Bye Saddam...sniff...

jbg · December 31, 2006

I prayed , not for the Butcher but for the Executioner to have the strength and will to pull the lever. Saw the full video this morning, mine was answered.

Welcome, new poster. Where do you hail from? Quebec, per chance?

myata · December 31, 2006

Perhaps you can now pray for the well being of people in Iraq - whose plight these days doesn't seem to be much better than under Saddam? Just a suggestion. Who knows, maybe it'll be answered (soon, too)?

Roy Wilson · December 31, 2006

Perhaps you can now pray for the well being of people in Iraq - whose plight these days doesn't seem to be much better than under Saddam? Just a suggestion. Who knows, maybe it'll be answered (soon, too)?

Already is better now than under the Butcher. Do you live underground?

Roy Wilson · December 31, 2006

Brainroom: Saddam Hussein's Atrocities

Friday , December 29, 2006

Chronicle of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein:

Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Saddam's actions.

Saddam had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

2001: Amnesty International report: "Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Human Rights Watch: Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

Refugees International: "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis."

Iraq's 13 million Shiite Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, faced severe restrictions on their religious practice.

FBI: Iraqi government was involved in a plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors.

From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the U.N. Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.

myata · December 31, 2006

I'd wait for you to go there and report first hand before taking it on faith. Please refer to the Iraq thread for the latest civil casualty figures.

Highlander · December 31, 2006

One butcher down, many more to go.

Roy Wilson · December 31, 2006

I'd wait for you to go there and report first hand before taking it on faith. Please refer to the Iraq thread for the latest civil casualty figures.

Sure, want to come with me?

newbie · December 31, 2006

Roy, you might want to consider the deaths caused by Bush and his illegal invasion of Iraq. Someone suggested on this forum that Bush acknowledged he made a "mistake" with the WMD in Iraq. That is totally unacceptable when hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were at stake (and probably killed). Iraq was far better off with Saddam in power than they are today. At least you could go to the market or walk down the street with no fear of getting blown up, not to mention the free education and medical care. It will take Iraq decades to begin to rebuild itself. Saddam was a little irritant that was kept under control by sanctions. There is no denying he could be ruthless against his perceived enemies (as is the current U.S. administration, given their "shock and awe" approach at solving problems). But look at the alternative Iraq faces now. All the purple fingertips in the world won't bring true democracy as long as fundamental religious leaders sit in the Government.

Riverwind · January 1, 2007

Iraq was far better off with Saddam in power than they are today. At least you could go to the market or walk down the street with no fear of getting blown up, not to mention the free education and medical care. It will take Iraq decades to begin to rebuild itself.

Much of the middle east was gradually reforming and heading to some sort of democracy before the Iraq invasion - the chaos in Iraq has re-invigorated depots from Tehran to Damascus and has set back the cause of democracy by at least a generation.

newbie · January 1, 2007

It wasn't a war crimes trial. This was trial for murder. They hanged him on the most convictable charge.

Actually, these were the charges:

CHARGES:

All eight defendants face the same set of charges — broad counts listed in the court's charter under war crimes and crimes against humanity:

— Premeditated murder.

— Imprisonment and the deprivation of physical movement.

— Forced deportation.

— Torture.

This trial definitely should have been held in the Hague.

myata · January 1, 2007

Interesting... If we assume top commander's direct responsibility for that's happening on the ground (as it was applied to Saddam), how many of these charges could/should GWB & Co be indicted on?

sharkman · January 1, 2007

Keep dreaming.

If there was even the remotest chance that somehow Bush could have been held even partly responsible, crazy rich liberals would have brought charges against him. Since there is no case, they spend their time wishing.

myata · January 1, 2007

Well I have to agree here... Until such times as the likes of him could be brought to justice though, all claims to "justice" would sound somewhat hollow.

Riverwind · January 1, 2007

If there was even the remotest chance that somehow Bush could have been held even partly responsible, crazy rich liberals would have brought charges against him. Since there is no case, they spend their time wishing.

The Democrats learned from the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco that pushing for impeachment is not exactly a vote winner. The pragmatists in the party have wisey decided not to raise the issue. However, these pragmatic considerations are not a vidication of Bush. Bush is most definately guilty of gross negligence and incompetence at a scale that would have got him fired from any other job.

Catchme · January 1, 2007

Roy, you might want to consider the deaths caused by Bush and his illegal invasion of Iraq. Someone suggested on this forum that Bush acknowledged he made a "mistake" with the WMD in Iraq. That is totally unacceptable when hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were at stake (and probably killed). Iraq was far better off with Saddam in power than they are today. At least you could go to the market or walk down the street with no fear of getting blown up, not to mention the free education and medical care. It will take Iraq decades to begin to rebuild itself. Saddam was a little irritant that was kept under control by sanctions. There is no denying he could be ruthless against his perceived enemies (as is the current U.S. administration, given their "shock and awe" approach at solving problems). But look at the alternative Iraq faces now. All the purple fingertips in the world won't bring true democracy as long as fundamental religious leaders sit in the Government.

Yes, Roy and others supporting this unjust action might want to consider those deaths what are they now close to 700k? Then of course there are all those to die until the occupation stops, and those who will continue to die from the depleted uranium shells the US uses, and from landmines etc.

You are correct, there is NO DOUBT the Iraqis were better off with Saddam in power, than they are with what is currently going on there. Will at some point their future be better as a result of this occupation of their country and the subsequent removal of Saddam? That is unknown, the only thing known is it will be a good long while before their lives resume anything close to normal living. They have lost antiquities on a permanent basis. Their schools (all levels), museums, galleries and zoos are destroyed. Their utilities infrastructure is working less often than it did under Saddam, and they have constant war fare 24/7.

They are being constantlyridiculed, derided and mocked by the occupiers, autrocities committed by the occupiers are the norm. But Saddam is now dead and will soon be the martyre they rally around. :rolleyes:

People wanting Saddam dead and ickily watching the video, are those that drive to accidents to see the horror, combined with unacknowledged guilt for supporting the Iraq illegal invasion.

crazymf · January 1, 2007

I just love listening to armchair quarterbacks piping up about this leader and that leader. I presume you all speak from experience as a former president of the USA? NOT!!!

What seems the right decision today might not be judged well in history. That doesn't mean it's not the right decision today.

In what part of the USA's left brain would they have ever gone into Vietnam if they had possibly known that communism would be a non issue 20 years later?

The president or any leader for that matter is privy to information that's not public in order to make his decisions. Also, he's got scads of advisors who are there through the changes in government to help him be knowledgeable. We don't have much say in day to day affairs of governments after we cast our votes. We're just along for the ride.

Catchme · January 2, 2007

What seems the right decision today might not be judged well in history. That doesn't mean it's not the right decision today.
In what part of the USA's left brain would they have ever gone into Vietnam if they had possibly known that communism would be a non issue 20 years later?

The Vietnam Conflict was just as illiget before it happened, as after it happened, look up Bay of Tokin history. And funnily enough the same names were involved then as now!

The president or any leader for that matter is privy to information that's not public in order to make his decisions.

That's doubtful in todays world? They might like to think so. After all, many regular folks around the world KNEW Iraq was going to be a mess.

Also, he's got scads of advisors who are there through the changes in government to help him be knowledgeable.

Apparently, the number does not help, nor be of any significance.

We don't have much say in day to day affairs of governments after we cast our votes. We're just along for the ride.

]

Actually we do, especially in a minority government, all we have to do is be vocal, very vocal with our MP's and elsewhere in the public realm. And there is no doubt we should have more, I would like our governments to be run on the strict platform and actions they campaign on. As truly, that is the only thing they have a mandate to do.

Riverwind · January 2, 2007

What seems the right decision today might not be judged well in history. That doesn't mean it's not the right decision today.

Many, many people warned the Bush that the consequences we see today would likely occur. There are times when leaders need to be given the benefit of the doubt - this is it not one of them. Bush is incompetent because he had all the information he needed to make the right decision but chose not to.

Wilber · January 2, 2007

The guy was a scumbag and hanging was too good for him but it was all the law allowed.

crazymf · January 2, 2007

Yaddayadda.... I'm sure the Iraq thing wasn't a one man decision.

I can't imagine how many checks and balances there are in the American federal government. I would like to think that if Bush made a bad decision, that it was based on bad advice from many advisors.

Seriously, how can one man have enough of a grasp on a huge situation involving foreign policy after such a short time in office. He needs to be able to rely on more experienced people and bring their collective knowledge together in order to make a timely decision. With guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who all had a bone to pick with Iraq, how could Bush come to any other conclusion?

You all seem to forget that Iraq was defeated in Gulf 1 and was not complying with the arms inspectors. Personally, at the time, I wondered why GW changed his focus so fast from Afghanistan, but again, there's a million things in play and all we see is what the media spins for us.

My opinion is that while Iraq is certainly a dirty business, someone needed to shake the Etch-a-Sketch over there.

Riverwind · January 2, 2007

With guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who all had a bone to pick with Iraq, how could Bush come to any other conclusion?

Bush picked those advisors. If he was competent then he would have understood the biases those advisors had and sought advice from other angles. You might be able to argue that Bush is just a puppet of the Republican party insiders, however, if he is a puppet he is still incompetent but for different reasons.

You all seem to forget that Iraq was defeated in Gulf 1 and was not complying with the arms inspectors. Personally, at the time, I wondered why GW changed his focus so fast from Afghanistan, but again, there's a million things in play and all we see is what the media spins for us.

The Republicans were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq long before 9/11. 9/11 was just a convenient excuse. If there was really evidence that Saddam had WMDs then Bush should have been able to present that evidence and get he various European powers onside. The fact that Europe was so opposed to the invasion after they supported the war in Afghanistan tells me that the behind the scenes evidence at the time was not very compelling. So again, I agree with your general position that you cannot always judge leaders based on information we have today, however, in this sitution the facts suggest Bush deserves all of the scorn he gets.

jbg · January 2, 2007

Perhaps you can now pray for the well being of people in Iraq - whose plight these days doesn't seem to be much better than under Saddam? Just a suggestion. Who knows, maybe it'll be answered (soon, too)?

Already is better now than under the Butcher. Do you live underground?

Maybe in the same hole Saddam inhabited for a time before the vermin crew arrived.

myata · January 2, 2007

When can we expect your first hand written card, you know, with Baghdad postage and nice rosy pictures? You can share the trip. Maybe you'll indeed see something we don't get from the news.

geoffrey · January 2, 2007

When can we expect your first hand written card, you know, with Baghdad postage and nice rosy pictures? You can share the trip. Maybe you'll indeed see something we don't get from the news.

They do really need to stop killing each other. It's terrorist bombings of civilians that are the problem, not American's parading around slaughtering people.

Catchme · January 2, 2007

When can we expect your first hand written card, you know, with Baghdad postage and nice rosy pictures? You can share the trip. Maybe you'll indeed see something we don't get from the news.

They do really need to stop killing each other. It's terrorist bombings of civilians that are the problem, not American's parading around slaughtering people.

So it's okay for the Americans to parade around slaughtering people? Terrorists bombings? I suppose the retalition that is simmering and about to explode in Sunnis areas of Iraq, because Saddam was hung is going to be terrorists too?