Saddam Hussein captured [Archive]

himura-dono

12-14-2003, 10:22 AM

i'm trying to decide on my travel arrangements for 2k4, i'm still deciding between mexico or canada. i knew about this last night, early early early morning for most of you, when hapakristina sent it to me, but i was too lazy to post in the news section.

i dunno, part of me feels sick to my stomach, and not just because the fuckwad of a human being (you thought i was gonna say saddam, didn't you?) bush is going to get re-elected, but because the pride that the military and citizens at large take in the gruesomeness in what these manhunts has churned up in our own minds. i was discussing with another friend after i found out about the capture and he brought up how sick it made him feel when he heard his professor saying with a smile and attitude that of a pep leader in how saddams sons were "found dead" (read: slaughtered with no REAL attempt at bringing them in). i also remember how people were talking about how they were so glad saddam was dead and the way he died "under a bunker buster" when he was believed to be dead in his palace after the bunker busters were dropped and a 'possible' blood match to saddam was found in the wreckage.

i'm not excusing any of his past crimes, but even the article done by cnn was disturbing; ending with "we will find him, and we will kill him." are we depraved animals? why are so many people so glad about any chance in taking him apart? he didn't directly attack the us with a missle strike, he posed no immediate threat, and all charges made against him of wmd's have yet to be proven true, yet everyone is happy that he's been caught, his sons slaughtered, etc.

yay, and now for the long drawn out interrogation and torture as well as a speedy execution. hey, maybe the pay-per-view people can even make a dime off it. =\

i felt this quote would be seen sooner if i posted it in here and not just in my sig.

"PATRIOTISM IS ONLY A VIRTUE OF THE VICIOUS"

dragonlord

12-14-2003, 10:23 AM

I don't like how the capture of Saddam MIGHT be seen as an election coup by voters. Saddam is going to be paraded around like a propaganda puppet for the '04 election.

Oh, that's a given. If I were Bush I'd milk the hell out of this one. They've used captured prisoners as propaganda tools since the Roman Empire. It has a long, illustrious history and who are we to deny them that tradition.

Personally, I call for a public execution of Saddam.

yoMAMA

12-14-2003, 10:24 AM

i dont think bush getting re elected is a certain thing.

in fact, i think howard dean is gonna beat him.

himura-dono

12-14-2003, 10:28 AM

Personally, I call for a public execution of Saddam.

thanks for only proving my point.

dragonlord

12-14-2003, 10:31 AM

thanks for only proving my point.

You're welcome...ya bleeding-heart, lefty, pinko, commie agitator. :tongue:

kitty

12-14-2003, 10:32 AM

i dont think bush getting re elected is a certain thing.

in fact, i think howard dean is gonna beat him.

lol... why do you think that? bush was the 9/11 president, he started the war in iraq, and caught saddam. i think the american people will forget about the piss-poor economy and the national debt in light of this false patriotism.

^-- said in despair :(

deez nuts

12-14-2003, 10:55 AM

i'm gonna be playin "courtesy of the red, white and blue" by toby keith all the today.

yoMAMA

12-14-2003, 10:56 AM

lol... why do you think that? bush was the 9/11 president, he started the war in iraq, and caught saddam. i think the american people will forget about the piss-poor economy and the national debt in light of this false patriotism.

^-- said in despair :(

let's wait and see, no need for despair...

remember, an incumbent doesn't guarantee anything.

Gore lost, and the economy was the best in 10 years, plus this time, the green and nader wont be screwing around....at least i hope so....

capturing saddam doesnt mean anything...

Nil...

yoMAMA

12-14-2003, 10:59 AM

right now the media is having a field day, and that's why the made the power off button on the remote.

yoMAMA

12-14-2003, 11:00 AM

thanks for only proving my point.

EXACTLY!

mr. x

12-14-2003, 11:11 AM

Bush is going to be reelected. The Dems should just pull a 'Head of State'.

whats dat

hooligan

12-14-2003, 11:14 AM

wow, finally, i'm still not going to vote for bush

mr. x

12-14-2003, 11:15 AM

Something I came across on another board

http://www.naughtybooth.com/board/attachment.php?s=&postid=637409

hahahaha, sure it looks tacked on quickly but im surprised the humor sites are on it already.

im surprised nobodys mentioned the obvious, that saddam looks like a certain other dictator we all know and love

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/vert.saddam.coalition.ap.jpg

http://w1.1559.telia.com/~u155900388/images/fidel.jpg

ChairmanMah

12-14-2003, 11:35 AM

theres probly a milllion more saddams even more crazy than him in the middle east.

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

this was probly discussed before but does anyone think he was really in charge of 9/11?

kitty

12-14-2003, 11:41 AM

whats dat

1. Elect Dean to become primary candidate. (He's the most popular guy)
2. Have him suffer accidental death while on campaign trail.
3. Appoint Al Sharpton as new Dem candidate for presidential office.
4. Sweep left-leaning support for being first major party to nominate a candidate of colour.
5. Have him get assassinated on the campaign trail.
6. Throw in Kucinich or someone who is bound to lose for being too extreme.
7. Lose 2004 to Bush.
8. Come back in 2008 with Hillary Clinton, on the platform that the Dems are so liberal and open-minded, thereby able to sweep both minority and women constituency for nominating first candidate of colour and first female candidate.

(for the FBI... I'm NOT A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY!!! )

mr. x

12-14-2003, 11:43 AM

thing is Hillary actually said we need more troops in iraq, so i fail to see how that would solve the guerilla issue

kitty

12-14-2003, 11:58 AM

thing is Hillary actually said we need more troops in iraq, so i fail to see how that would solve the guerilla issue

mm... but people think she's so much more left than she is. Prolly 'cuz she's a woman and clinton's wife.

in 2008, if they play it right, the nation will conveniently forget her actual opnions, and elect her as a figurehead.

hooligan

12-14-2003, 12:00 PM

(for the FBI... I'm NOT A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY!!! )
hahahahaah

Sledge

12-14-2003, 12:07 PM

is it just me or does anyone else find that sadaam looks like a slimmer version of santa clause?

This one's for you, Tao baby. (http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_670saddamsanta)

Might take a while to load - I don't think their server's used to the bandwidth crunch invariably accompanying any mention from Fark.

Tao

12-14-2003, 12:22 PM

This one's for you, Tao baby. (http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_670saddamsanta)

Might take a while to load - I don't think their server's used to the bandwidth crunch invariably accompanying any mention from Fark.
:redface:

mr. x

12-14-2003, 12:51 PM

mr. x

12-14-2003, 12:59 PM

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/{83EDA556-75CA-43C1-B919-15F72E222AD0}.gif

from politicalcartoons.com

SunWuKong

12-14-2003, 01:01 PM

merging. :smile:

fresh22

12-14-2003, 01:14 PM

Martino

12-14-2003, 01:40 PM

Good news, yes. Maybe now things will calm down in Iraq.

No, this will have exactly the opposite effect, I'm sorry to say.

Martino

12-14-2003, 01:55 PM

How many of you think the attacks will stop? I'm sure Hussein ultimately funded some of the attacks, but it's hard to believe he was that involved in coordinating everything while in hiding. His capture is certainly a morale downer for the attackers, but I think the hope that Saddam would rise again is long gone, and the motivation for attacks is still there. As the UN mulls pulling out of Afghanistan, can we succeed with our second project?

The attacks will continue, you just cannot be sure of the motivation of the attackers. The coalition is facing more than just loyalists to the ex-regime. It's a heady brew of all kinds of factions, with all kinds of agendas - a bit like Afganistan when the Soviets pulled out. The Americans have to face up to the fact that finding Saddam wont simplify matters on the ground at all.

Napoleon Chynamite

12-14-2003, 02:43 PM

hahahaha, sure it looks tacked on quickly but im surprised the humor sites are on it already.

im surprised nobodys mentioned the obvious, that saddam looks like a certain other dictator we all know and love

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/vert.saddam.coalition.ap.jpg

http://w1.1559.telia.com/~u155900388/images/fidel.jpg

In that pic he actually looks more like Walter Matthau from Grumpy Old Men fame.

kasia

12-14-2003, 02:44 PM

As I asked on another site: 'Will they televise his trial a la O.J. Simpson?' :rolleyes:

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how things go in Iraq, but wasn't the villian supposed to be Osama bin Laden? Where is he?

i doubt he'll get a trial.

Fireblade

12-14-2003, 02:55 PM

I think after the capture of Saddam, next year the troops will be working hard to capture Osama. The thing is, this will just be another excuse Bush can use to make "progress" in Iraq. Consequently, I do think he'll magically find Osama Bin Laden maybe a month or two before his campaign run. And then like everyone has said, will use him to parade around.

As for reconstruction in Iraq... it's not going to happen. We'll somehow pull out because supposedly we don't have the money for it, and Iraq will have to fend for itself. I'm almost certain it will happen.

MellowDrama

12-14-2003, 04:05 PM

I think the continuing violence (sadly) will prove it was never about Saddam. It was and is about the people of Iraq.

Faithless

12-15-2003, 12:21 AM

i doubt he'll get a trial.

Possibility of trial for Saddam (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001814895_websaddamtrial14.html)
Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council with close ties to the Bush administration, insisted Sunday that Iraqis would try their former leader.

"Saddam will face trial for his crimes against the Iraqi people in an Iraqi court," Chalabi said, adding that the trial would be public "so that the Iraqi people will know his crimes."

It would be interesting what he would have to say.

moJo

12-15-2003, 01:02 AM

Hussein's Capture is Yesterday's News (http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17387)
some excerpts:
it's time to return to Earth and reality. The TV talking heads tell us that the 2004 elections and the future of Iraq were decided this morning when Hussein was found in a hole. In my humble opinion, that's perhaps the stupidest comment since Paris Hilton speculated that Wal-Mart is a store that sell walls. Catching Saddam was a mop-up operation, rather like the slaying of his sons a few months back
As far as I can tell, catching Saddam is not going to fix Iraq's economy, build a functioning democracy, prevent a Sunni-Shiite civil war, or bring back the Americans and Iraqis who have died and will continue to die at the checkpoints, home invasions and while driving their Humvees down the nation's roads. Humiliating Hussein with public dental examinations will hopefully reassure some Iraqis that peace is on the way, but while it would be nice if his old cronies who may be involved in the insurgency would lay down their arms, I wouldn't hold my breath.
We Americans are now in one of three miserable positions: We can deny that the Administration lied and continues to lie about Hussein's ties to terror and the threat he allegedly posed to the United States; we can get angry about the lies and afraid of how truth has become a casualty of 9/11; or we can be aware of the lies, but cling to a faith that good things will come from them, that the ends justify the means.
We are, none of us, in a very good place. We are encouraged to believe in an Alice-in-Wonderland world in which Saddam Hussein is a workable stand-in for Osama bin Ladin; that it is worth sacrificing thousands of American lives to grant human rights to Iraqis but not to Congolese, Burmese, Liberians, Uzbekistanis, Syrians, Colombians, North Koreans and other societies that lack precious natural resources; and that progressives actually oppose human rights and base their political positions on an irrational hatred of alleged patriots like George W. Bush.

Martino

12-15-2003, 04:06 AM

Hussein's Capture is Yesterday's News (http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17387)
some excerpts:

Some interesting quotes. The important thing now is the question as to whom should try Saddam, and where. One thing that is clear to me, and that is it shouldn't be the Iraqi's OR the Americans.

A tribunal in Iraq would be too summary, and in all likelihood his political opponents would have him executed at the earliest opportunity. The Americans, with their poor human rights record, cannot be trusted to observe international law, and would probably hold a tribunal of their own behind closed doors, and classify any transcripts.

The whole reason-detre for the US invading Iraq was, of course, "WMD" (for WMD read oil), but now that they have moved to the goal posts and are claiming Iraq as a humanitarian victory. Ironic, as this overlooked the fact that America armed and supported the regime during the period of most of the atrocities, supported his war against Iran (which killed one million people), and turned a blind eye to Iraq's gassing of the Kurdish villagers of Halabja.

It could even be said that the US caused the last major atrocity - the two massacres that occurred after the first Gulf War. America encouraged the Kurds (to the north) and Shiites (to the south) to rise up against Saddam - then turned its back on them when Saddam bloodily suppressed the revolts.

A trial of Saddam at, say, the European Court, would at least lay bare the full sordid details of Iraq's modern history, and would answer a lot of questions about American foreign policy towards Iraq.

Leviticus

12-15-2003, 05:21 AM

Some interesting quotes. The important thing now is the question as to whom should try Saddam, and where. One thing that is clear to me, and that is it shouldn't be the Iraqi's OR the Americans.

A tribunal in Iraq would be too summary, and in all likelihood his political opponents would have him executed at the earliest opportunity. The Americans, with their poor human rights record, cannot be trusted to observe international law, and would probably hold a tribunal of their own behind closed doors, and classify any transcripts.

The whole reason-detre for the US invading Iraq was, of course, "WMD" (for WMD read oil), but now that they have moved to the goal posts and are claiming Iraq as a humanitarian victory. Ironic, as this overlooked the fact that America armed and supported the regime during the period of most of the atrocities, supported his war against Iran (which killed one million people), and turned a blind eye to Iraq's gassing of the Kurdish villagers of Halabja.

It could even be said that the US caused the last major atrocity - the two massacres that occurred after the first Gulf War. America encouraged the Kurds (to the north) and Shiites (to the south) to rise up against Saddam - then turned its back on them when Saddam bloodily suppressed the revolts.

A trial of Saddam at, say, the European Court, would at least lay bare the full sordid details of Iraq's modern history, and would answer a lot of questions about American foreign policy towards Iraq.

What’s the difference, he’s going to be hanged either way. What ever country or court that he faces will judge him as guilty and hang him.

Martino

12-15-2003, 06:48 AM

What’s the difference, he’s going to be hanged either way. What ever country or court that he faces will judge him as guilty and hang him.

Oh, well, firstly that depends on whether the country he is tried in observes the convention on human rights (something America selectively complains about, but frequently tramples itself).

Secondly, no has yet said with what he will be accused of.

Do not misunderstand me, this is a call for a trial under proper supervision and control - this is not a call for a 'fair trial for Saddam, Saddam is innocent until proven blah'. I want to see justice done properly, and that includes finding out the whys and 'where-fors' behind Saddams rule, the funding, the atrocities, WMD and all that. There's a lot more to the question of Iraq than Saddam.

Culpability needs to be established - and this man has all the answers.

artsfartsyjanet

12-15-2003, 10:15 AM

omg. i thought so too! :eek:

is it just me or does anyone else find that sadaam looks like a slimmer version of santa clause?

Blue dice

12-15-2003, 11:41 AM

What's terribly ironic about all of this is that Saddam really was just another CIA "yes" man until he started following his own program and getting a little too ambitious. Then it was time for the U.S. to get all sanctamonius and disavow ties it ever had with Iraq pretending to be the moral upper hand. What bullshit, the U.S. has as much innocent Iraqi blood on its hands as Saddam. The U.S. created the situation to allow the baathists to rise above the alternative parties during that era. Saddam was nothing but a chess piece in the end and now he'll be an election puppet before he (probably) gets put to death.

indiemusic

12-15-2003, 12:29 PM

Martino

12-15-2003, 12:57 PM

I don't know how the news is reported in the States, but here the politicians are trying to shift attention to these mass graves the Coalition forces have uncovered.

Now, is it me, or have politicians suddenly develeloped very short memories? The horrible, horrible things that have been going on in Iraq have been happening not recently, but for decades.

The US-led forces are not stopping a humanitarian disaster in progress, but are looking at the evidence of one which had already happened ... the free press and organisations like Amnesty International had already reported on these ... So why is the US only now becoming interested? Well ... let's see ... the invasion forces met with very little resistance ... Iraq was found to have almost no army, with even the Republican guard a mere shadow of its former self ... no WMD's were used even at Saddams hour of need ... and all the aluminium tubes, mobile chemical labs and factories found en route to capturing Saddam were later quetly not mentioned any more because, well, it was found they had nothing to do with the production of WMD. Saddam didn't even have any SCUDS left.

No WMDs. No justification for war. No votes.

So now America adopts this new retrospective justification for invasion. A caring America concerned about a brutal dictator. Hey, if it was their real reason, I would have supported it. But it wasn't. And all those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are still dead, but now they're being used by the US AGAIN.

This, in a nutshell, is why I think the US is not qualified to put Saddam on trial. It's simply speculation at this point, of course, but I believe, from past experience, that a US court or military tribunal will simply not allow free reporting of whatever he says. Great chunks of it will be suppressed because it might "compromise the war on terror". There was a crime in Iraq, there were victims, and there were guilty parties. Saddam did the deed, but there was also accessories to the fact, outside of Iraq. A proper trial could reveal so much, and the US does indeed have some of that blood on its hands.

Martino

12-15-2003, 01:10 PM

Iraq is not even an isolated incident. How many of you know the history behind the US's support for the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975?

Martino

12-16-2003, 04:02 AM

Muwaffaq al-Rubaiye, an influential member of the US-selected Iraq Governing Council has said that it will hang Saddam one day after it is given sovereignty. No chance of them being accused of running a kangeroo court then ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3323287.stm

dragonlord

12-16-2003, 08:20 AM

Martino

12-16-2003, 08:51 AM

...Or maybe Saddam just deserves to get hung.

He must face justice, and justice isn't a lynch mob.

dragonlord

12-16-2003, 08:57 AM

He must face justice, and justice isn't a lynch mob.

Oh! He'll face justice. It's already been officially stated that his people will be the ones who will judge him, then he'll surely be hung. The last thing we want is to add more fuel to the fire and create another martyr for the fundamentalists.

Martino

12-16-2003, 02:23 PM

Oh! He'll face justice. It's already been officially stated that his people will be the ones who will judge him, then he'll surely be hung. The last thing we want is to add more fuel to the fire and create another martyr for the fundamentalists.

Mmm? Officially stated by who? On what legal grounds? And just who would be best served by Saddam's rapid execution?

This boils down to whether you are looking for justice, or revenge, or another cover-up? I'm labouring the point here, but there are a lot of questions that need answering about Saddam's rule over Iraq. Just how would you expect an Iraqi court to arrive at any kind of truth by speedily despatching this man? What would the aim of the trial be? Rubber stamp his death warrant?

And then what? One ex-evil dictator disposed of, but you let his accomplices in crime get clean away?

Consider this. WHY did the US government arm Saddam? Were they under the impression that he was a firm but fair ruler? Under what stipulation was Saddam funded? Why did the US government supply him with the biological weapons that he used against the Iranians, and, later, his own people? Why did the US government turn a blind eye to these actions? These same US administrations armed and funded Indonesia. Kissinger was IN Jakarta on the eve of the invasion of East Timor. Suharto got away with killing at least 200,000 Asians, no questions asked. This is our chance to ask questions.

Saddam needs to give us real answers, but I dont think the Iraqi or American courts are going to be asking the right questions.

dragonlord

12-16-2003, 02:33 PM

Um...You're not expecting me to respond to all of your points are you?...

But, who better to decide his fate than the very people that he has tortured all these years? I believe that Bush stated in his public address that he will be afforded the justice that he has denied others.

seanp

12-16-2003, 03:35 PM

Saddam is an idiot.. I rather die than get captured. Makes you more "heroic"

xdlin22

12-16-2003, 04:50 PM

he looks like santa

Martino

12-17-2003, 12:35 AM

Um...You're not expecting me to respond to all of your points are you?...

Well ... it would be nice to hear your opinion on the points in my last few posts. On East Timor perhaps?

What is your take on Bush's invasion of Iraq then? A bid to promote independence and democracy? If so, why doesn't he want the same for Taiwan?

Martino

12-17-2003, 01:10 AM

he looks like santa

You must have had some seriously scary Christmas's if you saw that coming down your chimney ... :o)

dragonlord

12-17-2003, 08:03 AM

Well ... it would be nice to hear your opinion on the points in my last few posts. On East Timor perhaps?

What is your take on Bush's invasion of Iraq then? A bid to promote independence and democracy? If so, why doesn't he want the same for Taiwan?

East Timor? The only thing that I know about East Timor was that it was colonized by the Portuguese. Then, a few years ago, Indonesia tried to retake it after its bid for independence, by using militias and thugs...on the downlow though.

I think that Australia got into it and Britain sent a platoon of Gurkhas (Billy-Bad-Asses in my book!) to quell the violence. They did an excellent job too.

The only thing that I wished could have come out of that, was for the arrest of General Wiranto, supposedly the mastermind behind all of the violence.

And, that's about the limit of my knowledge on East Timor.

As far as the invasion of Iraq goes...I agree we could've approached it with more tact, without the chest thumping. But, in the end, the world IS a better place without Saddam. Could you imagine what that maniac and his equally dysfunctional sons could've caused if left to their own devices? The world is none the worst for wear without their sorry asses.

Taiwan? Last time I checked, they WERE a thriving democracy sans despot. Why on god's green earth would we want to do to them, what we just did to Iraq?

Bhodi_Li

12-17-2003, 08:03 AM

Good news, yes. Maybe now things will calm down in Iraq.
We are currently engaged in combat operations in Samara. It hasn't calmed down, just lost one Stryker to an IED and had plenty of small arms and RPG's fired at us. For the records, the Iraqi terrorists fight poorly, our snipers were able to take many of them out, their accuracy of fire is low due to poor BRM techinques. This includes RPG fire. Had two fly by us yesterday. They are also poor night fighters due to the lack of NVG capability, however they fight much harder during the day and use the crowds to their advantage.

dragonlord

12-17-2003, 08:09 AM

We are currently engaged in combat operations in Samara. It hasn't calmed down, just lost one Stryker to an IED and had plenty of small arms and RPG's fired at us. For the records, the Iraqi terrorists fight poorly, our snipers were able to take many of them out, their accuracy of fire is low due to poor BRM techinques. This includes RPG fire. Had two fly by us yesterday. They are also poor night fighters due to the lack of NVG capability, however they fight much harder during the day and use the crowds to their advantage.

What unit are you with Bhodi?

If I may ask, what's the prevailing attitude amongst the general populace with Saddam's capture?

Bhodi_Li

12-17-2003, 08:13 AM

yeah, the military would be glad to find some WMD's--they've used up most of theirs bombing the shit out of civilians.
1) The US Military doesn't use WMD. WMD are considered nuclear, biological, chemical agents.
2) Come down here with us and fight. What experience do you have with the military? Ever been in war? Ever fought an enemy that uses the civilian population to hide in or as human shields? If your answer to any of these questions is no, then I suggest you verify, quantify, and analyze your comments before putting them and yourself on public display. Want to help, fight so we can go home to our loved ones sooner, otherwise please enjoy your security at home, I'll make sure that there are no more terrorist attacks on the US by hunting them down and killing them. What's on TV tonight?

Bhodi_Li

12-17-2003, 08:25 AM

but because the pride that the military and citizens at large take in the gruesomeness in what these manhunts has churned up in our own minds.

i'm not excusing any of his past crimes, but even the article done by cnn was disturbing; ending with "we will find him, and we will kill him." are we depraved animals? why are so many people so glad about any chance in taking him apart? he didn't directly attack the us with a missle strike, he posed no immediate threat, and all charges made against him of wmd's have yet to be proven true, yet everyone is happy that he's been caught, his sons slaughtered, etc.

"PATRIOTISM IS ONLY A VIRTUE OF THE VICIOUS"
You have obviously been here in Iraq. People wash themselves in sewage water, but you should see the palaces in Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit.

There will be no smoking gun or hard evidence to ever prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq was supporting terrorism. All I know is what I have seen here and it isn't pretty.

The terrorists started this when they attacked us. We didn't start this war. Terrorism does not limit itself to national borders. Understanding them will not prevent further attacks. There are fundamental differences in the western world and the middle eastern world that fuel terrorist causes. This was absolutely a pre-emptive strike to prevent reconsolidation of state funded terrorist cells. Do I like being here? Hell no! It sucks. Do I always agree with the cause. Nope. Am I protecting your ass so you can write on the internet? Yes. And yes I am happy that Saddam was captured. It was people from our Division. It will help demotivate some of the loyalists, but not the religious fanatics. It continues to provide more security for the Iraqi nationals. Most of them, except in places like Tikrit and Samara, are happy that Saddam is captured. Your welcome.

Bhodi_Li

12-17-2003, 08:46 AM

Martino

12-17-2003, 08:57 AM

East Timor? The only thing that I know about East Timor was that it was colonized by the Portuguese. Then, a few years ago, Indonesia tried to retake it after its bid for independence, by using militias and thugs...on the downlow though.

I think that Australia got into it and Britain sent a platoon of Gurkhas (Billy-Bad-Asses in my book!) to quell the violence. They did an excellent job too.

Whaaaat? Indonesia launched a full scale air and sea invasion of the country in 1975, a modern invasion using highly trained troops. No one came to East Timor's aide, least of all the British. Most foreign journalists in the country at the time were executed. There then followed 24 years of oppression during which an estimated 200,000 East Timorans were killed.

Martino

12-17-2003, 08:59 AM

Taiwan? Last time I checked, they WERE a thriving democracy sans despot. Why on god's green earth would we want to do to them, what we just did to Iraq?

Reread my post.

Blue dice

12-17-2003, 09:17 AM

I am with the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. We are based out of Fort Lewis, Washington and are the army's transformation unit. Which is to say that we get all the new shit. Unfortunately that means when the terrorists blow our stuff up, it's really hard to get replacements.
Just curious but are you reserve or active duty? Also, are you an enlisted man or officer? What's your MOS?

Ironically, many of my relatives (cousins mainly) are in the military. I might have gone that route too if it weren't for the fact that I detest this country's policies in general.

dragonlord

12-17-2003, 10:09 AM

I am with the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. We are based out of Fort Lewis, Washington and are the army's transformation unit. Which is to say that we get all the new shit. Unfortunately that means when the terrorists blow our stuff up, it's really hard to get replacements.

Hey, Bhodi!

I, for one, am proud of you, and grateful for all that you, and the rest of the members of our armed forces have sacrificed. It's a hard job, I know. I only wish that I could be there to lend a helping hand. Here's to a speedy and safe return.

dragonlord

12-17-2003, 10:23 AM

Whaaaat? Indonesia launched a full scale air and sea invasion of the country in 1975, a modern invasion using highly trained troops. No one came to East Timor's aide, least of all the British. Most foreign journalists in the country at the time were executed. There then followed 24 years of oppression during which an estimated 200,000 East Timorans were killed.

1975?! I was a wee tyke back then, so I wouldn't be in any position to comment on it. I had other things on my plate at the time, like escaping from my home land, cuz a bunch of bitch ass commies in black pajamas had the urge to "Unify".

Are we talking about the same thing here? Cuz I'm referring to their struggle for independence in 1999. Australia led a multi-national UN mandated peacekeeping force, which oversaw their election for independence.

Bhodi_Li

12-17-2003, 10:41 AM

Just curious but are you reserve or active duty? Also, are you an enlisted man or officer? What's your MOS?

Ironically, many of my relatives (cousins mainly) are in the military. I might have gone that route too if it weren't for the fact that I detest this country's policies in general.
I am a Captain in the active duty getting ready for command. The biggest challenge with being in the military is having to support policies that you might not agree with. There are many of us who didn't agree with the war in Iraq, but once it starts and you have soldiers you need to move ahead and do the best.

Blue dice

12-17-2003, 10:59 AM

I am a Captain in the active duty getting ready for command.
The biggest challenge with being in the military is having to support policies that you might not agree with. There are many of us who didn't agree with the war in Iraq, but once it starts and you have soldiers you need to move ahead and do the best.
Well, I have lots of respect for you and what you do I know officer candidate school isn't easy. Being put in a major leadership position as a Captain during wartime has to be challenging. We need more asian american men like you in positions of influence. My cousin was a noncom chief petty officer in the Navy but I saw the pride he took in the job he did. If anything the military does enstill value and self esteem in ones self.

Maybe in another reality if I didn't disagree with U.S. policies so much I would have gone army into one of the hooah units like airborne or ranger regiment.

Speaking of which are you an infantry officer?

Bhodi_Li

12-17-2003, 11:17 AM

We need more asian american men like you in positions of influence.

Speaking of which are you an infantry officer?Strangely enough half of my staff is asian. Of course I still have to bust their ass most of the time.

I am not infantry, I'm a support guy who goes on resupply convoys frequently. We're what you would call "soft targets" because we don't have armored vehicles. We're also the ones that the terrorists target, so ground assault convoy training is a must. That's when you train on your reactions to contact, i.e. the driver fires single shot while driving and the passengers fire on burst. We've all been shot at. It's been fun. As long as the Iraqis don't start fighting with standard military tactics we'll be ok. They're still taking a toll on us, and have a number of ambush/IED techniques. They like to hide them in dead animals and garbage as well as conduct baited ambushes, where they drive by with a technical (truck with a weapon mounted on it) and we chase them and run into an IED ambush. When it comes to infantry tactics we win hands down. It's when you become complacent that you find your gunner's head in your lap from a steel wire tied between bridge posts under an overpass.

Blue dice

12-17-2003, 11:30 AM

That's when you train on your reactions to contact, i.e. the driver fires single shot while driving and the passengers fire on burst. We've all been shot at. It's been fun. As long as the Iraqis don't start fighting with standard military tactics we'll be ok. They're still taking a toll on us, and have a number of ambush/IED techniques. They like to hide them in dead animals and garbage as well as conduct baited ambushes, where they drive by with a technical (truck with a weapon mounted on it) and we chase them and run into an IED ambush.
Man that sounds hairy as hell. I know you're probably limited by OPSEC in how much you can tell us but how much rebuilding is actually going on there? Is there visible progress being made or is it slow going everyday? Also, does the average Iraqi appreciate what you guys are doing or do you get the impression they feel it's an occupation?

Btw, a lot of other soldiers have commented in the news on how Iraqis are notoriously bad shots. It's kind of funny considering how they've seen so much conflict in the past.

Bhodi_Li

12-17-2003, 12:41 PM

Man that sounds hairy as hell. I know you're probably limited by OPSEC in how much you can tell us but how much rebuilding is actually going on there? Is there visible progress being made or is it slow going everyday? Also, does the average Iraqi appreciate what you guys are doing or do you get the impression they feel it's an occupation?

Btw, a lot of other soldiers have commented in the news on how Iraqis are notoriously bad shots. It's kind of funny considering how they've seen so much conflict in the past.
The quality of life improvements are being made, but it is naturally slow. You can't replace decades of neglect and abuse in six months. We are launching out Team RIE (Repair Iraqi Electricity) out to try to rebuild the power grid, again. The basic infrastructure isn't built, so at a lot of places we are starting from the ground up. Plus the poverty rate is huge, so that brings up issues of perceived distribution inequalities.

Martino

12-17-2003, 01:15 PM

Are we talking about the same thing here? Cuz I'm referring to their struggle for independence in 1999. Australia led a multi-national UN mandated peacekeeping force, which oversaw their election for independence.

Well, since the East Timor reference was mine to start with, I'd say yes, I am talking about the same thing. Dear me, 200,000 Pacific Asians killed and you know nothing about it.

Martino

12-17-2003, 01:29 PM

1975?! I was a wee tyke back then, so I wouldn't be in any position to comment on it. I had other things on my plate at the time, like escaping from my home land, cuz a bunch of bitch ass commies in black pajamas had the urge to "Unify".

Let me get this straight. That timescale is too long for you? Does this mean you don't comment on stuff unless you see it on TV?

dragonlord

12-17-2003, 02:00 PM

Well, since the East Timor reference was mine to start with, I'd say yes, I am talking about the same thing. Dear me, 200,000 Pacific Asians killed and you know nothing about it.

Oh Martino! Come on, man! Stop with the guilt trip. I can't keep track of everything that happens, regardless if they're Asian/Pacific Islanders or not. But, I DO try to keep abreast of world affairs. How many people here do you think know as much as I do about the whole East Timor thing? I mean, I even knew which battalion the British sent...you can give me that at least.

Sheesh!

Martino

12-17-2003, 02:02 PM

dragonlord

12-17-2003, 02:03 PM

Let me get this straight. That timescale is too long for you? Does this mean you don't comment on stuff unless you see it on TV?

Not really, but, I do have to admit that it's one of the more obscure events that I've ever heard of...I guess we can assume that the Indonesians wanted to repatriate territory that was theirs to begin with, stolen from them by colonialist powers? So far so good?

dragonlord

12-17-2003, 02:08 PM

WHY don't you know about the whole East Timor thing?

Cuz, no one told me about it until now (the 1975 thing). The 1999 one, yeah, information age was already kicking at that point so, I had more access to it. What's your point? Cuz of the media? I know they suck. If that's your point, then you're preaching to the choir.

Martino

12-17-2003, 02:13 PM

Oh Martino! Come on, man! Stop with the guilt trip. I can't keep track of everything that happens, regardless if they're Asian/Pacific Islanders or not. But, I DO try to keep abreast of world affairs. How many people here do you think know as much as I do about the whole East Timor thing? I mean, I even knew which battalion the British sent...you can give me that at least.

Sheesh!

You want to see Saddam swing - fine. Bully for you, go with your gut feeling. But you are consistently missing my point, and that is that there is a whole bigger picture here, and you are not seeing it.

A modern island nation, just a few hundred miles north of Australia, was invaded and hundreds of thousands of Asians massacred - and no one bats an eyelid that the dictator who orchestrated it is living in comfortable retirement. Half a world away, another dictator, who killed perhaps one tenth as many people, is going to be executed.

What is the difference between these two men? What do they have in common? Why would the US support Saddam for so long, then turn on him? Why would the US support Suharto for so long and not turn on him?

There are dirty hands here, and no one cares whose they are. If no one cares, there will be more Suharto's and Saddams to come ...

That's my last word on this. My hands are starting to look like chicken feet tapping at this keyboard ....

dragonlord

12-17-2003, 02:28 PM

You want to see Saddam swing - fine. Bully for you, go with your gut feeling. But you are consistently missing my point, and that is that there is a whole bigger picture here, and you are not seeing it.

A modern island nation, just a few hundred miles north of Australia, was invaded and hundreds of thousands of Asians massacred - and no one bats an eyelid that the dictator who orchestrated it is living in comfortable retirement. Half a world away, another dictator, who killed perhaps one tenth as many people, is going to be executed.

What is the difference between these two men? What do they have in common? Why would the US support Saddam for so long, then turn on him? Why would the US support Suharto for so long and not turn on him?

There are dirty hands here, and no one cares whose they are. If no one cares, there will be more Suharto's and Saddams to come ...

That's my last word on this. My hands are starting to look like chicken feet tapping at this keyboard ....

That's cuz you've got a idealistic, albeit well intentioned sense of fairness. "If you do this to whoever, you should do it to the other one too!"

Naw, dude! Like individuals, nations must pick and choose their battles. Anything outside of our scope of interest is for the UN. C'est la vie, baby.

Martino

12-17-2003, 02:37 PM

I guess we can assume that the Indonesians wanted to repatriate territory that was theirs to begin with, stolen from them by colonialist powers? So far so good?

Er ... no. And yes. It's a very long story. ;)

Ogumo

12-22-2003, 11:55 AM

Yes. I wonder how many months ago he was really captured in. I do not believe we are getting the full truth here.

krome

12-22-2003, 12:09 PM

Speaking of Saddam's capture - latest reports reveal that it was actually by Kurds with a blood-feud against Saddam, NOT US coalition forces! :rolleyes:

"An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East also told the daily: 'Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence ..'"

LONDON - Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was not captured by U.S. forces, but rather Kurdish troops, who drugged the former leader and handed him over to the Americans later after negotiating a deal, a British newspaper revealed Sunday, December 21.

He said that Saddam was betrayed to the PUK by a member of al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been allegedly raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud and harboring feelings of hatred towards the Saddam family, according to the daily.

The Express said the full story of events leading up to Saddam capture near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq "exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete".

Political analysts said U.S. President George W. Bush was in a dire need for such a ground-shaking event to raise his ratings and shine up his image in the eyes of the Americans as the Presidential elections are drawing closer. (http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20031221161318573)

dragonlord

12-22-2003, 12:42 PM

krome

12-22-2003, 12:50 PM

^But it's about as objective as our pro-Israeli media. And probably more reliable than Bush and his Orwellian Newspeak and war propaganda. For example, ever notice how Bush's fears materialize and then mysteriously fade away once they've served their purpose?
1) Anthrax mailings? What ever happened to this lead story after the trail led back to a disgruntled US domestic scientist at a US military base?
2) Wen Ho Lee, James Yee, Anna Guo - sound the bell! - they are guilty spies until proven innocent. But drop the story before they get proven innocent.
3) WMD? Drop the story after war has already been initiated. Pesky details.

I hope you don't use US media as your "unbiased" baseline source. If anything, it is the most biased especially when considering Mid East matters. The rest of the world sees it all differently from us in that region. Our monolithic media is anything but "objective." Pleaseee...

dragonlord

12-22-2003, 12:52 PM

^ You left out the black helicopters, brah...

Kuchana

12-24-2003, 06:34 AM

Consider this. WHY did the US government arm Saddam? Were they under the impression that he was a firm but fair ruler? Under what stipulation was Saddam funded? Why did the US government supply him with the biological weapons that he used against the Iranians, and, later, his own people? Why did the US government turn a blind eye to these actions?

Saddam needs to give us real answers, but I dont think the Iraqi or American courts are going to be asking the right questions.

There is one clear reason as to why the U.S. supplied Saddam with weapons. Because he was engaging in the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S.'s relationship with Saddam began while in the 1980s. Iran used to be an ally because of the Shah until the Shi'ite militant extremism took over there. This of course presented a danger to the stability in the Middle East, a fear that there would be a domino effect as such presumed with Communism in the Cold War days. But most specificully, the U.S. was worried that friendly monarchies such as Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, and Jordan, would be overtaken by Shi'ite extremists as well. So it would be no surprise then that the U.S. would support Iraq, headed by Saddam, ironicaly to counter such a possibility. However, this is the period when Saddam begin to become the monster that he is today; gassing the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war, which soon begun thereafter. Publicly we know that the U.S. maintained a stance of neutrality while this war was going on. Yet it bothers my conscience that we conveniently "ignored" the gassing of the Iranians with the price of maintaining diplomatic relations with Iraq. But what I have more qualms is with how the U.S. under both Reagan and G.W. Bush Sr. after, privately sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents. These were used against Iran to no surprise in the war. This was not neutrality as the U.S. proclaimed them to be.

The only problems I have with the Iran-Iraq war is the fact that 1) we maintained neutrality yet our actions proved that to be the opposite and 2) if we were hypocritical enough to not maintain neutrality, we also ignored the gassing of Iranians.

Not only would the U.S. be aware of his actions but the U.N. as well. They even mandated it in the Resolution to get Saddam out of Kuwait but not to dethrone him, even when we had the opportunity to bring him down. Again, the fear of causing instability in the Middle East with the Shi'ites taking over and we losing our friendly allies. I recall reading a statement about G.W. Bush Sr.'s reasons for not taking down Saddam at that time of the end of the Persian Gulf War and he said something to the effect of that such an action would create instability in the Middle East region. Was this justifiable? I ask this because such a reasoning was used for allying ourselves with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.

After the U.S. defeated Iraq in the Persian gulf war, there was the expectancy from the Shi'ites, who outnumber the Sunnis in Iraq, that the U.S. would help them against Saddam if they rose up against him. Encouraged by this, they did so but the U.S. did not keep its promise and as a result, thousands of Shi'ites that dared to rise against Saddam were executed; the result were mass graves throughout Iraq that the coalition are just now digging up.

It is no surpise then that these actions would make the Kurds and the Shi'ites in the present wary of trusting the "promises" that the U.S. made prior to toppling Saddam from power, when they couldn't even keep such promises in the past.

As for Saddam giving us the real answers, I highly doubt that is possible since he is still set in the mindset that he was a "just" ruler who did not do anything wrong, even when he gassed the Iranians, the Kurds, murdered thousands of Shi'ites who rose in opposition to him after the Persian Gulf War, and aided in murdering Israelis by funding the suicide bombers.

Kuchana

12-24-2003, 06:47 AM

Well this development still doesn't change the fact that will are still occupying THEIR country. It does not matter what we do in the Middle East, catch Osama, catch Saddam, etc. we have applied a centuries worth of bad policy in the region to last for eternity. The bad taste in their mouths won't be easily washed out by catching Saddam. Remember this war was seen as illegitimate before it started by almost everyone in the region. I don't even see an Israeli/Palestinian peace as relieving tensions. U.S. has been in a quagmire for a long time in the Middle East.

I beg to differ. Catching Saddam does change in some sense what we do in the Middle East and catching Osama. It might not wholly improve the situation but it will help some and in catching Osama and the other members of Al-Qaeda. These are not true Muslims; even the mainstream Muslims do not agree with the actions that Al-Qaeda has undertaken. Why? Because they attack not only the U.S. but other Muslims as well with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and possibly the bombing in Morrocco, which is a big no no in the Muslim world. True, the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been horrendous in the past but that doesn't mean that something can't be done at least to make up for those mistakes.

As for the Iraqi people, I'm sure they're more than happy that Saddam is caught and they won't have to fear repurcussions from him as the Shi'ites did when they rose up against him before. This will obviously bring closure to them as well as the Kurds. Healing takes time and goodness knows, the U.S. needs to make up for what they did in the past but it can be done.

As for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I don't see that ending anytime soon what with the actions of Israel/Palestine/and the U.S. complicating the process.

Kuchana

12-24-2003, 06:55 AM

You want to see Saddam swing - fine. Bully for you, go with your gut feeling. But you are consistently missing my point, and that is that there is a whole bigger picture here, and you are not seeing it.

What is the difference between these two men? What do they have in common? Why would the US support Saddam for so long, then turn on him? Why would the US support Suharto for so long and not turn on him?

There are dirty hands here, and no one cares whose they are. If no one cares, there will be more Suharto's and Saddams to come ...

I think it's valid for any reasonable person to want to see Saddam swing, most importantly his people do because they are the ones he committed the crimes against and it should be only right for them to hold a trial for him to make him accountable for what he did. While I think he is a monster, I do think he deserves a fair trial, which will make it valid as to why he should get the death penalty. He also should be tried on his crimes against the Iranians.

There is a bigger picture yes but let us not forget the importance of Saddam's capture and how he will be held accountable.

Even the hands of the U.S. are not solely the dirty ones alone. Look at France, Russia, and China for one and in their dealings with him as well. Noone should be left out in at fault for what enabled Saddam to stay in power for so long.

Martino

12-25-2003, 06:49 PM

I think it's valid for any reasonable person to want to see Saddam swing

Well that's something of a contradiction right there. Reason would have little to do with Saddam swinging after just a show trial. Reason would have little to do with automatically assuming a death sentence at the end of the trial.

A large chunk of the world considers capital punishment unreasonable ...

most importantly his people do because they are the ones he committed the crimes against and it should be only right for them to hold a trial for him to make him accountable for what he did.

This is the same country the US currently occupies because, allegedly, it cannot run itself? But it can suddenly organise and conduct a large scale in-depth investigation and trial of this tyrant?

While I think he is a monster, I do think he deserves a fair trial, which will make it valid as to why he should get the death penalty.

So all you're saying, basically, that the court would just retrospectively rubber stamp a death sentence already typed up and signed. You are forgetting the purpose of a trial.

He also should be tried on his crimes against the Iranians..

Choppy political waters ... one million people died during the Iran-Iraq war. If his crimes against the Iranians should be considered, could an Iraq court handle that? Saddam would have to be extradited, as a trial for crimes against humanity cannot be held in a domestic court.

And the Israeli's and Kuwaiti's suffered at Iraqi hands too ... and the independent Kurds. Who would try him first? And don't forget his crimes againsts the Americans, which were ... umm ...

There is a bigger picture yes but let us not forget the importance of Saddam's capture and how he will be held accountable. ..

The dictatorship wasn't one man. There was a whole apparatus involved in putting him in power and keeping him in power... the 'regime' was an secular family-tribe with no popular support.

Even the hands of the U.S. are not solely the dirty ones alone. Look at France, Russia, and China for one and in their dealings with him as well. Noone should be left out in at fault for what enabled Saddam to stay in power for so long.

At last, a concession to the wider truth.

Saddam was a good customer for the despicable arms trade, true. Russia sold him tanks, France sold him missiles (just as they sold arms to Argentina during the Falklands war), and so on.

But think. Could have Saddam stayed in power without FREE American weapons, or massive American funding, or American political signals that it would turn a blind eye to planned chemical weapon atrocities (which it did)?

To what extent were external nations, not just the US, an accessory to mass murder?

Martino

12-25-2003, 07:01 PM

Krome,

That story's from the Palestin Chronicle for chrissakes! The face of objective journalism. :rolleyes:

You're attacking a source you know nothing about?

Let's see ... large Pacific Asian country undergoes worse oppression than Iraq, 200,000 Asians dead, ex-Dictator living in wealthy reirement, and you knew nothing about it. Yup, your press is pretty objective.

Martino

12-25-2003, 07:47 PM

There is one clear reason as to why the U.S. supplied Saddam with weapons. Because he was engaging in the Iran-Iraq war.

Which came first, the war or the weapons?

The U.S.'s relationship with Saddam began while in the 1980s. Iran used to be an ally because of the Shah until the Shi'ite militant extremism took over there.

The Shah ... another ruthless dictator.

This of course presented a danger to the stability in the Middle East, a fear that there would be a domino effect as such presumed with Communism in the Cold War days.

You are talking about Islamic countries adopting an Islamic government ... removing an oppressive and secular dictator in the process. Stabilty was the one thing the Arabs would get, living under the Sword of Allah.

Instead America encouraged a war which caused massive casualties, massive poverty, huge population displacements, environmental damage .... not to mention creating Osama bin Laden.

But most specificully, the U.S. was worried that friendly monarchies such as Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, and Jordan, would be overtaken by Shi'ite extremists as well.

But America isn't a monarchy ... and again, these are three very oppressive dictatorships, not democracies. Are you talking about ... oil?

So it would be no surprise then that the U.S. would support Iraq, headed by Saddam, ironicaly to counter such a possibility.

Nothing in your preceding statements leads into this. What did you say was America's reason for supporting Iraq? Protecting the unelected governments of Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, and Jordan? Stop the spread of Islam? What?

However, this is the period when Saddam begin to become the monster that he is today; gassing the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war, which soon begun thereafter. Publicly we know that the U.S. maintained a stance of neutrality while this war was going on. Yet it bothers my conscience that we conveniently "ignored" the gassing of the Iranians with the price of maintaining diplomatic relations with Iraq.

Nothing to do with diplomatic relations. And your timeline of atrocities/active American support needs to be looked at. Who ignored the gassing? Not the Red Cross or Amnesty International. Saddam was a monster from his earliest days. He came to power in a bloody coup, after all.

The only problems I have with the Iran-Iraq war is the fact [snip] ... we [also] ignored the gassing of Iranians ... not only would the U.S. be aware of his actions but the U.N. as well.

Um. The Red Cross knew. Amnesty International knew. BBC reporters were taken to the scenes of the atrocities by witnesses. The world was not ignorant. Guess news travels slow in the US. Did the US media not report that the US blocked UN condemnation of Saddam's use of poison gas against Kurdish villages? That the US blocked NINE UN resolutions against Suharto's invasion of East Timor? That the US repeatedly blocks UN resolutions against the current Palestinian problem?

They even mandated it in the Resolution to get Saddam out of Kuwait but not to dethrone him, even when we had the opportunity to bring him down.

The US selectively chooses which UN resolutions it supports or blocks.

Again, the fear of causing instability in the Middle East with the Shi'ites taking over and we losing our friendly allies.

Allies, or oil exporting dictatorships? In 1973 the US nearly invaded Kuwait itself!

As for Saddam giving us the real answers, I highly doubt that is possible since he is still set in the mindset that he was a "just" ruler who did not do anything wrong, even when he gassed the Iranians, the Kurds, murdered thousands of Shi'ites who rose in opposition to him after the Persian Gulf War, and aided in murdering Israelis by funding the suicide bombers.

The Nuremberg Trials were a waste of time then?

B-Banzai

12-25-2003, 11:56 PM

The US selectively chooses which UN resolutions it supports or blocks.

As opposed to other UN members that do...what?

Kuchana

12-26-2003, 12:11 AM

Well that's something of a contradiction right there. Reason would have little to do with Saddam swinging after just a show trial. Reason would have little to do with automatically assuming a death sentence at the end of the trial.

A large chunk of the world considers capital punishment unreasonable

Well gee I don't know. Being that the majority of the Iraqi people want him sentenced to death, that doesn't sound unreasonable to me does it?
And by the way, just because a large chunk of the world considers capital punishment unreasonable doesn't mean it's not right nor unreasonable for that matter. It may not be so in your opinion but some do not have a problem with it. Take the Islamic countries for one. They have one of the lowest rates of crime in the world if you haven't noticed and they have good reason for it.

And one more thing, Kofi Annan outrightly stated that he didn't want the death penalty for Saddam but that doesn't mean in anyway whatsoever that the Iraqi people have to follow by what he says alone. It's directly up to the Iraqi people as it should be.

This is the same country the US currently occupies because, allegedly, it cannot run itself? But it can suddenly organise and conduct a large scale in-depth investigation and trial of this tyrant?

Considering the Iraqi people just recently got rid of Saddam, it's not a surprise that they are not wholly ready to run itself nor take on the role of trying Saddam in court; at least not for the present moment. But I still hold to the firm belief that they should be the ones to try him because they have the right to. I wasn't implying that the Iraqi people were capable nor competent for that matter to suddenly organise and conduct the investigation. Any intelligent person would realise it will take time. They evidently want to give him a trial. I say that's better than just automatically shooting him without one.

So all you're saying, basically, that the court would just retrospectively rubber stamp a death sentence already typed up and signed. You are forgetting the purpose of a trial.

Let me rephrase what I said previously. Rather, I'm hoping that he'll be sentenced to death because he deserves it. But I'm also stating that the trial is important to prove whether he is guilty or not. I believe he is but he has to go through a "fair" trial and then, that will be the only way justice can be achieved. But yes, I'll be one happy camper "if" and "when" he is sentenced to death.

Choppy political waters ... one million people died during the Iran-Iraq war. If his crimes against the Iranians should be considered, could an Iraq court handle that? Saddam would have to be extradited, as a trial for crimes against humanity cannot be held in a domestic court.

Choppy political waters?? You're going to use that excuse to not even try him for the war crimes he committed against Iranians? I don't think his crimes against the Iranians are applicable to fall under an Iraqi court being that they would probably be biased enough to vote in his favor, considering the hatred that Iran and Iraq share towards the other. Instead, this is where I would think an international court would be needed because it did happen beyond the border of Iraq. Therefore, maybe the Hague should court him although I'm wary of that option but it is something to be considered.

And the Israeli's and Kuwaiti's suffered at Iraqi hands too ... and the independent Kurds. Who would try him first? And don't forget his crimes againsts the Americans, which were ... umm ...

I'm not forgetting the Kurds nor the Israelis for that matter. I'm sure they want their shot at Saddam as well. The Kurds are a somewhat difficult matter to define since some say they were Saddam's people while others say vice versa. As for Israel, again, an international court would be best to try. What crimes against Americans? Are you referring to the Persian Gulf War as well as the recent Iraq war?

The dictatorship wasn't one man. There was a whole apparatus involved in putting him in power and keeping him in power... the 'regime' was an secular family-tribe with no popular support.

Maybe the dictatorship wasn't one man but he played a major hand in the matter, particularly in the crimes he committed did he not? Yes, unfortunately, the U.S. was one of those who contributed to keeping him in power as well as others.

But think. Could have Saddam stayed in power without FREE American weapons, or massive American funding, or American political signals that it would turn a blind eye to planned chemical weapon atrocities (which it did)? To what extent were external nations, not just the US, an accessory to mass murder?

True, Saddam was a "good" customer but he was a ruthless monster as well. Ah but then, let's ask could Saddam have stayed in power if none of the major powers had contributed to enabling him to stay in power in the time that he did? Even if American had withdrawn its support of him, their weapons, their funding, and turning a blind eye to his atrocities, what makes you think that things would not be any different? Nor that the other countries would not have moved up to take America's place and done the very same things? Noone is guilty.

And yes, the U.S. holds fault for contributing to letting Saddam continue in power, but then again, we provided it and he was the one who used it to his purpose.

Kuchana

12-26-2003, 12:59 AM

Which came first, the war or the weapons?

Possibly and I'm not denying it, but the weapons might have come before. It's not any surprise considering we sold weapons to other Middle Eastern countries in the region as well.

The Shah ... another ruthless dictator.

Yes another ruthless dictator but did he commit genocide as Saddam did...twice? And don't forget, the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollah Komeni, yet another ruthless dictator.

You are talking about Islamic countries adopting an Islamic government ... removing an oppressive and secular dictator in the process. Stabilty was the one thing the Arabs would get, living under the Sword of Allah.

Islamic countries?? It goes further than that. Iraq was Sunni Muslim, which represents the majority of Islams in the world. Shi'ite is represented by Iran and presented a threat to the stability of the entire Islamic world, not only the Middle East. It isn't solely about Islamic countries adopting an Islamic government but what version of Islam they went with. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan feared Iran and opposed it advancing in power because that would undermine their own governments, which were Sunni. Even in Islam, there are evidently divisions since there is more than one version of Islam. And how would you know if the Arab world would achieve stability, living under the Sword of Allah?? Again, too many divisions for that to occur.

Instead America encouraged a war which caused massive casualties, massive poverty, huge population displacements, environmental damage .... not to mention creating Osama bin Laden.

I'm not taking the blame away from America by any means but the fact is, Iraq and Iran wanted to fight a war and fight they did. America just happened to support Iraq in the process, which was a mistake but it happened. As for Osama, that's another story. Remember, the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan and America certaintly didn't want them to take over that area; again the domino effect of Communism. But surprise, surprise, since the Soviets have diminished in power, Osama is back in our lives, turning the tables around. With one enemy gone, he sees us now as the enemy because we oppose such governments as the oppressive Taliban that he supported.

But America isn't a monarchy ... and again, these are three very oppressive dictatorships, not democracies. Are you talking about ... oil?

Did I ever say America was a monarchy? Absolutely not. Yes obviously these are opporessive dictatorships but they were America's allies and still are to this day. The reasons are various, from oil as you say, selling weapons, strategic locations provided with bases here and there, maintaining stability, etc etc. Does that mean I agree with these reasons other than maintaining stability? No. I have a problem considering that most of the bombers from 9/11 were not from Iraq but Saudi Arabia. Doesn't that sound suspicious?

Nothing in your preceding statements leads into this. What did you say was America's reason for supporting Iraq? Protecting the unelected governments of Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, and Jordan? Stop the spread of Islam? What?

I would say the reasons were not only to protect our alliances with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan but to maintain stability in the Middle East by stopping the spread of Shi'ite Islam along with maintaining a U.S. presence as well.

Nothing to do with diplomatic relations. And your timeline of atrocities/active American support needs to be looked at. Who ignored the gassing? Not the Red Cross or Amnesty International. Saddam was a monster from his earliest days. He came to power in a bloody coup, after all

Excuse me. I beg to differ with you there. Diplomatic reasons was one of the important factors that played into our involvment with Saddam and Iran before that. Why are you asking this question when you already asked it before? America ignored the gassing. As then, the government of America. I wasn't even referring to the Red Cross nor Amnesty. I would expect them to not ignore the gassing. But the government of the U.S. did.

Um. The Red Cross knew. Amnesty International knew. BBC reporters were taken to the scenes of the atrocities by witnesses. The world was not ignorant. Guess news travels slow in the US. Did the US media not report that the US blocked UN condemnation of Saddam's use of poison gas against Kurdish villages? That the US blocked NINE UN resolutions against Suharto's invasion of East Timor? That the US repeatedly blocks UN resolutions against the current Palestinian problem?

Again, I repeat, I did not state whatsoever that the Red Cross nor Amnesty International did not know. Nor the rest of the world either. It was through Amenesty that I became familiar with the gassing of the Kurds and imagine my shock and disgust when I did. But the sad thing is, many people didn't know of these events or maybe they just didn't care to know. And now, these old news are coming out as people are finally beginning to be aware of what happened. Same thing with other events in the world that many Americans are made ignorant of such as the Desparacidos in Argentina, Peru, and Chile. The point is, the U.S. government conveniently ignored what Saddam did and made the general public ignorant of it unless they found out for themselves.

Frankly, I'm not really surprised to hear about what the U.S. blocking U.N. Resolutions with the condemation of Saddam's actions for gassing the Kurds, and the 9 UN Resolutions against Suharto's invasion of East Timor. As for the current Palestine problem, what was it directly about? Was it a mere scolding of Israel? This is obviously a difficult situation at hand between Israel and the Palestinians. What would this resolution have achieved pray tell? Most likely nothing for the most part, considerin the peace process and the roap map has been hampered by BOTH sides. Do please however give the links about Suharto's invasion of East Timor. I am somewhat familiar with it but not enough.

The US selectively chooses which UN resolutions it supports or blocks.

Selectively eh??? It seems more like the other countries on the Security Council as well as the US. Again, noone is left out from blame for this. And what about the actions that the UN took to "ignore" Rwanda, Nigeria, and Bosnia? Or further back with Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao?? Why did they not intervene when needed?

Allies, or oil exporting dictatorships? In 1973 the US nearly invaded Kuwait itself!

How about both allies and oil exporting dictatorships? And about the U.S. invading Kuwait, provide a link please.

The Nuremberg Trials were a waste of time then?

The Nuremberg Trials?? That wasn't even under the UN. Remember, the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trials were sentenced to death. At least justice was achieved there. You're impyling or at least I think you are, that Saddam needs to be tried internationally, as in the Hague correct? That's what happened with Milsovec. He committed genoicde as well but instead of receiving the death penalty, he instead got sentenced to life because the Hague falls under the UN. Therefore, he got away with murder.

Martino

12-26-2003, 03:37 AM

As opposed to other UN members that do...what?

Again you are just demonstrating a huge gap in your knowledge of what goes on outside the US. Do you even know what the UN is and does?

achtungbaby

12-26-2003, 03:48 AM

Moving to Rant.

achtungbaby

12-26-2003, 04:19 AM

Been busy fiddling with the site. Curiously, there's a bit of a discussion going on here, and frankly, I'm surprised to see it.

Possibly and I'm not denying it, but the weapons might have come before.What weapons?

With one enemy gone, he sees us now as the enemy because we oppose such governments as the oppressive Taliban that he supported.That's a pretty nice way of putting it -- we oppose tyrannical regimes like the Taliban, we...respectfully object.

Does that mean I agree with these reasons other than maintaining stability?Stability, by U.S. definition, is all that you just mentioned.

Anyway, I was neither happy or sad when I saw Saddam having his teeth checked by some physician, only a few hours after they pulled him from whereever. He was irrelevant -- has been irrelevant. But I guess I'm happy in a way for George to finally be able to chew on something. Imagine -- more than two years after having been watch over the worst attack in U.S. history, he can lay claim to nabbing someone.

achtungbaby

12-26-2003, 04:23 AM

By the way, Martino and Kuchana gets a thumbs up for being able to carry on a good, respectful debate.

Martino

12-26-2003, 04:32 AM

Well gee I don't know. Being that the majority of the Iraqi people want him sentenced to death, that doesn't sound unreasonable to me does it?

Well, gosh, a lot of Iraqi's want to see Americans dead, but I think that's unreasonable.

And by the way, just because a large chunk of the world considers capital punishment unreasonable doesn't mean it's not right nor unreasonable for that matter.

Just because a country insists on the right to execute its people, doesn't mean it's right or reasonable.

It may not be so in your opinion but some do not have a problem with it. Take the Islamic countries for one. They have one of the lowest rates of crime in the world if you haven't noticed and they have good reason for it.

Are you producing any statistics to support that? Frankly, it's a myth. They do execute and maim convicts in Islamic countries ... but I thought this sort of thing was something to be condemned, not celebrated. In Saudi Arabia, people are publicly beheaded for adultery. Adultery!

Doesn't lower their crime rate though. Or the US's. How many murders, rapes and other violent crimes were in the US in 2003?

And one more thing, Kofi Annan outrightly stated that he didn't want the death penalty for Saddam but that doesn't mean in anyway whatsoever that the Iraqi people have to follow by what he says alone. It's directly up to the Iraqi people as it should be.

You are talking about handing a criminal over to a lynch mob. I'm saying he should be tried in an international court. Find out what really happened in Iraq, why it happened, and who else is culpable.

But I still hold to the firm belief that they should be the ones to try him because they have the right to. I wasn't implying that the Iraqi people were capable nor competent for that matter to suddenly organise and conduct the investigation. Any intelligent person would realise it will take time. They evidently want to give him a trial. I say that's better than just automatically shooting him without one.

The Iraqi's didn't overthrow him. The international Coalition did. A war was conducted to do so. He's in Coalition hands. His crimes extend beyond the borders of Iraq, and are crimes against humanity. He must be tried by an international tribunal.

Let me rephrase what I said previously. Rather, I'm hoping that he'll be sentenced to death because he deserves it. But I'm also stating that the trial is important to prove whether he is guilty or not. I believe he is but he has to go through a "fair" trial and then, that will be the only way justice can be achieved. But yes, I'll be one happy camper "if" and "when" he is sentenced to death.

You're not listening. This is beyond questions of fairness. The whole regime is on trial. It has to be done right, so that all guilty parties are named and shamed and, if possible, punished.

Choppy political waters?? You're going to use that excuse to not even try him for the war crimes he committed against Iranians?

Don't be obtuse. You were pointing out Iran wants to try him too. I reminded you that all the injured parties cannot try him individually.

And you mention war crimes - excellent point. War crimes can obnly be tried under an international tribunal. Send him to the Hague.

I don't think his crimes against the Iranians are applicable to fall under an Iraqi court being that they would probably be biased enough to vote in his favor, considering the hatred that Iran and Iraq share towards the other. Instead, this is where I would think an international court would be needed because it did happen beyond the border of Iraq. Therefore, maybe the Hague should court him although I'm wary of that option but it is something to be considered.

Good reasoning.

I'm not forgetting the Kurds nor the Israelis for that matter. I'm sure they want their shot at Saddam as well. The Kurds are a somewhat difficult matter to define since some say they were Saddam's people while others say vice versa.

Blame the British for that one. Creating Iraq was a monumental mistake.

What crimes against Americans?

Exactly what I meant.

Maybe the dictatorship wasn't one man but he played a major hand in the matter, particularly in the crimes he committed did he not?

Did he? You have all the facts to hand as to what happened in Iraq, not just what you know from your own media? Before he came to power, he was the 'power behind the throne' ... was there someone behind him? Again, think about the purpose of a trial.

Ah but then, let's ask could Saddam have stayed in power if none of the major powers had contributed to enabling him to stay in power in the time that he did?

Yes ... ASK!

Even if American had withdrawn its support of him, their weapons, their funding, and turning a blind eye to his atrocities, what makes you think that things would not be any different?

Because ... Iraq was following an American military agenda. The other players, Europe, the then Soviet Union, had other satellites and concerns of their own. Saddam was America's puppet Saddam was secure oil. Saddam stopped a unifying movement emerging in the Arab world. These were matters of concern to the US only.

Nor that the other countries would not have moved up to take America's place and done the very same things? Noone is guilty.

And yes, the U.S. holds fault for contributing to letting Saddam continue in power, but then again, we provided it and he was the one who used it to his purpose.

Send Saddam to the Hague. Let the truth out.

achtungbaby

12-26-2003, 04:53 AM

Send Saddam to the Hague. Let the truth out.I'm just a jaded American, but there is no truth in politics, only methods.

Martino

12-26-2003, 05:27 AM

Possibly and I'm not denying it, but the weapons might have come before. It's not any surprise considering we sold weapons to other Middle Eastern countries in the region as well.

Sold, yes ... Iraq was equipped and trained gratis.

Yes another ruthless dictator but did he commit genocide as Saddam did...twice? And don't forget, the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollah Komeni, yet another ruthless dictator.

Bit slanderous. Komeni was a cleric who wanted to run his country exactly to Islamic scripture. You should approve - he was put into power by popular revolt, by the will of the people. Firm supporter of capital punishment. Contained the extremists like the future Taliban.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan feared Iran and opposed it advancing in power because that would undermine their own governments, which were Sunni. Even in Islam, there are evidently divisions since there is more than one version of Islam. And how would you know if the Arab world would achieve stability, living under the Sword of Allah?? Again, too many divisions for that to occur.

Those countries would be right to fear Iran, but why should America concern itself with the safety of unelected monarchies? Are you suggesting America was engaged in a religious war?

I'm not taking the blame away from America by any means but the fact is, Iraq and Iran wanted to fight a war and fight they did. America just happened to support Iraq in the process

WHY did they want to fight? Who invaded who? Who was to gain from such a war? Ask yourself these questions.

Remember, the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan and America certaintly didn't want them to take over that area; again the domino effect of Communism.

That wasn't an example of Kissinger's theory of the domino effect ...

Yes obviously these are opporessive dictatorships but they were America's allies and still are to this day.

From the horse mouth. There you go. America supports oppression.

And the US invaded Iraq why?

Excuse me. I beg to differ with you there. Diplomatic reasons was one of the important factors that played into our involvment with Saddam and Iran before that. Why are you asking this question when you already asked it before?

Because you don't know the definition of the word diplomacy?

Again, I repeat, I did not state whatsoever that the Red Cross nor Amnesty International did not know. Nor the rest of the world either. It was through Amenesty that I became familiar with the gassing of the Kurds and imagine my shock and disgust when I did. But the sad thing is, many people didn't know of these events or maybe they just didn't care to know.

You've just had a glimpse of why America is currently demonised by much of the world. Are you in a police state?

Again, I raise the spectre of East Timor. Why is it not ever discussed by anyone here? I suspect I'm the only person who mentions it. Ten times more civillian Asians died under Suharto than civillian Iraqi's died under Saddam, yet there are no calls from within America to try Suharto. Why? Because he was a mass murderer, but is still an ally of the US.

In short, you only condemn these evil people when they are no longer useful to the US. You said so yourself, Kuwait and co are oppressive dictatorships but they were America's allies and still are to this day.

Saddam cannot be tried by Iraq or the Americans, because of the scale of the trial and the questions it must raise.

As for the current Palestine problem, what was it directly about?

Huh??

Was it a mere scolding of Israel? This is obviously a difficult situation at hand between Israel and the Palestinians. What would this resolution have achieved pray tell? Most likely nothing for the most part, considerin the peace process and the roap map has been hampered by BOTH sides.

Israel illegally occupies another country. The UN can do much, including the sending in of armed Peacekeepers.

Do you have any idea how many UN observers and international journalists Israel has 'accidently' killed?

Do please however give the links about Suharto's invasion of East Timor. I am somewhat familiar with it but not enough.

Links? Pick up a book, subscribe to The Economist, do a search on a reputable news agency website. Try www.bbc.co.uk/news.

And about the U.S. invading Kuwait, provide a link please.

Certainly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm

The Nuremberg Trials?? That wasn't even under the UN. Remember, the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trials were sentenced to death. At least justice was achieved there. You're impyling or at least I think you are, that Saddam needs to be tried internationally, as in the Hague correct? That's what happened with Milsovec. He committed genoicde as well but instead of receiving the death penalty, he instead got sentenced to life because the Hague falls under the UN. Therefore, he got away with murder.

Yes, but the trials investigated the Nazi's, investigated individuals, properly attributed blame and carried out appropriate sentencing. Those guilty of most heinous crimes were hanged, others sentenced to life imprisonment. You were suggesting such a trial would be purposeless - Nuremberg showed its worth.

Slobodan Milosovic is going to rot in prison for the rest of his life - he didn't 'get away' with murder.

Martino

12-26-2003, 05:29 AM

I'm just a jaded American, but there is no truth in politics, only methods.

Hello achtungbaby, remember me?

ellsworth81

12-26-2003, 08:52 AM

uh oh, more idealists on the prowl

Martino

12-26-2003, 01:44 PM

uh oh, more idealists on the prowl

Idealist? Moi? You couldn't be further from the truth.

B-Banzai

12-26-2003, 02:55 PM

Again you are just demonstrating a huge gap in your knowledge of what goes on outside the US. Do you even know what the UN is and does?

Again? That was my first post on this site, ever. That would be some trick for you to know to what extent my knowledge goes beyond US borders.

My point still stands. Other security council members "pick and choose" what resolutions they will support or block as well. What is so odd that the US does the same?

Martino

12-26-2003, 03:21 PM

Again? That was my first post on this site, ever. That would be some trick for you to know to what extent my knowledge goes beyond US borders.

My point still stands. Other security council members "pick and choose" what resolutions they will support or block as well. What is so odd that the US does the same?

A lot of counter arguments I've been running into on this thread are based on I-don't know-about-thats ... it is a theme of the thread. But the post you refer to above clearly sounds like it is directed at you personally, so I apologise for that.

Martino

12-26-2003, 03:35 PM

My point still stands. Other security council members "pick and choose" what resolutions they will support or block as well. What is so odd that the US does the same?

It's odd because America is supposedly in Iraq crusading against an evil regime, whilst supporting equally bad or worse regimes elsewhere in the world.

And a lot of Americans and their allies are dying as a result of this staggering hypocracy.

My question in response to your question is - what kind of crusade was this really? Why should the US shield Indonesia from international condemnation? Why should the US shield Iraq, then turn on him a decade after Saddam had done his worst?

The military aspect of the invasion of Iraq showed Saddam to have been a spent force ... there were no major battles, none of the street by street gun battles that were feared by stategists .... the time when Saddam would have used WMD came and went without so much as a SCUD being found.

There are a lot of answers in the skull of Saddam and his administration - let us pick some brains.

Kuchana

12-27-2003, 05:19 AM

uh oh, more idealists on the prowl

pray tell who is that directed towards?? :smile:

That's a pretty nice way of putting it -- we oppose tyrannical regimes like the Taliban, we...respectfully object.]

Ok, respectfully object would be a better word than oppose :smile:

[QUOTE=achtungbaby]Stability, by U.S. definition, is all that you just mentioned.

Isn't stability an important reason to consider? Not only by the U.S. definition alone but in general.

Kuchana

12-27-2003, 05:49 AM

Well, gosh, a lot of Iraqi's want to see Americans dead, but I think that's unreasonable.

Ah but then, we Americans didn't practice genocide on them did we?

Are you producing any statistics to support that? Frankly, it's a myth. They do execute and maim convicts in Islamic countries ... but I thought this sort of thing was something to be condemned, not celebrated. In Saudi Arabia, people are publicly beheaded for adultery.

Or the US's. How many murders, rapes and other violent crimes were in the US in 2003?

LOL....just to let you know but I didn't find what you said humorous. It's a way for me to take a step back and take a deep breath to assess what you said before I say something in response. Back to the topic, I said that because I remember reading about the low crime rate when I was researching in a comparison of Saudi Arabia and Iran. That was 2 years ago as a matter of fact but feel more then free to look it up. And if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong:) But I don't think my memory's that bad enough to forget something like that. So I'm in error since I have only my knowledge of these 2 countries in the Middle East. I'm not advocating for it actually and I think it's pretty horrific since a lot of the Islamic countries abuse human rights by enforcing the laws under the Shar'iah. I already know about Saudi Arabia beheading women for adultery. Heck they even practice beheading on men as well. Have you also heard of honor killings??? Now that is a hush hush secret it seems.

I wouldn't be surprised that the U.S. has a high crime rate. Heck, look at D.C. for one or Los Angeles even. Sorry I'm unable to provide statistics. You're asking the wrong person lol Numbers was always my weakness unfortunately :tongue:

You are talking about handing a criminal over to a lynch mob. I'm saying he should be tried in an international court. Find out what really happened in Iraq, why it happened, and who else is culpable.

True the Iraqi people very much want to execute Saddam. But then again, can you really blame them? I mean, they've been waiting for this moment for years and probably thought it would never happen. I don't want Saddam to be tried in the Hague. Sorry but serving life in prison is not my idea of a suitable punishment for what he did and neither I'm sure do the Iraqi people. But something akin to the Nuremberg Trials would be more ideal as well as finding out what "really happened." But then again, if you're wanting to know who else is culpable, wouldn't that be digging a can of worms essentially? True, the U.S. would be an obvious factor but what does that say about the other countries involved as well?

The Iraqi's didn't overthrow him. The international Coalition did. A war was conducted to do so.

True the Iraqis didn't overthrow him but you would know why they didn't right? Or weren't able to. They did in fact try to overthrow him once before after the Persian Gulf War. How could they have the power to do so when they didn't even choose him to be their leader? Do you think the Iraqi people would have ever been able to overthrow him? I think not. Mostly due to fear of retribution.

You're not listening. This is beyond questions of fairness. The whole regime is on trial. It has to be done right, so that all guilty parties are named and shamed and, if possible, punished.

But is that really possible? I'm sure there will be some in the regime that will get away and already have done so. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be fair but what consitutes all the guilty parties other than the regime? We're going back again to the U.S. and then the other countries who had dealings with him. What punishment do you want then?

Send him to the Hague.

Sorry I don't agree :smile: Maybe as a last alternative.

Before he came to power, he was the 'power behind the throne' ... was there someone behind him?

Someone or rather more than one person was behind him. The U.S. among others. But that doesn't excuse his actions at all.

Because ... Iraq was following an American military agenda. The other players, Europe, the then Soviet Union, had other satellites and concerns of their own. Saddam stopped a unifying movement emerging in the Arab world.

Oh? Whose to say the other countries didn't carry a similar military agenda?
I highly question their reasons for their involvement with Saddam just as much as I question our relations with him in the process. What makes you think that Russia especially may have had ulterior motives such as wanting to gain a foothold in Iraq? They tried once before with Afghanistan. With U.S. objection and aid of course.

Saddam stopped a unifying movement emerging the Arab world??? Huh??? How in the world did you conceive that thought? How is Iran being Shi'ite, and the majority of the other countries being Sunni unifying? Plus how could unifying movement could occur in the Arab world? I'd really like to know because I don't think it would ever have been possible. I mean look at the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. You think they would have been unifed with every other country in the Arab world with the exception of Iraq and Iran? And have you taken into account the countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kazisthstan (sp), and the other Muslim countries east of Iran. No, I don't think such a unifying movement would have been possible.

Kuchana

12-27-2003, 07:13 AM

Komeni was a cleric who wanted to run his country exactly to Islamic scripture.

Are you saying you approve of him? I don't due to his less than favorable human rights record, particulary with the women.

Are you suggesting America was engaged in a religious war?

I'm not suggesting any such thing. America was engaged because of the fear of instability and the Iranians taking control over the entire region and in turn taking control of the world's oil market. Yep I said it. Oil:P But keep in mind that the U.S. wasn't the only country to be worried at such a prospect.

WHY did they want to fight? Who invaded who? Who was to gain from such a war?

Saddam was the one who invaded Iran. The reasons why they fought? Due to religious differences, border disputes, and political differences between Saddam and Khomeni. And it turned in Saddam's favor that Iran had just undergone a revolution upheavel and their defenses were not up to par with Iraq. How could Saddam resist? Especially since what he could gain from the war was to consolidate Iraq's rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state.

That wasn't an example of Kissinger's theory of the domino effect ...

You have got to be kidding me. True it wasn't a classica example but it had an Islamic variation to it. There were 3 main reasons why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. 1) They wished to expand their influence in Asia. 2) They wanted to preserve the Communist government that had been established in the 1970s, and was collapsing because of its lack of support other than in the military. 3)The Soviets wanted to protect their interests in Afghanistan from Iran and western nations. How is this not an example?

Because you don't know the definition of the word diplomacy?

diplomacy-negotations between nations. It was a given that the U.S. didn't have full diplomatic relations with Iraq due to their role in the 1967 war against Israel, this however does not mean that they didn't have some semblance of diplomacy nor that they didn't want it. In fact in 1984, the U.S. restored full diplomatic relations with Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war. They still had supported Iraq before that previously.

Again, I raise the spectre of East Timor. Why is it not ever discussed by anyone here? I suspect I'm the only person who mentions it. Ten times more civillian Asians died under Suharto than civillian Iraqi's died under Saddam, yet there are no calls from within America to try Suharto. Why? Because he was a mass murderer, but is still an ally of the US.

Get off your high horse please. I apologize for not being more informed of East Timor but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn of them further.

In short, you only condemn these evil people when they are no longer useful to the US.

Please do not assume to put words in my mouth. How dare you to presume to know what I think or feel. You don't think I feel empathy for those who suffer or disgust at the horrendous mistakes that the U.S. has made? And I'm getting fed up about how anti-U.S. you are, considering they weren't the only ones who contributed to these problems with the Middle East and throughout the rest of the world. Why do you not talk about them hmm? I'm all for talking about the faults of the U.S. but why not include those of the other countries who hold the same as well? It takes more than one you know.

True Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are oppressive governments but it's taking the lesser of 2 evils. At least they do not practice genocide.

Yes, but the trials investigated the Nazi's, investigated individuals, properly attributed blame and carried out appropriate sentencing. Those guilty of most heinous crimes were hanged, others sentenced to life imprisonment. You were suggesting such a trial would be purposeless - Nuremberg showed its worth.

Slobodan Milosovic is going to rot in prison for the rest of his life - he didn't 'get away' with murder.

And I'm not arguing that I don't want the truth known but Saddam and Milosvec both committed henious crimes. Again, do not put words in my mouth please. I was suggesting such a trial would be futile to disprove Saddam's guilt when he had proved from his past actions that he was.

So what