Well, George Bush Sr. never capitalized on his victory, so that let Saddam back into power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And also this is where I thought it was the last straw:
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bush Sr.
Printable View
Well, George Bush Sr. never capitalized on his victory, so that let Saddam back into power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And also this is where I thought it was the last straw:
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bush Sr.
Wasn't Bush Sr adamant about limiting his objective to expelling Iraq from Kuwait? IIRC something about, if he pushed on to Baghdad, he'd be overstepping the bounds of his mandate against Iraqi aggression, and the US would still be occupying Iraq a decade later. His chief general, Colin Powell, was equally adamant about there being an end in sight for the operation. The commander in charge of the actual operation, Norman Schwarzkopf, was equally insistent that the US should not allow itself to be overextended and get bogged down in a war that would never end. So the top 3 personnel involved in the 1991 war were quite sure the war against Iraqi aggression ended in 1991 with complete success when Iraqi troops were expelled from Kuwait. The top 3 personnel involved in the 1991 war also specifically warned against the type of campaign launched in 2003.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople
that's kind of what I meant. Him not marching on baghdad set the stage for the 2003 invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Temp removed pending talk with author.~Kukri
Very Well said Patriach. you one of the few people I actually agree with 100%..
Late arrival on this issue
just some thoughts/emotions
To me, he (Saddam) appeared to carry himself with dignity and calm courage - in contrast to his executors who appeared barbaric and freitend
For all the "we trying to save democracy" BS - in reality we are replacing one despot with another. We take out Saddam and put in a Shiite (Iranian) backed government which is busying itself with paying back old scores and ethincally cleansing the Sunnis.
I have this wierd post 9/11 feeling again - like the world has just gone backwards - we decend further into the new dark age.
I fully understand and sympathise that Suddams victims should have their pound of flesh, but there seems to be other agendas attached to this.
For the record Im not against the death penalty - as hundreds of people die every day through starvation, disease and war, many of whom deserve to live - and yet those undeserving wolves that prey on our weak and helpless - get preserved, and protected - why - there are good people in this world that would give anything even to be in prison in the first world - so desperate are they.
My question is since Saddam has been put to death - because he was such a genocidal madman - what punishment for those responsible for putting Saddam there - and supplying him with weapons - surely they must also be guilty by association - aiding and abeting. Of coarse that would involve prosecting some senior US and UK politicians.
And while we are putting people to death for warcrimes - lets not forget the ones who Fire Bombed Dresden, and wiped out millions of innocent women and children in the blink of an eye in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - why arnt they on trial? Until that day - how dare we pass judgement on others.
If the west ever loses domination of the globe - it will be interesting to see who the other side puts on trial for war crimes. Im confused - are we the good guys or the bad guys... or is it irrelevent. This is our version of Harry potter/lord of the rings/ oops I mean History of the World, and the villians of the story need to have unpleasant endings to sate the audiences desire to feel that good triumphs over evil. Or at least the side we are made to believe .. is good.
The condemned seem to fall into three categories: those who whine/bemoan their fate, those who deal with it calmly, and those who sneer at their executioners. Apparently Saddam was (mostly) in the calm category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus
No, that is not AT ALL, what the US and our coalition are seeking for Iraq. Sadly, we may end up with just the kind of regime your describe, but our goal has been to establish a comparatively secular (by M.E. standards) democratic republic. Mind you, our efforts to bring this about could have been a good deal better than they have been. It may even be that the moment for such has passed (Yes, I know, Tribesy, you view it as never having existed, I'll just stipulate that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus
Then you are more of an optimist than I. I view humanity's progress beyond warlordism/tribalism as the historical abberations. Sadly, I think such things as you highlight to be more of a regression toward the norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus
This is a rather difficult standard to uphold. As an analogy, this approach would make me responsible by "association" for any fraud perpetrated by one of my former public speaking students, since I am the person who will have contributed to their ability to swindle someone. Should I be prosecuted? I think you would be hard-pressed to find evidence that any of the US/UK political leadership knowingly gave Saddam the tools to perpetrate crimes against humanity. Was Saddam aided by the USA and others in his war against Iran? Yes. Was this morally correct? Perspectives will vary, but a good case that it was not could be argued. Did this support make those leaders responsible for every subsequent action taken by Saddam? I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus
The direct death toll from all three cities combined was less than half a million persons. Even considering deaths from lingering radiation effect -- an element not fully understood by those employing the weapons -- multiple millions of casualties is an exaggeration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus
In answer to your question, had those attacks occurred today, it is likely that the responsible decision makers would be on trial. The standards of that era regarding the "validity" of such targets were a good deal different than those employed now.
Military and political domination by the West is already a thing of the past. If the world is relying on the USA to dominate it, they will quickly note that we are pretty lousy at putting a boot on someone's neck. Economic and Cultural/Communication dominance continues, but that too is progressively less evident with each passing year. If you really believe a war of vengeance is in the offing for the past "sins" of the West, then "timing issues" suggest you will have the joy of viewing your predictions come true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus
Wanting to be on the "side of the angels" and craving the mental simplicity of the enemy being "bad," is a pretty natural inclination with a long history. Read Twain's "War Prayer" -- this issue is one of long standing.
I heard he requested corn dogs for his last meal.
I hear the Iraqi government has ordered an 'inquiry' into the circumstances of its own execution of Saddam Hussein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
It seems that they have achieved a near-impossible feat: they have made people all over the world feel a certain sympathy or respect for the man in view of his dignified behaviour during his last moments, as opposed to the mob that executed him.
Will someone stop this foul movie called 'Iraq' and switch on the lights, please. I think we can all use a drink.
True , it would be very hard to find evidence of any complicity in the crimes .Quote:
I think you would be hard-pressed to find evidence that any of the US/UK political leadership knowingly gave Saddam the tools to perpetrate crimes against humanity.
Well apart from things like the Anfal campaign , gassing at halabja ,the air attacks on the marsh arabs after the liberation of Kuwait where it is very easy to find evidence .
Which is why they only tried Saddam for a relatively small crime (compared to many he committed) under a law that was made by the CPA and two Iraqi laws that were rewritten by the CPA .
Alan Friedman's Spider's Web: Bush, Saddam, Thatcher & the Decade of Deceit (1999) would be a good start. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Firstly:
Bad timing ( second day of the Hajj isn't exactly the best day for an execution)
Secondly:
Amateur excutioners (even Ceausescu had a better execution squad than Saddam)
Not that I've ever really thought much about executing people before... but I'm wondering, in what way exactly is the world a better place now that we've snuffed Saddam out?
I was disgusted to see people cheering at his execution. But that's a personal opinion, and not something to base an argument on.
N.B. Like some others, I am no hippy. Hells, I want to join the army. But I do have a problem with killing people when there's another option. I've never heard of someone being more useful dead than alive. (except maybe here)
Is there a link to the full video of Saddam being hung?
Please note that we will not accept links to execution videos here.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Please refrain from asking for such links being posted.
Thanks
Ser Clegane
The entire trial thru execution has been a debacle. I expected a mess for the trial but I thought they could at least make a decent, organized execution, but no, it was a mess. They should have just marched him into the street and shot him in the head while waving hate banners behind him chanting something ridiculous. Way to show the world how developed you are! What could have been a great piece of PR turned into one step forward and 100 steps back.
Saddam's execution was a step in the right direction no matter how poorly done. All we need to do now is catch 'ol Bin Laden.
Burn Baby Burn!!
(meant in the best possible way of course :D)
"All"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
And then ... what?
lol, I didn't literally mean "all". I meant that that was something that we needed to do however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
We need to kill every terrorist on earth imho. For now though, Saddam and Bin Laden is a good start :D.
Interesting , but surely we would also have to kill every poitician or military figure that supports or funds terrorism aswell .Quote:
We need to kill every terrorist on earth imho.
Still I suppose its a good as reason as any for you to clean out your government and get a new one Vuk .:juggle2:
Hmmmmm , that seems at odds with the rather sensible post before.....Quote:
Saddam's execution was a step in the right direction no matter how poorly done.
So Vuk do you hold that you are correct and one step forwards is good , irelevant of how far back you step at the same time ?Quote:
What could have been a great piece of PR turned into one step forward and 100 steps back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Excute Him. What else we suppose to do with him:dizzy2: ??
i'm kinda ambivalent on one aspect of this topic, which is the idea that sadaam's execution should have been done in a nice clinical whitewashed setting. why? we are talking about killing someone and killing someone whether it's murder or execution is and should be a repugnant messy affair. i doubt a violent death is ever 'clean' but we would like to believe that it can be so we can avoid the ugliness associated with it. so we get the medical professionals and the white walled room and everything is serene, and all that is not for the person about to be executed, why do they care? they're about to die, it's for the rest of us so we don't feel as bad or guilty that we're doing it. and i am certainly guilty of that belief. so i say that if we are going to execute someone we should leave it dirty and messy and get rid of the hypocricy of a 'clean' execution because that's just done to assuage our feelings. and for the record i supported sadaam's execution and still do, though the trial was a farce, and Justice was denied for all the other crimes that he commited, and didn't get to face judgement for.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Excute Him. What else we suppose to do with him :dizzy2: ??
Tom Cruise has a similar problem , things tend to go over his head .
Apparently the gist of my question was lost here ... NM ...Quote:
Originally Posted by BHC
Well, first of all, they are probably dead. Second, your comparison has about as much validity as Saddam's trial. :laugh4:Quote:
And while we are putting people to death for warcrimes - lets not forget the ones who Fire Bombed Dresden, and wiped out millions of innocent women and children in the blink of an eye in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - why arnt they on trial? Until that day - how dare we pass judgement on others.
2007 is here and PJ is back! :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
No we do not excute him. Executing him will create a martyr. We need to put that vile piece of excriment in guantanimo for life. Let him die misreably decades from now, forgoten, and worthless in nothing more then rags. Bin Laden needs to live a long, horrible life, executing him is too easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
I think Ser Clegane was asking what do we do after we catch him. We would have gotten involved in lots of countries, cuased alot of chaos for one man. His capture will spark lots of violence throughout the world. His execution would cause the destruction of some governments. What we do after we have cuaght him or if we senslessly kill him is as important as capturing the man in the first place. Just killing him will breed more Bin Laden's if we are not careful.
~:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
New Year's Resolution: When in doubt, especially regarding teh muslims, keep my big mouth shut. :laugh4:
Posts like these Ticks me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
I am saying one last piece about this, and I'm done.
Killing Him is the best thing we could have done. Why the hell,should we keep him in Jail for Life? Would you like to see someone, who kill half your family, sit in jail for the rest of his life, but you have to watch him LIVE in Jail, while your family is dead. Use your Heads. Killing Him was and is the ONLY Option we had.
Killing Osama is also the only option we have. Please Tex and everyone else, please use logcial.
"And while we are putting people to death for warcrimes - lets not forget the ones who Fire Bombed Dresden, and wiped out millions of innocent women and children in the blink of an eye in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - why arnt they on trial? Until that day - how dare we pass judgement on others."
That was War. People Die in Wars. Don't like It? Tough. Deal with it,ad stop crying.
Seeking revenge regardless of the outcome is idoicy. Killing him will destroy the pakistani government, the new one will not be friendly to us. Killing him will more then likely destroy the current Saudi government. Killing him will cause huge amounts of deaths in the judea region. Puting him in guantanimo for life is a darn better prospect. He wont be martyred, he will sit there and rot away. Living proof of what will happen to you if you attack us.Quote:
Killing Him is the best thing we could have done. Why the hell,should we keep him in Jail for Life? Would you like to see someone, who kill half your family, sit in jail for the rest of his life, but you have to watch him LIVE in Jail, while your family is dead. My god, put aside your people's Devout Reglious Beflies and your Martyr Bullshit, Use your Heads. Killing Him was and is the ONLY Option we had.
Killing Osama is also the only option we have. Please Tex and everyone else, please use logcial.
Don't tell me to use logic when your post consists of nothing but seeking revenge. Consider the consequences for killing such a man before screaming "off with his head!".
...........:laugh4:Quote:
Please Tex and everyone else, please use logcial.
When it doubt , especialy regarding your ...................... instead of a games forum :yes:Quote:
New Year's Resolution: When in doubt, especially regarding teh muslims, keep my big mouth shut.