Saddam Hussein to be executed soon

Post Reply New Topic

Why do you think that?

Hi! I also think Saddam is a major league fink. With all due respect to your country's soldiers, I don't think Bush & Rumsfeld sent the troops in there to promote freedom democracy & all that Americana.

Frankly, the Iraqis are an ancient civilization. Much older than most. and if they wanted a democracy, they'd have one!

This is about the elder Bush waltzing into Iraq after a lot of bragging & swaggering & then getting his ass handed to him.

Now he has sent a boy to do a man's job.

True to form, Jr. too is failing (not the troops, but the politicians!)

America sometimes seems to have little understanding for ways of life, systems & cultures not its own. What we in the West call terrorism is actually a different form of warfare! What we call cowarice, many view as an act of bravery. We sometimes are able only to see through 'Western' eyes.

The majority of the world sees things differently.

If the US was so intent on 'spreading freedom & democracy' why not rescue the people of Darfur?

Why didn't they rescue the Tutsis in Rwanda?

Feed the Ethiopians?

So many nations need rescuing.

The Iraqis never attacked the US nor did their people invite the US in.

the bulk of the 911 terrorists were Saudis (whom the Bush administration still sees as allies!?!).

Saddam (although he is a bastard but no less or more than Kim Jong Il & a host of others) did not terrorize the US.

The US has walked in and destroyed the country!

How many Iraqi civilians have died?

We never see these images like we did in the case of Vietnam.

Your press has been censored!

The US, with its melting pot mentality might see 'the Iraqis' as all one people, but THEY do not see it that way & it is important to understand & respect that.

Look at the Irish in Belfast; same 'race', same appearance, same socio economic demographics & same Christianity-except one group is Catholic & the other is Protestant! Over this, they've been killing eachother for centuries.

Are we so naive to think that we in North America can waltze in & change them with guns?!?

This war in Iraq is un-winnable since both sides gauge 'victory' differently. Iraq never declared war; the US INVADED.

As a Quebecoise, this scares the crap out of me.

When will Bush decide I deserve to be freed from my 'terroristic' French government or the British monarchy (plus seize control of our land, government & natural resources while they're at it)?

You are right; this is a kangaroo court & Saddam is being murdered. Not that I'll miss the ass-hole or plan to attend his funeral! It sends a message to any sovereign nation that possesses resources and refuses to do or think as the USA wants it to. How soon will we face trumped-up charges and false allegations (like we are secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction & the US can prove it!) and see our Prime Minister strapped to a gurney for a lethal injection & our Queen, may God save her, deposed?

Excellent. I look forward to reading it.

manila: I don't exactly think that you post the most objective things in this forum. I don't know if you honestly believe all of the things you post, or if you just post it to make us see the non-mainstream point of view. Please don't think that I am trying to bait you into an argument - I'd actually like to hear what your reasons are.

I think it is a good thing that Saddam Hussein was executed. His trial was fair. It has been stated that his trial was unfair. I ask in what way? The Nuremberg Trials would not stand up to US Court scrutiny. Yes, he was executed for something he authorized years earlier. So what? He was tried for murdering more then one-hundred and seventy people. He actually murdered a million people.

The Iraqis did a remarkable job under the pressure of threats, murders of judges and lawyers to conduct a fair trial with appeals and then execute the sentence. I give them my praise.

It's sad that a few commentators have decided to reduce this important occassion to engage in political diatribe. I do not believe it should go unanswered.



It was never stated as the only primary goal to go to Iraq to "promote freedom(,) democracy & all that Americana." In the end, the reason for the invasion of Iraq in the eyes of the Bush administration, like the earlier invasion of Afghanistan, was the national security interests of the United States. If promoting democracy, and western values promotes national security then so be it.



The statement is based on a incorrect concept. The Iraqis are not an ancient civilization. Mesopotamia was. However, due to invasions, and migrations the people that lived in that region, and virtually every other region of the world has changed since that time. A couple fairly recent key ones here are the Turkish invasions from the East and the great Islamic invasions from the Arab peninsula after Arabia converted to Islam.

Iraq itself was was carved out of three Ottoman provinces, which explains the mishmash of Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurds. Except for the Kurds, the Iraqis are Arabs, which the Mesopotamians were definitely not.



Are you referring to the Persian Gulf War in which Saddam Hussein attempted to annex Kuwait? Perhaps you are unaware of these events? After occupying the country, Hussein allowed/ordered his troops to commit various war crimes. The international community, partially due the oil in Kuwait and partially due to the fact that Hussein was clearly not as predictable as anyone realized, mobilized a international force headed by the United States (and put together by President George H. W. Bush). Hussein believed his forces would inflict massive causalities but American loses were less then three hundred and Iraqi military loses were estimated at over 100,000. Hussein was forced out of Kuwait in humiliation.

The war was brought to an end with US forces in Iraq proper and the road to Baghdad essentially clear, but the war was ended with Hussein in control. Predictions of his fall proved naive as he declared himself victor and brutally put down rebellions which rose all over the country. He maintained his position of power all over the country except the northern Kurdish areas (protected by a no-fly zone) until toppled in the recent war.



George Walker Bush was elected President of the United States in 2001 at the age of 54 years old. Elected presidents William Clinton, John F. Kennedy, and Theodore Roosevelt were all younger when they took the oaths of office.



Minor note: George W. Bush is note a "junior." He and his father have different names. Al Gore is.



So walking into a crowd of woman and children and blowing them up (with bombs laced with nails by the way, to make sure that they rip into people) is an act of bravery? Oh, but I'm "western," I forgot. You know what I think this is, honestly? Racism. "We have to understand, they are different then us! We must expect them to blow up their own people because they are so freakin' pathetic. Look at those silly Muslims and their middle-age ways, isn't that delightful?" Yes, terrorism is a form of warfare, but so is preemptive nuclear war. If some culture adopted preemptive nuclear war I wouldn't just pretend it was some nice "difference," I would combat it before it blew us all to hell (that is an extreme example obviously).



Because what the majority of the world thinks equal good, right? It's automatic. Most people in the world are well-informed and understand the issues.



We have limited resources. I would love it if Europe did something. But we are engaged in a war of our own and cannot stop to jump into every situation. We jumped into Liberia and Haiti to prevent catastrophes, and the Bush administration actually got a treaty signed removing an area from being effected from the terrible genocide taking place there. Be aware however, just going into The Sudan will not magically solve things. We would be making enemies of the ruthless rulers in the North who would target us using the same tactics which make it difficult to fight in Iraq.



Rwanda was under the auspices of the United Nations. The UN withdrew forces despite warnings from the UN commander on the ground. The Democratic administration at the time voted along with the other European powers to withdraw forces. The situation in Rwanda at that time was as complicated as the situation in the Sudan. There was a consignment of U.S. forces nearby and I would not necessarily opposed deployment. However in the anger after Somalia's "Black Hawk Down" Incident there was a huge reluctance for a deployment that was not "easy" or did not have overwhelming force.



The terrible famine in Ethiopia took place under the adminstration under the brutal communist government of Mengistu Haile Mariam. It was his "red terror" that led to the deaths of 1,500,000 people. It would have been impossible without both war with Ethiopia and probably war with their Soviet backers to topple his regime. Efforts were made for food aid but these were counterproductive. The most famous, LIVE AID, left food on Ethiopian dock sides, and money diverted to fund Mariam's war effort. Today, Ethiopia is in far better shape.



What nations? Many people are in desperate help in tyrannical countries and places with horrible economic policies with stunt growth. How do we rescue a nation?



Saddam Hussein personally order the assassination of the former President of the United States, George H. W. Bush while he was visiting Kuwait shortly after he left office. He also ordered Iraqi anti-aircraft missiles to be fired at US and UK jets legally enforcing no-fly zones as a part the treating ending the Gulf War. Both of these actions are considered casus belli (grounds for war) in international parlance. The latter action, as well every single violation of the inspections, abrogated the Gulf War cease fire.

The Iraqi people (specifically the Shi'a and the Kurds) expected the United States to support an uprising in the immediate aftermath of the Persian Gulf War.



Yes, and Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (which was also supposed to bring the buildings down), was Iraqi. Additionally, Saddam Hussein praised the 9/11 attack (the only government in the world to do so), kept top terrorists who killed Americans in his country, and his intelligence files support the idea that he had ongoing plans to kill Americans.

Saudi Arabia apparently, or at least the leading elements of thinking in the royal family did not at the time. Since then they have indicated pragmatic support, but a williness to back the Sunni insurgency if it looks life we don't intend to stick it out.

Saudi Arabia is not a nice place, to say the least. However, on foreign affairs, the government tends to go with the wind. If they are to be moderated, they will be moderated from without, not from within.



There is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein with any attacks on the United States territory. In my personal opinion, Kim Jong Il tinkering with his father's creation, rules the single most horrible and sadistic society anywhere in the world. The only things in the twentieth century on a country level that can compare with it are Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and King Leopold's Congo.



Utter falsehood. In the beginning days of the conflict there were a bunch of big explosions on TV as US bombers hit military and government instillations. But if you think the United States has destroyed the country I suggest you look at Google Earth. In addition the amount of cars, cell phones, ect... in the car has skyrocketed. Hardly evidence of a country destroyed.



Probably tens of thousands, I would guess, in total. Most killed have been killed by the insurgents in their terror campaign of intimidation. You do not want these people to take over the government.



US accidental killings of civilians is lower now then it was in Vietnam, and it was lower in Vietnam then it was in WWII. As technology advances, and the military becomes professional they become better at avoiding tragic accidents.

Oh, and remember the My Lai massacre? US soldiers, led my William Calley, murdered hundreds of innocent civilians. That was actually an exception. On the other side, the communists had plenty of cases of killing thousands of people. But there were cases of less then enlightened conduct in Vietnam (and WWII too, soldiers were hanged for murder of civilians then too).



Prism97, you don't list where you are from. We have something called the First Ammendment which gives the right to freedom of the press. Many of the top selling newspapers have savaged Bush during both of his terms. There are disagreements and debates about the first amendment and I personally have strong opinion about these but they involve thing like does the first amendment protect the right to advertise for a political candidate or does the first amendment protect the right for a reporter not to reveal a source under oath in a court of law.



Yes, I understand there are two branches of Islam. Plus, the Kurds (who are also Islamic). Did you know a despite what they say in almanacs something like twenty to thirty percent of the people in Turkey follow some alternative religion that says that those who do not follow Mohammed are not infidels. They still believe Mohammed is a Profit however. They are called the Alevi, and they are persecuted by the Turkish government.

Well, I guess not everyone is for understanding.



I think they should just hold a vote (it is very likely they would vote to stay in the United Kingdom since a majority of the population is Protestant, and I don't see as a big deal any way). From what I understand they have a cease-fire in effect. Also the IRA assassinated politicians like Magaret Thatcher, murdered a member of the Royal Family, and blew up people on buses. Unionists responded with their own atrocities. Is this part of Northern Irish culture?



We "walzed" right into Mexico, the South, the Philippines, Germany, Japan, Panama, and Grenada. The US even defeated Islamic slave trading insurgents in the Philippines. Our strategy may have been muddled so far. But Britain looked pretty bad in 1940-41.



Saddam Hussein had the opportunity to avoid war and declined to take it. No territory, no resources were asked for. He refused, and he paid.



Two languages in one country=Terrible policy.



Simply nonsensical. First off, Quebec is part of Canada not France. Second off, it is a democracy regardless of how flawed the Canadian parliamentary system is. When has Bush spouted off at the British monarchy? He is actually (very) distantly related. Finally, when has Bush said another about wanting territory or resources? The opposite is true. When congressional Democrats put up a bill requiring the Iraqis to give us oil revenue to pay for the bill he strongly opposed it and it did not pass.



Saddam was not murdered. The charges were easily proved in a court of law and he was justly hanged just like the Nazi and Japanese imperialist war criminals.

If it is a small comfort, I swear to you if Bush talks of an invasion of Canada or killing the Steven Harper on the Queen, I will beg the Canadian army to take me in to defend your country and if not then take to the streets!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm

It's been done, Saddam has been executed. So brace for hell in Iraq, because I have a feeling this will make all the tension explode now.

That will take a while to answer, if you dont mind ill sleep on it and should have an answer tomorrow.