Printable View
Well, hes dead. The tyrant has been killed. But, in the long run, is this good or bad? Saddam was a horrible man, and commited many attrocities, but will his death really help the world? Or will it increase the number of deaths? What about the Sunni and the Shi'ites?
How will this go over?
the reason to exicute someone is to remove a violent element from society
I dont fully know what he did, or why he did it, or even how he compais to other leaders, so I will not vote on this. But in the end, you have to ask "Is his death going to help us by removing a murderer, or did we make a mistake, and if he was alive, we would be better off?"
Ding! Dong! The oppressive, genocidal, terrorist dictator is dead! :sniper: :banana: :lol: :cheers: :finger: :dancingcow: :rolllaugh:
It is the best news I have heard in a while. All of the family members and friends of the people he killed (all one million of them) out of pure evil deserve for him to be dead, so I am happy for them. Dictators like him who are still in power know what might happen to them and what the destiny of mankind is starting to look like. It is further affirmation for the Iraqis that Iraq is no longer a dictatorship and can move toward being a successful democracy. And lastly, I personally hated the sack of shit on a major level, so I am very happy about it.
Four people voted it was bad, but did not STATE their reasons. :eh:
Im a pro-lifer
murder is muder, it can never be justified
and if Saddam deserves to be hung, he should not have been hung on his own
It would only be justice to hang him, if Mr Bush and Mr Blair were hanging to his left and right.
They have murdered just as many people, (I dont mean justn in Iraq)
If terrorism is commited by white western super-power leaders, it is justified as foregin policy
"Murder is only righteous when done to the sound of trumpets."
Lets fac eit, th eonly reason that Saddam is hanging and not Bush isn because, the USA is more powerful
Death is wrong, killing someone solves nothing. Bloodhsed is wrong.
Imran
I don't understand why people try to defend the fact that he deserved to live. He killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people. He is a murderer, and started a genocide. Hanging him was merciful. I think he deserved far worse.
^^^^ Also, prove it. How did Bush murder hundreds of thousands of people? When did he start a genocide? I wasn't informed of this.
Hippy.
I don't believe people have the right to kill one anther, even thow he did commit crimes against humanity.
tbh letting him rot in a military prison was alot worse then hanging him.
so i don't know really, i guess im against people killing people but maybe he deserve it so yeah.
I voted good, because a murderous P.O.S. like him doesn't deserve to live, but I guess a life sentence of Solitary Confinement would've been a bigger blow, and less violent.
I think it's a good thing.
Honestly, I value life, especially human life, extraordinarily high. I'm borderlining on pacifist, really. But at the same time, I'm a realist. (Hence the reason I'm not a full-out pacifist)
So, I accept that a single death, when it prevents further harm to society as a whole, is a good thing.
Saddam wasn't a nice guy. He was a murderer, a fascist, and in general a disgrace to humankind.
Good riddance.
Because it is not right to kill a fellow human being and everybody diserves to live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howetzer
Excuse me? A genoice? Hudnreds and thousands of people?
and the US government have consisntely shown support for opressive dictators and aided them.
You dont pun the gun on trial, you trial the man who pulled the trigger.
Pol Pot's infamous Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
The countless innocents kileld in Iraq, the countless innocents killed in Afghanistan.
The countless innocents kileld in Lebanon due to Americas reluctance to order a sieze fire when the rest of the world was screaming for one.
A minimum of 51,897 to 57,452 civilian deaths up to 27 December, 2006—as compiled from English-language media reports by the Iraq Body Count project (IBC). Reported civilian deaths due to insurgent/military action and increased criminal violence. [2]
btw thts civillian deaths in Iraq
Mr Bush is a western terrorist
Mr Hussien is an eastern one.
M Bush is a victorious one.
Mr Hussein is a defeated one.
Mr Bush is a living one.
Mr Hussein is a dead one.
He was a bastard. But he didnt deserve to die, in my eyes, taking a life solves nothing.
And if he did, there are others that should ahve ung with him
Imran
:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
While I may disagree and I was pretty accurate in my assumption to why people voted no. At least have the guts to state your reason, even if you do not feel you would be in the majority.
I appreciate your views. It has irrefutable logic to it.
The death penalty can have a great impact if it inflicted fear in future killers. It obviously does not have the same impact on a marter. As they feel dieing is their calling for their cause. It also does not have an impact when some convicted felon sits on death row for 4o years and has as many appeals to go along with it.Quote:
He was a bastard. But he didnt deserve to die, in my eyes, taking a life solves nothing.
And if he did, there are others that should ahve ung with him[/b]
If looked at in that manner he would have been better off rotting in a cell.
The death penalty can get very complicated.
Is it eye for an eye?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
Plus I would like to make one point, I dont know which thread somebody said this in, but someone said that Saddam was judged by the Iraqi people. He was NOT. HE was judged bu puppets of America, corupt fools on the payroll of the US.
If it asnt for America we wwould still have the ICC, (international criminal court)
and people like Saddam, Blair and Bush could face their crimes there.
Imran
p.s it would be nice to open a thread for the discussion of the death penalty.
I think Imran is very wise in what he's saying about his choice. His death is supposed to justify these countless other deaths, but the West helped him do this, encouraging and giving the resources to do so, so the West is just as to blame as he is, I believe. I haven't voted though, since I haven't got a clue whether it's a good thing or not, though I suspect in the end, it'll turn out to have made no difference.
Oh, really? Yes, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured many more. He wasn't going around killing random people, he was trying to kill off a religion or race or somesuch. I'd like to see proof of the US trying to commit genocide.Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
Yeah... What country are YOU from, imran? Am I a corrupt fool because I live in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
What? I never said that at all, get your facts straight. I was syaing that the people who were judging him, (the new iraqi government) are corrupt fools o nthe payroll of America. i would suggest reading posts thouroughly bfore making accusations. And no, Saddam was not commiting genociide or you would of told me who against. He was a muslim himself, his vice was a christian. The people he was killing were mainly political opponents. This is not genoicide, it is wrong, but not genoicide. I do suggest you back your statents up. You claim he was commiting genocide against "some group of people.2
Baltantly meaning you dont know and you are making random points with no bCKING.
And once again, read posts thouroughly, ok?
Imran
p.s Im from the UK, which at the moment considering our invovlement in Iraq is a great source of embarassment for me
=D
Alright, I should've read the posts more thoroughly. I still don't understand why you think Bush and Blair deserve to be hanged with him, though.
Killing one more person helps nothing. Killing him would just be taking revenge, and thus silly.
And have you people see that lame-ass execution? Jesus Christ, I would expect a country with a 'democracy' and a 'elected government' (of which all it's people are in exile for safety reasons) would be able to provide better executions then some silly-men screaming around with masks on, somewhere in a basement or so it looked.
Ok now we've cleared you misudnerstanding.
I do not think they deserve to hang because i dont think Saddam does. Nobody deserves to die, death solves nothing. Life is precious.
But following the laws Saddam was kileld for, so Blair and Bush also deserve death.
They have, ordered the death of thousands. Supported regimes that have done this too.
Provided economic backing for genocide (Khmer Rouge)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../US_PolPot.html
The Us have a histroy of supporting corruopt regimes
Have you heard of the last Shah of Iran?
Mr Reza Palahvi (pardon my speling) have yioyu ehard of him/
and his infamous secret police SAVAK.
muderous, yet US supported him, actually they put him in power.
pleaser read, be open minded
your President is a murderer in the highest degree.
and so is my embarassing fool of a prime minister
Imran
In reality, personally I think his death is a bad thing. I don't agree with the death penalty, and I don't agree with an eye-for-an-eye in this case. His life was taken, he took many lives. That solves nothing. He did deserve to die, but however, think of the effect this will have on the war, and politically, economically. First, Iraq is going to go into a heavy civil war. The conflict between the Sunni and the Shi'ites will nothing but intensify, and the UN will have to completely seize control of the country. Not to mention send more troops over to deal with the impending conflict. More and more money will be put into the military, and taken from other important things. Also not to mention that the impending seizure of control of the UN and America will do nothing but increase hostilities against Western society, and likely be a gateway to terrorism which this war in Iraq had nothing to do with in the first place.
Its a good thing Saddam was removed from power, and that would likely improve the country, but his death is going to drive the country to a bigger and more intense war, with more suicide bombings and more deaths which the country will not recover from for centuries. And our Western society will continue to try and stabalize the country putting more and more money into it. So not only is this bad for Iraq, its bad for us. I dont think I even have to mention the number of troop casualties we'll suffer.
I'm praying that either Bush gets impeached, or the new President (in 2008) will be a smart leader and have a good plan to deal with this.
I quoted that statement because it sums up most of what you keep saying. You seem to have some incredibly severe hatred for my country and the country from which we are a spin-off, and I don't quite get why. The United States has allied with some bad people, and some of those alliances have gone in really bad directions, but as far as I know our alliances have always been set up for the right reasons. We allied with the Hussein regime because we had a common enemy, Iran. In the beginning, we did not quite know what we were dealing with, and we did not know the terrible turns against us the Hussein regime would later take. The alliance turned out to be a mistake, but hindsight is 20/20.Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
We allied with the Soviet Union in World War II because we had the common enemy of the Nazis. Our alliance was necessary to save the world, including you. I hope you have appreciation for at least that much of the sacrifices my military has made. 1.1 million Americans were either killed or injured in World War II, and no matter how much you talk about "U.S. interests", the fact is that those soldiers did have saving the entire world in mind when they were going through nightmares worse than you or I will ever know. Both of my grandfathers survived it, and they would have told you that they were fighting for a great deal more than U.S. interests. We also prevented the Soviet Union from taking over the world. We used their weak system, communism, against them as we crippled their economy with the arms race. Now those people are free. You have no idea how fortunate you are that we did that. Fighting the Vietnam War, where 55,000 American soldiers sacrificed their lives for the future of the world, was part of the fight to stop the Soviets (North Vietnam was their puppet.) from taking over the world. That is just some of what my country has done for you.
I don't expect you to worship my country or to even show appreciation. I am just baffled by the immense hatred I see from people. Bush's intentions can at least be debatably presented as good for the future of the world. But nobody disputes the fact that Hussein was all about Hussein. He did commit genocide and mindless terrorism. He ran his country with fear tactics. People were killed for breathing the wrong way. Anybody suspected of the slightest opposition was never seen again. People were tortured to death in front of their family members. I am talking about hundreds of thousands of people. Do you know anything about the sarin gas (a WMD) attack on the Kurds? Hussein was genocidal. That is a fact. He supported Hamas and provided financial incentives to the families of suicide bombers. Can you tell me what good things the Hussein regime did for the world? Of course not. What has Bush done that is equally evil? Innocents have been killed in this present very necessary war (44,000... But some sources seem to enjoy saying as high as 2 million, which is a crock), but it has not been U.S. policy to target civilians. It was Hussein's policy, but we have not been doing that. The insurgents, which America bashers never talk about unless they are condoning their actions, have been targetting civilians, not us. Well, you might find a very few examples of deviant soldiers in our bunch of 140,000. We have gone through a lot of trouble to use precision weapons when we could easily do what Hussein would have done if he had had our level of power. We could turn the Middle East into a sheet of glass with oil refineries all over it in a very short time. Do you doubt for even a second that Hussein would have done that and worse if he had had our level of power? Instead, we announce to civilians when we are going to attack, use precision weapons, lose our own soldiers, and put up with highly heated controversy from even our own allies and our own citizens. Would Hussein have done all of that? Would he have ever even talked about freeing a country? There is NO comparison.
How sure are you that Iraq will not end up being a successful democracy in the long run? If they do, can you see any benefit to world security that will result from it? Think about it... A democracy in the heart of the Middle East, where people will grow up with things to live for, which will take away their ambitions of mindlessly killing masses of innocents in hopes of having orgies with virgins. This will influence a huge spirit for democracy in the region. Do you have anything positive to say about my country?
For those of you saying that revenge is worthless, I highly disagree with you. The people who loved innocent, unnecessary victims of Hussein desperately wanted revenge on him, and they deserved it. That alone makes it something of value.
my freind it is late.
i will reply fully tomorrow,
but frist let me assure you I have no hate for any country
I despise the role the US plays in world affairs
Current US foreign polcy I hate.
I have no hate for the people as i dont know many
and am not a bigot
I have respect for parts of the culture
I am a fan of many American thinkers, writers poets and so forth.
so get this notion of me ahting the US out of your head
Don't pass those kind of judgem,ents on me
I refrain from passing them on you.
And these alliances have been for the right reason?
You look into the Iran-Iraq war
You look into Dr Mossadeq's removal and the reason
Nationalization of the countires oil reserves and therefore higher prices for the US.
Look at who they replaced him with and his infamous SAVAK.
Look at the revolution that saved thousands in Iran.
Look into the US' failure to extradite a proven war criminal to Iran where he could be tried.
and the hostage istuation whilst you're there.
please actually do it, do not simply rebut that, read about it
and i'll get back to you 2morrow
=D
and by the way
I am British myslef,
So i hate neither nation
I dislike their leaders and their foreign policy/.
Imran
EDIT :- you idnt carpet bomb the country because you didnt want to blow up the oil reserves
Youre future oil
Do the words... Oil for food embargo mean anything to you.
hmmm?
First of all, happy new year! :bigteeth:Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
I'll tell you what... We can talk about all of the things you just brought up AFTER you answer my questions from my previous post. I want you to tell me how much you appreciate the things I mentioned about what the United States has done to help/save the world, and then I would like for you to tell me what the Hussein regime did that was better for the world. Then you can tell me how the U.S. and the Hussein regime are morally equal.
Even if everything you just brought up is seen in the darkest possible light on the U.S., where it is exactly as you described it and we have no justification whatsoever, how does any of it compare to what I said about the Hussein regime? Again, there is no comparison.
You, and others, turn around and say that you only have a problem with our government and not the people. Don't forget that we people voted those people into power and that they acted under our political pressure. I voted for Bush, so you are talking about things that I had something to do with. You have a right to do that, and we can still be friends even though you are saying that stuff, but remember that when you throw around the term "United States", you are talking about all of us. With that being the case, I want to know how much you appreciate the sacrifices so many of us have made to give you a better life than you would have otherwise. If you are not white, you would not even exist right now if it were not for the United States. Do you know what Hitler got really far with doing before we teamed up with the Soviet Union and Britain to stop his world domination stunt? Do you have any idea what Americans, some of whom I am related to and many others that I knew, went through to stop that crap? What did the Hussein regime ever do for the world?
Only if you believe everything you hear on the news, Regarding Saddam, i dont realy want to start an arguement but bush is responcible for more deaths than Saddam, dont get me wrong im not sticking up for him but i just think that you shouldnt believe everything you hear on the news, it would obviously make america sound good and iraq sound bad. Although Saddam as probebly guilty for alot of the crimes, bush is corrupt and clearly just wnats iraqi oil. Every Non-American see's this.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshBrains
Group hallucination?Quote:
Originally Posted by cptamazing
And I have said it many times... The war in Iraq is about sand and towels for Florida. do you know who the governor of that state is? And don't even get me started on Haley Barbour's Mississippi and Biloxi Beach. Don't you know what the queers are doing to the soil?
http://queers.ytmnd.com/
I dont want to get into an arguement with you on this but i guarentee and i would bet my life on it that i can name far more things that give thr US a bad name that what do the Opposite. i hate people saying america does so much for the world so heres just a few things off the top of my head:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
1) Bush cleary wants iraq for oil and doesnt care about the people who live there.
2) the USA is responcible for corrupt businesses.
3) America only entered WW2 after they got bombed and didnt care that half of europe had been destroyed.
4) USA is responcibily for Hip Hop culture that encourages a life of crime and stealing.
5) USA causes trouble with all these countries like Iran and North Korea becuase they own nuclear weapons. doesnt america also?
6) Voilence Gangs started off in the US.
7) 90% of world crime comes from the US.
8) Americans are so Patriotic yet they dont seem to realise that if you step outside of your country your government is hated even amongst your allies.
America may have done good in its time but it also has alot to answer for...
Posting something like that is not a good way to get the "don't want... argument" ball rolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by cptamazing
1. Clearly? Let's see this clear proof. And did you see what the queers are doing to the soil?
2. That is quite a vague statement. Be more specific. There are lots of us, and some of us are corrupt business people. Can you find me 300 million people without a corrupt few included? My country helps your country's business. I don't know where you live, but I know that it's true.
3. Didn't care? Where do you get that? Did you read what I said about the vets I knew personally? I said that they were there, going through something absolutely horrifying, for more than U.S. interests. They had saving the world in mind. You're damn lucky they did it.
4. The U.S. is responsible for a great deal of entertainment that the world loves because we have a tax code that allows business to be extremely successful. Some of our entertainment is negative, but I know you love a whole lot of our entertainment. You don't have to admit it. I already know you do. :wink:
5. The United States does not engage in the oppression and terrorism that North Korea (mainly oppression... What kind of North Korean entertainment do you like the most?) and Iran (mainly terrorism... Do you question this?) engage in. How many times have those countries played major roles in saving the world?
6. Violent gangs existed thousands of years before the United States even existed. Next...
7. Bullshit. Where do you come up with this stuff? I will give you points for comedy, however.
8. Jealousy is the root of most evil.
You dont understand, i have nothing to be jealous about, if i could live in america for free i wouldnt. If i was jealous then i would just move there :S Ok so america has some of the best entertainment because its payed for by your corrupt corporations. regarding WW2, the Allies would have won WW2 without the help of the USA but thats besides the point, i know alot of americans died in the war fighting but when was that, rite near the end of the war after half the Population of europe had been exterminated. If it wasnt for Pearl Harbour america would have watched the rest of the world burn so i fail to see how they are the worlds saviour, the only thing i see is a country that interferes with smaller countries just to make money from them. They see themselves has supieriors and Police to the rest of the world but the rest of the world see them as an Interfering super-power that threatens with military or economy to get what they want...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Yeah, yeah, whatever. After posting, I looked and saw that you live in New Zealand. Let me put it this way... You won't catch me spending much time on the internet with my mind wrapped up in New Zealand. Your conspiracy hypotheses are interesting but unfounded. Hitler was taking over countries one after another until we jumped in and made a difference. We take war very seriously, but we were pushing to get into WWII long before Pearl Harbor. I'm surprised you aren't arguing the old idea that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so he would have almost full support in jumping into the war. And again... I personally knew several WWII vets. I know what they had in mind when they were fighting. It meant more to them than probably anything will ever mean to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by cptamazing
We don't see ourselves as superiors. YOU do, and that is what is really going on here. If the United States went all the way isolationist today, the world would change for the much worse. The rest of the free countries would be under much greater threat, and our biggest bashers would suddenly start screaming for us to have their backs again. Saying otherwise would be to ignore the big pink elephant in the room. Everybody knows it's there. It's just a matter of who rationalizes what.
We Americans don't put ourselves on the pedestal you put us on. We forget about all of this stuff until people like you start trashing us with so much hate. We don't walk around with our noses in the air thinking about the rest of the world's place compared to ours all day. We want to live our lives, raise our families, and have fun, just like everybody else. The difference is that we are not as obsessed with our status in the world as the rest of the world is. We want the rest of the world to adopt our economic principles and be prospering democracies. We don't want to stand out. We are doing what we wish the rest of the world was doing. So don't be jealous. Just improve your own country. You can do it too. Be the best you can be instead of just sitting there and drinking coffee and talking about how much you hate us. There's no future in it.
Edit/P.S.- If people would stop trashing my country, I would stop defending it. Insulting countries will invite the same reactions you get when you insult races and genders. It's not a very peaceful action.
I don't think it's a good thing. Life is life, and murder is murder. Saddam killed a lot of people and that's so bad. They've killed him as he killed others, it's just the same.
I prefered to get him in the prison for the rest of his life. He died without knowing that what he did was wrong, no one wins anything with that. He has been killed (or executed or murdered, it's the same) but the country have not win anything, the world haven't won anything, it continues being the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
OK, lets go, remember to answer my question once Ive finished here.
I am not saying in any way shape or form that the Saddam regime is morally equal to the American one.
You might have voted for Bush, it doesn tmake you responsible for his actions.
It makes you what I believe to me gullable and mislead.
No, i ma not talkign about all of you,
I have American family, lots of them
thats not a lie
I harbour no ill feelings to Americans,
simply the current Administration and its role in current world affairs
which I see is hypocryitcal
i am not white, plus Hitler would never have got to India,
The soviet Union itslef was a big enough buffer zone
and also, it was the US' disgraceful treaty of Versailles after the first world war thst played a major role in the formation of the second
but that is going off topic
I agree whole hearetedly, i nthe past the US has donea lot for the world
a lot of bad and a lot of good
mostly for selfish reasons but the end result ahs been beneficial at times.
I respect that
I do not respect the current US role in world affairs
one minute they are the world policemen charging around the globe "liberating" people
then something props up in a country where there is no economic or political gain to invade and....
their role as world policemen is all but forgotten
its bloody hypocricy
on the topic of what did saddam ever do that was good
The Iraqi government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). [16] [17]
Im not defjeing him, that doesnt blaance out his acts of terror
and niether does te US prior involvement in WW2 blaance out their current cts of terror.
Ive done my best to answer your questions
Imran
Imran, I will talk more about the Cold War move of aiding in the removal (by the Shah) of Mossadeq (reported to have communist/Soviet ties that threatened our world... The fight to stop the Soviets from taking over the world was about as serious as the fight to stop the Nazis from taking over the world.), an appointed monarch (by the Shah), after you answer my big 2 questions. You talked around the topics, but you did not give me direct answers. I asked you how much you appreciate the sacrifices Americans have made to save your world. Even if you want to argue that the United States made no difference in World War II and that the Nazis would have for whatever wild reason (There is no "buffer zone" to a military that has taken over, which probably would have happened had we not led the fight in Western Europe, thereby taking away a huge chunk of Hitler's military resources.) not gotten to India and beyond, you cannot deny the fact that 1.1 million Americans were either killed or injured in the fight to stop Hitler from taking over the world and completely wiping out your race and many others. I know we were also fighting the Japanese, but fighting the Japanese had to be done partly because we could not stop Hitler without doing it. No matter what corrupt or selfish motives you assume my government had, I know for a fact what so many American soldiers were thinking about when they were fighting. I know what it meant to them. I have been asking you how much you appreciate their sacrifices. You said about the generalized idea of the U.S. having done "good" (but "bad" too), "I respect that." I am asking how much you appreciate the sacrifices, not if you "respect" them at all. I "respect" Hussein's ability to rule 25 million people with pure fear tactics, but I am worlds from appreciating it. The second question was not about what Hussein did in his own country to look good. I am asking what he did for the world. If you think he was terrible, then I challenge you to go off about that like you have gone off about the United States.
No way should he have been killed. Nobody deserves to die unnaturally.
Ok, Saddam has been condemned, and hung. I argued that George Bush deerved to face trial for war crimes alongside Saddam, much in the same way Benjamin Ferenccz did. I am making this point because he is not being trialed. Saddam is and ash been. I do not need to condemn a hung man. I have alwyas said Saddam represents everything I destest. Facism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
It costs me nothing and it is the truth to say, I appreicate wot the US has done in the past. and that many soldiers ahve acted selflessly. That does not take away from the fact that the current administration should be trialed for war crimes. For there illegal wars.
If the ICC had a mandate to address arguments on the legality of the use of force or the crime of aggression, then it would have shown.
I am shown my apprecation for Americans
And I dont honeslty believe Saddam did much good for the world.
I dont bleieve Bush has done much good either
I beleive I have answered your questions
I will not accept your challenge to "go off on one" about Saddam, purely because of the reasons I stated at first
but I will say, i detest him, his party and his policies.
Imran
Imran,
Thanks. That sounds good. I always ask people those questions when they go off about my country and not the terrorists that were the topic of the discussion, but it looks like you probably have your priorities straight.
What I know about Mossadeq is that he was believed by U.S. and British intelligence to have threatening ties to the Soviet Union and was a communist supporter. Some sources, even major ones, now say that the intelligence was false, but as I have said, the Cold War was the biggest problem my country has ever faced aside from the Nazi world domination conquest, and it had to be treated like a war. Maybe some of my government's decisions can now be said to have been bad ones, but hindsight is 20/20. We went after other governments for the same reason, including that of Nicaragua and El Salvador. I was a young kid who didn't know the difference between El Salvador and Salvador Dali when that stuff was happening, but from what I have read, those governments were perceived as very serious Cold War threats. The Vietnam War was the most controversial Cold War move we ever made, and I really question how that situation should have been handled. What I do know is that we won the Cold War and that the Soviet Union did not take over the world and make it communist. That was their goal. Eastern Europe is free, the former Soviet states are free, the Soviets do not rule Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East, and a free world is looking more and more possible. If some of the tactics we used to get here were unethical or unnecessary, then that's terrible, but the overall scheme was effective.
The Iranian terrorist who was not punished by us is something I am not that familiar with, but I believe you are referring to one of Bozo the Clinton's horrendous moves. He made many of them. You are not going to get me to take up for that schmuck. He gave military technology to China and passed up four chances to assassinate Bin Laden. Screw Bill Clinton. I am embarassed that he was ever our President.
The Oil For Food policy was a United Nations deal. I am no fan of the United Nations. They are highly corrupt and almost completely undependable. I will not take up for any of that corruption either.
The United States is not completely angelic, and we sure as Hell weren't in our early days. I just start pointing things out when people from other countries seem to have nothing but bad to say about us. The fact that both of my grandfathers fought in World War II has something to do with that, especially since it apparently left one of my grandfathers kind of messed up in the head. Also, all three of my uncles were in the military, and I know that none of them were in it to steal oil or to oppress anybody. One of them is dead now, and he was one of the greatest people I have ever known. But don't assume I am some patriotic fanatic. I have always made fun of blind patriotism. Even in high school I refused to say the Pledge of Allegience, and in college I offended some people by mocking how people act when our national anthem is sung at ball games. If I were ever drafted to fight in a war I don't believe in, I would not be one of those people who says, "My country called me to duty. I must fight." I would burn my draft card and move to Canada.
don't you think it's kind of strange how they rushed to kill saddam so quickly before people wanted to put him on trial for his war crimes during the iran-iraq war? the war during which the US supported saddam?
On the topic of the Soviets, elts not go into it, because you can tell from my signature that I have some far- left ideologies, and thts an altogether bigger discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Yes i'll accept you were misguided by the British because they had huge oil interests in Iran
Mossadeghs nationalization, woudned there economy drastically. They used propganda to draw the US into the conflict. He was not closely tid to the USSR at all.
Still, the US must be held accountable for there actions, misguided or not.
And Vietnam was a disgrace, the napalm and such should alwyas be looked upon as a disgusting act of hatred and terror.
Heres a little bit about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi:
With Iran's great oil wealth, Mohammad Reza Shah became the pre-eminent leader of the Middle East, and self-styled "Guardian" of the Persian Gulf. In 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion, which he claimed was a response, among other things, to the Soviet Union's support of Iranian Communist militias and parties, particularly the Tudeh Party. In addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz. [12] The Shah also authorized the creation of the secret police force, SAVAK (National Organization for Information and Security, which was organized with the help of the CIA.).This infamous agency operated its own secret prison, used torture extensively, assassinated dissidents, and kept the CIA informed.
After the Islamic Revolution, the Shah fled the country at the advice of his prime minister at the time.
Reluctantly, on 22 October 1979 President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to make a brief stopover in the United States to undergo medical treatment. The compromise was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement, which were against the United States' years of support of the Shah's rule, and demanded his return to Iran to stand trial.
Why?
Im sory but I can see no discernable diffrence between him and Saddam
except for the fact that they are the very people who placed him in power
my point is, that the US have done good, but that many of the US presidents i nthe past have not intervened at toher time andahve shown undoubted support for autocratic regimes in the East.
But qwhen it suits them, they are the world policmen,
this is not a title to be dropepd and picked up at ones own whim.
and finally, I bleieve the Iraq war to be in itslef a grave awar crime
we have already discussed the legality of the war and I do not accept that the war was legal.
The UN was just pwoerless to stop the US.
I also condemn my country
Oh and I dont doubt the soldiers were fighting for feedom of the Iraqi people, but they were iselad
I would not suggest ever arresting or condeming soldeirs that fight for there country, rather condemn there leaders
"One does not put the gun on trial, they charge the man who pulled the trigger"
Imran
It's a good thing he's dead. Yeah, so a lot of Iraq is going to be pretty ticked off about it, but can you imagine keeping the guy around so everyone stays happy? I mean, what? Since when did appeasement ever work? I don't think his video should've been broadcast so publicly: it was pretty much stooping to his level with all the insults at the noose and what not, yet, it was an emotional thing and I can understand it.
Can't help but find it a little ironic that we end a regime of death with, er, his death, but it's probably a lot better than throwing flowers at the situation. (That was overblown, but I smiled writing it).
Ragardless of the issues of, wether there are other people who should share his fate.
I sitll cant share your philosiphy. I dont think I could condone cold-blooded muder in any situation
im not saying appease him
im saying lock him away
solitary confinement
but for gods sake, why take life
it takes away our jsutification for his punishemnt
we killed this man, because he was a killer
follwing this philoshipy lets hire a man to execute the executioner?
Its non-violent people, lyk Mahatma Ghandi that get things done in life, truly just things anyway
Imran
Might = Right
but you are not right for the sake of your might.
the purpose of saddams death was nothing to do with justice, the purpose it serves is to distract you from the real issue of "cui bono?" or who benefits?
it was inevitable what happened to him, a drawn out story fed to you by those who placed and kept him in power for all these years.
the american govt installed him in power, trained his armies and armed him to the teeth to fight against a philosophical concept (peaceful islam) that didnt suit its own ends
(same thing was done in afghanistan just replace islamic concept with communism).
he is simply a scapegoat that when removed (which as i have said was inevitable) provides the american people with the belief that there govt is just and in the right to do so, even though they made him in the first place.
the three steps to absolute power
1 manufacture a problem-saddam invading kuwait (firebomb the reichstag)
2 react to problem-gulf war (introduce martial law)
3 "solve" problem-take over iraq (do what you want, hey why not invade poland)
commence new step 1(bomb new york) while step 3 in action(take over iraq) and repeat cycle till you run every country in the world and hey presto youve got world govt and absolute power!
the fact you are even interested in some tinpot puppet dictator in a country that has never been a threat to your existence or your "freedom" should ring every americans alarm bells especially as your deep in the next phase of this manipulative cycle and you have martial law in effect (patriot act) and the ultimate step 3 is like saddams deposition and execution- inevitable.
america be afraid, very afraid, not of al qaeda. basically cos they dont exist in any meaningful sense or "terrorists" cos trust me america you dont have any!
where are the follow up attacks?
why havent you had a single suicide bomber for 6 years?
even though the middle east hates you more than it ever has?
(the ira carried on bombing britain for many years thats why they call it "a campaign of terror" and we are a much smaller target, easier to defend and far more densely populated).
saddam -evil man, terrorist, tyrant etc.
bush -svaiour, great leader, defender of freedom etc.
yeah right and elvis, sheargar and lord lucan are playing poker in my shed.
ill leave you with this quote
"bin laden didnt blow up the projects, it was you niggah, tell the truth niggah, bush knocked down the towers."
and this one
" for evil to triumph all good men need to do is- nothing"
the first one is by immortal technique and mos def the second by someone years ago who had a lot of sense and probably was familiar with solid gold dictators like your mr bush.
and if you watch the propaganda and bs fed to you by cbs, fox etc. you have noone but yourselves to blame.
oh and this
"if your leader and his family have shares in oil companies and war contarctors what he fuck is he doing being your leader"
and this for those who think im full of it
"heil king bush- leader of the 'free' world and mein fuhrer" both by me 2007.
further info for those who arent sheep (and you lot are creative, freethinking dreamers may i remind you!) can be found on youtube type in "911 bush" into search and that should get you started, take the metaphorical red pill and at least take a peek down the rabbithole for the sake of the entire planet.
oh and isnt it interesting that in america you cant say the word conspiracy without someone saying theory immediately afterwards or hypothesis (thats for you univerally patrioitic mind and your need to justify and identify yourself with a political system based on richest gets the white house- you are not your govt, its not your fault and its ok to fall for it 300 million americans couldnt be wrong, Could they?) its suggestive, repeated mind control plain and simple and immediately pushes the concept of conspiracy and discussion of it into hypothetical, wishy washy territory when what you have in america is stone cold, plain as the nose on your face conspiracy fact.
"if this was a dictatorship itd be a hell of a lot easier, so long as im the dictator" - george W bush
Okay, first, your talking about the 9/11 conspiracy theory which this thread is Not about. There are other threads for that. I dont believe it, and there is just as much evidence to disprove the theory as well as "prove" it, but this is not the thread.
mohammed reza pahlavi is not related either but you didnt object to that cos it doesnt conflict your personal view. discussion evolves, healthy discussion does anyway. feel free to request its being moved but please dont have it deleted as im sure censorship isnt one of your hobbies, or is it?
The post on Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was relevant to the convorstation. Imran used it as reference and comparison. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not relevent. 9/11 itself is relevent as its what caused this war which should only be in Afghanistan, but the conspiracy theories are not. There are other threads for being an annoying ass, and ranting about conspiracies in America.
to say that the 911 conspiracy is irrelevant, scares me to death cos you are pretty smart exo and its a shame youve closed your opinion so soon just as the major evidence is coming in and the politicians have no answers to the questions being posed. take another look i implore you. but i will keep my discussion of it to the relevant topic in future but i feel that it is necessary trhat people all over the world hear the "theories" or at least consider them a possibility and my post should stay here where i feel it belongs just this once as people with an interest in an execution of an arab leader and vote on its "quality" should at least know the circumstances that led to it and possibility that all is not as it seems.
and that there are people in the world who will abstain from voting on such a devicive and inflammatory poll.
my vote is that i abstain from voting as you should all you sick puppies who did, you think that the footage of his derision and murder got out without the say so of someone who would benefit from it being so high profile? they are keeping the war going by creating a new martyr.
888 you sound like your going a bit off topic. I voted Good, he's another hitler but not as smart. I don't really care what happens to him after what he's done, hang him or toss him in prison. Given the option to have thousands women and children executed to get free, he wouldn't even blink before replying yes. He's selfish and has no remorse for anyone, so just remove him from the picture and in any way the government chooses. Sends a message to the world that evil dictators will he held responsible for their actions. Also quite good how he never saw 2007.
Exobyte is right
lets revert back to the topic shall we?
9/11 conspiracy theories are irrelevant
my referece to reza pahlavi however, was a comparison i drew
Your ideas have some basis but are far to far fetched
next you'll start telliing us about the New World Order
Create another thread if you want to talk about that.
Imran
888 had already apologised for going off topic and swiftly found his way back onto it again! Anyway, what was said about it sending a message: maybe it did, but considering how many dictators have been around, and how many have been 'brought to justice' by execution or whatever, it doesn't seem to make much difference. One might say its the risk of attempting power, and probably has no more repulsion from future dictators' actions, than the risk of dying in battle does repelling future army recruits. Just seemed like a pointless execution to me, really
Every executio nis pointless
Imran
Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
well I dont know about that; in the right context, it is perhaps a practical solution, though still immoral. For example, if it were between execution and freeing Saddam, back to full power, or something
I didn't find out Saddam was dead until about 2-3 am on New Year's, at which point I was drunk and high. Someone pointed to the front page of the newspaper, and there it was. All I can say is, that shit rocked my world. I did an RC because I thought I was dreaming. Didn't know what to think.
Ok i rephrase it
every execution is abhorrent and disgusting
and in itslef a cirme agaisnt humanity
Imran
Just make sure you would still say no if you were in the position where your hole family had been killed, your wife and daughters raped executed and some of your family members tortured in an Iraq prison, then hung. Put yourself in that situation and with your family members, the ones that you love. Then see if you would give a flying f*** for human rights.
Flight here raises a good point. Personally, I can relate. I have a lot of reasons, but despite helping the debate I wont go into why. (Though I have a thread on it buried somewhere in the Help! Forum).
What if someone walked into your home and killed your entire family? Your mother, father, brother, sister, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, even your dog. Girlfriend or wife? friends? You watched as everyone you loved around you died and was murdered. Would you not want this person to feel the pain they felt? You may think about it and say no, but believe me, if it really happened you would want that person to die a painful death.
I agree. If they mess with my family, I'm tossing a grenade at the person's face, then set them on fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExoByte
Maybe that's why people like MLK Jr. and Ghandi are just a cut above the rest...they wouldn't wish it on anyone no matter what.
In an act of slf deefense or defense of your family eys devend
but revenge
revenge is differnt
Imran
I think Saddam being punished for his crimes against humanity was good. I think the timing of his execution was absolutely terrible. Apparantly, from what I know, he was executed on the same day as, something called, the feast of Eid al-Adha. It's supposed to be the holiest of Muslim days. I think it's the "Day of Forgiveness", but I'm not completely sure.
The execution itself for sure would have started things, but it being on that particular day may spark greater violence. More deaths because of fighting amongst the people. Saddam sure is/was a problem.
That's my opinion.
P.S. - and i seem to agree on a lot of things with imran_p.
Here is a very good article about why Saddam was executed so swiftly.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/123006.html
I think you have to be a little bit crazy to think that nothing strange has been going on with the whole Saddam/Iraq thing.
We were told that we were going to war with Iraq because of WMD's, not to overthrow and execute a war criminal for crimes against humanity. Somehow it changed to something different, now we are there to liberate the people.
Saddam was actually executed for murdering fewer than 200 people. He was not even alllowed to stand trial for the "genocide" that some people are claiming. I agree that murder is bad and that he was not a good human being. But look around, there are a lot worse people out there.
Out of curiousity, I wish someone had the hard numbers as to how many Iraqi's died under Saddam's rule. VS the number of Iraqi's that have died since they have been "liberated". I know that months ago there was a number floating around that over 500,000 Iraqi's have died since the start of the war.
Please read the article linked above. It has some interesting points.
I think that Saddam has done some evil things and I can't feel sympathy for someone who has committed such crimes. I also agree that Bush has done some pretty evil things as well and is directly responsible for a lot of death and suffering. It is frustrating that he gets a free pass to do what he wants with the world.
Saddam waived his right to appeal. There was nothing left to do but kill him.Quote:
Originally Posted by resonate
You are assuming that the war could only possibly be about just one thing. The war has been about many things, mainly overthrowing an enemy terrorist government that (on top of being that alone) was reported by six governments and the U.N. to have stockpiles of WMD's. That same government had used WMD's for purely terrorists purposes. We overthrew them for the obvious reasons there plus many others, such as the need to have a large democracy in the heart of the Middle East in a future where suicide bomber governments acquiring WMD's are becoming more and more of a threat to civilization. After the overthrow, the son of a bitch at the head of the terrorist government was removed from this world. That is a great thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by resonate
I think he was well hung. :lol:
So now it was a black George Bush who knocked down the towers? What KKK literature are you quoting?Quote:
Originally Posted by 888
:lol: That might be a basis for a good poll question.Quote:
Originally Posted by 888
He might not have been well hung, but he was definitely hung. I've seen videos.
Quote:
Excuse me? A genoice? Hudnreds and thousands of people?
and the US government have consisntely shown support for opressive dictators and aided them.
You dont pun the gun on trial, you trial the man who pulled the trigger.
Pol Pot's infamous Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
The countless innocents kileld in Iraq, the countless innocents killed in Afghanistan.
The countless innocents kileld in Lebanon due to Americas reluctance to order a sieze fire when the rest of the world was screaming for one. [/b]
Quote:
A minimum of 51,897 to 57,452 civilian deaths up to 27 December, 2006—as compiled from English-language media reports by the Iraq Body Count project (IBC). Reported civilian deaths due to insurgent/military action and increased criminal violence. [2]
btw thts civillian deaths in Iraq
Mr Bush is a western terrorist
Mr Hussien is an eastern one.
M Bush is a victorious one.
Mr Hussein is a defeated one.
Mr Bush is a living one.
Mr Hussein is a dead one.
He was a bastard. But he didnt deserve to die, in my eyes, taking a life solves nothing.
And if he did, there are others that should ahve ung with him
Imran[/b]
I myself believe in the death penalty. However, I concur with Imran on son many levels.Quote:
Im a pro-lifer
murder is muder, it can never be justified
and if Saddam deserves to be hung, he should not have been hung on his own
It would only be justice to hang him, if Mr Bush and Mr Blair were hanging to his left and right.
They have murdered just as many people, (I dont mean justn in Iraq)
If terrorism is commited by white western super-power leaders, it is justified as foregin policy
"Murder is only righteous when done to the sound of trumpets."
Lets fac eit, th eonly reason that Saddam is hanging and not Bush isn because, the USA is more powerful
Death is wrong, killing someone solves nothing. Bloodhsed is wrong.
Imran[/b]
Saddam should have been tried and sentenced by his peers in Iraq, not in the West. I too believe that he was murdered by the West. It was unfair and unjustly done. His death so publicly done was not well done either, it was a symbol of a martyr for those who believed and still believe in his cause. If his last words were to be true, he said, 'God is great. The nation will be victorious and Palestine is Arab."' as said to the public but then before he was hanged he was reported to have recited the "Shahada," a Muslim prayer that says there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger, (PBUH) and his last words were “Muhammad”. What is it do you think Saddam was trying to forecast to his nation, and to those whom are his followers. I believed that this should have been a private death. I was saddened when I saw the photos; again, I believe in the death penalty, I do not believe in public executions, regardless of the crime. And Bush, I won't even go there, lets just say Ditto for now, there are so many levels to this Weed that is strangling American and Iraq and.......