It should be noted that it was 6am Iraqi time, or 10pm EST Friday (approximately).
I wonder just who's mission was accomplished.
Not to sound too much the bleeding heart liberal, but I wonder when we'll see the rushed-to-the-gallows hangings of those responsible for putting Saddam in power.
He was a bad man, but so were - and are - many, many more.
Out of curiosity, wasn't there some talk of having it televised? I was somewhat surprised just how low key the entire process turned out to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful I didn't see him hanging on CNN with a news ticker below, but I figured there'd be more media oomph involved.
On one hand, you dont expect them to show an execution live on CNN or anything...but just.. the archaic quality of hanging as am execution method gives a weird feel to it that makes us curious as to why it's not on TV like the other hangings (tho those are on the History Channel and took place a lot earlier).
Wow..the mission was to kill Saddam? I had a weird feeling when I heard they would be hanging him within the hour. Basically it is the end of an era but on the other hand it doesn't change anything, it just might make the civil war get worse.
The process and the execution were low key because this wasn't in a western country. No media hype. Just trial and then hanging. Everything was done by the Iraqi's and somehow I doubt their law isntitutions and their Muslim laws leave much room for court room TV
I think I want to scream. This is possibly the stupidest decision that has ever being made by any man, woman, child or animal in the whole history of this planet, this solar system and I dare say, the rest of the universe.
Firstly, at a time of great religious strive, you've just martyred someone? Why? What did this achieve? Anyone with half a brain can see that this was blatently a rigged trial on the scale of Nuremberg or Tokyo trials. Saddam was never going to get a fair trial in an American occupied Iraq.
Before the excuses start, I'll do one thing here and explain how the rest of the world see it. -You invaded a country which didn't attack you, didn't encourage people to attack you with no reason or provocation at all. - If you wanted to after Al-Qaeda and the people who are hiding them, why are you still allies with Pakistan? Why haven't you invaded them? -If this was a human rights issue, then why aren't you in Zimbabwe, Somalia, China, Ukraine etc. Furthermore, anybody who uses the human rights excuse then commends killing Saddam doesn't need me to point out their idiocy.
You have just told every ally that you have that we may be friends now, but as soon as your usefulness is gone, we'll hang you.
Lets spin this situation around then.
Let's face facts here, China are probably the only guys who can whoop America and still be home for teatime. Imagine if the Chinese invaded you without provocation under the banner of liberating you from your Capitalist ways, bombed your infostructure into the ground, put your country into civil war and killed your leader by hanging (of course with a mock trial). Would you sit there and do nothing?
I was speaking to a friend from Texas a few weeks ago and its shocking how little of the news America actually gets about what it is doing in the world. I should really make it clear that I have being in cities during two terrorist attacks (7/7 London and 25/6? Manchester by the IRA) so I don't feel offended by asking you guys to think about why 9/11 and the American Embassy bombings happened. Was it because you have consistently bombed countries around the world for the past 30 years? Did you guys even ask that question without resorting to black/white terms of good vs evil?
Anyway, I'll summarise to say that I am actually a conservative by nature and agreed with the war in Iraq purely for human rights reasons. I really don't get why Saddam had to die though. This was uncalled for and has worsened the situation to a point where it can no longer be rescued.
Feels better to get that off of my chest.
EDIT: Edited to fix spelling mistake pointed out below (I hate them :()
(edited by devineman on 30.12.06 1814) True intelligence is the ability to admit you know nothing.
Originally posted by devinemanAnyone with half a brain can see that this was blatently a rigged trial on the scale of Nuremburg or Tokyo trials.
Referring to the Nuremberg trials as "rigged" is the equivalent of stating "I have no credibility and my comments can be safely ignored." At least, in my humble opinion.
I am not sure if you are saying Saddam is NOT guilty of the things he was accused of, or if you just disapprove of the way the trial was handled. Either way, its not the government's job to hold a trial to try to find somebody NOT guilty, it's their job to prove that they are indeed guilty of everything they are being charged with.
I have read a lot of people complaining about how the trial shouldn't have been held in Iraq, but with the facts that we DO have, would it really matter where his trial was held? Would GUILTY have not been the outcome had it been held in another country?
here's some video. there's a about 18 thousand of these around, but I got lucky and found the one where they are singing "Wake Up Dead" in Arabic. I think
They should have just put a bullet between his eyes 3 years ago. Someone needs to teach the Iraqi Government the concept of PPV. I'd have dropped $19.95 to see Saddam swinging live, $59.95 if they could have thrown in a few members of the House of Saud.
The Horsemen DVD is 3 Discs and 9 hours. Let Us Rejoice and Sing Its Praise.
Originally posted by redsoxnationThey should have just put a bullet between his eyes 3 years ago. Someone needs to teach the Iraqi Government the concept of PPV. I'd have dropped $19.95 to see Saddam swinging live, $59.95 if they could have thrown in a few members of the House of Saud.
Have you considered the possibility that there's something wrong with you, then?
I'm not about to defend Saddam Hussein of all people, but why exactly are you so happy about this? Whatever he did, he did with his CIA education and mostly to people you can't tell apart from the people you want dead. He was buddies with everyone's favourite President, the positively incompetent Ronnie. He was never a threat to Americans who didn't volunteer to go over there and lie in his crosshairs. Are you okay with whatever despot-in-the-decades-to-come the U.S. is empowering now?
Decisions of previous American administrations are why we have Osamas and Saddams. We'll never see Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld strung up, and it's too late for the apartheid-and-Iranian-terrorist-supporting Gipper. But the difference is, why they all should be or should have been strung up (if that's how we deal with mass murderers), I wouldn't want to see it.
Originally posted by redsoxnationThey should have just put a bullet between his eyes 3 years ago. Someone needs to teach the Iraqi Government the concept of PPV. I'd have dropped $19.95 to see Saddam swinging live, $59.95 if they could have thrown in a few members of the House of Saud.
Have you considered the possibility that there's something wrong with you, then?
I'm not about to defend Saddam Hussein of all people, but why exactly are you so happy about this? Whatever he did, he did with his CIA education and mostly to people you can't tell apart from the people you want dead. He was buddies with everyone's favourite President, the positively incompetent Ronnie. He was never a threat to Americans who didn't volunteer to go over there and lie in his crosshairs. Are you okay with whatever despot-in-the-decades-to-come the U.S. is empowering now?
Decisions of previous American administrations are why we have Osamas and Saddams. We'll never see Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld strung up, and it's too late for the apartheid-and-Iranian-terrorist-supporting Gipper. But the difference is, why they all should be or should have been strung up (if that's how we deal with mass murderers), I wouldn't want to see it.
Yes, without America there would be no crazy people in the middle East killing each other and fighting over centuries old shit. Yep, we caused it all because we had a relationship with a few of them in the past.
If there's something wrong with him, then I must be nuts too because I'd pay and invite people over. Chips and Dip my friend. BYOB.
I don't know if this comes under "fantasy booking" rules or not, but the whole process is/was fatally flawed.
I really don't want this to come accross as anti-American, because I genuinely don't hold those sentiments, but the only thing this "regime change" was about was getting a puppet Iragi government in place to resume trading oil in dollars and not euros. If Saddam Hussein was really such a bad man that we all wanted rid of, then I am sure the CIA/MI6/Mossad could've taken care of that...but killing Saddam Hussein wouldn't solve the problem.
Bottom line is, Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard who deserved to be brought to justice, but lets not pretend that this was anything other than a glorified show trial.
Originally posted by redsoxnationThey should have just put a bullet between his eyes 3 years ago. Someone needs to teach the Iraqi Government the concept of PPV. I'd have dropped $19.95 to see Saddam swinging live, $59.95 if they could have thrown in a few members of the House of Saud.
Have you considered the possibility that there's something wrong with you, then?
I'm not about to defend Saddam Hussein of all people, but why exactly are you so happy about this? Whatever he did, he did with his CIA education and mostly to people you can't tell apart from the people you want dead. He was buddies with everyone's favourite President, the positively incompetent Ronnie. He was never a threat to Americans who didn't volunteer to go over there and lie in his crosshairs. Are you okay with whatever despot-in-the-decades-to-come the U.S. is empowering now?
Decisions of previous American administrations are why we have Osamas and Saddams. We'll never see Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld strung up, and it's too late for the apartheid-and-Irania?n-terrorist-supporting Gipper. But the difference is, why they all should be or should have been strung up (if that's how we deal with mass murderers), I wouldn't want to see it.
Yes, without America there would be no crazy people in the middle East killing each other and fighting over centuries old shit. Yep, we caused it all because we had a relationship with a few of them in the past.
If there's something wrong with him, then I must be nuts too because I'd pay and invite people over. Chips and Dip my friend. BYOB.
If all that is the case, than Saddam's death has absolutely nothing to do with "accomplishing" the ever-changing "mission." His death doesn't end violence in Iraq - things have gotten worse in many ways in Iraq says his ouster - it doesn't bring peace to the Middle East and it doesn't bring back the deaths he is responsible for. He's a fucked up man who did some terrible things, but his death changes absolutely nothing.
Also, what's fucked up about the sentiments redsoxnation stated and you echoed is that you're wanting to pay to watch someone die. That clearly doesn't seem unhealthy in your view, but then, as we've established, there's something wrong with you.
Originally posted by Hogan's My DadWhatever he did, he did with his CIA education and mostly to people you can't tell apart from the people you want dead. He was buddies with everyone's favourite President, the positively incompetent Ronnie. He was never a threat to Americans who didn't volunteer to go over there and lie in his crosshairs. Are you okay with whatever despot-in-the-decades-to-come the U.S. is empowering now?
Decisions of previous American administrations are why we have Osamas and Saddams. We'll never see Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld strung up, and it's too late for the apartheid-and-Iranian-terrorist-supporting Gipper.
Yes, without America there would be no crazy people in the middle East killing each other and fighting over centuries old shit. Yep, we caused it all because we had a relationship with a few of them in the past.
If there's something wrong with him, then I must be nuts too because I'd pay and invite people over. Chips and Dip my friend. BYOB.
No, the point is that the American government is responsible for Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Augusto Pinochet (and many others). Anything that Saddam did is our fault, because we helped him when it served our interests. And yet we never seem to learn from our mistakes. After the September 11th attacks, the Navy started flying the old Navy Jack, with the words "Don't tread on me" on it. This is supposed to run until the end of the "Global War on Terrorism" (in other words, forever). That seems especially ironic today. But I digress.
We're going on 3,250 coalition (3,000 of them US troops) fatalities, plus another 6,000 or so Iraqi military fatalities, plus at least 52,000 civilian fatalities, with no end in sight. And all for what? So that we could kill Saddam? Forgive me if the math isn't making sense to me.