of people including 'well-paid analysts' did warn that Iraq would fall into anarchy. They were ignored because other interests were being pursued by those who wanted to go to war.

[sxis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6220829.stm

It doesn't include the final moment, btw. I'm sure that's somewhere else :) just been emailed its at kaotic.com

[Erki]

Where the hell did that execution take place? How come someone sneaked in with a mobile phone and filmed the whole thing? Also, they supposedly screamed something like "go to hell, Saddam" or whatever.

Hellooo, aren't we in 21st century? :confused:

[bowler]

Hellooo, aren't we in 21st century? :confused:

the date has no relevance. just as the idea of "democracy" as we know it will have no relevance in places that either are not ready, or do not want it.

[harsha]

there is no democracy anywhere in the world,the citizens just have the right to choose what they think is the lesser of the two evils.....

[Ian McC]

I see people are sharing the video on the net, really isn't something I wish to see.

[Eki]

Perhaps you should have a look at this (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm) table. The "rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid" don't form the bulk of the non-US force in Iraq by any means.

I agree with the first part of your post, though.
Of those 23 countries that still have troops in Iraq, I'd say only the UK, Australia, Denmark and South Korea have relatively high GDP per capita. The UK and Australia are there maybe because they share the language and history with the US, and because trade with the US is much of their foreign trade (Australia: 6.7% of export and 13% of import, the UK: 15.1% of export and 8.7% of import, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html ). South Korea proably joined because much of their own defense depends on the US. I don't get Denmark though.

[Eki]

What gets me is that none of the well paid analysts saw that Iraq would fall into anarchy when Saddam was removed, and if they did, why did no-one care?
As far as I remember, they did, but they were ignored. Even Bush's own father adviced him against invading Iraq, but George Jr thought that daddy doesn't know the best. I also remeber some CIA people complaining that the Bush administration pressured them to find only incriminating evidence (or "evidence") against Iraq and ignore anything that conflicted with the mission.

[EuroTroll]

Of those 23 countries that still have troops in Iraq, I'd say only the UK, Australia, Denmark and South Korea have relatively high GDP per capita. The UK and Australia are there maybe because they share the language and history with the US, and because trade with the US is much of their foreign trade (Australia: 6.7% of export and 13% of import, the UK: 15.1% of export and 8.7% of import, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html ). South Korea proably joined because much of their own defense depends on the US. I don't get Denmark though.

Be that as it may, let's not forget that the original "Coalition of the Willing" - which you dismissed as comprising largely from "rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid and couldn't afford to say "no thanks"" - also included Spain, Portugal, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Japan and Italy.

And EU members Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are certainly not "rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid"!

Every country had some reason for joining the stabilization forces (not invasion forces, mind) in Iraq - it would be a bit thick to go there for no reason whatsoever, wouldn't it? :rolleyes: But financial aid from the US was not what formed the coalition.

[Tomi]

Every country had some reason for joining the stabilization forces (not invasion forces, mind) in Iraq


Stabilization forces sounds little like "freedom fries", in what way was Iraq unstable before usa attacked?

[EuroTroll]

Stabilization forces sounds little like "freedom fries", in what way was Iraq unstable before usa attacked?

In no way. But it was certainly unstable after the US and the UK had attacked, which is when other countries joined the coalition.

[Guffy]

Where the hell did that execution take place?

I think it was around his neck...!

[Bulldog#1]

they should give bush a m16 and drop him off in baghdad

[janvanvurpa]

Same here, really amazing, its also amazing that still about 50% of people of usa belives Iraq had something to do with the bombing of the twin towers, either they are morons or the press is pure crap over there.
Poiki there's a very good chance it's both.

[Mysterious Rock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=j7Ar6I8iqOw
View at own risk

[Erki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=j7Ar6I8iqOw
View at own risk

These days, we have to watch TV at own risks as well, they even showed the cell phone video on TV here. :rolleyes: Without a parental warning or anything.

[TOgoFASTER]

Colin... If you break it you own it.

[Freya J.]

These days, we have to watch TV at own risks as well, they even showed the cell phone video on TV here. :rolleyes: Without a parental warning or anything.

Are you serious? That's really disturbing. It's curiosity gone one ghoulish step too far in my opinion (for what it is worth).

[Hazell B]

Are the images and videos on the net fake or real?

I've not looked at any (can't be bothered, what's the point after all?) but can only guess several fake versions are doing the rounds. I also wonder how they get into the world (if they are real) when people there would surely have been searched - unless the intention was always to appear to have leaked images.

Spin, folks, is powerful stuff.

[donKey jote]

Be that as it may, let's not forget that the original "Coalition of the Willing" - which you dismissed as comprising largely from "rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid and couldn't afford to say "no thanks"" - also included Spain,
...
Every country had some reason for joining the stabilization forces (not invasion forces, mind) in Iraq - it would be a bit thick to go there for no reason whatsoever, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
The "Coalition of the Donkeys" included the Spanish ex-Government, yes, but no more than 20% of the Spaniards. A bit thick indeed, but they paid for it at the polls :)

studiose there are some amazing videos on youtube of Mr Aznar (now a lecturer at some US uni ;) :p : ) explaining how Spain's problem with al qaeda began centuries ago, and how the "moors" never apologised for invading Spain... a bit thick is a bit too polite :rolleyes:

[Eki]

studiose there are some amazing videos on youtube of Mr Aznar (now a lecturer at some US uni ;) :p : ) explaining how Spain's problem with al qaeda began centuries ago, and how the "moors" never apologised for invading Spain... a bit thick is a bit too polite :rolleyes:
:laugh: There's a sucker born every minute. If not in Spain, then some place else.

[Roamy]

I never liked him, and I condamn what he did, but I saw the video and I must say that he was cool and died with honour :up:

could you explain the honour he died with???

[agwiii]

The butcher of Bagdad should have had his body sewn into a hog, incinerated, and the ashes dropped on the desert by an F-117. As one Iraqi witness said, he now joins the garbage of history.

[agwiii]

could you explain the honour he died with???

Their is no honor in either the life of death of the butcher of Bagdad. Perhaps they should have executed him the way his son killed the innocent -- with a log chipper. Those he "liked" went headfirst, those he didn't went feet first.

[Knock-on]

Their is no honor in either the life of death of the butcher of Bagdad. Perhaps they should have executed him the way his son killed the innocent -- with a log chipper. Those he "liked" went headfirst, those he didn't went feet first.

Ahhhh, the moderate voice of American reason :rolleyes:

I have no love or respect for the man and couldn't give a monkeys that he is dead. However, I find views like this on mutilation and torture frankly quite disturbing. It's quite shocking that the actions that lead the world to be outraged by Saddam and his Cronies are wanting to be replicated by people that were not affected by the mans regime. This is just bloodthirsty, sensationalism at it's worst.

He is dead. Leave it at that can't you :(

[oily oaf]

Ahhhh, the moderate voice of American reason :rolleyes:

I have no love or respect for the man and couldn't give a monkeys that he is dead. However, I find views like this on mutilation and torture frankly quite disturbing. It's quite shocking that the actions that lead the world to be outraged by Saddam and his Cronies are wanting to be replicated by people that were not affected by the mans regime. This is just bloodthirsty, sensationalism at it's worst.

He is dead. Leave it at that can't you :(

Quite right.
These bloodthirsty individuals have no place on what is essentially a family forum.
Only the other week some deranged sociopath was putting forward the premise that the innocent bloke who liked custard and who was pulled in by the law on suspicion of murdering East Anglian prositutes should be burned face down in his cell just on the off chance that he might have done it.
It is my considered opinion that all like minded swivel eyed scum who bandy about twisted opinions such as these should be burned face down in their cells before drowning them in a bucket in case they're still alive.

Yours faithfully
Jonny Wilkinson
Intensive Orthapaedic Ward
Hospital

[pino]

could you explain the honour he died with???

Did you see the video ? if yes...I don't need to explain ;)

[ShiftingGears]

I like how Howard said he got a fair trial and justice was served. I bet David Hicks is envious.

There was a sensational opinion article about Iraq and Saddam's hanging in the SMH a few days ago, by Bob Ellis. Have the patience to read this letter by a Former Prime Ministerial speechwriter. Take the time to read it.

The freedoms we're fighting for but not allowed to have
January 1, 2007

It's fair to say, I think, that the freedom we fought for was evident in our view of the last moments of Saddam Hussein.

He was free to wear a hood, and chose not to. He was free to speak to his captors, but we were not free to hear what he said. He was free, I suppose, to make a mighty speech, but we were not free to hear it. His black-hooded executioners were free to conceal their identities, but he, in the last five minutes of his life, was allowed no similar privacy.

We did not see him drop, his neck break, his neat suit fecally stained, nor the vengeful witnesses dance around his body, spitting on it if they did, kicking it if they did. Nor did we hear the irreligious hullabaloo that preceded the drop, the interruption of his final prayers by guards who mockingly duplicated his words and added to them his enemy's name, "Moqtada! Moqtada!" and pulled the lever before his final, accepting yielding up to death was finished.

So what Iraq's new "freedom" gave us this time round was the censored version of the killing of a man, a man still on trial for other crimes, a man who in almost any other jurisdiction would not have been killed at all; certainly not on the holiest day of the Sunni calendar, the equivalent of breaking George Bush's neck on Christmas morning.

Rarely do we witness, with warning, the last moments of a life. These were pretty surprising. No rage, no railing, no sermonising, no physical struggle. A courteous, mild exchange about the black scarf he must wear. An accompanied walk to the drop, with the posture of a professor approaching a lectern in another town. And then, of course, what we in our freedom were not allowed to see.

These images will either change world history or they will not. It depends a bit on how many Americans watch them over and over and how many watch, instead, the funeral of the former US president Gerald Ford. But those who do will imagine, surely, how Bush might have behaved on a similar gallows, and the physical struggle, hortatory tears and loud pleadings while his captors held him down.

They may ask, too, a simple, arithmetical question: if a head of state can hang by the neck until he is dead for having ordered, or countenanced, or signed off on, or not punished, or failed to countermand the torture and killing of 148 Iraqis guiltless of any great crime, what will happen to the generals, bureaucrats, prime ministers and heads of state who ordered, or countenanced, or signed off on, or did not punish, or did not countermand, the killing of 150,000 Iraqis guiltless of any great crime (this is now the Iraqi Government's estimate of the dead) and the torture of ten thousand more of them in Abu Ghraib? And how many Americans - Bremmer, Abizaid, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bush - should on this precedent be charged and hanged?

They may also ask, as many legal experts have, how much was fair about a trial in which three of the defence lawyers were shot dead and those who survived forbidden to see the prosecution's written testimony before it was unveiled in court, and only those parts of the proceedings the Government liked were telecast - lest Saddam "grandstand" his cause and gain followers. And how wrong it was this trial was not aborted, and another trial begun in The Hague.

They may ask as well why Saddam died so soon. Something to do, perhaps, with his coming genocide trials and the complicity of Germany, France, the US and Britain in the manufacture of his nerve gas, anthrax, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships, and his amiable business relationships with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush snr, once head of the CIA, in past decades, and how his genocidal methods back then did not greatly annoy them, not so long as he paid his bills.

And these are the freedoms we fought for. The freedom to ask, and not be told - lest we encourage terrorists - what really happened, and who was in the loop when it happened. Such were the freedoms Nixon encouraged in Chile when he helped Pinochet to censor, torture and kill those inconvenient to the many, many secrets America wanted to keep.

These are the freedoms we fought for, and will now defend in Iraq for decades if Bush and Howard, brothers-in-arms for "freedom", get their way.

In Saddam's hanging we saw them all at once.

[Eki]

It is my considered opinion that all like minded swivel eyed scum who bandy about twisted opinions such as these should be burned face down in their cells before drowning them in a bucket in case they're still alive.

Alive or still smoldering. They sound like a fire hazard.

[oily oaf]

Alive or still smoldering. They sound like a fire hazard.

Christ not another Health and Safety in the Workplace zealot.
Blimey you cant even drown people in a bucket these days without some self important....................(mutter, whinge) :angryfire

[Dave B]

While there's no doubt that Hussain was an evil dictator who is responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths, I took no pleasure in the news that he had been executed.

For one thing he's now a martyr, and killings will continue in his name by people who seek to avenge his death.

Mainly though, I'm uncomfortable because death is the easy way out. The man should have been imprisoned for life so that he could reflect on what he'd done and to be held as an example to others.

Suicide bombers don't fear death. Saddam's hanging isn't a deterrent to them.

With regard to the leaked mobile phone clip, a cynic might suggest that as the official news footage doesn't show the moment of death then there might be those conspiracy theorists who would have us believe that Saddam was spared. By, cough, accidentally releasing this new clip we can be sure that he's dead without any government agency having to take the difficult decision to officially release it. Of course, only a cynic would think such a thing...

[oily oaf]

While were're on the subject why was Saddam Hussein always referred to by his christian name.
I mean to say when the coalition were engaged in the fearsome "shock and awe" strikes over Bagdhad I bet the newscasters on Iraqui telly didn't say.
"Last night over 50 civilians were killed in the latest airstrikes by George and Tony's bombers."
Where's the fairness in that eh? (fume)

[Dave B]

I know what you mean. Hitler, Bin Laden, Thatcher, Katona - a role call of evil known solely by their surnames. And then Saddam comes along sounding all cuddly and harmless...

[Hazell B]

I know what you mean. Hitler, Bin Laden, Thatcher, Katona - a role call of evil known solely by their surnames. And then Saddam comes along sounding all cuddly and harmless...

:laugh: You missed off Vordemann ;)

There's no hidden reason for the Saddam part only being used. It was simply to protect our England cricket captain of the time from Bush and his cronies. They make the occasional error if the print's not big enough, you know :p :

[Drew]

If the news started broadcasting

"Last night over 50 civilians were killed in the latest airstrikes by George and Tony's bombers."

I'm sure Tony the tiger and George Foreman would get quite mad.

This article is also quite a strange thing to think about. A killer who seemed to be so gentle :confused:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6222159.stm

[Eki]

:laugh: You missed off Vordemann ;)

There's no hidden reason for the Saddam part only being used. It was simply to protect our England cricket captain of the time from Bush and his cronies. They make the occasional error if the print's not big enough, you know :p :
Jordanian king is also Hussein.

[Tomi]

Jordanian king is also Hussein.

I think he is, Abdullah II nowdays, the earlier was Hussein, jos oikein pilkkuja nussitaan :)

[viper_man]

I never liked him, and I condamn what he did, but I saw the video and I must say that he was cool and died with honour :up:

He was cool, pino?

Anyway, it was a fair trial I suppose, and a fair verdict, and in most cases of mass murderers would be a fair-ish punishment.

But in this case they shouldnt have executed him, all it has done is make him immortal, and the uprisings and response to his execution were going to see over the coming weeks months are I suspect going to be more severe than anything weve seen in the country so far. With our troops stuck right in the middle.

He should have been left to rot in jail, but then again he'd probably end up in jail with a load of his supporters, so that would have been out of the question.

Now all is said and done Im pretty much stuck on the fence as to what should have been done with him.

Then again it was an illegal war anyway, so we shouldnt even be in this position.

[viper_man]

Well someones been arrested for doing the video http://www.itv.com/news/index_617f3d294eb972d1102a2e1e6f3e0183.html

[Bebee]

I like how Howard said he got a fair trial and justice was served. I bet David Hicks is envious.

There was a sensational opinion article about Iraq and Saddam's hanging in the SMH a few days ago, by Bob Ellis. Have the patience to read this letter by a Former Prime Ministerial speechwriter. Take the time to read it.

The freedoms we're fighting for but not allowed to have
January 1, 2007

It's fair to say, I think, that the freedom we fought for was evident in our view of the last moments of Saddam Hussein.

He was free to wear a hood, and chose not to. He was free to speak to his captors, but we were not free to hear what he said. He was free, I suppose, to make a mighty speech, but we were not free to hear it. His black-hooded executioners were free to conceal their identities, but he, in the last five minutes of his life, was allowed no similar privacy.

We did not see him drop, his neck break, his neat suit fecally stained, nor the vengeful witnesses dance around his body, spitting on it if they did, kicking it if they did. Nor did we hear the irreligious hullabaloo that preceded the drop, the interruption of his final prayers by guards who mockingly duplicated his words and added to them his enemy's name, "Moqtada! Moqtada!" and pulled the lever before his final, accepting yielding up to death was finished.

So what Iraq's new "freedom" gave us this time round was the censored version of the killing of a man, a man still on trial for other crimes, a man who in almost any other jurisdiction would not have been killed at all; certainly not on the holiest day of the Sunni calendar, the equivalent of breaking George Bush's neck on Christmas morning.

Rarely do we witness, with warning, the last moments of a life. These were pretty surprising. No rage, no railing, no sermonising, no physical struggle. A courteous, mild exchange about the black scarf he must wear. An accompanied walk to the drop, with the posture of a professor approaching a lectern in another town. And then, of course, what we in our freedom were not allowed to see.

These images will either change world history or they will not. It depends a bit on how many Americans watch them over and over and how many watch, instead, the funeral of the former US president Gerald Ford. But those who do will imagine, surely, how Bush might have behaved on a similar gallows, and the physical struggle, hortatory tears and loud pleadings while his captors held him down.

They may ask, too, a simple, arithmetical question: if a head of state can hang by the neck until he is dead for having ordered, or countenanced, or signed off on, or not punished, or failed to countermand the torture and killing of 148 Iraqis guiltless of any great crime, what will happen to the generals, bureaucrats, prime ministers and heads of state who ordered, or countenanced, or signed off on, or did not punish, or did not countermand, the killing of 150,000 Iraqis guiltless of any great crime (this is now the Iraqi Government's estimate of the dead) and the torture of ten thousand more of them in Abu Ghraib? And how many Americans - Bremmer, Abizaid, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bush - should on this precedent be charged and hanged?

They may also ask, as many legal experts have, how much was fair about a trial in which three of the defence lawyers were shot dead and those who survived forbidden to see the prosecution's written testimony before it was unveiled in court, and only those parts of the proceedings the Government liked were telecast - lest Saddam "grandstand" his cause and gain followers. And how wrong it was this trial was not aborted, and another trial begun in The Hague.

They may ask as well why Saddam died so soon. Something to do, perhaps, with his coming genocide trials and the complicity of Germany, France, the US and Britain in the manufacture of his nerve gas, anthrax, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships, and his amiable business relationships with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush snr, once head of the CIA, in past decades, and how his genocidal methods back then did not greatly annoy them, not so long as he paid his bills.

And these are the freedoms we fought for. The freedom to ask, and not be told - lest we encourage terrorists - what really happened, and who was in the loop when it happened. Such were the freedoms Nixon encouraged in Chile when he helped Pinochet to censor, torture and kill those inconvenient to the many, many secrets America wanted to keep.

These are the freedoms we fought for, and will now defend in Iraq for decades if Bush and Howard, brothers-in-arms for "freedom", get their way.

In Saddam's hanging we saw them all at once.

That's a really interesting article. I don't remember reading an article in a long time (if ever) which really questions the "freedom" we supposedly have in the West. And so far is the most thought provoking post in this thread.

Personally, I don't condone what Saddam's done. However, I don't believe in capital punishment at all - regardless of what they've done (or have been accused of doing). It's hypocrisy - it just shows how a select few can do something that's "immoral", yet somehow to them and everyone else it seems "moral". At least Saddam was quite "upfront" with his agenda, unlike the whole "we just need some lame excuse to invade a country, do what we want and stay put to ruin it even further". To be imprisoned for your natural life and to live with what you've done is the worst, yet "most humane" punishment you could have in such circumstances.

What was even more distasteful was the fact that the execution was done on the day of Eid, and there's footage of it. I may be wrong, but I don't remember seeing detailed footage of anyone being executed.

I'm with Harsha on this one. Democracy and freedom are just hyped up words, nothing more. That's the saddest thing of all. :(

[EuroTroll]

I'm with Harsha on this one. Democracy and freedom are just hyped up words, nothing more. That's the saddest thing of all. :(

It seems to me that you fail to appreciate democracy and freedom since you've always had it. (Just like people with lots of money don't think money particularly important.)

Democracy is not just a hyped up word. It is the possibility of citizens to choose their leaders, and hold them accountable for their actions. It's the possibility to affect the political course of your country collectively. And not just accept whatever is decided in the meeting rooms of the Party.

Freedom is also not just a hyped up word. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are the cornerstones of a healthy society. I bet you like being able to criticize your government when you think they're wrong. I bet the journalists in your country enjoy not being killed when they write about something uncomfortable for the ruling administration.

Democracy and freedom should not be belittled. They are values that nations crave for for years and decades.


Personally, I don't condone what Saddam's done. However, I don't believe in capital punishment at all - regardless of what they've done (or have been accused of doing).

What you believe in is irrelevant. Iraq has the death penalty for capital crimes.


At least Saddam was quite "upfront" with his agenda, unlike the whole "we just need some lame excuse to invade a country, do what we want and stay put to ruin it even further".

Yes, kudos for Saddam for not keeping it a secret why all these people died. :rolleyes:

I don't understand how you can think like that, Bebee. Yes, the invasion was a terrible mistake, but that doesn't mean that everything the West stands for is rubbish.

[Knock-on]

Two very good and reasoned posts. Thank you both for doing something that is very rarely accomplished on this forum; making me think!

Yes, Saddam was a nasty piece of whatsit and yes, he probably deserved to die.

How that happened may not be to my taste but it is the law in Iraq and in a embryonic democracy, it is understandable.

Our views and opinions are valid but just that. We have the benefit of freedom of speech to express our opinions. This is something that Iraq hasn't the benefit of exploiting.

Perhaps they just need time.

[BDunnell]

It seems to me that you fail to appreciate democracy and freedom since you've always had it. (Just like people with lots of money don't think money particularly important.)

Democracy is not just a hyped up word. It is the possibility of citizens to choose their leaders, and hold them accountable for their actions. It's the possibility to affect the political course of your country collectively. And not just accept whatever is decided in the meeting rooms of the Party.

Freedom is also not just a hyped up word. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are the cornerstones of a healthy society. I bet you like being able to criticize your government when you think they're wrong. I bet the journalists in your country enjoy not being killed when they write about something uncomfortable for the ruling administration.

What I am uncomfortable with on this point is the way in which the words are now used almost as slogans, by the US government in particular. Its idea of freedom and democracy certainly isn't mine, and I believe it has tainted the very concepts.


What you believe in is irrelevant. Iraq has the death penalty for capital crimes.

It is perfectly acceptable to express a view on this, and I don't believe that Iraq, or any other country, should have the death penalty.

[EuroTroll]

What I am uncomfortable with on this point is the way in which the words are now used almost as slogans, by the US government in particular. Its idea of freedom and democracy certainly isn't mine, and I believe it has tainted the very concepts.

Yes, I also don't like it, although I don't see how the concepts themselves can be tainted by excessive and occasionally inappropriate reference.


It is perfectly acceptable to express a view on this, and I don't believe that Iraq, or any other country, should have the death penalty.

Please explain why you think Iraq should not have the death penalty.

[Bebee]

I apologise in advance for a lengthy post.


It seems to me that you fail to appreciate democracy and freedom since you've always had it. (Just like people with lots of money don't think money particularly important.)

Democracy is not just a hyped up word. It is the possibility of citizens to choose their leaders, and hold them accountable for their actions. It's the possibility to affect the political course of your country collectively. And not just accept whatever is decided in the meeting rooms of the Party.

Freedom is also not just a hyped up word. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are the cornerstones of a healthy society. I bet you like being able to criticize your government when you think they're wrong. I bet the journalists in your country enjoy not being killed when they write about something uncomfortable for the ruling administration.

Democracy and freedom should not be belittled. They are values that nations crave for for years and decades.

Believe me, I do appreciate what I have.

1. What we usually have is a choice between two equally (or sometimes one more than the other) bad candidates. Effectively, if I don't think anyone's worthy of my vote, I'd put in a blank vote - which has no effect whatsoever (unless if the whole nation blank votes, then maybe). The Simpsons episode where Kang and Kudos take over imitating the candidates in order to get elected and take over Earth seems to be the most appropriate example.

2. I never agreed with the whole "lets do what the States do just because we need to cover our arses should Asia decide to come together and give us hell." Most Australians know that we're only "tagging along" because the PM is a spineless idiot who failed high school maths, yet became Treasurer; and because we don't have much of a Defence force (or at least one which would stand up to an Asian coalition should they ever decide to invade). :rolleyes: Which really is the wrong attitude to have towards our neighbours, and nor do we (or anyone else) have the right to act as if we rule the place.

3. I would've accepted Australia's involvement in the invasion if:
a) there was credible intel to suggest to do so (mind you a insanely huge Dossier which answered nothing and arrows pointing at sand isn't credible intel to suggest the presence of WMDs);
b) actually gave a credible reason to do so (which they did not, they did it just because the States wanted it - which isn't good enough);
c) considering they've known for quite a while, and have failed to find any WMDs, they should have left - it's a waste of tax-payers money keeping them there while our health and education sectors need that money.

Now that it's quite obvious that I don't accept what they've done, the only way to change it to something our nation wants would be to somehow overthrow the Government. Considering that we'd get beaten to a pulp once we're on the grounds just because we as a nation did not agree to the stupid idea of invading Iraq, doesn't that show a double-standard of what we call "democracy" and "freedom"?

4. As for freedom of speech, you haven't heard of Jack Thomas, now have you? I would not be surprised if ASIO or the AFP decided to knock down the front of my door next week and raid my house simply because I'm a "suspected terrorist" for having such an opinion. :rolleyes: Mind you, I know lots of people who have had their houses raided by ASIO for no feasible reason!



What you believe in is irrelevant. Iraq has the death penalty for capital crimes.


Yes, kudos for Saddam for not keeping it a secret why all these people died. :rolleyes:

I don't understand how you can think like that, Bebee. Yes, the invasion was a terrible mistake, but that doesn't mean that everything the West stands for is rubbish.

5. Fair enough, it's the law of the land. I don't agree with it but I accept that. Then again, if he was not executed, there'd be a big hissy-fit coming from the "you know who's". :rolleyes: It's a double standard for someone to not condone capital punishment, yet want particular people to be murdered by the State. The Australian Government does not condone it, yet in this case they applaud it. When it came to the Bali bombers, they applauded it. When it came to the drug smuggler in Singapore who was an Australian citizen, they portrayed the Singaporean Government as cold-blooded killers (even though it was the law of the land). Although the circumstances and crimes were different, the end-game's the same. The laws of these nations state that capital punishment is the most serious punishment for these offences, hence it is their right to carry it out. To myself, that just oozes hypocrisy.

6. The sentence in which I stated what I believe was simply a disclaimer to prevent the Goons from knocking my door down and holding us at gun-point. :rolleyes: In case if you haven't noticed around the forum before, I am a Muslim and I'm Sunni and by no means whatsoever do I accept or condone going around killing people of the other Sects. Also, I was stating my opinion, which I believe in and have a right to (well, at least according to what you consider to be "democracy" and "freedom"). Therefore, how could my beliefs be irrelevant?

7. I've noticed you've failed to quote, and possibly failed to acknowledge the sentence between the two you had quoted (the one regarding hypocrisy). Funnily enough, without doing so, you've taken my whole argument out of context.

I'm a little hazy on something... The Americans get Saddam into Iraq because they did not like Iran at that time, condone or turn a blind eye (it really means the same thing if innocent people are dying) when he carries out his agenda, and about 20 years later decide to invade his country, cause trouble to everyone, find him, arrest him, put him on trial (which to be honest is humourous considering we all knew what the final outcome would be, yet necessary) and executing him just because he was not part of their long-term plan anymore and formed a spine of his own. Really, if it were only about the 148 people who were executed without trial and the endless tantrums over the years, there's no way "the Coalition of the Willing" would have waited so long to hunt him down.

I really can't tell what's worse: being straight with what you believe and killing people unjustly in your own country (and before I get attacked, obviously I don't condone such actions); or exploiting these people's grief, country, lives and their future to use it as ammunition for your own agenda when you see fit. Both sides have the same amount of blood on their hands, hypocrisy is the only thing that separates them.

And finally, I did not state nor imply that everything the West stands for is rubbish.

[Bebee]

Yes, I also don't like it, although I don't see how the concepts themselves can be tainted by excessive and occasionally inappropriate reference.



Please explain why you think Iraq should not have the death penalty.

The inappropriate referencing isn't occassional. In it's almost every single speech we hear regarding Iraq. If you try counting all the speeches in which either term was not used, you would not need a second hand.

I don't believe in the death penalty because I don't see how different it is for someone to murder people, and the State executing them (which by definition, also is murder), in the name of justice and/or better morals. :confused: The fact that you can take the "high road" and "do good" by committing a huge sin (sorry for the religious reference, I just could not think of a better word) just baffles me!

[EuroTroll]

I don't believe in the death penalty because I don't see how different it is for someone to murder people, and the State executing them (which by definition, also is murder), in the name of justice and/or better morals. :confused: The fact that you can take the "high road" and "do good" by committing a huge sin (sorry for the religious reference, I just could not think of a better word) just baffles me!

Societies penalize certain actions to discourage people from committing them, right? The severity of punishment for each individual crime is purely a question of prudence in my view - "if we have this punishment for that crime, will our society become better?"

There is no universal cosmic truth about such things, as far as I'm aware. It's not even a universal cosmic truth that killing other people is bad. Condemning killing is an individual emotional response, probably deriving from the survival instinct. "I don't want to be killed, I want to live." So, "I want to live in a society that doesn't allow people to be killed." So, "Our society should discourage people from killing by setting up a suitably severe punishment for killing."

Should that be "life in prison" or "death by hanging" is purely a matter of taste IMO.

When I said your opinion is irrelevant I meant that since you're not a citizen of Iraq, it's not your place to say what punishment there should or shouldn't be in Iraq. My opinion is equally irrelevant. It's like saying, "BDunnell shouldn't wear boxer shorts" - it might be an opinion based on what I think is good for BDunnell, but it's irrelevant since it's none of my business.

[EuroTroll]

Regarding your longer post, Bebee, I don't understand much of it because I'm not so familiar with life in Australia, but can you please explain this bit:



Now that it's quite obvious that I don't accept what they've done, the only way to change it to something our nation wants would be to somehow overthrow the Government. Considering that we'd get beaten to a pulp once we're on the grounds just because we as a nation did not agree to the stupid idea of invading Iraq, doesn't that show a double-standard of what we call "democracy" and "freedom"?

And yes, to condemn the execution of the Australian drug mule in Singapore while condoning the execution of Saddam Hussein is hypocritical. But that's another story and a thread long ago.

[RaceFanStan]

.....
I don't believe in the death penalty because I don't see how different it is for someone to murder people,
and the State executing them (which by definition, also is murder),
in the name of justice and/or better morals. :confused:
The fact that you can take the "high road" and "do good" by committing a huge sin
(sorry for the religious reference, I just could not think of a better word) just baffles me!
The supporters of capital punishment say that it is a deterent ...
If a thug knows killing someone might get them a lethal injection, they might think before doing it ...
at least that is the theory ...
the sad fact is that some people are just plain evil & have no respect for life ...
they should all be killed ....... :laugh:


;)

[Eki]

The supporters of capital punishment say that it is a deterent ...
If a thug knows killing someone might get them a lethal injection, they might think before doing it ...
at least that is the theory ...
the sad fact is that some people are just plain evil & have no respect for life ...
they should all be killed ....... :laugh:


;)
If anyone thought for a second he/she will be caught and punished while killing someone, he/she wouldn't do it even if the punisment was 1 year in prison instead of capital punisment. Most killings are done in the heat of a moment and premeditated murderers believe they are smart enough not to be caught so the punishment doesn't matter. The deterent theory is BS in my opinion. IMO capital punishment could even increase homicides. The killers become desperate and might kill again in order to avoid being caught. It doesn't matter if you kill just one or one thousand if the punishment (death) is the same for both crimes.

[airshifter]

That's a really interesting article. I don't remember reading an article in a long time (if ever) which really questions the "freedom" we supposedly have in the West. And so far is the most thought provoking post in this thread.

Personally, I don't condone what Saddam's done. However, I don't believe in capital punishment at all - regardless of what they've done (or have been accused of doing). It's hypocrisy - it just shows how a select few can do something that's "immoral", yet somehow to them and everyone else it seems "moral". At least Saddam was quite "upfront" with his agenda, unlike the whole "we just need some lame excuse to invade a country, do what we want and stay put to ruin it even further". To be imprisoned for your natural life and to live with what you've done is the worst, yet "most humane" punishment you could have in such circumstances.

What was even more distasteful was the fact that the execution was done on the day of Eid, and there's footage of it. I may be wrong, but I don't remember seeing detailed footage of anyone being executed.

I'm with Harsha on this one. Democracy and freedom are just hyped up words, nothing more. That's the saddest thing of all. :(


I agree it was quite distasteful for the execution to take place on a day important to Muslims, however that was the decision of those in Iraq, not the Western influences.

As far as footage of the execution, I am glad they are investigating the leak, as it was just as distasteful. I might remind you though, that our western presses all took delight in showing us over and over the footage they had of the terrorist attacks around the globe, so really the Iraqi's aren't doing much different in that respect.

With any form of democracy and freedom we unfortunately have to tolerate that others have the right to do what many of us don't agree with. In a sense sometimes too much individual freedom allows people to impose upon each other more often than some would like.

Glad to see you back posting, you always have interesting views.

[agwiii]

Ahhhh, the moderate voice of American reason :rolleyes:

I have no love or respect for the man and couldn't give a monkeys that he is dead. However, I find views like this on mutilation and torture frankly quite disturbing. It's quite shocking that the actions that lead the world to be outraged by Saddam and his Cronies are wanting to be replicated by people that were not affected by the mans regime. This is just bloodthirsty, sensationalism at it's worst.

He is dead. Leave it at that can't you :(

Knockie - next time READ what I wrote before you reply.

Thanks!

[Tomi]

Hussein should have been brought to an international tribune to avoid the trial to become political, Iran and others did not get their voice herd now either, I think they should have been given a chance too.
Also its quite stupid or naive to think that Iraq can deside about their own things, long as there is foreingn military forces in the country.

[agwiii]

Hussein should have been brought to an international tribune to avoid the trial to become political, Iran and others did not get their voice herd now either, I think they should have been given a chance too. Also its quite stupid or naive to think that Iraq can deside about their own things, long as there is foreingn military forces in the country.

I tend to agree. When Eichman was executed, there was no funeral, and the mass murderer's ashes were scattered without a ceremony. That was the mistake with the butcher of Bagdad.

[EuroTroll]

Who's this Butcher of Baghdad? A friend of the Dick-Head of Texas? :dozey:

[Drew]

Who's this Butcher of Baghdad? A friend of the Dick-Head of Texas? :dozey:

I have to admit, I thought he was a gardener.

[Eki]

Dick-Head of Texas? :dozey:
I call him the Wicked Witch of Washington.

[Knock-on]

Knockie - next time READ what I wrote before you reply.

Thanks!

It is quite arrogant and rude to just post a statement dismissing my post. If you have reason to reply, please elaborate on your thinking behind your comments.

To just state that I haven't READ your post before replying to it is clearly wrong.

To clarify, you said:

"Their is no honor in either the life of death of the butcher of Bagdad. Perhaps they should have executed him the way his son killed the innocent -- with a log chipper. Those he "liked" went headfirst, those he didn't went feet first."

This implies that you think that you are open to the suggestion of making him suffer a more painful death than that of Hanging; namely, feeding him feet first into a Wood Chipper as his son had (allegedly) done to some of his victims.

I replied:

"I have no love or respect for the man and couldn't give a monkeys that he is dead. However, I find views like this on mutilation and torture frankly quite disturbing. It's quite shocking that the actions that lead the world to be outraged by Saddam and his Cronies are wanting to be replicated by people that were not affected by the mans regime. This is just bloodthirsty, sensationalism at it's worst."

Basically, we are supposed to be an advanced democracy. What constitutes an advanced democracy is a matter of debate, as it should be.

By suggesting we inflict a horrendously gruesome means of mutilation and death on this Dictator is putting yourself in the same boat as him.

Do you understand better now?

[agwiii]

If you have reason to reply, please elaborate on your thinking behind your comments.

Knockie - I know it can be a challenge for you to understand, since English is not your first language. However that is no excuse for you to make anti-American, unimformed posts about something I wrote, when you completely distort the message. Next time, PM me and ask for an explanation.

I hope this helps!

[EuroTroll]

Knockie - I know it can be a challenge for you to understand, since English is not your first language. However that is no excuse for you to make anti-American, unimformed posts about something I wrote, when you completely distort the message. Next time, PM me and ask for an explanation.

I hope this helps!

What the hell are you talking about?! Perhaps you should have another look at what you've posted in this thread, including...


The butcher of Bagdad should have had his body sewn into a hog, incinerated, and the ashes dropped on the desert by an F-117. As one Iraqi witness said, he now joins the garbage of history.

...and...


Their is no honor in either the life of death of the butcher of Bagdad. Perhaps they should have executed him the way his son killed the innocent -- with a log chipper. Those he "liked" went headfirst, those he didn't went feet first.

:rolleyes:

[Knock-on]

What the hell are you talking about?! Perhaps you should have another look at what you've posted in this thread, including...



Reality and Agwiii are friends that are destined never to meet :laugh:

He will just swear white is black and grey is pink till the cows come home.

You've got more chance of getting Eki to compliment GWB :D

[agwiii]

What the hell are you talking about?!

I know that life can be a challenge for those of you that supported the Butcher of Bagdad, but GET OVER IT!

[agwiii]

:laugh:

You have my sincere condolences. It must hurt.

[EuroTroll]

Truly, the Zoo of the Lord is colourful... :erm:

Anyway, back to topic. ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Interesting. I have spent half an hour trying to figure out what have of you guys are going on about, and I have come to a few solid conclusions:

1) No one really misses Saddam, and even those who decry captial punishment as a bad thing are really upset by this.

2)Anti-Americanism is alive and well, and it seems ole Dubya is the greatest threat to human kind in the eyes of many of you guys.

3) People from countries that used to be ruled by dictators or Communist regimes (same thing only different) have a greater grasp of what happened in Iraq than many of us spoiled brats who have only known democracy.

4) People who whine about political choices are so cynical that they have forgotten the first rule of democracy. Your government is only as good as the quality of people you elect. Most voters are cynical because they do not really want to think about the process of electing leaders. They read the papers once in a while, form their knee jerk reaction, and never change it. Then when the guy they elect is a village idiot, they declare the process bogus, and wonder why they keep getting idiots.


No, I decry the state of education, democratic values and the ability of people who have grown up with freedom and everything available to them to understand how fragile democracy and freedom are.

The Iraq war is now seen as wrong because of the mess it has devolved into, and it is a mess. That said, if Iraq picked up and became a viable democracy, then the critics would be hard pressed to justify half the venom they have dished on Bushie. The US of A is damned no matter what they do. If they ignore a situation, such as Rwanda or Sudan, then they are callous and uncaring. If they go in and try to set things right, they are condemned as butchers and killers. We have all the trendy leftest bleeding hearts in the US and Canada whining about the butchery in Darfur. The Janiweed in Darfur are butchering African non-Muslims and starving them. We have a humanitarian crisis and yet, the US is condemned for not getting involved. Well, it is a similar situation to what Saddam was doing with the Kurds. A genocidal action was being undertaken by a dictatorship while the world watched. So 10 years or so later, the US invades to take down that same dictatorship that was doing the genocidal actions. Now the US is the bad guy. I have come to the conclusion most of you guys would be happy if everyone stayed home, and never invaded anyone, so you could then whine about the atrocites that no one was seeing to.

The UN is a joke, always has been for it has allowed thugs like Hussein to run amok for years. When a democratic nation (no matter how much you think Dubya is a goof, he was elected - twice) tries to actually do something, whether you think the motives are altrusitic or not, they are condemned.

You cant please anyone at all in this world. Most of you guys just want to sit on your high horse and tell everyone how screwed up Dubya is or the world is or how hanging a dictator after a 3 month long trial is wrong, but you know what? You guys don't have all the answers. None of us do. Just know that those freedom's to call Dubya or Howard or Blair idiots didn't exist for anyone in Iraq. Saddam would feed you into the shredder if you were there and he was still running the shop. At least Iraq has a chance. If the people there refuse to see that for what it is, then that isn't the US of A's fault, it is theirs!!! Other people's free from a dictator or communist regime have managed to form democracies, why cant Iraq? You saying those people don't deserve what you have??

[Tomi]

Interesting.
The Iraq war is now seen as wrong because of the mess it has devolved into, and it is a mess.

Not really true, many did see it wrong right from beginning, after all it was based on lies right from the start, WMD do you remember?
And invading countries allways makes resistance, in every country there is people who dont want someone else to rule their country, thats why it is a mess now. :)
Maybe its also good to remember that Hussein earlier at the time he gased Iranians, was strongly supported by usa,then the us government had no problem with it what so ever.

[Eki]

Well, it is a similar situation to what Saddam was doing with the Kurds. A genocidal action was being undertaken by a dictatorship while the world watched.
Saddam hadn't done anything to the Kurds since 1991. US and British air forces patroling the area took care of that. George W Bush was like it was 1990 again. He was more than ten years late. He should have let the sleeping dogs lie. Iraq was stable, Bush destabilized it.

[Eki]

Not really true, many did see it wrong right from beginning, after all it was based on lies right from the start, WMD do you remember?
And invading countries allways makes resistance, in every country there is people who dont want someone else to rule their country, thats why it is a mess now. :)
Maybe its also good to remember that Hussein earlier at the time he gased Iranians, was strongly supported by usa,then the us government had no problem with it what so ever.
Yep, Mark in Oshawa lives in a country that has never been invaded, yet he moralises us whose country was invaded just 67 years ago. Heck, let's invade Russia and take back Karelia. We shouldn't let it be, we lost it just over 60 years ago, it's not too late to do something about it. Bush has shown us it's never too late and that we never should forgive and forget.

[Tomi]

Yep, Mark in Oshawa lives in a country that has never been invaded, yet he moralises us whose country was invaded just 67 years ago. Heck, let's invade Russia and take back Karelia. We shouldn't let it be, we lost it just over 60 years ago, it's not too late to do something about. Bush has shown us it's never too late and that we never should forgive and forget.

True, not to mention we had foreign fighters too, from Estonia, Sweden, and England too, would be difficult for me to call them terrorists. :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yep, Mark in Oshawa lives in a country that has never been invaded, yet he moralises us whose country was invaded just 67 years ago. Heck, let's invade Russia and take back Karelia. We shouldn't let it be, we lost it just over 60 years ago, it's not too late to do something about. Bush has shown us it's never too late and that we never should forgive and forget.

Eki, I grant you Canada has never been invaded and Finland has. Canada didn't go to Iraq, and I stood by that decision. What I am pointing out is no matter what the US does, you would find fault. When is it right for a nation to invade to right a wrong. I thought the WMD argument was flimsy at best, but the UN and most intelligence organizations thought Saddam had WMD's. He could have avoided the whole reason for the war by just opening the door wide open for the inspectors. He played poker and he called Bush when he was bluffing. Let me cry a tear for a idiot....

Eki, your self righteous blather about how evil all of this is, and how the US used to back Iraq is fine well and good, but lets also remember this. Nation states make lots of mistakes, countries back others who are not worthy of it later on, and decisions are made for real-politik. It is messy, awful and at the human level, wrong, but it is the way the world will always be. I, unlike you, do not condemn any democracy for their actions over those of a dictatorship. The people of Iraq deserved better than they were getting from that mad dog that ran them, and the only thing I say about the US not supporting him from 1990 on was he was their dog, but he became rabid, and in 2002, they put down the rabid dog. Name me ONE instance where a democracy has invaded another. A true western style democracy. You cannot.... Only dictators and thugs have reason to fear Bushie. It is unforturnate and terrible the innocent citizens can be caught in a war, and I decry that, but you cannot tell me that the people of Iraq are any better off with a thug running their nation. They were not. IN the end, it is now their call on how they want to handle freedom. Right now, they seem to just want to settle old scores.

[Tomi]

IN the end, it is now their call on how they want to handle freedom. Right now, they seem to just want to settle old scores.
It begins to be their call the day the foreign troops is out of their country, not a day before :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

One other point. Bushie will be gone in 2 years. When the Democrats take over the White House, will things change? Perhaps, perhaps not. What will be evident is this. Presidents come and go, dictators never go until they go out at the end of a noose or a bullet from a gun. Rarely do they die peacefully. Their people never miss them or lament them. No matter what a mess Iraq is now, those people who suffered for years under his rule do not miss him. You and I have never lived through that fear of oppression. These people have. I think they are better off, even if Iraq is a mess. You do not. I think it is presumptious of us to pretend to really know, but I do know at least in my world, they now have a choice. You would take it away from them for removing a dictator is not a value you aspire to....

[Tomi]

One other point. Bushie will be gone in 2 years. When the Democrats take over the White House, will things change? Perhaps, perhaps not. What will be evident is this. Presidents come and go, dictators never go until they go out at the end of a noose or a bullet from a gun. Rarely do they die peacefully. Their people never miss them or lament them. No matter what a mess Iraq is now, those people who suffered for years under his rule do not miss him. You and I have never lived through that fear of oppression. These people have. I think they are better off, even if Iraq is a mess. You do not. I think it is presumptious of us to pretend to really know, but I do know at least in my world, they now have a choice. You would take it away from them for removing a dictator is not a value you aspire to....

I dont think it will change much, the reason they started the war is still there, millions and millions liters of it.

[Eki]

Eki, I grant you Canada has never been invaded and Finland has. Canada didn't go to Iraq, and I stood by that decision. What I am pointing out is no matter what the US does, you would find fault. When is it right for a nation to invade to right a wrong. I thought the WMD argument was flimsy at best, but the UN and most intelligence organizations thought Saddam had WMD's. He could have avoided the whole reason for the war by just opening the door wide open for the inspectors. He played poker and he called Bush when he was bluffing. Let me cry a tear for a idiot....

The UN wasn't convinced, that's why the US couldn't get it's will through the Security Council and Bush decided to invade anyway, against the UN and the international laws.

Blix wasn't too worried about Iraq's WMDs in November 2002. He seemed to think his team was up to the task but hadn't found any incriminating evidence:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/27/se.00.html



I, unlike you, do not condemn any democracy for their actions over those of a dictatorship.
The decision to revolt should come from the people of said dictatorship, not from an outside superpower.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Blix couldn't find anything because he wasn't allowed to see 99% of the country. I stand by if Saddam didn't shut out the UN, Bush wouldn't have seized the chance to invade. AS for the UN, if no one obeys their resolutions, who enforces them? IF we left it up to the Security Council of the UN to enforce them, notice China Russia and sometimes France almost always go against the US and Britain. Nothing EVER happens. So nothing is done, resolutions are worthless. So what is the UN? Worthless.

Also note the sanctions that the UN imposed were not hurting the dictator, and nations such as France were quite ready to do business with him under the table to get what they wanted. IT isn't just the US that have a lot to answer for. The world has a lot to answer for in their handling of Saddam and other thugs.

AS for the war for oil, the US doesn't GET their oil from Iraq. Venezuela and Canada sell the US far more oil than anyone else. European nations get their oil from the Middle East. If the US really wanted cheap oil, invading Iraq is a very expensive way to do it, and if they only wanted the oil, they would have pulled the last troops out 2 minutes after Saddam was captured....

[Mark in Oshawa]

By the way, make no mistake, I am not in favour of Bush's handling of this war. I think he screwed this deal up royally. That said, he isn't the evil man you would paint him as. Dubya is just not competant at being able to invade nations and run them. I would rather have the US screwing up in Iraq, then turn the keys over to Iran, who of course would desparately love to use their Shiite commonality with the Iraq Shiite community to run this country. No matter what you think of the US, don't tell me that the Iranians wouldn't have loved to taken over Iraq. Probably with some justification but their President is not on the side of angels....

[EuroTroll]

Mark, I think you make some fair points, but the bottom line of the issue is that the US and the UK went to war with what we now know to be a false casus belli, over 3 000 Coalition soldiers and over 50 000 Iraqi civilians are consequently dead, and there is currently very little reason to assume that the end result will be anything like Bush envisaged, or indeed anything better than was there before the invasion.

There is really nothing praiseworthy about the whole thing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Studiose, show me a fight for democracy over tyranny that doesn't have blood spilled. Praiseworthy is the guy on the ground who believes he is doing this for a better world. If he doesn't believe that, the US or UK soldier on the ground is thowring his life away, and in two nations where there is no draft, it isn't just the politicians who believe in this cause.

WW2 was a long battle to free Europe from the shackles of Hitler, and while Eastern Europe (and your homeland) were still under the yoke of the USSR's communist regime at the end, at least democracy was restored in Western Europe. Many millions died in this tragedy but what was the alternative? I don't think Iraq is nearly as noble, for I think Hussein was not a Hitler, but it certainly wasn't for a lack of trying on his part. To cry tears over this thug's hanging is just silly. If there is only one death penalty carried out a year, it is to be carried out on thugs like Hussein.....

[Hazell B]

There is really nothing praiseworthy about the whole thing.

The most sane thing, perfectly put, I've ever read about the Iraq invasion.

History will show us what it was.
Unless it's erased from history books in schools all over the world .... which I feel sure it will be :mark:

[Mark in Oshawa]

BTW, I think in no way that it is right the Baltic Nations were sucked into the USSR. I don't think it was right and I know most of your countrymen at that time likely didn't want any part of Stalin, but to fight a war, sometimes you have to have a chance and a hope of winning. The way things were then, time was the only way to free Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. At least now though you have an understanding through your forebears of what it is to live in a democratic society. 25 years ago, if the internet came along, you can be sure no one in your world would be allowed anywhere near it to voice your disapproval of the world. Eki and his ilk would not be allowed the freedom to voice their displeasure, and while they may not like George Bush, he is no direct threat to their freedom's or any other ordinary joe. His nation may be wrong in the eyes of many for invading Iraq, but what is happenning there now isn't going to change when the Coalition of the willing pulls out, Iraqis seem bent on killing each other.

[eirenspeed]

:confused:
Why would anyone be against the Death penalty.
This hussein got what he deserved.
Dont it matter anymore about the VICTIMES. the Men, Women and innocent children he had put to death.
I believe in "an eye for an eye" kill and you also should be killed.
Steel and you should have your hand cut off.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hazell, if something like an invasion like this is so bad, you don't erase it happening, you remember, so it doesn't happen again. I guess you don't remember that your nation was attacked?? They didn't teach you how wrong it was for Hitler to try to wrest away freedom from Western Europe and possibly the UK? I suspect they did, for it was wrong. IF you believe Iraq being invaded is so wrong, you wouldn't want to forget that.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it..... yes, that makes more sense after reading Hazell's take on things

[Mark in Oshawa]

:confused:
Why would anyone be against the Death penalty.
This hussein got what he deserved.
Dont it matter anymore about the VICTIMES. the Men, Women and innocent children he had put to death.
I believe in "an eye for an eye" kill and you also should be killed.
Steel and you should have your hand cut off.

Eiren, the death penalty is a last resort, reserved for humans so vile that killing them solves more problems than it causes.

I haven't forgotten about Saddam's victims. Unlike most of these guys, I know that life under Saddam was a cruel, inhuman slog living with fear of your countrymen every day. The US Military have torn the place up to be sure, but at least they had no personal malice towards the Iraqi people, unlike Saddam, who had malice to anyone who looked at him the wrong way.

The UN once estimated Saddam's regime was killing 20000 people a year. I doubt Eki and the like were losing any real sleep then over it. Heck UN sanctions were starving probably close to 2 million a year, while Saddam lived in luxury. I could argue the UN were responsible for as much suffering under that theory but I don't. I know the truth, Saddam was the problem. Now he is "well Hung" and some people don't like the barbarity of it all. I don't either, but when you play dictator poker, sometimes you lose.....

[Tomi]

Eki and his ilk would not be allowed the freedom to voice their displeasure, and while they may not like George Bush, he is no direct threat to their freedom's or any other ordinary joe.

Really, how many of those in Guantanmo bay has been convicted guilty of some crime? I guess you can call them ordinary Joes or ordinary people.

[Eki]

BTW, I think in no way that it is right the Baltic Nations were sucked into the USSR. I don't think it was right and I know most of your countrymen at that time likely didn't want any part of Stalin, but to fight a war, sometimes you have to have a chance and a hope of winning. The way things were then, time was the only way to free Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. At least now though you have an understanding through your forebears of what it is to live in a democratic society. 25 years ago, if the internet came along, you can be sure no one in your world would be allowed anywhere near it to voice your disapproval of the world. Eki and his ilk would not be allowed the freedom to voice their displeasure, and while they may not like George Bush, he is no direct threat to their freedom's or any other ordinary joe.
Since when has Finland been like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

Internet Relay Chat IRC was invented in a Finnish University in 1988, three years before the Soviet Union collapsed and one year before Germany was united. The Soviet Union never tried to deny us access to the internet:

http://www.irc.org/history_docs/jarkko.html

You claim to know how the Iraqis lived under Saddam. Were you living there at that time? I know you have never lived in Finland, since you seem to know nothing about it.

[BDunnell]

Hazell, if something like an invasion like this is so bad, you don't erase it happening, you remember, so it doesn't happen again. I guess you don't remember that your nation was attacked?? They didn't teach you how wrong it was for Hitler to try to wrest away freedom from Western Europe and possibly the UK? I suspect they did, for it was wrong. IF you believe Iraq being invaded is so wrong, you wouldn't want to forget that.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it..... yes, that makes more sense after reading Hazell's take on things

Forgetting history isn't the issue here. There is no point thinking constantly about the fact that the UK was nearly (or, at least, fairly nearly) invaded by the Germans and how lucky we are that we weren't, because to do so achieves absolutely nothing. Not thinking about this all the time doesn't leave us any more open to attack or invasion than if we thought of nothing else.

[Eki]

Hazell, if something like an invasion like this is so bad, you don't erase it happening, you remember, so it doesn't happen again. I guess you don't remember that your nation was attacked?? They didn't teach you how wrong it was for Hitler to try to wrest away freedom from Western Europe and possibly the UK? I suspect they did, for it was wrong. IF you believe Iraq being invaded is so wrong, you wouldn't want to forget that.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it..... yes, that makes more sense after reading Hazell's take on things
You forget that the UK wasn't attacked. It was the UK who declared a war against Germany after Germany had invaded Poland. Hitler would rather have had Britain as an alley than an enemy. His real interests were in the east, but the west interfered him.

[Eki]

I wondered why Canada ranked only 18th in the Press Freedom Index, but perhaps it explains Mark in Oshawa's lack of knowledge on historical facts:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

[BDunnell]

You forget that the UK wasn't attacked. It was the UK who declared a war against Germany after Germany had invaded Poland. Hitler would rather have had Britain as an alley than an enemy. His real interests were in the east, but the west interfered him.

I think you've gone a bit far down the road of condoning Hitler's actions there, for my liking at least.

[Eki]

I think you've gone a bit far down the road of condoning Hitler's actions there, for my liking at least.
I'm not condoning, I'm just stating historical facts. I didn't say anything about them being morally right or pleasant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2#Europe

"On September 1, 1939, Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, invaded Poland according to an agreement with the Soviet Union, which joined the invasion on September 17. The United Kingdom and France responded by declaring war on Germany on September 3, initiating a widespread naval war, with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all following suit by September 10."

"As stated in Mein Kampf, Hitler's real underlying goal was to acquire what he believed to be Germany's rightful living space and resources, by invading and dominating lands to the east, mainly in Russia. Also, he sought to attack various ethnic and political groups, to target what he claimed were leftist influences, and other groups outside of the Nazi world-view. By starting with the real grievances of the Versailles Treaty, the Nazis were able to stoke a sense of grievance throughout Germany to redress perceived wrongs, and to present militarism and adherence to fascism as a means of taking aggressive action against the established political order."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Really, how many of those in Guantanmo bay has been convicted guilty of some crime? I guess you can call them ordinary Joes or ordinary people.



I guess you had to change the subject since you didn't like where the argument was going. Also note the prisoners in Gitmo have been visited by various press organizations and the whole operation has been open to inspection by the UN and the free world's press organizations. What to do with them is a thorny issue because terrorists don't fit into nice neat labels as innocent or guilty. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorists or so you would tell me. The truth is most of these people held were caught in a war zone as combantants not wearing uniforms of a nation which signed the Geneva Conventions. Which means they are not POW's and covered as such. Those in Gitmo were running around Afghanistan, usually non-Afghani, and were captured by troops hunting terrorists in that nation. They were armed, and while I think they should have a trial, they were not you, me and Eki wandering around Helsinki with backpacks either.
I think they should be sent BACK to Afghanistan to stand trial with a jury of Afghani's and an Afghani judge. Oh yes, one more thing, if they don't belong in Afghanistan, i.e. not Afghani citizens, and were not members of a peaceful NGO, then just why were they in a war zone? It wasn't like the whole world didn't know the 101st Airborne and the like were coming. Dubya warned the Taliban and the UN and NATO backed him when he said Afghanistan either coughed up Al Quiada operatives or lose the country. Again, another petty thug playing poker without a winning hand.....

[Eki]

As for Norway, the Germans just got there first. Both parties wanted iron ore from Northern-Scandinavia:

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

"The Allied campaign in Norway during World War II took place from April 1940 until early June 1940. Allied operations were focused in two areas, in northern Norway around Narvik and in central Norway.

The British campaign was coincidentally commenced simultaneously with Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway in Operation Weserübung of April 9."

[Eki]

They were armed, and while I think they should have a trial, they were not you, me and Eki wandering around Helsinki with backpacks either.
It has been claimed that Afghan tribesmen took unarmed civilians captive and sold them to the Americans as terrorists. They made good money.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, it was claimed, but a lot is claimed proof is something else; but the sake of argument I will accept that someone could have been "sold" to the US.I am sure once the US intelligence appratus starting talking to these people, they would be more careful on who they kept. I know you just want to see evil in the West, hence your example of Britain invading Norway at the same time as Germany. One small flaw here, mitigating circumstances say that if the Nazi's are invading, the British and by extension Allies are not invading for the sake of conquering Norway and enslaving it. IT was to keep Hitler out. If the Norwegians thought Britain didn't have Norway's freedom at heart, they wouldn't have been sending their sailors, free ships and part of their royal family to Britain at this time would they? Norway was not fighting the British when they landed I may add. Hardly a hostile conquest Nice try.

No, my question was, is there a democracy (in the true western sense in modern times aka last 100 years) that has invaded another for the purposes of Imperial conquest? You wont find one that is a black and white out and out conquest. The moral of the story is dictators and autocracies such as the Communist nations of the world are always balancing their bellicose ambitions to how much another nation; or in more modern times, the UN, NATO and democracies will tolerate. Saddam could have lost a little face, let the UN in to look at whatever they liked, and he would still be in power and alive today. Ditto for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Cough up Bin Laden, and it isn't the 101st Airborne who are cutting your lawn the next day.....

You might say that this isn't right, but it is the law of the jungle, and dictators play this game thinking soft hearted libreal people such as yourself will protest but do nothing. The problem for the thugs is occasionally someone stands up and says no, and often they have more than enough moral authority, or at least in their own minds enough to play this game. IT isn't like Saddam didn't have options. He cared little for his people, his army was fed, he had his 30 plus palaces. Sanctions were not hurting him personally. He was selling oil out the black market and keeping the money himself. The French were buyers of this oil, so how can they not recuse themselves towards voting for the UN to not allow the US and Britain to enforce the 14 resolutions that Saddam was violating from the first Iraq war? See, when you start playing this game of who is right, you better be critical of all the morally bankrupt players on the board, not just the Americans...

[Mark in Oshawa]

How do you feel about the little tyrant in North Korea? Would you miss him if he was removed by another nation? Look at Iran, a theocratic regime plays the game of democracy with their approved candidates, who all preach from the same hymn book. Even the French are up in arms with the idea of the thugs in Tehran getting Nuclear weapons. Would anyone miss them? When is it right to do something about these two nations? In principle, it should be the UN who does something, but as I have pointed out, it is a feckless organization dependent on the member nations to carry out its dictates. I think 10 years from now, Iran and North Korea will be issues for the world to deal with, or not deal with. Maybe 5, but one thing is for sure, I have little faith that the UN will do anything to stop them, and when they cross the line of decency enough, the world will be whining to the Americans "why didn't you do something?" the same way they did when 1 million tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. The UN didn't stop that little mess either, the Canadian General in charge of the UN mission was told he had to stop it with his brigade of Belgian paratroopers. 400 men were NOT going to stop a genocidal riot covering a nation. That tho, is your beloved UN, who also told General Daillaire that it was a Saturday, and no one who would make a decision would be in til Monday.

When the UN fails, at least NATO and/or the Americans have a little more backbone. They may not do it right, but at least they don't stand by and do nothing.....which is the world you want. Everyone leave each alone.....good plan, until someone doesn't.

[Tomi]

How do you feel about the little tyrant in North Korea? Would you miss him if he was removed by another nation? Look at Iran, a theocratic regime plays the game of democracy with their approved candidates, who all preach from the same hymn book. Even the French are up in arms with the idea of the thugs in Tehran getting Nuclear weapons. Would anyone miss them? When is it right to do something about these two nations? In principle, it should be the UN who does something, but as I have pointed out, it is a feckless organization dependent on the member nations to carry out its dictates. I think 10 years from now, Iran and North Korea will be issues for the world to deal with, or not deal with. Maybe 5, but one thing is for sure, I have little faith that the UN will do anything to stop them, and when they cross the line of decency enough, the world will be whining to the Americans "why didn't you do something?" the same way they did when 1 million tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. The UN didn't stop that little mess either, the Canadian General in charge of the UN mission was told he had to stop it with his brigade of Belgian paratroopers. 400 men were NOT going to stop a genocidal riot covering a nation. That tho, is your beloved UN, who also told General Daillaire that it was a Saturday, and no one who would make a decision would be in til Monday.

When the UN fails, at least NATO and/or the Americans have a little more backbone. They may not do it right, but at least they don't stand by and do nothing.....which is the world you want. Everyone leave each alone.....good plan, until someone doesn't.

Dont know much about North Korea, but there is no proof that Iran is building nuclear weapon, if they did I would not mind, countries like pakistan and israel has also, not so big difference if iran would have.
Sofar the only who has used nuclear weapons against another country is usa.
Also I dont think usa would have the balls attacking Iran, it's already much bigger task than Grenada, they have a working army, normally usa look very carefully who they attack.

[agwiii]

How do you feel about the little tyrant in North Korea? Would you miss him if he was removed by another nation? Look at Iran, a theocratic regime plays the game of democracy with their approved candidates, who all preach from the same hymn book. Even the French are up in arms with the idea of the thugs in Tehran getting Nuclear weapons. Would anyone miss them? When is it right to do something about these two nations? In principle, it should be the UN who does something, but as I have pointed out, it is a feckless organization dependent on the member nations to carry out its dictates. I think 10 years from now, Iran and North Korea will be issues for the world to deal with, or not deal with. Maybe 5, but one thing is for sure, I have little faith that the UN will do anything to stop them, and when they cross the line of decency enough, the world will be whining to the Americans "why didn't you do something?" the same way they did when 1 million tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. The UN didn't stop that little mess either, the Canadian General in charge of the UN mission was told he had to stop it with his brigade of Belgian paratroopers. 400 men were NOT going to stop a genocidal riot covering a nation. That tho, is your beloved UN, who also told General Daillaire that it was a Saturday, and no one who would make a decision would be in til Monday.

When the UN fails, at least NATO and/or the Americans have a little more backbone. They may not do it right, but at least they don't stand by and do nothing.....which is the world you want. Everyone leave each alone.....good plan, until someone doesn't.

:up:

[Eki]

If the Norwegians thought Britain didn't have Norway's freedom at heart, they wouldn't have been sending their sailors, free ships and part of their royal family to Britain at this time would they? Norway was not fighting the British when they landed I may add. Hardly a hostile conquest Nice try.


Have you ever heard about Vidkun Quisling? Or the SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment 23 Norge? There is always at least two sides to every story. Nice Try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_SS_Volunteer_Panzergrenadier_Division_Nordlan d

[Mark in Oshawa]

Quisling was hung by the people of Norway after the war was he not? We wont even think of asking the average Norwegian what he thinks of members of his nation joining the SS. In any democratic nation you can find a bunch of losers willing to join a group to brutalize the people they see as inferior. I stand by the fact no one in Norway was shooting at the British as they landed.

Eki, I can pull out as many examples as you can to prove my points. You wont see any good in any democratic nation when they do anything more than bending over and kissing their own tush while people like Saddam or Hitler do whatever they damned well please. I stand by what I think, which is you will argue anything rather than maybe admit that the people who are seen by the greater majority of most democracies as dictators and thugs. You defend people like Saddam, and for that, I wonder what the hell is wrong with your view of the world. You see everything as moral equivalancy. Anyone who kills is evil and all that rot. Ya damned right killing is wrong, but at what point do you ever decide to defend what you have? You get the Neville Chamberlain award my friend, for looking evil in the eye and denying it exists....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I wondered why Canada ranked only 18th in the Press Freedom Index, but perhaps it explains Mark in Oshawa's lack of knowledge on historical facts:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

My lack of historical facts? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean my FACTS are wrong. We can both look at the same fact and draw our own conclusions.

As for Canada's rating as 18th in press freedom, it never stopped your friends at the UN from listing Canada as the number one nation in the world balancing out standard of living, freedom, social services and democratic principles. We are not number one at the current time, but I am willing to bet we are in the top 10.

Ok, now lets examine your source. Excellent source on the surface. I thank you for showing it to me. However examine the methodology. They interview the members of the press on how free they feel they are. Based on threats, co-operation and so forth. Here is the flaw. You have the members of the press themselves answering the questionaires. IN the US of A, the freedom of press is guarnteed in the Constitution yet they finish up the river. I don't think for a second that any western democracy has an "unfree" press in the traditional sense. Reporters, such as those in Canada might cite our PM's recent spat with the Ottawa press gallery over who asks the questions in what order as an infringement of their rights. Is it their right or the PM's to answer a question? It is a school yard spat by a bunch of adults who should be more intelligent but it would hurt Canada's rating in this study. The fact is, no Canadian journalist is going to jail for what he prints. Nor would any journalist in my nation going to tell you to your face that he has a censor on what he says. On the contrary, he might complain about access to goverment files, but that is a fine hair to be split on the rights of the press vs the right of goverment to keep some things confidential. It is a FAR FAR Cry from a crappy little tinpot dictator such as Kim Il Sung's autocratic regime. When reporter's complaints are the sole arbiter to the "Freedom" of the press, then your methodology is called into question. Reporters without Frontiers may be a noble group, and I found the research facinating, I never less will dispute that because Canada is 18th and Finland is 2nd on the list, you somehow have some moral or intelligence edge on my points of view.


Eki, just because someone disagree's with your point of view, that does NOT mean they have bad facts or are stupid. We can both look at a tomato and you could call it a vegetable, and I would call it a fruit, and we would both be right in our own methodology, so why insult my intelligence? This thread was all about the moral right to hang Saddam Hussein. You feel no, I feel yes, if for no other reason than he as given more than a fair trial considering the considerable amount of evidence acquired by journalists, intelligence agencies and ex-patriot Iraqi citizens to what a thug he was.

I wouldn't advocate hanging as a intelligent civilized solution, but in this case, he reaped what he sowed. I sleep better knowing that a thug like that died a criminal's death....

Would I ask for Capital punishment in Canada or any other nation? Likely not, but in that part of the world until Saddam was dead, no one in Iraq lived in any sense that he wouldn't some how make a comeback. Muslim justice is far harsher than our's and it is their country. They made the call. I think having him rot in jail would have suited the Americans truth be told....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, you didn't read all the fine print on the site for Reporters sans Frontiers...it says " The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the press in the countries concerned." So just because Canada's reporters are 18th and Finland is 2nd, that does NOT mean you are getting a superior view of the world.

[Eki]

Eki, I can pull out as many examples as you can to prove my points. You wont see any good in any democratic nation when they do anything more than bending over and kissing their own tush while people like Saddam or Hitler do whatever they damned well please. I stand by what I think, which is you will argue anything rather than maybe admit that the people who are seen by the greater majority of most democracies as dictators and thugs. You defend people like Saddam, and for that, I wonder what the hell is wrong with your view of the world. You see everything as moral equivalancy. Anyone who kills is evil and all that rot. Ya damned right killing is wrong, but at what point do you ever decide to defend what you have? You get the Neville Chamberlain award my friend, for looking evil in the eye and denying it exists....
My point is that people in sovereign nations should decide if they want to die for their their freedom or not. No outside nation has the right to decide it for them. Bush's decision to invade Iraq has gotten tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, and there was no way they could have prevented it. You talk about democracy, do you really consider it a democracy when people don't even have the right if they want to live or die or if they want to live in a democracy or a dictatorship? At least in Saddam's time people had a good chance staying alive if they agreed with Saddam and didn't rise against him. After Bush's dogs of war arrived, it didn't matter if they agreed with Bush or not, they could still be killed. Now you probably say "yeah, yeah, they had it made if they were Sunnis". I remind you that Saddam's right hand man Tariq Aziz was a Christian. Religion wasn't that important, just that you agreed with Saddam and Saddam agreed with you:

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

[Eki]

Eki, you didn't read all the fine print on the site for Reporters sans Frontiers...it says " The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the press in the countries concerned." So just because Canada's reporters are 18th and Finland is 2nd, that does NOT mean you are getting a superior view of the world.
At least I get the view in two or three languages. I could compare the US media and Finnish media before the Iraq war. The US media was mainly crying how evil Saddam was and dwelled on the consequences of his rule, like 10 year old mass graves and gassing of Kurds 15 years ago. The Finnish media instead tried to tell people WHY Iraq was like it was and what would likely happen if it's invaded. I prefer the latter approach.

[agwiii]

Just like when Saddam was in power. Things haven't changed much.

You have a problem with reality contact. Saddam was a mass murderer practicing genocide. Today, Iraq is a democracy where the citizens vote and have a judicial system.

[Mark in Oshawa]

At least I get the view in two or three languages. I could compare the US media and Finnish media before the Iraq war. The US media was mainly crying how evil Saddam was and dwelled on the consequences of his rule, like 10 year old mass graves and gassing of Kurds 15 years ago. The Finnish media instead tried to tell people WHY Iraq was like it was and what would likely happen if it's invaded. I prefer the latter approach.

First off, I dont' need Wiki to tell me who Tariq Aziz is. I know who he is and nominially he is a Christian. I also know that your self appointed view that your media is giving you the "truth" over mine is a lot of crap. First off, let me explain something. Canadian media is NOT the American Media. Canadian media outlets, such as the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, CBC and CTV are all populated by people who feel very similar to yourself at times. The Canadian media is as anti-American as any reputable media can dare go. I have a daily dose of this just by picking up the remote on the TV. Don't lecture me that your sources are any more balanced than mine. It is crap, and if you lived here, you would understand you don't need it in a different language to understand it. Between the left wing and right wing media in the US and Canada, plus the BBC world service on my satellite, I can hear differeing views on this mess in Iraq. I can also think for myself. I knew that Iraq was likely to be a mess if the Americans invaded and I, like many Canadians were not sold on how this war was going to be proseucted. Most Canadians feel much more like you do than I do. That said, I understood much of the feeling why the US wanted to invade. It was to enforce the resolutions of the UN that Hussein agreed to save his regime in 1991.

Your view that no nation had a right to go into Iraq and that the people there have the right to live in a dictatorship is a specious one. They had no rights at all with Saddam running the show. Now we can go around and around all day on the stupidity of starting a war for WMD's. I thought it was a weak argument then, and it is a weaker argument now. That said, it is done, and over with and while you seem to think Dubya is a criminal who should be in the Hague being tried for war crimes, I see Dubya as a guy who leaped to conclusions based on bad intelligence and a desire to take a clown out. You cannot however deny that Saddam was given the way out and he refused to take it. IF he had no WMD's, why would he be so hostile to the UN? Saddam was not a democratically elected populist who had people in his country loving him, his 98% plurality in "elections" notwithstanding. If he had complied with the UN sanctions, the war would have lost its spark. Dubya would not have any justification if Saddam lived up to his agreement to throw the doors open wide towards UN inspections. Instead, he acted like a guilty party. Why? We have no knowledge of why, since it appears he had no wmd's. That said, he didn't want to lose face and he decided to call the bluff of George W Bush and he didn't realize George had the backing of his Congress and Britain (not to mention 52 other nations ) and he lost.

Now you can demean Bush, you can slag any other nation who went to war in Iraq. Just remember this one thing. Iraq just after Saddam was toppled was peaceful for the most part. Kurdistan in the north is still peaceful. The Shiite south is not quite the war zone that is the Sunni triangle. Iraq has had two elections with over 80% plurarity ( and you cant dispute this, the anti Bush media in the US will acknowledge THAT) and has started to piece together a constitution. I doubt it will work because of insurgents, Baath party loyalists and dissaffected Sunnis have no desire to make it work, and the terror attacks continue, but the fact remains the average Iraqi can at least think he has a shot at living in a free country. They didn't have a shot at all with the Baathist regime running the nation, and with the control of every last cent in the treasury, they would have held on in the hands of Uday or his brother I am sure.

For you to spout off your Anti-American propaganda and your fervent wish that the Iraqi people not be slaughtered is to assume you were just as vocal an opponent of Hussein's barbarity and inhumanity towards his own nation. You yet though have defended his actions not by word, but by omission, and for that reason alone, it is you and your ilk that allow small petty thugs to become world threats.

This idea that no one should invade a sovreign nation no matter what barbarity that is going on is a nice theory. The truth isn't that simple though. The second a nation starts flouting the resolutions of the UN, then either the UN finds a way to make them stick, or it has no value. Bush went to the UN over and over again stating Hussein's refusal to allow the implimentation of all the sanctions was a reason to go to war. Technically, the UN sanctioned and NATO backed war in 1991 was still on if the sanctions were broken. So where is the US? Did they invade a sovreign nation? Yes, but legally, Saddam was not complying with the UN dictates of the 14 resolutions. The UN was trying to inspect the country without Saddam's interference and wasn't allowed anything close to it. This wasn't George Bush's doing, it was Saddam's. Yet you do not acknowledge this. You would rather send Bush to the Hague for a "trial". Until you condemn Saddam Hussein for his role in this invasion, you lack the moral authority to lecture anyone.

I stand by what I said before. Iraq has a chance if the people there, the people who just want to live with some sort of autonomy without fear from government thugs can be part of the process. This wasn't going to happen for a long time in Baathist Iraq. The US may have broken a lot of infrastructure, but I suspect they have built a lot more in the 3 years after the war than Saddam did in the 10 years before it. If you were so convinced that this is terrible, where is your condemnation for how Saddam treated his own people? Instead you go on about how my facts are distorted, and attack my character and media influences. It is a weak argument, and your Neville Chamberlain award is cancelled. I think you get the ostrich award.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

At least I get the view in two or three languages. I could compare the US media and Finnish media before the Iraq war. The US media was mainly crying how evil Saddam was and dwelled on the consequences of his rule, like 10 year old mass graves and gassing of Kurds 15 years ago. The Finnish media instead tried to tell people WHY Iraq was like it was and what would likely happen if it's invaded. I prefer the latter approach.


One other point, in this post, I can see your disdain for the American Media. The US Media was Not CRYING over the consequences of his rule, they were presenting the truth. It was not just the American media who were saying how Hussein gassed the Kurds. The world's media showed many images of Kurd's living in tents as they were refugee's from Hussein's campaign against Kurdistan. Saddam also had a history of using gas. He also used it against Iran, in his attack and invasion on THAT sovereign nation (you don't feel as strong about that or his invasion of Kuwait, I guess those don't fit your anti-Bush template). Saddam left unchecked would invade and conquer his neighbours. He wanted the oil in his control. Period. Again, your lack of acknowledging this fact says to me you are more interested in perescuting George Bush than you are in the truth. The truth often isn't pretty, nor as noble as someone would like, but the fact of the matter is that if no nation ever invaded another, it would be a better world for those countries with freedom and democracy, but it is always the countries run by dictators and autocratic regimes that try to take what they cannot build through fear. When this happens, the rules that you want the world to live by have no more traction, and someone is forced to try to clean up the mess. The United States isn't very good at this, but at least they hold some principle of democracy and their soldiers on the ground for the most part are honest, honourable people with a desire to see some form of justice done in the name of the oppressed. You can slag Bush all you like, it is your right, but the men and women who are dying in the service of the military in countries where chaos is the goal don't deserve your disdain and indifference. You show no remorse at all for ignoring the war crimes and inhuman behaviour of thugs....

[EuroTroll]

I think you're right in that the Iraqi leadership did behave very suspiciously before the invasion. However, that doesn't necessarily justify the invasion, since they didn't seem about to attack anyone, with nuclear weapons or without.

Also, I think Eki is right in that democracy can't be force-fed to a country - the impetus has to come from within. Also, perhaps it's worthwhile giving a thought to why, of all the former Soviet republics, only the three Baltic countries (and the Ukraine and Georgia, to a degree) have become stable well-functioning democracies? I would say that a major reason is that in terms of neighbouring countries, the Baltic States are in infinitely better company than the others. Figuratively speaking, you can't go into a pack of wolves and tell one of the wolves to become a fox, unless it has already mingled with the foxes a little bit.

I think that making Iraq a stable democracy in the Western sense is simply not yet possible. I do believe that the governments of the US and the UK went into this with good intentions, but I don't believe they can succeed, I'm sorry to say. The task is just too great. And consequently the Iraqis would have been much better off if they'd never tried.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions," as the saying goes, and in the end, all that matters is the answer to this question:
- Did you make the world better, or worse?

The war in Iraq has made the world worse, I would say.

[agwiii]

The war in Iraq has made the world worse, I would say.

The death of the butcher of Bagdad is a consequence of the Iraqi War, and is an improvement in the world.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think you're right in that the Iraqi leadership did behave very suspiciously before the invasion. However, that doesn't necessarily justify the invasion, since they didn't seem about to attack anyone, with nuclear weapons or without.

Also, I think Eki is right in that democracy can't be force-fed to a country - the impetus has to come from within. Also, perhaps it's worthwhile giving a thought to why, of all the former Soviet republics, only the three Baltic countries (and the Ukraine and Georgia, to a degree) have become stable well-functioning democracies? I would say that a major reason is that in terms of neighbouring countries, the Baltic States are in infinitely better company than the others. Figuratively speaking, you can't go into a pack of wolves and tell one of the wolves to become a fox, unless it has already mingled with the foxes a little bit.

I think that making Iraq a stable democracy in the Western sense is simply not yet possible. I do believe that the governments of the US and the UK went into this with good intentions, but I don't believe they can succeed, I'm sorry to say. The task is just too great. And consequently the Iraqis would have been much better off if they'd never tried.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions," as the saying goes, and in the end, all that matters is the answer to this question:
- Did you make the world better, or worse?

The war in Iraq has made the world worse, I would say.

Your argument has merit. Iraq is not what it was supposed to be, and you are correct in that democracy isn't something that can be force fed, and I know that America didn't have all of this thought out. I stated that I was not sold on the merits of how America and its coalition would rebuild and run Iraq after Saddam.

It is however fallacious to dismiss Hussein as no threat. Ask Saudi Arabia that question. Ask the Kuwaiti's. If the world just walked away from Hussein, ignored the sanctions, would you want to lay money that Hussein at some point wouldn't have either threatened an invasion of someone, sold arms to terrorists, or acquired WMD's? Dictators do things like this because to distract their own populace, they need things to draw hatred on. They need a war, a bogeyman, an enemy. If you read Orwell's 1984, he talks how the government always was at "war" with the enemy, and this is much of what Hussein was doing. He was a mego-manical leader with a lust for power. He invaded Iran in an ill-advised war that took close to a million lives. He invaded Kuwait and if left up to some, would have kept it. He was capable of great brutality. No one disputes this although some choose to look the other way when it is pointed out.

Saddam Hussein was a threat if left unchecked. If the US of A didn't invade Iraq, and he were alive and running Iraq today, would you want to say the people there would be better off? In some ways perhaps, but they sure wouldn't be living a good life, and not one with hope. They were just pawns and cannon fodder for a man who would toss their lives away for the greater acquistion of HIS power.

AS for your take on the former Soviet States who are democracies now, you are very correct in stating that democratic nations are hard to found and I take your comments with all seriousness. It is your reality, you live in a nation that has made that transition, and likely value your freedom of expression in ways I cannot understand. That said, even in places like Kazakastan, I would say the people there would argue they have more freedom now then when Brezhnev was running the USSR. They may not have true freedom and democracy in some of these former republics, but at least they have some economic freedom, which is something I can live with.

What makes me mad is this conceited attitude that countries don't deserve a chance at democracy, as if the people of Iraq are too stupid to respect the chance to be free. I think most of the people would grasp a free Iraq if the politicians, terrorists and religious insurgents would get the hell out of there. The US Army is now just trying to calm everyone down so they can make some sort of decision.

[agwiii]

One other point, in this post, I can see your disdain for the American Media. The US Media was Not CRYING over the consequences of his rule, they were presenting the truth. It was not just the American media who were saying how Hussein gassed the Kurds. The world's media showed many images of Kurd's living in tents as they were refugee's from Hussein's campaign against Kurdistan.

Saddam also had a history of using gas. He also used it against Iran, in his attack and invasion on THAT sovereign nation (you don't feel as strong about that or his invasion of Kuwait, I guess those don't fit your anti-Bush template).

Saddam left unchecked would invade and conquer his neighbours. He wanted the oil in his control. Period.

Again, your lack of acknowledging this fact says to me you are more interested in perescuting George Bush than you are in the truth. The truth often isn't pretty, nor as noble as someone would like, but the fact of the matter is that if no nation ever invaded another, it would be a better world for those countries with freedom and democracy, but it is always the countries run by dictators and autocratic regimes that try to take what they cannot build through fear. When this happens, the rules that you want the world to live by have no more traction, and someone is forced to try to clean up the mess. The United States isn't very good at this, but at least they hold some principle of democracy and their soldiers on the ground for the most part are honest, honourable people with a desire to see some form of justice done in the name of the oppressed.

You can slag Bush all you like, it is your right, but the men and women who are dying in the service of the military in countries where chaos is the goal don't deserve your disdain and indifference. You show no remorse at all for ignoring the war crimes and inhuman behaviour of thugs....

Well written, but I tend to disagree with one point. Those who voted in the 2004 Presidential election have much more of a right to debate the Bush Presidency than those who did not. I suspect Eki did not vote in the election -- I did.

[Eki]

What makes me mad is this conceited attitude that countries don't deserve a chance at democracy, as if the people of Iraq are too stupid to respect the chance to be free.
What good is freedom if it gets you killed or forces you to stay at home because it's too dangerous to go outside?

[Eki]

First off, I dont' need Wiki to tell me who Tariq Aziz is. I know who he is and nominially he is a Christian.
Sorry, I thought you were one of those who believed Saddam was a radical Muslim who ate Christians for breakfast. There seemed to be a lot of them before and during the invasion.

[EuroTroll]

It is however fallacious to dismiss Hussein as no threat. Ask Saudi Arabia that question. Ask the Kuwaiti's. If the world just walked away from Hussein, ignored the sanctions, would you want to lay money that Hussein at some point wouldn't have either threatened an invasion of someone, sold arms to terrorists, or acquired WMD's?

Very possibly he would have, but there was no immediate threat IMO. The West could well have continued to try to sort out the problem with diplomatic means. There was no pressing need to invade.


What makes me mad is this conceited attitude that countries don't deserve a chance at democracy, as if the people of Iraq are too stupid to respect the chance to be free.

I appreciate that, but military intervention by a foreign power is simply not the way to spread democracy. It just doesn't work like that, IMO.

The way to replace a dictatorship with a democracy is to fund and educate the opposition, and help the population out of the information lock-out by broadcasting international radio and television into the country. That's the way it's been done for decades - that's the way it works!

[Tomi]

Also, I think Eki is right in that democracy can't be force-fed to a country - the impetus has to come from within. Also, perhaps it's worthwhile giving a thought to why, of all the former Soviet republics, only the three Baltic countries (and the Ukraine and Georgia, to a degree) have become stable well-functioning democracies? I would say that a major reason is that in terms of neighbouring countries, the Baltic States are in infinitely better company than the others. Figuratively speaking, you can't go into a pack of wolves and tell one of the wolves to become a fox, unless it has already mingled with the foxes a little bit.

I agree, also it's maybe good to remember that the baltic countries, was quite well of before the russians took over also, so they did know something about how good life can be, the same you cant say about Kazakstan and the others in that region, they can not be called democracies, those countries are now a complete mess, with heavy corruption and political problems too, also their geopolitic position is not the best possible.

[RaceFanStan]

..... Saddam was a mass murderer practicing genocide.
Today, Iraq is a democracy where the citizens vote and have a judicial system.
yes, peace & order is alive in Iraq ... :rolleyes:
no-one is being murdered by car bombings, roadside bombs or suicide bombers ...
men with guns & missle launchers aren't killing the Iraqi citizens or American soldiers,
Iraq is a democracy, all is peaches & cream now. :rolleyes:

If you really believe Iraq is in a good state you & people like you need to wake up ! http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/icons/tongue-anim.gif

[Mark in Oshawa]

What good is freedom if it gets you killed or forces you to stay at home because it's too dangerous to go outside?


Agreed, good point. Except for one thing. You are now saying that Iraqi's are incapable of running their own nation except at the point of a gun? Maybe then the problem truly lies in that nation. I know this much. Despite the odd incident of US Soldiers overstepping human decency (they are caught and punished for it wherever possible), they have tried to stop the violence. Now Hussein's oppressive rule did keep a lid on things. Dictatorships do that, but again, at some point, if you are not killed by street violence, you would be killed for sure in one of Hussein's pointless attacks on his own people (in the case of the Kurds, who have peaceful streets today) or having your kids drafted to fight in a war and slaughtered (the Iranian invasion, Kuwait). The way things are now, if the government that eventually takes over completely in Iraq isn't a true democracy, at least on some level it will have to be better than the autocratic thug they just hung last week.

Your condemnation of this war ignores the basic reality that these people were not living a life of safety and peace before.

They were not. They were starved, oppressed and abused for the benefit of a select few. The actions of their leader led the world to place sanctions on the country starving it of much, and when there was money, he took it. Some peace....some security. Eki, you wouldn't live in Finland if it was run like that. You are however, quite happy to see someone else live like that. That is the difference between you and me, I would rather see someone fight for their freedom, or have help in doing it.

The average Iraqi on the street didn't hate the Americans when they arrived. What has happened afterwards has been American mismanagement, but hey, they are not good at conquering people such as the USSR or Saddam Hussein. They let people move around and terrorists are taking advantage of it. I guess the Americans should be condemned for not clamping the whole country in irons as Saddam did to keep the peace?

Studiose said it right. The US and Britain had good intentions, and were misled by bad intelligence, the same intelligence that Clinton had in 98, the same intelligence that had the UN wanting more inspections, the same intellegence the French were giving to the UK before they decided they wanted to deny the UN actually having the force to do something. The Chinese and Russians would just rather do business with Iraq, for they dont' seem to really care much about freedom in their own nations, so why would they loose sleep over anything Hussein did? Nice world we have....If you do something you are condemened, and if you do nothing, you are aiding and abetting a dictatorial regime. No one said it was easy...

[EuroTroll]

Nice world we have....If you do something you are condemened, and if you do nothing, you are aiding and abetting a dictatorial regime. No one said it was easy...

Well, I for one am certainly not advocating isolationism and not caring about world affairs, but if you take it on yourself to change the world with something as drastic as a war, you'd bloody well better get it right. ;)

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, I for one am certainly not advocating isolationism and not caring about world affairs, but if you take it on yourself to change the world with a war, you'd bloody well better get it right. ;)

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."

Studiose, you and I can agree on that. That said, once the china is broken, there is no point in condemning those who dropped the china dish.

I do think however that Iraq's daily situation is not entirely as dire as it can sound. It isn't to say there is no carnage there, a fool would disupte it is truly peaceful everywhere, but 90% of the headlines are coming from the Sunni section of the country. The Shiites and Sunnis have hated each other for years, and terror groups from both camps, plus Al Quaida and Iranian meddling have spurred on this tit for tat terror campaign, with the radicals obviously trying to create a civil war.

The American people, their government and their Media would all love to see the US Military out of Iraq, for it has been an expensive exercise. That said, to leave now would be more irresponsible. Listen, if the Iraqi people want the Americans out, just stop bombing, shooting and looting each other for 6 months. I guarntee with that, Bush will have no choice but to pull the 250000 military personnel out. Contrary to popular European belief, Americans have no real interest in conquest and colonial entanglements. They have tradtionally tied themselves in knots trying to stay out of wars other nations jumped right into, and as Vietnam and Iraq have proven, the American people do not like long fights with somewhat dubious results.

No, the path to hell is paved with good intentions, but I can also say that good intentions are better than indifference to pain and suffering. Just how you act on those intentions is the issue. Eki's silence on how Saddam treated his own people and the obvious callous disregard for his country's future says volumes about how he feels. IT is become obvious to me he would rather brand a somewhat inept US president with good intentions as the true villian.

[Eki]

Agreed, good point. Except for one thing. You are now saying that Iraqi's are incapable of running their own nation except at the point of a gun? Maybe then the problem truly lies in that nation. I know this much. Despite the odd incident of US Soldiers overstepping human decency (they are caught and punished for it wherever possible), they have tried to stop the violence. Now Hussein's oppressive rule did keep a lid on things. Dictatorships do that, but again, at some point, if you are not killed by street violence, you would be killed for sure in one of Hussein's pointless attacks on his own people (in the case of the Kurds, who have peaceful streets today) or having your kids drafted to fight in a war and slaughtered (the Iranian invasion, Kuwait).
The Kurds and the Shiite weren't killed unless they rose against Saddam's regime.

BTW, it was an Iraqi invasion in Kuwait, not Iranian. I don't remember Iranians invade anyone.

[Tomi]

I do think however that Iraq's daily situation is not entirely as dire as it can sound. It isn't to say there is no carnage there, a fool would disupte it is truly peaceful everywhere, but 90% of the headlines are coming from the Sunni section of the country. The Shiites and Sunnis have hated each other for years, and terror groups from both camps, plus Al Quaida and Iranian meddling have spurred on this tit for tat terror campaign, with the radicals obviously trying to create a civil war.

The American people, their government and their Media would all love to see the US Military out of Iraq, for it has been an expensive exercise. That said, to leave now would be more irresponsible. Listen, if the Iraqi people want the Americans out, just stop bombing, shooting and looting each other for 6 months. I guarntee with that, Bush will have no choice but to pull the 250000 military personnel out. Contrary to popular European belief, Americans have no real interest in conquest and colonial entanglements. They have tradtionally tied themselves in knots trying to stay out of wars other nations jumped right into, and as Vietnam and Iraq have proven, the American people do not like long fights with somewhat dubious results.

Why always make so big fuss about Iran and Al Quaida influence in Iraq, its about the same as Polish influence in the invation.
What comes to how long usa will stay in Iraq, I think its only a matter of time until usa ask Iraq "government" to ask them to build permanent bases there, the official reason will propably be "the treath from Iran" or something like that, the demonising of Iran has already started a way back in the same way it started before the Iraq invation, funny how people swallow the same sh!t once again without chewing.

[Woodeye]

yes, peace & order is alive in Iraq ... :rolleyes:
no-one is being murdered by car bombings, roadside bombs or suicide bombers ...
men with guns & missle launchers aren't killing the Iraqi citizens or American soldiers,
Iraq is a democracy, all is peaches & cream now. :rolleyes:

If you really believe Iraq is in a good state you & people like you need to wake up ! http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/icons/tongue-anim.gif

You know, I'm not so much into politics, I tend to read threads like this rarely. But I gotta say that it is absolutely brilliant to see an American to say something like you said.

I bow to you sire.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Kurds and the Shiite weren't killed unless they rose against Saddam's regime.

BTW, it was an Iraqi invasion in Kuwait, not Iranian. I don't remember Iranians invade anyone.


you are right, they didn't but Hussein invaded Iran, or don't you remember that little temper tantrum? Hussein tried to steal the Western Oil fields of Iran and when Iran fought back with their vicious and fanatical practice of using 12 year old suicide bombers and the like, Saddam used gas. It was a war that didn't bathe either nation in glory and cost over a million dead.

The Kurds and Shiites were not killed unless they rose against Saddam eh ?? Why would they rise against him if he wasn't already persecuting them? You REALLY believe they would be left alone if they didn't have uprisings? You ever think for a second the reason they were part of guerrilla attacks on Saddam because he was using their kids for cannon fodder? I guess the rape rooms, the genocidal attacks on the Kurd's in 91, and persecution of religious ceremonies around the Shiite shrines in the south were all just fiction? Eki, quit defending Saddam Hussein!!!!! He was a dictator!!!! They persecute their people and if they cannot find someone disloyal to them, they find an excuse to make someone disloyal. Their political power and hold of fear cannot continue without a constant fear of death and reprisal for any slight. You say no nation should tell another what to do, so I guess you feel that any leader can do what he wants in the name of sovereingty? Pol pot killed a Million Cambodians because he distrusted anyone with an education. Logical thought is not a prerequesite for a dictator. Very few stay in power without a constant campaign of fear, oppression and killings. Saddam got the gold star in all three of those things and you stand there and tell me if the Kurd's and Shiites just accepted the Sunni's and Hussein were to run the nation, then everything would be fine. You really are a piece of work Eki, you would condemn everyone outside of your own nation to their own fates, for it didn't meet your ethical standard. You continue to defend a man hung a week ago for reasons that no rational human being who didn't live in Iraq can understand.

Dictators kill, rape and pillage their OWN nation first to attain and keep power. When they get bored with that, they move on, (Iran in 81, Kuwait in 90-91). This man got away with all that, and yet when asked to comply with UN he refused, thinking no one would call his bluff. Someone did.....and while we can agree Iraq is not a garden of paradise now, to defend the man who treated his own people like garbage is just not logical. HE was killing 20000 people a year in a "peaceful" Iraq. Some peace, some freedom....


Studiose's objections to the happenings in Iraq at least have reason and merit, but your steadfast defense of Saddam Hussein is just unfathomable!!!

[agwiii]

yes, peace & order is alive in Iraq ... no-one is being murdered by car bombings, roadside bombs or suicide bombers ... men with guns & missle launchers aren't killing the Iraqi citizens or American soldiers, Iraq is a democracy, all is peaches & cream now. If you really believe Iraq is in a good state you & people like you need to wake up !

Forgot to take your meds, eh Stan? Read what I wrote and then try to understand the difference between what I wrote and your leftist drivel. I did not suggest that things are perfect in Iraq, but stated that the Butcher of Bagdad is dead and that the Iraqi people have a democracy.

[agwiii]

The Kurds and the Shiite weren't killed unless they rose against Saddam's regime.

Ah, that certainly justifies murder. Thanks!

[agwiii]

Dictators kill, rape and pillage their OWN nation first to attain and keep power. When they get bored with that, they move on, (Iran in 81, Kuwait in 90-91). This man got away with all that, and yet when asked to comply with UN he refused, thinking no one would call his bluff. Someone did.....and while we can agree Iraq is not a garden of paradise now, to defend the man who treated his own people like garbage is just not logical. HE was killing 20000 people a year in a "peaceful" Iraq. Some peace, some freedom. Studiose's objections to the happenings in Iraq at least have reason and merit, but your steadfast defense of Saddam Hussein is just unfathomable!

Mark - there are many supporters of dictators, even today. A neighbor was telling me of living in Germany in the 1950s and 1960s. He said the former SS would get together on the weekends and talk about the "good old days." Of course, Eki's position is even less justifiable, since s/he did not live in Iraq, and have the pleasure of being one of Saddam's subjects. It takes all kinds.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Agwii, the funny thing is, Eki posted on the thread "Cats are brilliant" how he is against euthanasia for animals since he opposes killing. I have YET ONCE seen a post by Eki condemning Saddam. Not one. He has spent the last two years tearing Dubya apart, and lord knows there is much there to criticize on a level of competetance, but never once has Eki condemened Saddam for his killing.

Instead, he tries to justify his role in persecuting the nation of Iraq. Murder is ok with Eki, just don't kill a cat or hang a dictator....

[agwiii]

Agwii, the funny thing is, Eki posted on the thread "Cats are brilliant" how he is against euthanasia for animals since he opposes killing. I have YET ONCE seen a post by Eki condemning Saddam. Not one. He has spent the last two years tearing Dubya apart, and lord knows there is much there to criticize on a level of competetance, but never once has Eki condemened Saddam for his killing.

Instead, he tries to justify his role in persecuting the nation of Iraq. Murder is ok with Eki, just don't kill a cat or hang a dictator....

Mark - that's the typical convoluted logic of leftist tree huggers. Mass murder, genocide, torture, etc., these things are okay. However, don't kill an animal, say cross words to a dictator, or execute a mass murderer. It takes all kinds.

[Eki]

Dictators kill, rape and pillage their OWN nation first to attain and keep power.
And leaders of so called "democracies" kill, rape and pillage foreign nations. Have you heard about the marines who are accused of raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl and killing her and her family afterwards, or should I educate you?

[Eki]

Agwii, the funny thing is, Eki posted on the thread "Cats are brilliant" how he is against euthanasia for animals since he opposes killing. I have YET ONCE seen a post by Eki condemning Saddam. Not one. He has spent the last two years tearing Dubya apart, and lord knows there is much there to criticize on a level of competetance, but never once has Eki condemened Saddam for his killing.

Instead, he tries to justify his role in persecuting the nation of Iraq. Murder is ok with Eki, just don't kill a cat or hang a dictator....
I haven't seen you condemning Bush for having tens of thousand of Iraqis and thousands of Americans killed either. Oh, and if I recall it right, Bush is pro death penalty himself and had many Texans killed when he was the governor.

[agwiii]

And leaders of so called "democracies" kill, rape and pillage foreign nations. Have you heard about the marines who are accused of raping a 14 year old Iraqi girland killing her and her family afterwards, or should I educate you?

First, I suggest you speak face-to-face with a Marine and ask your question. I'm sure you will receive a well-reasoned response.

Second, look up the meaning of the word accused. Accusations are tossed about -- just ask the Duke Lacrosse Team. Proof and conviction is another thing. Ask that same Marine (above) how many mass graves and bodies he recovered. The proof of Saddam's mass murders is throughout Iraq.

[Eki]

First, I suggest you speak face-to-face with a Marine and ask your question. I'm sure you will receive a well-reasoned response.

Second, look up the meaning of the word accused. Accusations are tossed about -- just ask the Duke Lacrosse Team. .
Yep, I could also ask Saddam Hussein about the WMDs if he was still alive.

[agwiii]

Yep, I could also ask Saddam Hussein about the WMDs if he was still alive.

Or you could ask him why he decided to try to bluff President Bush (any fool knows you can't bluff a Texan!), and then ask him if he regrets bringing the whole thing upon him in his self-destructive rush. However, today Saddam is buring in the fires of hell. This is a position he and his followers earned.

[EuroTroll]

today Saddam is buring in the fires of hell

Do you also know his schedule for next week? :p :

[Tomi]

Mark - there are many supporters of dictators, even today. A neighbor was telling me of living in Germany in the 1950s and 1960s. He said the former SS would get together on the weekends and talk about the "good old days." Of course, Eki's position is even less justifiable, since s/he did not live in Iraq, and have the pleasure of being one of Saddam's subjects. It takes all kinds.

I think the ex. soldiers do the same everywhere, for instance in New york metrostations, there was many ex.marines begging for money, when they did not beg they seemed to talk to eachother, about what i dont know but anyway.

[Woodeye]

I did not suggest that things are perfect in Iraq, but stated that the Butcher of Bagdad is dead and that the Iraqi people have a democracy.

Do you have the slightest idea of what's going on in Iraq? Do yuo think that the situation there is really even close of being a democracy?

Anarchy is maybe the word you were thinking of?

[agwiii]

Do you have the slightest idea of what's going on in Iraq?

Are you in Iraq now, or are you in regular contact with those who are in Iraq? Your "flag" shows you are in Finland. How far is that from Bagdad?

[Mark in Oshawa]

And leaders of so called "democracies" kill, rape and pillage foreign nations. Have you heard about the marines who are accused of raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl and killing her and her family afterwards, or should I educate you?

First off, the accused in this case are being tried by the US Military Justice system, which contrary to popular belief is interested in the truth. They will get a trial.

Second of all Bush has lamented the loss of civilian life in Iraq on numerous occasions. The US military didn't go in there to indescrimnately destroy and maim the civilian population of Iraq. To use your logic, Iraqi miltary units just should have not resisted and none of this would happened. Alas, it was a war, and civilians were in danger and some have died. THIS is a tragedy no doubt. Bush however has never ONCE told a Miltary officer nor has any officer of any rank had orders to rape, pillage or destroy for the sake of terror. These were crimes your buddy Saddam condoned and encouraged as state policy. Eki, I know your belief in moral equivalence has put Bush on the same level as Hussein, but believe me, there is a difference. What is more, you are STILL telling me that you believe Saddam had the right to do those things to his own people and THAT isn't a crime, but if the US comes in and removes his regime, THAT is the greater sin. Unbelieveable. Your defence of a dictator just continues.

[Mark in Oshawa]

One more thing, Eki you despise killing in your posting on the thread "Cats are Brilliant", yet you see nothing wrong with Saddam doing it. You figure his hanging was the true crime. Unreal....I got to get the drugs you are smoking my friend....it must be weird being in Alice's Wonderland....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Say it slowly, Saddam hussein was killing his own people long before the US Military did. You can do it Eki, I know you can...

[Tomi]

First off, the accused in this case are being tried by the US Military Justice system, which contrary to popular belief is interested in the truth. They will get a trial.

BTW why are they not tried by Iraq court, if the supposed crime has happen in "soverign, democratic Iraq"?

[agwiii]

I think the ex. soldiers do the same everywhere, for instance in New york metrostations, there was many ex.marines begging for money, when they did not beg they seemed to talk to eachother, about what i dont know but anyway.

Tomi, that is probably the most fatuous post I have ever seen. It's also so untrue that no sentient person would believe it. You and Eki. It must really hurt.

[agwiii]

Say it slowly, Saddam hussein was killing his own people long before the US Military did. You can do it Eki, I know you can...

Mark: Eki and reality are not good friends.

[EuroTroll]

BTW why are they not tried by Iraq court, if the supposed crime has happen in "soverign, democratic Iraq"?

I guess it's common practise in most countries for soldiers to be subject to Military Law (and judged by a military court) while on duty.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They are not being tried in a civilian Iraqi court because they are Americans in the US Military. The UCMJ is a far harsher court of law than any American civilian one, and while Iraqi's should have some sort of say in what happens to these men if found guilty, belive me, unlike the regime that was here 5 years ago, military crimes against a civilian population are being tried in a proper manner and if convicted, these US soldiers could at the very least be in jail for a very long time. Anyone on here do time in Leavenworth? Trust me, I know from my friends in the Canadian Military about the Canadian Military jail in Edmonton, and they told me it has nothing on the strict regime of disicpline dished out at Fort Leavenworth.

[Tomi]

Tomi, that is probably the most fatuous post I have ever seen. It's also so untrue that no sentient person would believe it. You and Eki. It must really hurt.

Not untrue, last august Union Square metrostation, every day i vent to the metro. Other stations too. Or maybe they where lying who knows.

[Mark in Oshawa]

One more thing. The Trial of Saddam Hussein was a farce. He was given ample opportunity to defend himself but his whole defense was that the people running the trial had no jurisdiction, and that he could do as he saw fit. Meanwhile, while in the custody of the US Marines he seemed to be more bent on firing any lawyer who questioned his defense methods while inhaling large amounts of Doritos that the Marines were happy to supply him with. He was not mistreated and he was given the opportunity to defend himself. I say the trial was a farce because he didn't do a thing do defend his actions. Eki has given a far more spirited defense of Saddam Hussein here on the boards....
Saddam was given a fair trial, just he kept getting in the way of any defense he might have. At no time did his cousel nor Saddam give any kind of plea for clemency nor any sorrow for the way things had turned out. He was defiant to the end.

[Woodeye]

Are you in Iraq now, or are you in regular contact with those who are in Iraq? Your "flag" shows you are in Finland. How far is that from Bagdad?

No I'm not. Are you in Iraq then? And as far as I know Finland is much closer to Iraq than US is - not that it would matter anything.

Just today it was reported that Iraqi police found 27 bodies in Baghdad nera US and UK embassies. They were killed in execution style. Does that sound like a democracy to you?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Woodeye, it may not be democracy as we know it, but who would have a chance at it with Saddam running the country. You have to understand something. There is a full blown attempt to create a civil war between the Sunni's and Shiites. Iraqi people who have decided that this is the time to settle ethnic and religious scores. The reason the US Military hasn't left is because of crap like this. It isn't the American military that is telling all these factions to kill each other, they would love it all to stop so they could go the hell home.

Contrary to popular belief, murders happen on the streets of many democratic nations. I bet Finland has a few murders too. Does that mean I should condemn the Finnish government for it? No, Iraq isn't a democracy that is strong enough to enforce its own laws while giving much in the way of freedom. It is a constant state of war, but the only thing the US Military did wrong was show up and take way the lid on this cauldron. That said, they are trying to stop the carnage now, and are paying with casualties. So it is a mess, no doubt, but lets not confuse this with the thread topic. Saddam is gone, so at least Iraq has hope. If left to you and Eki, Saddam would be allowed to kill, maim and persecute his nation until he died of old age, and then hand the job off to Uday and Qusay, of course until they lost power, and then we would have the same civil war we have now....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Woodeye I ask you this, were you as upset for the people of Iraq and their condition before Saddam?? I have no time for people who condemn others to live under dictators while living in a democratic soceity with the rule of law protecting their feelings of protest...

[Tomi]

Woodeye, it may not be democracy as we know it, but who would have a chance at it with Saddam running the country. You have to understand something. There is a full blown attempt to create a civil war between the Sunni's and Shiites. Iraqi people who have decided that this is the time to settle ethnic and religious scores. The reason the US Military hasn't left is because of crap like this. It isn't the American military that is telling all these factions to kill each other, they would love it all to stop so they could go the hell home.

Contrary to popular belief, murders happen on the streets of many democratic nations. I bet Finland has a few murders too. Does that mean I should condemn the Finnish government for it? No, Iraq isn't a democracy that is strong enough to enforce its own laws while giving much in the way of freedom. It is a constant state of war, but the only thing the US Military did wrong was show up and take way the lid on this cauldron. That said, they are trying to stop the carnage now, and are paying with casualties. So it is a mess, no doubt, but lets not confuse this with the thread topic. Saddam is gone, so at least Iraq has hope. If left to you and Eki, Saddam would be allowed to kill, maim and persecute his nation until he died of old age, and then hand the job off to Uday and Qusay, of course until they lost power, and then we would have the same civil war we have now....

people here call it a civil war already, simply because it is a civil war already.

[Woodeye]

Iraqi people who have decided that this is the time to settle ethnic and religious scores. The reason the US Military hasn't left is because of crap like this. It isn't the American military that is telling all these factions to kill each other, they would love it all to stop so they could go the hell home.

And no one could predict this before the US decided to come to Iraq? Right. And if the religious groups have decided to settle some scores INSIDE the country, I see no reason for the US troops. I think that democratic nation should be able to solve it's domestic problems.

I mean, if there were blues and reds in Canada who would start a civil war, would you be needing US troops to solve that situation?


If left to you and Eki, Saddam would be allowed to kill, maim and persecute his nation until he died of old age, and then hand the job off to Uday and Qusay, of course until they lost power, and then we would have the same civil war we have now....

I have no problem whatsoever to say that I don't miss Saddam a bit. He was a criminal. Was execution right thing to do, well I think no. I would have much more rather seen him in a small cell for the rest of his life. I think it's not right to take anyones life, no matter what he/she has done. That's my opinion, I know many will disagree with that.

I would love to chat about Halliburton and all the other American companies (weapon manufacturers) benefetting from war and rebuilding Iraq and about bush's (notice the small letter b) connections to these companies, but I think I'll leave it for the time being.

[Woodeye]

Woodeye I ask you this, were you as upset for the people of Iraq and their condition before Saddam?? I have no time for people who condemn others to live under dictators while living in a democratic soceity with the rule of law protecting their feelings of protest...

Sure I was, but I'm still upset. Tens of people die in Iraq every day. That is not the way it shall be anywhere.

[agwiii]

Just today it was reported that Iraqi police found 27 bodies in Baghdad nera US and UK embassies. They were killed in execution style. Does that sound like a democracy to you?

Interesting. You blame the victims of terrorism for acts of terrorism.

[agwiii]

Not untrue, last august Union Square metrostation, every day i vent to the metro. Other stations too. Or maybe they where lying who knows.

Clearly a lie. A Marine does not beg. Period.

[Woodeye]

People are dying in hunger in Africa and in North Korea. There are civil wars in Africa, the situation in Darfur is unbearable. Why isn't US there?

If all the money that has been spend on catching Saddam were used against hunger, we wouldn't have to witness it at all. There would be nough food for everyone.

But helping is not as profitable as war is. Sadly.

[Woodeye]

Interesting. You blame the victims of terrorism for acts of terrorism.

I don't understand youre point. I just said there were bodies found in Baghdad today (as there has been in every day after the "war") and I didn't sound like ademocracy to me. Who did I blame for it?

[Eki]

Bush however has never ONCE told a Miltary officer nor has any officer of any rank had orders to rape, pillage or destroy for the sake of terror.

And the reason you believe Saddam did tell his soldiers to do it is?

[Mark in Oshawa]

People are dying in hunger in Africa and in North Korea. There are civil wars in Africa, the situation in Darfur is unbearable. Why isn't US there?

If all the money that has been spend on catching Saddam were used against hunger, we wouldn't have to witness it at all. There would be nough food for everyone.

But helping is not as profitable as war is. Sadly.

Ok, I grant you this Woodeye. Darfur is terrible. Ethiopia was terrible. Somalia was terrible, the US went in and got immediately zeroed in on as a target. Their efforts to distribute aid with the help of NGO's were for naught for the corruption of a failed state only left America with the option of openly conquering the whole country and putting it in lock down so they could sort out who needed food and who was stealing it or get out. Clinton opted to get out, not having a stomach for the fight. This did two things. One, it said to the world that the US cant solve the world's problems without basically conquering and running the country, and two, after the "Blackhawk Down" incident where the Marine was dragged behind a truck by Islamic warlords, it said that Clinton would cut and run when the body count started. Bin Laden said this was the proof he needed to say he didn't think the US had the stomach to stand and fight. Well, presidents all look at situations differently, and Bush of course is not one to give up on anything, even when it doesn't look great.

The point really is though that the US cannot win. If they went into Darfur, took control, they would be fighting the same sort of insurgency terror war there that they are fighting in Iraq. Eki has already said no sovereign nation should invade another for any reason. IF I am to buy into THAT argument (and I don't, but invasions are not to be done with no rules or purpose either) then the US will have all the criticism once again for making a bad situation worse. The US cannot win no matter what they do in the eyes of people like yourself, Eki, and Tomi. You guys would be all over them for invading Iran to stop them from building a bomb I don't doubt, and you would criticise them for going in to Sudan. They were torn apart in the court of world opinion for not stepping in to stop the slaughter in Rwanda, a great screw up I lay on the feet of the UN. The Americans invaded Iraq because they saw a threat. You can argue that threat wasn't there, but most of the western intelligence organizations and the UN felt Saddam had WMD's under development and he was very vocal about telling the Americans they would pay for kicking him in the rear for Kuwait. Also if you are going to commit 3000 plus lives, billions of dollars in expense, the nation invaded might as well have something of value to speak for it. It is the sale of the oil in Iraq that will rebuild that nation, for the money that is now not going into Saddam's pocket is paying to rebuild the infrastructure. I suppose if the US went into Sudan and toppled that government to stop the genocide there you would demand they pay to rebuild THAT nation? How many nations should the US rebuild? Their money kept the UK afloat during WW2 and under the Marshall plan they rebuilt Western Europe's industrial complex.

At one point does the USA just say screw this, you guys can starve yourselves, shoot each other, kill innocents and maim each other to your hearts content, we want to not have anything to do with it and we should stay on our contient, and if you screw with us, we will send a nuke your way to remind you that we don't to deal with this crap no more? They wouldn't use that nuke but at some point, most Americans I suspect wish for the days when no American president cared what happened east of Bermuda. No matter what they do, they are the whipping boys. If they get involved, they are at fault. If they have good intentions, it does not matter, and if by chance someone actually recoups some money lost due to the BILLIONS of dollars poured down the hole that is Iraq, you accuse Bush of having friends in war profiteering. Here is a clue, if Halliburton wasn't there, someone else would be, and you would have many thousands of conspircy theorists trying to find links there to Dubya.

I cannot understand why any American even leaves the country no more. They are the whipping boys for all that is wrong in this world according to you guys, and meanwhile, the people who actually are the ones causing the misery and suffering do not have 230 posts on a thread condemning them. Until I started posting on this thread no one had the guts to call Eki out on defending Saddam Hussein. He still hasn't said Hussein was wrong by the way....still waiting

Oh yes, one more thing, I wish he wasn't hung either, I would rather he was put in a jail full of Shiite criminals and let him figure out what it is like to be the hunted....

[Mark in Oshawa]

And the reason you believe Saddam did tell his soldiers to do it is?


Eki, we have gone down this road before. The world knew what Saddam was doing. Even those nations who condemn George Bush for the invasion know damned well what he was doing. You disbelieve the stories of the rape rooms? The looting and pillaging in Kuwait? (it makes what a few corrupted soldiers in the US Military did look like a misdemanour in scale) How about the stories of the thousands of Kurd refugee's that the UN and NATO had to look after being gassed in their villages, often for reprisals for "attacks" on his regime. Listen, if you want to believe the fiction Saddam was not approving all this, then you go find Iraqi dissidents abroad who had family members killed during his rule. Ask the families of some of them who fled to countries like Jordan and were found dead after Iraqi assasination squads hunted them down. Ask the families of those Iraqi soldiers were tossed into the meat grinder of the invasion of Iran in 1981. Ask them if you think all the barbarity of this regime was not sanctioned by the top man? At least the Nazi's had the sense to stand up and say what they were doing when confronted (Goring said with great pride he knew what was going on, as did other Nazi's). I suppose you think the Holocaust was a lie too Eki? Since you love defending thugs and dictators, I would have to assume you thought 6 million Jews and 1 million other people were just people who had it coming for "standing up to the government" right?

Eki, you cannot condemn George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq with any kind of credability. Others on here will and I will accept some of their arguments, for they are also reasoned enough to believe that Saddam was an evil man. Yet in all your posts, you just keep on coming back to the fact he had the right do to what he was doing, because it was his country. Unbelievable. You are either naive, a Baathist exile in Finland, or just so filled with hatred for the President currently in office that you are blind to human decency. Yet in another thread, you decry euthanasia of a cat for no reason. You value your own life, and a cat more than the thousands and thousands that have died in Iraq. You claim to care, but you do not care. You only cared when it suited your narrow political agenda. Like many anti-American bigots, you hide behind your principles when confronted, but you cannot grasp you are defending the undefendable.

Saddam Hussein is dead because of his own actions. He became a dictator by killing his opponents rather than beating them in an election. He hung onto power through a reign of terror. He started two major conflicts by attacking sovereign states to take their oil fields. He used chemical weapons against defenceless people (don't give me this crap the Americans gave him those, I acknowledge that but over 30 countries have chemical weapons and only Iraq has chosen to use them in the last 30 years), and when being held to sanctions by the UN, he chose to tell the world to go get stuffed. So someone finally said no to him, and he wouldn't back down. The whole world watched for over 4 months as Saddam played this chicken game with the US. He would let the UN in, but then tell them what they could see and not see. He would tell the UN that he would co-operate, and then tell them he would kill every soldier who set foot across the border. Finally, Bush, Blair, Howard and a few other strong willed leaders decided to call his bluff and invade (as per the ultimate result of disobeying UN sanctions). Now we all know that the plan for peace was not executed as well as the conquering of Iraq was, but nevertheless, if Saddam just complied with the UN, no one would have backed the US and this war would have never happened. Instead, Saddam bluffed, he lost, and yes, lives were lost, and in the end, his also. Sad story, but not nearly as sad as the thousands of lives lost in a police state with no hope of ever getting out of it. Slaves for the regime. Iraq may be a mess now, but in time, something will come of this, and if 20 years from now Iraq is a functioning sovereign nation with a form of freedom, if not outright democracy, then Bush will all the sudden will be seen as ahead of his time. Judging events by reading the newspaper is a shallow intellectual exercise, but I have become used to seeing it from the Knee-jerk Anti-American bigotry on this thread.

[Mark in Oshawa]

One other thing Eki. If Saddam Hussein had WMD's stashed in the country in 2001, do you think for one second he wouldn't have a plan to get them out of the country in case the UN or the US did find them? The real reason I always found the WMD argument rather weak in my mind was that Saddam's friends in Syria (The Assad family are Baathist Arabs who run a similar family run dictatorship) would just love to hold onto those WMD's. You think if there was WMD's they would not have been shipped out to anyone who would take them? Maybe this didn't happen, we will never know, but one thing is for sure. Saddam had no problems using them when it suited his purposes. Using them on coalition troops would not have been wise, since it would give license for the US to open up the stockpile of nasty crap they own. So he sure as heck wasn't going to have a use for them if the invasion happened.

Also, another question. If Saddam is such an emissary of peace and goodwill, why was he paying the families of suicide bombers against Israel? Paying people to have their kids blown up is NOT the action of a man who truly values the human condition. I wont even get into the possibility of him selling arms to Hamas, or Al Quaida. If he hadn't sold arms to Al Quaida and had no connection with 911 ( I know he didn't have a hand in on that), you think for one second he wouldn't be above giving them arms and aid in the future? He hated the US almost as much as you seem to Eki, for they embarassed him in 1991. They made him a deal to not whip his sorry hide then so he could keep his country. Many people believed then that wasn't the end of it, and as it turned out, it wasn't. Saddam wanted this conflict, and when he got it, he lost it, and was tried as a criminal for war crimes by the people of his nation in a fair trial. We can dispute the merits of hanging him, but no one would dispute the value of convicting this man of the vilest, nastiest treatment of human beings who were ostensibly under his reign. Oh wait a minute, you have disupted this. You have claimed by omission that Saddam was not a bad fellow, just misunderstood. Clock is ticking Eki, when are you going to just admit that Hussein got pretty much the fate he deserved.

[Eki]

Bush however has never ONCE told a Miltary officer nor has any officer of any rank had orders to rape, pillage or destroy for the sake of terror.
Are you sure Saddam did? Maybe he just didn't care. Not care and tell are two different things. I wish the trial of those marines won't just be a show after they will be released when media's attention is elsewhere, just like they did with William Calley, responsible for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

Yes, Bush says he cares, but does he really, or is it just to please the voters?

[Woodeye]

You know Mark, I think we'll just have to disagree with a lot of issues. As we are living now into 21st century I tend to think that lot of the problems in the world nowdays can be solved with diplomacy - not with guns and war.

Yes, we had WW1 and WW2 in 20th century, but after those I think that we should be wise enough to avoid situations like that to happen again. At the moment I can see that the tension between muslim world and christian world is rising and US attacking on Iraq and perhaps later on to Iran does't really help too much, does it? There should be enough room for diplomacy allways.

As you've said the US cannot win any fights it has entered. So why do they have to constantly enter to another war? Why instead of using brutal force they cannot use talking and diplomacy?

The answer, again, As I said before, war is far more profitable than peace is. This is a common fact in economics. Unfortunately I think it's naiive to think that US is supporting freedom by wars.

[Eki]

Why instead of using brutal force they cannot use talking and diplomacy?

Because they only talk with the "good", and they want "justice", regardless if it's dead or alive.

[EuroTroll]

Yes, Justice and Prudence are often enemies.

I always root for Prudence. ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

You know Mark, I think we'll just have to disagree with a lot of issues. As we are living now into 21st century I tend to think that lot of the problems in the world nowdays can be solved with diplomacy - not with guns and war.

Yes, we had WW1 and WW2 in 20th century, but after those I think that we should be wise enough to avoid situations like that to happen again. At the moment I can see that the tension between muslim world and christian world is rising and US attacking on Iraq and perhaps later on to Iran does't really help too much, does it? There should be enough room for diplomacy allways.

As you've said the US cannot win any fights it has entered. So why do they have to constantly enter to another war? Why instead of using brutal force they cannot use talking and diplomacy?

The answer, again, As I said before, war is far more profitable than peace is. This is a common fact in economics. Unfortunately I think it's naiive to think that US is supporting freedom by wars.

Very excellent points. I cannot agree with all of them, but a reasonable assertion. That said lets break it down...

First off, the US cannot win in the eyes of public opinion, espeically it seems in your part of the world. That said, if they cannot win, should US foreign policy to just ignore what happens in the rest of the world. They used to do that, and that was a factor in WW2 starting for sure. Clinton's foreign policy was to not respond to attack after attack of Al Quaida, (African Embassy bombing,the first WTC attack, USS Cole, etc.) and after a while, Bin Laden thought, well why not the World Trade Center a second time?? Ignoring problems does not work. So ok, now we try diplomacy. This is the argument always heard here in Canada. We are not a powerful nation militarily. We are big on this diplomatic stuff.

Great two examples here of diplomacy not working. First off, Taliban in Afghanistan. They were harbouring a group of people responsible for the tragedy of 9/11. Those people admitted to it, for Bin Laden was very happy to have video of his cadre sitting around bragging about it. It wasn't a doctored tape, it wasn't a Jewish conspiracy (some idiots believe that to this day) and it certaintly was not the doing of the CIA. 9/11 happened. So ok, we know who did it, but the good honest folks that everyone knows as the Taliban were asked to detain and hand the criminals that are Al Quaida over. Basically they gave the finger to the US, and later the UN. So now what?

Ok Example 2. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. Claims it is Iraqi territory. Now while the British in colonial years were pretty hap hazard with their borders, no one except Saddam thought Kuwait really was part of Iraq. The Kuwaiti's certainly did not. So ok, He invaded of August of 1990, and in Feburary, 1991, the coalition invaded. Why? Failed diplomacy. Saddam refused to realize no one was buying his argument. Actually, he knew they didn't agree with his argument, but he figured, ah why negotiate or admit fault, they wont do anything.
So ok, we have two examples in recent history where diplomacy reaches a dead end. What message does that send to the terrorists? What message does doing nothing send to a dictator? See, diplomacy is negotiations. IT is no different than when you go to buy a car and you haggle with the salesman. You each want the best deal, but you also realize you will saw off in the middle. The consequences of failure are much greater, but that is why you don't spend 4 months with teams of negotiators buying a car. In International affairs, two nations, or two sides of a "conflict" have to see a common ground, have to reach a common conclusion, or at least a comprimise that both sides can live with. But you have no recourse if one side does NOT want to deal with the other. See, you would never advocate the use of force. Neville Chamberlain twisted himself into a pretzel trying to reach ground with Hitler in the 30's. Britain did NOT want to be drawn into a war. Her treasury was depleted after WW1 and the depression. Her people didn't want to sacrifice more sons to a useless slaughter and memories of the first war to end all wars. But in the end, Britain ended up at war, and Neville Chamberlain was the PM to announce it. Diplomacy only works when both parties will live with the outcome.

You guys can spout off all you want about the need for diplomacy, and how all war is wrong. I can tell you a lot of military men in the US will tell you they agree, but they also know at some point, you have to be prepared to stand up for your beliefs. You also should realize that you better prepared to die for your beliefs also.

Now we can say in the Iraq instance this is wrong. That is your opinion, and I realize you have your reasons for feeling that way. I wont sway you off of it, and in the case of Eki, well, he is still defending the actions of a dictator so I figure his argument is purely another reason to hate Americans. He hasn't denied this so I guess I am right on the money there. For the rest of my opponents on here, I respect your feelings. I respect you feel the need to use diplomacy and use negotiation over force to ensure the goals of a nation state. This system however will not work when one party refuses to be civilized. Saddam did it twice. 1991, 2002. He negotiated in bad faith, if at all. He demanded, he threatened, and while some of you might say the US did also, remember who created the issues for the need for this diplomatic negotiation. It wasn't the US that invaded a sovereign nation. It wasn't the US that refused to allow UN inspectors to see WMD facilities and search for production facilities. The UN resolutions, so finely negotiated as terms of cease fire after the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait were the articles that Saddam was to live by in exchange for the cease fire. Over the next 11 years, Saddam refused to live up to all of these 14 resolutions, and after the UN slapped sanctions on his regime in a trade embargo for anything but food and medical supplies, he continued to deal oil on the black market to the French through Jordan and Syria.

So we have a failed diplomacy with a man who took his nation to war 2 times in the previous 25 years. We have a man who agreed to terms set down through the UN to save his sorry hide after miscalculating resolve in 1991. We have a man who repeately has used his own people as slaves to his own grandeur, and lived like a king while starving, gassing and generally abusing his own people whenever and wherever he pleased. This isn't fiction. This isn't a right-wing conspiracy, this is history. Saddam refused to use his head. HE thumbed his nose at every nation he dealt with. HE ran a vicious regime where no amount of oppression was too much. You want to really negotiate with this man? You really think anyone should trust his word? Come on, you would need a bath after shaking hands with him.

Diplomacy is great when two democratic nations have a disagreement. The US and Canada share 3000 miles of border, and we are constantly in disagreement over many issues. There is no threats, there is no arms on the border, there is endless amounts of negotiation. Democratic societies can negotiate and use diplomacy and it works. Reasonable people can always avoid war when dealing with reasonable opponents. IT all falls apart when one party has no interest in anyone's well being but their own. Hitler and Germany in the 30's, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam in 1990/91, Saddam in 02. If you are not going to use force at some point, then in the end, the negotiations are dependent on both sides being willing to find a common solution. It is like being in a union and never voting for a strike to show management you will stand together if negotiations fail. You always vote for a strike, while knowing you don't want to be out of work for 3 weeks or more walking the street. You know this, and you do it. Management knows if they don't see a strike vote, you wont stand, and they wont negotiate for a solution that benefits anyone but themselves. That is business, and you have extreme measures. Why should international diplomacy be any different?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Are you sure Saddam did? Maybe he just didn't care. Not care and tell are two different things. I wish the trial of those marines won't just be a show after they will be released when media's attention is elsewhere, just like they did with William Calley, responsible for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

Yes, Bush says he cares, but does he really, or is it just to please the voters?

First off, if the Marines are found innocent, even by the toughest tribunal ever, you would still say the fix was in. The American media wont let this one go Eki, trust me, they hate Bush almost as much as you do. AS for Saddam, I see you are still making excuses for him. Saddam knew. Nothing happened in Iraq that Saddam didn't find out about sooner or later. He wasn't sitting in his palace while his minions made up their own policy. No, between he and his sons, killing people was a sport. Torture, rape and oppression were their stock in trade. The UN and Amnesity International have documented much of the crap that went on in Iraq, and I am sure it didn't happen just because Saddam didn't care. Eki, you really expect any reasonable thinking logical human to believe that Saddam knew maybe and didn't care? That is as great a sin as actively ordering it in my books. Weak, very weak argument on your part.

When you quit defending Saddam Hussein, as if his actions were justified when he stood over a nation for over 25 years killing thousands every year, then maybe I will give you credit for making a point.

Saddam is dead because he refused to bend to anyone's will but his own selfish wishes, even when faced with choices that would have allowed him to skate out of 2 certain wars with no real penalty. Saddam was a thug, and not a very bright one at that. No wonder his people found him guilty, and while many people disagree with the death penalty, including myself, in this case, it does NOT bother me at all. There is a special place in hell reserved for evil leaders who use their own people for amusement. As they say in old westerns "he needed killing".

[Mark in Oshawa]

Heck, one more example of diplomacy failing. Eki wont even admit Saddam was a dictatorial thug. He wont lose anything by admitting this, and yet he defends him. See, reasonable people see other peoples arguments when they are reasonable. Woodeye, Studiose have both presented their thoughts in a cogent manner and I can see some of their points, and don't disagree with their basic principles. But when Eki cannot see Hussein for the animal he was DOCUMENTED to be then he really is in a wonderland of denial. Amnesity International does not make up stuff and they will categoriacally state what was going on in Iraq and who signed off on it. I am not part of the right-wing conspiracy (so-called) to take down a nice guy here. I am talking about a full on dictator. In the classic sense, you know up there with Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung. Yet Eki in over 40 posts and 3 days of arguing is STILL defending the man's actions. Eki, what do you do for a living? You should be a PR man for a dictator. Maybe Quaddifi can hire you, he is still in business....

[Eki]

Eki wont even admit Saddam was a dictatorial thug.
Sure I can admit that, I just don't take for granted everything that's said about him. I didn't know him personally, and some things said may be propaganda from his opposition and enemies. It has been suggested that Iraqi refugees, exiles and opposition on purpose lied about the WMDs in order to get the US invade Iraq. I wonder what else they may have lied about.
It's hard to believe Saddam personally knew EVERY minute detail of what was going on in his country. It's a country of 25 million people for God's sake, he should have had supernatural powers in order to do that. It has also been said he was out of touch with reality and believed himself he had WMDs because he was surrounded by yes-men who only told him what they thought he wanted to hear. Do you really believe his thugs told him everytime they wanted to have some good time by raping someone or get a little extra by some pillaging?

[Gannex]

Mark, you are fantastic. Finally I can come onto the board and read some sense about politics. Keep posting, because your explanations are like a breath of fresh air, and maybe, if you keep posting, people like Eki, who seem to have no understanding at all of the way the world works, will learn something.

What you say about diplomacy is, sadly, true. It only works when both sides want to reach a compromise.

As far as Saddam is concerned, maybe this little fact, Eki, will open your eyes to what the man was like. At the first meeting of the Baath party after Saddam had declared himself the leader, a few of the senior party members present suggested that it might be a good idea for the party to hold an election for the leadership, rather than simply announcing Saddam's accession to the post. It would give legitimacy to the leader's position, they argued. Saddam listened to the discussion for a short time, long enough to see who thought a leadership election was a good idea, and then ordered those people to be taken out of the room, taken to a room close by, tortured so that the rest of the people could hear their screams, and then killed. They were dead within hours of having suggested the leadership election.

Try negotiating with a man like that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, since you are so much a fan of plausable denial, why don't you grant George Bush that defense?? You cant have it both ways yet you always do. You say Saddam could have been lied to by yes men and lackies yet Bush isn't allowed to have the defense that the CIA, as well as most western intelliegence agencies were wrong? No, you dont' get off that easy.

After this many posts, you FINALLY admit it. I challenged you about 30 posts back to admit that he was a dictatorial thug who used his own people as a currency.

Iraq is a country of 25 Million. No leader can ever know EVERY LAST SINGLE THING. I don't dispute that, but when you have Amnesity International documneting numerous cases of state sponsored and state sanctioned torture, and no one being held accountable for these actions by Saddam, then you obviously know who is signing off on all of this. The man at the top. Qusay and Uday were infamous for their antics. They killed, tortured and used people and they were Saddam's sons. He knew what they were about. You are still defending the actions of a war criminal and thug. When the state uses its own people in a such a callous and obvious manner, it is clear who is sanctioning it.

When a sherriff in a small US town beats up a suspect to attain a confession, the Civil Rights crowd in the US goes crazy and defends the suspect's rights andthat law officer is usually charged and drummed out of his job. In no way would any US President be held accountable. In Iraq, not only was the suspect being beat up to attain confessions, it wasn't an isolated case, it was state policy. Amnesty International are the most reliable arbiter of state sponsored torture and violation of human rights, and they had Iraq right up there in the top 10 most deadly places to live in fear of the government. Saddam Hussein's record is not one that was made up by refugee's lying and exiles using people's sympathies. Eki, you are still defending this man.

I am not taking for granted EVERYTHING that has been stated. I am only going on the obvious. Amnesty is not a body that is sponsored by any government nor do they have any desire to provide the American government with propaganda to use against an innocent world leader who just wasn't running a country with very good lines of communication on their evil deeds.

Oh one more thing, if Saddam had yes men telling he had WMD's when he didn't, then something is seriously wrong. You are the leader who wont tollerate people telling you no. You tell your minions to prepare your supply of nerve gas to move from one palace to another. You really think the minions never bought or attained this weapon? Do you believe it never was created? You think Saddam wouldnt' have asked for a demonstration of the weapon? You think for one moment he would have weapons only in his own mind? REALLY? My my, you sound as naive and oblvious to the truth as the Iraqi information minister who stood on a building in Baghdad saying the Americans would be dead before they got near the city, and American tanks would never make it,.....as an Abrams Tank rolled down the road behind him.