PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Hussein


cessna l plate
27th Dec 2006, 07:59
Funny this hasn't been started already.

"The former Iraqi dictator has had his sentence of death upheld at appeal, with a reccomendation that he hang within 30 days."

I have to say I have mixed feelings over this one. Yes the man commited the most henious of all henoius crimes in genocide, and should be punished in an appropriate manner, hanging is probably too good for the likes of him (though I'd say it before Mr Draper)

By the same token, he also brought a degree of stability to the region, the Iranians weren't enriching uranium and Iraq itself was not in the meltdown that it has now descended into. In the same mold as Adolf Hitler, there are flashes of genius there, but the mark was overstepped.

Would the world benefit from allowing him to stand for election in a free, a truly free, vote with an option to hang him at the end, and let the Iraqi people decide, as lets be fair, was his appeal ever going to work whilst the system is driven by the Americans?

Rainboe
27th Dec 2006, 08:51
Yes, he did overstep the mark just a teensy-weeny bit- maybe by about 180,000+ lives or thereabouts, give or take 100,000 or so. Gassing all those Kurds does seem rather nasty. Finding all those bodies in the desert seems a bit rough too. I think the sooner they 'dispense with the problem', the better.

BlueDiamond
27th Dec 2006, 08:53
Would the world benefit from allowing him to stand for election in a free, a truly free, vote with an option to hang him at the end, and let the Iraqi people decide, as lets be fair, was his appeal ever going to work whilst the system is driven by the Americans?
I can't make head nor tail of that question. Are you asking if the world would benefit from letting him run for election?

Or are you asking if he should be allowed to run for election then be hanged? If he wins? If he loses?

The regime of Saddam Hussein has actually had little overall effect on that region's stability. The area has always been a 'problem child" but was stabilised (to a degree) mainly by the influence of major world powers ... USA, Russia and Britain. When Britain withdrew from the region in 1971, the resulting power vacuum created further problems, the repercussions of which have contributed to the situation as it is today. It is an enormously complex situation which is going to continue for many years to come. You have to go back a lot further than Saddam Hussein to find the origins of middle east conflict, or indeed what the stabilising influences have been in more recent times. Saddam Hussein wasn't one of them.

Oceanz
27th Dec 2006, 08:56
I would have been happier having him tried before an international court, so that any perceptions of bias could be erased. But then he may have told things which other countries wouldn't like to be made public.

ORAC
27th Dec 2006, 09:05
Since the Sunni are vastly outnumbered by the Shia and Kurds the only point of an election would be to decide the method of execution....

The Iranians have been working on their nuclear programme for at least 30-40 years. It could be debated whether the Iranian nuclear programme triggered the Iraq programme, or vice-versa. Certainly by the time the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981, the Iranian programme would have been well under way, as they were at war with Iraq 1980-88 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War). With over 1 million casualties on the Iranian side alone, I think you have a somewhat rosy view of the "stability" be brought to the region.

PanPanYourself
27th Dec 2006, 09:09
I am against the death penalty, even if it is Saddam Hussein.

However, if Bush is convicted on war crimes charges I may change my stance on that issue. Lets face it, the bastard is responsible for as many deaths as Saddam.

Wipeout
27th Dec 2006, 09:15
http://newsbiscuit.com/article/saddam-hussein-sentenced-to-govern-iraq

A light hearted look at the situation.

cessna l plate
27th Dec 2006, 09:46
For me, I think he should hang for what he has done, but that said, will the people of Iraq beleive that he has gone? The only way to do that is to broadcast the execution, and the western governments don't have the guts for that. So will he become a martyr to his people.

Yes, I agree the ills of the middle east go back to pre biblical times, perhaps it is naivety on my part, but besides the invasion of Kuwait, there was nowhere near as much trouble in the part of the region with Saddam at the helm as it were.

The invasion of Iraq was nothing to do with the UK, other than Dubya calling "walkies" to the tosser we elected. In addition the motives for the invasion were based around the events of 9/11, I am sure that it is well documented that OBL and Saddam did actually hate each other, so where does that justification come from?

The problem is that now there, the USA and UK cannot just say "stuff this for a game of soldiers" and bugger off quick, although we are both now involved in another "Vietnam" that no-one can win, we also need to leave the Iraqis to sort out the mess WITH our support. We made the mess, we are morally obliged to help clear it up!

As for Saddam, yes he does need to hang. I believe publically to avoid the martyrdom problems, but at least give the Iraqis the opportunity to either re-elect him, or order his destruction. That way, justice will be served as you cannot get a better "tried by your peers" than the populous of the country as a whole!

Capt. Queeg
27th Dec 2006, 18:15
The regime of Saddam Hussein has actually had little overall effect on that region's stability.

While pointing to the Iranian situation is drawing a low bow, I think it's fairly obvious ClP is referring mainly to Iraq, itself, when he speaks of stability.


You have to go back a lot further than Saddam Hussein to find the origins of middle east conflict, or indeed what the stabilising influences have been in more recent times.

Let's not suger-coat it - the entire "region" is in a perpetual state of conflict because the inhabitants of the "region" are a bunch of sly, murderous, tribal, stone-age savages, driven by religion, and who all share at least one common trait: They like to solve their problems with violence.


When Britain withdrew from the region in 1971, the resulting power vacuum created further problems, the repercussions of which have contributed to the situation as it is today....


Wonk wonk wonk.... Charlie Brown's teacher...:rolleyes:



I say re-elect him. Or bring him to Aust and put him in charge of the Correctional System.

He obviously has a well-developed skill-set - shame to waste it.

G-CPTN
27th Dec 2006, 18:40
Whilst I realise that the charges of which he has been convicted are merely token sample charges, I can't avoid wondering how many 'similar' crimes are being effected day-by-day in current Iraq. It appears to be a way-of-life . . .

Polikarpov
27th Dec 2006, 19:10
Unfortunately, given current trends, he'll just be one among a couple of hundred Iraqis to prematurely meet their makers on the day he hangs.

frostbite
27th Dec 2006, 21:02
Couldn't they just send him to Eastbourne?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
27th Dec 2006, 21:30
Perhaps the question should be: "which was (or is) the better Iraq for The Iraqi on the Clapham Omnibus? The one when Sadaam was still in power, or the one they live in now?"

Oceanz
27th Dec 2006, 22:11
I think we should give him a sporting chance: put him, Blair, Bush & Howard - along with a few colleagues of each - in some balmy spot - like Heard Island in winter - and let them play an advanced version of Celebrity Survivor. :E

Atlas Shrugged
27th Dec 2006, 22:14
"The former Iraqi dictator has had his sentence of death upheld at appeal, with a reccomendation that he hang within 30 days."


Good!
.

PanPanYourself
27th Dec 2006, 22:19
I think we should give him a sporting chance: put him, Blair, Bush & Howard - along with a few colleagues of each - in some balmy spot - like Heard Island in winter - and let them play an advanced version of Celebrity Survivor.

Thats the best idea I've ever seen on PPRuNe. :ok:

jumpuFOKKERjump
27th Dec 2006, 22:47
"He deserves death!"

"Deserves it! I daresay he does, many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement."

I really think that anybody that wishes the death of somebody else, even a complete arsehole murderer like Saddam, is at heart, just a little bit, a potential murderer.

Oz's bumbling moron of international affairs, Alexander Downer-Syndrome, is a prime example of this sort of hypocrisy. As the sentencing of the Bali bombers approached he announced that the feral gummint's usual habit of indicating Oz was opposed to the death penalty, (so please don't machine gun the latest crop of drug mules you asian guys have caught) would not be brought up in relation to the bombers. Oh thanks Alex, you mean the death penalty is OK as long as holes aren't put into white guys???

Let him rot impotent and impoverished in jail for a very long but finite time and die forgotten.

G-CPTN
27th Dec 2006, 22:58
That his trial was flawed is almost certain.
I heard an Iraqi state "We KNOW that he was guilty, but his trial didn't PROVE that."

However he has been granted the 'justice' of his own Country, of which he was the President. Hoist by his own petard perhaps, but he has been afforded more consideration than he permitted his victims.

mini
27th Dec 2006, 23:09
I reckon history have to sort this one out:

How many died under SH vs GB1 & GB2...

How prosperous was the average Iraqi under the same criterea as above...

apart from the sophomoric (as above) how do you decide?

Still don't think we have the right to kill anyone TBH... all too 16th century for my liking.

PS. How will TB's Govt reconcile being part of this judgement with their ratified position regarding the death sentence vis a vis the EU... now this will be interesting. :E

As for GB, I won't waste the ink.

BlueDiamond
27th Dec 2006, 23:58
The only way to do that is to broadcast the execution, and the western governments don't have the guts for that. So will he become a martyr to his people.
Some of the Iraqi people (most likely Sunnis) will see him as a martyr anyway whether the execution is televised or not.

Such a broadcast might serve to convince people that he had died, others will remain convinced that it was all a simulation.

bladewashout
28th Dec 2006, 00:14
Put him back in the hole he was hiding in when they found him, he's been given far better treatment since than his self-imposed hiding place offered him.

Just leave him there in the conditions he chose for himself.

BW

Rollingthunder
28th Dec 2006, 00:21
Arghhhh

I can't stand it anymore.

Someone just put a round in his head and let it rattle around.

He'll be smarter afterwards.

DPWN
28th Dec 2006, 19:28
While pointing to the Iranian situation is drawing a low bow, I think it's fairly obvious ClP is referring mainly to Iraq, itself, when he speaks of stability.
Let's not suger-coat it - the entire "region" is in a perpetual state of conflict because the inhabitants of the "region" are a bunch of sly, murderous, tribal, stone-age savages, driven by religion, and who all share at least one common trait: They like to solve their problems with violence.
Hold on a minute, are we still talking about the ME or the USA now? Am confused!!!

AMF
28th Dec 2006, 20:55
By the same token, he also brought a degree of stability to the region, the Iranians weren't enriching uranium and Iraq itself was not in the meltdown that it has now descended into. In the same mold as Adolf Hitler, there are flashes of genius there, but the mark was overstepped.
Would the world benefit from allowing him to stand for election in a free, a truly free, vote with an option to hang him at the end, and let the Iraqi people decide, as lets be fair, was his appeal ever going to work whilst the system is driven by the Americans?
Stability? Like launching the 8-year long Iraq-Iran War, not to mention the invasion of Kuwait?

"Flashes of genius"....spare us or please give us an example. Baathism is just another form of Euro-spawned socialist doctrine (like Naziism, Facism, Marxism) that doesn't/didn't work, and Hussein just another butchering socialist Dictator killing as many others or his own to retain power.

No whining when they hung Nazis, and I can't help but think that if Hussein had been slaughtering Euros instead of Arabs and Persians nobody would be hand-wringing over this imminent and just reward for his actions.

Diminishing the value of his victims by glossing over his butchery to satisfy a self-serving political agenda is just another form of racism.

cessna l plate
28th Dec 2006, 22:03
I might not agree with the 8 year Iran - Iraq war, but lets be fair, it kept both parties quiet in our part of the world for 8 years!

I am not saying that he doesn't deserve to hang, far from it in fact. But whatever else happened, Iraq wasn't in the mess it is today under our more enlightened leadership.

Perhaps this part of the world is forever destined to be a fuedal society and by our attempts to impose western values upon it we are only making matters worse. Let the Iraqi people, not a few "judges" decide what happens to him by election. Simple, if he wins he goes to the palace, if he loses he goes to the gallows! Just ensure that the election is our description of free! The whole world can then breathe a collective sigh, and move on. Especially those of us that have got sod all to do with it in the first place!!!!!

G-CPTN
28th Dec 2006, 22:10
It has been reported that more than 1000 Iraqis have 'volunteered' their services as hangman for el Presidente . . .

frostbite
28th Dec 2006, 22:23
You'd probably get at least that number if it were our glorious leader.

arcniz
29th Dec 2006, 03:18
Put Saddam in a well-barred but otherwise unprotected cage suspended above a plaza open to the public. Give him a microphone tied to a good sound system and let nature take her course. He will undoubtedly warm quickly to the occasion by pronouncing at length on the way things ought to be.

Surely some armed members of the crowd will respond in a spirited way, although they might be charmed into delay by his persuasiveness. To be fair, if he lasts for 24 hours, he gets a modest pension and a condo in the desert.

A suitably surreal exit and marvelous photo-op. One might even time it so he gets a choice slot on the New Year's tv scan round-the-globe. Out with a bang AND a whimper. Who says tyranny can't be fun?

RatherBeFlying
29th Dec 2006, 12:32
What's good for the goose [Saddam] is good for the gander [GWB and Bliar]

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2006, 16:59
Saddam has been handed over to the Iraqis from American custody. Looks like he's on his way . . .
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13550433,00.html

arcniz
29th Dec 2006, 17:12
RatherBeFlying says:
What's good for the goose [Saddam] is good for the gander [GWB and Bliar]
Sounds brave... but aren't we overreaching a little bit with this? How crazy are you with the anti B&B mania? Planning any travel in the near future?

Reach
29th Dec 2006, 18:20
Bye bye Saddam. You won't be missed.

obgraham
29th Dec 2006, 21:58
Well our all-day-all-night news media here are already obsessing about how bad he might feel while in the process of being hanged. Complete with medical experts.
Funny, I don't hear any descriptions of how it might feel to be a Kurdish child in the process of being gassed.

bladewashout
29th Dec 2006, 23:29
0300 GMT Saturday time is the latest speculation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6218245.stm

Hopefully he's sitting somewhere contemplating his mortality.

BW

Dea Certe
29th Dec 2006, 23:44
What do you bet the execution will be on Youtube in less than an hour after the event? :confused:

Dea

pigboat
29th Dec 2006, 23:48
Well our all-day-all-night news media here are already obsessing about how bad he might feel while in the process of being hanged. Complete with medical experts.
Funny, I don't hear any descriptions of how it might feel to be a Kurdish child in the process of being gassed.
I hear one of his sons was quite handy with a wood chipper, and if you'd really, really, pissed him off you went in feet first. Would the media care to comment on that?

Foss
30th Dec 2006, 00:10
To be honest, I couldn't give a crap if he was hanged or spent the the rest of his life in prison.
But I'm concerned about post hanging backlash against UK or US troops, it's bad enough there already. What if there is a spectacular against an army barracks with hundreds dead.
I believe in the rule of law, but it might have been simpler just to shoot him in his spider hole and have done with it.
Not put him on TV.
Fos

oicur12
30th Dec 2006, 02:05
SH is just a very small pawn in a much wider game of oil and dollar hegemony. His future will have little impact on this game save for a short spike in viloence in Iraq. Funnily enough, had SH remained a compliant employee of the US, like he was in the 70's and 80's when he gassed the Iranians and Kurds using American technology and American funding (agricultural grants) things would be much different. He is maligned by Washington now not because of his human rights abuses (the west could not care less) but because he left the reservation. Had he remained compliant to western demands, he would be browsing condo brochures in Florida right now.

It is pure hypocrisy for the consumers of western propaganda to demand the death penalty for SH but not for the former and current leaders of countries such as Australia, UK and America. The lions share of human rights abuses perpetuated by Iraq took place as far back as the early eighties, not long after the US slaughtered millions of rice farmers in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. The US has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civillians in Central and South America. Australia has blood on its hands having provided Kopassus training, funding and intelligence as they wiped out almost one million people in Ambon.

It is simply absurd that the people who are employing every propoganda tactic known to man in order to convince us the SH was a monster are the same people who supplied him with the money, guns and intelligence with which to carry out these very crimes.

Hang em all.

Rollingthunder
30th Dec 2006, 03:15
Ding dong the son of a bitch is dead.

As reported by arab television.

hopefully Iraq will move on to better times.

Trentino
30th Dec 2006, 03:34
with SH dead, scary times are ahead

This is selective justice

ironbutt57
30th Dec 2006, 03:39
I still think the Romainians did it the best way....:ok: we yanks need to keep in the back of our minds who created this fellow to begin with...along the lines of Noriega and others...

Dynasty Trash Hauler
30th Dec 2006, 04:26
The trial and execution of saddam has been swift and without very much coverage - and for a good reason.

It would be very embarrasing for us Americans to see him being questioned about where the mustard gas technology came from and where the helicopters came from and where his satellite pictures came from and who gave him a green light to invade Kuwait etc.

Better not to show it all.

BlueDiamond
30th Dec 2006, 04:54
Well I hope you're not being so monumentally arrogant as to suggest that the United States "created" the monster, ironbutt. Saddam Hussein was never anything other than a cold blooded killer from his teen years and probably earlier. His first victim was his own brother in law and his subsequent rise in the Baath party was a direct result of his violent and brutal nature. Following the 1963 coup in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's job of overseeing the "Palace of the End" interrogation centre would have suited him down to the ground.

When the Baath party assumed control of Iraq in 1968, Hussein embarked on a programme of violence and terror (he was fairly well up in the heirarchy) against non-Baathists, Jews and anyone else who crossed him. He assumed control of the party in 1979 and invaded Iran the following year ... that war would last eight years and nearly destroy Iraq's economy.

He kept up his reign of terror, killing Kurds, Shiites and Iranians ... all of this without any input from the United States or indeed encouragement, let alone "creation." In the 1980s his attempt to restart his nuclear weapons programme was thwarted by the massive debt owed to Kuwait ... money which financed the eight year war with Iran and which was a debt that was crippling to Iraq.

History from this point has been fairly well documented but to think that the US "made" Saddam Hussein into the person he was is erroneous. He was well into his career of brutality and murder long before America arrived on the scene.

parabellum
30th Dec 2006, 05:18
Time to get a bit real. At one time SH was on the run and wanted for murder, he was shielded by his uncle. Eventually SH came to power and told his uncle if there was anything he or his village required all he had to do was ask. A few years later this uncle came to SH in his palace and said his village was being threatened and intimidated by SH's police, SH fed and watered his uncle told him he had nothing to fear and he could go back and put the villagers mind's to rest, the uncle never made it to the gate, he was shot from behind and thrown into a grave that was being dug whilst he talked to SH. SH couldn't stand the thought that he owed anyone any favours for saving his life.

If SH did have any useful information about the USA, the UK etc. etc. don't you think it would have been public knowledge by now, in a last ditch attempt to save his skin? The stories about all the wrong doings of the coalition of the willing that the coalition want silenced are just that, stories, the really guilty ones are France, Russia and China, hence their objections at the Security Council to Gulf War Part 2.

obgraham
30th Dec 2006, 05:19
Gee, oinker12, tell us how you really feel.
Share a glass of that KoolAid with me sometime!

Wino
30th Dec 2006, 06:33
Oicur,

SH remained a compliant employee of the US, like he was in the 70's and 80's

You got it backwards, I know its convienient to blame america for everything but saddam was not a US client,. He was a SOVIET client.

What weapons armed Saddam? Migs, Kalishnakovs and Hinds... SOVIET equiptment, sovient aircraft, soviet artillery, soviet guns, and soviet chemical weapons. (our stuff isn't even compatable with the soviet tubes...)

Iran was the US client. atleast untill the end of the 70s....

Iran had f14s and m-16s. the marks of an American employee...

Cheers
Wino

Capt. Queeg
30th Dec 2006, 06:48
Well-researched, bluey. Well-researched.

West Coast
30th Dec 2006, 07:57
"SH is just a very small pawn in a much wider game of oil and dollar hegemony. His future will have little impact on this game save for a short spike in viloence in Iraq"

Sometimes you need to focus in, even just for a moment on the small picture. Justice for those he was convicted of killing.

"I won't shed a tear but the trial was pre-determined"

No, it wasn't. He died because the evidence against him was overwhelming and compelling.
I agree, a minor side show, but a neccessary one.

"and who gave him a green light to invade Kuwait etc"

An incorrect conclusion, especially given SH own foreign minister said it wasn't true. Try again.

Ejector
30th Dec 2006, 08:00
Ex-dictator dies with 'fear in his face'

Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday for crimes committed in a brutal crackdown during his reign, U.S. and Iraqi sources tell CNN. Iraq's national security adviser said: "He was a broken man... You could see fear in his face." President Bush called the execution "an important milestone" for Iraq. CNN.com

Wrong, nothing on 'youtube' yet !!!!! :eek:

Now cpt Bust can retreat !!

He is only one of many mungrals in this world, who cares, Saddam was a very rude man, just ask the families he destroyed. :=


next :ok:

Tricky Woo
30th Dec 2006, 08:03
Bye bye, you bad basturd.

TW

Low Flier
30th Dec 2006, 08:07
Hooray! The murdering bastard who is responsible for the deaths of at least 654,965 Iraqis has been brought to justice and has been given his own preferred form of "justice".

And then I woke up and found that it was just a dream.

Capt. Queeg
30th Dec 2006, 09:27
WAIT - They got the wrong guy!!!!!!



http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2003/GilletteMach3.jpg

BlueDiamond
30th Dec 2006, 11:23
Hmmm ... the execution has been confirmed but I wonder how long it will be before the first conspiracy theories appear. It wasn't really him they hanged; they're keeping him alive in return for valuable information, he's living in a trailer park in downtown Louisiana ... with Elvis ... :uhoh:

esmozz
30th Dec 2006, 11:25
I don’t often post here, and I’ll leave the rights and wrongs of out current Iraqi adventure to other people but I will say this – I’m glad that evil sonofabitch is dead.

G-CPTN
30th Dec 2006, 12:08
Methinks a strategic bullet when he was discovered in his underground bunker would have saved much further bloodshed (and cost). Even if the perpetrator was in turn to have been killed, the price would have been well worth a Purple Heart. The hanging seems to me to be an anti-climax . . .

tony draper
30th Dec 2006, 12:11
The butcher chopped on his own block, good stuff.
:ok:

OneWorld22
30th Dec 2006, 12:43
Hooraay!!

Revenge for Dubbya's Daddy and, er, ahem, revenge for 9/11!! :D

Track Coastal
30th Dec 2006, 13:51
After the Iranian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution), enmity between Iran and the U.S. ran high. Realpolitikers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik) in Washington concluded that Saddam was the "lesser of the two evils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle)", support for Iraq gradually became the order of the day.
"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by former NSC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council) official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#_note-1)
According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency) at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#_note-2), however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#_note-3)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#_note-4)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#_note-5)

(From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war)


A timeline on US assistance to Iraq - "U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990":
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

Capt. Queeg
30th Dec 2006, 14:15
a strategic bullet ... would have saved much further bloodshed. Even if the perpetrator was in turn to have been killed, the price would have been well worth a Purple Heart.

Wouldn't being "worth it" or not depend on whether or not it's your heart... :ooh: ?


Hey, they don't make dictators like they used to, at least Der Fuerher had the balls to sort it out himself.

Ray Darr
30th Dec 2006, 14:53
Bye bye, you bad basturd.
TW

...You meant Baath-turd, right? :p


I can see it now when it's my turn to enter the Pearly Gates (I'm going, too, since I live in HELL right now!). I'll have my chance to clean off all the accumulated goo and dog sh!t off of my shoes by wiping them off on the face of Saddy and his side-kick Adolph. I know that's where they've been sent to do their purgatory.

Good riddance.

G-CPTN
30th Dec 2006, 14:58
Anyone know why it has become 'traditional' to execute folk at 'dawn'?

I suppose it has always been a definable time (without recourse to clocks or arguments over time zones) but is there a special slot for executed souls on their way to heaven or hell? (or, as the previous p*ster has suggested, purgatory?).

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 15:36
Well, it looks llike there's no chance that SH will realize his stated dream for establishing a "Greater Pan-Arabia" (with himself as Caliph) now. Nice to see a butchering socialist Dictator brought to Justice by his own victims/people.

His kicking legs and loosened bowels could be thought of as another death spasm of the Cold War. As it's been pointed out, he was a Soviet client, Baathism ideology being anti-West (in particular anti-British..their former colonial masters; they allied themselves with their Nazi bretheren against them during WW2).

Of course the French were willing to sell him Mirages and build a nuclear reactor in exchange for Iraqi oil rights, and in later years German firms to make lots of money building his bunkers etc. But given that Baathism was spawned in 1930s France, and the Germans embracing almost any socialist ideology that came down the pike last century, it's no suprise they'd coddle up to him for $$$s as long as he was safely stashed away on another continent and "merely" killing Persians and Arabs.

Good riddance. At least Iraq didn't end up like another North Korea where our children would be dealing with Great Leader Uday or Qusay Hussein announcing nuclear weapon capability. In North Korea we've seen that merely containing fanatical socialists that are willing to kill/starve millions of their own to hold power doesn't work, and they will eventually get what they want, even without the petrodollars such as Iraq has.

Kudos to the Iraqis, who join the Italians and Romanians in bringing Justice to their own dictatorial tormentor. Those living under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Amin, Duvalier, etc never got that same chance.

The only miscarriage of Justice here is that SH wasn't removed from power and hung 15 years ago after Gulf War 1. But with the U.N. in charge and setting "limits" during that one, there wasn't any chance of it happening.

It should be noted that if the Gulf War 1 forces had been allowed to go into Iraq and remove SH from power in 1991 like they should have, there would have been no need for U.S./UN/Western containment troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia for years, and therefore no ongoing, core rallying cry and recruiting propoganda of Al Qaida ("infidel troops on Holy Land").

Bin Laden wanted himself and Al Qaida/Mujahadeen to be the Holy Land's rescuer/defender against the hated socialist (secular) Dictator of SH (and would have lasted about 3 minutes against his army) a la Afghanistan, and turned against the Saudi Establishment when they dissed him for this role.

Justifiably taking out SH in 1991 might have had the effect of avoiding many terrorist problems and entrenchment (barracks bombings, embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc etc) we saw later in the 1990s.

It's always better to do the job right the first time.

frostbite
30th Dec 2006, 15:37
"Anyone know why it has become 'traditional' to execute folk at 'dawn'?"


Saves the expense of breakfast?

OneWorld22
30th Dec 2006, 15:51
Justifiably taking out SH in 1991 might have had the effect of avoiding many terrorist problems and entrenchment (barracks bombings, embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc etc) we saw later in the 1990s.

What an absolute load of rubbish. Your 'analysis' is all over the place.

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 15:54
with SH dead, scary times are ahead
This is selective justice

Justice is supposed to be selective.

In this case, he was "selected" to hang for ordering the torture and execution 148 men and boys from a town for an attempted assasination attempt. He claimed, rightly, that he was always ultimately responsible....in a socialist Dictatorship it must be seen this way when the State executes people, and in fact he's seen in video questioning suspects himself so it's not as if he was far-removed from that particular Crime Against Humanity.

Of course he was also guilty of genocide and purges amongst his own...gassing entire Kurdish villages, not to mention initiating 2 wars across his own borders within 10 years. Historical fact, with over a million people too dead as a result of SH's actions to tell you their tale of woe.

To think ridding the world of SH is "scary" due to it's selectiveness, then I can only think you or any one you know was never a victim of his (or any one else's) form of Arbitrary Justice.

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 16:36
What an absolute load of rubbish. Your 'analysis' is all over the place.

It's a historical fact that Bin Laden offered the Saudi Royals his and his Afghan veterans' services to defend SA against SH's army that was occupying Kuwait, and was rejected by them in favor of the US/UN forces. Bin Laden saw fighting SH's Baathists as another chance for jihad against another Socialist regime, and for himself....wealthy but of non-Royal stock....to gain influence in his own society. Instead, he publicly lost face.

The entrenchement and recruiting success of Al Qaeda during the 90'a has EVERYTHING to do with Bin Laden's core "reason" for creating it....his opinion that the Saudi Royals had succumbed to Western corruption, evidenced by U.S. forces still in the considered-Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. This is not my opinion, it's what Bin Laden himself has stated many times. Or don't you believe him either?

Just like every non-Muslim is banned from stepping foot inside of the city of Mecca and most of Medina, for an extremist like Bin Laden, it doesn't matter that those non-Muslim troops were defending SA by containing SH, their mere presence was corrupting.

This line of extremist thinking isn't that far "out there" when you realize that the Holy sites in SA are indeed considered geographically Holy in an old-time belief-sense, and everything else is subordinate. Even the King's official title and reason for being is "Keeper of the Holy Mosques". Failing that prime directive equates to losing the right to rule.

Knowing Saudi history is knowing that the current Royals themselves were the fundamentalist extremists when they took and gathered power, ousting the "corrupted'. Bin Laden's main fight was/is against them, and the symbol and reality of their "corruption" (in fundamentalist eyes) was U.S. forces and influence in SA, and therefore targeted.

Targeting the Royals themselves was-is dicey and could cause blowback within the Muslim World...targeting non-believers is much more acceptable and seen as being dominantly righteous. There's a large dose of machismo and regaining "face" in the Al Qaeda movement as opposed to others rooted in, say, the Palestinian issue.

If you think that Al Qaeda would have begun or lasted as a movement without the U.S. troops being in Saudi Arabia for so many years, or his face-losing when everyone was gearing up for Gulf War 1, then you don't believe Bin Laden's own words. It was and is his central theme. If you think his words didn't ring true with the proto-extremist minds he recruited...this rallying cry for fundamentalism... then you don't know much about them at all.

Please check your easily-found, historical facts before calling something "rubbish". The inconvenient truth for Saddam Hussein apologists, pro-containment-forever proponents, or One Worlders who think the UN should make all War/Peace decisions, is that the Al Qaeda momement gained ground and adherents because U.S. troops were visibly stationed in Saudi Arabia...what he/they consider a defilement of Holy Soil.

They were in SA in order to contain Saddam Hussein because he and his war-making capability weren't destroyed the first time around, and the spineless UN was perfectly happy, as usual, to posture, make speeches, and let things fester.

BahrainLad
30th Dec 2006, 16:52
The only miscarriage of Justice here is that SH wasn't removed from power and hung 15 years ago after Gulf War 1. But with the U.N. in charge and setting "limits" during that one, there wasn't any chance of it happening.
It should be noted that if the Gulf War 1 forces had been allowed to go into Iraq and remove SH from power in 1991 like they should have, there would have been no need for U.S./UN/Western containment troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia for years, and therefore no ongoing, core rallying cry and recruiting propoganda of Al Qaida ("infidel troops on Holy Land").

More utter, complete rubbish.

"And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War, speaking in 1992.

OneWorld22
30th Dec 2006, 16:55
As I said Rubbish.
I take it then you disagree profoundly with many GOP voting americans and those inside Washington who saw the war as a justified response to 9/11? That 9/11 and SH werre somehow linked?

I mean you said it yourself Bin Laden wanted himself and Al Qaida/Mujahadeen to be the Holy Land's rescuer/defender against the hated socialist (secular) Dictator of SH

So how then do you justify the subesquent invasion by US forces? We know now of course that the WMD argument was a sham, Gerald Ford spoke out against it before he died.
Your belief that somehow AQ was created and allowed grow because of SH forcing US troops to station themselves in SA is way off. The Americans were in SA long before SH came to power.

Nice bit of spinning AMF, karl Rove (who's now flipping burgers in a McDonalds in DC) would have been proud)

So by your logic who is in fact to blame? You point the predictable finger at the UN. What did they do wrong in this cirumstance? Did they force Bush senior NOT to go after SH in GWI? Did they force US troops into SA??

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 17:56
As I said Rubbish.
I take it then you disagree profoundly with many GOP voting americans and those inside Washington who saw the war as a justified response to 9/11? That 9/11 and SH werre somehow linked?
I mean you said it yourself
So how then do you justify the subesquent invasion by US forces? We know now of course that the WMD argument was a sham, Gerald Ford spoke out against it before he died.
Your belief that somehow AQ was created and allowed grow because of SH forcing US troops to station themselves in SA is way off. The Americans were in SA long before SH came to power.
Nice bit of spinning AMF, karl Rove (who's now flipping burgers in a McDonalds in DC) would have been proud)
So by your logic who is in fact to blame? You point the predictable finger at the UN. What did they do wrong in this cirumstance? Did they force Bush senior NOT to go after SH in GWI? Did they force US troops into SA??So I guess you don't believe Bin Laden's own words regarding AQ. It's not, as you put it, "my belief", it was Bin Laden's own stated reasons and recruiting angle. Was SH involved directly in 9-11?..of course not. Was AQ?....of course. Was AQ a manifestation of percieved defilement by Holy Soil in the extremist-fundamentalist mind?...obviously. AQ had a very narrow reason for being...this perception and offering an avenue to strike back and re-gain face for many, not unlike honor killings.

America was indeed in SA before GW1, but not in force, and of course you're conveniently leaving out the important fact of Bin Laden's face-losing during GW1, or the supremely-important fact that we were supporting his and the other Mujahadeens' efforts against the Soviets in Afghanistan pre-GW1. In other words, you omit every bit of driving, historical context. And you accuse me of "spin"?....funny.

The question is better asked....what does the UN ever do right when it comes to war-peace decisions? GB senior called-off going into Iraq and allowing SH to remain in power behind the UN mandate that the limits of the military operation were to liberate Kuwait. When that was acheived, the war stopped and the UN containment began. Did the UN "force" GB1 to not invade Iraq?...no, but he wrongly kowtowed to them, claiming it would "break up the coalition".

The justification for removing SH?.....to avoid any more North Koreas. North Korea now indeed does have WMD. Containment doesn't work to defuse the threat of a despotic regime obtaining nukes. After they obtain them is when you suggest something be done? Like Stalinist NK's Great Leaders, Iraq had another hand-me-down, socialist dictatorship (SH had 2 sons being groomed) dooming our children to deal with it later if it wasn't dealt with now. Unlike poverty-stricken and resource-poor NK, Iraq has the petrodollars to eventually and more quickly buy the capability. And whereas NK has no allies, the UN's Oil for Food Program illuminated that many were willing to sell SH technology for oil as long as he was killing people a continent away.

I don't care about the likes of Carl Rove (wow you're really into it in a superficial way) or GOP voting habits. The fact is, most Americans figured back in 1991 if you send half a million troops somewhere to liberate a country from someone who's just invaded it, you should finish the job, not sit back and allow him to remain. We've been doing that to NK for over 50 years now, and the threat is only increased.

To say that SH "posed no threat" under containment is ludicrous. If he didn't, there would be no need for containment. A brutal, despotic Dictator spouting socialist dogma of establishing a "Greater Pan-Arabia" and then going about to try and create it by invading other countries, is himself a WMD. A socialist Dictatorship such as this with 2 sons waiting to take over, means that threat is going to last decades unless the circle is broken. Not believing the eventuality of a nuclear Iraq is burying your head in the sand and ignoring even the most recent history.

OneWorld22
30th Dec 2006, 18:00
The justification for removing SH?.....to avoid any more North Koreas. North Korea now indeed does have WMD. Containment doesn't work to defuse the threat of a despotic regime obtaining nukes.

And tell us in your time AMF, the actual reasons given to us by Bush/Blair for invading.


To say that SH "posed no threat" under containment is ludicrous. If he didn't, there would be no need for containment

you've just got back on yourself there! He WAS being contained hence no threat....:rolleyes:

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 18:31
And tell us in your time AMF, the actual reasons given to us by Bush/Blair for invading.
you've just got back on yourself there! He WAS being contained hence no threat....:rolleyes:

I don't care what the politicians-of-the-moment say was the reason for finally finishing the job they should have finished 15 years ago.

By your questions and statements regarding "containment" you're obviously more interested in the psuedo-war of politics than the real living-and-dying wars of geopolitics.

In your indignancy about what B/B said or didn't say you forget that not only does containment have a cost for those doing it, but even more so for those being contained. A despotic ruler who is safe behind the containment wall as long as he doesn't step outside it doesn't suffer....those he's subjegating and brutalizing do.

When it's simply lack of will on the part of his more powerful "containers" that a despot like SH is allowed to remain in power, he will (and did) use that opportunity to show those in his own country who's still boss, and escalate his brutality to solidify power. He knows he can inflict upon his own subjects anything he wants to with impunity and head off rebellion, which SH did. He can jail, torture, starve, rape, etc etc with tacit approval from the world as long as he was "only" doing it to Iraqis.

I think the U.S. had a debt to pay those Iraqis who were betrayed when they tried to rise up against SH after GW1 and were exterminated while the world stood by. I think the UK (and others) have a debt of responsibility to pay for creating with it's colonialism the arbitrary countries in that region (and others) with borders drawn up without regard to the indigent people, and then pretending that doesn't contribute to the current conflicts.

If you think containment has no price, then I suggest you visit the DMZ between N and S Korea, and ask those in Seoul whether "threats" are removed.

OneWorld22
30th Dec 2006, 18:52
I don't care what the politicians-of-the-moment say was the reason for finally finishing the job they should have finished 15 years ago

In the real world AMF, politicians can't just launch wars on a whim or because they feel like it..They need justification, they need evidence, War would always be the last resort. In this case it wasn't and all Bush and his Puppy could come up with as justification was that Hussein was hiding WMD's and that he had capabilities of launching major strikes. We also had the lies from Cheney about Niger and the Yellow-cake..This is what they presented to their people and which caused disagreement all over the world..

Did you read that quote from Cheney above? I suppose you're going to tell me this was the UN's fault, that they tied Bush seniors hands...:rolleyes:

These were all lies. The UN were doing their job they were sent in to do. How long would it have taken Saddam to kill the amount of Iraqi's that have now died in the three short years since the invasion? 72 today in three car bombs....

Look at the cost of this war, both financially and politically and in terms of humans lives lost. At last the American people realised what a sham it was but throwing out the GOP from both houses and giving Dubbya the lowest ever rating for a US president. And still theres no end in sight. AQ have not gone away, they have had a recruitment bonanza, and Dubbya doesn't have a clue what to do, not that he ever did, no post invasion plan at all, his own generals lambasting him, his party in the s**t....

Buy hey, Hussein is gone eh? So alls well that ends well!! :D

jet_noseover
30th Dec 2006, 19:09
Buy hey, Hussein is gone eh? So alls well that ends well!! :D
Oh, my.. a bit sarcastic? :} :ok:
I wonder, why Bushy dude chose to invade instead of assasinate.. quietly.
Biggest mistake since the Viet war...

Clarence Oveur
30th Dec 2006, 19:13
This new-found concern for the well being of Iraqis is, of course, praiseworthy yet somewhat bizarre. It would seem to be a post 1991 thing, as events prior didn't seem to cause to much concern, if any.

Events that occurred before 1991 are now dragged forth to be used as justification, yet at the time nobody really cared enough to do or say much about it. Hypocrisy seems to be a word that describes it well. An individual who would have acted in the same manner would now be in jail. But when it is a state, and one of us, I suppose it's politics. So it's OK then.

I should have mentioned that this new-found concern for the plight of Iraqis seems to have ended sometime during 2003. Now we don't even care how many have died as a result of our actions. We don't count the dead, but we certainly know that it is not as many as claimed by those who use sound methodologies - that have been accepted in previous conflicts, when it suited us - because that would not reflect well on us.

I am sure that the Iraqis appreciated our concern for them, even though it didn't last too long or make much difference. Now we have more pressing concerns. Such as saving our own skin and legacy. The latter being the priority it would seem.

con-pilot
30th Dec 2006, 19:37
Maybe, just maybe, one needs to consider how the Kurds are taking the news. Especially the relatives and friends of the 100,000 some odd Kurds slaughtered by our kind friend Saddam Hussein. Probably not too many tears being shed by the folks up north.

Was going to war to remove Hussein to keep him, or his deranged sons from slaughtering 100s of thousands more Kurds worth while? No to mention the odd 10s of thousands of fellow Iraqis who were tortured and murdered by Hussein while he and his family ruled.

I'm sure that the Kurds are quite enjoying watching the Sunnis and the Shiites blow themselves up. At least while those two factions are killing each other they will leave the Kurds alone. (But then again, there is still Turkey.:ooh: )



(OW22, even we disagree on some points, good to see you back in excellent fighting form.:ok: )

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 19:39
In the real world AMF, politicians can't just launch wars on a whim or because they feel like it..They need justification, they need evidence, War would always be the last resort. In this case it wasn't and all Bush and his Puppy could come up with as justification was that Hussein was hiding WMD's and that he had capabilities of launching major strikes. We also had the lies from Cheney about Niger and the Yellow-cake..This is what they presented to their people and which caused disagreement all over the world..
Did you read that quote from Cheney above? I suppose you're going to tell me this was the UN's fault, that they tied Bush seniors hands...:rolleyes:
These were all lies. The UN were doing their job they were sent in to do. How long would it have taken Saddam to kill the amount of Iraqi's that have now died in the three short years since the invasion? 72 today in three car bombs....
Look at the cost of this war, both financially and politically and in terms of humans lives lost. At last the American people realised what a sham it was but throwing out the GOP from both houses and giving Dubbya the lowest ever rating for a US president. And still theres no end in sight. AQ have not gone away, they have had a recruitment bonanza, and Dubbya doesn't have a clue what to do, not that he ever did, no post invasion plan at all, his own generals lambasting him, his party in the s**t....
Buy hey, Hussein is gone eh? So alls well that ends well!! :D

Your illogic runs deep and is comical One World. First, ignoring historical fact, you don't believe that GB1's hands were tied by the UN if he elected to follow what the UN mandated. I suggest you look it up..it's a fact, and so therefore his hands were indeed tied if he chose not to ignore the "legal" mandate. Then, your sniveling diatribe about how GB2's war wasn't "legal" because it was on a "whim" with no mandate approved of by the world (and the only body to even approach the facade of such an approval would be the UN).

You obviously have no clue as to how many Iraqis died between the 2 Gulf Wars. There's no excuse for such laziness in this day and age of Information, except that this ommision suits your petty anti-bush-whoever hobby. I daresay you like to keep it that way.

I have a friend who lost 1 uncle to the Iran-Iraq war, and another uncle and her own son to SH's secret police AFTER GW1. As tragic as her story is, it was repeated tens of thousands of times in that 15 years until 2003. Compared to her opinion and knowledge of the situation, your opinion matters less than nothing.

In fact, it reeks of some petty, anti-Bush/Cheney/Blair political party agenda. You rely on here-and-know, sound-bite history.
You seem to believe what the media or Michael Moore spoon-feeds you in terms of American elections, if it's convenient. Tell me, do you vote in American elections yourself?

Oh, the costs of war. The War in Korea from 1950-53...shorter than the current one in Iraq...cost the lives of over 40,000 Americans..over 10 times the casualty rate. Millions of Koreans were also killed. Seoul destroyed over and over. The policy of containment, in addition to the U.S. soldiers (40,000 being stationed there for half a century) killed along the DMZ in the ensuing years, amounted to billions and is still ongoing. Result?... a nuclear-capable North Korea.

So whine all you want about the short-sighted here-and-nows and the revalation to you that politicians sometimes get it wrong or lie. My guess is that your level of comfort to SH is inversely proportional to how much his regime and brutality affected your life. By your "logic", the U.S. should have merely worked to contain Hitler as well.

While you wring your hands and pretend Bush and Blair are responsible for centuries-old sectarian Sunni-Shia violence and Italy was so much better under Mussolini's Dictatorship because the trains ran on time, I'll be enjoying my frend's joy at the news SH finally stretched a rope in a noose today.

Clarence Oveur
30th Dec 2006, 20:07
Maybe, just maybe, one needs to consider how the Kurds are taking the news. Especially the relatives and friends of the 100,000 some odd Kurds slaughtered by our kind friend Saddam Hussein. Probably not too many tears being shed by the folks up north.
Was going to war to remove Hussein to keep him, or his deranged sons from slaughtering 100s of thousands more Kurds worth while? No to mention the odd 10s of thousands of fellow Iraqis who were tortured and murdered by Hussein while he and his family ruled.
I'm sure that the Kurds are quite enjoying watching the Sunnis and the Shiites blow themselves up. At least while those two factions are killing each other they will leave the Kurds alone. (But then again, there is still Turkey.:ooh: )


You should perhaps acquaint yourself with the history of Kurdistan post 1991. Then you would not make another, in a long line of, flawed arguments for the war.

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 20:37
Messrs Bush and Blair are war criminals who have yet to be brought to book.
.

Oh, by all means, get the UN and World Court on the case right away! Those all-knowing Wise Men making up such august bodies can easily conjure-up something that says "Making war against a War Criminal makes one a War Criminal".

I'm sure they're the same Wise Ones who ordered UN troops already in Rawanda when the genocide began to NOT get involved, and then pull out without lifting a finger....(checking references)....Well look at that, Kofi himself was indeed in charge of the UN's security forces at that time.

Too bad John Lennon's dead...he could Imagine and write all the new classifications of how we should all conduct ourselves.

As for "bringing them to book".....the real question is, who will do the arresting? You and (literally) what army?

In the meantime, we can get the ball rolling and bring Winston Churchill up on War Criminal charges, post-mortem, for firebombing tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden near WW2's end. The excuses they gave for doing that (Hitler, blah blah blah) were pretty lame too. And while we're at it...

con-pilot
30th Dec 2006, 20:43
You should perhaps acquaint yourself with the history of Kurdistan post 1991. Then you would not make another, in a long line of, flawed arguments for the war.

I have my friend and fail to see your point.

Clarence Oveur
30th Dec 2006, 20:44
And then we entered the Realm of Absurdity. I often wonder whether people's arguments are based on facts, or if they are simply constructed to defend one's corner (or country). Perhaps I should have said wondered.

Well Con, if you had, then you would know that what you are suggesting would have happened, had Saddam still been in power, is at best quite a stretch. Particularly after the US gave the Kurds security guarantees. Unless one of the Kurdish factions sided with Baghdad of course.

Davaar
30th Dec 2006, 20:46
In the real world AMF, politicians can't just launch wars on a whim or because they feel like it..

If only it were so.

G-CPTN
30th Dec 2006, 20:52
Suggestions now that Saddam was hanged 'quickly' to prevent him publishing a dossier on those who collaborated with him in his despotic deeds.
There's also suggestions that appeals by the Kurds went unheard by the Americans 'so as not to upset Iraq' . . .

tony draper
30th Dec 2006, 21:01
One notes the news channels are getting plenty of milage out of it,they are stretching it out more than Saddams neck.
:rolleyes:

con-pilot
30th Dec 2006, 21:05
And then we entered the Realm of Absurdity. I often wonder whether people's arguments are based on facts, or if they are simply constructed to defend one's corner (or country). Perhaps I should have said wondered.
Well Con, if you had, then you would know that what you are suggesting would have happened, had Saddam still been in power, is at best quite a stretch. Particularly after the US gave the Kurds security guarantees. Unless one of the Kurdish factions sided with Baghdad of course.

Sorry Clarence, I guess we are just going to disagree on this subject. In any case I must go to the grocery store as directed by 'She who must be obeyed'.

Rollingthunder
30th Dec 2006, 21:06
" bring Winston Churchill up on War Criminal charges, post-mortem, for firebombing tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden "

Let's not forget just who started the bloody war and who first started bombing cities and civilians.

BenThere
30th Dec 2006, 21:06
His death is a triumph, and a warning to all the other despots and thugs who think there is no accountability for their crimes against humanity.

Those who initiate attacks on innocents and seek war should be left in ashes or hang at the end of a noose. Good point on who started WWII.:ok:

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 21:09
Suggestions now that Saddam was hanged 'quickly' to prevent him publishing a dossier on those who collaborated with him in his despotic deeds.
There's also suggestions that appeals by the Kurds went unheard by the Americans 'so as not to upset Iraq' . . .

There were also suggestions that the U.S. went into Afghanistan NOT because the Taliban were harbouring Bin Laden and AQ, but it was all a large, complex plan to build an oil pipeline.

With all the hype and suggestions about this "real" reason at the time, I'm sure it must be close to completion by now.

Isn't it?

AMF
30th Dec 2006, 21:26
" bring Winston Churchill up on War Criminal charges, post-mortem, for firebombing tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden "
Let's not forget just who started the bloody war and who first started bombing cities and civilians.

I haven't forgotten, I was being sarcastic. But we also shouldn't forget that Hitler was a product of post-WW1 Germany saddled with military and economic "containment" drawn up at Versailles designed to punish the entire nation. Such conditions breed Dictators who will find an Enemy Within until the day comes they can lash out again.

During the 1920's and 30's I'm sure most neighbours were happy with containment. After all, during his rise to power before 1939 Hitler was "only" persecuting some of his own people.

Despite history's evidence to the contrary, I guess it will take North Korea nuking someone to show that containment doesn't work.

G-CPTN
30th Dec 2006, 22:14
How many know that Osama bin Laden is occupying a stronghold created by the CIA when the USSR were active within Afghanistan?

Capt. Queeg
30th Dec 2006, 22:20
" bring Winston Churchill up on War Criminal charges, post-mortem, for firebombing tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden "

Let's not forget just who started the bloody war and who first started bombing cities and civilians.

Wasn't it the RAF who started bombing cities in WWII?? Namely Berlin?? During the BoB, right......??

G-CPTN
30th Dec 2006, 22:36
From Wikipedia:-
The Government of the Third Reich authorised the bombing of civilian targets from the first days of the war. The British Government ordered the RAF to adhere strictly to the Amsterdam draft international rules prohibiting attacking civilian infrastructure outside the combat zones, but this adherence was abandoned on May 15 1940, one day after the Rotterdam Blitz. On August 24 1940 some German aircraft strayed over London and dropped bombs in the east and northeast of the city. A period of reciprocal retaliation begun, mainly focussed on industrial areas. In February 1942 the British abandoned attempts at strategic precision bombing and with the issuing of the area bombing directive to the RAF, put most of their strategic bombing efforts into area bombardment and the "dehousing" of the German workforce.

Rollingthunder
30th Dec 2006, 22:37
No it was some bastard in a ME 110 who claimed he was lost. And lets not also forget Warsaw and various cities in Holland.

Clarence Oveur
30th Dec 2006, 22:41
No it was some bastard in a ME 110 who claimed he was lost. And lets not also forget Warsaw and various cities in Holland.

If it was legitimate for the Allies, then surely it must have been legitimate for the other side. The "you started it" argument is rather childish, and hardly holds much water. But then we won and they lost. Which is usually the yardstick for what is legitimate and what is not.

FFP
30th Dec 2006, 22:42
Would it be inappropriate or in any way against the rules of the forum to ask exactly where the "money shot" of the hanging is published on the web ?

If so, a PM would be greatly appreciated !!;)

Rollingthunder
30th Dec 2006, 22:50
" The "you started it" argument is rather childish, and hardly holds much water."

Tell that to my folks stuck underneath the blitz and the VIs and the VIIs. Personally I don;t think we used enough incendiaries.But that is history and nothiing to do with Sadammmmmmm.

downsideup
30th Dec 2006, 23:00
:bored: He got off easy. He should have been put to death in one of the same manner he had used to eliminate those he did not wish to live....like maybe running them through the tree chipper.

Rollingthunder
30th Dec 2006, 23:04
Yeah,

Fargo,

Would need a bigger one for the fat bastard though.

Clarence Oveur
30th Dec 2006, 23:04
" The "you started it" argument is rather childish, and hardly holds much water."

Tell that to my folks stuck underneath the blitz and the VIs and the VIIs. Personally I don;t think we used enough incendiaries.But that is history and nothiing to do with Sadammmmmmm.

Ahh yes, selective quoting. To use your logic, and stay on the subject, then the Iraqis are just getting what they deserve at the moment.

matt_hooks
30th Dec 2006, 23:05
FFP, probably it would be, but if anyone has the link I'd also appreciate it for a project I'm working on.

Q) Was Saddam a sadistic, despotic, murderous ruler who used violence and fear to control his people?

A) Certainly!

Q) Did he deserve to be punished for this?

A) Certainly!

Q) Was the death sentence correct?

A) That is what the court decided, we cannot judge Iraq by our standards. The death sentence is a normal and accepted form of punishment. We must remember that the US still use it!

Q) Was he tried for the right thing?

A) It was the politically expedient thing to try him for!

I don't accept all the triumphalism, "WE GOT THE BASTARD" and stuff like that. The fact is tonight the world is short one evil, twisted man and surely that can only be a good thing?

All the stuff about the war, is it right or wrong?
Did people lie to justify it?

Well, I think that at best the legality is dubious.
Whether it is right is a different matter, and will never be a black and white issue. I think that on balance it is probably wrong, or at least prosecuted for the wrong reasons. It harks back to American and British foreign policy of yesteryear. Part of the reason that there is so much trouble in the region today is down to the artificial separation of a fluid region into different "countries" which have no real basis in the history of the region. Separating traditional tribal lands and imposing our idea of how the world should work was always asking for trouble.

On the other hand I completely support the guys out there in the field. They did not choose to go there, and as always they are making the best of a bad thing! I hope that the execution doesn't make things more difficult for them!

Rollingthunder
30th Dec 2006, 23:12
No, just a quote.

They are getting what their rotten, religiousy separated society has created. If they won't help themselves constructively as a country, time to separate them up and move the hell out of there.
Let them stew in their own juices. To hell with the oil.

matt_hooks
30th Dec 2006, 23:14
No, just a quote.
They are getting what their rotten, religiousy separated society has created. If they won't help themselves constructively as a country, time to separate them up and move the hell out of there.
Let them stew in their own juices. To hell with the oil.

But they are NOT a country, never really were! They a dispirate group of different religious factions and races forced together artificially by the west to conform to our image of what a country should be. WE bear a large portion of the responsibility for the current turmoils, and not just because of the invasion/war!

Rollingthunder
30th Dec 2006, 23:19
Last years snow is old news.

Sunni, Shiite, Kurds.

Separate them into states and let them fight it out while limiting arms imports. Who cares anymore?

matt_hooks
30th Dec 2006, 23:22
I'd say the Sunni's, Shiites and the Kurds probably do.

And as for controlling the arms imports, let me think, what is one of the most powerful lobbies in American (and British) politics.

Oh yes, that would be the arms industry.

Now let's develop this a bit further.

If your government relies heavily on funding from lobbyists from one particular industry, and upsetting said industry might adversely affect your chances of being re-elected, would you really be considering upsetting said lobby?

Nope, don't think so!

BenThere
30th Dec 2006, 23:23
They a dispirate (sic) group of different religious factions and races forced together artificially by the west to conform to our image of what a country should be

Since you brought it up, that's a good description of my country, too.

Clarence Oveur
30th Dec 2006, 23:29
No, just a quote.
They are getting what their rotten, religiousy separated society has created. If they won't help themselves constructively as a country, time to separate them up and move the hell out of there.
Let them stew in their own juices. To hell with the oil.

Yes, just a quote. Taken out of a wider context, as you no doubt are aware.

But then who cares? When things don't go to plan and becomes difficult it is easy to lose interest. Let them all just kill each other. Oh wait! Wasn't that part of the justification to invade. To stop them killing each other.

When things become difficult it is so easy to lose interest.

Rollingthunder
30th Dec 2006, 23:37
"When things become difficult it is so easy to lose interest."

I lost interest in their crappy country long ago. Let's concentrate on our own problems perchance. Homelessness, illegal immigration, unemployment, idiot polititians, prices on the tube...etc.

West Coast
31st Dec 2006, 00:16
"Since you brought it up, that's a good description of my country, too"

BT
I'm in absolute agreement. Ever find yourself chuckling at our Euro posters who claim in some way to have the heartbeat of the US because they had an extended visit? Even better are the ones who try to speak with authority because they lived in an area for a few years. I've seen many, many such claims of such on JB, trying to stake out some degree of legitimacy. Sorry, but attending a trade convention in Vegas doesn't do it.

West Coast
31st Dec 2006, 00:21
"Both have proved to be complete and utter bo**ocks. Messrs Bush and Blair are war criminals who have yet to be brought to book"

I'll wait for an accredited governmental body with appropriate purview to determine this rather than yourself and similar minded individuals.

Clarence Oveur
31st Dec 2006, 00:30
As I was saying: I often wonder whether peoples arguments are based on facts, or if they are simply constructed to defend one's corner (or country).

BenThere
31st Dec 2006, 00:38
WC,

I get a kick out of the widespread perception in Europe that the bottom third of Americans are in abject poverty, with no medical care, an unfeeling government, no hope, and a life of pure misery. I love the varied responses when I suggest the biggest health menace to our underclass is obesity.

Cheers,

AMF
31st Dec 2006, 00:40
Perhaps AMF in your bag of Neo-con doctrine tricks, you'll tell us why containment in Iraq wasn't working.
Perhaps you'll tell us the whereabouts of the WMDs that weren't being contained.
Perhaps the evidence behind the 45 minute warning before biological and chemical weapons were to descend on English cities that needed containment.
Perhaps you'll tell us the whereabouts of the mobile chemical labs that Colin Powell so graphically depicted at the UN that weren't being contained.
Perhaps you'll provide evidence of Saddams links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda that the international community was unable to contain.
Or is bullsh*t like that fair game when you are going to invade a country come what may ?
By your use of the term "neo-con" it's obvious you're driven by mere political agenda. Only political junkies use terms like that.

If you think I'm a "neo-con", then you're sadly mistaken. The political world isn't divided into neat little categories. Neat and little...the way BBC World, CNN, and Michael Moore can understand it. Not reality, of course, but simple enough for them.

I couldn't care less what the politicians used as a "reason" to finally take out SH. Any reason, real or imagined, is good enough to take out despotic, homicidal, socialist Dictators, and there's no statute of limitations on things like gassing villages. If he's a big enough threat to assemble the armies to repel and contain, then there's no reason not to go the full measure if you are adverse to his kind of antics.

Trying to "contain" a despot who will stop at nothing to hold power doesn't work. You ignore the North Korea nuclear reality for good reason as far as your argument goes, choosing to b1tch about B and B. It's a sideshow for the wonks, yappers, and TV talking heads.

Personally, I'm an advocate of letting every tinpot and despot run amok, because containment is useless in the long run, and it's not like anyone thinks better of us for getting involved. You're in Bahrain? I couldn't care less if an unchecked SH absorbed it and persecuted everyone in it, including you if you aren't smart enough to leave. Kuwait?...let them overthrow their own oppressors. England in WW2 having problems with another Euro Dictator?....I'd stay out of it and just cozy up to the Nazis or Soviets or whoever sifted to the top of the heap when the bloodshed stopped. Why should U.S. blood be spilled for England, or any country in Europe for that matter....we aren't a British colony.

I'd urge for us to stay out of these worldly disputes and let the chips fall where they may. A total military withdrawl from the World at Large. Stop worrying about dictators slaughtering entire populations like they did in the 20th century (Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, Hussein, Hitler, etc etc.) and the blowback of Euro de-colonization of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa..."countries" with borders Euro aristocracy created in drawing rooms without consent of the governed. Let them clean up their own messes...all they do now is harp about how these former subjects get to travel or even (gasp) reside in their former masters homeland.

If North Korea nukes somebody but us? Too bad for them ho hum. Iran wants nukes? Let them have 'em. Economic upheaval?...so what. We'll compensate. There'd be less misery for us than the SH apologists dwelling in Europe and elsewhere. China gears up and it's armies go "camping" more and more outside it's own borders? I'm just glad there are oceans between us...so not our problem.

Now, I don't know if that's a "neo-con" position or not, it's just my cerebral one. But emotionally, when justice is served and a despot hangs it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

con-pilot
31st Dec 2006, 00:45
As I was saying: I often wonder whether peoples arguments are based on facts, or if they are simply constructed to defend one's corner (or country).

Okay, back from the store. (She who must be obeyed is happy because I got her a prize.)

My points are indeed based on facts. I can flood Danny's website with facts, opinions, editorials, first person survivor stories, related articles, think tank studies, etc, etc, etc to support my opinion. As I am sure you can as well.

I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change my mind. However, do not accuse me of not knowing the facts or other pertinent information to base my opinion on this subject.

Now, I don't know if that's a "neo-con" position or not, it's just my cerebral one. But emotionally, when justice is served and a despot hangs it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

I rather like that statement I do. :E :ok:

AMF
31st Dec 2006, 01:11
"Since you brought it up, that's a good description of my country, too"
BT
I'm in absolute agreement. Ever find yourself chuckling at our Euro posters who claim in some way to have the heartbeat of the US because they had an extended visit? Even better are the ones who try to speak with authority because they lived in an area for a few years. I've seen many, many such claims of such on JB, trying to stake out some degree of legitimacy. Sorry, but attending a trade convention in Vegas doesn't do it.

It's great fun to listen to them prattle-on in real life too. It's simply a matter of them desperately seeking to establish some kind of psuedo-superiority when they tell us how our own country works.

They believe that because they backpack through neighbouring Euro-countries and sleep in youth hostels instead of attending more high school, and then later in life save up for that scuba-diving trip to Phuket, they are more "Worldly", and therefore politically sophisticated. Then, they dress it up by regurgitating either TV news or the latest internet fad they've been spoon-fed.

Since they don't see many Americans in the Euro youth hostels or underwater in Indonesia, they think we don't go anywhere.

Meanwhile, we call this so-called education "vacation", and backpack through Wyoming and scuba-dive in Jamaica or Hawaii.

Euros also watch a lot of political TV with inoperable BS detectors. They actually think that large swaths of the American population watch CNN or pay attention to made-for-TV talking head bickering.

Quite the opposite of sophisticated, I find most Euros incredibly naive when it comes to American politics, and they have no desire to actually learn about it even when they bring it up....and they always seem to bring it up, which is also quite rude.

I still don't know why they think I would value thier opinion, but it is funny to hear them.

BenThere
31st Dec 2006, 01:13
AMF,

Your post struck a chord with me. It's time for the US to disengage from the affairs of others. We want it and they want it, too. If some nation screws with us, we'll reserve the right to screw 'em back. Outside of that, let's stand back and see what the world comes up with.

It's often posted how the American image is damaged and our prestige is slipping. It's seldom mentioned how the image of other entities are perceived with us. That's due for a change.

Reach
31st Dec 2006, 01:44
How are other entities percieved by you?

Clarence Oveur
31st Dec 2006, 01:45
.....My points are indeed based on facts. I can flood Danny's website with facts, opinions, editorials, first person survivor stories, related articles, think tank studies, etc, etc, etc to support my opinion....
Then why don't you? I am open to new input.

Even the US State Department are saying that Kurdistan have been outside the influence of Baghdad since 1991. If you have information to the contrary I would like to hear it.

West Coast
31st Dec 2006, 01:48
I wonder which camp would scream louder? The ones who remind us of our duties (as long as they happen to be the same as theirs) or the camp who say adios?


How many times I've read here how we were late to WWII. That would be the later camp in modern terms after things get out of hand...again...

As I've said before, when genocide in modern day Europe has to be addressed by an American President, the moral compass of Euroland is precessing to extremes.

Clarence Oveur
31st Dec 2006, 01:53
As I've said before, when genocide in modern day Europe has to be addressed by an American President, the moral compass of Euroland is precessing to extremes.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate? Using the correct sequence of events, and not the political expedient one that is.

con-pilot
31st Dec 2006, 02:06
Then why don't you? I am open to new input.
Even the US State Department are saying that Kurdistan have been outside the influence of Baghdad since 1991. If you have information to the contrary I would like to hear it.

Not tonight my friend. It is Saturday night on the New Year's weekend. I'm drinking Scotch, watching a College Bowl game (a US higher education custom) and waiting for some friends to arrive, grilling a bunch of steaks for everyone.

I'll get back to you sometime next week.

Happy New Year.:ok:

Clarence Oveur
31st Dec 2006, 02:11
Happy new year to you too. I hope it will treat you well.

I am currently doing my best to strangle a gewurztraminer, but I will still be here next week.

I might even make it by Oklahoma City one day. That pub looks mighty inviting.

con-pilot
31st Dec 2006, 02:20
I might even make it by Oklahoma City one day. That pub looks mighty inviting.

You will be more than welcome.:ok:

JudyTTexas
31st Dec 2006, 03:59
Dang Me, Dang Me...otta take a rope and Hang me...

Besides, doesn't he have 7 virgins waiting for him? ;)

Davaar
31st Dec 2006, 04:01
Hang me...


.... from the highest tree.
Woman would you weep for me?

Takan Inchovit
31st Dec 2006, 06:14
Dang Me, Dang Me...otta take a rope and Hang me...
Besides, doesn't he have 7 virgins waiting for him? ;)


I must admit, that was why he had a worried look. :}

Bahn-Jeaux
31st Dec 2006, 12:36
77 it is I believe.
Perhaps the worried look is knowing he's gonna find em waiting and ready but he suffers from impotence.:}

Capt. Queeg
31st Dec 2006, 13:01
From the news so it must be true:

Saddam Hussein's Shiite executioners sent him to the gallows with a final mocking taunt, chanting the name of one of his most bitter opponents as they readied his noose and filmed the scene.

Savages.

OneWorld22
31st Dec 2006, 13:06
AMF,

Your snivelling response to my last post is laughable as it brings up the ol' reliable for the aplogists,....Hitler!! :D :p

As I said your 'logic' is all over the place. You accuse people here of accepting media soundbites when every word from your mouth seems to come from the Dick Cheney school of diplomacy. The sly implication that those of us who opposed the war are somehow SH aplogists is also boringly predictable. Try something new maybe?

As implied by someone else on this thread, this laughable concern you and others suddenty developed for the Iraqi civilians was a total sham.

BenThere
31st Dec 2006, 13:48
OneWorld,

Welcome back.

Your caustic take: this laughable concern you and others suddenty developed for the Iraqi civilians was a total sham

doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor does it fairly or accurately represent the truth of what happened in Iraq since the invasion.

Billions of dollars were earmarked for, and thousands of people committed to the task of building a new Iraq. Many coalition partners, such as Japan and S. Korea, provided people and assets only for that purpose. Many medical facilities, schools, clean water infrastructure, electricity generation plants and distribution grids have been built. Oil production and pipeline infrastructure received massive effort and investment to enable Iraq's economy to emerge on a sound fiscal footing, not to take the oil.

Many of the above projects have been completed all around Iraq. That security problems made progress more difficult, and in some cases impossible, doesn't erase the fact that the intent and effort were there. Any fool can see it would have been cheaper to just buy the oil on the world market, or corruptly pay Saddam for its continued supply, as the UN program and key EU countries did.

Delivery of freedom to people under tyranny is a cornerstone of the American psyche. The administration could not have sold the Iraq proposition to the congress or the people without invoking this honoroble trait in our society, and it was invoked. Gassing of Kurd villages and other attrocities were used to convince us of the evil of the regime, and the need for it to go.

Review the Senate resolution authorizing the war and look at the all the issues surrounding the decision. The justification is there regardless of the WMD issue, one of many.

Lastly, 'Cheney' is just as much a code word as 'Hitler'. If you want to use coded shorthand, you shouldn't castigate others for it.

OneWorld22
31st Dec 2006, 14:02
Delivery of freedom to people under tyranny is a cornerstone of the American psyche.

You know full well that this does not happen in reality in an awful lot of cases. How can you then explain the overthrow of Mossadeq, the overthrow of Allende etc etc

I would like to think that people are more intelligent then believing that as a fundamental truth.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
31st Dec 2006, 14:06
Billions of dollars were earmarked for, and thousands of people committed to the task of building a new Iraq. Many coalition partners, such as Japan and S. Korea, provided people and assets only for that purpose. Many medical facilities, schools, clean water infrastructure, electricity generation plants and distribution grids have been built. Oil production and pipeline infrastructure received massive effort and investment to enable Iraq's economy to emerge on a sound fiscal footing, not to take the oil.
What you really mean is the public purse strings were opened and billions awarded in no bid contracts mostly to Haliburton, who in fairness had given Dick Cheney a twenty million payment when he left to join the government, which they must think was money well spent.

So not only did loyal coalition partners like Britain not even get a chance to make a decent, proper capitalist bid on these contracts, once Haliburton had them they overcharged so much that the USAF refused to pay the bill.

And then there's the seven billion dollars that's "gone missing". Seven billion dollars of mine and yours and every other taxpayer's money.

As for the "Many medical facilities, schools, clean water infrastructure, electricity generation plants and distribution grids" that have been built, many of them have been abandoned because the construction has been sub-standard, plans not agreed on or thought out correctly or they just flat out don't operate properly.

So no. Nothing about this was to "enable Iraq's economy to emerge on a sound fiscal footing" and if it was, it was a complete failure.

BenThere
31st Dec 2006, 14:13
Cold War geopolitics introduced a lesser evil pragmatism to the application of the core belief, granted. Nevertheless, I'll see your Mossadeq and raise you a Japan. Ask the man on the street in Riga or Prague about his association of the terms 'America' and 'Freedom'.
Edited to add that Haliburton among the top 20 defense contractors to the US government, receives fewer non competitive contracts than its peers. And Haliburton employees have died for the cause, just as soldiers have. In much of Iraq, the effort has been successful.

BenThere
31st Dec 2006, 14:28
Of course, Lima. You won't allow it to be seen as just. It would destroy your entire premise.

AMF's statements are not contradictory if seen as I think they were intended.

Frustration among Americans with the lack of support or even antipathy within the societies of what we had perceived as ideological and civilizational allies and kindred spirits has led to an isolationist mentality, which I increasingly share.

We contribute a great deal of energy and wealth to maintain world order, free trade, and the like. If doing that, or simply having a successful, competitive economy causes us to be despised, even among our purported friends, what's the point? If you don't like the way we've done it, and it's clear you don't, increasingly you'll hear us say, "OK, you do it, wise guy."

Wiley
31st Dec 2006, 14:31
Just saw CNN's 'unofficial' film of the execution and have to say, it reminded me a bit of Yasser Arafat's funeral in the way it was (mis)handled. Contrary to the statement made by an Iraqi Government spokesman about SH losing his composure towards the end, it has to be said he went out - dare I say it - like a man, and the behaviour of some of the executioners was deplorable - something recognised by one among them who tried to make them behave with some semblance of dignity.

Like I said, Arafat's funeral revisited - and already, the Arab 'man in street' is blaming the Americans, a 'fact' that will be repeated again and again in the Arab media until it becomes holy writ.

And speaking of the Americans, I can't get my head around the way they are alienating their natural allies in the Arab world, the Sunnis, and trying to cosy up to the Shiia, who will never in a million years be their allies, and all in the name of 'democracy' - which simply ain't going to happen in Iraq, (at least not any demorcracy the West will recognise of be happy with), despite all the wishful thinking in the world.

Ontariotech
31st Dec 2006, 14:34
Not that anyone should be interested, but I just watched the hanging on Google video. In it' grainy entirety. It had only been posted for 2 hours, and already viewed 2500 times.

His executioners really knew what they were doing. No fumbling of the rope. The hang mans noose was tied correctly, he did not fall all the way to the floor, and stand their in disbelief. Very efficient in my book. Sorry for sounding macabre.

Do you think the executioners used to carry out his dirty work?

For every tyrant caught, and sentenced in court, there's another 20 waiting in the wings.

BenThere
31st Dec 2006, 16:02
It's not self-pity I feel. I pity the post Pax Americana world outside the US when the umbrella is gone. The US will adjust and do just fine.

Low Flier
31st Dec 2006, 17:27
I suppose it was inevitable that the demise of America's former favourite despot would pop up on
GooTube (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521).

Warning for the squeamish and others who dislike the consequences of the Bush/BLiar targetted assassination programmme: the video contains scenes of jubilation by Muktadr al Sadr's gangsters.

Lon More
31st Dec 2006, 18:36
They've hung the wrong person

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y204/Badyin/GuiltyasChargedMisconduct.jpg

tony draper
31st Dec 2006, 18:42
Yer that shortarsed Iranian is next, his eyes are to close together anyway.yer don't mess with our Tone and his mate GW.
:rolleyes:

Ontariotech
31st Dec 2006, 21:11
Guess what I'm watching tonight??????????
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/Swissair11111/hang_em_high.jpg


"The hanging was the best show in town. But they made two mistakes. They hung the wrong man, and they didn't finish the job."

Gee, I wonder how applicable that line is to the current Iraq situation.

:rolleyes:

Re-entry
31st Dec 2006, 21:21
Hey, lon more, great pic. But MJ is a genius and a nice guy. SH was an asshole. Get it right.

Low Flier
1st Jan 2007, 17:29
Just saw CNN's 'unofficial' film of the execution

I was surprised how dignified and courageous Hussein was in the face of his own death. He was, above all else, a bully and as a rule bullies tend to be cowards, but he clearly was no coward. His calm and dignified composure was a marked contrast to the boorish and loutish behaviour of the gang of thugs who carried out the killing.

I doubt very much that either Bush or TBLiar would be at all brave if either of them was brought to justice and held to account for their crimes. I suspect that they'd be bawling their eyes out and crying for their mommas when shown the rope and asked to stand on the trapdoor.

G-CPTN
1st Jan 2007, 17:49
Does three years reflecting on the certainty of the event concentrate the mind? Do Muslims 'meet their maker' with greater enthusiasm than Christians? Maybe, having contemplated his fate he had considered suicide, (though without the means) and viewed his executioners as his salvation?

JudyTTexas
1st Jan 2007, 18:01
I was surprised how dignified and courageous Hussein was...His calm and dignified composure...

Well.....I wonder if those 7(or 77) virigins thought he hung well... ;)

Davaar
1st Jan 2007, 19:00
I was surprised how dignified and courageous Hussein was in the face of his own death. .
I am glad, Low, you posted the above. I share the common view that Saddam was a nasty piece of goods, but I do not accept the view that democracy is the panacea for government. In some places it works, in others, on all the evidence, it does not. I am not much in favour of the death penalty, but not implacably opposed either. I am also not much in favour, either, of loaded trials with carefully selected accused, Nuremberg included. I can even tolerate the idea of summary execution on capture or "attempt to escape". I cannot at all admire gloating by the comfortable at anyone, no matter what he did, being put to death; and having seen that clip, I say Saddam was a man.

ORAC
1st Jan 2007, 19:24
Still, if there is a hell, I'd bet he's screaming now.....

Re-entry
1st Jan 2007, 19:35
The 'Death Sentence' is wrong wrong wrong.
It achieves nothing. It proves nothing.
OK. You all happy now that SH is dead? Does that make you feel good?
Has it improved society? Will it change anything for the better?

Davaar
1st Jan 2007, 19:37
In common, perhaps, with the automotive executives who did a cost-benefit analysis on the correction of fire hazards in their vehicles, and concluded that insurance against the risk cost less than fixing the problem; and even others whom one does name since they have the dollars.

OneWorld22
1st Jan 2007, 19:38
I'm sure Hussein and Pinochet are presently both on all fours being whipped continuously by Mao and Stalin in fetching PVC....

Gertrude the Wombat
1st Jan 2007, 19:40
I was surprised how dignified and courageous Hussein was in the face of his own death.
*Shrug*

Iraqi law specifies death for mass murder.

If he hadn't thought this was a good idea he'd had many years in power during which he could have changed the law.

As he chose not to, he can only have approved of the sentence.

Low Flier
1st Jan 2007, 20:16
If he hadn't thought this was a good idea he'd had many years in power during which he could have changed the law.
As he chose not to, he can only have approved of the sentence.

Dubya, when Guvnor of Texas, also had an appalling track record as a serial killer.

Does his own record of serial killings entitle him too to suffer his own preferred punishment?

tony draper
1st Jan 2007, 20:39
Spare the hand wringing, some of you lot will be wanting us to apologise for hounding that poor Mr Hitler so much in 45 he commited suicide.
**** Saddam and his ilk he died to swiftly,they should have let the natives get a bit medieval on his butchering arse first.
:suspect:

brickhistory
1st Jan 2007, 20:52
Dubya, when Guvnor of Texas, also had an appalling track record as a serial killer.
Does his own record of serial killings entitle him too to suffer his own preferred punishment?

Yep, that GWB sure is an evil creature. Why, to think he'd carry out the laws of the state he governed and took an oath to enact. Shocking I tell you, shocking!



Mr. D, well said! There is an old saying, "Some folks need killin'" Saddam was one of them. He was an evil SOB and he's finally gone.

Low Flier
1st Jan 2007, 21:49
Yep, that GWB sure is an evil creature. Why, to think he'd carry out the laws of the state he governed and took an oath to enact. Shocking I tell you, shocking! "Some folks need killin'" Saddam was one of them. He was an evil SOB and he's finally gone.

The Bush crime family are not donefer ... yet.

I disagree with your proposition that Dubya should be killed, because I think the mediaeavil practice of revenge-killings is intrinsically barbaric.

Bush's barbarism is not an excuse for Bush's barbarism and should never become an excuse for his barbarity, even if it profits Halliburton.

heretic
1st Jan 2007, 21:57
How it is playing in the Arab world (or part of it).
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=90555&d=1&m=1&y=2007

brickhistory
1st Jan 2007, 22:44
The Bush crime family are not donefer ... yet.
I disagree with your proposition that Dubya should be killed, because I think the mediaeavil practice of revenge-killings is intrinsically barbaric.
Bush's barbarism is not an excuse for Bush's barbarism and should never become an excuse for his barbarity, even if it profits Halliburton.

With all due respect, ?Que?

I haven't and don't think the above other than favoring a death penalty for some crimes. I am glad Saddam is dead, I am glad he was hanged. I feel no pity for him nor respect for him in any capacity.

AMF
2nd Jan 2007, 00:13
AMF,
Your snivelling response to my last post is laughable as it brings up the ol' reliable for the aplogists,....Hitler!! :D :p
As I said your 'logic' is all over the place. You accuse people here of accepting media soundbites when every word from your mouth seems to come from the Dick Cheney school of diplomacy. The sly implication that those of us who opposed the war are somehow SH aplogists is also boringly predictable. Try something new maybe?
As implied by someone else on this thread, this laughable concern you and others suddenty developed for the Iraqi civilians was a total sham.

You want boring?..try reading your own posts. Your obsession with Dick Cheney is evident, and instead of regurgitating Micheal Moore pablum try something he still hasn't gotten a grasp of....Original Thought.

If you'd even spend 5 minutes educating yourself on Baathism and it's origins, you'll find that Arab Baathism and German National Socialism are indeed related, were allied, and similar not only in structure but also in it's dictatorial leaders in a very real sense...not in the nonsensical way you and your ilk haphazardly label someone "Hitler" when you merely don't like which not only doesn't apply, but only serves only to expose your ignorance of history and idealogy.

My concern for Iraqis is based on personal Iraqi friends who suffered losses during SH's prosecution of the Iran Iraq war, and his secret police. You have to call my concern a "laughable sham" of course, to try and support your notion everyone is fooled by the kind of politics you're engrossed in...the superficial name-calling, talking-head kind. The kind you probably learned from a movie.

It all sums up to one thing OneWOrld22. You're the one who doesn't care about the atrocities he commmitted, buried your head in the sand, or merely weren't paying attention. Look in the mirror and you'll see the "unenlightened one".

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
2nd Jan 2007, 00:35
My concern for Iraqis is based on personal Iraqi friends who suffered losses during SH's prosecution of the Iran Iraq warout of interest, are they suffering now, more, or less?

AMF
2nd Jan 2007, 00:55
Well BenThere, if you believe that reprisals on Sunnis are not going to take place by the Shia led government you are more naive than I thought over Iraq. The police forces have already been proved to be deeply penetrated by Shia militia.
As for you isolationist stance, it smacks of self-pity to me that your country cannot be criticised when it makes a monumental cock-up, but hey if that's the way you and your countrymen feel that's your right.

Oh you can critisize all you want, it's just that more and more of us are past the point of caring what outsiders think, or what your problems are. This is not the same as self-pity, however, as you'd like to believe (and believing it is, of course, helps maintain your self-aggrandizing delusions of superiority).
The only momumental (as opposed to garden variety ones) cock-up we made was not finishing the job in 1991.

But from the critics such as yourself I've heard absolutely nothing as far as alternatives except maintaining the status quo as it existed before 2003. That is, corrupt Oil for Food UN feel-good (yet useless) programs, starving and persecuted Iraqis, treasure and lives spent containing the threat he still posed, with the prospect for doing it the next 50 years while his sons live out their lives in power (like N Korea). Maybe this time we don't want to do the heavy-lifting again for another half-century while you sit by in the Peanut Gallery.

What I see from the critics is a willingness to pass the threat and problem down to the next generation, being afraid to get their hands dirty now, content to spew political tripe-of-the-moment.

What I find so laughable is how the Iraqi sectarian strife and reprisals now occuring is used as "evidence" that toppling SH was wrong...the the whole thing was a cock-up. Do you honestly believe that this doesn't happen in almost every similar instance in history? I'd invite you to look up how many reprisal killings took place after the liberation of France in WW2. Throw a dart at a spinning globe and almost everywhere you hit you'll find something in the Senseless Bloodshed Department.

Or better yet, lets hold the UK and/or France to the same microscope-media standard as we do the Americans in Iraq with regard to going into and then leaving those two countries' former colonies? He11, they INVENTED most of these countries we're talking about, and we'll count every stubbed toe, misunderstanding, or diplomatic screw-up...shall we?

The debt of Euro colonization is still being paid by all of us. The intrinsic, ugly suggestion made by those who say Iraq can't learn to handle freedom reeks of the same rotten colonialism that reduced them to "subjects" in the first place.

AMF
2nd Jan 2007, 01:07
out of interest, are they suffering now, more, or less?

They're very happy right now. They're looking forward to returning to Iraq, something they'd never thought could happen until recently.

tinpis
2nd Jan 2007, 04:03
How much of the deck remains? (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/pipc10042003.html)

Whirlygig
2nd Jan 2007, 07:14
The 'Death Sentence' is wrong wrong wrong.
It achieves nothing. It proves nothing.
OK. You all happy now that SH is dead? Does that make you feel good?
Has it improved society? Will it change anything for the better?
And 99% of the time I would agree that capital punishment is wrong. However, in a case like this, as with Nicolae Caeusescu, while Saddam was alive, his followers would have carried out his bidding.

Cheers

Whirls

Low Flier
2nd Jan 2007, 08:15
How it is playing in the Arab world (or part of it).
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=90555&d=1&m=1&y=2007

An excellent article. It explains the logic behind the otherwise very odd decision to use Dujail as an excuse for killing the prisoner. The occupiers just couldn't take the risk of letting their erstwhile hero and ally survive his capture.

It must be very disconcerting for other US-sponsored dictators to see how disloyal the US government is to its protégés.

OneWorld22
2nd Jan 2007, 09:08
My concern for Iraqis is based on personal Iraqi friends who suffered losses during SH's prosecution of the Iran Iraq war, and his secret police.

Yeah right :rolleyes:

you'll find that Arab Baathism and German National Socialism are indeed related

They have very little in common actually, try again.

What I see from the critics is a willingness to pass the threat and problem down to the next generation, being afraid to get their hands dirty now, content to spew political tripe-of-the-moment.

Again we all ask, what threat AMF?? Where was this horrible horrific threat in Iraq? Where?

So summing up AMF, another joke of a post. Try and widen your education and come back to us when you do.

Capt. Queeg
2nd Jan 2007, 17:16
Well.....I wonder if those 7(or 77) virigins thought he hung well... ;)

What happens when you've been converted all your allotted virgins? Eternity is a long time to spend with 77 trollops.

And is it Hell, for the virgins? Paying for their sins by an eternity spent with some hairy, stinking, arab suicide bomber hanging out of you, grunting and wheezing...??? :ugh:

High Wing Drifter
2nd Jan 2007, 17:31
The only momumental (as opposed to garden variety ones) cock-up we made was not finishing the job in 1991.
The 1991 issues could have been averted if pressure was put on Kuwait to not drill into and steal Iraqi oil! Something that was conveniently left out of the telly reporting at the time as was Iraq's attempts at a diplomatic solution with Kuwait before the invasion.

How is Darfur these days?

Re-entry
2nd Jan 2007, 18:52
Hey Brickhistory. Why are you glad that he is dead? Has it improved anything?Will it change anything for the better? The 'death sentence' is wrong and achieves nothing. It shows the state is just as sick and deluded as these people it is trying to punish by this ill-conceived 'justice'.

brickhistory
2nd Jan 2007, 19:40
Why are you glad that he is dead? Has it improved anything?Will it change anything for the better? The 'death sentence' is wrong and achieves nothing. It shows the state is just as sick and deluded as these people it is trying to punish by this ill-conceived 'justice'.
I'm glad he's dead because he was monumentally evil and cruel.
It probably hasn't improved anything unless you are related to one of his victims.
It probably won't change anything for the better but the world is better off without him.
I disagree; I think the death sentence was correct and achieves the end of a sadistic tyrant. (For those melodramatists who will bleat, "But GWB is evil and a tyrant," while I disagree with those sentiments, the difference is he will be leaving office soon. Saddam and then his sons weren't.)
I also disagree that it shows the state to be 'as sick and deluded.'
A nice .30-06 round delivered long range should have been the method of delivery about 15 years ago. Much of the current mess would be moot.

brickhistory
2nd Jan 2007, 19:46
Yeah right :rolleyes:
They have very little in common actually, try again.
Again we all ask, what threat AMF?? Where was this horrible horrific threat in Iraq? Where?
So summing up AMF, another joke of a post. Try and widen your education and come back to us when you do.


You question AMF to argue his points, do you not have the same conditions then placed on you?

A 'yeah right' seems a tad shallow.

JudyTTexas
2nd Jan 2007, 20:27
What happens when you've been converted all your allotted virgins? Eternity is a long time to spend with 77 trollops.

And is it Hell, for the virgins? Paying for their sins by an eternity spent with some hairy, stinking, arab suicide bomber hanging out of you, grunting and wheezing...??? :ugh:

Not sure who would be getting the better end of the deal, having not heard descriptively of those allotted.
There might be a reason these 77 were still virgins... :E

Dang Me, Dang Me...otta take a rope and Hang Me.......again :}

BenThere
3rd Jan 2007, 00:55
out of interest, are they suffering now, more, or less?

Here's what I thought was an interesting take on progress in Iraq:

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=1839729411

It certainly goes against the conventional wisdom drummed into us every day, and while somewhat anecdotal, is sourced from the region.

Re-entry
3rd Jan 2007, 01:01
So you probably agree with all my contensions.
Yeah! (how's my american?)
Oh WTF. Let's all buy huge guns and shoot each other.

Howard Hughes
3rd Jan 2007, 01:11
Thanks for that Benthere, that was a good read.

High Wing Drifter
3rd Jan 2007, 01:17
Watched a program on Brazillian gangs this evening. It seems more people die in Rio in a month in gang related firefights and in the hands of the police, than in the whole of Iraq at the moment.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
3rd Jan 2007, 02:18
They're very happy right now. They're looking forward to returning to IraqWhen are they planning the return? 2007? 2008? maybe 2009?, 2010, 2011, 2012 perhaps?

Howard Hughes
3rd Jan 2007, 02:27
Watched a program on Brazillian gangs this evening. It seems more people die in Rio in a month in gang related firefights and in the hands of the police, than in the whole of Iraq at the moment.
Interesting point, does anyone have any info with regard to numbers killed in US gang warfare each week compared to those in Iraq?

tinpis
3rd Jan 2007, 02:43
Read this somewhere..:hmm:

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a monthly firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

That means that you are about 33% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion?

The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately. :}

Blacksheep
3rd Jan 2007, 03:06
Ah, but the soldiers aren't shooting each other. You have to include the insurgents, foreign fighters, colateral damage etc. into the equation too you know...
Or better yet, lets hold the UK and/or France to the same microscope-media standard as we do the Americans in Iraq with regard to going into and then leaving those two countries' former colonies? He11, they INVENTED most of these countries we're talking about, and we'll count every stubbed toe, misunderstanding, or diplomatic screw-up...shall we?
The debt of Euro colonization is still being paid by all of us. The intrinsic, ugly suggestion made by those who say Iraq can't learn to handle freedom reeks of the same rotten colonialism that reduced them to "subjects" in the first place.I do agree that the British carving out Kuwait as a British Protectorate to guard the interests of Shell eventually led to GW1 when Saddam tried to reincorporate the Emirate back into Iraq. You'd have had to be very far sighted to predict the outcome of that little mistake eh?

However, the British presence in "Mesopotamia" came about with the break up of the Ottoman Empire when Turkey ended up on the losing side at Versailles. The French got to sort out what is now Lebanon and Syria, the British got to look after Palestine, Transjordan and Mesopotamia. The USA tackled Persia. Re-creating the ancient Peacock Throne and putting a puppet Shah in place didn't exactly warm the Iranians hearts, now did it?

Not one of the three nations have come up shining from the results, have we? We could easily have left well enough alone and let Turkey retain the Ottoman Empire while it broke apart on its own.

So, no room for mud-slinging there then.

ORAC
3rd Jan 2007, 15:11
So to speak....

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Preparations are under way to hang two of Saddam Hussein's co-defendants on Thursday but the details still have to be worked out with the American military, an Iraqi government official said Wednesday.

Saddam's half brother Barzan Ibrahim, a former intelligence chief, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court, were originally scheduled to hang with Saddam, who was put to death on Saturday. But their execution was delayed until after Islam's Eid al-Adha holiday, which ends Wednesday for Iraq's majority Shiites. Al-Arabiya satellite television and Al-Furat TV, run by Iraq's major Shiite Muslim political organization, both reported Wednesday that Ibrahim and al-Bandar would go to the gallows on Thursday.

Asked about the reports, a government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information, told The Associated Press that a Thursday execution was the plan. However he said final arrangements still needed to be made with U.S. officials about the time and place because the American military was expected to transport the two men from prison to the execution site.....

Reach
3rd Jan 2007, 19:45
Watched a program on Brazillian gangs this evening. It seems more people die in Rio in a month in gang related firefights and in the hands of the police, than in the whole of Iraq at the moment.

Murder rate in Rio is 50/100,000, population is 6.5 million

= 3,250

Deaths in Iraq in 2006

18,656 Iraqi Security Forces and civilian (conservative estimate) + 872 coalition military + unknown insurgent

= 19,528 +

:confused:

Rich Lee
3rd Jan 2007, 20:03
Originally Posted by High Wing Drifter
Watched a program on Brazillian gangs this evening. It seems more people die in Rio in a month in gang related firefights and in the hands of the police, than in the whole of Iraq at the moment.
The same was also true in Colombia at the zenith of Pablo Escobar's fight with the Colombian government. I counted nearly 30 bomb blast one night in Bogata alone. The explosions carved huge craters at their epicenters with associated collateral damage that make the average IED look like firecrackers in comparison. Supreme court justices, politicians of all ranks, police, and businessmen not associated with the drug trade were all fair targets for the well funded cartels and thousands of innocent bystanders were caught in the cross-fire.
I won't even begin to discuss the loss of life in Timor.:yuk:
Where were the voices of reason then?

Murder rate in Rio is 50/100,000, population is 6.5 million

= 3,250

Deaths in Iraq in 2006

18,656 Iraqi Security Forces and civilian (conservative estimate) + 872 coalition military + unknown insurgent

= 19,528 +


"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
- Mark Twain

Restrict the population in Rio to that living in the barrios and the rate would be significantly different. If you don't believe me, put a gold rolex on your wrist and take a walk there. If you only lose the watch, and not your life, you should consider yourself lucky.

Reach
3rd Jan 2007, 20:24
Oh wait...I see where I went wrong, I counted Iraqis. :rolleyes:

con-pilot
3rd Jan 2007, 20:41
Restrict the population in Rio to that living in the barrios and the rate would be significantly different. If you don't believe me, put a gold rolex on your wrist and take a walk there. If you only lose the watch, and not your life, you should consider yourself lucky.

I don't think one would even to wear a gold Rolex, a cheap Seiko will suffice. Of course the same could be said of parts of Washington DC. (Like the Capitol Building where the politicians hang out. :p )

Reach
3rd Jan 2007, 20:48
At least they'd smile while they took your watch. ;)

PanPanYourself
3rd Jan 2007, 21:44
Whats all this watch business?

Try walking down the streets of Baghdad wearing a union jack T-shirt or something that says "vote W", they'll be scooping up your remains with teaspoons.

Capt. Queeg
4th Jan 2007, 09:19
I see the maggot who videoed the hanging has been arrested....

ORAC
4th Jan 2007, 10:25
I see the maggot who videoed the hanging has been arrested.... The interview with the prosecutor who was present reported that the 2 individuals holding up cameras were senior officials*. Who has been arrested? A guard.

Looks more like a scapegoat than a maggot....

*Munqith al-Faroon, an Iraqi prosecutor who helped convict and sentence Saddam to death for the killings of 148 people in the town of Dujail in 1982, said he was a witness to the hanging. He said two top officials had their mobile phones with them — even though the government-approved witnesses had been searched before boarding U.S. helicopter that carried them from the Green Zone to the site of the execution, their cell phones placed in a box for safekeeping.

West Coast
4th Jan 2007, 19:31
"The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately"

You won't find an argument from many residents of DC. Many of them sport license plate brackets proclaiming taxation without representation. I've heard that before somewhere....

High Wing Drifter
4th Jan 2007, 23:21
I see the maggot who videoed the hanging has been arrested....Not sure what the intentions were, but clearly it is a good thing that we see the situation for what it is.

AMF
5th Jan 2007, 01:14
Yeah right :rolleyes:
They have very little in common actually, try again.
Again we all ask, what threat AMF?? Where was this horrible horrific threat in Iraq? Where?
So summing up AMF, another joke of a post. Try and widen your education and come back to us when you do.

Knowing Iraqis, or other refugees, in this country isn't all that unusual OneWorld22. I've also known Iranians, Cubans, Cambodians, Laotians...all who escaped their home countries instead emigrating for the more usual reasons. But you're from Dublin? Ireland isn't exactly a refugee haven is it..more like a refugee-producer. You don't have to apologize for your sheltered provincialism, but calling me a liar just makes you look childish.

I do understand why you have to, however. It allows you to pretend the reality of persecution of real honest-to-goodness people doesn't exist, and therefore you can go on and pretend your politically-based, circle-jerk whinefests are important.

If you choose to remain ignorant by not even bothering to educate yourself (in this case, Baathism as it relates to Naziism and its roots), I can't help you. You can't get information more easily than from the computer you're typing on. Of course you're entitled to your opinion on any subject, but if you can't even look up basic and easily-found facts to base it on, your opinion is less than useless and worth absolutely nothing to anyone who has.

And once again, of course SH was a threat after 1991, to both his neighbours and to his own people. Otherwise no forces would be needed to contain him, and nobody would have been slaughtered inside his country. And I'm answering you, not a "we". Your collectivist-speak does nothing to dilute the fact that you're responsible for the ridiculous tripe you spew.

It's easy to figure where your ideological sympathies lie, and another Socialist dictator biting the dust has to hurt a little when you sit around with your friends and rant about things that don't even effect you. Your type has never understood that those dictators themselves are the weapons of mass destruction, it doesnt matter in what manner they kill people, they'll find a way. But why would you understand or want to?.....reality is very inconvenient to your fantasies.

Your opinion, since you clearly don't even have a fact-based premise to base an opinion on and refuse to address the facts as they are, counts for nothing.

AMF
5th Jan 2007, 01:23
When are they planning the return? 2007? 2008? maybe 2009?, 2010, 2011, 2012 perhaps?

I don't know. Why do you ask? Does it matter to you?

Irelander
5th Jan 2007, 02:37
But you're from Dublin? Ireland isn't exactly a refugee haven is it..more like a refugee-producer.

AMF, your ignorance borders on pathological delusion.
Get some factual and political education before you include (yet another) region of the planet in your confused commentary.

Irelander

BenThere
5th Jan 2007, 04:59
What factual and political assertions are you disputing, Shamrock?

OneWorld22
5th Jan 2007, 08:54
Ben There, his point on Ireland and refugees once again showing his crass ignorance...
Ireland is now taking in more immigrants then any other Euro country per capita. 250,000 Poles now live here as well as large numbers of Muslims, West Africans and other Eastern Europeans. AMF is also stupid enough not to realise as I've stated many times here, that I am in fact an American, who also served two tours in Vietnam. I know a great deal more about war and what it entails then this fool ever will.

Again AMF you fall into the classic trap of labelling anyone questioning current policy as somehow being a Saddam sympathiser!! :p :p Always a last resort of a feeble mind unable to properly debate the issue at hand. Anyone who knows me would clearly label me a right winger in fact, especially when it comes to Economic/Fiscal policy.

Your peddling of the old guff about Saddam somehow being on a pedestal with Hitler and the Baathists being some kind of carbon copy of the Nazi's, totally nulls and voids your argument. It's the same kind of cheap shite we get from some rag like the New York post or National Review which is obviously where you get your information.

It's the tired and utterly predictable tripe that is so transparent at this stage and yet is surprising to read that any sane person is still peddling this nonsense three years on and knowing what we now know.
December set a new record for civilian deaths, 12,000 in 2006. So tell me how this country and these people are better off?? To paraphrase Gandhi, what difference does it make to an Iraqi father who's lost a child whether the death came from the insurgents, from the US forces or from Saddams henchmen? Are the people more secure? No. Are they more prosperous? No. Is the immediate future for their children bright and promising? No.
They are now is fact facing a vicious civil war. With the possibility that the whole region could get dragged in. Hussein's final words to one of the judges, an official witness?

"I hope that you will remain united and I warn you: do not trust the Iranian
coalition; these people are dangerous."
Iraqi Sunnis, with some reason, consider the Sciri and Dawa parties now nominally in power to be tools of Iran.

You choose to ignore totally the justification for this war, which is incredible really. The war was based on lies, yet you seem to think this is fine. And France or any occupied country post WWII did not experience the kind of civil war we now have in Iraq. More US servicemen and women, fellow soldiers, have now died in this war then the total civilians on 9/11..
We have just had a sham of a trial. A trial the US could not allow take place anywhere else because they would not be able to control things.
Judges in the US-built courtroom disposed of two buttons, one to cut the sound when Saddam spoke, and another to draw a curtain across the dock when he misbehaved. Journalists and observers in the gallery heard and saw only what they were permitted to.

Excerpts were released for broadcast with a 20- to 30-minute delay, ensuring that any revelations by Saddam could be censored. That man had a lot of s**t on his former allies and they did everything possible to shut him up...

But hey AMF, you got your man eh? And the world sure is a better place and Iraq a wonderful peaceful land now...:rolleyes:

effortless
5th Jan 2007, 09:24
Bush - "I would have hoped that it would have been more dignified."

WTF is dignified about death? If the little shite hadn't bunked off from Vietnam then he would know that there is nothing dignified about being killed, least of all judicial killing. Perhaps it is his dignity as a "hang 'em" president that is hurt by the death sentence being witnessed by the whole world.

Cheerio
5th Jan 2007, 10:02
Dignified for public consumption maybe. From Saddams perspective, he went down fighting his enemies to the last. I imagine the scene suited him well.

Barkly1992
5th Jan 2007, 10:49
It is nonsense really - people complain about the tauting because it is on the net but not about the act.

The real test is just about over - no outside government can support any side in a civil war - they have to remove themselves from the fighting.

The fact that the Iraqi PM has said he does not want a second term - and I assume he will need asylum in the US - will trigger a real civil war. He won't be retiring to a little villa on the banks of the Tigress.

Now I expect that Blair, Bush and Howard will have to cut and run by about May.

Bush keeps talking about 'THE PLAN' - for what?

:}

effortless
5th Jan 2007, 11:38
Dignified for public consumption maybe. From Saddams perspective, he went down fighting his enemies to the last. I imagine the scene suited him well.
I hope trhat I would show as much defiance in the same siruation.

How to turn a bastard into a hero in a few thousand easy lessons.:ugh:

BenThere
5th Jan 2007, 16:48
One World, I didn't know you were American or a Viet Nam vet. Tip o' the hat to you.

However we may disagree on some issues, I bristle at the rejection of New York Post, NRO (probably the best of editiolly conservative magazines) or any source out of hand as being invalid. If you don't agree with something they or anyone else publishes, it's better to intelligently refute, debate, and even attack. But these are not fringe publications as they represent a sizeable segment of the public's opinion, who have a right to be heard.

My two cents: We all do better without posts descending to ad hominem attacks, on both sides. It only makes us angry and soon the mods close or delete the thread, and even ban the participants.

Low Flier
6th Jan 2007, 01:16
"Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it"
Macbeth: Act I, Scene IV

AMF
6th Jan 2007, 03:47
Ben There, his point on Ireland and refugees once again showing his crass ignorance...
Ireland is now taking in more immigrants then any other Euro country per capita. 250,000 Poles now live here as well as large numbers of Muslims, West Africans and other Eastern Europeans. AMF is also stupid enough not to realise as I've stated many times here, that I am in fact an American, who also served two tours in Vietnam. I know a great deal more about war and what it entails then this fool ever will.
Again AMF you fall into the classic trap of labelling anyone questioning current policy as somehow being a Saddam sympathiser!! :p :p Always a last resort of a feeble mind unable to properly debate the issue at hand. Anyone who knows me would clearly label me a right winger in fact, especially when it comes to Economic/Fiscal policy.
:

OneWorld22, at least stick to the subject at hand, which was Refugees, not Immigrants. The Polish plumbers and Eastern Euros you refer to are MIGRATING to Ireland (primarily from EU countries) for economic reasons (jobs) and are not, even by Irish standards, considered Refugees.

So I'll answer your accusation of me exhibiting crass ignorance with some easily obtainable facts. Here are the actual numbers of Refugees (granted asylum including by those after appeal) by the Irish government for the years 2000 to 2005, inclusive. That would cover the years you claim they were swarming in....

The year 2000...605 persons, 2001...940, 2002...1,992, 2003...1,173, 2004...1,138, 2005...966. The amount of people (from the entire planet), in total, granted Refugee status in Ireland for these 6 years...6,814 persons.

That's a little over 1,100 people per year. Excuse me if I'm not overwhelmed. In fact, it's well-known among non-EU third worlders that among European countries Ireland is one of the hardest Immigration nuts to crack, and it's reflected by the following numbers (most don't bother to waste their time)...

...from 2001 to 2005 almost 2 million people sought asylum in European countries, of this number only 2% (40,000) applied for that status in Ireland. The UK, France, and Germany alone received 45% of the applications. Ireland was 13th place in this regard, after the Czech Republic.

In other words, that while for EU citizens there's a "Help Wanted" sign on the Irish Door for the time being (and it's changing) as long as their economy stays strong, the vast majority of Huddled Masses from the wrong side of the global tracks have long been met with one saying "Try Another Country".


Thanks for serving in Vietnam. Your spite and arrogance, however, seems unfortunately REMF-ish (as we called the type anyway in my brief former life when I, coincidentally, first visited the Middle East 22+ years ago) to me. Years on, the place usually looks different a lofty work perch, because there's no sandbags allowed in the cockpit. But it's like my father said (Korea 1959-52), Vietnam was "obviously" the only war we ever fought according to many who were there, or if you go to the movies. That attitide doesn't, of course, include his 2 younger brothers who were (1965-67, 1970-71) in that same grunt capacity young men in our family seem to fill.

So thanks again, but please 'scuse this formerly-uniformed "fool" for not immediately bowing down to your vast "war knowledge". On second thought, I couldn't care less if you excuse me or not (and what this personal subject, which YOU brought up, has to do with geo-politics or SH I don't have the foggiest).

So my fellow American (yet who spells realize with an "s" while calling me "too stupid") who thinks Iraqi friends are made-up, I'll say this more clearly. I don't think you're a SH sympathizer because you disagree with current policy. No, I say you're a sympathizer because you purposely disregard not only his butchery or how he justified it, but dwell in a comfortable imaginary place somewhere in your head where his victims aren't real, and resort to every type of evasive, mental somersault and cartwheel in an effort to attack toppling, and rightfully executing him.

Is that clear enough?

AMF
6th Jan 2007, 04:01
Your peddling of the old guff about Saddam somehow being on a pedestal with Hitler and the Baathists being some kind of carbon copy of the Nazi's, totally nulls and voids your argument. It's the same kind of cheap shite we get from some rag like the New York post or National Review which is obviously where you get your information.

It's the tired and utterly predictable tripe that is so transparent at this stage and yet is surprising to read that any sane person is still peddling this nonsense three years on and knowing what we now know.

December set a new record for civilian deaths, 12,000 in 2006. So tell me how this country and these people are better off?? To paraphrase Gandhi, what difference does it make to an Iraqi father who's lost a child whether the death came from the insurgents, from the US forces or from Saddams henchmen? Are the people more secure? No. Are they more prosperous? No. Is the immediate future for their children bright and promising? No.

They are now is fact facing a vicious civil war. With the possibility that the whole region could get dragged in. Hussein's final words to one of the judges, an official witness?

"I hope that you will remain united and I warn you: do not trust the Iranian
coalition; these people are dangerous."

Iraqi Sunnis, with some reason, consider the Sciri and Dawa parties now nominally in power to be tools of Iran.

:

You terming the Nazi Baathist idealogical and historical connections/lineage (easily reasearched by objective sources) to be "old guff", "cheap shite", and "predictable transparent tripe" makes it still obvious you've still not educated yourself with info at your literal fingertips. That you think it's propoganda spoon-fed to me by whatever Cheney-demon choir you imagine I'm hypnotized by, only serves to illuminate your own dependence on such pablum.

Perhaps it's because the insult "Hitler" and "Nazi" is tossed-around as a catch-all insult that proveable, historical ties, roots, and planned similaries between these ideologies are thought to be merely insults as well, with no foundation. Perhaps you're too lazy to research it. Perhaps you know the cognitive dissonance of finding out the truth will remove the requisite, vitriolic ammunition while fighting your political cause, so therefore you don't.

But even your own quote of his prophesizing doom hints at what is right in front of your nose..SH's cursing the "Persians" (which along with Americans, he also literally did in one of his last breaths before the noose cut them off) is merely part of racially-emphasised, National Socialism-based ideology that bred and allowed another meglomaniacal Dictator like him to shoot his way to the top, initiate elbow-room wars of agression, and butcher his own "less than human" citizens.

I don't know why it bothers you that I don't care about what politicians were giving as reasons-of-the-moment were to topple him. You seem upset about those reasons.

I'm glad you brought up Ghandi. Just think, if the Arab proto-Nazis relaxing at the Sorbonne in 1030's Paris, thinking Big Political Thoughts, taking notes, and hailing Hitler's rise to power, would have instead just adopted Ghandi's real non-violent approach of how to throw off British and French colonial rule in Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq instead of seeding the militant, socialist, Baathist ideology that rationalized any extreme with an emphasis on race and region, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

We fought our own civil war at a cost of a half million dead. In your book, not worth it I suppose.

con-pilot
6th Jan 2007, 06:16
Well my old friend OW22 it looks like you're in quite a contest here. AMF seems to have all his facts in order.

Can't wait for your reply.

Cheers. :ok:

OneWorld22
6th Jan 2007, 13:06
...from 2001 to 2005 almost 2 million people sought asylum in European countries, of this number only 2% (40,000) applied for that status in Ireland. The UK, France, and Germany alone received 45% of the applications. Ireland was 13th place in this regard, after the Czech Republic.

AMF, you are aware that the population of the Irish Republic is not that big don't you?? Ireland has in fact circa 1% of the EU population so why do you think this small country would receive the same amount of applicants as France?!

You seem very perturbed about what bad 'ol Saddam Hussein did AMF, yet prefer not to concentrate on the 655,000 civilians that have now died in this war. Why is that? Do those deaths not count in your strange little world?

Again, focusing on Hussein and the Baathists and using comparisons with Hitler and Nazism nulls your argument. Feel free to continue bringing it up though. It's the usual projection tactic used by Hysterical shrillers like yourself to conjure up in dramatic white smoke the grand bogeyman, who if we didn't act immediately would surely get us in the long run with a mushroom cloud over Ohio.......:rolleyes:

You fail to address the actual point with regards to what Gandhi said. So I'll ask again, what difference does it make to an Iraqi parent who's child has just been butchered, how that child was butchered? Do you really think as he's burying that child that he'll be thinking "phew, at least he wasn't killed by Hussein's henchmen"? This violence causes misery, and the misery is not dependent on who does the killing, you and others fool yourselves into somehow thinking this as a war of liberation, that Iraqi civilians being killed now is collateral damage and inevitable in any conflict, therefore acceptable. Where have I ever said I disregard Hussein's butchery? You seem to be the one in fact disregarding the Iraqi's being slaughtered now.

The trial and execution has been a disaster, but again continue to blind yourself to that fact. A tyrant has now undeservedly been turned into a martyr. The trial as I stated, a sham, so what message does that now say to people in the Middle East about democracy and so called justice? The execution on the first day of Eid was bizarre. How can you not possibly care about the reason given for war? We live in democracies. War is always meant to be the last resort, after all diplomacy has failed. In this case we have had a hasty, ill conceived, unsupported, badly managed conflict that was fought on highly dubious grounds. of course it bloody well matters. Our elected leaders lied to the people, and now the cost, financial and human 655,000 dead, 3,000 US fellow servicemen dead tens of thousands injured and mentally scarred, a region teetering, a country now more unsafe then it's ever been.

All for what? For lies? For bullshit lies? Have a look AMF at a thread on the Military forum here to see the thoughts of current servicemen to this war by the way...

But at least you got your man, eh AMF?!

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258346

Con, I don't have a hatred for Bush, you know that and I have stated that many times here. But his policy decisions have been a disaster. Surely you can now see that his administration has been built on a house of sand that has now crumbled away? The American people don't trust him anymore, his ratings are through the floor, Americans are now against the war, his own party roundly defeated at the last elections, his Generals in disagreement with him and even, we are told, his own father perplexed by his behaviour, with regards to the Baker report. And that's just on Iraq! Look at the Current budget deficit, as Pat Buchanan said the most unreported story of the year, going to turn the US Dollar into the next North American Peso...

AMF
6th Jan 2007, 21:30
AMF, you are aware that the population of the Irish Republic is not that big don't you?? Ireland has in fact circa 1% of the EU population so why do you think this small country would receive the same amount of applicants as France?!
You seem very perturbed about what bad 'ol Saddam Hussein did AMF, yet prefer not to concentrate on the 655,000 civilians that have now died in this war. Why is that? Do those deaths not count in your strange little world?
...

No response to the actual figures of how many few Refugees there are in Ireland I see, and I answered your diversionary question above regarding why it is so many applicants choose other countries to apply for asylum despite Ireland's welfare sysem and economy already...it's well-known among seekers for being almost impossible for it to be granted there. Ireland's size has nothing to do with how many people would wish to apply. Your response is only designed to avoid the fact that Ireland is NOT a country that receives many refugees, contary to your contention that my original assertion was "crass ignorance". That was made because you basically called me a liar regarding Iraqis I know personally.


Why would I not concentrate on the "655,000 civilians" that have died in this war? Well, because I don't waste my time concentrating on numbers published by Lancet taken from a John Hopkins medical survey (your source) which are not only ludicrous in the face of common sense, but when it's sub-par method, scope, and execution behind it's cluster sample methodology is examined, it's obvious why. For instance, they only used 47 sampling clusters (a ridiculously low amount) and extrapolated the data. Don't bother trying to find out even the most basic information, like demographics, of those surveyed....the researchers "destroyed" that info. The holes in that "study" you could drive an Abrams through.

Even the "reasearchers" themselves admitted a margin of error of +/- 50%!

The number you cite is simply midpoint between the 300,000+ and 900,000+ range this ridiculous study comes up with. Given that another Lancet study in September 2004 (using the same methodology), put the estimate of wartime dead at 100,000, this means they claim there's been 555,000 deaths in the 30 months since then.

According to the study where you pulled your numbers from, since the war began less than 4 years ago, in Iraq....

...there's been as many killed in Iraq as in the entire 4 year, night-and-day bombing campaign against Germany in WW2 (Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, dozens of cities etc. etc. Est deaths 300,000 to 900,000)

..as many deaths as in the firebombing campaigns against Japanese cites in WW2 (est. also 300,000 to 900,000)...bombing campaigns DESIGNED to inflict maximum civilian casualties and reduce entire cities to ashes, by the way.

...3 times the number of immediate deaths/vaporizations of both atomic bombs combined (200,000), dropped on Japan.

...more deaths than the American Civil War, both sides combined, from ALL causes including disease (400,000).

...more deaths than the U.S. deaths in WW2 in battle, from disease, and accidents combined.

...over TEN times the U.S. deaths during 10 years of Vietnam conflict in battle, disease, and accidents (59,000).

...almost number of deaths suffered by Great Britain during the 4+ years of WW1 (705,000).

Now who's the "hysterical shriller"? To answer your question, OneWorld, deaths do matter, but not fantastical numbers used as petitio principii by you in debate after glomming them off the breathless BBC or CNN "reporting" on a supremely-flawed "survey" that not even the lamest blog takes seriously.

So maybe I've found the answer as to why you think real Iraqis are imaginary; Perhaps it's because you believe in so many imaginary, dead-because-of-Bush-ones there's just no room for anyone else?

AMF
6th Jan 2007, 22:16
[QUOTE=AMF;3054544][QUOTE=AMF;3054527][QUOTE=OneWorld22;3053799]
Again, focusing on Hussein and the Baathists and using comparisons with Hitler and Nazism nulls your argument. Feel free to continue bringing it up though. QUOTE]

Ok.

Baathism is based on National Socialism...that is, Facism of the 1930's German strain that emphasized race and regional unity above all else with the usual State controls on economy, military,and internal security in a secular, socialist framwork. It was mutated into Pan-arabic Baathism by the idealogues which adhered to this political philosophy when they saw it as a tool to bring back home from intelligensia-lousy Paris (where they studied such theories and contemporary events like Hitler's rise to power next door), to be used against the colonial powers that were then controlling their own region/countries, namely Great Britain and France. That they agreed with Nazis regarding Jews was a cherry on top bonus.

When WW2 broke out, in addition to the more theocratic Jerusalem-based anti-Zionist Muslims aligning themselves with the Nazis (to even serve in special SS units tailored for them both locally and in Europe), the original Baathist militants (sharing a common idealogy) spreading in Iraq and Syria were working with the Nazis to fight against the British, who occupied that territory and installed the colonial ruling figureheads.

In fact, the uncle who raised SH from the time he was 10 (that is, during his most formative years as a non-apologetic psychopath) was one of those WW2 militants and early Baathist adherents. When the Baath Party was officially formed after WW2, these loyalists to the idealogy commited to establishing the system were already there.

But if you weren't so lazy you could look this up, and so much more.
Hey, if I brought up North Korea and said Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong-il were "Stalinists", would that be null too because they don't live in....you know....Russia? Would you say their idealogy is Juche (the official idealogy of that fair Workers Paradise), and claim it has absolutely nothing to do with Stalinism?

Just wondering

High Wing Drifter
6th Jan 2007, 23:18
AMF,

From what I can see, the only association with Nazism and Baathism is found on Jewish and/or Isreali websites. Every other web based source of information that I bumped into suggests that the Baath party by name was formed in 1947 being principly formed by two seperate but similar pan-Arabian political philosophies. Granted, the term used is romantic nationalism with a socialist underpinning. I suspect to some the two words nationalism and socialism in the same statement mean Nazi, but in the absence of any other credible and objectiv e data, that is like saying that Labour party members are communists.

con-pilot
6th Jan 2007, 23:52
OW22 my friend, I have edited that sentence out of my last post. I can only apologize and make the following promise to you and all my friends here;

I hereby promise that I will refrain from posting after I have attended Happy Hour at the club (too many Scotches), had dinner with Ms. C-P and consumed 2 bottles of wine (it was really good wine by the way) and then returned home and got on line as I am drinking B&B. :(

Sorry.

Now about President Bush, he has less than two years left in office and if we were able to survied Jimmy Carter's Presidency, we can certainly survive anything that Bush does or has done.

Cheers. :ok:

OneWorld22
7th Jan 2007, 00:07
So you're railing against the BBC and CNN now AMF?! :p :p Always a favourite target of the Bushites

The Lancet report was meticulously researched, just because you don't like the numbers reported doesn't make it so AMF...When Eleanor Clift brought this up in the McLaughlin Group recently even Tony Blankley couldn't rebuke it. But I suppose the McLaughlin Group goes into the same bracket as the BBC, CNN, the NYT and the other Liberal Media liars eh?

But back to the topic at hand...Is Iraq today and the Iraqi civilians within better off or worse off? We know of course the situation is worse, but do you think the deaths and mayhem are acceptable until Iraq "beds down"?

And do you accept that the reason give for this war was bullshit and that people were lied to? Do you still think it irrelevant? Do you not accept that war should ALWAYS be a last resort? As Eisenhower said, "When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.”

The Bush doctrine of preemptive war, was explicitly repudiated by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in 1946. As a presiding Judge between 1945 and 1949, US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote: "War is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy." The Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In 1953 when his advisors mentioned the concept of preemptive war, Eisenhower remarked: "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler...I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

Also Article VI of the US Constitution compels the government to honour the treaties it signs:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The UN Charter would be one of those treaties.

The UN Charter forbids war unless you are invaded by another country or the UN Security Council approves it.

Preemptive war follows the same logic as capital punishment. If we kill the terrorists before they strike, there will be no terrorist attack. If we put the murderer to death, eventually there will be no more murders. But we know the death penalty has never been a deterrent to murder.

con-pilot
7th Jan 2007, 00:18
You're up late tonight OW. I have to say I must disagree with you on the death penalty thing, but that is for a different thread that has been done to death (pardon the pun) before.

OneWorld22
7th Jan 2007, 00:23
Hi con, not that late only after midnight here....

And you don't have to apologise for remarks made. These are emotive subjects and rightly so because it's every serious with regards to whats at stake...

mini
7th Jan 2007, 00:51
:ok: My Tuppence… with no wish to get dragged into a fight.

I lived & worked in Iraq from ’97 to late ’03 with various breaks to other countries. I’m still in contact with many friends from the Kurdish North, Baghdad and Basra. Being honest, apart from the Kurds, not one of my friends believe they are better off since the ’03 “liberation” The people in the “centre south” in particular are desperate to leave. Anyone who knows Iraqi’s and their pride in their country will understand just how desperate they need to be to want to emigrate.

The issue of JWB’s reason to invade has been done to death, it was illegal and founded on fabrications. All he has achieved is handing control of this particular region to the Iranians.

Saddam was a tyrant – no doubt. I had the dubious pleasure of meeting Uday at a function in Baghdad one night, never have I felt so spooked – mainly due to the body language of his entourage- I have no doubt that he was as evil as alleged.

But, the average Iraqi is an erudite individual – just like “us”… what have we given them in the name of “liberation”?

As for Ireland and accepting asylum seekers, AMF, you should study the relevant legislation regarding claiming asylum in the first EU country you arrive in. Most refusals in Ireland were people who flew in from other EU countries, knowing that Irish bureaucracy would involve them staying a year or two – enough time for some of them to produce a child – Irish citizen – who would have the automatic right to its parents…

Strange the way these asylum seekers dried up as soon as the automatic right of parental residency was removed…

Chill out guys...

corsair
7th Jan 2007, 01:06
AMF there was no need to drag Ireland into it at all. Drop it. We are a small damp island in the Atlantic but all our refugees dragged themselves across the hell that is Europe and Britain to smuggle themselves here. So we can't all be bad. But keep Ireland out of it. It's irrelevant and insulting.

As for Saddam, well frankly I cannot understand the whinging about his rights being violated or the way he was executed. I find it amazing that he survived long enough to stand trial, sham or otherwise. It's more than he would grant anyone who offended him.

As for Iraq, well it is a mess.

bluebird121
7th Jan 2007, 02:12
Funny this hasn't been started already.
"The former Iraqi dictator has had his sentence of death upheld at appeal, with a reccomendation that he hang within 30 days."
I have to say I have mixed feelings over this one. Yes the man commited the most henious of all henoius crimes in genocide, and should be punished in an appropriate manner, hanging is probably too good for the likes of him (though I'd say it before Mr Draper)
By the same token, he also brought a degree of stability to the region, the Iranians weren't enriching uranium and Iraq itself was not in the meltdown that it has now descended into. In the same mold as Adolf Hitler, there are flashes of genius there, but the mark was overstepped.
Would the world benefit from allowing him to stand for election in a free, a truly free, vote with an option to hang him at the end, and let the Iraqi people decide, as lets be fair, was his appeal ever going to work whilst the system is driven by the Americans?


I agree.. No at that time he was not enriching uranium and the weapons of mass destruction were never found. But he was a dangerous man and capable of mass murder, as the case against him proved. The trouble is that in hanging him, he is now a martryr, and that is not going to help in any way to peace in Iraq. If anything , it has inflamed the situation there.
I cannot see when our troops will be able to withdraw, and meantime how many more will die, and for what?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
7th Jan 2007, 02:14
I had the dubious pleasure of meeting Uday at a function in Baghdad one nightdid you tell him about proone?

slim_slag
7th Jan 2007, 12:15
...I had the dubious pleasure of meeting Uday at a function in Baghdad one night....That's nowt, Donald Rumsfeld met his dad and seemed to offer him more than just the hand of friendship.

Heard a story about one of the surgeons at the Alma Mater. This surgeon genuinely believed he was the second best surgeon in the world (thus displaying a level of humility not often seen :) ), and he was approached by an foreign embassy official to do some private work with a difference. To cut a long story short...

The patient was not able to travel to London, so he had to go see the patient. So they picked him up from a London airport in a private jet and with all the windows blacked out and took him away. Few hours later he landed and was taken to an operating theatre where to his surprise the patient was already asleep and totally covered apart from the operation site. He was told to perform the surgery, did so, and was taken back to London and given a large suitcase full of cash.

Only then was he told his patient was Saddam Hussein.

Not sure I believe it, but I suppose Saddam was so paranoid that somebody would kill him on the table it could be true that he would get somebody from outside.

terryJones
7th Jan 2007, 12:29
What I find 'amusing' is the various people saying it's disgracefull, all the shouts and taunts at the swinging session.
As I see it he is getting his neck stretched. The fact that someone is calling him names would, I imagine, be quite low on his mental list of things to worry about.

bluebird121
7th Jan 2007, 21:54
I think the mistake was showing the execution to the whole world..Yes by all means film it so that there is no doubt he is dead, but to have it done in such a such a public way was not right, as it just made him out to be a hero, and using the mobile phones were also unaccceptable..and then broadcasting it to all and sundry.It just inflamed the followers of Saddam.

barit1
7th Jan 2007, 22:53
...I cannot see when our troops will be able to withdraw, and meantime how many more will die, and for what?

That's a fair question, and it deserves a fair answer in a fair context. Take a look at this peacetime report (http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep1998/n09291998_9809295.html), note the date, and the death rate, and the cause of these deaths in the US military.

Now note the US death rate since the beginning of the Iraq invasion - about 800 per year (for all causes, accidents included).

I never heard any politicians - of any stripe - trying to make hand-wringing soundbites about that peacetime fatality rate, even though it is virtually the same annual rate as we suffer now in Iraq.

Keep this in mind.

AMF
8th Jan 2007, 08:14
AMF,
From what I can see, the only association with Nazism and Baathism is found on Jewish and/or Isreali websites. Every other web based source of information that I bumped into suggests that the Baath party by name was formed in 1947 being principly formed by two seperate but similar pan-Arabian political philosophies. Granted, the term used is romantic nationalism with a socialist underpinning. I suspect to some the two words nationalism and socialism in the same statement mean Nazi, but in the absence of any other credible and objectiv e data, that is like saying that Labour party members are communists.

Hey, I'm as anti-Semitic as the next guy :hmm: but ....

...would you consider this quote from Sami al-Jundi (one of the founding members of the Baath Party) taken from his own autobiography describing their inspiration during the 1930's?..

“We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading its books and the source of its thought … We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf (into Arabic) .”

The translator of MK later became a minister in Rhasid Ali al-Kaylani's cabinet in the 1941 Golden Square revolt, who sought alliance with the Nazi's against the British forces in Iraq.

To say "romantic nationalism with a socialist underpinning", is to say "German Romanticism", as opposed to other kinds. Your research should have at least dug up some of the following details to expain it, and why these ideas were able to be disseminated throughout Iraq during the years between the wars. I've spent the time to clip together some historical notes....feel free, of course, to search any of the names and do your own research on the individuals, especially accounts by their contemporaries (and hopefully something deeper than Wikpedia).
........................
"Baathism, the ideology of the Syrian government and the former Iraqi government, is a synthesis, forged in the 1930s and 1940s, of fascism and romantic nostalgia for an "organic" community of Arabs. It was developed, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, in the wake of World War I, by such thinkers as Sati' al-Husri, the Syrian promoter of pan-Arab nationalism, and Michel 'Aflaq, founder of the Baath Party in Syria. European colonialism was now the main enemy of pan-Arab activists. But, as usual, the West was fought with ideas that originated in Europe, the same ideas which inspired radical nationalists in Japan
.
Sati' al-Husri (1880–1968) was a secular thinker whose concept of Arab unity was based less on Islam than on blood ties, history, and language. An activist in Damascus when the French ruled Syria in the 1920s, he was a keen student of German Romantic thinkers, such as Fichte and Herder, who countered the French Enlightenment by promoting the notion of an organic, völkisch nation, rooted in blood and soil. His ideal of pulling the Arab world together in a huge organic community was directly inspired by pan-German theories that held sway in fascist circles in Vienna and Berlin in the 1920s. An Arab Volksgemeinschaft, bound by military discipline and heroic individual sacrifice, was what he dreamed of.

Sati' al-Husri also used the idea of asabiyya, or Arab blood solidarity, developed in the fourteenth century by Ibn Khaldun. The aim, in any case, was to overcome "abstract Western thinking" and free the Arab people from feudalism, colonialism, imperialism, and Zionism. This, along with a version of totalitarian socialism, is still the official ideology of the Baathists.

Satia Al-Husri was bought to Iraq in 1921. He first served as advisor to the Ministry of Education; he then became Director General of Education and eventually became the Dean of the Law College. Husri quickly ushered in scores of fellow Palestinian and Syrian educators and these people helped shape the Iraqi education system. These individuals formed the nucleus and genesis of true pan-Arabism, and unfortunately, ushered in the basis of anti-Iranian thinking in mainstream Arab education and mass media.

Satia Al-Husri spawned a whole generation of men who advocated violence. One example is Sami Shawkat who is famous for his 1933 speech “Sina’at al-Mawt” (manufacture of death) in which he rationalizes mass violence and war as the way to achieve Arab aspirations. Tragically, this speech was widely distributed in Arab schools and in Iraq in particular. It is interesting that Shawkat teaches that “force is the soil which sprouts the seeds of truth.
Shawkat was a main force in the organization of the Futuwwa Youth Organization – a movement modeled directly after the Nazi Hitler Youth Movement. The Futuwwa set the pace for future Arab chauvinist movements, such as the B’aath party of Iraq .

It is worth noting that Sami Shawkat’s brother, Naji, who by 1941 was a member of the Arab committee in Iraq (which had absorbed the Futuwwa), gave Franz von Papen (a high ranking German official of Nazi Germany in 1941) a letter which actually congratulated Hitler for the brutality that he inflicted upon the Jews."
...................
But Baathist idealogy spreading in Iraq was also driven by events in French-mandated Syria, which after the fall of France to the Nazis in 1940 was facist-Vichy governed. Zaki al-Arsuzi, Michel Aflaq, and Salah al Din al-Bitar were all proto-Baathists at work with spreading the idealogy.

Here's a description of Aflaq and what he was doing in the 1930's....

"Michel Aflaq came of age in the Paris of the 1930s while a university student at the Sorbonne. During that time, the worldwide Depression had caused many people and above all young students to become disenchanted with the free market and pluralistic political system. Meanwhile, Nazi Germany appeared to be undergoing a phenomenal economic recovery.
According to Syrian-born historian Bassam Tibi, this belief was certainly not lost on Aflaq who, as a Sorbonne student, was "full of enthusiasm for Hitler" because "Aflaq saw in Nazi Germany a model for his ideas of a synthesis between nationalism and socialism." (Miller and Mylroie 1990, 85).

But, Aflaq was not the only thinker whose fondness for European authoritarian ideologies would influence Iraq’s destiny. Sami Shawkat - who as Minister of Education under the monarchy was to have a far-reaching impact on Iraq’s educational system - illustrated his admiration of Fascism when he declared in 1939: "If Mussolini did not have tens of thousands of Black-Shirts who had excelled in the profession of death, he would not have been able to place the crown of the Roman Emperors upon Victor Emmanuel." (Makiya, 177)."

"The Iraqi brand of Arab Ba`thism, as influenced by Michel Aflaq, fell into that category of twentieth century ideologies - such as Nazism and Communism - that sought to remake society or rather destroy the existing one in order to build an entirely new one in its place. Just as Nazi Germany called for a nation of herren volk, just as Stalinist Russia trumpeted the new Homo Sovieticus, so too did Ba`thist Iraq seek to engineer the New Arab Man."

Aflaq and al-Arsuzi were in Iraq teaching immediately before WW2 and/or up until the 1941 coup when al-Kaylani's pro-Nazi government was run out by the British army. I say "run out" because Kaylani himself and the well-known and notorious pro-Nazi Palesinian Haj Amin al-Husseini (the Grand Mufti), who was had been at work in Syria and Iraq since his exile from Palestine by the British in 1937, were forced to flee Baghdad and spent the rest of WW2 in Berlin as special guests of the Nazis. Up until that time Hans Grobba, the German-Nazi Consul in Baghdad, had actively developed and worked with all socialist leaning groups in Iraq, and was already connected to al-Husseini himself.

The startling success with which Hitler defied the Anglo-French-imposed Versailles Treaty captured the admiration of many nationalistic and anti-British Iraqi army officers. Among them was General Badr Sidqi who was to lead the abortive 1941 coup against the British-controlled monarchy. Many Iraqi Sunni Arab nationalists were swept off their feet by Hitler’s phenomenal success in turning around the German economy and restoring Germany’s military strength and national pride.

Significantly, two of the "generals" in Kaylani's Nazi-allied Iraqi crew involved in the 1941 revolt were Saddam Hussein's close relatives; future Iraqi President Ahmed Hassal al-Bakr (cousin and protege ), and Khairullah Tulfah, his maternal uncle (SH's guardian from the age of 10 and mentor...jailed by the British after the revolt). It should be noted that his uncle was also a pan-arabist/racist author and pamphleteer in the years leading up to the 1941 coup. These two figures played a major role in SH's life, and the evolution of Iraqi-brand Baathism.

Enought spoon-feeding. Certainly there are enough names and events in the above paragraphs to glean and with some specificity research regarding the infancy of Baathism and it's early adherents, that is, before the Iraqi Baath Party was formed in 1947....no suprise there, since opposition political parties weren't allowed prior to 1946 in the British-mandate war years.

'Course maybe OneWorld is right....I'm just an ingorant, label-tossin', Cheney-luvin' fool who makes stuff up :suspect:

OneWorld22
8th Jan 2007, 09:09
'Course maybe OneWorld is right....I'm just an ingorant, label-tossin', Cheney-luvin' fool who makes stuff up

Glad to see you admit it at last! :cool: :D

slim_slag
8th Jan 2007, 09:48
I never heard any politicians - of any stripe - trying to make hand-wringing soundbites about that peacetime fatality rate, even though it is virtually the same annual rate as we suffer now in IraqThat's because your spin is complete bollocks.

You neglect to consider the fact that not all US forces are in Iraq at any one time. They are still dying in troad traffic accidents when back home.

What really counts is...

The annual death rate for a young soldier in Iraq is 3.92/1000.
The annual death rate for a young male in the USA is 1.41 per 1000.

If you think about it, which you obviously haven't, they wouldn't bother wearing body armour if it wasn't friggen dangerous out there.

However the death rate for young black males in Philadelphia is 11% higher than for young soldiers in Iraq, and I have seen that argument made on here.

Unbelievable.

AMF
8th Jan 2007, 09:49
So you're railing against the BBC and CNN now AMF?! :p :p Always a favourite target of the Bushites
The Lancet report was meticulously researched, just because you don't like the numbers reported doesn't make it so AMF....

I don't believe I was "railing", but I've seen too many drunk journos hanging out in Amman/Bahrain hotel/lounges while they're "reporting on the war" to give 'em much credence. Does anyone take them seriously still? Nobody actually gets their news from TV do they?

That you describe a report that even itself admits to a 50% (that's Fifty Percent) Margin of Error (which means admitting to a range between 300,000 and 900,000 people...a range almost large as it says died in total.....as "meticulous", well...can I sell you some land in the Everglades?

It's no wonder that using the same "meticulous" methodology in 2004, these same JH survey-takers first estimated the death toll in Fallujah alone at 200,000. Knowing they could never sell THAT to anyone, they simply tossed out those results and came up with 100,000 for all of Iraq since the war began in 2003. So they had 200,000 dead...and then just said "nah".

Do you know what their nuts-and-bolts methodology entailed before they extrapolated that 655,000 number? It's a joke among serious statisticians involved in that sort of thing, with no possiblity to corroborate, with the man in charge of both 2004 and 2006 surveys contradicting himself on specifics.

I could do my own "survey" using their same methodology. I'll walk down a few residential streets in Fayetteville (Bragg, Pope) and Jacksonville (Le Jeune), NC, knock on the doors of 10 houses there (ones that I'll never reveal to you anything about with specificity; where, who, how old) and ask if they've had family members (as extended-out as they want..could be 100 cousins) serving, wounded, or killed in Iraq. Then, using those sub-standard sample clusers from those biased areas I'll extrapolate the numbers as per the JH survey. I'm sure I'll come up with something like 19,000,000 soldiers are serving in Iraq, 5,000,000 casualties, including 1.4 million KIA.

...And then political-agenda poo-flingers, policy wonks, and TV talking heads will blather on due to it's "controversial". Yeah, whatever.....

The sick thing is that you LIKE those unsubstantiated and ludicrous JH/Lancet fantasy numbers because they suit your political agenda. You can't even bring yourself to consider, despite the evidence and its own admission, that it's anything BUT "meticulous".

Don't you find it troubling that you sit there hoping that those 300,000, or 655,000, or 900,000 Bad Math X Subpar Method = Imaginary Dead People...are really dead?

Just because you LIKE the numbers, doesnt make it so OneWorld.

slim_slag
8th Jan 2007, 09:57
AMF,

Have you written to the Lancet about this? If you have found a flaw in the methodology used in their peer reviewed articles they will publish your letter. That's the way it works.

OneWorld22
8th Jan 2007, 10:10
Yes I'm sure John Hopkins are waiting with baited breath for AMF, the man who knows it all, to fall from the sky and tell them where they've been going woring :rolleyes:

From the Introduction of the report:

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional
cluster sample survey

Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, Les Roberts

Summary
Background: An excess mortality of nearly 100 000 deaths was reported in Iraq for the period March, 2003–September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.

Methods: Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq.
50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.

Findings: Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

Interpretation: The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.


So it's not "10 houses down some street" as you arrogantly dismiss but 12,801 individuals in 47 clusters. Quite a large sample.

Roberts has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, “Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity.” In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the U.S. State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid.

Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to three million and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party conference. In December 2004 Blair dismissed the epidemiological team’s work in Iraq, claiming, “Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is.”

This statement by Blair is particularly interesting because the Iraqi Health Ministry reports, whose accuracy he praised, have confirmed the Johns Hopkins team’s conclusion that aerial attacks by “coalition” forces are the leading cause of civilian deaths. One such report was cited by Nancy Youssef in the Miami Herald of September 25, 2004 under the headline “U.S. Attacks, Not Insurgents, Blamed for Most Iraqi Deaths.” The Health Ministry had been reporting civilian casualty figures based on reports from hospitals, as Blair said, but it was not until June 2004 that it began to differentiate between casualties inflicted by “coalition” forces and those from other causes. From June 10 to September 10 it counted 1,295 civilians killed by U.S. forces and their allies and 516 killed in “terrorist” operations. Health Ministry officials told Youssef that the “statistics captured only part of the death toll,” and emphasized that aerial bombardment was largely responsible for the higher numbers of deaths caused by the “coalition.” The breakdown (72 percent U.S.) is remarkably close to that attributed to aerial bombardment in the Lancet survey (79 percent).

BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson, in another Health Ministry report covering July 1, 2004 to January 1, 2005, cited 2,041 civilians killed by U.S. and allied forces versus 1,233 by “insurgents” (only 62 percent U.S.). Then something strange happened. The Iraqi Health Minister’s office contacted the BBC and claimed, in a convoluted and confusing statement, that their figures had somehow been misrepresented. The BBC issued a retraction and details of deaths caused by “coalition” forces have been notably absent from subsequent Health Ministry reports.

Official and media criticism of Roberts’s work has focused on the size of his sample, 988 homes in 33 clusters distributed throughout the country, but other epidemiologists reject the notion that this is controversial.

Michael O’Toole, the director of the Center for International Health in Australia, says: “That’s a classical sample size. I just don’t see any evidence of significant exaggeration…. If anything, the deaths may have been higher because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died.”

David Meddings, a medical officer with the Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention at the World Health Organization, said that surveys of this kind always have uncertainty, but “I don’t think the authors ignored that or understated. Those cautions I don’t believe should be applied any more or less stringently to a study that looks at a politically sensitive conflict than to a study that looks at a pill for heart disease.”

This applies to you and others AMF..

By dismissing the study’s findings out of hand, U.S. and British officials created the illusion that the authors were suspect or politically motivated and discouraged the media from taking them seriously. This worked disturbingly well. Even opponents of the war continue to cite much lower figures for civilian casualties and innocently attribute the bulk of them to Iraqi resistance forces or “terrorists.”

The figures most often cited for civilian casualties in Iraq are those collected by Iraqbodycount, but its figures are not intended as an estimate of total casualties. Its methodology is to count only those deaths that are reported by at least two “reputable” international media outlets in order to generate a minimum number that is more or less indisputable. Its authors know that thousands of deaths go unreported in their count and say they cannot prevent the media misrepresenting their figures as an actual estimate of deaths.

AMF
8th Jan 2007, 10:12
Glad to see you admit it at last! :cool: :D


“We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading its books and the source of its thought … We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf (into Arabic) .”......... Sami al-Jundi, Baath Party founder describing their inspiration in the 1930's.

According to Syrian-born historian Bassam Tibi, this belief was certainly not lost on Aflaq who, as a Sorbonne student, was "full of enthusiasm for Hitler" because "Aflaq saw in Nazi Germany a model for his ideas of a synthesis between nationalism and socialism." (Miller and Mylroie 1990, 85).

But, Aflaq was not the only thinker whose fondness for European authoritarian ideologies would influence Iraq’s destiny. Sami Shawkat - who as Minister of Education under the monarchy was to have a far-reaching impact on Iraq’s educational system - illustrated his admiration of Fascism when he declared in 1939:

"If Mussolini did not have tens of thousands of Black-Shirts who had excelled in the profession of death, he would not have been able to place the crown of the Roman Emperors upon Victor Emmanuel." (Makiya, 177)."

From the information transmitted by Dr. Fritz Grobba, the German envoy in Baghdad, on the connections he had in 1937-1939 with people in the Iraqi government, we learn that even leaders considered supporters of the British, such as Nuri al-Sa'id, strove to establish ties with Nazi Germany and adopted Nazi educational methods for schooling Iraqi youth. Nuri al-Sa'id agreed, according to Grobba, to send to Germany, on the eve of the war, a delegation from the al-Futuwwa youth organization to participate in a conference of the German Nazi party.

Senior officials in the Iraqi Ministry of Education, such as Sami Shawkat and Fadil al-Jamali, sustained firm ties with Grobba and frustrated an initiative by the Iraqi security services to deport German teachers who were spreading Nazi propaganda in Baghdadi high schools. They also maintained a pro-Nazi nationalist organization. From this information it also emerges that the Arab intelligentsia in Iraq was generally supportive of Nazi Germany and hostile to the Jews.

Pan-Arabism was to be the new ideological source of unity and loyalty. Schools and the army became the means through which to implant it, and a series of military coups gave the officers the chance to act in its name. The result was an abortive revolt against Britain in 1941. And the legacy of the revolt is still apparent in the next two generations of Iraqi officers that led to the regime of Saddam Hussein.

It was in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq where Arab racism attained its most vulgar form, truly on par with the neo-Nazi philosophies of today’s white supremacists. A prime example is the tract by Saddam’s maternal uncle, Khairallah Tulfah, entitled “Three Whom God Should Not have Created: Persians, Jews and Flies”. Tulfah’s writings were widely distributed in Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s rule.



Want more?.....plenty where that comes from.

slim_slag
8th Jan 2007, 10:19
AMF,

What I think you may be having a problem with is understanding what the actual numbers mean.

Three figures are given, roughly 400000, 650000 and 950000. The upper and lower figures give the range bewteen which the true figure lies with 95% certainty.

The 650000 figure is the most likely number, not neccessarily the actual number. There is a 2.5% chance that the actual number is below 400000 and a 2.5% chance that the actual number is above 950000.

If you were to repeat the survey using the well accepted methodology, you would be 95% certain that the most likely figure would still fall between 400000 and 950000.

That's what the figures mean. Attacking the huge range as a failure of methodology shows you don't understand the methodology.

OneWorld22
8th Jan 2007, 10:29
More on the Lancet.......

ref: Wikipedia

In a Democracy Now! interview, study co-author Les Roberts defended the methodology by noting that the method is the standard used in poor countries, that the same method was used by the US government following wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and that the US government's Smart Initiative program is spending millions of dollars per year teaching NGOs and UN workers how to use the same cluster method for estimating mortality rates.

The article's authors defended their research, claiming that their work was the only active study of the death toll, and that this is more accurate than passively counting reported deaths. [26] They cited a number of factors that could lead to smaller figures from other sources; for example, the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death. They claim that the sources of bias in their study push the figure down.
In a letter to The Age, epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the study's "methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously." [48]

A Reuters article reports on other researchers, epidemiologists, professors, and physicians who have defended the study. For example; this quote from the article;
"Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston.
Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology in the University of Oxford, described the 2006 report as "statistically valid" in an interview on BBC television.

Dr. Ben Coghlan, an epidemiologist in Melbourne Australia, writes:
"The US Congress should agree: in June this year [2006] they unanimously passed a bill outlining financial and political measures to promote relief, security and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bill was based in part on the veracity of a survey conducted by the Burnet Institute (Melbourne) and the International Rescue Committee (New York) that found 3.9 million Congolese had perished because of the conflict. This survey used the same methodology as Burnham and his associates. It also passed the scrutiny of a UK parliamentary delegation and the European Union." [51] Burnham is one of the authors of both of the Lancet studies.

Washington Post article quote:
"The numbers do add up," said Daniel Davies, a stockbroker and blogger for the Guardian. He argued that the sample of 1,849 households interviewed by Iraqi doctors working for the JHU research team was as large as that used by political pollsters.

An October 16, 2006 MediaLens article quotes many health experts, epidemiologists, biostatistics experts, polling experts, etc. who approve of the Lancet study and methodology. [52] For example:
John Zogby, whose New York-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began, said: "The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do." ...

Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said: "They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results."

In an October 31, 2006 MediaLens article, Lancet study co-author Les Roberts responded to several questions on the report, concluding that:
"Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's '30,000 more or less' figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq." [53]

AMF
8th Jan 2007, 10:31
Yes I'm sure John Hopkins are waiting with baited breath for AMF, the man who knows it all, to fall from the sky and tell them where they've been going woring :rolleyes:

From the Introduction of the report:
So it's not "10 houses down some street" as you arrogantly dismiss but 12,801 individuals in 47 clusters. Quite a large sample.
This applies to you and others AMF..

"Quite a large sample" ....not according to 10 experts anyone reading this can web-search for every one you provide saying it's valid. An admitted 50% margin of error...unheard of. No demographics. No peer review of details..."destroyed". Like I said, anyone here can google experts questioning it, look at THEIR critisizms, and make up their own minds as to it's validity. I'd invite anyone to dig deeper as to the potential political agenda those doing the surveying and publishing as well.

You base your argument on an unproven premise...numbers you like... because that "survey" isnt even close to being proven, let alone marginally corroborated.

655,000.....but could also be almost a million?.....or maybe 600,000 less, make that 300,000.

"These are are figures, except we may have missed a pile of bodies that could fill Minneapolis.

AMF
8th Jan 2007, 10:34
AMF,
What I think you may be having a problem with is understanding what the actual numbers mean.
Three figures are given, roughly 400000, 650000 and 950000. The upper and lower figures give the range bewteen which the true figure lies with 95% certainty.
The 650000 figure is the most likely number, not neccessarily the actual number. There is a 2.5% chance that the actual number is below 400000 and a 2.5% chance that the actual number is above 950000.
If you were to repeat the survey using the well accepted methodology, you would be 95% certain that the most likely figure would still fall between 400000 and 950000.
That's what the figures mean. Attacking the huge range as a failure of methodology shows you don't understand the methodology.

Yup I don't know a thing, except exactly what you've told me. Tell me....since you seem to know and neglected to mention it here... what is the usual margin of error? Sampling size? Are demographics provided?

OneWorld22
8th Jan 2007, 10:50
I'd invite anyone to dig deeper as to the potential political agenda those doing the surveying and publishing as well.

And likewise AMF, question the obvious agenda of War supporters like yourself you ignore the fact that this methodology has been used frequently before in other war zones and was unquestioned....Why was this? Why did the US and British Govt not question the estimates in the Congo and Kosovo?

Your dismissals of these deaths is a disgrace. You're hysterically trying like others, to dismiss any report that states what every fool can see, that the death rate as a result of this war (based on lies), is appalling and the Iraqi civilians have suffered terribly becuase of it. As well as the 3000 fellow service men and women killed and tens of thousands more injured.

But please, go on trying to justify this sham. You are a shrinking minority at this stage, all the justifications and reasons given made of sand now crumbling before your eyes, Bush and his administration now a lame duck, Blair's legacy to be forever tarnished by this, the massive financial cost which future Americans will be paying for and the reputation and name of the United Statres, my country which I served, in tatters. And of Course Iraq in turmnoil.

You're desperatly running in circles, clutching at any straw you can find to try and move the argument aways from the central tenet. The only thing is, it's blatantly transparent.

slim_slag
8th Jan 2007, 10:56
Yup I don't know a thing, except exactly what you've told me.Well at least that's a start :)Tell me....since you seem to know and neglected to mention it here... what is the usual margin of error?If you mean confidence interval, the confidence interval usually given in these medical journals (as others) is 95%. I did actually mention that in my post :)Sampling size? Are demographics provided?You would be better getting this information from the horses mouth so to speak, and your questions with answers are all covered in the actual article, which can be found as a PDF on the MIT site (http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf) (MIT cooperated in the survey).

ORAC
8th Jan 2007, 12:06
Iraq Body Count: (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php?PHPSESSID=dafc565a99547a4c2fffff89b60007ca) Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 October 2006
Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates
Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty

Summary

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;

Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;

Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;

Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;

The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

Incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;

bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;

the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;

an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

slim_slag
8th Jan 2007, 14:06
As is often the case in studies published in extremely reputable journals like The Lancet, the most effective criticism of the study is found in the study itself. This study appears to be no different.

I like the way the study is first said by iraq body count to 'imply' things, and only a few paragraphs down these become 'assertions'.

I think it's interesting that if you google 'iraqbodycount methodology' the page in question doesn't actually appear on the first page of results. One has to dig down, and this is not how some on here work. If one does dig into the site one sees why they are trying to hide it :)

All in all a bit Mickey Mouse. Anybody got anything better?

barit1
8th Jan 2007, 14:22
That's because your spin is complete bollocks.
...
However the death rate for young black males in Philadelphia is 11% higher than for young soldiers in Iraq, and I have seen that argument made on here.
Unbelievable.

The case can easily be made that there are far more dangerous domestic voluntary activities than being a US soldier in Iraq. I'm merely pointing out that our casualty rate over there is meaningless unless placed in a homeland context; and when we look at the big picture, it's hardly headline-worthy. :uhoh:

ORAC
8th Jan 2007, 14:26
How about the much larger UNDP survey which found a much lower number of war-related deaths in an overlapping period to the Lancet estimate? Much closer, in fact, to the IBC estimate for the same period....

UNDP: (http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm) Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004.

War-related Death

The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths....

slim_slag
8th Jan 2007, 15:02
As I said, the best criticism I have seen of the Lancet paper is found in the Lancet paper itself. It also disusses 'competitive' estimates.

Appendix C "Other Accounts of Mortality in Iraq" found on page 16 of the PDF I cited earlier.

What it has to say about the UNDP report.

Working for the U.N. Development Program, the highly regarded Norwegian researcher Jon Pederson led a survey that recorded between 18,000 and 29,000 violent deaths during the first year of occupation. The survey9 was not focused on deaths, but asked about them over the course of lengthy interviews that focused on access to services.While this was more than twice the rate recorded by IBC at the time, Pederson expressed concern for the completeness and quality of the data in a newspaper interview last year. The surveys reported in The Lancet were focused solely on recording deaths and count about two and a half times as many excess deaths from all causes over the same period.

The newspaper interview mentioned was given to the Wall Street Journal and does not appear to be on their website which is a shame as it would have been interesting to read.

I read through the UNDP report and unlike the Lancet Survey does not set out to estimate deaths which might be attributed to the war.

mcgoo
19th Jan 2007, 22:10
Apparently Saddam is still alive:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/382178/saddam_the_unseen_video/

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2016, 21:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein#Execution

Lonewolf_50
29th Dec 2016, 21:17
You are a decade late.

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2016, 22:36
I wanted to add it to the Saddam thread to highlight that it was ten years since his execution - but I couldn't find the Saddam thread.

TWT
29th Dec 2016, 23:59
This one ?

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/257609-saddam-hussein.html

It's one of the few Saddam/Iraq threads that haven't been locked

Lantern10
30th Dec 2016, 00:26
Well them 10 years flew by. Must be getting old.

ZFT
30th Dec 2016, 01:53
I wanted to add it to the Saddam thread to highlight that it was ten years since his execution - but I couldn't find the Saddam thread.

Much improved country since Blair/Bush involvment and his execution NOT

Rush2112
30th Dec 2016, 02:55
Hindsight is a wonderful gift, but those two cretins have really dropped us all in it with their ill-judged and unjustifiable actions.

RR22
30th Dec 2016, 03:56
Yet they* "The West" seem to want the same change from "strong" secular/tolerant regimes in Libya, Syria,
and other "Arab Spring" places learning nothing from Afghanistan and what the proxy fight there spawned ,

what am I missing that makes the repetition understandable and honorable ?
(apart from the IQ points:}).

One could impute all kinds of horrible motives, so what is the real reason, "we" are the good guys after all.

*I am not by inclination a commie, just a phrase.