Saddam Hussein Hanged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

Really, how many of those in Guantanmo bay has been convicted guilty of some crime? I guess you can call them ordinary Joes or ordinary people.

---

I guess you had to change the subject since you didn't like where the argument was going. Also note the prisoners in Gitmo have been visited by various press organizations and the whole operation has been open to inspection by the UN and the free world's press organizations. What to do with them is a thorny issue because terrorists don't fit into nice neat labels as innocent or guilty. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorists or so you would tell me. The truth is most of these people held were caught in a war zone as combantants not wearing uniforms of a nation which signed the Geneva Conventions. Which means they are not POW's and covered as such. Those in Gitmo were running around Afghanistan, usually non-Afghani, and were captured by troops hunting terrorists in that nation. They were armed, and while I think they should have a trial, they were not you, me and Eki wandering around Helsinki with backpacks either.
I think they should be sent BACK to Afghanistan to stand trial with a jury of Afghani's and an Afghani judge. Oh yes, one more thing, if they don't belong in Afghanistan, i.e. not Afghani citizens, and were not members of a peaceful NGO, then just why were they in a war zone? It wasn't like the whole world didn't know the 101st Airborne and the like were coming. Dubya warned the Taliban and the UN and NATO backed him when he said Afghanistan either coughed up Al Quiada operatives or lose the country. Again, another petty thug playing poker without a winning hand.....

As for Norway, the Germans just got there first. Both parties wanted iron ore from Northern-Scandinavia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_campaign_in_Norway

"The Allied campaign in Norway during World War II took place from April 1940 until early June 1940. Allied operations were focused in two areas, in northern Norway around Narvik and in central Norway.

The British campaign was coincidentally commenced simultaneously with Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway in Operation Weserübung of April 9."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

They were armed, and while I think they should have a trial, they were not you, me and Eki wandering around Helsinki with backpacks either.

---

It has been claimed that Afghan tribesmen took unarmed civilians captive and sold them to the Americans as terrorists. They made good money.

Eki, it was claimed, but a lot is claimed proof is something else; but the sake of argument I will accept that someone could have been "sold" to the US.I am sure once the US intelligence appratus starting talking to these people, they would be more careful on who they kept. I know you just want to see evil in the West, hence your example of Britain invading Norway at the same time as Germany. One small flaw here, mitigating circumstances say that if the Nazi's are invading, the British and by extension Allies are not invading for the sake of conquering Norway and enslaving it. IT was to keep Hitler out. If the Norwegians thought Britain didn't have Norway's freedom at heart, they wouldn't have been sending their sailors, free ships and part of their royal family to Britain at this time would they? Norway was not fighting the British when they landed I may add. Hardly a hostile conquest Nice try.

No, my question was, is there a democracy (in the true western sense in modern times aka last 100 years) that has invaded another for the purposes of Imperial conquest? You wont find one that is a black and white out and out conquest. The moral of the story is dictators and autocracies such as the Communist nations of the world are always balancing their bellicose ambitions to how much another nation; or in more modern times, the UN, NATO and democracies will tolerate. Saddam could have lost a little face, let the UN in to look at whatever they liked, and he would still be in power and alive today. Ditto for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Cough up Bin Laden, and it isn't the 101st Airborne who are cutting your lawn the next day.....

You might say that this isn't right, but it is the law of the jungle, and dictators play this game thinking soft hearted libreal people such as yourself will protest but do nothing. The problem for the thugs is occasionally someone stands up and says no, and often they have more than enough moral authority, or at least in their own minds enough to play this game. IT isn't like Saddam didn't have options. He cared little for his people, his army was fed, he had his 30 plus palaces. Sanctions were not hurting him personally. He was selling oil out the black market and keeping the money himself. The French were buyers of this oil, so how can they not recuse themselves towards voting for the UN to not allow the US and Britain to enforce the 14 resolutions that Saddam was violating from the first Iraq war? See, when you start playing this game of who is right, you better be critical of all the morally bankrupt players on the board, not just the Americans...

How do you feel about the little tyrant in North Korea? Would you miss him if he was removed by another nation? Look at Iran, a theocratic regime plays the game of democracy with their approved candidates, who all preach from the same hymn book. Even the French are up in arms with the idea of the thugs in Tehran getting Nuclear weapons. Would anyone miss them? When is it right to do something about these two nations? In principle, it should be the UN who does something, but as I have pointed out, it is a feckless organization dependent on the member nations to carry out its dictates. I think 10 years from now, Iran and North Korea will be issues for the world to deal with, or not deal with. Maybe 5, but one thing is for sure, I have little faith that the UN will do anything to stop them, and when they cross the line of decency enough, the world will be whining to the Americans "why didn't you do something?" the same way they did when 1 million tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. The UN didn't stop that little mess either, the Canadian General in charge of the UN mission was told he had to stop it with his brigade of Belgian paratroopers. 400 men were NOT going to stop a genocidal riot covering a nation. That tho, is your beloved UN, who also told General Daillaire that it was a Saturday, and no one who would make a decision would be in til Monday.

When the UN fails, at least NATO and/or the Americans have a little more backbone. They may not do it right, but at least they don't stand by and do nothing.....which is the world you want. Everyone leave each alone.....good plan, until someone doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

How do you feel about the little tyrant in North Korea? Would you miss him if he was removed by another nation? Look at Iran, a theocratic regime plays the game of democracy with their approved candidates, who all preach from the same hymn book. Even the French are up in arms with the idea of the thugs in Tehran getting Nuclear weapons. Would anyone miss them? When is it right to do something about these two nations? In principle, it should be the UN who does something, but as I have pointed out, it is a feckless organization dependent on the member nations to carry out its dictates. I think 10 years from now, Iran and North Korea will be issues for the world to deal with, or not deal with. Maybe 5, but one thing is for sure, I have little faith that the UN will do anything to stop them, and when they cross the line of decency enough, the world will be whining to the Americans "why didn't you do something?" the same way they did when 1 million tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. The UN didn't stop that little mess either, the Canadian General in charge of the UN mission was told he had to stop it with his brigade of Belgian paratroopers. 400 men were NOT going to stop a genocidal riot covering a nation. That tho, is your beloved UN, who also told General Daillaire that it was a Saturday, and no one who would make a decision would be in til Monday.

When the UN fails, at least NATO and/or the Americans have a little more backbone. They may not do it right, but at least they don't stand by and do nothing.....which is the world you want. Everyone leave each alone.....good plan, until someone doesn't.

---

Dont know much about North Korea, but there is no proof that Iran is building nuclear weapon, if they did I would not mind, countries like pakistan and israel has also, not so big difference if iran would have.
Sofar the only who has used nuclear weapons against another country is usa.
Also I dont think usa would have the balls attacking Iran, it's already much bigger task than Grenada, they have a working army, normally usa look very carefully who they attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

How do you feel about the little tyrant in North Korea? Would you miss him if he was removed by another nation? Look at Iran, a theocratic regime plays the game of democracy with their approved candidates, who all preach from the same hymn book. Even the French are up in arms with the idea of the thugs in Tehran getting Nuclear weapons. Would anyone miss them? When is it right to do something about these two nations? In principle, it should be the UN who does something, but as I have pointed out, it is a feckless organization dependent on the member nations to carry out its dictates. I think 10 years from now, Iran and North Korea will be issues for the world to deal with, or not deal with. Maybe 5, but one thing is for sure, I have little faith that the UN will do anything to stop them, and when they cross the line of decency enough, the world will be whining to the Americans "why didn't you do something?" the same way they did when 1 million tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. The UN didn't stop that little mess either, the Canadian General in charge of the UN mission was told he had to stop it with his brigade of Belgian paratroopers. 400 men were NOT going to stop a genocidal riot covering a nation. That tho, is your beloved UN, who also told General Daillaire that it was a Saturday, and no one who would make a decision would be in til Monday.

When the UN fails, at least NATO and/or the Americans have a little more backbone. They may not do it right, but at least they don't stand by and do nothing.....which is the world you want. Everyone leave each alone.....good plan, until someone doesn't.

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

If the Norwegians thought Britain didn't have Norway's freedom at heart, they wouldn't have been sending their sailors, free ships and part of their royal family to Britain at this time would they? Norway was not fighting the British when they landed I may add. Hardly a hostile conquest Nice try.

---

Have you ever heard about Vidkun Quisling? Or the SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment 23 Norge? There is always at least two sides to every story. Nice Try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_SS...ision_Nordland

Quisling was hung by the people of Norway after the war was he not? We wont even think of asking the average Norwegian what he thinks of members of his nation joining the SS. In any democratic nation you can find a bunch of losers willing to join a group to brutalize the people they see as inferior. I stand by the fact no one in Norway was shooting at the British as they landed.

Eki, I can pull out as many examples as you can to prove my points. You wont see any good in any democratic nation when they do anything more than bending over and kissing their own tush while people like Saddam or Hitler do whatever they damned well please. I stand by what I think, which is you will argue anything rather than maybe admit that the people who are seen by the greater majority of most democracies as dictators and thugs. You defend people like Saddam, and for that, I wonder what the hell is wrong with your view of the world. You see everything as moral equivalancy. Anyone who kills is evil and all that rot. Ya damned right killing is wrong, but at what point do you ever decide to defend what you have? You get the Neville Chamberlain award my friend, for looking evil in the eye and denying it exists....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

I wondered why Canada ranked only 18th in the Press Freedom Index, but perhaps it explains Mark in Oshawa's lack of knowledge on historical facts:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

---

My lack of historical facts? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean my FACTS are wrong. We can both look at the same fact and draw our own conclusions.

As for Canada's rating as 18th in press freedom, it never stopped your friends at the UN from listing Canada as the number one nation in the world balancing out standard of living, freedom, social services and democratic principles. We are not number one at the current time, but I am willing to bet we are in the top 10.

Ok, now lets examine your source. Excellent source on the surface. I thank you for showing it to me. However examine the methodology. They interview the members of the press on how free they feel they are. Based on threats, co-operation and so forth. Here is the flaw. You have the members of the press themselves answering the questionaires. IN the US of A, the freedom of press is guarnteed in the Constitution yet they finish up the river. I don't think for a second that any western democracy has an "unfree" press in the traditional sense. Reporters, such as those in Canada might cite our PM's recent spat with the Ottawa press gallery over who asks the questions in what order as an infringement of their rights. Is it their right or the PM's to answer a question? It is a school yard spat by a bunch of adults who should be more intelligent but it would hurt Canada's rating in this study. The fact is, no Canadian journalist is going to jail for what he prints. Nor would any journalist in my nation going to tell you to your face that he has a censor on what he says. On the contrary, he might complain about access to goverment files, but that is a fine hair to be split on the rights of the press vs the right of goverment to keep some things confidential. It is a FAR FAR Cry from a crappy little tinpot dictator such as Kim Il Sung's autocratic regime. When reporter's complaints are the sole arbiter to the "Freedom" of the press, then your methodology is called into question. Reporters without Frontiers may be a noble group, and I found the research facinating, I never less will dispute that because Canada is 18th and Finland is 2nd on the list, you somehow have some moral or intelligence edge on my points of view.


Eki, just because someone disagree's with your point of view, that does NOT mean they have bad facts or are stupid. We can both look at a tomato and you could call it a vegetable, and I would call it a fruit, and we would both be right in our own methodology, so why insult my intelligence? This thread was all about the moral right to hang Saddam Hussein. You feel no, I feel yes, if for no other reason than he as given more than a fair trial considering the considerable amount of evidence acquired by journalists, intelligence agencies and ex-patriot Iraqi citizens to what a thug he was.

I wouldn't advocate hanging as a intelligent civilized solution, but in this case, he reaped what he sowed. I sleep better knowing that a thug like that died a criminal's death....

Would I ask for Capital punishment in Canada or any other nation? Likely not, but in that part of the world until Saddam was dead, no one in Iraq lived in any sense that he wouldn't some how make a comeback. Muslim justice is far harsher than our's and it is their country. They made the call. I think having him rot in jail would have suited the Americans truth be told....