[^]Saddam was just killed by a hanging man thats the death penalty at work to bad we cant enforce the death penalty in less than a week like they do. Thats one thing that they do right!!!
quote:
Originally posted by ky
Saddam was just killed by a hanging man thats the death penalty at work to bad we cant enforce the death penalty in less than a week like they do. Thats one thing that they do right!!!
On the other hand, we free condemned years later when DNA testing not available at the trial proves they were wrongly convicted.
Sometimes it takes time to put things into perspective, and for cooler heads to prevail.
No, it's not a perfect system but there needs to be some checks and balances for those cases when there are sloppy investigations or D.A.'s (//%22http://www.slate.com/id/2156216%22) running for re-election.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by ky
Saddam was just killed by a hanging man thats the death penalty at work to bad we cant enforce the death penalty in less than a week like they do. Thats one thing that they do right!!!
On the other hand, we free condemned years later when DNA testing not available at the trial proves they were wrongly convicted.
Sometimes it takes time to put things into perspective, and for cooler heads to prevail.
No, it's not a perfect system but there needs to be some checks and balances for those cases when there are sloppy investigations or D.A.'s (//%22http://www.slate.com/id/2156216%22) running for re-election.
Those freed are rarely convicted murderers....
quote:
Originally posted by ky
[^]Saddam was just killed...
Gr-e-e-e-a-a-a-t. We win. Can we go home now?
I have been reading the new history book published by one of the leading publisher of a monthly magazine. It denotes the rise and fall of all super powers since history begin. Saddam was accused of killing hundreds in the area where history begin. It seems to have been because a group sought to assassinate him. Now in the shadows seems that one of the causes of this war was someone wanted to kill daddy. We have caused the death of hundreds of thousands of their women and children up to now.
We have set a precedent in the trials of the leaders of Germany and now Iraqi. Every super power has come to an end and when this one comes to an end will the conquer find cause to execute the politicians in power at that time? Or destroy all of the people present at that time?
I thought it was about oil, or the Jews, or Halliburton . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by ky
[^]Saddam was just killed...
Gr-e-e-e-a-a-a-t. We win. Can we go home now?
I would like to ask everyone to take a moment and whish our President a Very Happy New Year......!!!
And a congratulatory note on achieving the number 3,000... Many had said he could not count that high..................
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Fire1.gif)
Happy New Year George.......! (//%22http://youtube.com/watch?v=J1EgeemQ93o%22)
...adjust your volume slightly...
[:(]Im still kind of sad whne you watch the video of saddam being hanged. he was still a human even though he killed all thoses people but what is any different in him and Bush he is getting innocent men women and children on both sides of the war killed everyday and no one is calling for his execution????
Personally, I think he looked quite smashing with a hemp necktie.
[}:)]
He was tried and convicted of mass murder by his own people and got his. What has been accomplished in Iraq, regardless of the death toll to US forces and Iraqi civilians, is a net gain in life due to this murderous savage being deposed, tried, and hanged. For the moral relativists benefit, I will list several common abuses of Saddam's regime upon his people according to the US State Department, and then tell me he didn't deserve it again.
Medical experimentation
Beatings
Crucifixion
Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife
Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
Branding with a hot iron
Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
Pouring boiling water into the victim's rectum
Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
Extracting teeth with pliers
Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents
Additionally, the Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria, released this information "Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of 'Feda'iyee Saddam,' the paramilitary organization led by Uday, have beheaded in public more than 200 women all over the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many of the victims were innocent professional women, including some who were suspected of being dissidents."
Also, here is a video (//%22http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp%22)showing beatings and amputations if you have the grit to watch it.
Post modernist imbeciles spouted the same rhetoric in defense of monsters we hear today when we confronted Hitler, and they will continue to do so as long as those with a set take action.
As bad as he was and deserving of the hanging, for some reason I can't bring myself to watch the video. I just have a weak stomach for such stuff. I suppose if I was a family member of one of his tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of victims, I'd have been on the front row hoping for a slow death.
quote:
Originally posted by truth4freedom
He was tried and convicted of mass murder by his own people and got his. What has been accomplished in Iraq, regardless of the death toll to US forces and Iraqi civilians, is a net gain in life due to this murderous savage being deposed, tried, and hanged. For the moral relativists benefit, I will list several common abuses of Saddam's regime upon his people according to the US State Department, and then tell me he didn't deserve it again.
Medical experimentation
Beatings
Crucifixion
Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife
Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
Branding with a hot iron
Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
Pouring boiling water into the victim's rectum
Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
Extracting teeth with pliers
Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents
Additionally, the Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria, released this information "Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of 'Feda'iyee Saddam,' the paramilitary organization led by Uday, have beheaded in public more than 200 women all over the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many of the victims were innocent professional women, including some who were suspected of being dissidents."
Also, here is a video (//%22http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp%22)showing beatings and amputations if you have the grit to watch it.
Post modernist imbeciles spouted the same rhetoric in defense of monsters we hear today when we confronted Hitler, and they will continue to do so as long as those with a set take action.
And for what reason did we allow Idi Amin "Dada" to retire with the wealth of his Country packed in carry on luggage and Swiss Bank Accounts.........?
Furthermore, explain the Nouriega affair....... He is in Florida isn't he..?
Not saying Sadam did not deserve what he got... The scales sometimes are tipped because of Politics........!
Just a sign of the times..
If Saddam was so bad, why did the U.S. prop him up early during his dictatorship?
If you're going to get mad at somebody about this, get mad at Reagan.
Check out who's shaking hands with Saddam. It's Donald Rumsfeld.
(http://michael.ellerman.id.au/misc/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
If Saddam was so bad, why did the U.S. prop him up early during his dictatorship?
If you're going to get mad at somebody about this, get mad at Reagan.
Check out who's shaking hands with Saddam. It's Donald Rumsfeld.
(http://michael.ellerman.id.au/misc/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg)
Point of historical correctness, our courtship of Saddam dates to Jimmy Carter. We were hiding in the wings when the Iraq/Iran war started in the latter part of 1980, months before Reagan took office.
Looking at our relationship with Iran and the USSR(which was backing Iran) at that time, it only made sense to look to Saddam for hope as our savior in the ME at the time.
Now, where is Waterboy to tell me I'm re-writing history again by citing facts?
quote:
Originally posted by truth4freedom
He was tried and convicted of mass murder by his own people and got his. What has been accomplished in Iraq, regardless of the death toll to US forces and Iraqi civilians, is a net gain in life due to this murderous savage being deposed, tried, and hanged. For the moral relativists benefit, I will list several common abuses of Saddam's regime upon his people according to the US State Department, and then tell me he didn't deserve it again.
Medical experimentation
Beatings
Crucifixion
Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife
Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
Branding with a hot iron
Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
Pouring boiling water into the victim's rectum
Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
Extracting teeth with pliers
Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents
Additionally, the Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria, released this information "Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of 'Feda'iyee Saddam,' the paramilitary organization led by Uday, have beheaded in public more than 200 women all over the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many of the victims were innocent professional women, including some who were suspected of being dissidents."
Also, here is a video (//%22http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp%22)showing beatings and amputations if you have the grit to watch it.
Post modernist imbeciles spouted the same rhetoric in defense of monsters we hear today when we confronted Hitler, and they will continue to do so as long as those with a set take action.
I'm not shedding a tear for him, but this sounds a lot like life under Bush's good friends the Saudis.
And how many of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi vs how many were Iraqi? (None).
And how does his death do anything to further our "war on terror"? Iraq is slowly slipping into the hands of Iran and we helping that happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Point of historical correctness, our courtship of Saddam dates to Jimmy Carter. We were hiding in the wings when the Iraq/Iran war started in the latter part of 1980, months before Reagan took office.
Looking at our relationship with Iran and the USSR(which was backing Iran) at that time, it only made sense to look to Saddam for hope as our savior in the ME at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
Good stuff here too.
Carter's influence on that war is questionable. It's possible that he instigated that war, I just find it highly unlikely. The war started about 4 months before Carter left office in January 81. Or about 10 months after the US embassy was taken.
USSR eventually backed both sides, as did we (covertly of course (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair%22)).
Other than Hussein, I'm not sure there's anyone else I'd blame for that war. Hussein did, after all, invade Iran. Not sure that either Reagan or the Soviets should be applauded for their part, but they probably shouldn't be blamed too much either. Blaming Carter would be a bit of a stretch. Probably much easier to blame the British for drawing that damnable Iraq map in the first place.
Who has the plates for the $100 dollar bills along with the paper to print the bills, as he needed them, in his war with Iran? We accuse him of building several homes. Saddam was able to print as much money as he needed, Iraqi is a oil rich now.
We held Saddam captive until the exile Iraqi government in England was reinstalled, at the cost of thousands of American casualties, liken the Pharisees turning Christ over to the Romans we turned him over to the civil war government we are trying to reinstall so his blood will not be on our hands.
We cannot stop the war because if we did there would be no people's paid trips for the politicians to check on the Iraqi civil war we are loosing. We have become as barbaric as any of those we refer to as heathens in early histories of the species call man.
We are bombed daily with propaganda of what has been done there while covering up our deeds of the past. Ours vile deeds are always covered up by our noble justification,
What set me off watching the news last night was the talking heads being appalled that Saddam was "taunted" as he was led to the gallows and wasn't allowed to "die with dignity".
How many of his victims tortured and killed at his behest by his Republican Guard and at his hands as a street punk growing up died with dignity?
I'm not spouting cliche "eye-for-an-eye" crap, I'm just saying this guy was a total animal and was deserving of no pity.
So much loathing and self hatred here, and Wiki used as a credible source. What are you drinking? It amazes me how liberals are entirely prone to blame the US first and foremost for every evil that has occurred in this earth. We have to play dirty in the sand box because that's how they play. They know no other way, and obviously they don't want democracy handed to them, they like their tribal warring.
Riddle me this. We have to support either Shi'ite or Sunni in our holy war to keep them fighting each other and not us. So which do you advocate for? Our dance between supporting Saddam and Iran has more to do with the fact that once either the Sunni or the Shi'ite's dominate the other, they then will turn full force on Israel and us. Wouldn't it make sense to play both sides and keep them at each others throats instead of ours? I know you moral relativists think that we can just talk to them and they will listen to your awe inspiring wisdom, but that's simply ridiculous in the light of historical atrocities committed by command of the qura'n and its adherents. So, who do we support?
On certain things, I'd take the Pepsi Challenge against most of you folks. Wikipedia is a good place to start for most on this board (since most know virtually nothing about the Middle East, yet some talk about it so much). Better to get the general concept first, then dive into details. Rather than locating any document from any source that supports ones preconceived notions of history (henceforth known as David Dukeism).
I'm a Historian. My focus is Soviet Union/Russia primarily, Poland second, and way more Middle East that probably anybody on this board would ever want to know.
Can't help it that I have to dumb it down for folks. Most people don't have the time nor desire to study this stuff. And I don't blame them.
Michael,
I'd agree with you about Wiki. It does pretty much break things down into a digestable form, and it's quick. Though I'm usually wary of factual errors and it does tend to over-simplify at times.
I'm with you Conan.
Carter's involvement, or non-involvement in Iran-Iraq War is quite possibly way too broad to be a Doctoral Thesis. Not a two sentence relativistic statement on an online encyclopedia.
I don't know if (or how much) the Carter Administration was involved. It's certainly possible, might be some fun reading there for those select few who actually like that kind of stuff. The generalities of the Reagan Administration's involvement are a little closer to "common knowledge."
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
If Saddam was so bad, why did the U.S. prop him up early during his dictatorship?
If you're going to get mad at somebody about this, get mad at Reagan.
Check out who's shaking hands with Saddam. It's Donald Rumsfeld.
(http://michael.ellerman.id.au/misc/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg)
Now, where is Waterboy to tell me I'm re-writing history again by citing facts?
You just can't get over that I outed your propensity for revision and stretching facts to the extreme![;)] Some believe that Reagan was already dealing with ME players during those few months before he took office. Why would you not consider that as relevant as a lame duck president having possible contact?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
On certain things, I'd take the Pepsi Challenge against most of you folks. Wikipedia is a good place to start for most on this board (since most know virtually nothing about the Middle East, yet some talk about it so much).
Wiki? Since nearly anyone can edit it and most of those that do are Soros loving lib scum, it's not only chock full of factual errors, it's worse than CNN, FoxNews, The New York Times, and the Tulsa Whirled put together when it comes to useless propaganda. That's the last place I would recommend researching anything. For the Middle East, I would recommend memri.org, jihadwatch.org, and dogpile.com. Also, I have numerous people I post with on other sites that have been to the Middle East on numerous occasions and one actually even speaks Farsi!
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Better to get the general concept first, then dive into details. Rather than locating any document from any source that supports ones preconceived notions of history (henceforth known as David Dukeism).
aka MichaelCism
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I'm a Historian. My focus is Soviet Union/Russia primarily, Poland second, and way more Middle East that probably anybody on this board would ever want to know.
I've already found out too much. Where did you receive your degree?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Can't help it that I have to dumb it down for folks. Most people don't have the time nor desire to study this stuff. And I don't blame them.
I do, and have. You're certainly riding mighty high on your horse there pardner. Who are these mythical people you're having to dumb it down for?
Wiki [}:)]
[/quote]
Don't be challenging people's credentials without a willingness to show yours.
Truth4freedom, what makes you an expert in all things Middle East?
Oh, you say that you "have a number of people that you post with on other sites. One of them actually speaks Farsi".
My bad. Go on, expert.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Don't be challenging people's credentials without a willingness to show yours.
I never claimed to be an expert, did I? I also didn't assert that I had to dumb down my knowledge to reach the intellectual level of other forum members.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Truth4freedom, what makes you an expert in all things Middle East?
Nothing. I study it as much as I can and share my opinion. What makes you?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Oh, you say that you "have a number of people that you post with on other sites. One of them actually speaks Farsi".
My bad. Go on, expert.
I also have a friend in Kurdistan teaching English, opening an internet café', and doing missions work. He also writes for some local papers, and they put on a womens conference recently.
I try and keep as informed as possible. No one's perfect!
Once again, I never called myself an expert.
I am not an expert on the Middle East. I am an expert on very few things (fashion, pig latin and beef jerky).
I did get my undergraduate degree in Political Science during the Carter presidency years.
My favorite professor during those years convinced me that the Middle East was the single biggest contributor to international tensions in my lifetime. He was right.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
I have been reading the new history book published by one of the leading publisher of a monthly magazine. It denotes the rise and fall of all super powers since history begin. Saddam was accused of killing hundreds in the area where history begin. It seems to have been because a group sought to assassinate him. Now in the shadows seems that one of the causes of this war was someone wanted to kill daddy. We have caused the death of hundreds of thousands of their women and children up to now.
We have set a precedent in the trials of the leaders of Germany and now Iraqi. Every super power has come to an end and when this one comes to an end will the conquer find cause to execute the politicians in power at that time? Or destroy all of the people present at that time?
Preach on brother. Arrogance will get us no where. Bush should be put on trial and hanged for the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis. He is just as guilty as Saddam if not more. (Warning this message will be flagged by the CIA the FBI and possibly other Secret covert operations, You may be guilty by association just for reading it)
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
As bad as he was and deserving of the hanging, for some reason I can't bring myself to watch the video. I just have a weak stomach for such stuff. I suppose if I was a family member of one of his tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of victims, I'd have been on the front row hoping for a slow death.
He was convicted for killing 148 people. It was retaliation for a assasination attempt back in the 80's when we were still providing him the chemical weapons he probably used. Why didn't we stop him when it was happening instead of supplying him weapons? Why didn't we stop him after he massacred so many people after the gulf war when we encouraged them to rise up and then did nothing to help them... Oh wait if we would have took care of him then we wouldn't have had a reason to invade Iraq and set up permanent military bases to control the region and the oil. The time just wasn't ripe then, but after 9/11...I guess anything goes.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Point of historical correctness, our courtship of Saddam dates to Jimmy Carter. We were hiding in the wings when the Iraq/Iran war started in the latter part of 1980, months before Reagan took office.
Looking at our relationship with Iran and the USSR(which was backing Iran) at that time, it only made sense to look to Saddam for hope as our savior in the ME at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
Good stuff here too.
Carter's influence on that war is questionable. It's possible that he instigated that war, I just find it highly unlikely. The war started about 4 months before Carter left office in January 81. Or about 10 months after the US embassy was taken.
USSR eventually backed both sides, as did we (covertly of course (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair%22)).
Other than Hussein, I'm not sure there's anyone else I'd blame for that war. Hussein did, after all, invade Iran. Not sure that either Reagan or the Soviets should be applauded for their part, but they probably shouldn't be blamed too much either. Blaming Carter would be a bit of a stretch. Probably much easier to blame the British for drawing that damnable Iraq map in the first place.
This is a good point. This is exactly how Usama got his start. The CIA was funding the "freedom Fighters", as dubbed by Reagan, by funneling money through Pakistans ISI. This was the beginning of the Taliban and Al-Qaida as we know it today. The whole purpose was to fight the Russians covertly in Afghanistan. It worked, but then when you get the 9/11 attacks (if you believe the official conpsiracy), you get one hell of a case of blow back.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
If Saddam was so bad, why did the U.S. prop him up early during his dictatorship?
If you're going to get mad at somebody about this, get mad at Reagan.
Check out who's shaking hands with Saddam. It's Donald Rumsfeld.
(http://michael.ellerman.id.au/misc/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg)
Now, where is Waterboy to tell me I'm re-writing history again by citing facts?
You just can't get over that I outed your propensity for revision and stretching facts to the extreme![;)] Some believe that Reagan was already dealing with ME players during those few months before he took office. Why would you not consider that as relevant as a lame duck president having possible contact?
Simply for the fact that the election was in November and I believe the Iran/Iraq war started somewhere in Sept. of 1980, which would have been shortly after Reagan's GOP nomination. One can only guess there would have been a run-up and planning even before Reagan was even nominated.
It's like a crazy sandwich, Altrisum on the left and Truth on the right......
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
This is exactly how Usama got his start. The CIA was funding the "freedom Fighters", as dubbed by Reagan, by funneling money through Pakistans ISI.
That is exactly wrong. The ISI had their own operation which financed Islamist movements; what would later become al-qaida was financed by Arab sheiks. The CIA's chief ally was the Northern Alliance under Masood (whome Osama killed on 9/10/01, btw).
The chief blowback was the CIA's attempt to recover thousands of Stinger missiles.
If you haven't heard of it, look into reading Bob Woodward's State of Denial. It's Woodward's third book about the Bush Jr. administration, and really exposes the arrogant decision making process of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
This Dylan prose comes to mind:
They're selling postcards of the hanging
They're painting the passports brown
The beauty parlor is filled with sailors
The circus is in town
Here comes the blind commissioner
They've got him in a trance
One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker
The other is in his pants
And the riot squad they're restless
They need somewhere to go
As Lady and I look out tonight
From Desolation Row