 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Saddam
December 15, 2003 - 04:35 AM
|
|
Caught like like the rat that he is and buckling like the coward that he is - Saddam is in costody.
I think this will play out ot the US advantage - wait until you see the graphic nature of his war crimes paraded in front of the world - or his victims spit on him in court - all the while the war will seem more and more justified.
The real question is what sort of intelligence can be gleaned from this man?
Also there is no chance this is going to the Hague - they are too slow and have no death penalty.
No I imagine the US will set up a structure, then bring the Iraqis in to actually hang the bastard.
I heard this called "cowboy justice" before - bull - its just justice plain and simple. Have you seen the mass grave - there is no such thing as justice which it too swift or too lethal in this case.
I seems that people are unwilling to conceed that Saddams capture is nothing but a positive development. I don't like the way I was mislead in the onset of this war - and the transition of power is still a mess - but Saddam is a royal bastard and I'm happy to see he'll choke on his own medicine.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
melissy
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 30 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
|
Re: Saddam
December 15, 2003 - 04:47 AM
|
|
so you think we should just flip a switch and call it even?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Saddam
December 15, 2003 - 06:22 AM
|
|
There is no such thing as even in this instance is there? - his government made regular practice of mass executions and torture. No one is suggesting that we can or will in any way balance the scales of his injustice .
Ultimately I think it should be for the Iraqis themsevles to decide - and if they choose to execute him, which they probably will - fine by me.
The irony will be that he actually gets a trial - most of the executions he ordered did not have the benefit of a trial.
First I would like interregators to ask him a few questions - and he might not sleep well in the near future.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
asdf
Joined: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 222 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Israel
Province/State: Yerushalayim
|
Re: Saddam
December 15, 2003 - 06:42 AM
|
|
Luke's definitely right, Saddam will be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis, and probably put to death. An eye for an eye, right? What better way to have him pay than to do to him what he has inhumanely done to so many others.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
melissy
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 30 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
|
Re: Saddam
December 15, 2003 - 08:14 AM
|
|
But doesn't anyone think that some Iraqis will see him as a martyr? No doubt something needs to be done, and I know nothing will make this situation fair - execution would be too simple.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Saddam
December 15, 2003 - 08:53 AM
|
|
No - he's blown his chance to be seen as a martyr - when the US came to get him he just gave up. If he wanted to be a couragous martyr he would have come out blasting and died in a hail of bullets - like his sons did.
No, instead he willingly capitulated on live television - I think he'll be seen as a coward even by many of his supporters at this point.
Again - why am I hearing all these hyper-liberal psuedo-intellectual questions - will it make it okay? No - nothing is ever going to make it ok. The Nuremberg trials did not make the Hollocaust ok - don't be rediculous.
It will bring the subject to closure in the minds of many Iraqis - they will sleep better knowing that he is not around.
Why are you so concerned with how Saddam Hussien is treated - he is a war criminal of the highest calibre. I don't remember all this concern with how Saddam was treating his own people before the war in Iraq began.
It seems a hypocrital stance - so rest assured that Saddam will be treated with more dignity than he gave to the hundreds of thousands who died at his hands.
Finally - Messy - he will not simply be executed - he will be forced to answer for his crimes in an internationally televised trial - the victims he wronged will come before him and tell him to his face what a monster he is.
If it is at all possible to make this man understand the magnitude of his own wrong doing - this is it.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Saddam
December 16, 2003 - 03:15 AM
|
|
I disagree - I think psychologially - Iraqis would feel better if he was not alive. It is not the death penelty that will teach him the error of his ways - if anything it is the public humiliation he will stand through at trial - and the parade of witnesses who tell him to his face how terrible he is.
Anyway Jedi - Bill Clinton - a war criminal? Jeez man you are getting out there. I suppose your talking about the Balkans - where he did the world a favor and took out Milosovich. Anyway I have heard you call Powell, and now Clinton (what about Hillary ;-) war criminals - I think you use the term far too losely. Not everyone who has commanded a war is a criminal - yes commanding a war does mean that you are ordering the opposition killed - but giving such a command at war time does not make you a criminal. While we are at it - lets indite George Washington and Abraham Lincoln - they both gave orders that lead to killing when they waged the revolutionary and civil wars respectively.
I think Cheaney does have some responsibility here, as does Rumsfield - certainly these guys aided Saddam when he was fighting Iran - I think they abruptly ended their support in the late 80's.
If you want to know how many lives Saddam has claimed compared to Bush - well I would put the number at roughly 700,000+ for Saddam - and with the Iran/Iraq war he could be well above 1.5 million lives. Between Afghanistan and Iraq Bush is probably at about 30,000 - and the majority of those killed have been military. When people surrendered - they were taken as prisoners and often released.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
asdf
Joined: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 222 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Israel
Province/State: Yerushalayim
|
Re: Saddam
December 16, 2003 - 03:53 AM
|
|
No, we measure them based on the mannor they conduct war. There are rules for warfare just as there are for anything else, and boundaries the international community has set for appropriate actions and unacceptable behaviour.
I think the point Mike was making is that there's an ugly trend that the US touts law and condemns war criminals to their just fate, while discretionally flouting this same law and ignoring their own injustices.
I don't know how Clinton is himself a war criminal, but it may have something to do with his strike in Sudan on that chemical weapons plant. Of course it wasn't producing chemical weapons, it was proven only to be producing pharamaceuticals, necessary for the lives of thousands of children. Coincidentally, it also happened amid strong lobby efforts from American pharmaceutical companies to protect patent rights. I think Bill Clinton's the man, though.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Akamantso
Joined: Nov 15, 2003
Posts: 17 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Cameroon
Province/State: Centre
City: Yaoundé
|
A PITY.
December 16, 2003 - 04:33 AM
|
|
ITS A REAL PITY THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT SADAAM SHOULD DIE FOR IRAQUIS TO FEEL BETTER. I TELL YOU THIS: THERE WILL NOT BE ANY GREAT CHANGE UNTIL AMERICA LEAVES THEIR OIL TO THEM.
ITS SAID THAT IDENTIFYING A PROBLEM IS MORE THAN HALF WAY GONE IN SOLVING IT.
FORGET THE KILLINGS AND THE TERRORISM AND AND THE INVASIONS; ITS THE OIL.
KILLING SADAAM IS NOWHERE NEAR THE END OF THE IRAQUIS PROBLEMS. IT IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE OIL WILL STILL BE THERE AND THE IRAQUIS PROBLEMS WILL BE THERE AS WELL.
KEVIN.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
asdf
Joined: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 222 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Israel
Province/State: Yerushalayim
|
Re: Saddam
December 16, 2003 - 04:36 AM
|
|
Oil won't be a real issue unless the US stupidly privitizes it, as its done with literally every other sector.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Saddam
December 16, 2003 - 05:33 AM
|
|
actually - I think assuming this war is all about oil is too simplistic.
It is an important element - because it is the backbone of the Iraqi economy - but you are wrong to assume that the US is profiting off this - the war is costing us a fortune. We are giving the Iraqis literally billions of dollars - and it costs billions more to provide security. Perhapes over the next 15 years the US might see a financial return on our investment - but... right now we are talking about 18 billion in contracts compared with 90 billion in expendeture.
Ultimately this war is about a percieved security concern (both economic and military) and is more political in nature - it is in our long term economic security concerns to stabilize middle-east politics.
Of the greatest possible benefit to the US would be a democratic Iraq that is friendly - think of how helpful it is for us to have a strong, democratic and friendly Japan - instead of a hostile one. That is what the US is hoping for - then they will freely sell us their oil. It is better to have a self sufficient ally then a slave state.
And no one is suggesting Saddams capture or trial will solve all of Iraq's problems.
And yes it is the manner in which they conduct war - FDR and Churchill etc. ordered alot of bombs dropped, and thank god they did or all of Europe would be speaking German.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Michael Newton-McLaughlin
Joined: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 171 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Berkeley
|
Re: Saddam
December 16, 2003 - 05:49 AM
|
|
<<It>> Wouldn't we all sleep better if the war criminals of the world were not around? Does this mean it is ok for us to kill them? Especially those of liberal/progressive persuasion... is it ok to make exceptions for some killers? I personally do not think so, though it is not for me to decide - it is indeed for the Iraqis to.
<<Why are you so concerned with how Saddam Hussien is treated - he is a war criminal of the highest calibre. I don't remember all this concern with how Saddam was treating his own people before the war in Iraq began.>>
I'm not super concern with how he is treated. At the same time, I would be glad if we could line up a few US war criminals next to Hussein and try them. In US law, if you hand a gun to someone who intends to commit murder, you are guilty of accessory to that murder. I certainly think that if you gave the means (weapons/money) to a dictator with the forehand knowledge that they would use them on their own people, and or did nothing to stop it when they were doing so, you are guilty of accessory to war crimes. To name a few from the US still around: Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Norman Swartzkauff (sp), William Cohen, Dick Cheyney, Ronald Reagan, Both Bush's and Bill Clinton.
It is rather... folley.. that when we mention how horrible Saddam Hussein is, we forget to add onto the end "with the aid anf pat on the back from the U.S." We supplied him with chemical weapons, money and arms - when it was convenient for us. We did nothing to stop the Kurd purge in 1991, when we knew about it. Where was the humanitarian peace keeping mission then? I say the US has done a lot of great things in its existence, but also a lot of very horrible things to. It should not get off the hook for the horrible ones.
<<It>> I'll do it for Luke "... with the help and pat on the back of the U.S. and it's allies."
<<Finally>> I'm still trying to get over seeing his right quartic molar and bicuspid on the NY Times. He will be forced to answer for those crimes, hopefully. The unfortunate part, is that we will probably not be forced to answer for ours.
<<If>>
And I dont think killing him is going to really make him understand for the rest of his life. I say put him back in his rat hole with 1000 pounds of rice and a dripping well water line and seal it shut. He'd kill himself before the food and water ran out. Is it cruel? Yeah, perhaps.. im ok with being mean, i just dont think killing someone really makes the person pay, nor is it progress to ending the death penalty (which of course has much larger social contextual issues).
In peace and avoiding studying..
Mike
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Crystal_Abongta
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 175 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 36
Country: Cameroon
|
Its not the best...
December 16, 2003 - 06:18 AM
|
|
Those who aided Sadam in becoming what he was should be hanged as well. Again I wonder how many lives Sadam has claimed compared to Bush. Who’s going to judge Bush? Would Bush be courage enough to tell Sadam in his face he’s a murderer when he (Bush) is just another species?
Killing Sadam now to my opinion would not teach him a lesson it would just be adding one more corps to the growing list.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
asdf
Joined: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 222 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Israel
Province/State: Yerushalayim
|
Re: Saddam
December 16, 2003 - 07:33 AM
|
|
Luke, surely you grasp the point here, about warfare and law. FDR and Churchill may have ended WW2, but a second nuclear blast, for whatever the reasons I don't care to argue now, was entirely unnecessary considering the destruction and still-ligering effect on the Japanese people. Maybe I misunderstand you though.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Haseeb
Joined: Apr 21, 2003
Posts: 159 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Afghanistan
Province/State: Kabol
City: Kabul
|
Both...
December 16, 2003 - 07:35 AM
|
|
Trying him by an Iraqi tribunal seems very fine and just.
But does the Iraqi Tribunals have the capacity to undertake such a case?
I know there is strong need for immediate result of cases like this, and hague's history contridicts to this need , but do you think there is any other better place to address the Iranian and Kuwaiti cases against this man than Hague?
The statments by Bush and Blair about fair and open trial for this man are very welcomed ones and very very diplomatic.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
