This is topic saddam dead? in forum Politics/Religion/Current Affairs at The Geek Culture Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000075

Posted by stevenback7 (Member # 5114) on December 29, 2006, 20:11:
 
Is saddam dead yet ???

saddam
 
Posted by maximile (Member # 3446) on December 29, 2006, 20:15:
 
He is, apparently.

Someone should film some bumpy, blurry footage of a staged hanging, and upload it to Blip or Revver as "leaked film" of his hanging. Make some money from the ads.
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on December 29, 2006, 23:04:
 
It was filmed so it should be surfacing anytime soon. So when do Bush and Blair hang?
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on December 30, 2006, 00:34:
 
It's ironic that they hanged him for a massacre that took place in 1982, when he was "Our man in the gulf". For years afterwards, he enjoyed the warm (and military) support of the USA and Australia.
 
Posted by Chesty (Member # 2460) on December 30, 2006, 09:29:
 
It's ironic that people have never heard "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Nation-to-Nation relations are not the same as those on the third grade playground.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on December 30, 2006, 12:22:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesty:
Nation-to-Nation relations are not the same as those on the third grade playground.

You're right there, third-graders typically display far greater maturity.
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on December 30, 2006, 12:26:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
It's ironic that they hanged him for a massacre that took place in 1982, when he was "Our man in the gulf". For years afterwards, he enjoyed the warm (and military) support of the USA and Australia.

Well, look at it this way. Rather than hanging him for any of his alleged large scale atrocities, they chose to take him down with a relatively small domestic crime. The 150 of so people he killed for that crime pale in comparison to hundreds killed every day since the US illegal invasion.
 
Posted by JulioC (Member # 4370) on December 30, 2006, 13:00:
 
Ill skip the usual list of stuff Saddam got from US and Europe, weaponry and chemicals, and the list of dicators supported past and present by the West, even the US bodycount in Iraq surpassing 9-11 numbers and the Iraqi deaths 2000-short to surpassing the Saddam year's bodycount, or even the everlasting Shiite/Sunni grudge that Saddam kept in check and US cant and say this-

Its good seeing someone take out one of the biggest foreign policy errors in the Middle East. Im just surprised it took 3 presidencies for someone to do so.

If anyone deserved hanging, Saddam is that person.

Im going to wait and see how the Iraq situation is in the next 2 years before giving an opinion on it.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on December 30, 2006, 13:10:
 
The timing's interesting...

quote:
From CNN article:
Eid Al-Adha -- a holiday period that means Feast of the Sacrifice, celebrated by Muslims around the world at the climax of the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. The law does not permit executions to be carried out during religious holidays.

Eid began Saturday for Sunnis and begins Sunday for Shiites. It lasts for four days. Hussein was a Sunni Muslim.

 
So, the execution took place on the first day of Eid if you're Sunni, or the day before Eid if you're Shiite. By tradition, Eid is a time when prisoners are pardoned, no executions take place during the festival.

I bet that does wonders to soothe the sectarian tension in Iraq.
 
Posted by JulioC (Member # 4370) on December 30, 2006, 15:14:
 
Here's the execution, bewarned, he suffocated slowly

Saddam hung http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on December 30, 2006, 15:59:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesty:
It's ironic that people have never heard "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Nation-to-Nation relations are not the same as those on the third grade playground.

I do hope your president has finally learned this lesson too.
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on December 30, 2006, 19:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by JulioC:
Here's the execution, bewarned, he suffocated slowly

Saddam hung http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521

This saddens me greatly.
 
Posted by never_ask_why333 (Member # 6340) on December 30, 2006, 19:53:
 
I can't believe they hung him! How...tasteless. If they really wanted to make him pay for what he did, try putting him in isolation for 50 years. Or forcing him to watch Hayden Christensen...
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on December 30, 2006, 19:56:
 
quote:
Originally posted by never_ask_why333:
I can't believe they hung him! How...tasteless. If they really wanted to make him pay for what he did, try putting him in isolation for 50 years. Or forcing him to watch Hayden Christensen...

As much as I detest the death penalty, I can't say I disagree with it in his case. I guess the thing that would concern me the most is that in the event of a complete gov't handoff to .iq, he might be broken out by insurgents and reinstated. Just how much time and money do you think would be spent on his security? In the end, he was a very bad man, and now he's dead. I can't say that his death necessarily came about by the most just means of trial, but it is done.
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on December 30, 2006, 20:31:
 
Having sat in contemplation for many hours trying to make sense of my emotions and the great disappointment I have in the Hanging of Saddam Hussein; many very good points come to mind, many statements concerning the way of life, and many other emotions that have stemmed from this tragic event.

quote:

Hitler was a very great man. ... he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the First World War. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chiefs of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing.

Greatness, like achievement and reward, has a very positive connotation. Great is simply more than average. It has no ties to good or evil, two terms which are very subjective within themselves. Alfred the Great, after all, given his name as the King at war, was a great at things thought to be horrible by some. Hitler was great. Saddam was great. He provided hope for some, and that within itself is a great feat.

Two commanders, more often than not, can sit as civil as friends and drink tea from the same pot as they are very similar people, though, whose troops would give their life to take that of the opposing commanders. This, and this alone, leads me to a verse of Deuteronomy 12.2-3.

quote:

Having conquered these nations, you must utterly destroy all the sanctuaries where they honored their gods-on the mountains heights, on the hills, and under every leafy tree. Topple their altars, smash their pillars, burn their sacred groves and hew down their idols, and thus blot out all memory of them from these places.


 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on December 30, 2006, 21:00:
 
Jace, what f**king drugs are you on? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on December 31, 2006, 02:29:
 
This is the view from the sharp end.

It makes our self importance and bickering very trivial. Poor bastards. [Frown]
 
Posted by uilleann (Member # 1297) on December 31, 2006, 02:52:
 
It makes you realise that the depth of ruin of the world is still always worse than you realised. And then you realise that whoever wrote that, has TV, Internet access, so if you think where she lives is bad, it's gotta be whole lot worse still somewhere else.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on December 31, 2006, 02:53:
 
"The government that governs best, governs least."

- Thomas Jefferson.


"by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq"

- S Colbert.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on December 31, 2006, 03:15:
 
quote:
December 30, 2006 12:26
Rather than hanging him for any of his alleged large scale atrocities.... The 150 of so people he killed for that crime pale in comparison ....

[shake head]   Alleged Large Scale Atrocities? Obviously "alleged" like Hitler's "alleged" killing of a few million Jews. Or the "alleged" massacres in Sudan?

[shake head]   The 150 he killed pale in comparison....?     "Everyone" knows Saddam's regime wiped out as many as 300,000 Iraqis. If you're going to be wrong by more than a quarter of a million dead, why not say Saddam was framed for killing the other 148 people?

quote:
December 30, 2006 00:34
(Saddam) enjoyed the warm (and military) support of the USA and Australia.

Iraq's best jet fighter,Mirage F-1, was purchased from France.

The Iraqi army was also well-equipped with (what some considered to be the best artillery weapon in the world) the French-made 155 mm howitzer.

The vast majority of Iraq's air force consisted of nearly 200 Russian-made jet fighters including MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, Sukhoi SU-22 and Sukhoi SU-25 interceptors.

The Iraqi army was equipped with hundreds of Russian artillery pieces, rocket launchers, BMP armored vehicles, T-55 and T-72 tanks and Scud missiles.

Iraq reportedly owed Russia over $4 billion for arms purchases in the past 20 years.

It defies logic that Iraq was armed with French and Russian weapons and owed billions of dollars to France and Russia as a result of being "supported by the US and Australia."

quote:
December 30, 2006 13:10
The timing's interesting....     So, the execution took place on ... Eid.... By tradition, Eid is a time when prisoners are pardoned, no executions take place during the festival.

December 30, 2006 00:34
It's ironic that they hanged him for a massacre that took place in 1982.

It looks more like someone wanted to "make a statement" -- Irony is irrelevant.
  1. Who were the victims? -- Shiites. Where's the concern for dead Kurds?
     
  2. How many were killed? -- 148 dead? Where's the concern for the other quarter of a million that were murdered by Saddam's regime (to include 80,000 Kurds)?
     
  3. How long ago did it happen? -- Over 20 years ago (1982). Was an old event used to display a policy of "never forget" (always get revenge)?
     
  4. When was the execution performed? -- Within one day of a festival where pardons are granted and executions suspended? Apparently a "double insult" to Sunnis because the execution was during the festival where executions should not occur.

    Message: Revenge before peace and religious conventions.

Bottom line: 98% of Iraqis may want peace, but those with "power" (RPG's, machine guns, plastic explosives, etc) want revenge and more power, and they gladly let everyone know it.   [Frown]
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on December 31, 2006, 14:19:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
[QUOTE]
Bottom line: 98% of Iraqis may want peace, but those with "power" (RPG's, machine guns, plastic explosives, etc) want revenge and more power, and they gladly let everyone know it.

ASM,

Could you explain this last statement more clearly? It appears at odds with one fundamental conservative principle.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108

You haven't gone Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton on us, have you?

CP
 
Posted by The Explainer (Member # 5716) on December 31, 2006, 14:30:
 
Mr 65816 believes that proof of other nations assisting Iraq somehow disproves the assertion that the USA was also providing assistance.

Mr 65816 is obviously unaware that US support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war is a matter of public record.

quote:
From Wikipedia article:

"pathogenic" (meaning disease producing), "toxigenic" (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[14]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.

...

"UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs."


Mr 65816 is also presumably unaware of this friendly meeting between Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld, in December 1983.
 -
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on December 31, 2006, 18:56:
 
By golly gosh ASM, I see it all now. It wasn't our fault, we didn't do it, we weren't there. And 98% of Iraqis support us.

Thanks for putting me right.
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on January 01, 2007, 06:47:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
By golly gosh ASM, I see it all now. It wasn't our fault, we didn't do it, we weren't there. And 98% of Iraqis support us.

Thanks for putting me right.

Of course Cali. It's the 2% that keep blowing the shit out of us.
 
Posted by Mel (Member # 3553) on January 01, 2007, 16:17:
 
Now who is going to double-park in front of Kramer's car?
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on January 02, 2007, 10:52:
 
Part I: "Well" Does Not Mean $400,000 of Weapons per Person
quote:
December 31, 2006 14:19
Could you explain this last statement more clearly? It appears at odds with one fundamental conservative principle.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[shake head]   Do you really believe that anything less than rocket propelled grenades (RPG), machine guns, and plastic explosives is "defenseless" or "poorly armed"?

Perhaps you believe that the typical "well-armed" colonist of 1800 in the US owned three or four "18-pounder" cannons.
 
 -

IT IS ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR COMMON CITIZENS TO OWN AND MAINTAIN WEAPONS DESIGNED FOR SIEGE OPERATIONS.

Perhaps you only feel safe when you can drive around with 500 pounds of high explosives packed in your car.

How many anti-tank missiles do you own for home defense? How much did they cost you?

Perhaps you're simply unaware that rifles and pistols are "inexpensive" firearms and have been used in warfare.
 

Part II: You Don't Support the Guys That Held Your Citizens Hostage
quote:
December 31, 2006 14:30
Mr 65816 believes that proof of other nations assisting Iraq somehow disproves the assertion that the USA was also providing assistance.

Mr 65816 is obviously unaware that US support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war is a matter of public record.

In 1979 Iran took 66 Americans hostage in the American Diplomatic mission in Tehran. Hostages were held for 444 days (until January 20, 1981).

If you can't figure out why the US would back a country that fought against Iran, then you are woefully lacking analytical skills.
 

Part III: 2% of 25 Million Is "A Lot"
quote:
January 01, 2007 06:47
Of course Cali. It's the 2% that keep blowing the shit out of us.

Iraq: population -- about 25 million
      25 million x 2% = 500,000

500,000 is more than three times the number of US troops in Iraq (about 134,000).

Given: The Iraqis have anti-tank weapons, heavy machine-guns, RPGs, and military grade high explosives.

Question 1: Are the people of Iraq Totally STUPID?

Question 2: If you outnumber an enemy, what is the benefit of killing thousands your own people with car bombs in public places and using "death squads" to kill more of your own people?

If you answered "YES" to Question 1, then it's understandable that:

Perhaps "one of you geniuses" can explain the military advantage to killing one's own people instead of "enemies."

Of course, if the "insurgents" (terrorists) see the common people as enemies then it makes perfect sense to kill thousands of unarmed people with car bombs and death-squads.
 
Posted by The Explainer (Member # 5716) on January 02, 2007, 11:31:
 
One of the simplest logical proofs is of the form...

All X are also Y.
A is X.
Therefor A is also Y

quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
If you can't figure out why the US would back a country that fought against Iran, then you are woefully lacking analytical skills.

Mr 65816 believes the reasons for US support for Iraq are so obvious that only someone "woefully lacking analytical skills" could doubt it.

Mr 65816 initially denied US support for Iraq.

Therefor Mr 65816 is "woefully lacking analytical skills".
 
Posted by Mel (Member # 3553) on January 02, 2007, 11:36:
 
All-in-all, this hanging changes absolutely nothing.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on January 02, 2007, 13:03:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mel:
All-in-all, this hanging changes absolutely nothing.

Changed quite a bit for Saddam I expect.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on January 02, 2007, 15:38:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer (January 02, 2007 11:31):
blah blah blah .....

"The Explainer," why don't you finish the following sentences to support your arguments:

quote:
The US should have supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq War even though Iran held Americans hostage for more than a year and continued to espouse anti-American rhetoric after their release because __________.
 
quote:
Even though the US supported Iraq, Saddam went $4 billion in debt to Russia and built his military almost exclusively with French and Russian weapons because __________.

 
Posted by The Explainer (Member # 5716) on January 02, 2007, 16:59:
 
Mr 65816 seems to have interpreted my previous posting as a statement of support for Iran.

No such support was expressed.

I simply pointed out some logical and factual errors in his posting, i.e.

1. Mr 65816 asserted that the USA didn't support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

I provided proof that they did.

2. Mr 65816 attempted to prove his assertion at (1) by listing other countries which have also supported Iraq.

I pointed out that this is flawed logic.

3. Mr 65816 stated that the reasons for US support for Iraq were so obvious only someone "woefully lacking analytical skills" could doubt them.

I agreed with him, and referred to his assertion at (1).


In his most recent posting, Mr 65816 seems torn between justifying US support for Iraq (his statements about US hostages) and denying it (once again listing other countries support).

This may be a carefully crafted ploy in support of his assertion at (3).
 
Posted by The-Tech (Member # 2506) on January 02, 2007, 18:32:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
One of the simplest logical proofs is of the form...

All X are also Y.
A is X.
Therefor A is also Y

Mr 65816 initially denied US support for Iraq.

Therefor Mr 65816 is "woefully lacking analytical skills".

Not to make the grave mistake of defending ASM in a public forum but unless I misread his original statement he was saying that the US and Australia were not the only countries who provided military support to Iraq. I didn't interpret any denial ... until he started defending a position he didn't take I thought I understood his point ...

[shake head]

Oh and your proof should be

Any one who denies Us Support for Iraq is delusional
Mr 65816 initially denied US support for Iraq.
Mr 65816 is delusional

Dave
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on January 02, 2007, 20:36:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816 (December 31, 2006, 03:15):

It defies logic that Iraq was armed with French and Russian weapons and owed billions of dollars to France and Russia as a result of being "supported by the US and Australia."

I assume this is the statement that was interpreted as:
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
1. Mr 65816 asserted that the USA didn't support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

[shake head]   My statement was not "the US never supported Iraq." However, you're obsessed with reaching that conclusion.

Since you're "the explainer," explain how Iraq was billions of dollars in debt to Russia and had a military heavily armed with French and Russian weapons even though it was "supported by the US."

Explain how much of an advantage Saddam had "from US support" in 1991 when he was kicked out of Kuwait.

Maybe US support to Saddam was trivial in comparison to support from France and Russia?

quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
Mr 65816 believes the reasons for US support for Iraq are so obvious that only someone "woefully lacking analytical skills" could doubt it.

What do you believe the US government's attitude toward Iran after it had taken American hostages in 1979? Jubilant? Loving? Americans were still held hostage when the Iran-Iraq War started in September 1980.

What was the primary effect of US support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War?

Just Curious: Who won the Iran-Iraq War?
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on January 02, 2007, 20:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Part I: "Well" Does Not Mean $400,000 of Weapons per Person
quote:
December 31, 2006 14:19
Could you explain this last statement more clearly? It appears at odds with one fundamental conservative principle.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[shake head]   Do you really believe that anything less than rocket propelled grenades (RPG), machine guns, and plastic explosives is "defenseless" or "poorly armed"?

Perhaps you believe that the typical "well-armed" colonist of 1800 in the US owned three or four "18-pounder" cannons.
 

No ASM,

I did not ask you to guess at what I believed. I know what I believe.

I asked, politely, for a clarification on your post, and posted a to an NRA discussion that actually suggests the Second Amendment declares people should have such a substantial aresenal.

The views of the NRA, which sponsors an overwhelming number of conservative candidates for political office seem at odds with your point of view.

Sincerely,

Colonel Panic
 
Posted by The Explainer (Member # 5716) on January 02, 2007, 21:53:
 
Mr 65816's obsession with Russia and France continues.

Looking at things in chronological order, we find:

quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
It's ironic that they hanged him for a massacre that took place in 1982, when he was "Our man in the gulf". For years afterwards, he enjoyed the warm (and military) support of the USA and Australia.

To which Mr 65816 responded with a long list of examples of Russian and French assistance to Iraq, and concluded with...
quote:
It defies logic that Iraq was armed with French and Russian weapons and owed billions of dollars to France and Russia as a result of being "supported by the US and Australia."
Mr 65816 clearly intended this as a refutation of Mr Druid's posting, which led me to conclude that he was denying US support for Iraq. No other interpretation of his comments would serve as a refutation of Mr Druid's original assertion. If it was not intended as a refutation, then it can safely be described as an irrelevant rant.

Note also that Mr 65816 didn't challenge my interpretation until prompted by Mr Tech, who provided a convenient face-saving way for Mr 65816 to avoid admitting he'd gotten his facts wrong.


And, to answer some of Mr 65816's questions...
quote:
Since you're "the explainer," explain how Iraq was billions of dollars in debt to Russia and had a military heavily armed with French and Russian weapons even though it was "supported by the US."
This is simple.
Those other countries also provided support.
Note: This in no way detracts from the fact that the USA was also providing support.

quote:
Explain how much of an advantage Saddam had "from US support" in 1991 when he was kicked out of Kuwait.
At that time Iraq no longer had US support, although as this timeline makes clear, US support continued until the day before the invasion of Kuwait.
 
Posted by The-Tech (Member # 2506) on January 03, 2007, 03:22:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:


If it was not intended as a refutation, then it can safely be described as an irrelevant rant.

Most political discourse can be safely described as irrelevant rants

quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
prompted by Mr Tech, who provided a convenient face-saving way for Mr 65816 to avoid admitting he'd gotten his facts wrong.

Mr 65816 also received convenient face saving ways from France and Russia therefore I didn't do it [Big Grin]

Dave

A Fanatic is one that can't change his mind and won't change the subject --- Churchill
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on January 03, 2007, 04:51:
 
The Explainer and The Tech welcome aboard the bus, I'm Ty Pennington and the makeover starts here! Together with our team of extremely camp and overemotional interior decorators, you will have the opportunity of giving ASM a brand new mind in seven days! Wake up ASM we are sending you to Disneyland, but no you are there already!

Well just look at it! from the outside there are no worry lines or creases, it looks kinda sweet in a backwoods country boy fashion, so let's lift the lid and have a peek inside. Oh my! So sparsely furnished, yet so cluttered at the same time! Was there no room to install the logic unit? ... and look through there, I've never seen thought processes in such a mess! Ugh! picking them up I can see they have all coagulated into one eternal, relentless, speed fuelled, psychotic rant. Here's the UN muddled up with France, Russia, Islam, and Saddam! What a horrible mess, but aah! this corner over here looks kinda cool, I think it must be some kind of shrine as everything is sort of gold and shiny and just awesome. At the bottom there's Captain America, and other comic book heroes, and looking up I see some Rambo movies, the Republican Party and GWB, and up at the top the square jawed heroic American Army crowned by the US Marine Corps surrounded by the hardest angels and toughest cherubs you'll ever see. But look out there in the yard, he's just thrown away that bookshelf with the lessons of history, and there's boxes and boxes full of inconvenient facts. All this has left no roofing to protect him from Fox News, and the entire supporting structure has become infested with Rush Rot and Creeping Coulter. Whoops! can you feel the floor move, there are no foundations here, it's just not connected to the world at all!

The first rule is don't try to argue with him as he pays no attention to trivialities like logic, facts, or anything resembling ordered thought. He can and does keep up his scattergun posts until everyone gets bored, and thus gets the satisfaction of imagining that he has won an argument. If you bother reading his posts at all, just be amused by them, as they satirise themselves. Most of us here just don't, as after a while they all merge together, and are really so very boringly predictable.

In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to the Bhagdad Burning blog. She has since then made another post which summarises the sleaziness, misinformation, and incompetence that surrounded Saddam's execution, and out of which only he emerged with any credit or dignity. It is almost as depressingly predictable as one of ASM's posts, that something that should have marked an end, has instead further increased division, and for some has burnished an aura of heroism around Saddam's memory.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on January 03, 2007, 06:11:
 
We should put together an ASM beginners FAQ. Well not so much FAQ but a "read this first" page before anyone can respong to an ASM comment.

Any time anyone quotes ASM the UBB code should be set up to take the person to a page explaining ASM with a "I understand and want to proceed" link at the bottom of the page.

Think of the time this would save some of the regulars.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on January 03, 2007, 06:17:
 
*cough* AI *cough*
 
Posted by baker_nat (Member # 116) on January 03, 2007, 06:38:
 
My main complaint for the saddam thing, is that they should have just shot him on sight.

Why stage a mock trial in the very country thats been bombing the shit out of yours, and then deport him to Iraq, just to hang him saying : we shouldnt interfere?! Err... 2-3 years war isnt interfearing?!

Plucking the leader out of a country, and then taking him back to the country just to hang him seens to be a lot of trouble to go to.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on January 03, 2007, 08:56:
 
quote:
Originally posted by baker_nat:
My main complaint for the saddam thing, is that they should have just shot him on sight.

Why stage a mock trial in the very country thats been bombing the shit out of yours, and then deport him to Iraq, just to hang him saying : we shouldnt interfere?! Err... 2-3 years war isnt interfearing?!

Plucking the leader out of a country, and then taking him back to the country just to hang him seens to be a lot of trouble to go to.

Huh? Saddam's trial was in Iraq last I checked. The US government generally tried to avoid directly interfering with it as part of that whole self-sufficient government goal. Most people's issue with the trial is that it didn't really seem to be the type of thing the US would want to instill.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on January 03, 2007, 09:20:
 
Unfortunately Sxepto that was only the thinnest veneer. The US were responsible for his custody during the trial, and funded set up and trained the court. They opted to hand him over to this, rather than to an international tribunal, because of their dogmatic dislike of the international court and international law, and presumably because they wanted him executed rather than imprisoned for life. A wrong and silly decision in my view, but we cannot abrogate our responsibility for this.
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on January 03, 2007, 10:21:
 
quote:
Originally posted by baker_nat:
My main complaint for the saddam thing, is that they should have just shot him on sight.

Then then should have moved on and shot GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Guiliani, Tony Blair and for good measure Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on January 03, 2007, 11:58:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
The Explainer and The Tech welcome aboard the bus, I'm Ty Pennington and the makeover starts here! Together with our team of extremely camp and overemotional interior decorators, you will have the opportunity of giving ASM a brand new mind in seven days!

Bravo Calli ! [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]
This one's going into my "Best of the internet" file.
 
Posted by Mel (Member # 3553) on January 03, 2007, 12:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mel:
All-in-all, this hanging changes absolutely nothing.

Changed quite a bit for Saddam I expect.
Not really - he was already in a hole under the ground when they found him.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on January 03, 2007, 13:35:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Unfortunately Sxepto that was only the thinnest veneer. The US were responsible for his custody during the trial, and funded set up and trained the court. They opted to hand him over to this, rather than to an international tribunal, because of their dogmatic dislike of the international court and international law, and presumably because they wanted him executed rather than imprisoned for life. A wrong and silly decision in my view, but we cannot abrogate our responsibility for this.

The US certainly can't deny a certain level of responsibility for the way things have turned out. I was just pointing out that baker_nat was in error regarding the belief that the US put Saddam on trial. It was a bit more convoluted than that.

I also found Italy's response rather interesting. There are some definite parallels to the death of Mussolini. I'm not sure a global ban on the death penalty is going to be widely supported outside Europe, and possibly North America, though.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on January 03, 2007, 15:10:
 
Some of you are very openly against the death penalty, case in point Saddam Hussein.

So far one of the main comments about Saddam is "he kept the peace." However, it's generally believed that he killed as many as 300,000 Iraqis.

How many thousands of people should the ruler of a country be allowed to kill "for keeping peace"?

I ask because there are so many that didn't believe Saddam had done enough to be removed from power.

Then there's the massacres in Darfur, but no one demands the execution or removal of their leaders.

If you meekly accept the slaughter of hundreds of thousands by corrupt governments, why do you complain so loudly when one man with well-known "crimes against humanity" is executed?
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on January 03, 2007, 20:35:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
quote:
Originally posted by baker_nat:
My main complaint for the saddam thing, is that they should have just shot him on sight.

Then then should have moved on and shot GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Guiliani, Tony Blair and for good measure Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly
Damnit, Capn' Vic,

That statement is so typical of what pisses me off about this board.

Those suckers should be hanged, not shot. Hanged! At halftime of the US NFL Superbowl. And all you want to see is what? (Excuse me for an ASM moment here) some Janet Jackson titty?

Freakin' unbelievable. GMAFB! Perfect reason right there why Labatts should be restricted.

Oh, alright, in respect to Canada being some second cousin to England you could draw and quarter Blair at a "Footy" game or hockey match. But that's it.

Plus, you forgot Sean Hannity? What are you some soft-on-crime moron here?

Indignantly yours,

Colonel Panic
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on January 03, 2007, 20:40:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Colonel Panic:

That statement is so typical of what pisses me off about this board.

Those suckers should be hanged, not shot. Hanged! At halftime of the US NFL Superbowl. And all you want to see is what? (Excuse me for an ASM moment here) some Janet Jackson titty?
[/QB]

I would have said hanged....but we all know you can't hang Ann Coulter becuase her adam's apple would snap the rope and most of the others would die either because the don't have a spine to sever......so I went with shooting.
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on January 03, 2007, 21:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
[QUOTE]]I would have said hanged....but we all know you can't hang Ann Coulter becuase her adam's apple would snap the rope

I get so confused when people talk about Ann Coulter on the TV.

CP
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on January 04, 2007, 11:23:
 
Part I: Cap'n Vic and Colonel Panic are Sociopaths
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
quote:
Originally posted by ____:
My main complaint for the saddam thing, is that they should have just shot him on sight.

Then should have moved on and shot GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Guiliani, Tony Blair and for good measure Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly
quote:
Originally posted by Colonel Panic:

Those suckers should be hanged, not shot. Hanged! At halftime of the US NFL Superbowl.

 

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are media personalities, not federal government officials. Giuliani was mayor of New York and he should be hanged?

Just plain sick. These two have a lot of enthusiasm for hanging the people they named above, but they're comfortably silent about the Janjaweed committing massacres in Darfur, or Kim Jong Il starving the people of North Korea, or the (Arab) "Muslims" that promote car bombings and death squads against common people.
 

Part II: Innuendo and Ignoring Evidence to the Contrary
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
... in 1982. For years afterwards, he enjoyed the warm (and military) support of the USA and Australia.

This is propaganda. It is founded on treating France, Russia, and Iran as nearly nonexistent or irrelevant.

quote:
ASM: Explain how much of an advantage Saddam had "from US support" in 1991 when he was kicked out of Kuwait.

Originally posted by The Explainer:
At that time Iraq no longer had US support, ... US support continued until the day before the invasion of Kuwait.

Analysis: Once Saddam did something that threatened world economies and world stability, the US treated Saddam as an enemy and withdrew support.

In contrast, France, Russia, and China did not treat Saddam as an enemy, in spite of his invasion of Kuwait. Many violations of UN resolutions against Iraq after 1991 involved French and Russian-made weapons.
 

Part III: "The US is Evil Because It Supported Saddam"

The people who like to criticize the US for supporting Saddam (instead of criticizing France, Russia, or China) rely on the following methods:
  1. Ignore US Motivation for Actions
  2. Ignore Magnitude of US Actions
  3. Ignore the Time When US Actions Occurred

Motivation:

Magnitude:

When Things Happened:

 


© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0