Hussein Is Dead

Hotshot
#1
According to CNN, Hussein has been executed. I am sure he deserved it, but don't agree with the yankee role in getting him.
 
wallyj
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post

According to CNN, Hussein has been executed. I am sure he deserved it, but don't agree with the yankee role in getting him.

72 virgins.and they all are Andrea Dworkin.Life is good.Embrace it.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#3
Andrea Dworkin? I'd have gone for somebody like Debbie Travis, an intelligent, attractive, accomplished woman with guts and brains. A woman with something on her mind.

All that foolishness aside, however, I think executing Sodamn Insane is a very bad idea. Let's create a martyr, shall we, and every nutbar Islamic fundie is going to believe it was the Americans who executed him. It can only make things worse. He should have been put to hard labour, breaking rocks on a chain gang.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#4
don't agree with the yankee role in getting him.


CNN discussed this issue and said Iraqis must believe that the government in Baghdad acted on its own, independently of Bush, or the USA may be targeted by Sunnis or Baathists. This is only another chapter in this saga and more is to follow.
 
Kreskin
#5
The Iraqis used a brilliant strategy on this day. They said Saddam would be executed no later than 6am Iraq time, but it could've been anytime before that. So all stayed up and are now too tired to go out and cause trouble or celebrate. The streets of Baghdad are quiet; everyone's asleep.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

don't agree with the yankee role in getting him.


CNN discussed this issue and said Iraqis must believe that the government in Baghdad acted on its own, independently of Bush, or the USA may be targeted by Sunnis or Baathists. This is only another chapter in this saga and more is to follow.

...because American troops have been spared from attacks up until now.

They better be careful or Baghdad might become a dangerous place for Americans!
 
Ariadne
#7
Since Saddam was the only living guy that knew how to keep those three religions in Iraq from killing each other, perhaps he should have been kept around a little longer to maybe offer some advice. Sure he was heavy handed, but did anyone stop to think that perhaps that's what was needed in that country to keep them from running around chopping off each other's heads for video entertainment?
 
CanadienA1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

don't agree with the yankee role in getting him.


CNN discussed this issue and said Iraqis must believe that the government in Baghdad acted on its own, independently of Bush, or the USA may be targeted by Sunnis or Baathists. This is only another chapter in this saga and more is to follow.

You mean, the propaganda network discussed this issue

This is a bad chapter in the saga, this is another proof of how some people are just disconected from the reality. Who care if hes alive or dead, the only important thing is the irak war, it need to stop, and killing Saddam is not a good thing to stop the hate and the fights. Just another act that will make more war and more dead among innoncent iraqis. We are in 2006 and i feel like some people still live in the 19 century.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CanadienA1

You mean, the propaganda network discussed this issue

This is a bad chapter in the saga, this is another proof of how some people are just disconected from the reality. Who care if hes alive or dead, the only important thing is the irak war, it need to stop, and killing Saddam is not a good thing to stop the hate and the fights. Just another act that will make more war and more dead among innoncent iraqis. We are in 2006 and i feel like some people still live in the 19 century.



Exactamundo.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#10
No.

Were we in the 19th Century, we'd have had the good sense to remove Saddam, and replace him with a puppet, with no foolish talk of immediate democracy. We would have kept the political and police structure as it was, and inserted ourselves at the top.

Any development of democratic institutions would have been taken over decades, not months.

Only the very worst of Saddam's regime would have been executed, and that would have been done in public, after a quick and closed trial by a triumvirate of Coalition military officers.

Most of the old regime would not even lose their jobs, they would simply be made to understand that there are now NEW rules, and NEW standards, and you could follow them, or else.

Then there might even be order in Iraq, and a chance of real change.

We have become far too soft.
 
Kreskin
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

No.

Were we in the 19th Century, we'd have had the good sense to remove Saddam, and replace him with a puppet, with no foolish talk of immediate democracy. We would have kept the political and police structure as it was, and inserted ourselves at the top.

Any development of democratic institutions would have been taken over decades, not months.

Only the very worst of Saddam's regime would have been executed, and that would have been done in public, after a quick and closed trial by a triumvirate of Coalition military officers.

Most of the old regime would not even lose their jobs, they would simply be made to understand that there are now NEW rules, and NEW standards, and you could follow them, or else.

Then there might even be order in Iraq, and a chance of real change.

We have become far too soft.

The democracy stuff is nonsense. It doesn't matter what happens in Iraq the official response out of Washington always notes the democractic legitimacy, yet the Palestinians elect a government and they are abandoned in every way shape and form. We must remember, this had nothing to do with democracy, or at least very little, until Bush got himself into a quagmire.
 
CanadienA1
#12
And we are speaking about américain démocratie. This mean a "half democracy" or should i say a corrupted democracy.

I am happy that Saddam don't have the power anymore, and i think the current gouvernement is by far better. But killing Saddam just create more hate and more war. This is something Bush will never understand.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#13
this had nothing to do with democracy


Precisely what conservative Republican Kevin Phillips has been saying all along despite the fact that so many Bush apologists continue to insist that this is a "leftist" viewpoint.
 
Blackleaf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post

According to CNN, Hussein has been executed. I am sure he deserved it, but don't agree with the yankee role in getting him.

Well if the Americans and British never invaded Iraq then who would have ousted him? The French? The Canadians?

Nope. He'd still be in power right now.
 
Blackleaf
#15
Here's what the Sunday Times and The Sun have to say about it....



The Sunday Times - Comment

December 31, 2006


Leading article: Crime and punishment

There will be few, beyond the Ba’athist terrorists in Iraq, who will mourn Saddam’s death. If ever a man deserved to hang, it was Saddam, brutal dictator and mass murderer. In the West debate will rage about the rights and wrongs of capital punishment in the abstract, but it was always likely the Iraqi government and the majority of the population would demand the death sentence [[and who are we to tell them that they shouldn't hang one of their own criminals in their own, free country?]].

It is said by some that, in death, Saddam’s “martyrdom” will spur on the insurgents with renewed vigour. Others say that, on the contrary, had he remained alive but in prison he would have acted as a rallying point for opponents of democracy in Iraq. These arguments are beside the point. Saddam’s life or death is a sideshow to the chaos and violence in Iraq today, itself a by-product of his murderous regime. He sowed the dragon’s teeth of hatred between Sunni and Shi’ite. Innocent Iraqis today are reaping it. The mistakes made by the Americans after the invasion and the historic dispute between the two branches of Islam have compounded the violence, but it should not be forgotten at the moment of his death that not the least of Saddam’s crimes was his moral responsibility for this sectarian war. The massacres of Shi’ite and Kurd, and the evisceration of freedoms have left an appalling legacy. People forget too readily that Iraq was not a hell hole before the Ba’athists got their hands on it. It could have prospered. It is a sad fact that when people are horribly wronged they will often thirst for revenge. In fact, the Kurdish leadership has shown exemplary restraint so far. The Shi’ite leaders need to follow suit for there to be hope.

Yesterday’s hanging, however, has much wider implications. The man responsible for the death of up to 1m Iraqis was not summarily shot by his conquerors, as has so often happened when a butcher has been toppled. Rather, he was put on trial in courts, which however flawed, were set up as part of a new constitution, alongside a democratically elected government.


To take a positive lesson from all this, perhaps the link between Saddam’s criminality and his subsequent execution will help establish the principle that tyranny will be punished rather than appeased. When foreign policy messages are mixed, it results in dangerous unpredictability. Had April Glaspie, the catastrophically inept US ambassador to Iraq, not told Saddam that “we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait”, Saddam might well have stepped back from the invasion of Kuwait. Firm, clear messages are not always successful but they are a prerequisite of success.


Saddam’s deposition can thus be seen as part of the intended message underlying US foreign policy: that enemies of freedom need to be deterred by seeing clearly the consequences of their behaviour. That policy is controversial. If, however, his fate acts in any way as a deterrent, then it would have a positive effect.

Saddam, however, was too stupid even to understand the limits of his power in a wider world. Hafez Assad, the Syrian dictator — responsible, too, for massacres of his countrymen — handed over his tyrannical rule in a smooth transition to his son. The reason why Assad died peacefully in his bed and Saddam died at the hangman’s noose is that Assad knew how to read the West and always kept one step inside the border of realpolitik acceptability; Saddam did not.

Saddam saw himself as a latterday Gamal Abdel Nasser: the man to unite the Arab nations. But his chosen instrument was fear and military might. In the end, as Fouad Ajami points out in News Review, his legacy is the precise opposite of his intentions. Saddam’s behaviour led not only to a western military presence in Arabia, it also turned Iraq, the supposed centre of the new Arab power, into the fulcrum of the struggle between the United States and its allies and Iran, Saddam’s greatest enemy. That is the ultimate condemnation of Saddam, from any perspective.

timesonline.co.uk

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Exit Saddam


December 30, 2006

NO ONE should lose any sleep over Saddam going to the gallows.


A few bleeding hearts have managed to protest at his sentence — but without much conviction.

As Prime Minister Tony Blair has pointed out, this country stands against capital punishment anywhere.

But WE haven’t been under the heel of a murderous dictator for nearly three decades.


WE don’t know what it’s like to see members of our families disappear in the night.

Or witness tens of thousands of our fellow countrymen put to death.

The fate of Saddam was sensibly left in the hands of the Iraqis.

It’s no surprise they decided to put a noose round his neck.

thesun.co.uk
 
CDNBear
#16
Has anyone seen a body?

Has anyone seen the entire video?

I'm not sure I buy it, just yet.
 
MikeyDB
#17
You're really starting to bother me Colpy!

We've..grown too soft...?

Sure I understand that, hundreds of thousands of men women and children killed and a country left on the brink of civil war and years of violence and suffering....

Your recipie for regime change a-la-19th century is absolutely reflected no doubt in all the extremely successful importations of democracy to....

Well since you're the expert why don't you tell us all the success stories..

Then you can explain the sense of this strategy to the Haitians, Chileans, Nicaraguans, all those wonderful governments that were installed by this great strategy...

You seem to prefer mayhem and death to alternatives and I suppose that's only fair considering you're well past the time when your number would be called in a lottery to attend the festivities in some dirt-bag country like Vietnam or Iraq or any other of the wonderful examples of the efficacy of your thinking...

The strategy of the strong wealthy nations ruling the world (everyone who can be bludgeoned into compliance) has been the story of human social evolution for decades...

My that's been so so soooooo successful hasn't it!
 
Timmy Sr.
#18
As A proud Canadian,I think George Bush is in his glory now,But,being George Bush,he will eventually get himself in deep doo doo very soon.I am not a big fan of George Bush,because I think he is nothing but a bully,and I pray to god each night that he leaves China alone.I agree that something had to be done aboud Hussein,but not necessarily death.I think that Bush had everything to do with the trial,and it wasn't exactly fair.I believe that his fate was pushed upon by Bush,and that is why I think Bush is nothing but a war monger,and that he should mind his own business more.No wonder Americans are disliked all accross Europe,and probably most of the world.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#19
Saddam Hussein was no worse than many other despots that the U.S. has chosen to support over the years. That Saddam had fallen from favour was clear when the U.S. military tried to take him out several times during the first gulf war. The complete destruction of the infrastructure in virtually every major city in Iraq signalled the end of Iraq as a country. I would bet there will be three separate states that will arise from that mess. The Americans don't even talk about reconstruction anymore.
 
MikeyDB
#20
TimmySr.

Welcome

The tragedy is that "Americans" are a generous self-aware and kind hearted people who've been conditioned to relinquish their humanity for a dollar... No not all but the guys handing out the contracts in the back rooms don't care to hear about body bags, maimed children and broken lives with no future...

To these folks it's "business as usual" and the spirit of Americans that could make it great once more is silenced....
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#21
I'm ashamed to say, I watched the bloody video of the hanging. Those doing the hanging cannot claim any moral high ground. The whole affair was disgusting. I wonder how many Iraqis would volunteer to hang G.W. Bush?
 
CDNBear
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

I'm ashamed to say, I watched the bloody video of the hanging. Those doing the hanging cannot claim any moral high ground. The whole affair was disgusting. I wonder how many Iraqis would volunteer to hang G.W. Bush?

Did you see the whole hanging #juan?

Gotta link?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#23
An earlier one was clearer than this but enjoy...

http://pandachute.com/videos/leaked_...ing_hung_video
 
CDNBear
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

An earlier one was clearer than this but enjoy...

http://pandachute.com/videos/leaked_...ing_hung_video

That was hardly definitive.

I'll wait for the compilation cd pack.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

That was hardly definitive.

I'll wait for the compilation cd pack.

Yes, Cinnimascope(sp) and Dolby surround sound would be more appropriate for this event
 
CDNBear
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

Yes, Cinnimascope(sp) and Dolby surround sound would be more appropriate for this event

I hope that was in the same spirit of facetiousness as mine, lol?
 
Hotshot
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Well if the Americans and British never invaded Iraq then who would have ousted him? The French? The Canadians?

Nope. He'd still be in power right now.

There are a lot of other leaders that are not good people, but that does not give you the right to invade and capture whomever you want. Those are aggressive war crimes.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot

There are a lot of other leaders that are not good people, but that does not give you the right to invade and capture whomever you want. Those are aggressive war crimes.


And no amount of self righteous lies can ever justify wasting half a trillion of our tax dollars or the loss of Americans in yet another foreign war that can only lead to further international violence.
 

Similar Threads

7
Saddam Hussein executed
by CBC News | Dec 31st, 2006
32
The TRIAL OF SADAAM HUSSEIN
by jimmoyer | Nov 8th, 2005
0
Hussein Featured in GQ
by The Philosopher | Jun 20th, 2005
5
Is Saddam Hussein really in custody?
by Andem | Jul 17th, 2004