# Goodbye fucker, and



## Ken (Dec 28, 2006)

have a nice weekend...


----------



## WayneCustom7 (Dec 28, 2006)

He's getting off easy!


----------



## Chris (Dec 28, 2006)

New Years just got a little better.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 28, 2006)

This fails to make my life any better and bring back any person he's killed. I say put him back in the hole where they found him. Killing is never right.


----------



## playstopause (Dec 28, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> I say put him back in the hole where they found him.



Exactly. And lock that door.

He got off easy. Quick and no suffering death. 
Don't they still have the chemicals he used on those thousand of innocent people he killed?
Have him drink a glass.

Will things be better once he's dead? 
Sad thing is Iraq will probably just keep being that madhouse.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 28, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> This fails to make my life any better and bring back any person he's killed. I say put him back in the hole where they found him. Killing is never right.



I have a feeling you've just opened a shitstorm, but I agree basically. 

However, I won't shed any tears over this fucktard. I think his biggest crime is allowing himself to be a pawn for our military and political ambitions in the first place. He killed those poor people with weapons we wavey: Rumsfeld. You should be up there too, prick) sold him. Playstop, you make a good point. Saddam is (apparently) happy about being able to become a "martyr." Maybe that's bravado, I dunno. But lock his ass up, throw away the key.

Bah. Good riddance to the whole shebang. We should forget we ever even heard of fucking Iraq. 



(And that ain't "huggy kissy." I'd have shot him myself if I saw him do that shit to those poor people, could I have. But such a gesture is pretty useless now.)


----------



## Ken (Dec 28, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> This fails to make my life any better and bring back any person he's killed. I say put him back in the hole where they found him. Killing is never right.



Why would you say something like this? You're against him being tried, convicted, and sentenced in a court of law? You'd rather impose vigilante justice?

The truth is that NOTHING will bring those people back. Why do people even utter such nonsense, as if there is a possibility and this just won't quite do the trick?

As for killing never being right, I disagree. More than an opinion, it's a fact that if this person was responsible for the death of my loved ones it would be right as rain.


----------



## Nik (Dec 28, 2006)

playstopause said:


> Exactly. And lock that door.
> 
> He got off easy. Quick and no suffering death.
> Don't they still have the chemicals he used on those thousand of innocent people he killed?
> Have him drink a glass.



Actually, they're hanging him so it won't be quite painless.

I'm not gonna take a stance on whether it's right to kill him or not. Hear me out.

I agree with ohio_eric on many counts. I mean, what better way to break a man than to lock him up for the rest of his life? I think this option would certainly be better IMO. This way, he gets to suffer in a crappy prison for the rest of his life, and also, we do not end up lowering ourselves to his level by doing exactly what Saddam did--killing.

On the other hand, I've heard that it takes a massive amount of funding to provide living expenses for a single inmate. While I find the death penalty sick and morally objectionable, I also find it wrong that the other option involves tons of tax-payer dollars going to support a scumbag that does indeed deserve to be wiped off of the face of the earth.

^BTW this assertion is based on the assumption that in Iraq, like in the U.S. taxes pay for jail inmates. If I'm wrong, somebody correct me.

So I guess inside I do believe that death penalty isn't the answer, but a practical and realist approach tells me otherwise


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 28, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> Why would you say something like this? You're against him being tried, convicted, and sentenced in a court of law? You'd rather impose vigilante justice?
> 
> The truth is that NOTHING will bring those people back. Why do people even utter such nonsense, as if there is a possibility and this just won't quite do the trick?
> 
> As for killing never being right, I disagree. More than an opinion, it's a fact that if this person was responsible for the death of my loved ones it would be right as rain.



The only problem I have is with the execution. Putting him in jail for life wouldn't make me shed any tears. A death sentence is never justice though. Plus it will make him a martyr and escalate violence in Iraq. All around it's a bad idea.


----------



## Shannon (Dec 28, 2006)

Sweet!


----------



## playstopause (Dec 28, 2006)

Nik said:


> Actually, they're hanging him so it won't be quite painless. <...>I mean, what better way to break a man than to lock him up for the rest of his life? I think this option would certainly be better IMO. This way, he gets to suffer in a crappy prison for the rest of his life, and also, we do not end up lowering ourselves to his level by doing exactly what Saddam did--killing.



True.  


I was a bit harsh right there. Poor Saddam


----------



## Ken (Dec 28, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> The only problem I have is with the execution. Putting him in jail for life wouldn't make me shed any tears. A death sentence is never justice though. Plus it will make him a martyr and escalate violence in Iraq. All around it's a bad idea.



Well, we can agree to disagree about the death sentence. It is unfortunate that it will, in fact, make him a martyr. Then again, his martyrdom was secured when he was taken into custody. Putting him in jail for the rest of his pathetic life would not change that. His supporters will feel he's a victim no matter whether he's in US custody or in Satan's bedroom. 

The silver lining here is that he's to be killed by his own people in his own country, so his supporters can be mad at the country of Iraq all they want.


----------



## Kevan (Dec 28, 2006)

Huggy Kissy...Saddam dead....keep him....shoot him....prison for life...
I feel like I'm in the fuckin' twilight zone.

It's truly amazing that I'm not a raging alcoholic.


----------



## Ken (Dec 28, 2006)

Kevan said:


> Huggy Kissy...Saddam dead....keep him....shoot him....prison for life...
> I feel like I'm in the fuckin' twilight zone.
> 
> It's truly amazing that I'm not a raging alcoholic.



The only question is, what kind of drunk would you be? The mean, violent kind? Or, the sloppy kisses and heartfelt regret kind? 

I'm going with the latter (not to be confused with ladder, which is, well, nevermind)


----------



## Shannon (Dec 28, 2006)

I can't believe people are actually sympathizing with Saddam.


----------



## Nik (Dec 28, 2006)

Shannon said:


> I can't believe people are actually sympathizing with Saddam.



Just curious, who's sympathizing with Saddam?

Condemning the idea of the death-penalty is not the same as sympathizing with the sentenced individual.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 28, 2006)

Nik said:


> Just curious, who's sympathizing with Saddam?
> 
> Condemning the idea of the death-penalty is not the same as sympathizing with the sentenced individual.




What Nik said. I oppose the death penalty not punishing the guilty.


----------



## Shannon (Dec 28, 2006)

Nik said:


> Just curious, who's sympathizing with Saddam?
> 
> Condemning the idea of the death-penalty is not the same as sympathizing with the sentenced individual.



Without getting into a heated debate, I'll just say this....
Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the death penalty, Saddam has killed MILLIONS of people & he clearly _deserves_ death. By that rationale, had Hitler not commited suicide, should we have just given him a slap on the wrist? 6 million dead...."Bad Adolph. Bad!" I think not.

Some clearly deserve death.


----------



## Nik (Dec 28, 2006)

Shannon said:


> Without getting into a heated debate, I'll just say this....
> Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the death penalty, Saddam has killed MILLIONS of people & he clearly _deserves_ death. By that rationale, had Hitler not commited suicide, should we have just given him a slap on the wrist? 6 million dead...."Bad Adolph. Bad!" I think not.
> 
> Some clearly deserve death.



It's cool man, I don't want a heated debate either 

Then again, I wasn't arguing as to whether Saddam deserves to die or not--I was merely pointing out that not believing in the death penalty does not mean you sympathize with the assholes in this world.

It's kind of like saying that because I don't agree with Bush, I hate America. Which isn't true, and is a pretty gross, exaggerated generalization.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 28, 2006)

Shannon said:


> I can't believe people are actually sympathizing with Saddam.



Who is "sympathizing" with Saddam? I don't think anyone here, on either side of the issue, is "sympathizing" with Saddam. He's a brutal, evil man. Everyone agrees he should be punished.

People just differ on the terms of that punishment. They all represent legitimate, moral arguments.


----------



## Shannon (Dec 28, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Who is "sympathizing" with Saddam?
> 
> People just differ on the terms of that punishment. They all represent legitimate, moral arguments.


I was referring to people who think he shouldn't be punished by death. Poor Saddam. Maybe I just read shit wrong.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 28, 2006)

But which is worse for a self-absorbed asshat like Saddam, death or life locked away and powerless? 

I would say by sparing him death I'm making him suffer worse.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 28, 2006)

I agree with that. To say he'll end up a martyr if he isn't killed is a bit of a reach, I think too. I can't really think of too many martyrs who weren't killed. 

That's a political concern, though, more than a moral or judicial consideration.


----------



## Ken (Dec 28, 2006)

Shannon said:


> I was referring to people who think he shouldn't be punished by death. Poor Saddam. Maybe I just read shit wrong.



Could be. The ironic part is that the people whom you assumed sympathized with Saddam actually want him to suffer longer and harder. They want him to live with what he's done. It's my belief, however, that he shoulders no guilt and therefore the only soul-searching he should do is molesting Satan's minions.



The Dark Wolf said:


> I agree with that. To say he'll end up a martyr if he isn't killed is a bit of a reach, I think too. I can't really think of too many martyrs who weren't killed.
> 
> That's a political concern, though, more than a moral or judicial consideration.



That's because we haven't caught many fish this big. They usually die before they get in the boat, iffin yer catchin my meanin'


----------



## garcia3441 (Dec 28, 2006)

Sadly; I think that once they hang him, there will be a bloodbath.


----------



## Mastodon (Dec 28, 2006)

This is going to come across as terribly condecending but...

...why celebrate this?


----------



## Shannon (Dec 28, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> They want him to live with what he's done. It's my belief, however, that he shoulders no guilt and therefore the only soul-searching he should do is molesting Satan's minions.


 100%

He doesn't give a shit and has no remorse for anything he's ever done. In his mind, he was totally justified in all his actions. The world would be better off without him in it. If he was locked away for life, then you'd just have more jackoffs hijacking planes & demanding his release. Judge, jury and executioner. Let's just make this quick and the world can move on.

Now, if we could just capture Osama.....


----------



## Kevan (Dec 28, 2006)

A quick death is what the politicians want. This makes them look like pseudo-heroes: We got the bad guy and killed him dead. Yippe for us! (back pats all around Washington; check the Richter scale). The media also wants this: during the holidays, before a large Islamic holiday, new year, hella-awesome ratings, etc. (check your cable news network for ad prices this weekend).

If you want to not martyr him, you need to keep him in prison, forever. An 8x6 cell, with basic meals, no windows, no visitors and a toilet. Considering who it is and what he means to many, the cost of upkeep for this clown is nothing. Put it on my Visa.
If he dies in a prison cell, alone, he will not be martyred. Same goes if he offs himself with a chicken bone. Who gave him chicken for dinner?

Again, we need to stop thinking like Americans and think like they do if we want to do this right. With the event this weekend, I also see an escalation in violence. It's unfortunate, but.....let's hope they just kill each other all weekend and leave us out of it.


----------



## garcia3441 (Dec 28, 2006)

Kevan said:


> I also see an escalation in violence. It's unfortunate, but.....let's hope they just kill each other all weekend and leave us out of it.



The same website that had his farewell letter also had a warning that they would retaliate against US interests in the region.


----------



## Shannon (Dec 28, 2006)

Ummm, I believe the Iraqi Gov't is carrying out the sentence. That's why they want us to fly him over there.


----------



## garcia3441 (Dec 28, 2006)

Shannon said:


> Ummm, I believe the Iraqi Gov't is carrying out the sentence. That's why they want us to fly him over there.



I don't think that matters to them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_saddam_verdict_1


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 28, 2006)

I wish he was still in power.


----------



## Shannon (Dec 28, 2006)

zimbloth said:


> I wish he was still in power.


----------



## Ken (Dec 28, 2006)

Kevan said:


> Again, we need to stop thinking like Americans and think like they do if we want to do this right. With the event this weekend, I also see an escalation in violence. It's unfortunate, but.....let's hope they just kill each other all weekend and leave us out of it.



It doesn't matter how we think, because it isn't up to us. He was charged for crimes in his own country and we're turning him over to them. Why would we spend all that money ousting him and lose all those lives just to give him sanctuary and keep him in a prison here? 

If it were up to us, thinking as they do would result in executing him. Why? Well, because:

A. *They're* going to execute him.
B. Keeping him alive would make him valuable to his supporters, and in their world everything is negotiable. They'd just gather some collateral (read: Americans) and come to the bargaining table. The longer Uncle Sam refused to bargain, the more valuable he'd become and the higher the stakes would become.
C. Did I mention *they're* going to execute him?


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 28, 2006)

Shannon said:


>



Why are you rolling your eyes? I'm sorry if we don't share the same exhileration for this event. I think he was a bad guy, deserving of death certainly, but I can't get too excited about this considering what has transpired since his downfall. The fact is I feel if he was still in power, the whole region would have been much better off.

Roll your eyes all you want, at least Bill Maher agrees


----------



## Kevan (Dec 28, 2006)

That's the problem, Ken: there is no "they're" to his supporters. 
To them, if you're not with them, you're an American infidel.

You can say "They're" all you want, but to Saddam's..ahem...'fans', all they hear is "Americans".

BTW- I don't want him in a prison here! My prison suggestion was for somewhere in Iraq. Prisons here are FAR too nice for an asshole like that. Something with a nice view of nothing (cinderblock wall?), close to the heater (maybe south-facing?).

I think Saddam is close to 80. He ain't lastin' long in an Iraqi prison.


----------



## garcia3441 (Dec 29, 2006)

http://www.newsobserver.com/505/story/512936.html

News article about why the Sunnis are against the American and the Shiite government.


----------



## Mastodon (Dec 29, 2006)

Kevan said:


> That's the problem, Ken: there is no "they're" to his supporters.
> To them, if you're not with them, you're an American infidel.
> 
> You can say "They're" all you want, but to Saddam's..ahem...'fans', all they hear is "Americans".
> ...



Our highest security prisons have extremely small cells, with zero natural daylight, and no human interaction (save for the half-hour they get to leave the cell where the only person they see is the guard who lets them out).

It would probably be just as traumatizing. I'm not suggesting that he should be kept prisoner here though, just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## Nipples (Dec 29, 2006)

Kevan said:


> BTW- I don't want him in a prison here! My prison suggestion was for somewhere in Iraq. Prisons here are FAR too nice for an asshole like that. Something with a nice view of nothing (cinderblock wall?), close to the heater (maybe south-facing?).
> 
> I think Saddam is close to 80. He ain't lastin' long in an Iraqi prison.



Put him in a Mexican prison?


----------



## Shannon (Dec 29, 2006)

zimbloth said:


> Why are you rolling your eyes? I'm sorry if we don't share the same exhileration for this event. I think he was a bad guy, deserving of death certainly, but I can't get too excited about this considering what has transpired since his downfall. *The fact is I feel if he was still in power, the whole region would have been much better off.*
> 
> Roll your eyes all you want, at least Bill Maher agrees



That's one of the goofiest things I've ever read. Yeah, we should've left Hitler in charge too. Germany & the world at large was in good hands, right?

[action=Shannon]continues to rolleyes [/action]


----------



## Leon (Dec 29, 2006)

the world has more important things to do than to worry itself with Saddam anymore. just hang the fucker and get on with it. live in the present, not the past!


----------



## Shannon (Dec 29, 2006)

Leon said:


> the world has more important things to do than to worry itself with Saddam anymore. just hang the fucker and get on with it. live in the present, not the past!


----------



## Buzz762 (Dec 29, 2006)

I'm looking at this as it being really the only reasonable solution. We went in (regardless of whether we should have or not) and caught him and threw him on trial in the Iraqi courts. In their world, people would be killed for far less than what Saddam did. He's too dangerous to be kept alive because of the supporters, but it seems as if the US is the party responsible for doing the execution. 

Really, I think the US needs to return to pre-WWI thinking and stay out of foreign affairs. Every time we poke our nose into other countries, we end up in wars that just drag on for no reason.


----------



## BinaryTox1n (Dec 29, 2006)

I think he should be put in a cell with no toilet, and then be given only as much medical care as he needs to survive.
Oh, and some kind of way to keep him from killing himself with his own shit and piss.


----------



## Vince (Dec 29, 2006)

Not that I'm coming to Zimbloth's defense, but there is an argument to be made here.

That point would not and WILL NOT ever be to put Saddam back in power, but that a country like Iraq was held together with an iron fist.

Arguably, some countries, they'll be absolutely out of hand and destroying each other if they don't have a strong central government. Yes, Saddam Hussein overstepped his bounds with numerous human rights violations, I'm not condoning that. But, in developing countries, monarchies & dictatorships sometimes work a lot better than democracy. Democracy can quickly turn to anarchy, and then war. As we're seeing in Iraq now. They will have no democracy, they will have no peace. Not anytime soon, anyway.

Scarce resources, ethnic/religious differences, & millions of people in the middle of it are nasty bedfellows.


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Dec 29, 2006)

Shannon said:


> That's one of the goofiest things I've ever read. Yeah, we should've left Hitler in charge too. Germany & the world at large was in good hands, right?
> 
> [action=Shannon]continues to rolleyes [/action]



Thats actually very silly by far hitler was a bigger danger. during WW2 the time he was in charge of a world class millitary. Saddams army was disintergrating and armed with crap equipment that was old and ill maintain most of them were more corrupt than they were a pack of pricks and most turned tail and ran the moment the coallition invaded his own people hated him he was a renouned idiot millitarally were as hitler was notoriously smart and was a german hero. now I'm not trying to lend greater weight to any particular arguement just pointing out that the two are incomparable.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

desertdweller said:


> Not that I'm coming to Zimbloth's defense, but there is an argument to be made here.


Ok, I'll come to his defense.  (Great points, BTW, Vin.)

Actually, Shannon makes a valid point, obviously. There's something to be said for the removal of a genocidal, brutal madman, be it Hitler or Saddam.

But I gotta agree with Nick's general sentiment. History will be the best judge, but I personally think the short term analysis shows us the stability ol Mustache face represented may have been overall better for that region, at least since his ambitions were seriously curtailed after the Gulf War. At best, I'm betting the families of a few hundred thousand Iraqi people, and probably the familes of some several thousand US soldiers, would see it that way. My personal feeling is I would rather have had Saddam remain in power, for many reasons, than see him removed, if by removing we have the results we have had. For instance - removing Kim Jong Il from power would be terrific, but what if in the process he nuked Taipei or Tokyo, and wiped out a significant portion of the cities, along with a significant number of people? Would it be worth it? I think not. But that doesn't _discount_ Shannon's argument - we could say the same about Berlin in 1938, and many would argue, knowing what we know now, it would have indeed been worth it, if the situation were the same. We can only go on what we are presented with now, however, and I have to say I agree with Nick, based on present facts.

And like MiddleEarth said, Hitler and Saddam are on orders of magnitude different, at least in impact, if not in character.


----------



## Ancestor (Dec 29, 2006)

The whole thing is a giant mess. Once he's gone, his shenanigans are over. I'm at least thankful for that. The guy, to me, seems to have a sociopathic personality. He's dangerous as long as he's alive.


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 29, 2006)

Thanks for people "coming to my defense" or whatnot, but all I'm saying is I think Iraq and the region would have been better off with him still in power. That doesn't mean "hey lets put him back in power". I also think it's hilarious you brought up Hitler, as if that has to do with _anything_. All I said was "I wish he was still in power". Does that mean I think he's a great guy? No. It just means I wish we never got into this mess and we made things worse by removing him. He's a terrible person and deserves death, but at least he was a terrible person who kept his region under control and intimidated his neighbors. 

Have fun rolling your eyes Shannon, nothing I'm saying is that outlandish at all.


----------



## HighGain510 (Dec 29, 2006)

Okay I didn't post yesterday but I'm going to toss in my two cents now. Here's the thing, he has done TERRIBLE things and although he might be considered by some on here to be on a "smaller scale than hitler," the point is that he is still a violent dictator and no region should be ruled by someone such as this (and let's not turn this into a 'well bush is an evil dictator' discussion...). He put HIS OWN PEOPLE to death by gassing them, WTF is that?! How is his region better under his power? "You disagree with me?! How dare you! Fuck you, I'll gas you and your family to make an example out of you!" That's utter bullshit, I don't want to hear it.  If I were there, I wouldn't want to be ruled by fear, that's lame as all hell. 

As for the death penalty as a punishment, I understand your morals and why it seems wrong however save your moral punishment for those who deserve it. I say if you act morally, you should be judged in the same fashion. I don't go around shooting/gassing people, so when I get a traffic ticket, I don't expect to have the police officer arrest and shoot me. If you are like Saddam and go around killing people willy nilly because they don't agree with you or you are just bored that day, you deserve the same fate. Sorry, that's just how I feel on that topic. The outcome has been decided, no point in arguing WHAT they should do to him now.


----------



## Nik (Dec 29, 2006)

Shannon said:


> That's one of the goofiest things I've ever read. Yeah, we should've left Hitler in charge too. Germany & the world at large was in good hands, right?
> 
> [action=Shannon]continues to rolleyes [/action]



Just wondering dude, does this mean that you think the U.S. invasion in Iraq was the right thing to do and fully justified?

I think I'll go with Nick on this one. Saddam was the only thing that kept Sunnis and Shiites under control. Having Saddam in power is, sadly, the lesser evil of two unpleasant outcomes.


----------



## noodles (Dec 29, 2006)

desertdweller said:


> That point would not and WILL NOT ever be to put Saddam back in power, but that a country like Iraq was held together with an iron fist.



That is because after WWII, the British thought they could just remap the middle east as they saw fit. One of the biggest changes was displacing a bunch of warlords, and uniting several different ethnic and religious groups under one centralized government. The *only* way you run a nightmare country like that is with an iron fist. For all his atrocities, he did keep the country under control, and it was a completely secular government.

I do not sympathize with the man at all. He is one truly sick bastard guilty of a nearly endless list of crimes against humanity. However, I would not want his job. What would any of us do if we were tasked with keeping the peace in a geographical area the size of Texas, filled with four different groups that hate each other? Turn in our two weeks and put the resume up on Monster.com, that's what.


----------



## HighGain510 (Dec 29, 2006)

Nik said:


> Just wondering dude, does this mean that you think the U.S. invasion in Iraq was the right thing to do and fully justified?
> 
> I think I'll go with Nick on this one. Saddam was the only thing that kept Sunnis and Shiites under control. Having Saddam in power is, sadly, the lesser evil of two unpleasant outcomes.




I'll go ahead and disagree with you here. He kept the one group "under control" by KILLING THEM. Wtf.... that's a pretty dumb way to keep someone under control. "Don't try to rally against me, I will gas your people!" Does he realize the only difference between the two groups is their religious beliefs? They're both Iraqi people! Saddam is an idiot.....


----------



## noodles (Dec 29, 2006)

HighGain510 said:


> I'll go ahead and disagree with you here. He kept the one group "under control" by KILLING THEM. Wtf.... that's a pretty dumb way to keep someone under control. "Don't try to rally against me, I will gas your people!" Does he realize the only difference between the two groups is their religious beliefs? Their both Iraqi people! Saddam is an idiot.....



You're failing to see the heart of the problem: *there were no Iraqi people*. Several difference factions had their lands and natural resources stripped of them, and were forced together into one country under a central government that they did not elect. How would you act if someone came along, forced the US, Mexico, and Canada together into one big country and installed some government that was completely different? You'd probably be a bit pissed off, huh? Well, how would you propose to govern such an angry mob? "Umm, could we please calm down a bit and listen to what I have to say?" Yeah, right...

Britain created Iraq after WWII. Is it any surprise that they are the only country supporting us through all of this? They're just happy that the world has forgotten that this whole fucking mess is their fault.


----------



## garcia3441 (Dec 29, 2006)

The British created another country; Yugoslavia, and we all know how that ended. The Balkan Wars ended in the 90s and we still have soldiers in the region to keep the peace.


----------



## Leon (Dec 29, 2006)

so, i guess we're still feeling the effects of the British Empire, some 60 years after it finally crumbled (after the loss of India, if i'm correct).


----------



## Makelele (Dec 29, 2006)

garcia3441 said:


> The British created another country; Yugoslavia, and we all know how that ended. The Balkan Wars ended in the 90s and we still have soldiers in the region to keep the peace.



Many African countries are the same. Lots of different tribes and cultures in one country makes it really unstable.


----------



## Nik (Dec 29, 2006)

HighGain510 said:


> I'll go ahead and disagree with you here. He kept the one group "under control" by KILLING THEM. Wtf.... that's a pretty dumb way to keep someone under control. "Don't try to rally against me, I will gas your people!" Does he realize the only difference between the two groups is their religious beliefs? They're both Iraqi people! Saddam is an idiot.....



And what better way to punish Saddam and remedy the violence by sparking a civil war that kills hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention US soldiers  

Was Saddam's regime a turd on the face of the planet? Yes. Was invading Iraq the way Bush and his pals did the right way to go about it? Hell no. Was going into Iraq a priority in terms of U.S. national security? No. Has the invasion of Iraq made the world a safer place? Quite the opposite actually...  

Anyway, I agree with everything noodles says, and he knows a lot more about this stuff than me, so don't listen to me, listen to noodles


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

Yep, Dave is exactly right. It's the crux of the whole issue.

You think Saddam is bad? You should see how Rome used to handle situations like this. They kill all the men, and sell the women and children off into slavery. The general (and should he choose to share, the legions of his army) would get the profits from the sale. They supported puppet dictators every bit as vile as Saddam.

Welcome to Western History 101.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 29, 2006)

Something struck me today as I was watching MSNBC, Saddam hasn't even been tried for all of his alleged crimes. So is this justice here or just some thinly disguised assassination? Shouldn't he have gone to trial for all his crimes before they hang him? Why wasn't he on trial in an international court? These are fascinating questions that have rather unsettling answers. 

I also don't buy this line of "It's the Iraqi people standing up for justice". No it's George Bush's worthless puppet government carrying out his dirty work.

It's time to end George's unholy crusade. It makes me sicker every day.


----------



## Ken (Dec 29, 2006)

noodles said:


> How would you act if someone came along, forced the US, Mexico, and Canada together into one big country and installed some government that was completely different? You'd probably be a bit pissed off, huh? Well, how would you propose to govern such an angry mob? "Umm, could we please calm down a bit and listen to what I have to say?" Yeah, right...



Well, they'd probably show up on some ships and claim friendship. Then, we'd get to know them, maybe have a big ol' Turkey dinner with them, smoke a bowl or two and welcome the new neighbors.

They would begin trying to convert us to their religion and obey their laws. Their quest for dominance would lead us to near extinction and 300 years later we would operate casinos and orchestrate an economic victory.

Wait, hasn't that already happened?  

On a serious note, this thread has taken a dark and ugly turn. No one here sympathizes with Saddam, but more than a few empathize with him. People are saying, in essence, "Yeah, he's a monster, but he did the best he had with what he had to work with and a dad who beats his kids is better than no dad at all". 

Some of you have more empathy for Saddam than you do your own president.


----------



## Nik (Dec 29, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> On a serious note, this thread has taken a dark and ugly turn. No one here sympathizes with Saddam, but more than a few empathize with him. People are saying, in essence, "Yeah, he's a monster, but he did the best he had with what he had to work with and a dad who beats his kids is better than no dad at all".



Nope.

People are saying one of two things:

1.) The death penalty is morally wrong. Period. Whether it's Saddam or not.

2.) Locking up Saddam for life is a much more cruel punishment and will make Saddam suffer a lot more by forcing him to live with his crimes a lot more than simply hanging him.

None of those are anything similar to "well, what can you do, Saddam was a monster, but did what he had to do."


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 29, 2006)

Nik said:


> Nope.
> 
> People are saying one of two things:
> 
> ...




 +1

Well said Nik. 

Also I empathize with neither Saddam or George, because they're both pathetic.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> +1
> 
> Well said Nik.
> 
> Also I empathize with neither Saddam or George, because they're both pathetic.



 I empathize with neither, I symapthize with neither. Fuck Bush, fuck Saddam.

I can understand why both men made the choices they did, but I agree with neither. I personally think they both should probably be tried as war criminals, and locked away for life.


----------



## garcia3441 (Dec 29, 2006)

Nik said:


> Nope.
> 
> People are saying one of two things:
> 
> ...



I'm saying :
3.) If you're going to hang him, wait until security is a little better. Hanging him now is like throwing gasoline on a fire.


----------



## Ken (Dec 29, 2006)

Nik said:


> Nope.
> 
> People are saying one of two things:
> 
> ...



Yep. Let's be clear. I don't believe anyone here supports Saddam. But there IS empathy here, which to me is the understanding of why something is done without the agreement that it should've been done.

Read this: "well, what can you do, Saddam was a monster, but did what he had to do.".

Then, read the parts highlighted in blue.



zimbloth said:


> Thanks for people "coming to my defense" or whatnot, but all I'm saying is I think Iraq and the region would have been better off with him still in power. That doesn't mean "hey lets put him back in power". I also think it's hilarious you brought up Hitler, as if that has to do with _anything_. All I said was "I wish he was still in power". Does that mean I think he's a great guy? No. It just means I wish we never got into this mess and we made things worse by removing him. *He's a terrible person and deserves death, but at least he was a terrible person who kept his region under control and intimidated his neighbors. *
> 
> Have fun rolling your eyes Shannon, nothing I'm saying is that outlandish at all.





noodles said:


> That is because after WWII, the British thought they could just remap the middle east as they saw fit. One of the biggest changes was displacing a bunch of warlords, and uniting several different ethnic and religious groups under one centralized government. *The only way you run a nightmare country like that is with an iron fist. For all his atrocities, he did keep the country under control, and it was a completely secular government.*
> 
> I do not sympathize with the man at all. He is one truly sick bastard guilty of a nearly endless list of crimes against humanity. However, I would not want his job. What would any of us do if we were tasked with keeping the peace in a geographical area the size of Texas, filled with four different groups that hate each other? Turn in our two weeks and put the resume up on Monster.com, that's what.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

Ken, you're confusing the issue here. Saying Saddam provided regional stability isn't empathy, it's a strategic and political fact.

Gerald Ford summed it up eloquently when he said the we can't go hellfire and damnation around the globe freeing people if it doesn't represent our own national security interests. IMO, and in the opinion of many much more educated people than myself, the situation before the Iraq war represented a better scenario for US interests than what currently exists, like Saddam or lump him. Even many people who initially supported the war, based on the so-called neo-conservative perspective (advocating spreading democracy by the sword, essentially).

Again, my 2c, what's done is done. Lock Saddam away (a more fitting punishment, and probably (I'm assuming here, admittedly) a safer strategic move), because he's a worthless criminal. But the sad fact is, another dictator is probably the only thing that will provide similar stability, or else we face years of ethnic and religious conflict. (Then let's move to investigate our own war criminals). Like I said before, democracy is NO magic panacea, to bring instant joy, liberation, and peace. Democracy is only fit for those able to exercise it with respect and political maturity.


PS I still  you, and respect what you're saying. I understand it, but I just see it a little differently.


----------



## Ken (Dec 29, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Ken, you're confusing the issue here. Saying Saddam provided regional stability isn't empathy, it's a strategic and political fact.
> 
> Gerald Ford summed it up eloquently when he said the we can't go hellfire and damnation around the globe freeing people if it doesn't represent our own national security interests. IMO, and in the opinion of many much more educated people than myself, the situation before the Iraq war represented a better scenario for US interests than what currently exists, like Saddam or lump him. Even many people who initially supported the war, based on the so-called neo-conservative perspective (advocating spreading democracy by the sword, essentially).
> 
> Again, my 2c, what's done is done. Lock Saddam away (a more fitting punishment, and probably (I'm assuming here, admittedly) a safer strategic move), because he's a worthless criminal. But the sad fact is, another dictator is probably the only thing that will provide similar stability, or else we face years of ethnic and religious conflict. (Then let's move to investigate our own war criminals). Like I said before, democracy is NO magic panacea, to bring instant joy, liberation, and peace. Democracy is only fit for those able to exercise it with respect and political maturity.



Chock another one up on the "agree to disagree" board. This is empathy, Bob. It is also political and strategic fact. The two can co-exist quite nicely.

Whatever you want to label it as, some people are in fact saying "yeah, he's a monster, but he did what he had to do".


----------



## Nik (Dec 29, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> PS I still  you, and respect what you're saying. I understand it, but I just see it a little differently.



+1 on that 

And everything else you said Bob


----------



## Ken (Dec 29, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> PS I still  you, and respect what you're saying. I understand it, but I just see it a little differently.



Me too. 

Kamir and give me some tongue. 

[action=Ken Burtch]wishes to thank Shannon for the word Kamir, or a melding of "come here".[/action]


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> Chock another one up on the "agree to disagree" board. This is empathy, Bob. It is also political and strategic fact. The two can co-exist quite nicely.
> 
> Whatever you want to label it as, some people are in fact saying "yeah, he's a monster, but he did what he had to do".



Well, I see it 2 ways, Ken. I suppose if you mean 'empathy' as a purely intellectual excercise, eh... there's some credence to that claim, sure. But let's look at what I'm attempting to say, and the distinctions I personally make.

1) Saddam's military expolits. He was supported by the US to be a foil to Iranian Islamic military and political expansion. He served his purpose there. He was responsible for the deaths of perhaps a million people, but really, he's no different here than Lincoln, Johnson, Nixon, or Bush. I have no empathy per se (EMPATHY - the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another) with Saddam, but this kind of thing is intellectually understandable.

2) His 'crimes agains humanity' - including murdering Shiites, gassing Kurds, and assorted other atrocities. These are a bit different, because these were used to quell internal discontent. I'm not certain ANY of these despicable acts were necessary, for stability or anything else. They just reflect the brutal nature of the man who ordered them. (Similar to Hitler a) starting a war. Awful, but a political reality) and b) killing the Jews. No redeemable explanation.) I have zero, ZERO empathy for the man in this situation, and it's the reason not only should he be punished, but also why he is being executed.

For the record, I generally disagree with most of the decisions I mention. The way Limcoln handled the Civil War - iffy. Johnsons support fo Vietnam - no way, Jose. Same for Nixon. Bush's invasion of Iraq - also, no fucking way. I udnertand the reasons, but I disagree with the decisions.

See what I'm saying?


----------



## Ken (Dec 29, 2006)

My arguments were from a purely "intellectual identification with" angle. Not from a "vicarious experiencing of" angle.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> My arguments were from a purely "intellectual identification with" angle. Not from a "vicarious experiencing of" angle.



In that case, sure. I empathise with Saddam and Bush, as per my previous post. Just don't see eye to eye with the ultimate decisions made. (Like before, I in know way empathize with the 'crimes agains't humanity'. Completely ridiculous, and horrific.)

I think I stand on pretty firm logical and moral ground, generally. My ideas are able to withstand the crucible of consistency.


----------



## noodles (Dec 29, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> Chock another one up on the "agree to disagree" board. This is empathy, Bob. It is also political and strategic fact. The two can co-exist quite nicely.
> 
> Whatever you want to label it as, some people are in fact saying "yeah, he's a monster, but he did what he had to do".



Actually, I think it is completely different from empathy. If, back before the Iraq War, someone handed me a box labeled "Make Saddam Instantly Disappear and Be Replaced with Peaceful Government by The People", with a big red button on it, I would have pushed it. Twice, just to make good and sure the bastard really was gone.

Having said that, I'll claim some nationalist tendencies. Saddam was a horrible bastard, and I do not empathize with his plight in anyway whatsoever. However, I do empathize with the situation my own nation is currently in, and the effect it has on my fellow countrymen. I felt bad for the people he oppressed, but I value their lives far less than I value the lives of our soldiers and the security of our nation.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

I personally don't value the Iraqi's lives less than ours, even soldiers.

But the security issue I buy to a degree. It's the same reason I would shoot an intruder who threatened me or my family. I wouldn't take any joy in it, but I consider it necessary if the situation warrants it.


----------



## noodles (Dec 29, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> I personally don't value the Iraqi's lives less than ours, even soldiers.



Well, in a humanitarian sense, I'm with you. Every life is of equal value. However, in a practical sense, we all put different values on different lives. The lives of American citizens should come first and foremost on the mind of the United States government. It is a concept that security falls under, really.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

noodles said:


> Well, in a humanitarian sense, I'm with you. Every life is of equal value. However, in a practical sense, we all put different values on different lives. The lives of American citizens should come first and foremost on the mind of the United States government. It is a concept that security falls under, really.



Yeah, totally right. I gotcha there, Dave. It's like how I could kill the intruder. I don't want him dead, but my family comes first if he threatens them. (I still wouldn't just shoot an intruder indiscriminantly. I just use that as an example.)


----------



## Shawn (Dec 29, 2006)

Saw this on the news tonight, he's getting what he deserves.


----------



## leatherface2 (Dec 29, 2006)

stick a live snake up his ass


----------



## ibzrg1570 (Dec 29, 2006)

ok i skipped about half of this because some of you guys have a lot to say, so i'm not sure if i'll be reiterating everything that somebody already said...but then again it is my personal opinion, so w/e

basically i agree that the death penalty is not a solution as it is just a little hypocritical (we're going to kill you because you killed our people), but neither is keeping him alive in a prison to raise support for more radicals. what zimbloth said about a dictatorship maintaining stability is true, just look at spain during francisco franco's rule. sure the people had less freedom, but the place was really well organized. i'm not saying that is ideal for the people living in iraq, but right now i'm sure that most of the people there would rather have order than random attacks on innocents everyday. saddam should definately not be brought back to power, but i think someone should assume that position, at least for the moment until everything cools off. so what to do with saddam? i say to deport him to some remote location where he will have no contact with the outside world but allowed to stay alive with just enough to survive. there will be a mock execution in iraq, so the rest of the world thinks he's dead and the new dictatorship will be there to suppress uprisings of people who see him as a martyr. this way, we avoid the whole subject of killing him and of raising anti-american moral.


----------



## Kevan (Dec 29, 2006)

leatherface2 said:


> stick a live snake up his ass


"Ahhh! No, but that's very creative."


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 29, 2006)

leatherface2 said:


> stick a live snake up his ass



 That's animal abuse!! What did that snake ever do to you??


----------



## Nik (Dec 29, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> That's animal abuse!! What did that snake ever do to you??



Agreed, unless the snake is the merciless dictator of Kingcobrastan.







*It's been a very long day for Nik.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 29, 2006)

According to CNN and MSNBC Saddam Hussein is dead. There was no justice served today. He wasn't even tried for all his crimes or even in an international court. This was just a thinly veiled political assassination. 

Can we finally bring the troops home since Saddam is no longer a threat?


----------



## Shannon (Dec 29, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> According to CNN and MSNBC Saddam Hussein is dead.
> 
> He wasn't even tried for all his crimes or even in an international court.


Yup, he's dead. 

He didn't need to be tried for _all_ the crimes. When it comes to murder, you only need to be guilty of killing ONE person to receive the death penalty. He killed over a million people in his country. This is a well established fact. You know he did it. I know he did it. THE WORLD knows he did it. So, why do we need to continue trying him?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

He actually didn't kill "over a million" directly. He was directly responsible for some thousands of deaths (not saying that's better).You could call those political executions. He actually was convicted of killing far less than "millions", which are soley those attributed to deaths because of military conflict. He was not tried for those deaths.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 29, 2006)

Shannon said:


> Yup, he's dead.
> 
> He didn't need to be tried for _all_ the crimes. When it comes to murder, you only need to be guilty of killing ONE person to receive the death penalty. He killed over a million people in his country. This is a well established fact. You know he did it. I know he did it. THE WORLD knows he did it. So, why do we need to continue trying him?



If we don't try him for all his crimes then there isn't real justice and we are acting no better than the countries we call uncivilized or complain about their lack of human rights. This trial was a joke and there was nothing close to justice served.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 29, 2006)

^ Great point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1979682,00.html#article_continue


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 29, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> ^ Great point.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1979682,00.html#article_continue



Gee you read the foreign press for real news about America to?


----------



## Shannon (Dec 29, 2006)

I give up. Agree to disagree.


----------



## garcia3441 (Dec 29, 2006)

Well, they've thrown the gas on the fire. I wonder how long it will be before it explodes.


----------



## ajdehoogh (Dec 29, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> Something struck me today as I was watching MSNBC, Saddam hasn't even been tried for all of his alleged crimes. So is this justice here or just some thinly disguised assassination? Shouldn't he have gone to trial for all his crimes before they hang him? Why wasn't he on trial in an international court? These are fascinating questions that have rather unsettling answers.


 
He is being tried in an Iraqi not an international court, otherwise it would be at the Hague if I memory serves. And with their legal system, he doesn't have to be tried for each and every crime. I mean, how many times can you kill him?


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 30, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> If we don't try him for all his crimes then there isn't real justice



That'd take until i'm _HIS_ age. he'd probably die before the trial is finished, and that wouldn't be justice either.


----------



## Leon (Dec 30, 2006)

one can only hope the Xians are right about this "hell" place. if it exists, he'll get his


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Dec 30, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> For the record, I generally disagree with most of the decisions I mention. The way Limcoln handled the Civil War - iffy. Johnsons support fo Vietnam - no way, Jose. Same for Nixon. Bush's invasion of Iraq - also, no fucking way. I udnertand the reasons, but I disagree with the decisions.
> 
> See what I'm saying?


 
Doing the wrong things for the right reasons.


----------



## Jason (Dec 30, 2006)

http://news.aol.com/topnews/article...r/20061229140609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 30, 2006)

Ah t-shirt hell, what would we do without you? And as expected the complete video of his execution is already out and about on the net (if it's real).

EDIT: someone posted this on another forum:


----------



## DSS3 (Dec 31, 2006)

Saddam is dead, eh?

YAY, TERRORISM'S OVER.


You know, you get the kingpin, and soon they all start falling! Just like in 'Nam!


----------



## Jason (Dec 31, 2006)

This is the actual video.. NOT WORK SAFE!!! IF YOU DON"T WANT TO WATCH THAN DON'T! This is the real deal..
http://videos.netscape.com/story/2006/12/30/saddam-execution-video-full-including-the-drop


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 31, 2006)




----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 31, 2006)

.jason. said:


> This is the actual video.. NOT WORK SAFE!!! IF YOU DON"T WANT TO WATCH THAN DON'T! This is the real deal..
> http://videos.netscape.com/story/2006/12/30/saddam-execution-video-full-including-the-drop



For all the NWS stuff you had plastered all over it i expected his head to fall off or something. taking in what it actually is, its more psychologically disturbing to watch than it is shocking in a 'eeeeeew' sense.


----------



## Jason (Dec 31, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> For all the NWS stuff you had plastered all over it i expected his head to fall off or something. taking in what it actually is, its more psychologically disturbing to watch than it is shocking in a 'eeeeeew' sense.



 I just figured with the content i better be safe than sorry..I half expected it to get yanked down


----------



## Mastodon (Dec 31, 2006)

That was alot less epic then I imagined it to be. I was invisioning some great big gallows and a large crowd gathering round like in a western, just as the sun as rising.

Hmmm...reality check.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Dec 31, 2006)

That what I thought when I watched the vid last night. To be honest though, I never expected it to feel like a massive 'full-stop' for everything that's happenned over the past few years; it's a sordid, pathetic death for a rather sad looking old man, and in the grand scheme of things, isn't likely to mean anything more.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Dec 31, 2006)

When are we putting George W Bush on trial? It's only fair...


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 31, 2006)

7 Dying Trees said:


> When are we putting George W Bush on trial? It's only fair...



The winners are never put on trial, only the conquered.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Dec 31, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> The winners are never put on trial, only the conquered.



True (unfortunately).

It's going to be reeeeeeeally interesting to see what our grandchildren's perspective on this whole clusterfuck is when they're looking back on it if 50-60 years time...


----------



## Nik (Dec 31, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> True (unfortunately).
> 
> It's going to be reeeeeeeally interesting to see what our grandchildren's perspective on this whole clusterfuck is when they're looking back on it if 50-60 years time...





Dick Cheney said:


> The generals on the ground are in charge and Rumsfeld works ...[the war] which may not be popular at this time, but history will be the final judge.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 31, 2006)

Dick Cheney said:


> The generals on the ground are in charge and Rumsfeld works ...[the war] which may not be popular at this time, but history will be the final judge



What Deadeye Dick will never admit to is that history could be pissing all over this war in fifty years. This war, more than likely, will be regarded as a immense mistake on the part of this administration. Of course invading a country without being provoked or and real imminent threat to your own safety is the last time I checked a criminal action. Somehow I don't see history viewing this war in a favorable light.


----------



## Nik (Dec 31, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> What Deadeye Dick will never admit to is that history could be pissing all over this war in fifty years. This war, more than likely, will be regarded as a immense mistake on the part of this administration. Of course invading a country without being provoked or and real imminent threat to your own safety is the last time I checked a criminal action. Somehow I don't see history viewing this war in a favorable light.



Of course that's the case  The irony in that quote is evident. That's why I love it so much.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 31, 2006)

Nik said:


> Of course that's the case  The irony in that quote is evident. That's why I love it so much.



Yeah, remember that Cheney said Rumsfeld was best Secretary of Defense ever, after he resigned.


----------



## stuz719 (Jan 1, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> The winners are never put on trial, only the conquered.



Many of the Nazis (IIRC Goebbels in particular) claimed this at Nuremberg - and certainly the perception of Saddam Hussein's 'trial' (I use quotes as the actual legal standing of the court was in some doubt) could be tainted by a sense of "the justice of the victor over the vanquished".

Let's not forget:

1) The US and UK supported Saddam Hussein's regime during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, possibly including military support

2) The gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq and other events were known to the West at the time and no action was taken

3) The trial judge in Saddam Hussein's trial was removed for alleged pro-defence bias - which may make you wonder how he got the nod in the first place

4) Three defence lawyers, including one acting for Saddam Hussein himself, were killed during the trial, and others attacked by gunmen

5) No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq - the original justification for invading to remove Saddam Hussein from power

6) Other sovereign nations continue to flout and defy UN resolutions, without economic sanction or military action by way of punishment

7) As the video of the execution shows there was something of the triumphal about it all - shouting the name of Moqtada al-Sadr at the condemned man as a show of bravado (easy to do when your victim has a noose around his neck) does nothing to support any claim that the execution was impartial justice and not bullying revenge. With behaviour like this on show Saddam Hussein is the only one to come out of this sorry episode with any sort of dignity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6221751.stm


----------



## Drew (Jan 1, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> 1) The US and UK supported Saddam Hussein's regime during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, possibly including military support



This is the biggie for me. We just hung Saddam for war crimes he did twenty years ago when he was a US ally. I mean, yeah, the guy did some pretty shitty things... But wasn't the time to take action 20 years ago, not today? I mean, it's not like new evidence came to light or something before the trial - he was executed simply because it was politicaly expedient.

Now, if that's your definition of justice, that's pretty fucked up.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 1, 2007)

Great job stuz719. Those all valid poits of how pathetic and criminal this whole war is.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 1, 2007)

Drew said:


> This is the biggie for me. We just hung Saddam for war crimes he did twenty years ago when he was a US ally. I mean, yeah, the guy did some pretty shitty things... But wasn't the time to take action 20 years ago, not today? I mean, it's not like new evidence came to light or something before the trial - he was executed simply because it was politicaly expedient.
> 
> Now, if that's your definition of justice, that's pretty fucked up.



Agreed. if they were gonna try him for something, it should have been something more relevent. like at the end of 1991 when he crushed an uprising and slaughtered thousands of people.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 1, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> 2) The gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq and other events were known to the West at the time and no action was taken



Churchill actually authorized the RAF to bomb the kurds, too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html



Drew said:


> he was executed simply because it was politicaly expedient.


And perhaps that wasn't the only reason.

What do organized criminals routinely do? Eliminate the witnesses. Saddam had a first hand account of US involvement in his war crimes... a fact conspicuoulsy absent in Saddam's mainstream press obituaries (notably CNN and The NY Times omitted the connection).


----------



## Drew (Jan 2, 2007)

Again, Bob, you're agreeing with me. I'd say it was pretty damned expedient to get him firmly out of the public eye ASAP, no?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 2, 2007)

Drew said:


> Again, Bob, you're agreeing with me. I'd say it was pretty damned expedient to get him firmly out of the public eye ASAP, no?



Expedience. Definitively. It really reeks of that, doesn't it?

It's like a mob contract, almost. Many parallels, at least to me.


----------



## Pauly (Jan 3, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> For all the NWS stuff you had plastered all over it i expected his head to fall off or something. taking in what it actually is, its more psychologically disturbing to watch than it is shocking in a 'eeeeeew' sense.



His neck at a completely fucked up angle at the end is 'ew', I don't get why some people feel the need to watch people die (sometimes horribly) over the internet - see Rotten Ogrish, etc. etc. etc.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> EDIT: someone posted this on another forum:



Lol.


----------

