Go Saddam A-Go-Go!

[The Widowed]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam

I hope the Iraqi officials aren't lying. Off to Hell with you and your sons, bastard. >:]

[MikeKAY]

They had him pegged as dead by 10:00 PM Eastern. So yeah, it's pretty damn official. He's dead. Honestly, he deserved no less then the death of a common criminal, and now he can join his murderous, rapists sons in Hell or oblivion.

[suburbanhell]

"In Baghdad's Shiite enclave of Sadr City, people danced in the streets while others fired guns in the air to celebrate the former dictator's death. The government did not impose a round-the-clock curfew as it did last month when Saddam was convicted to thwart any surge in retaliatory violence."

It's like when the Lakers win a championship.

[Snakebite]

only better :D

[Solario]

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I'm pretty happy he's dead, on another I think it's a big insult to the Sunni muslims because most of them are all wrapped up in Eid ul-Adha (which is a celebration that can be compared to Christmas), further from this I'm kind of with the EU on this and say that this can not be helping the situation in Iraq, being as December has already been the most violent month since the invasion and lastly, I would much have prefered it if he had just rotted in jail for the rest of his miserable existence and not run the risk of martyring him.

[Krypto]

Heh, I wouldn't mind watching it if it was televised.

[Solario]

A good portion of it was. Not the actual hanging, but the stuff leading up to it (and a little afterwards) is practically on a moebius loop on CNN.

[Half Life]

They shoudla put it on pay-per-view

[The Widowed]

Remember about 20 years ago when the Shi'ites of the Middle East were the self-proclaimed enemies of the West and the Sunnis weren't such bad folks at all?

My, how times have changed. :think:

My brother was the one who pointed this out to me last night. Apparently we checked out the news (him on MSN and me on Yahoo) mere minutes after news of his execution was leaked. Then Craig and I reflected on the life and times of Saddam Hussein...the lavish palace of gold and marble he lived in while his people starved, the miserable little hole in the ground where our troops finally caught up with him (a far cry from that aforementioned lavish palace), the denial of UN weapons inspectors seeking to enter Iraq and do their job (inspections which he agreed to allow in the first place), the botched handling of his own military during Bush War I, the news about his two sons getting gunned down by the Americans he hated so much....

Ahhh, what a bastard. Happy trails, you old sand rat. >:]

[razoras]

Remember about 20 years ago when the Shi'ites of the Middle East were the self-proclaimed enemies of the West and the Sunnis weren't such bad folks at all?

I'm not sure anyone outside of the middle east really ever heard of Sunnis and Shi'ites until the past 5 years.

[The Widowed]

I'm not sure anyone outside of the middle east really ever heard of Sunnis and Shi'ites until the past 5 years.
Get out! How soon you've forgotten all that jazz with the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Shi'ite radicals wanting to destroy the Americans and the Jews and the Israelis and the Sunni Muslims and, well, pretty much anyone who wasn't one of them. :p

That was a fine day indeed when Khomeini finally went the way of all flesh too. All those desperate followers of his, so afraid that he might actually die one day, all of them making one last grab at him and his coffin as they bore him to his grave (and they finally had to airlift the coffin out of there, just to get it away from the fanatics)...those Shi'ite radicals seem to have lost a lot of their steam since he died, eh? :think:

[8 Ball]

http://saddamhung.ytmnd.com/

[Blackbat]

A few people had the actual full hanging on Youtube for a few hours. I mean the full graphic version, showing his neck snapping and everything.

They all got taken down though.

[Gold Rush]

Meh, I will actually miss the old Bastard.

He was a source of good joke material for awhile there.

Well, c'est la vie!

But not in Saddam's case. ;p

==============================================

Gold Rush

[razoras]

Get out! How soon you've forgotten all that jazz with the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Shi'ite radicals wanting to destroy the Americans and the Jews and the Israelis and the Sunni Muslims and, well, pretty much anyone who wasn't one of them. :p

I have no idea who that is without consulting Google, sorry. I'm assuming he's the guy who was put on shirts like "Hell no Ayatollah" or whatever, referenced in a Simpsons episode a decade ago. Pre-dates my existence as a human being, for sure. Predates me caring about anything global by a couple decades, to boot.

How many people really know anything about Khomeini beyond him being "radical" and "dangerous"? Even if they remember him at all? Probably very few.

[RedSwitchblade]

I have no idea who that is without consulting Google, sorry. I'm assuming he's the guy who was put on shirts like "Hell no Ayatollah" or whatever, referenced in a Simpsons episode a decade ago. Pre-dates my existence as a human being, for sure. Predates me caring about anything global by a couple decades, to boot.

How many people really know anything about Khomeini beyond him being "radical" and "dangerous"? Even if they remember him at all? Probably very few.

Ayatollah Khomeini was an extremist who deposed the Iranian Shah at the time, who was the USA's buddy. Dropped the country into a militant theocracy and began rallying the country into religious zeal. He imposed a "fatwa" on such people as Salman Rushdie, which means whomever kills him gets a free ticket to paradise.

Not the nicest of guys, a little too overt in his extremism for my tastes.

[sheld0n]

So the greasy bum is dead, eh?
I'd pay 100 denars to see him flung into a tree on his funeral.

[Darknesse]

I don't understand all of the vehemence against Saddam. Frankly, even though he was a tyrant and a murderer, let's not forget that our whole invasion of Iraq was based on trumped up charges.

Remember the beginning of the war when it was about "disarming Iraq"? The American people were all about that. Then all the sudden when it became obvious that the White House was ignoring the evidence that there were not in fact WMD, it became about "regime change", and making Iraq a place where terrorists would not be able to hold ground... ignoring the fact that Saddam absolutely hated Bin Laden, and that Bin Laden even called him an infidel.

It's like you people are told who to hate and don't even stop to think why.

I would never celebrate the death of another human being, no matter how flawed. I would reserve that judgment for those on high.

However, the brainwashed idiot masses will gladly throw their stones. Check out this quote:

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. Sept. 11 changed the strategic thinking for how to protect our country. Used to be that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."

What? Since when did Saddam have anything to do with anything against America? Why do people pretend that he did ANYTHING to us?

Still not understanding.

Our current President has his hands covered in blood. American blood that has been spilled in the name of politics and it is rare that anyone says anything about it. You can lay the entirety of the deaths from this war at his feet.. every last one of them, because the war was nothing more than a ploy to get him reelected by the ignorant, uneducated, unwashed, retarded hordes of people that voted for him simply because we are in a war (polling shows that a decent percentage of his votes in 2004 came from that idiocy).

If you are telling me that the Iraq war has anything to do with protecting America, then you are being intellectually disingenuous. Maybe for oil, maybe for Politics, but not for the security of this country. Every time I hear someone say that our troops are in Iraq so that they can fight for the freedoms that we enjoy here in America, I get angry. To pretend that those soldiers are dying so that we can remain free dishonors their deaths. Why not honor our troops and be honest about why they are dying. So that we can see how senseless their sacrifices really are.

Be honest, they are dying for money, for power, and for greed. Maybe you can stretch it and say that they are dying for the people of Iraq, but I have a hard time thinking that this administration gives a flying fuck about any of the people of Iraq.

[Bitter Babe]

I would have rather seen him rot in jail. Now he will be seen as a martyr and the video of his death is going to cause people to act out in revenge. There were protests yesterday in many middle eastern countries because of it.

[ThunderMace]

Wow.
I actually agree with Darknesse for once.
Nail. Head. Right there.

[Dynamo-Man]

can we move this to debate?

[Bitter Babe]

I don't really think it needs to be moved there. Darknesse was stating his opinion which he has the right to do.

[Dynamo-Man]

Kayfine. Then I will keep my opinions to myself, as they will surely cause a debate. :D

[Darknesse]

Kayfine. Then I will keep my opinions to myself, as they will surely cause a debate. :D

Go start a thread there. I will read it and if needed, I will check you into the boards a couple times.

[Dynamo-Man]

Go start a thread there. I will read it and if needed, I will check you into the boards a couple times.
Nah. I'm past that stage in my life. I have long ago learned that a gaming/hobby forum is the LAST place I want to debate politics. Heck, I don't even like debating game-related stuff.

[Kinetix]

Wow.
I actually agree with Darknesse for once.
Nail. Head. Right there.

Wow...yeah...

[Seadevil]

Very well said, Dark.

[Krypto]

I don't understand all of the vehemence against Saddam. Frankly, even though he was a tyrant and a murderer, let's not forget that our whole invasion of Iraq was based on trumped up charges...

While it's true that most people in the country are told who to hate, and throw their stones based on that, and it's true that american blood is on Bush's hands, it's also true that Saddam is a criminal responsible for the death of many more. Though, I do think I remember hearing that Saddam himself wasn't bad, but his sons were. He acted in fear of his sons or something like that.

While you may not celebrate the death of another human being, I will. Because an eternity in hell still won't make up for the lives of those who he killed. So yes, I will celebrate his removal from this world, and the lives that were saved because of it.

[Kinetix]

(Devil's advocate) Why is it our responsibility to take him out if he doesn't threaten us though? Why aren't we going into North Korea and killing Kim Jon Il? Hasn't he done horrible things also? North Korea certainly threatens us more than Iraq.

[Krypto]

(Devil's advocate) Why is it our responsibility to take him out if he doesn't threaten us though? Why aren't we going into North Korea and killing Kim Jon Il? Hasn't he done horrible things also? North Korea certainly threatens us more than Iraq.

Because if nobody takes responsibility for it, then nothing would ever change. Someone's gotta take the hit and accept all the blame for going in and taking him out. As for why we haven't invaded North Korea? Cause they actually DO have nukes, duh. And if a new World War sparked because of it, I doubt they'd hesitate to use them on our soil. :P

[Seadevil]

It amuses me that 'nukes', 'on our soil', and the :P face were used in the same sentence. :lol:

[Endless One]

I don't understand all of the vehemence against Saddam. Frankly, even though he was a tyrant and a murderer, let's not forget that our whole invasion of Iraq was based on trumped up charges.

Remember the beginning of the war when it was about "disarming Iraq"? The American people were all about that. Then all the sudden when it became obvious that the White House was ignoring the evidence that there were not in fact WMD, it became about "regime change", and making Iraq a place where terrorists would not be able to hold ground... ignoring the fact that Saddam absolutely hated Bin Laden, and that Bin Laden even called him an infidel.

It's like you people are told who to hate and don't even stop to think why.

I would never celebrate the death of another human being, no matter how flawed. I would reserve that judgment for those on high.

However, the brainwashed idiot masses will gladly throw their stones. Check out this quote:

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. Sept. 11 changed the strategic thinking for how to protect our country. Used to be that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."

What? Since when did Saddam have anything to do with anything against America? Why do people pretend that he did ANYTHING to us?

Still not understanding.

Our current President has his hands covered in blood. American blood that has been spilled in the name of politics and it is rare that anyone says anything about it. You can lay the entirety of the deaths from this war at his feet.. every last one of them, because the war was nothing more than a ploy to get him reelected by the ignorant, uneducated, unwashed, retarded hordes of people that voted for him simply because we are in a war (polling shows that a decent percentage of his votes in 2004 came from that idiocy).

If you are telling me that the Iraq war has anything to do with protecting America, then you are being intellectually disingenuous. Maybe for oil, maybe for Politics, but not for the security of this country. Every time I hear someone say that our troops are in Iraq so that they can fight for the freedoms that we enjoy here in America, I get angry. To pretend that those soldiers are dying so that we can remain free dishonors their deaths. Why not honor our troops and be honest about why they are dying. So that we can see how senseless their sacrifices really are.

Be honest, they are dying for money, for power, and for greed. Maybe you can stretch it and say that they are dying for the people of Iraq, but I have a hard time thinking that this administration gives a flying fuck about any of the people of Iraq.

I don't have to comment, since this just about sums it up. I definately agree with not celebrating the death of another...and no one will ever convince me taking the life of someone who no longer places a threat to me and mine is okay.

[coldcut]

I'm not sure anyone outside of the middle east really ever heard of Sunnis and Shi'ites until the past 5 years.

In Islam, this is a bit like not knowing the difference between Catholics and Protestants.

In the general populace, you may be right. However, let's not act like this is some sort of minor trivia that only a few people in academic circles knew about. Maybe we have all been ignorant, but that doesn't mean that we're all excused from that ignorance.

[Krypto]

I don't have to comment, since this just about sums it up. I definately agree with not celebrating the death of another...and no one will ever convince me taking the life of someone who no longer places a threat to me and mine is okay.

EO, hypothetically, lets say you're a blond haired blue eyed male, and Hitler never posed a problem for you. You're saying that you're perfectly fine letting him kill thousands of Jews? "Screw the Jews, I'm fine and that's all that matters."

You're not celebrating their death, per se, you're celebrating the future. The future of those whose lives are no longer threatened by him.

[coldcut]

EO, hypothetically, lets say you're a blond haired blue eyed male, and Hitler never posed a problem for you. You're saying that you're perfectly fine letting him kill thousands of Jews? "Screw the Jews, I'm fine and that's all that matters."

You're not celebrating their death, per se, you're celebrating the future. The future of those whose lives are no longer threatened by him.

There's some moral ground between killing a man and dancing about with his severed head, and understanding that a man had to be killed before he killed someone else.

I ain't celebrating the guy's death. But I'm going to cross the street to take him down off the noose, either.

[Endless One]

EO, hypothetically, lets say you're a blond haired blue eyed male, and Hitler never posed a problem for you. You're saying that you're perfectly fine letting him kill thousands of Jews? "Screw the Jews, I'm fine and that's all that matters."

You're not celebrating their death, per se, you're celebrating the future. The future of those whose lives are no longer threatened by him.

Yes of cours Krypto, that's excactly what I was saying, that because I'm not directly affected by something, "well screw them all, I won't notice" How did you know? Don't be daft.

If the only way to end something like Nazi Germany was to end Hitler's life? You bet I'm for it. But Killing Saddam Hussein when he was already in jail?

You will never ever convince me that Capital Punishment is a good idea.

[Krypto]

Nah, I'm not daft. ;)

There are enough people that escape from prisons here in the United States, do you really think that Saddam would be held in an Iraqi prison for very long? Course not, whether it's someone breaking him out, or something else, he'd get out eventually. Hell, I'm not even completely convinced that he was killed, with all the doubles he used to use in the past.

Sometimes, capital punishment is a necessary evil.

[Xanatos]

I read this whole thread thinking you were talking about James Brown. Boy was I ready to go!

Capital Punishment is retarded. You already have them in a cell. And no, they're not going to escape. Lord Recluse and Arachnos are not real. Is killing him going to bring back the people that died? no. What's it going to actually achieve that locking him up for the rest of his life hasn't?

[Kinetix]

Not wasting resources on him for no purpose? Lessening the overpopulation of jail? Saving money on his guards?

[Xanatos]

Not wasting resources on him for no purpose? Lessening the overpopulation of jail? Saving money on his guards?

Counterpoint: Sadam inprisoned would serve as a constant message of Americas dominance (and possible reforming?) of a notorious dictator and war criminal. What if he were to renounce his old ways in his old ways. Surely that would make America look just.

[Krypto]

I read this whole thread thinking you were talking about James Brown. Boy was I ready to go!

Capital Punishment is retarded. You already have them in a cell. And no, they're not going to escape. Lord Recluse and Arachnos are not real.

That was where i stopped taking you seriously, by comparing real life to a videogame. Saddam, the most powerful man in Iraq isn't going to slip out of an Iraqi prison, with the countless number of people who rioted when he was captured in the first place? Keep dreaming, Xan.

What's it going to actually achieve that locking him up for the rest of his life hasn't?

The assured prevention of the murders of countless others?


And aren't counter-points supposed to actually counter something? You didn't counter any of Kin's points. :P

[Xanatos]

And aren't counter-points supposed to actually counter something? You didn't counter any of Kin's points. :P

I didn't make it clear that The benefits of not killing him (as outlined by me) outweighed the benefits of killing him (as outlined by Kin.) It was a comparison of positives of two hypothetical situations. The conclusion, in my mind, was that not killing him would have been more beneficial.


Oh and if there's risk Saddam would be broken out in Iraq then move him to an American prison.

[Krypto]

Yeah, I don't think it's that simple, Xan...

What do you honestly think would happen if he was put in an American prison? He'd be killed pretty quickly, I'm guessing.

[Xanatos]

Not if he was an international POW. He'd be a constant example of how those that fought against him DON'T HAVE TO RESORT TO HIS METHODS OR MURDERING PEOPLE.

Wars are not just fought on battlefields, but in the minds of people.

[Krypto]

Not if he was an international POW. He'd be a constant example of how those that fought against him DON'T HAVE TO RESORT TO HIS METHODS OR MURDERING PEOPLE.

HIS methods? Killing is suddenly HIS method? Killing has existed since the beginning of time. People kill for food, for power, for protection, etc. The problem is, you're lumping it all into the same category, which really doesn't work. They're not resorting to HIS methods.

Wars are not just fought on battlefields, but in the minds of people.

Don't you think some people would want closure on the issue? To know that the threat is finally gone?


Should I pull out some more hypothetical situations? Lets say a man is holding your family at gunpoint, he's already shot and killed one of your children, and now he's got his sights set on your wife. Somehow you manage to wrestle the gun away from him, but he quickly pulls out a knife and holds it up to your wife's throat. You've got the gun in your hands, what do you do? (lets also say that you're a good shot, in this situation. :p)

Would you kill him?
Would you resort to "his" method?
Is it "his" method, or is it YOUR method, protecting your family?

[coldcut]

Saddam hasn't been the most powerful man in Iraq since the Iraqi Army was dissolved. If he had been broken out of prison yesterday, he'd probably still be dead today. The Shiites are the ones that are essentially in control right now, and it's not like he could go hide with the Kurds. Every foreign government in the Middle East hated him, and Al Qaeda and friends were probably more happy than we were to see him deposed.

There are men for whom you can make the "he'd be dangerous if he broke out" argument, but Saddam was no Napoleon.

[Cloud Runner]

What goes around comes around...I personally think he got what he deserved, though I dont wanna get into the huge debate.

[WingedAvenger]

The assured prevention of the murders of countless others?You're right. Now that Saddam Hussein is dead, Iraqi has become a utopia of peace and non-violence. :rolleyes:


Don't you think some people would want closure on the issue? To know that the threat is finally gone?

Should I pull out some more hypothetical situations? Lets say a man is holding your family at gunpoint, he's already shot and killed one of your children, and now he's got his sights set on your wife. Somehow you manage to wrestle the gun away from him, but he quickly pulls out a knife and holds it up to your wife's throat. You've got the gun in your hands, what do you do? (lets also say that you're a good shot, in this situation. )

Would you kill him?
Would you resort to "his" method?
Is it "his" method, or is it YOUR method, protecting your family?
Poor analogy. Saddam Hussein hasn't been holding a knife to anyone's throat for the past three years.

I think that's really the crux of the problem with your argument here. You keep assuming he would have been just as dangerous rotting in a solitary cell for the rest of his life has he would have if he were still running Iraq.

[Xanatos]

HIS methods? Killing is suddenly HIS method? Killing has existed since the beginning of time. People kill for food, for power, for protection, etc. The problem is, you're lumping it all into the same category, which really doesn't work. They're not resorting to HIS methods.



Don't you think some people would want closure on the issue? To know that the threat is finally gone?


Should I pull out some more hypothetical situations? Lets say a man is holding your family at gunpoint, he's already shot and killed one of your children, and now he's got his sights set on your wife. Somehow you manage to wrestle the gun away from him, but he quickly pulls out a knife and holds it up to your wife's throat. You've got the gun in your hands, what do you do? (lets also say that you're a good shot, in this situation. :p)

Would you kill him?
Would you resort to "his" method?
Is it "his" method, or is it YOUR method, protecting your family?

Bad example, wife is in immediete danger. Sadam presented no immediete danger to anyone. A more accurate example would be thus:

I wrestle the gun away from him and knock him out, leaving him helpless on the floor. I have the option of calling the police and having him locked up forever, or shooting him in the head.

What should I do?

Most uninvolved people would say I should call the cops because it's the right thing to do. As he killed my kid I'd probably shoot him in the back of the head.

What I would do in the situation isn't overly relevant however. As my own personnal ethics are not and should not be on the level of the ethics of an entire government or to a greater extent, an international governing body. Where I would be governed by emotion and a sense of primal duty, a government should be governed by logic and the greater good. I would do things that were selfish to my own ego, my own sense of desire for closure would control my actions. Such things are below the desires of a decent government.

In regards to methods. I will simply say change the word to "action" and hope to better explain what I meant more coherently. To every action there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction. If he murders others and we murder him, we are by definition not resolving the situation. We are just throwing more fuel onto the fire. Disagree with me? Take it up with Newton.

[Solario]

(Devil's advocate) Why is it our responsibility to take him out if he doesn't threaten us though? Why aren't we going into North Korea and killing Kim Jon Il? Hasn't he done horrible things also? North Korea certainly threatens us more than Iraq.

Well (and I know you're playing Devil's Advocate... but I'm still countering it ;))... It's a question of deciding whether or not you want to be World Police. Either you do it, or you don't. You don't start making exceptions because you need the oil. And about Kim Jong Ill? See the last word in the previous sentence.

And contrary to popular belief, Capital Punishment trials and assorted affairs are actually more expensive than life in prison. At least according to DeathPenaltyInfo.Org.

And, you know, it would probably have been a good idea to send him to Hague for trial, because A. he'd be out of Iraq and basically much harder to free (despite having no influence whatsoever on the current factions there) and B. no need (or option) for the death penalty. Of course, as someone said (might be on this thread even), that would imply that the US actually cooperated with NATO.


And murdering a defenseless man (no matter how vicious and sick he is) sounds like Saddam's MO.

[Grae Knight]

Nah. I'm past that stage in my life. I have long ago learned that a gaming/hobby forum is the LAST place I want to debate politics. Heck, I don't even like debating game-related stuff.

I totally agree with you there D-Man. Politics and religion are two debates I try to avoid on these boards.

Sex on the other hand...GAME ON!!!

Just to help things along though. The Iraqi judicial system tried, convicted and executed Saddam not the Amercian judicial system. If it was the American system he would have 20 more years of appeals ahead of him :mad:

[Krypto]

You're right. Now that Saddam Hussein is dead, Iraqi has become a utopia of peace and non-violence. :rolleyes:

Never said it was, however, you can guarantee that Saddam won't be causing any problems anymore.



Poor analogy. Saddam Hussein hasn't been holding a knife to anyone's throat for the past three years.

Eh, I figured people would take it that way. It wasn't an analogy at all, just a hypothetical situation to see if Xan would resort to murder, i.e. "his" methods given the right situation.

Bad example, wife is in immediete danger. Sadam presented no immediete danger to anyone. A more accurate example would be thus:

Again, not an analogy, just seeing where you'd go with the subject of killing another human being.

To every action there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction. If he murders others and we murder him, we are by definition not resolving the situation. We are just throwing more fuel onto the fire. Disagree with me? Take it up with Newton.

Well, unfortunately, we can't give life back to those who have lost it. "By definition", keeping him in prison isn't resolving the situation either.

As my own personnal ethics are not and should not be on the level of the ethics of an entire government or to a greater extent, an international governing body. Where I would be governed by emotion and a sense of primal duty, a government should be governed by logic and the greater good.

Who says they weren't acting out of logic or for the greater good? They went in because they suspected Saddam of having WMDs. Seems logical enough to me. Whether that was the real reason or not, I don't know. But I'm not some nut who makes up crazy theories and accuses the goverment of being responsible for the events that occured on 9/11.

I would do things that were selfish to my own ego, my own sense of desire for closure would control my actions. Such things are below the desires of a decent government.

A perfect goverment is a silly fantasy, especially in a democracy. :p

[Darknesse]

The central point of my rant remains however.

Why would you celebrate his death? I admit, if someone hurt/killed one of my kids, I would not turn them into the police and it would take them about a month to die at my hands.

That is not the same thing as hating Saddam or rejoicing at his death.

Any Non-Arab in America that is dancing and saying things like “enjoy the trip to hell” is a freaking tool. What it comes to is the fact that people in this country have gotten so complacent that they just believe what they are told by those in power. Hell, a decent percentage of Americans STILL allow the White House to trick them into thinking of Iraq when they think of 9-11.

While I am not one of those people who think that 9-11 was perpetrated by our government (although I would not be surprised to find out that the final collapse was triggered by the government to make sure that it collapsed in an orderly fashion as to not cause even more damage.. it just looks like charges were set up to do precicely that), I fully believe that the tragedy of that day has been twisted and turned by the current administration into furthering their own agendas.

Should Saddam have been disarmed? Sure.. if he had weapons, yes. Should he have been overthrown? I don’t think so. Just because our country does not like or agree with the sovereign ruler of a country does NOT mean that we have the duty to remove him from office. Hell, if that was the case, then would Bush still be president? Or does might in this case make right?

If anything, the correct course of action would to have been to allow the international community to come to a consensus on a course of action to take, rather than to allow the credibility and weight of the American voice to be discounted due to our actions. Why have we allowed this administration to destroy the credibility that we have spent the last half century enjoying as a voice for what is right in this world?

The only step we can honestly take to redeem our national credibility would be to actually look at the reasons and motivations for what really is going on, show our books as it where, and correct the problems that we have, rather than live in a state of blind nationalistic pride.

Yet, in certain ignorant circles I would be called unpatriotic, which is absurd. It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.

[Endless One]

can we move this to debate?


I agree with this too. I think that this is a debate.

[Bitter Babe]

It was already moved to the Debate section....

[Endless One]

It was already moved to the Debate section....

:P wow, what's in this coffee?

[Bitter Babe]

LOL, you just need a bigger cup today ;)

[Endless One]

Should I pull out some more hypothetical situations? Lets say a man is holding your family at gunpoint, he's already shot and killed one of your children, and now he's got his sights set on your wife. Somehow you manage to wrestle the gun away from him, but he quickly pulls out a knife and holds it up to your wife's throat. You've got the gun in your hands, what do you do? (lets also say that you're a good shot, in this situation. :p)

Would you kill him?
Would you resort to "his" method?
Is it "his" method, or is it YOUR method, protecting your family?

Have you ever looked in the face of someone responsible for ending a loved one's life? I have and I can still say I do not believe in capital punishment. Again behind bars, Hussein was behind bars. Comparing a made for T.V. movie senerio about a family held hostage situation and this case is misleading. I have seperate opinions for each situation.

[Krypto]

Well, the hypothetical situation is a now or never, do or die kind of situation, which is a bit different. It's admirable that you can look someone in the face and not wish death upon them, I couldn't. I believe in justice, if someone willingly commits an act like that, they should be punished justly. You can rely on God to punish them, but there's no telling that he even exists.

Darknesse, did you hear about the civilain death count in Iraq? Last I heard it was around 100,000. Heh, I don't think even Saddam and his kids killed that many people.

[Cryogentic]

The central point of my rant remains however.

Why would you celebrate his death? I admit, if someone hurt/killed one of my kids, I would not turn them into the police and it would take them about a month to die at my hands.

That is not the same thing as hating Saddam or rejoicing at his death.

Any Non-Arab in America that is dancing and saying things like “enjoy the trip to hell” is a freaking tool. What it comes to is the fact that people in this country have gotten so complacent that they just believe what they are told by those in power. Hell, a decent percentage of Americans STILL allow the White House to trick them into thinking of Iraq when they think of 9-11.

While I am not one of those people who think that 9-11 was perpetrated by our government (although I would not be surprised to find out that the final collapse was triggered by the government to make sure that it collapsed in an orderly fashion as to not cause even more damage.. it just looks like charges were set up to do precicely that), I fully believe that the tragedy of that day has been twisted and turned by the current administration into furthering their own agendas.

Should Saddam have been disarmed? Sure.. if he had weapons, yes. Should he have been overthrown? I don’t think so. Just because our country does not like or agree with the sovereign ruler of a country does NOT mean that we have the duty to remove him from office. Hell, if that was the case, then would Bush still be president? Or does might in this case make right?

If anything, the correct course of action would to have been to allow the international community to come to a consensus on a course of action to take, rather than to allow the credibility and weight of the American voice to be discounted due to our actions. Why have we allowed this administration to destroy the credibility that we have spent the last half century enjoying as a voice for what is right in this world?

The only step we can honestly take to redeem our national credibility would be to actually look at the reasons and motivations for what really is going on, show our books as it where, and correct the problems that we have, rather than live in a state of blind nationalistic pride.

Yet, in certain ignorant circles I would be called unpatriotic, which is absurd. It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.

The president has stated over and over that we are not in Iraq becuase of 9/11. It has also been stated several times including when we first attacked that intelligence reports, ours and other countries, said Iraq had WMD so instead of waiting for them to be able to use them we did a premtive strike.

[Dynamo-Man]

It was already moved to the Debate section....
Well, in her defense, it's still in "Asylum" which is where many of us go for the "fun" stuff. So, in essence, by putting "Debate" here, it's like putting a turd in the middle of the desert buffet. :P

[Endless One]

Well, in her defense, it's still in "Asylum" which is where many of us go for the "fun" stuff. So, in essence, by putting "Debate" here, it's like putting a turd in the middle of the desert buffet. :P


:eyebrow: That's just wrong :P I need more coffee.

[Darknesse]

The president has stated over and over that we are not in Iraq becuase of 9/11. It has also been stated several times including when we first attacked that intelligence reports, ours and other countries, said Iraq had WMD so instead of waiting for them to be able to use them we did a premtive strike.

I see 2 problems with this. Firstly, there was PLENTY of evidence that showed rather conclusively that there were no WMD.

White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t. It is pretty clear that happened. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml "The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," - Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official.

Are you kidding me? I can find quote after quote after quote where he draws a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. Sept. 11 changed the strategic thinking for how to protect our country. Used to be that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."


Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

Pretty blatant if you ask me. Again, it's just part of the misleading the american public that has been going on for 6 years now.

[Tarberetta]

OMG he's dead Jim.

[Bitter Babe]

Have to agree with Darknesse. This administration has done nothing but try to mislead and justify their reasoning for this invasion and none of it holds water. He still references Sept. 11 and Iraq quite often.

[Cryogentic]

I see 2 problems with this. Firstly, there was PLENTY of evidence that showed rather conclusively that there were no WMD.

White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t. It is pretty clear that happened. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml "The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," - Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official.

Are you kidding me? I can find quote after quote after quote where he draws a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.






Pretty blatant if you ask me. Again, it's just part of the misleading the american public that has been going on for 6 years now.

What they are saying is before 9/11 we ignored threats and didn't act till we got hit. Now we are going to stop threats before they can hit us.

[Darknesse]

What threat?

There was ALOT of intelligence that said there is no threat from Iraq, but the White House manipulated the intel, only giving credence to whatever information they could find that would possibly justify a war.

When was Iraq EVER a threat to America? When did anyone outside of the White House ever even try to pretend that we were in ANY danger from Iraq?

Again, they were going to invade Iraq no matter what the intel said. It was a policy decision. A policy decision that I honestly believe was made in order to win a second election and to forward an agenda. I can see no other reason for this war honestly.


If you honestly believe that attacking Iraq in any way shape or form helps the security of this country, then I would LOVE to hear that argument.

I would argue the opposite. We are LESS secure due to the actions of this adminsitration. A whole new generation of potential terrorists have been spawned by our policy driven invasion of Iraq.

[Bitter Babe]

I think though by going out and going after Iraq, etc. it actually can have the opposite effect. In some places it has made people hate us even more and that does not make us any safer and will subject us to even more possible attacks.

[Akamaz]

What threat?

There was ALOT of intelligence that said there is no threat from Iraq, but the White House manipulated the intel, only giving credence to whatever information they could find that would possibly justify a war.

When was Iraq EVER a threat to America? When did anyone outside of the White House ever even try to pretend that we were in ANY danger from Iraq?


Actually D, as part of the USMC intel analyst team, specialising in the middle east, Iraq was mainly considered a threat because many terrorist groups used it as a training ground, and the regime that was in place (saddam) actually supported some of those groups. there were multiple links placed between Saddams regime and terrorist groups.

Saddams regime violated un resolutions multiple times regarding the no fly zones, kicking out un weapons inspectors, and other offences.

I think it's so funny that people say we went to iraq to take their oil. We actually had a better deal for oil from iraq with the oil for food program, instead of actually having to pay cash for it.

The Oil-for-Food Programme was established by the Security Council on 14 April 1995. Some 3.4 billion barrels of Iraqi oil valued at about $65 billion were exported under the Programme between December 1996 and 20 March 2003. Of this amount, 72 per cent of the total was allocated towards humanitarian needs nationwide after December 2000. The balance went to: Gulf War reparations through a Compensation Fund (25 per cent since December 2000); UN administrative and operational costs for the programme (2.2 per cent) and costs for the weapons inspection programme (0.8 per cent).

About $31 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment were delivered to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food Programme between 20 March 1997 and 21 November 2003, including $1.6 billion worth of oil industry spare parts and equipment. Additional goods and supplies from the Programme's multi billion dollar humanitarian pipeline are being delivered on a priority basis in consultation with the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraqi representatives and UN agencies and programmes. (21 November 2003)

So I guess we went to steal all their oil, and to elect bush a second term. Why the heck do you think gas prices reached an all time high last year? Hmm.. it must be cause we went to iraq to steal their oil hurr hurr hurr!

Think about that next time someone says we went to iraq to take their oil.

[Seadevil]

Lord Recluse and Arachnos are not real.

What?! Oh god! MY LIFE IS A LIE!

*runs off sobbing*

[Darknesse]

So I guess we went to steal all their oil, and to elect bush a second term. Why the heck do you think gas prices reached an all time high last year? Hmm.. it must be cause we went to iraq to steal their oil hurr hurr hurr!

Gas prices reached an all time high because the Republicans saw fit to not do anything to their buddies in Big Oil for gouging the American consumer. Instead, they were rewarded for it by getting a MASSIVE tax break, at a time they were making record profits at the expense of the working class..

No. Not to steal their oil. I never said that I believe that we went to war in order to elect Bush a second time though.

However, you have inadvertently made my point. When did Bush tell us, the American people that the reason we were going to Iraq was because it was a training ground for terrorists? If that was the case, then why would he not give us THAT intelligence and reasoning rather than give us the spin that he did? Even better, why are you finding justifications for a war that the president never used? Why should you have to?

I recall him saying some stuff about 9-11 and WMD and Regime Change and Disarming Saddam, but I have not heard that justification.

[Akamaz]

Probably because Al Queda used Iraq as one of their training grounds as well, and using words like "9/11 and Al Queda" has a bigger impact than just saying "terrorist train there"

As far as the WMD angle tho, would you have rather have gone into iraq and had the intel that said there was WMD be wrong, , or stay at home and have it proved right by an attack?

[Seadevil]

As far as the WMD angle tho, would you have rather have gone into iraq and had the intel that said there was WMD be wrong, , or stay at home and have it proved right by an attack?

Last I heard, neither Iraq or North Korea had the capability to launch a nuclear missile that would reach the US. Hell, I remember N. Korea testing a missile like that not too long ago, crashed off the shore of Japan.

[coldcut]

Actually D, as part of the USMC intel analyst team, specialising in the middle east, Iraq was mainly considered a threat because many terrorist groups used it as a training ground, and the regime that was in place (saddam) actually supported some of those groups. there were multiple links placed between Saddams regime and terrorist groups.

Ak, I read a lot of this stuff, and even the most hard-core, pro-war partisans have a hard time coming up with actual terrorist ties between Hussein and any terrorist organization. Not to say that they didn't exist, but they appear from the public evidence to have been pretty minimal at best.

Hussein's regime was secular as far as the Middle East goes, which meant that he was fundamentally at odds with guys like Bin Laden and the like. If you're talking about the semi-political groups like the PLO, most of the countries in the region support those guys, along with a ridiculously high percentage of the population.

I don't know what you're saying specifically here, but it contradicts a lot of what has appeared publicly to date. And it's not like the Bush Administration has been a shrinking violet about their perceived successes.

[WingedAvenger]

Never said it was, however, you can guarantee that Saddam won't be causing any problems anymore.
Actually I could pretty much have guarunteed that after they locked Hussein up, adopted a new government, and elected a new President.

Eh, I figured people would take it that way. It wasn't an analogy at all, just a hypothetical situation to see if Xan would resort to murder, i.e. "his" methods given the right situation.
So then in order to make a point, you proposed a hypothetical situation that had nothing to do with the subject of the debate?

[Gold Rush]

As much as I would like to comment on some of the earlier coments about Capital Punishment vs. Executions, the topic has moved beyond that, but luckily, still focused on Saddam and his role in the world/prison.

So, I will just wait for another debate on Capital Punishment.

But, I will add, I am with Darknesse on this. Bush unfortunately only sees what he wants to see. Afghanistan is falling apart on us. North Korea has been ignored. Just bad policy decisions all around.

I will add a minor point.

There really should have been no video/images of Saddam being hung. It is unfortunate people took video on their cell phones. I understand those people are being punished. I also understand the "need" to show the result of their vengance upon Hussein. While I understand this nature, I wished more folks acted with more decorum and just left their cell phone cameras and video cameras OFF. We don't need images like that at this particular time. They only serve to stir up Saddam-supporters (Martyr).

=================================================

Gold Rush

[Akamaz]

Last I heard, neither Iraq or North Korea had the capability to launch a nuclear missile that would reach the US. Hell, I remember N. Korea testing a missile like that not too long ago, crashed off the shore of Japan.

I's not the question of a missile. Bombs are easy enough to deliver in person. heck missiles are about as cost ineffective as possible to actually deploy a WMD with the sheer number of suicide bombers available.

[Akamaz]

Ak, I read a lot of this stuff, and even the most hard-core, pro-war partisans have a hard time coming up with actual terrorist ties between Hussein and any terrorist organization. Not to say that they didn't exist, but they appear from the public evidence to have been pretty minimal at best.


well, if you prefer sources...

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002 Reuters

Iraqi TV on March 4, 2002: (Saddam appearance)

"We are glad of the Istishhadiyyah [suicide] and heroic spirit of the Palestinian people. By Allah, what the Palestinian people does is beyond my expectations…”

Terrorists supplied medivcal care by Baathist party

Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley


According to dissidents, journalists who have visited, and even United Nations weapons inspectors, Saddam Hussein appears to have offered training to terrorists, in addition to funding, diplomatic help, safe haven and medical care.

The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. at this site was an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.16

Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program “Frontline,” stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.” He added: “Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations.”

He continued: “We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes...They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.”

so there's a few sources at least showing funds given to terrorists, special attention medical care provided by the state, and also training facilities ran by the state training terror tactics.

Also outside of these sources, there is my own personal experiance of being part of US Military Intelligence dealing specifically with the Middle East in the period going up to 9/11.