Saddam recieves Death Sentence

[Viper007]

There was blood and gore all over it was absolutely terryfying When US-soldiers came to heck it out,they stood at the side. They didnt even try to help people in need. They just stood there..

I am not sure, but isn't there some policy on helping hurt Iraqi citizens in certain parts? I do not recall the policy, but I saw the movie The War Tapes (Highly recommended for everyone, an excellent documentary that has to be in my top 5 movies) and one of the soldiers said something about not being able to treat or such I do not recall can anyone help me on this?

[SlickHolden]

Do it properly and you'll snap your neck. Do it wrong and you'll strangle yourself to death.

Wonder how many people are praying for the latter

No one should recieve the death sentence, sorry but my view, just serve a life sentence in jail..

I would normally be right behind you in saying that i hate the idea of capital punishment. But in a case that someone like him will never be rehabilitated if given the chance will do it all over again but much worse i say bye too him in this way.
This guy shouldn't have one cent spent on his missarable life and even getting feed and cleaned and every breath of air is too much for him, He lives he laughs. And a prisoner by law can't be mistreated, So that means they can't make his stay a pain miserable something he never forgets, He laughs it off with no remorse or care.
So for someone like this that will repeat his sins with a bigger smile i say down with him.
What would be nice is too punish him everyday and not feed him, But that would be his style. So they can't make his stay a bad one.

[go.pawel]

And the United States is going to see some external costs for seeing Saddam hanged.

Of course it's gonna. But let me remind you that Saddam was trialed and sentenced by Iraqis not Americans.

What a great diplomatic you are! Instead of coming to the table offering making economic and social changes, you say, 'ah! ****' em! Bomb the cunts!' Yeah, there's going to be fighting necessary, but NOBODY can afford stupid choices who clearly result in solely more martyrs.

Never said I'm a diplomat. Actually I'm far from being one But I don't remember saying anything about bombing anyone (including cunts)

Because we haven't seen that before, right? I mean, killing themselves for Allah and Saddam has never happened before, right?

For Allah yes, for Saddam no.

A stable chaos? What the **** does that mean? You must have taken strategery lessons from Bush. The definition of chaos itself is 'a disordered mass or jumble,' to say it's stable or contained is entirely contradictory.

I'm afraid of people who don't like oxymorons. They always turn out to be too serious. So I should probably just quit the discussion 'cause I don't like being scared. But, just to clarify things, consider the word 'stable' in this context as 'neither improving nor deteriorating'.

As to the choas 'not spreading,' go read thet newspaper. What of the recent, violent, bloody takeovers of Baghdad and Amarrah...

Nothing new. It's not worse than a year or two, or three years ago.

OK, so former leaders still on the run might still want to be in charge...but there are still thousands of insurgents loyal to Saddam and the Shi-ites and are ready to blow themselves up and get no physical return. To ignore that group of people and say the whole situation is only about former position holders of Saddam's regime is a pretty stupid, violent path.

There isn't much of the former leaders left. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the thousands of people who benefited from the previous regime - middle-range party leaders, soldiers, policemen, state functionares etc. They would be glad to see the allied forces being withdrawn and will do a lot to help it happen, but certainly not kill themselves. Cause they're not ideological.
Plus, Saddam is supported by Sunnis not Shi'as.

[drakkie]

but there are still thousands of insurgents loyal to Saddam and the Shi-ites and are ready to blow themselves up and get no physical return.

The insurgents are barely loyal to Saddam. It is yet another misconception of the American propaganda. There are basically two groups of people that do these actions:
- foreign radical muslims
- Iraqi groups of people

The foreign folks started,but now every iraqi population group is fighting eachother. This is simply caused by the first group... It almost seems the US leaders "forget" that.

I think that it is allready to late for this war to end well. It is Vietnam II. The US should retreat and divide the country in some zones. Shi-ite etc, and make a independent democratic Kurdistan in the north (which basically allready exists,the us have no control there).

I am not sure, but isn't there some policy on helping hurt Iraqi citizens in certain parts?

yes there is. But the people i know there have received aid just once. What did they get ? Two breads for a 7 people family ... There is far too little help. If tht would have been bette in the beginning,this entire situation might have been saveable. The Iraqi themselves might have revolted together against the foreign muslims.

As Bush found out it might be easy to conquer,but hard to occupy. (just another scaring similarity with Adolf H. )

["Clevor" Angel]

This reminds me of the Nuremberg trial of major Nazi war criminals. Of course the "big dogs" in Saddams government are going to be sentenced to death, the next few in line will get life and even further down, if any, will get a few decades. Trials like this are a show so the victors(the West) can maintain the image of the good guy.
Now what about Bush's trial for his war of aggression on Iraq?

[go.pawel]

T The US should retreat and divide the country in some zones. Shi-ite etc, and make a independent democratic Kurdistan in the north

If they retreat they won't be able to divide the country And the Iraqis themselves aren't too fond of the idea of independent states or a federation. Especially they don't want to grant independence to Kurdistan, because of the large oil deposits that exist there.

As Bush found out it might be easy to conquer,but hard to occupy. (just another scaring similarity with Adolf H. )

And the only one I can think of. I'm no supporter of Bush. I've never liked him and never considered him a good head of state. But I'm fed up with comparisons to Hitler. Nothing justifies such comparison.

[drakkie]

And the only one I can think of. I'm no supporter of Bush. I've never liked him and never considered him a good head of state. But I'm fed up with comparisons to Hitler. Nothing justifies such comparison.

- HE made thousands of people suffer while he could easily have prevented it and after receiving warnings. (Katrina)

- HE is ultimately responsible for the mistakes his people made that led to the death of thousands (11/9)

- HE invaded TWO countries without real reason (Afghanistan perhaps somewhat useful)

- HE uses the media to lie against the world and especially his own people

- HE tries to get as much power as possible while betraying his own people,using anti-terror-laws.

- HE was elected for dubious reasons.

- HE is ultimately responsible for atleast 5000+ deaths in the last 5,5 years !!!

- HE exploited the conservative nature of many Americans for his own profit.

- HE is ultimately responsible for many dubious contracts of the government with companies like halliburton.

believe me in my own country one such a person would have been removed from power 3 years ago I hope you see my points now.

["Clevor" Angel]

It would make a real statement if Bush and his administration gets put on trial for the invasion of and conducting of an aggressive war in Iraq. Even if he doesn't get convicted of anything it would show that even the leader of a founding UN member nation and permanent security council member and world nuclear superpower cannot do what he wants and fabricate his way out of the consequences.

["Clevor" Angel]

And the only one I can think of. I'm no supporter of Bush. I've never liked him and never considered him a good head of state. But I'm fed up with comparisons to Hitler. Nothing justifies such comparison.

To quote Hitlers Reichmarchall Hermann Göring,
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

You decide how similar Bush's administration is to Hitler's.

[drakkie]

It would make a real statement if Bush and his administration gets put on trial for the invasion of and conducting of an aggressive war in Iraq. Even if he doesn't get convicted of anything it would show that even the leader of a founding UN member nation and permanent security council member and world nuclear superpower cannot do what he wants and fabricate his way out of the consequences.

Maybe he gets sued in Belgium for genocide ? Maybe people allready went before him

["Clevor" Angel]

Maybe he gets sued in Belgium for genocide ? Maybe people allready went before him

Hmm

[go.pawel]

- HE made thousands of people suffer while he could easily have prevented it and after receiving warnings. (Katrina)

I'm afraid even the president of the United States of America cannot prevent a hurricane from destroying a city.

- HE is ultimately responsible for the mistakes his people made that led to the death of thousands (11/9)

Sorry, but it sounds to me too much like that Michael Moore propaganda babbling. He's certainly not an angel but let's not exxagerate,ok? Is he also reponsible for the Holocaust and extinction of dinosaurs?

- HE invaded TWO countries without real reason (Afghanistan perhaps somewhat useful)

Lucky you, cause I happen to know the reasons and will gladly share them with you here. Afghanistan was invaded because it was the headquarters of Al-Kaida, a country simply ruled by terrorists. Iraq was invaded because it was a country that supported terrorism, because it's leader posed a threat to the rest of the world and because of false accusations of having ABC weapons.

- HE uses the media to lie against the world and especially his own people

I'm afraid I can't comment on this one. I don't feel I'm being lied about anything by him. As for lying to his own people - well, that's what politics is about, isn't it? It happens in most of countries, if not all of them.

- HE tries to get as much power as possible while betraying his own people,using anti-terror-laws.

I know to little on this subject, so I won't comment.

- HE was elected for dubious reasons.

True. Unlike Hitler, who was elected totally legally, without recounting etc.

- HE is ultimately responsible for atleast 5000+ deaths in the last 5,5 years !!!

Ultimately responsible are people who pull the trigger.

- HE exploited the conservative nature of many Americans for his own profit.

True, but it's nothing new or shocking. For example the same thing happens in Poland now, yet no-one sane compares our ruling twins to Hitler.

- HE is ultimately responsible for many dubious contracts of the government with companies like halliburton.

As are thousands of politics around the world. Plus, I don't remember Hitler being engaged in any dubious contracts.

["Clevor" Angel]

Iraq was invaded because it was a country that supported terrorism

The Iraqi government didn't support Al-quaeda, the Iranians do.

True. Unlike Hitler, who was elected totally legally, without recounting etc.

Hitler staged a riot in 1932 that killed dozens of people and was banished along with the treaty of Versailles made things ripe for his election.

Ultimately responsible are people who pull the trigger, not those who sigh the papers.

Not according to the Nuremberg trials, look them up.

Plus, I don't remember Hitler being engaged in any dubious contracts.

Other than meticulously documenting everything the nazis did in the 30's and 40's with his signature on millions of death warrants and contracting builders for the death camps, and trying to undermine not only the brittish, but also the american and italian governments through double agents and back door dealings.

[go.pawel]

The Iraqi government didn't support Al-quaeda, the Iranians do.

Al-Kaida aren't the only terrorists in the world. Iraq supported other Middle East groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah Hawks etc. Iraq officials also met with Al-Kaida leaders numerous times, but I don't know what they talked about so it may be too much saying that they supported them.

Hitler staged a riot in 1932 that killed dozens of people and was banished along with the treaty of Versailles made things ripe for his election.

But the election itself wasn't flawed.

Other than meticulously documenting everything the nazis did in the 30's and 40's with his signature on millions of death warrants and contracting builders for the death camps, and trying to undermine not only the brittish, but also the american and italian governments through double agents and back door dealings.

Of course, but what does it have to do with businessmen-politicians corruption? What you're talking abou here are matters of espionage, diplomacy, sabotage and genocide. That's not what I was talking about.

[teatako]

I'm afraid even the president of the United States of America cannot prevent a hurricane from destroying a city.


Plus, I don't remember Hitler being engaged in any dubious contracts.

huh? mate, the hurricane, bush might not stop. but as long as black people (New Orleans is predominantly black) are second-class citizens, not worthy of money for protection against natural disasters which are prone to happen , he CAN be held responsible for a catastrophe that could have been a lot, well, less disastrous.

and, well, the "dubious" part with hitler´s contracts is probably the fact that american companies did great business with hitler while at war with the us. IBM & coca cola just to name two. big companies love fascism because (among so many other reasons ) workers are too afraid to reclaim their rights, to go on strike, etc. taxes soar for the less well off, while tax cuts for companies are all around. that´s why mexico is turning quickly into a fascist state, to attract new foreign investment.

as for your other fox news "facts" about "terrorism" id rather not even mention. israeli and american style state terrorism is so much worse, so much more cowardly, so much more cruel.