Saddam Hussein Sentenced To Death

[1a2bcio8]

The kind of things he has done to people are unthinkable, and there are very, VERY few others in the world with that kind of disreagrd for human life, and even less who have the intellegence and cunning to control it like Saddam has.

Apart from, mostly american, but additionally european governments like the uks and frances, regarding their actions in latin america, aisa, the midle east, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Sadam isn't a nice person but his actions, in comparism to governments of other countries, like our own, are not so bad. We go in for weapons sales in support of genocide, destabilisation of other countries, to the detrament of the majority of those countries, for our own economic benefit, the installation of dictatorship under the guise of democracy etc. etc. etc. etc.

Did you know that america gave the impression to Sadam, that they would back his actions in Kuwait? That it was a setup, a precursor for the justification of an invasion, regarding the control of oil. And also, America and the UK used to be best of pals with Sadam, using him as an arms sales man to other midle eastern countries? Even whilst he was involved in the activities that he's now being held accountable for. It was only after he became a bit rougish, and not so submissive to external control that he became demonised, through a subservient western media.

There's also the UN security council sactions of iraq after the gulf war, that stopped vital supplies such as food and medicene getting into the country. This resulted in the deaths of about 100 000 children between 1992-98 according to UNICEF. These sactions caused two high UN officials to resign. An irish chap called Dennis Halliday and some other person with a name i forget. This was, of course, just after the invading forces had wiped out the Iraqi infrastructure. Desptie the picture that ws painted of Iraq, they were doing pretty well, in regards to such things as health. education and standard of living before the gulf war.

There's a completely different picture of the world away from the corporate driven mainstream medias drawing. I wouldn't personally be so trusting of somebodies world perception when they have something to gain or maintain from the status quo, as the media, and government do.

Edited November 6, 2006 by rowly

[1a2bcio8]

Also.

I think the hanging does nothing to change what has happened. The application of "justice" and it's meaning in the present context seems a bit warped to me.

What the hanging really does, to the benefit of western hegemony, is to make the statement, "do what we want or suffer the consequences". Sadam rebelled, his people got screwed, he got screwed.

[poopipe]

Sadam rebelled, his people got screwed, he got screwed.

re: both posts..

Regardless of what we've (uk/us/UN etc) done it doesn't change the fact he's a murdering fanny.

not that you're wrong

[1a2bcio8]

The point is, we never see the roles reversed, and everyone seems to hold the impression, that blair and bush mean well even if they do something "bad", but if saddam does something along the same lines, he's evil. There's a hugh amount of blindsightedness that arrives from a biased media that claim to be impartial and people relying on perceptual props for a type of security.

Why is it in a system that espouses and is proud of its version of justice we don't see everybody suffering to that justice in the same way? Why are blair and bush not on trial for war crimes if Sadam is? Why is everyone quick to demonise sadam and his motivations (not just his actions) but not blair and bush?

I'm not saying how we should react to someone for doing something that we consider bad, all I'm trying to point out is the difference in reaction that arises in most people in regards to two actions, of the same kind, done by two people, seperated only by constructed labels.

Why are we not talking about all the things that america is upto? It's plans of hegemony which are even evident in declassified america government documents. I'll even copy one down for you.

This is by George Kennan, ironically a "left wing" or "dove" head of the state department in the late 40's. You only have to look at alternative sources of media, past or present, or a bit more deeply into the mainstream media to know this is still the case in some sense;

"we have about 50% of the worlds wealth but only about 6.3% of its population... in this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimenality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immeadiate national objectives... We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, tha raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better"

This sort of infomation spun my head a fair bit , when I used to view the world from a position that we (the west, that typical division we use to consciencely or unconsciencely seperate the "good" or "better" from the "bad" or "worse") were always intending to be good even if our actions were seeminly bad. The greater good and all that. I don't really think that anymore.

Edited November 6, 2006 by rowly

[beigemaster]

I'l miss him, he was awesome in "Hot Shots Part Deux"

[danny B]

i tihnk that they should give him a realy good torturing first just so that we can see how he likes it the sick tw*t and shoot him lots of times in comical places because he is evil so he should ahve the micky tken out of him before he cops it lol

[Tony Harrison]

I agree with danny B. Give him what he gave to others.

And all these Bush/Blair comparisons should be binned. It's boring. Really boring.

[munkee]

The point is, we never see the roles reversed, and everyone seems to hold the impression, that blair and bush mean well even if they do something "bad", but if saddam does something along the same lines, he's evil. There's a hugh amount of blindsightedness that arrives from a biased media that claim to be impartial and people relying on perceptual props for a type of security.

Why is it in a system that espouses and is proud of its version of justice we don't see everybody suffering to that justice in the same way? Why are blair and bush not on trial for war crimes if Sadam is? Why is everyone quick to demonise sadam and his motivations (not just his actions) but not blair and bush?

I'm not saying how we should react to someone for doing something that we consider bad, all I'm trying to point out is the difference in reaction that arises in most people in regards to two actions, of the same kind, done by two people, seperated only by constructed labels.

Why are we not talking about all the things that america is upto? It's plans of hegemony which are even evident in declassified america government documents. I'll even copy one down for you.

This is by George Kennan, ironically a "left wing" or "dove" head of the state department in the late 40's. You only have to look at alternative sources of media, past or present, or a bit more deeply into the mainstream media to know this is still the case in some sense;

"we have about 50% of the worlds wealth but only about 6.3% of its population... in this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimenality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immeadiate national objectives... We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, tha raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better"

This sort of infomation spun my head a fair bit , when I used to view the world from a position that we (the west, that typical division we use to consciencely or unconsciencely seperate the "good" or "better" from the "bad" or "worse") were always intending to be good even if our actions were seeminly bad. The greater good and all that. I don't really think that anymore.

big post, no need

[1a2bcio8]

Well, that's relative. I obviously thought there was a need. I also don't find the comparism boring, quite the opposite.

Superb counter arguement though You nearly made me change my mind.

Edited November 6, 2006 by rowly

[yoyoyo]

I say we stick him in Guantanamo Bay for a month or two, then stick him in Groom Lake so no-one else can get to him.

Despite all he's done, killing him isn't exactly humain. Makes us look like him, keeping him in a secure location though keeps him in suffering, and gives him a long time to think over what he's done.

Although when i frst heard it, i chuckled to myself. And normally i'm all for gore and stuff. I just think this hanging business is a bit harsh.

But you know what they say, " Death is the easy way out."

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

Keeping him alive isnt an option as far as im concerned.

Sure some people are going to rebel when he dies, but it will die out after a while

[Walleee]

I just don't think two wrong's make a right. The problem isn't his presence in the world, it's the belief's and such that lead to his actions, which will not die with him.

As someone else said, we should have kept ourselves to ourselves.

[Alexxx]

And the main reason for the USA and UK getting involved in Iraq would be for all the oil we could get out of it, nothing to do with liberating the Iraq's.

Alex..

[Fixed Pants™]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danny B @ Nov 6 2006, 02:23 PM) ←</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

i tihnk that they should give him a realy good torturing first just so that we can see how he likes it the sick tw*t and shoot him lots of times in comical places because he is evil so he should ahve the micky tken out of him before he cops it lol

Edited November 6, 2006 by Fat Pants

[poopipe]

And the main reason for the USA and UK getting involved in Iraq would be for all the oil we could get out of it, nothing to do with liberating the Iraq's.

Alex..

They aren't hanging him because of the last gulf war. They're hanging him for things he did before the first one (and presumably since it)

this has nothing at all to do with oil - we already stole that

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

As someone else said, we should have kept ourselves to ourselves.

That was going fine until Sadam decided to start invading his neighbouring countries, masacreing a load of Shite's or whatever they were and then all these retarded Muslims started flying planes into buildings and bombing anyone who disagrees with their pathetic excuse for a religeon... They didn't give the US much option but to invade and steal their oil!

On the execution thing, I see it as an easy option. They should stick him in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and throw away the key.

Dave

Edited November 6, 2006 by monkeyseemonkeydo

[1a2bcio8]

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic?

[zoojames]

Saddam Hussein's defence team have also accused the government of interfering in the proceedings - a complaint backed by US group Human Rights Watch.

What f**king knob heads!

I f**king hate human rights activists! It's all a bunch of shit that they want to moan about!

Suddam Hussein gave up his human rights when he starting taking lives away, in my eyes its the same for murderers, rapists and pedophiles, yet they all sit tight in prison watching tv and getting fed and bathed!

I do agree with Dr Marshall though! Lock the fanny up in solitary, feed him once a day and let him be, he'll either top himself, go f**king bannanas, or plot his revenge which will never happen! GO TEAM!

[Fixed Pants™]

What f**king knob heads!

I f**king hate human rights activists! It's all a bunch of shit that they want to moan about!

Suddam Hussein gave up his human rights when he starting taking lives away, in my eyes its the same for murderers, rapists and pedophiles, yet they all sit tight in prison watching tv and getting fed and bathed!

I do agree with Dr Marshall though! Lock the fanny up in solitary, feed him once a day and let him be, he'll either top himself, go f**king bannanas, or plot his revenge which will never happen! GO TEAM!

And get a man with a HUGE cock to rape his bum everyday... and just basically torture him...

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic?

Well, the statement that we should of kept ourselves to ourselves doesn't really stand when you get a nutter like Saddam doing what he did. He basically left the civilised world no option but to take action. There's a touch of sarcasm in there but only a little. Just to clarify- by Shite's I mean the Shi-ite Muslims or which ever sub group he decided were disposable and subsequently tried to wipe them out.

[poopipe]

Well, the statement that we should of kept ourselves to ourselves doesn't really stand when you get a nutter like Saddam doing what he did. He basically left the civilised world no option but to take action. There's a touch of sarcasm in there but only a little. Just to clarify- by Shite's I mean the Shi-ite Muslims or which ever sub group he decided were disposable and subsequently tried to wipe them out.

you have a very good point. If we'd let Hitler carry on ...

[Walleee]

Yeh good point right enough...

[1a2bcio8]

But the "civilised" world as you put it, did not go to war with iraq in regards to sadams human rights abuses. As I previously said, the UK and US supported Sadam quite happily whilst he was harming his own people and others as long as he did what he was told, in what mattered to us, or more accurately, our government. Fuss was made about the human rights aspect of sadam, only when he no longer comformed to our wishes. Fuss did not arise because of human rights abuses in themselves; they are just a convenient excuse for something else.

Have you forgotten the wars pretext? That Sadam apparantly had weapons of mass destruction. Human rights absuses were at the very most, an adjunct; by themselves they would not have moved the "coalition" into the action they took. Also it appears that WMDs, the main reason for an iraqi invasion, were a complete fabrication.

An additional consideration was the massive amounts of clandestine US and UK air bombings in the no fly zone in Iraq before the invasion. Something which was, I think, illegal but more importantly a blatant provocation looking for a reaction from sadam for the reasons of helping justify a future invasion.

Is it civilized, in consideration to your meaning of the word, for countries to fake a reason for invading a country, until that reason is found to be fraudulant, only for them to replace that reason, falsely, with a humanitarian one? Do you find it difficult to acccept an idea that our country, our government might actually be concerned with very different things to that which they claim to be?

Edited November 6, 2006 by rowly

[Joe_Elding]

And get a man with a HUGE cock to rape his bum everyday... and just basically torture him...

Havent you seen the southpark movie? thats what he enjoys doing.

[poopipe]

long...

true enough - the quoted reasons for going over there this time were bullshit

real reasons as I see them are.

1: oil - cos we dont want the arabs holding us to ransom over the next 50 years

2: saddam not doing what he was told to after the last gulf war (ie. continued being a shit) - he got a second chance and wasted it

in our 'enlightened' age reason 1 wouldn't go down too well with the general public. (although personally, in a situation where its us or them I know who I want to win .. )

reason 2 would probably have gone down fine and I completely fail to see why our governments didn't just feed us that line instead.

Edited November 6, 2006 by poopipe