Saddam Hussein's execution: V

[Papewaio]

Is it possible to live in manner that is worse then death?

How many of his offspring survived?

How pitiful did he look in his white y-fronts?

I would have chosen life in prison for him working as a swine herder.

=][=

Since they went down the execution path they should have fully implemented it.

After hanging him they should have cremated his body and scattered it to the winds. No site for mourning, no site of rallying of militia around a so called martyr.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Can you show where this was given as one of the justifications put forward to Congress? Because I certainly don't remember that being raised in the Commons.

On a sidenote: do you realise your reasoning also justifies the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939? Or, for that matter, an invasion of Poland by just about any of its neighbours. The post-Versailles Poland was very belligerent indeed towards its neighbours, putting Saddam's Iraq to shame.

Stalin was a dictator. He did invade Poland, but no one wanted to mess with the USSR.

My reasoning is saying that Saddam was a rutheless dictator and deserved to die.

[Bar Kochba]

Is it possible to live in manner that is worse then death?

I would have chosen life in prison for him working as a swine herder.

do they allow pigs in Iraq?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

do they allow pigs in Iraq?

Saddam

[Pannonian]

Stalin was a dictator. He did invade Poland, but no one wanted to mess with the USSR.

Did you miss the point that Poland invaded the newborn USSR in the early 1920s? You said that we were right to invade Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s. By that reasoning, Stalin was even more right to invade Poland in 1939, since his country was the original victim.

Also, can you provide proof as I had asked for, that part of the rationale for the Iraq war as presented to the US Congress in 2003 was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990?

My reasoning is saying that Saddam was a rutheless dictator and deserved to die.

If that's the reasoning politicians act by, no wonder Iraq is going to the dogs.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Did you miss the point that Poland invaded the newborn USSR in the early 1920s? You said that we were right to invade Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s. By that reasoning, Stalin was even more right to invade Poland in 1939, since his country was the original victim.

Also, can you provide proof as I had asked for, that part of the rationale for the Iraq war as presented to the US Congress in 2003 was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990?


If that's the reasoning politicians act by, no wonder Iraq is going to the dogs.

Why the hell is Stalin part of this?

Anyway, so we should've just let Iraq take Kuwait? Saddam would think he could invade anyone he pleased. I don't know what goes on in American Congress so I don't know. Again, should the world just have let Iraq take Kuwait?

[Geoffrey S]

No, Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to take Kuwait in 1990. No, that had nothing to do with ousting Saddam from power in 2003.

[Pannonian]

Why the hell is Stalin part of this?

I thought your reasoning regarding Iraq/Kuwait and 2003 was pretty offbeat, so I tried to find a well-known recent parallel. Unfortunately the example I chose was a bit too logical compared with the original.

Anyway, so we should've just let Iraq take Kuwait? Saddam would think he could invade anyone he pleased. I don't know what goes on in American Congress so I don't know. Again, should the world just have let Iraq take Kuwait?

Err, didn't you notice? We had a war in 1991, in which Iraqi troops were conclusively expelled from Kuwait. I haven't noticed any change in that condition since then, or did I miss something?

Since you don't know much about the US Congress, my original request may have been a bit unfair. So let's change it a little. I guess you're Greek, so was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 cited as one of the reasons why Greece had to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Has the Greek parliament changed its mind over its decision to join the Iraqi operation? Have you received any paybacks for the risks your brave troops face on a daily basis in Iraq? Has Muslim terrorism spiked since you sent troops to Iraq?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

No, Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to take Kuwait in 1990. No, that had nothing to do with ousting Saddam from power in 2003.

But wasn't that the final straw to the US and UK? They simply had enough of it, and wanted him out.

[Pannonian]

But wasn't that the final straw to the US and UK? They simply had enough of it, and wanted him out.

The UK wanted nothing to do with any Iraq war.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

It's obvious this is getting no where, and I'm not going to exhaust my opinions. Good day

[Pannonian]

It's obvious this is getting no where, and I'm not going to exhaust my opinions. Good day

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

No, it's because I'm trying to help you understand my point, but it seems you can't and start rambling off about Stalin and Poland.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Nice try using my words against me, though.

[Pannonian]

No, it's because I'm trying to help you understand my point, but it seems you can't and start rambling off about Stalin and Poland.

So let's ignore that comparison, and return to my request for evidence that your parliament cited Kuwait 1990 as a justification for Iraq 2003. Since you admit to an ignorance about the American Congress, and your posts elsewhere suggest you are Greek, I have asked for evidence that the Greek parliament considered Kuwait 1990 as one of the reasons why it should join Iraq 2003. Can you provide any cites?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So let's ignore that comparison, and return to my request for evidence that your parliament cited Kuwait 1990 as a justification for Iraq 2003. Since you admit to an ignorance about the American Congress, and your posts elsewhere suggest you are Greek, I have asked for evidence that the Greek parliament considered Kuwait 1990 as one of the reasons why it should join Iraq 2003. Can you provide any cites?

Hmmm even though this isn't about Greece?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So, yet again, you are saying things completely beside the point.

[Pannonian]

Hmmm even though this isn't about Greece?

We're talking about justification for the war, since you brought up Kuwait in the first place. Since you don't appear to be familiar with the US Congress, and I certainly don't remember Kuwait being cited in Commons debates, I figured you would be more familiar with your own national assembly that makes such decisions. I'm trying to be reasonable here, in framing the question to suit your knowledge. So, was Kuwait mentioned in the debates that led to your country deciding to join the Iraq war?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Too bad Greece never was part of the Iraq War



This is basically the nations who are part of the war

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Sorry, those were the original supporters.

Here are the current countries with military in Iraq

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

The Trial was Stupid. you Guys think it was Stupid Also eh? Well I give you a really fair trial


Why didn't they just toss a hand greande down in that damn hole of his, or wait, better yet, for a quick and painless death, why didn't they just bring him up, shot him in the head, and stick him in the hole?

That right there, ladies and Gentlemen, is the fairest trial you could give him (and proably a warning point for me,but I don't care).


and Edzy, what do you think we should have done with him? Life in Prision? Come on man, don't make me laugh..

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

The Trial was Stupid. you Guys think it was Stupid Also eh? Well I give you a really fair trial


Why didn't they just toss a hand greande down in that damn hole of his, or wait, better yet, for a quick and painless death, why didn't they just bring him up, shot him in the head, and stick him in the hole?

That right there, ladies and Gentlemen, is the fairest trial you could give him (and proably a warning point for me,but I don't care).

That works too.

[Pannonian]

Too bad Greece never was part of the Iraq War

This is basically the nations who are part of the war

So you think Kuwait was a valid reason for fighting Iraq in 2003, but your country hasn't experienced any of the consequences.

I don't recall the US Congress, representing the main contributor, nor the UK parliament, representing the main figleaf, ever citing that as a good reason for invading Iraq in 2003. My interpretation of that absence would be that, as the two main players, neither of them thought Kuwait 1990 could justify Iraq 2003. Perhaps you could make a better case than the elected representatives of the US and the UK?

[Tribesman]

Tribes, you making no sense. He killed people for no reason, or for the most idoitc reasons (or having you make idoitc knee jerk statements to irrate people). so please exlapin.

Awfully sorry there old boy , I thought I had given several examples in plain simple English as to why the content of your posts on this subject have been largely of a nonsensical variety .
Would you care to attempt the same ?
Or is it that you cannot quite manage to find nonsense in what I wrote on this subject?
If you cannot point out nonsense in what was written then it appears that you may just possibly be addressing the poster not the posts .
If you cannot point out some idoitc knee jerk statements then it would certainly appear that what you have done is what may be consideed as a rather pointless baseless personal rant .
Perhaps I am wrong , perhaps I have written nonsense , in the interests of debate could you please point it out , or point out that the criticisms I made of what you wrote are not valid .
If not then until you address the claims I made that what you wrote is nonsense then you really do not have anything to say .
Plain and simple(to borrow a phrase )

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

So you think Kuwait was a valid reason for fighting Iraq in 2003, but your country hasn't experienced any of the consequences.

I don't recall the US Congress, representing the main contributor, nor the UK parliament, representing the main figleaf, ever citing that as a good reason for invading Iraq in 2003. My interpretation of that absence would be that, as the two main players, neither of them thought Kuwait 1990 could justify Iraq 2003. Perhaps you could make a better case than the elected representatives of the US and the UK?

As I have said, I'm not in the US or UK, I can't say. I think Saddam was a valid reason for 2003. I never said Kuwait was.

[Pannonian]

As I have said, I'm not in the US or UK, I can't say. I think Saddam was a valid reason for 2003. I never said Kuwait was.

I beg to differ.

Patriarch of Constantinople said:

2. He started the war. Invading Kuwait.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I beg to differ.


Seems pretty clear to me.

Did I say the 2003 invasion?

[Pannonian]

Did I say the 2003 invasion?

Your subsequent comments indicated you were talking about the 2003 war, the ultimate result of which was Saddam's execution.

Patriarch of Constantinople said:
Geoffrey S wrote:
No, Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to take Kuwait in 1990. No, that had nothing to do with ousting Saddam from power in 2003.

But wasn't that the final straw to the US and UK? They simply had enough of it, and wanted him out.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Your subsequent comments indicated you were talking about the 2003 war, the ultimate result of which was Saddam's execution.

Yes, but I said that the Invasion of Kuwait was the last straw, and they wanted Saddam gone.

[Pannonian]

Yes, but I said that the Invasion of Kuwait was the last straw, and they wanted Saddam gone.

The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the last straw, so they invaded Iraq in 2003?