Saddam - What say you?

[Alucard!]

Saddam is not dead, it was his twin =(

[Alessandro17]

In a "War on [islamic] Terrorism" the last thing you would want to do is go into Iraq, remove a secular government, give the Shia majority power and in the process create the world's biggest terrorist camp and provide the entire Muslim World with ample motive to attack the West.

 

I think the US should have reinstalled him as President of Iraq, he did a lot better job of keeping the Islamicists down then it is.

 

Seriously, this is just stupid.

 

Would you believe that I have been considering for days posting something almost identical?

[Alessandro17]

EDIT: I have the sincerest wish that when President Bush is out of office, that he will be taken up and sent to the Hague to face his own war-crimes trial. Then he'll get the fair trial he's denied to so many others. Including Saddam.

 

Another point which has been very much in my mind. But I am afraid it will never happen.

[Alessandro17]

Kiko, gwprod12, killbot1000, (posts16-18), more wisdom coming from you.

 

There is also a sense of incoming disaster, as if the US had gone beyond any limit...

[Jak08]

President Bush will never be tried for crimes regarding to anything. The people with power are always hated by those who wish they had it, or fear what the other will do with it. And those rising to power will aways be feared by those who already have it. People in power will do almost anything to remain in power causing unrest by the comman people. I feal that we cannot overlook the common things that bring us as a SPECIES together, self extermination goes against what we have inside us. Instead picking sides to be on, realize that we are all on the same side.

 

Sure those who can't get along should recieve attention to correct that nature to which is best for everyone. even if in that wake several people recieve harm. The common good must be on everybodies mind.

 

At this point I have lost track of what I was trying to say so I will stress what I feel I wanted to say at the begining. Don't push people down when you can lift them on your shoulders.

[OryHara]

President Bush will never be tried for crimes regarding to anything.

 

I don't think Bush will be tried, however, now that it is the 1st, the new congress takes office, and many of them want him off of his pedestal.

[gwprod12]

Well, the ultimate sovereign against impeachment or assassination is having Cheney as your VP.

[wildcat69410]

One wonders where the notion of the evil dictator, with the power to vaporize anyone he sees fit, comes from. So, what you're saying is that if the people of Baghdad had decided to become unruly, Saddam could have sent in the storm troopers to kill them all? Even the chinese, during the Tiananman Square troubles, had to import soldiers from a distance to be sure that they would be able to kill the demonstrators. But Saddam, who's all-powerful, could easily get his men to launch chemical and biological weapons into a city populated by their families, friends and relatives.

 

The best example of a dictator having standard people put to death is Stalin, and people always point to him to prove how possible it is. Except that Stalin killed and exiled millions over decades, did it in a theoretically legal manner, and kept the whole thing on the supreme down low. Until the end of the soviet union, most people in russia never knew what Stalin had had done. So, you can claim that Saddam was being brutal and torturing vast numbers of people, etc and so forth. But if Saddam took a page out of Stalin's handbook, his people didnt know, and thus could not be considered to be oppressed. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the people of Iraq stood around while Saddam and his henchmen put their family members to death. And if they did in fact do that, how did such pathetic sheep with not an iota of self-preservation or dignity turn into terrorists and freedom fighters and insurgents in the span of 3 years?!

 

This is how I see Saddam. A standard ruthless leader, who uses all of the standard machiavellian ruthless leader tips and tricks. Built a cult of personality around himself. Probably secretly did snatch up dissidents, and probably did use conventional and unconventional weapons against rebellious peoples, like the Kurds. Definitely started a war with Iran (at the US's behest, I should add), which cost the lives of over a million Iraqis. Saddam however, could not have remained president of Iraq for long if he and his thugs had indiscriminately shot and killed whosoever they wanted to, in a reign of terror. To believe otherwise is to buy into nonsensical propaganda.

I'm not speaking of Baghdad revolting, and Saddam killing off a major city. I'm speaking of smaller towns that he massacred. Saddam's Regime wasn't all death and destruction, he also made a strong goal of gloriying himself and his actions. His face is literally on every buildling in Baghdad. When there's that kind of subconscious propaganda imagery being displayed, it's relatively hard to psychologically make the decision to revolt against your leader. We have to remember for the most part that Saddam's troops were fiercely loyal, so making the decision to destroy a revolting people was not that difficult of an act.

 

Did Saddam put his people in a "reign of terror"? No, but he did make obvious legal and illegal moves to keep himself politically in power. In doing so, he did openly execute and torture those who opposed him to the point where his anger was openly feared. Were the Iraqis oppressed? Probably yes. People don't get excited and dance a jig when he's executed simply because he was a bad leader. For the most part, he oppressed his people to submission, including the other Islamic tribes of the region. Was there indiscriminate shooting? Probably not, but Saddam and his sons had the ultimate power in Iraq.

 

In a "War on [islamic] Terrorism" the last thing you would want to do is go into Iraq, remove a secular government, give the Shia majority power and in the process create the world's biggest terrorist camp and provide the entire Muslim World with ample motive to attack the West.

 

I think the US should have reinstalled him as President of Iraq, he did a lot better job of keeping the Islamicists down then it is.

 

Seriously, this is just stupid.

 

 

Would you believe that I have been considering for days posting something almost identical?

 

Ample motive to attack the west? As if they didn't have that motive already. What we did provide them was a target, American Troops. But a motive was already present and accounted for. Reinstalling him as president would have done absolutely nothing. Simply because he held down the islamacists well is no reason to keep him as a ruler. He used violent and inhumanitarian methods to hold down his population.

 

The guy was a ruthless leader, why would anyone with a brain stem want to put him back in place?

 

EDIT: I have the sincerest wish that when President Bush is out of office, that he will be taken up and sent to the Hague to face his own war-crimes trial. Then he'll get the fair trial he's denied to so many others. Including Saddam.

 

 

Another point which has been very much in my mind. But I am afraid it will never happen.

 

Anyone care to explain how Saddam's trial was so "unfair"? The guy was given his own team of highly experienced defense lawyers, and was tried for his crimes in front of an unbiased Judge. He was given the opportunity to defend himself, and instead spent his time making inflammatory statements to the Judge. Saddam screwed himself over in his case. He didn't listen, didn't think, and was convicted. He committed a crime, and was sentenced for it.

 

Unfair? Never. And seriously, do me a favor and stop making outrageous comparisons between Bush and Hussein. Just because you don't like the guy (I don't particularly like him myself as a Republican), there's no need to go crazy on the guy. It's people like you who form up the radical left portion of the world population. Extremes solve nothing, and neither will an unwarranted war crimes trial on Bush.

[gwprod12]

The exact actions that Saddam was tried for, have been committed by our leader. If Bush isnt a (potential) war criminal, neither was Saddam.

 

How was Saddam Hussein's trial unfair? Let me count the ways. The judge was replaced in the middle of the trial. His defense lawyers were assassinated. His defense team wasnt allowed to put forth it's case. The trial was put on a time table, the trial itself wasnt legal under the Iraqi constitution. The leaders in Iraq, and ostensibly in the US, interfered with the course of the trial.

 

Maybe you'd sing a different tune about the fairness of the Saddam trial if you were called before a judge, your guilt having been ascertained before your first appearance, not been allowed to present your case, not had access to a jury of your peers, then hanged after "judged" guilty.

 

If Saddam had been given a fair trial, he probably would have been found guilty, and he probably would have still been executed.

 

I'm sure the response to the first bit will be "Bush never gassed his own people though". As far as I know, that's perfectly true. But he did drop thousands of bombs onto civilians. He also S T A R T E D a war of aggression against another nation, and everything that has happened there is his ultimate responsibility.

[wildcat69410]

The exact actions that Saddam was tried for, have been committed by our leader. If Bush isnt a (potential) war criminal, neither was Saddam.

 

How was Saddam Hussein's trial unfair? Let me count the ways. The judge was replaced in the middle of the trial. His defense lawyers were assassinated. His defense team wasnt allowed to put forth it's case. The trial was put on a time table, the trial itself wasnt legal under the Iraqi constitution. The leaders in Iraq, and ostensibly in the US, interfered with the course of the trial.

 

Maybe you'd sing a different tune about the fairness of the Saddam trial if you were called before a judge, your guilt having been ascertained before your first appearance, not been allowed to present your case, not had access to a jury of your peers, then hanged after "judged" guilty.

 

If Saddam had been given a fair trial, he probably would have been found guilty, and he probably would have still been executed.

 

I'm sure the response to the first bit will be "Bush never gassed his own people though". As far as I know, that's perfectly true. But he did drop thousands of bombs onto civilians. He also S T A R T E D a war of aggression against another nation, and everything that has happened there is his ultimate responsibility.

 

Every crime Saddm was tried for was committed by Bush? I don't know what news broadcasts you've been watching, but that's insane. Saddam was preliminarily charged with seven offenses. He was charged for the Anfal Ethnic Cleansing, the Gassing of the Kurds, Kuwaiti Invasion, Crushing Kurdish and Shia rebellions, Killing Political activists, 1983 Kurdish Massacre, and the 1974 Religious Leader Killings. Bush has done nothing even remotely similar to any of these offenses, with the obvious exception of the Iraqi Invasion. However, the Kuwaiti Invasion and the Iraqi Invasion are widely different. In the Kuwaiti war, Iraqi soldiers tortured and captures hundreds of Kuwaiti civilians on order, looted Kuwait City, and dumped thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf. Virtually zero parallels between Iraq and Kuwait.

 

The Judges only changed because a Judge resigned midway throught the trial, and I'm sure you would too if you were under multiple death threats. His case was not overtly affected by the assasination of his defense lawyers. His case was presented and decided upon. His defense team presented an official appeal, which was then turned down. The Trial was only put on a time table to prevent the case from getting out of hand, and to prevent any opportunities of violence. During the time period, he had enough time to present his case fairly, and he did. By the way, how exacly was his trial illegal? I've never heard that, but I would be interested to find out how so.

 

As for your last part, you do have some strong points. However, Bush did not drop thousands of bombs upon civilians. Yes, there have been several instances where civilians have been harmed and killed in US bombings gone awry, but there are hundreds of more instances where US bombings have successfully killed terrorists. Every war, as a byproduct, will have some civilian deaths. Did he start a war? Yes he did. Is he ultimately responsible for what occurs? For most of it, yes. Is he responsible for the UN's tally of 600,000 civilian deaths? Maybe, but mostly no. He cannot be responsible for crazy terrorists who blow themselves up. But suicide bombers aside, if Bush is ultimately responsible for everything bad going on in Iraq, then he is again ultimately responsible for every positive in Iraq as well. If and when Iraq establishes itself as an independent nation, Bush then receives credit and the "ultimate responsibility". It is far too early in this conflict to destroy Bush for his decisions in Iraq, as the end results are too far ahead to be seen.

[gwprod12]

If Saddam's war of aggression against Kuwait is a war crime, then how can Bush's war of aggression against Iraq not be?

[OryHara]

Bush has done nothing even remotely similar to any of these offenses, with the obvious exception of the Iraqi Invasion.

 

Iraqi Invasion hit the nail on the head.

 

What about torturing US civilians? Then there is the patriot act, which is Treason. Links with Enron officials. The murder of over 16,000 Iraq civilians. On top of that he is guilty of bypassing the law of this country with secret courts. Illegally phone tapping US civilians, and is guilty under computer crime laws on top of that.

 

I could list them all If I had time to look them all up. But it would waste an incredible about of space.

[ARMAGEDDON]

I think US Gouverment want to conquer Iraq's resources. And 11th September is just a "planned" provokation. Big bloody provokation for starting war where the aim is fuel and other resources. This easy say "War for anihilate terrorism", but who is terrorist?? Saddam, Ben-Laden or Bush...?? That the question.

Edited January 3, 2007 by ARMAGEDDON

[gwprod12]

If the war in iraq had been framed as a war to kill saddam and suck all of the oil out of the ground, the American people probably could have gone for it. (The rest of the world wouldnt have, which is obviously a problem).

 

It's time to get out of the fossil fuel business. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Offer Iraq to China, and see what happens. (China can put a million soldiers in Iraq, and they would not hesitate to string people up who cause trouble). Not only that, but if China can pump all the free oil they want out of Iraq, they wont need to buy it from Russia, Iran, Saudia Arabia and Venezuela, making those nations dependent on the west for their products. One of the reasons why Iran doesnt feel the need to negotiate over nuclear energy is that the Chinese wouldnt tolerate the conquest of their largest supplier of fossil fuels.

[Jak08]

In regards to offering Iraq to China, most are good points, except that I do believe that the US is still under the obligation to help any nation who wants it, to resist communisim. Last time I checked China was in fact a communist nation. Offering to let communism spread I do believe goes agaisnt that.

 

Now if there was a facist nation that was a world power that you were offering the country to that would be a different story, but seeing as how there arn't any I believe that leaves us where we are now.

 

And involving the patriot act, I do believe that our beloved Abe Lincoln did something very similar but took it a step further and anybody against the union was imprisoned. I just believe if you are going to shoot one purple duck for being purple, you better shoot them all.

[gwprod12]

the powers used by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war are powers guaranteed to the president by the constitution. and usable under specific circumstances, one of which, the civil war met.

[killbot1000]

I think a !!!CIVIL WAR!!! is a bit different than a war against another nation...

 

Don't even try to compare the patriot act to what Lincoln did...it really doesn't make any sense.

[aberracus]

First Hitler was a goood Leader... a Leader is above all an example, and a good leader should be a good example for his people.

 

Then you say GIVE iraq to a fascist country would be ok? Do you or anyone here think that Iraq is some kind of Cake wich can be gived? AND a Fascist nation is a good one? oh my god, i clearly can see now how do you justify and stand with Bush wich is probably one of the bigest fascists of our time.

 

After World War II, U.S. Charged the Japaneses Generals for a TERRIBLE War Crime .. "preemptive strike of pearl harbor" Japaneses Generals trully believe a preemptive strike was a good an valid war tactic, at that time America was sure that it was an abobination and it shouldn't be used again, and the Japanese Generals where condemned. Bush initiated a preemptive strike against Iraq, shouldnt we condemn him in the same basis?

 

Bush should be charged, but in America nobody has the balls to do it.

 

Americans have lost their soul with the patriot act, wich is only the legalization of the Fascism in America.

 

 

Sorry for my bad english

 

and happy new year, lets hope Bush is charged..

Edited January 4, 2007 by aberracus

[gwprod12]

Bush is a goddamned fing fool who's ruining the United States. Impeach!

 

I say give Iraq to the chinese. And when I say "Give" I mean to say "We're out, if you want it, we wont stop you". Or, we could just leave and let them sort themselves out. If the policy-maker's biggest fear is that Iraq will turn into a big terrorist training camp, at least the chinese will put a stop to it. And chinese control of Iraq would put a wedge between Iran and China. Or give it to the russians. They have a big military that's under-paid and under-utilized and has experience murdering terrorists, they could use the money Iraq's oil would bring.

 

The business of strategic resources is a rediculous business. If we cant get the oil we need, we should stop using it. And no excuses about how our nation is dependant on oil. A crack addict is addicted to crack, but we dont see anyone rushing in and saying the crack addict should keep doing crack because to stop doing crack is impossible. We can kill two birds with one stone. No oil means no cars, which means bicycles which means skinnier americans, and it also means more domestic energy jobs and technology.

 

Anyways, whatever. Saddam took his execution with dignity. Bush would have squealed like a stuck pig, as the coward he is. And there's no doubt in my mind that Bush is at least equally deserving of a trial for crimes against humanity.

[Jak08]

Well, I won't be the first to admit that I have alternative views. But at the least I attempt to get people thinking about the question they are presented with, and try to answer with a disasotiated opinion.

 

As this all but a matter of opinion, opinions have caused the death of hundreds of thousands of poeple. But have also created beutiful out of ugly because someone thought it could be done.

 

This post pertains to nothing about the topic of this thread other than, the prosicution of ideas shouldn't be the main lead of your cause.

[wildcat69410]

First Hitler was a goood Leader... a Leader is above all an example, and a good leader should be a good example for his people.

 

Then you say GIVE iraq to a fascist country would be ok? Do you or anyone here think that Iraq is some kind of Cake wich can be gived? AND a Fascist nation is a good one? oh my god, i clearly can see now how do you justify and stand with Bush wich is probably one of the bigest fascists of our time.

 

After World War II, U.S. Charged the Japaneses Generals for a TERRIBLE War Crime .. "preemptive strike of pearl harbor" Japaneses Generals trully believe a preemptive strike was a good an valid war tactic, at that time America was sure that it was an abobination and it shouldn't be used again, and the Japanese Generals where condemned. Bush initiated a preemptive strike against Iraq, shouldnt we condemn him in the same basis?

 

Bush should be charged, but in America nobody has the balls to do it.

 

Americans have lost their soul with the patriot act, wich is only the legalization of the Fascism in America.

 

 

Sorry for my bad english

 

and happy new year, lets hope Bush is charged..

 

First off, Bush isn't a facist, that's just the drink talking to ya. Explain to me how he's a facist, and then I'll make a response to you. I'm really hoping that Hitler comment was just sarcasm, because that is seriously a sickening remark. You say that he's a good leader, and that good leaders are good examples on their people. How exactly is Hitler a good example for his people? He slaughtered thousands of innocent Jews in the Holocaust, what a fantastic example. Why don't we all go around slaughtering Jews (hint: Sarcasm).

 

As for your WWII comparison, it's off base entirely. The Japanese attack was ENTIRELY and suddenly preemptive. There wasn't a noticed buildup on the borders, there wasn't lowering diplomatic relations, nothing at all to even INDICATE any form of hostility forming between the United States and Japan. Suddenly, without ANY warning, they attack and kill hundreds of Americans. That's a preemptive strike. Now the attack on Iraq wasn't entirely preemptive, at least not in the same way. There was slow and steady buildup, the international geopolitical scene pretty much knew it was going to happen, Saddam knew it was going to happen (that's why he moved his armies to prepare), everyone knew. The US even dropped in flyers warning of the attack and that we were friendly and there to help. Not exactly preemptive.

 

Seriously, Bush isn't a horrible person, he shouldn't be charged with any form of war crimes, and he won't. Why? Simply because the politicians in Washington and the majority of America for that matter think before they act. They're not going to pull a stupid move like that over a guy that truly doesn't deserve it. A man shouldn't entirely be punished for acting upon poor intelligence, that's just retarded.

[gwprod12]

The tensions between Japan and the United States began when Japan attacked China. While Pearl Harbor was a "surprise attack", hostilities with Japan were inevitable, and werent unexpected. The common wisdom is that Japan brutally attacked Pearl Harbor with no provocation whatsoever, but when one inspects history a little less superficially, it becomes clear that the war with Japan, while unwinnable from the Japanese perspective, was also considered inevitable, thus causing the Japanese to attempt to force settlement with the United States. Remember, the US had large interests in China, interests which directly threatened the supply of vital supplies to pre-war Japan, such as food and steel. If not for the US attempt to cut Japan out of trade with south-east asia, Japan probably would not have attacked China, which of course led to the war with the US.

 

Hitler was a great leader. He got his whole nation mobilized to fight a war on his behalf. Only an idiot would deny that Hitler was a great leader. He led his people down the wrong path, but that doesnt make him any less of a leader. If you disagree with this statement, go to dictionary.com and type in leader.

 

As to Hitler being a good example... I think you proceed from a false assumption, that good is somehow static and objective. The example that Hitler set WAS a good example for his people in their situation and time.

 

How can you claim the invasion of Iraq wasnt preemptive? Do you need to use dictionary.com to look up that word as well? The entire notion for the invasion was "preemption". As in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine (on pre-emption). Pearl Harbor was arguably a pre-emptive attack, but it was also a "sneak attack", one with little or no warning. (warning of the actual attack, not the hostilities). They arent the same thing. Doi.

 

Anyways, way off topic. Back to Saddam.

Edited January 4, 2007 by gwprod12

[xtraa]

In regards to offering Iraq to China, most are good points, except that I do believe that the US is still under the obligation to help any nation who wants it, to resist communisim.

 

Communism - Capitalism... where is the difference. Same {censored} different name.

 

In communism you are not able to speak free (if you don't want to get arrested) and to stand up for your right.

In capitalism you are not able to speak free (if you don't want to get fired) and to pay a good lawyer.

 

In communism you can't buy many things because they are not avilable.

In capitalism you can't buy many things because you can't afford them.

 

In comunism you can't trust the national media, because they are teling you propaganda.

In capitalism you can't trust the free media because they get paid by their advertisers.

 

Edited January 4, 2007 by xtraa

[gwprod12]

Ideally, in a communist society, everyone would operate collectively for the benefit of all. Thus true democracy (Like the Federation, or the Borg, I guess).

 

So, either you have an individual collective like the Federation, or a compulsory welfare communion like the Borg.

[xtraa]

Ideally, in a communist society, everyone would operate collectively for the benefit of all. Thus true democracy (Like the Federation, or the Borg, I guess).

 

So, either you have an individual collective like the Federation, or a compulsory welfare communion like the Borg.

 

I take the federation then, I guess. Voyager, here I come

 

First Hitler was a goood Leader... a Leader is above all an example, and a good leader should be a good example for his people.

 

I absolutely disagree.

 

Hitler was a bad leader. He burned his own people for his war ideas. And we are lucky he was such a moron. I don't want to know

how the world would look today if he would have took the time and waited two more years before he rushed russia and if he would

have probably won the war...

Edited January 4, 2007 by xtraa