Saddam will be sentenced on Sunday

[mawilson 2,133]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

they ought to shoot him in the gonads.

Daniel

:energetic:

[mawilson 2,133]

You know what's ironic? With all the money we've spent (close to $200 billion),

we could have bought Saddam. For $50 billion, Saddam himself would have

made Iraq a bulwark of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

[I'm Gone 60]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

I don't give a flying #### about the people in Iraq. I didn't pay taxes to protect the people in Iraq from Saddam. A lot of countries run by @ssholes and not our job or business to rescue the world.

Edited November 3, 2006 by mdyoung

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

You know what's ironic? With all the money we've spent (close to $200 billion),

we could have bought Saddam. For $50 billion, Saddam himself would have

made Iraq a bulwark of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

prolly so. but alas, it didn't make for good 'show'. needed to kick some booty.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Carol&Marc 0]

I think you're all short-sighted with a not-so-great memory, tbh. Appeasers? Well, if you are against the war, he'd still be in power, no?

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but when there are reports that he's broken sanctions, warnings from world leaders, politicians on both sides with very long histories of supporting action, etc...I'm sorry, but what do you think he was doing? Knitting us a quilt?

I don't want to oversimplify things, but it's great to be monday morning quarterbacking after the fact...but here's some history

http://scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

Watch it...then comment on how it's the 'evil Bush machine' that forced these people to make these comments long before he ever stepped foot in the white house. Then call him the biggest idiot that ever lived, all the while being able to convince the whole world of a lie, and being able to master time travel

Good point Lisa, I find it a little unusual that some here are more rabid on the president than on the bad guys!

Has anyone heard from Nancy Pelosi? Oh damn I forgot she is on the stand today in the Saddam trial she is a Character witness.

Edited November 3, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sunday, eh? The first Sunday in November no less. The timing is interesting...

and another conspiracy is born

Not really. No conspiracy. The timing wouldn't seem to be a pure coincidence, though.

And I am quite certain that we'll see this exploited to the max before Tuesday.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just read through this thread and am having a hard time trying to figure out what general point is being made here.

Saddam has committed terrible acts, I didn't think that was ever in doubt - so yes he deserves whatever punishment is deemed appropriate under Iraqi law.

The 'anti-war' issue for me is in the deception over the justifications for the war - not about whether Saddam is a nice guy.

The "David Kelly" affair in the UK stank to high heaven, and it was bizarre that the BBC got crucified over a news story that was basically accurate (except for a couple of mangled words broadcast in a report that went out very early in the morning - in other words, NOT primetime) - and was vindicated by the Downing Street Memo, which the Blair government has authenticated but refused to comment on.

Historically speaking wars have never been fought for purely humanitarian reasons, but for direct self-interest. The self-interest here was "direct threat"/"another 9/11". That wasn't true - regardless of what politicians thought and how they voted - I think I can speak for a lot of the million-plus people who protested against the war (in London alone) that they weren't EVER convinced of that threat. Makes you wonder what is going on when the public seem to know more than the government or the intelligence services. There's an obvious explanation of course - it was a "sex-up".

Incidentally I don't agree with "public humiliation" as a form of punishment. Back when Saddam was first dragged out of his hole and the photos of the "unkempt old man" being probed and prodded were broadcast around the world - there were some interesting opinions from Iraqis in the news. While they generally hated Saddam, they expressed a general level of respect for a strong (albeit based on fear) leader, and as an Iraqi they identified more with him (through a general sense of nationalism) than with the coalition troops.

Its a strange argument - but entirely logical from the above premise that if you humiliate someone (which is a different issue to whether he deserves it - I don't think there's much disagreement on that score) - it suggests to nationalist Iraqis that if you treat the "strongest" Iraqi like a dog, what can everyone else expect?

In any case - what right would the US or its allies have to humiliate Saddam? Saddam didn't abuse and kill millions of Americans or Europeans - its the Iraqis (not to mention the Kurds and the Iranians) who should (and are) deciding what to do with him. That's also why its important that he be tried in Iraq, under Iraqi law - and not in Guantanamo Bay via US military tribunal. What right do you have to "queue-jump"?

[kaydee457 13]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

I don't give a flying #### about the people in Iraq. I didn't pay taxes to protect the people in Iraq from Saddam. A lot of countries run by @ssholes and not our job or business to rescue the world.

How fcking naive....

Md. My signature illustrates the absurdity to your logic.....We were attacked by Japan in WW2. Should we not have gone to war with Germany?

Iraq appeared to be the most likely and most formidable threat in the middle east. One that could have easily passed WMD's to terrorists. At the time, given the intellegence we had, both Democrats and Republicans agreed.

Liberals and their oversimplified logic, sheesh!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

I don't give a flying #### about the people in Iraq. I didn't pay taxes to protect the people in Iraq from Saddam. A lot of countries run by @ssholes and not our job or business to rescue the world.

How fcking naive....

Md. My signature illustrates the absurdity to your logic.....We were attacked by Japan in WW2. Should we not have gone to war with Germany?

Iraq appeared to be the most likely and most formidable threat in the middle east. One that could have easily passed WMD's to terrorists. At the time, given the intellegence we had, both Democrats and Republicans agreed.

Liberals and their oversimplified logic, sheesh!

Why do you keep comparing Iraq and the war on terror with WW2? Please point out the world threatening Superpower that is threatening the US and Europe. I must have missed it on my map. How are these conflicts even remotely similar?

Tell me again what a secular Stalinist dictatorship has in common with religious fundamentalist fanatics? More to the point - where is the evidence of a direct "working relationship"?

[kaydee457 13]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

I don't give a flying #### about the people in Iraq. I didn't pay taxes to protect the people in Iraq from Saddam. A lot of countries run by @ssholes and not our job or business to rescue the world.

How fcking naive....

Md. My signature illustrates the absurdity to your logic.....We were attacked by Japan in WW2. Should we not have gone to war with Germany?

Iraq appeared to be the most likely and most formidable threat in the middle east. One that could have easily passed WMD's to terrorists. At the time, given the intellegence we had, both Democrats and Republicans agreed.

Liberals and their oversimplified logic, sheesh!

Why do you keep comparing Iraq and the war on terror with WW2? Please point out the world threatening Superpower that is threatening the US and Europe. I must have missed it on my map. How are these conflicts even remotely similar?

Tell me again what a secular Stalinist dictatorship has in common with religious fundamentalist fanatics? More to the point - where is the evidence of a direct "working relationship"?

If you can't make the connection yourself then it's clearly outside the scope of this meager forum. Perhaps a couple of classes in Geo Politics will help you along?

"religious fundamentalist fanatics" = Islamic Fascists

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

I don't give a flying #### about the people in Iraq. I didn't pay taxes to protect the people in Iraq from Saddam. A lot of countries run by @ssholes and not our job or business to rescue the world.

How fcking naive....

Md. My signature illustrates the absurdity to your logic.....We were attacked by Japan in WW2. Should we not have gone to war with Germany?

Iraq appeared to be the most likely and most formidable threat in the middle east. One that could have easily passed WMD's to terrorists. At the time, given the intellegence we had, both Democrats and Republicans agreed.

Liberals and their oversimplified logic, sheesh!

Why do you keep comparing Iraq and the war on terror with WW2? Please point out the world threatening Superpower that is threatening the US and Europe. I must have missed it on my map. How are these conflicts even remotely similar?

Tell me again what a secular Stalinist dictatorship has in common with religious fundamentalist fanatics? More to the point - where is the evidence of a direct "working relationship"?

If you can't make the connection yourself then it's clearly outside the scope of this meager forum. Perhaps a couple of classes in Geo Politics will help you along?

"religious fundamentalist fanatics" = Islamic Fascists

I'm quite serious - Saddam famously idolised Stalin and ruled his country in a similar fashion (the moustache should have given that away perhaps...

If you think that religious fundamentalists/"Islamic Fascists" share an identical ideology with secular "non-religious" wannabe communists it says a lot not only about your lack of knowledge about those ideologies, but also your preponderence to racist generalisations of "middle eastern types".

[kaydee457 13]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

I don't give a flying #### about the people in Iraq. I didn't pay taxes to protect the people in Iraq from Saddam. A lot of countries run by @ssholes and not our job or business to rescue the world.

How fcking naive....

Md. My signature illustrates the absurdity to your logic.....We were attacked by Japan in WW2. Should we not have gone to war with Germany?

Iraq appeared to be the most likely and most formidable threat in the middle east. One that could have easily passed WMD's to terrorists. At the time, given the intellegence we had, both Democrats and Republicans agreed.

Liberals and their oversimplified logic, sheesh!

Why do you keep comparing Iraq and the war on terror with WW2? Please point out the world threatening Superpower that is threatening the US and Europe. I must have missed it on my map. How are these conflicts even remotely similar?

Tell me again what a secular Stalinist dictatorship has in common with religious fundamentalist fanatics? More to the point - where is the evidence of a direct "working relationship"?

If you can't make the connection yourself then it's clearly outside the scope of this meager forum. Perhaps a couple of classes in Geo Politics will help you along?

"religious fundamentalist fanatics" = Islamic Fascists

I'm quite serious - Saddam famously idolised Stalin and ruled his country in a similar fashion (the moustache should have given that away perhaps...

If you think that religious fundamentalists/"Islamic Fascists" share an identical ideology with secular "non-religious" wannabe communists it says a lot not only about your lack of knowledge about those ideologies, but also your preponderence to racist generalisations of "middle eastern types".

Hey, don't get your panties in a bunch.. You're the one asking for me to make the connection. I did so and you insist on a steril, clinical connection when clearly there's not any.

That's the problem with many in these forums as they posess no practical experience where and when the subjects of:

the U.S. Miltary is concerned;

and/or the middle east is concerned

I lived in Iran (Ifshan before the Shah's overthow) and have been travelling to and from the middle east about three times a year for the past five years.

You cleary do not understand what's happening there and clearly do not fathom the "big picture" so to speak.

[Fandango 1,439]

Really? What dialogue are you trying to have? It appears that you're hellbent on making it look like those who oppose the war are Saddam appeasers. Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait. If you want an honest dialogue about Saddam's crimes or his sentence then stop the baiting.

Yes, really B)

Answer my question, then. Do you think that those who opposed the war in Iraq are Saddam appeasers?

I think you're all short-sighted with a not-so-great memory, tbh. Appeasers? Well, if you are against the war, he'd still be in power, no?

Are you an appeaser?

If you can't see the flawed logic in that type of thinking then it's pointless arguing with you.

Nice high road emergency exit. But it's the truth, is it not? That had we not stepped in, he'd still be in power.

Would you agree or disagree?

Or do you think that maybe if we sent him a hello kitty note politely asking to step down, he would have?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

300 billion and how many dead and wounded later how would that be worse. Saddam never did anything to threaten the U.S. and the 9/11 report proved it.

Why is it so wrong to say that the Iraqis would have been better off with

Saddam still in power?

True, they didn't have freedom or democracy - but those who played by the

rules (such as "keep your mouth shut") were *ok*. More importantly,

they had security and stability. What's happening there now is much worse

than Saddam. We managed to kill more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 20.

I don't give a flying #### about the people in Iraq. I didn't pay taxes to protect the people in Iraq from Saddam. A lot of countries run by @ssholes and not our job or business to rescue the world.

How fcking naive....

Md. My signature illustrates the absurdity to your logic.....We were attacked by Japan in WW2. Should we not have gone to war with Germany?

Iraq appeared to be the most likely and most formidable threat in the middle east. One that could have easily passed WMD's to terrorists. At the time, given the intellegence we had, both Democrats and Republicans agreed.

Liberals and their oversimplified logic, sheesh!

Why do you keep comparing Iraq and the war on terror with WW2? Please point out the world threatening Superpower that is threatening the US and Europe. I must have missed it on my map. How are these conflicts even remotely similar?

Tell me again what a secular Stalinist dictatorship has in common with religious fundamentalist fanatics? More to the point - where is the evidence of a direct "working relationship"?

If you can't make the connection yourself then it's clearly outside the scope of this meager forum. Perhaps a couple of classes in Geo Politics will help you along?

"religious fundamentalist fanatics" = Islamic Fascists

I'm quite serious - Saddam famously idolised Stalin and ruled his country in a similar fashion (the moustache should have given that away perhaps...

If you think that religious fundamentalists/"Islamic Fascists" share an identical ideology with secular "non-religious" wannabe communists it says a lot not only about your lack of knowledge about those ideologies, but also your preponderence to racist generalisations of "middle eastern types".

Hey, don't get your panties in a bunch.. You're the one asking for me to make the connection. I did so and you insist on a steril, clinical connection when clearly there's not any.

That's the problem with many in these forums as they posess no practical experience where and when the subjects of:

the U.S. Miltary is concerned;

and/or the middle east is concerned

I lived in Iran (Ifshan before the Shah's overthow) and have been travelling to and from the middle east about three times a year for the past five years.

You cleary do not understand what's happening there and clearly do not fathom the "big picture" so to speak.

In which case you'll have no problem using the benefit of your "vast" experience to refute my argument, will you? You might be right, but you could also be staggeringly stupid. But lets face it - its easier to resort to personal attacks isn't it?

The use of the term "Islamic Fascist", a media neologism coined by a journalist and popularised by right-wing radio talk show hosts (and lately, the President) does not seem very "big picture" to me.

Tell me that Saddam didn't idolise Stalin and run his country after the fashion of his idol.

Tell me that Jihadists, and a regime that violently repressed not only the largest sectarian group in the country but also its religious leaders are "Compatible" ideologies.

Really? What dialogue are you trying to have? It appears that you're hellbent on making it look like those who oppose the war are Saddam appeasers. Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait. If you want an honest dialogue about Saddam's crimes or his sentence then stop the baiting.

Yes, really B)

Answer my question, then. Do you think that those who opposed the war in Iraq are Saddam appeasers?

I think you're all short-sighted with a not-so-great memory, tbh. Appeasers? Well, if you are against the war, he'd still be in power, no?

Are you an appeaser?

If you can't see the flawed logic in that type of thinking then it's pointless arguing with you.

Nice high road emergency exit. But it's the truth, is it not? That had we not stepped in, he'd still be in power.

Would you agree or disagree?

Or do you think that maybe if we sent him a hello kitty note politely asking to step down, he would have?

"Saddam Appeaser" - nice way of crystallising a whole range of objections to the war.

Sounds a bit like that abortion thread the other week - where one extreme case became the justification for rubbishing a wide range of ideas under the umbrella of pro-choice.