Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
baronofhell

Hang him!

Recommended Posts

Yeh! And then let's hang the bigger fish, the ones that have murdered more than him, let's start with Bush and Bliar.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not pro bush, but I don't think he's ever intentionally bombed innocent civilians. Innocent lives are lost in every war through out history, and as I recall, before the "shock and awe" air attack took place a few years ago, the civilians were given a warning ahead of time to evacuate. This air raid was necessary, because without it the US military would have suffered far more casualties than the 3000 or so that have died so far. Call the stealth bombing unfair, but so are road side bombs and insurgents hiding among the civilian populace(cough:vietnam:cough) and then people fucking cry when innocent people are hurt. If Bush was as bad as Hussein, we would just fucking replace the hot spots of Iraq with craters(which the US military is very capable of doing), and round up all of the people who share the same background as these insurgents and bury them. War is ugly, always has been.

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

"About the hardest part of my job is to connect Iraq, to the war on terror." - George Bush


As I said in my previous post, I'm not pro Bush, the war in Iraq is bullshit, but Bush took advantage of a vulnerable nation and was given the green light to invade. If Bush really wanted to end this terrorist threat, he'd go to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
baronofhell said:

If Bush really wanted to end this terrorist threat, he'd go to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Huh? Are you trying to suggest that the "war on terror" can actually be won?

Share this post


Link to post
Quast said:

Huh? Are you trying to suggest that the "war on terror" can actually be won?


Whatever method there might be, it is sure not done by force.

Share this post


Link to post
Mancubus II said:

Conveniently close to the elections. Hopefully this won't cloud people's judgments too much...


I'm vottin' for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Quast said:

Huh? Are you trying to suggest that the "war on terror" can actually be won?


yeah, just like we can win the "war on poverty" and the "war on drugs". oh wait... yeah. anyway, you know the trial was just for show. if the fledgling iraqi gov't didn't have to adhere to international law he would have been killed on the spot. so the verdict was no suprise to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still pissed off they didn't try him in international court like they did with Milošević.

Share this post


Link to post

baronofhell said:
I'm not pro bush, but I don't think he's ever intentionally bombed innocent civilians.

He accused them of having WMD and they barely had a competent army, so it looks like he did just that (and he attacked Iraq and not just Saddam). Since they were full of shit on that there's no guarantee they aren't on other counts. Now that Iraq has been basically raped to the ground and is run by subordinates of the US, there's no way they can judge Saddam fairly on anything.

Basically, thousands (I'll just leave the figures out because even if in had been a mere 30,000 it would have been a huge amount, and it's quite more apparently) of people have been killed because someone thought Saddam "and his cronies" were somehow extremely dangerous (with no actual indication of how that was the case). Dangerous to certain investments, we can certainly suppose.

Might as well be a better choice to judge George W. Bush and Hillary R. Clinton who clearly intend to continue inflicting mass violence in Iraq and abroad, instead of Saddam who's some nasty sod of lesser weight now sitting in a croner, who was used, and then owned when that was his current usefulness. The worst thing Saddam did probably was, to put it some way, act like Faust in sake of power. To truly judge whether Saddam was a "tyant and murderer" or in a civil war is way beyond those who display behavior that puts them on the light of the former option.

I wonder how this is being decided though. As Mancubus II said, US elections are coming. One wonders whether US intelligence urged for the veredict or the Shiites had an asslicking intiative there. In any case, it's bound to help perpetuate the infighting (and as noted US candidates have a commitment to keep the war going) since it pisses belligerent Sunnis off (for whom Saddam will die a hero facing very uneven odds) and encourages Shiites ones.

Share this post


Link to post

Oddly, enough the candidates this year are all standing on a different platform. In 2004, both the Republicans and Demicrats thought it was a good idea to stay in Iraq while all the third parties, even the right-wing racist ones were sayign we should GTFO. In this election though, not only are the third parties still saying we should get out, but now the Democrats and even the Republicans are saying the same thing. Of course, it could all be wind in sales, but if the congressmen of this country have half a brain they're realising what this damn war is doing to our country on the terms of the economy, foriegn relations, military stability, and our own citizen's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

To truly judge whether Saddam was a "tyant and murderer"


ummm... he was a military dictator. no one elected him. his army attacked the kurds with chemical weapons that are illegal according to international law. his army, his orders. the survivors are living in pain, dying slowly from seared lungs. I think that describes tyrant and murderer. yes, the bush regime had no real grounds for waging that war, and I'm not for it. the guy was no real threat to the US or the rest of the world. but he was a tyrant and he is a murderer and it's not us judging him, but the iraqi people. and keep in mind he still has an automatic appeal before the iraqi version of the supreme court, which can overturn the ruling or sentence, and he has another genocide trial to go through, so this is far from over.

Share this post


Link to post

He also will be 70 years old at the end of April, and according to iraqi law one cannot be executed once one reaches that age. The appeals process can in theory go on indefinitely with the caveat that any punishment be executed within 30 days of their decision. If they don't decide by the end of february what to do, the worst he'll get is a cell somewhere in Iraq. One could question whether he deserves suffering instead of death.

Share this post


Link to post

VileSlay said:
but he was a tyrant and he is a murderer and it's not us judging him, but the iraqi people.

The Iraqi "people" under a so called democracy set up under the tutelage of the invading army that sacked him out of power and is still occupying the oil happy land. It'd be proper if it were the other Iraqi people (I mean the Iraqi people), under legit circumstances.

Saddam's government was an Iraqi dictatorship by an ex-pawn/ally of US foreign policy, while the current govenment is subservient to its overseeing overlords, and acting under their shadow.

Iraq would probably have to be liberated first to make possible productive investigations and authoritative inquiries on Iraqi usage of illegal war methods during the 80s and 90s, in order for it to be possible to distinguish fact from fabrication and exaggeration, and to associate facts and accounts with relevant circumstances and relationships. For the longest period during which it is accounted that Saddam hounded the Kurds with abusive superiority, Saddam was backed by and supplied by the US and allies, especially with the chemical weapons and technology he used then.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

The Iraqi "people" under a so called democracy set up under the tutelage of the invading army that sacked him out of power and is still occupying the oil happy land. It'd be proper if it were the other Iraqi people (I mean the Iraqi people), under legit circumstances.

The Iraqi people who want him back in power, or the ones that would have hung him months ago? Of course it's not ideal that the US have a hand in his trial, pulling the strings as it were, but in the real world it's the closest available thing to impartiality anyone could come up with.

myk said:

For the longest period during which it is accounted that Saddam hounded the Kurds with abusive superiority, Saddam was backed by and supplied by the US and allies, especially with the chemical weapons and technology he used then.

Absolutely. He was a tyrant an a murderer and we used him to further our own short sighted foreign policies in the name of petty national interests. Whilst pulling out is becoming ever more popular in both public opinion and political policies, people need to remember that this is our fuckup and it's not fair to the Iraqi people to leave their country in disarray.

Share this post


Link to post

DooMAD said:
The Iraqi people who want him back in power, or the ones that would have hung him months ago?

All of them, except the many thousands of dead ones and the foreigners.

but in the real world it's the closest available thing to impartiality anyone could come up with.

Arbitrary and interested foreign intervention is impartiality? I guess it's clear it leaves the Iraqis with much less initiative, and thus not taking part in the crucial decision making, except in relation to the actions of the invading powers, their actions are not so much "partial" in respect to themselves, because they determine them less than they would in a sovereign nation. More than the "real world", it sounds like the abstraction western interests would make in order to illustrate the situation according to their plans in the area, eliminating truly relevant facts and factors in order to fabricate a consumable image of what's being done and what's going on.

Whilst pulling out is becoming ever more popular in both public opinion and political policies, people need to remember that this is our fuckup and it's not fair to the Iraqi people to leave their country in disarray.

Yeah, I bet they need foreign fighters sitting in key militarily strategic locations of the nation, administering the areas they feel are vital to whatever interests they serve and looking smugly askance, insisting that the Iraqis settle down for once, while in the ruined streets Shiites and Sunnis butcher each other in the partial anarchy of their masquerade of a government.

When someone screws up big time in regard to a responsibility (if that were what meddling in the middle east could even be called, but let's pretend that's what it is), they should not get even deeper into it; they should leave. That's what elections are for, for example. A government stinks, so people vote them off, to get rid of their ruinous policies. In this case the policies continue, ever deeper and with more involvement.

Are you trying to say the intervention in Iraq has something to do with making the Iraqis free or safer? It has the opposite effect and is not aimed to do that. This has been clear from the onset to anyone following the campaign, listening to the key administrators discuss their plans (after all, they have to get their message to those not interested in moralizing euphemisms and falsehoods), or observing the strategies and their effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Quast said:

Huh? Are you trying to suggest that the "war on terror" can actually be won?


Of course it can be won. Terrorism on an organized scale can be defeated. However, local terrorists may be another problem, one for a nation's internal intelligence agency.

Share this post


Link to post

Naked Snake said:
Of course it can be won.

In fact, it's been "won" for decades; ever since the US has had international hegemony over the oil trade, and thus military supremacy. The violence in a nonformal or not in traditionally military form is due to the disparity of the forces of the conflicting interests; central western powers versus the areas where they expliot the resources in others' lands, either by owning the businesses or by arrangements that grant them key advantages in trade and management. And since the middle east (and any other nations that may be threatened by the US and allies) cannot be truly centralized due to being fragmented with the help of constant political meddling and weight from foreign power that requires a certain type of organization (mainly the weakening of local interest in order to apply policies and economical measures that benefit hegemonic foreign intervensionists), its actors use provocational violence aimed more as a message or a local political tool than a weapon of force or military strength, as well as guerilla warfare to wear off the invaders or negotiate better positions.

The war on terrorism is something to be fought, not won, and "terrorism" is a sort of violent trolling of political magnitude aimed precisely to provoke war or instability.

You can say "organized" terrorism, yet it will never be centralized like the administration of a nation, so it is not something you can deal with frontally. You either completely dominate the opposition (this could entail consistent genocide and widespread occupation) or use means that make terrorist violence pointless. The latter is certainly not happening, the former, perhaps slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Arbitrary and interested foreign intervetion is impartiality? I guess it's clear it leaves the Iraqis with much less initiative, and thus not taking part in the crucial decision making, except in relation to the actions of the invading powers, their actions are not so much "partial" in respect to themselves, because they determine them less than they would in a sovereign nation. More than the "real world", it sounds like the abstraction western interests would make in order to illustrate the situation according to their plans in the area, eliminating truly relevant facts and factors in order to fabricate a consumable image of what's being done and what's going on.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have had the opportunity to hold the trial themselves, just suggesting that it may have been more problematic if they did. It's hard to say whether a panel of judges representing Shia, Sunni and Kurds would be more or less impartial than a US lead court.

myk said:

Yeah, I bet they need foreign fighters sitting in key militarily strategic locations of the nation, administering the areas they feel are vital to whatever interests they serve and looking smugly askance, insisting that the Iraqis settle down for once, while in the ruined streets Shiites and Sunnis butcher each other in the partial anarchy of their masquerade of a government.

I'm pretty sure that without proper policing, they'd be killing each other anyway, regardless of our presence there. Pulling out now won't help that situation in the slightest. Once their government resembles something stable, the rest of the country should follow.

myk said:

Are you trying to say the intervention in Iraq has something to do with making the Iraqis free or safer? It has the opposite effect and is not aimed to do that. This has been clear from the onset to anyone following the campaign, listening to the key administrators discuss their plans (after all, they have to get their message to those not interested in moralizing euphemisms and falsehoods), or observing the strategies and their effects.

I'll freely admit that the US and UK spent far too much time stating the supposed case for war (lying, of course) and not nearly enough time planning for it. I'll also openly condemn their true motives for the war, which aren't all too different from the ones that got us into this mess in the first place. But I still think, even with the situation as bad as it is, it's still better than if we had left Saddam in power.

If the US hadn't squandered the opportunity to rid the world of Saddam at the end of the last Gulf war, things would have been so much easier. US troops would have been welcomed as liberators at that point, as the Iraqi public was rising up against Saddam. Withdrawing back to Kuwait was a colossal failure in judgement. This could have been resolved years ago without anywhere near as much bloodshed and carnage. Now we have to do it the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post

DooMAD said:
But I still think, even with the situation as bad as it is, it's still better than if we had left Saddam in power.

You mean because he would have chosen to make oil related deals mainly with China and other countries (central European, etc.) instead of US/UK corporations or otherwise under conditions that benefit the US and Britain?

If the US hadn't squandered the opportunity to rid the world of Saddam at the end of the last Gulf war, things would have been so much easier. US troops would have been welcomed as liberators at that point, as the Iraqi public was rising up against Saddam.

Yes, some were rising against him, including any opponents who saw him partially crippled by the invasion (in the kind of anarchy that has now pretty much been perpetuated for who knows how long), or those that aimed to be new "Saddams" (served provisions, arms, or intelligence by the US); By US/UK intervention Saddam can only be replaced by another Saddamlike dictatorship or faction in fragmented conflict with different middle eastern factions that have been violently excited like the inhabitants of a trampled anthill. The key reason for regime change is to find new leadership that is convenient to and in tune with US/UK interests; whether Iraqis get raped to the ground in the process or become rich out of it is very irrelevant unless it somehow affects said interests.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

You can say "organized" terrorism, yet it will never be centralized like the administration of a nation, so it is not something you can deal with frontally. You either completely dominate the opposition (this could entail consistent genocide and widespread occupation) or use means that make terrorist violence pointless. The latter is certainly not happening, the former, perhaps slowly.


Such is not true of al Qaida, which is run very much like a military junta with strict ranks, chains of command, and disciplined soldiers. Really, terrorist is still a mislabelling for al Qaida because it simplifies the picture too much. I'd call it an army without a nation (unless you consider radical Islam a "nation," which is something its adherents believe in and would probably see established if possible).

Share this post


Link to post

Quasar said:
Such is not true of al Qaida, which is run very much like a military junta with strict ranks, chains of command, and disciplined soldiers. Really, terrorist is still a mislabelling for al Qaida because it simplifies the picture too much. I'd call it an army without a nation (unless you consider radical Islam a "nation," which is something its adherents believe in and would probably see established if possible).

The overpublicized "Al Qaida" is composed of the type of groups I'm talking about; operatives that in order to obtain certain effects related to complex interests in the area enlist agents from many countries to concentrate on strategic objectives, either financial, instigational or political. Much like gangsters out for their fortune, associating with intelligence services, leaders, economic groups and communal institutions. The centralized conception sometimes attributed to Al Qaeda and other such individuals, groups or associations is more than anything Manichaean simplifications convenient to themselves and the governments and intelligence services involved to forge worldviews regarding the economic and political conflicts they are engaged in. So called terrorists are adventurers ready to try it all and political tools for those in power (kind of like hooligans, criminals, and the like may end up serving for certain political purposes). Depending on the circumstances, one or another power can make use of them, or suffer because of them (either by being on the receiving end of a nasty action or by being associated to them at the wrong moment).

Focusing on the fascist brootherhood concepts used to enable radical activist groups instead of the main aims and strategies of the actors behind said discourses and appearances is what allows them to thrive by polarizing and falsifying their nature (presenting them either as scapegoats or saviors, when with their cronies they are actually thugs in a vicious and complex political game of power).

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

Whatever method there might be, it is sure not done by force.

So what do you suggest? Pacifism? Yeah, that's really smart. Sit back and refuse to defend ourselves. Let's see how long the U.S. lasts with that attitude. Dumbass.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×