Indeed. This is something that could very well be used by his supporters - the portrayal of Saddam as a hero even in the lead-up to his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by oily oaf
Printable View
Indeed. This is something that could very well be used by his supporters - the portrayal of Saddam as a hero even in the lead-up to his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by oily oaf
Thank for the correction. Another thing American public schools have said to be true.
Saddam Hussein was responsible for the death of thousands of people and so is George W Bush. Bush most likely won't be executed or even imprisoned, but I hope he'll pay the piper when the Wicked Witch of Washington meets the Butcher of Baghdad in Hell.
YEah that's right ,Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
But!
Driven and pushed by the US Government, need to self Justify their case for war!
Saddam was born to the devil but so is Bush.
Who realy is the Evil Emperor.
What GW didn't understand is that Saddam Hussein was the man to rule Iraq.
GW will realize too late that Iraq isn't ready to be a democracy.
Iraq had to be ruled by an iron fist to keep the crazys suppressed.
Words like "insurgents" & "militant muslims" doesn't describe the people involved.
Iraq is now at war with itself & only a tyrant could keep those people inline.
The bottom line is that Saddam threatened GW's father's life.
GW got revenge by destroying order in Iraq & seeing the man that threatened his father was killed.
Iraq will never be stable again until another tyrant comes in & takes over where Saddam left off.
I cannot revel in Saddam Hussein's death, I think he was a victim of GW's revenge.
NO weapons of mass destruction were ever found, GW lied to the American people !
Furthermore Saddam Hussein had NO involvement in 911 even though GW tries to say he did !
Our troops will be in Iraq for 2 more years, GW will see to that.
The saddest part of it is that GW will never admit he lied or that he made a mistake. :s
Bill Clinton lied about being involved with Monica but at least no-one died when Clinton lied ! http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...cons/icon8.gif
Actually Clinton started a conflict against the people of Serbia to cover the Sexgate in the eyes of the American voters and the rest of the world. Bombing big cities at night and bridges on the Danube, making thousands of civilian casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceFanStan
well,when's the death sentence for Bush coming along :dozey:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceFanStan
Stan, I beg to differ. The CIA was telling Clinton that Saddam had WMD's but Bill didn't want to invade. Was that smart? Maybe, but I think Bush was just going on the info fed to him, and lets face it, he did have a little more motivation to take Saddam down then Clinton.
Bill on the other hand just created uses for the US Navy's arsenal of Tomahawks every time he needed a diversion and people DID die. Just ask those poor buggers wiped out at some of the "terrorist camps" that were targets back then.
No, I wont miss Saddam at all, and I doubt the carnage on the streets of the Sunni dominent parts of Iraq will be less or more now that he is gone. The civil war that is going on at a street level is just an excuse for lawless thugs to kill and maim to suit their own agenda's. What must be said is this. Saddam got his trial. They didn't exactly rubber stamp his conviction, there was a lot of chances for Saddam to justify his actions but the fact remains, no one can say with a straight face that Saddam was doing anything but killing for the sheer point of creating his personal regime of terror.
Saddam's regime was killing close to 20000 people a year by some UN accounts, although of course, the true numbers may never be known. Uday and his brother were thugs in training so if Saddam died before the US invaded, the regime would continue on. Dictators in power to rule a "lawless" country are not superior to the mess they have now in Iraq. At some point, some form of government will get a handle on Iraq, and contrary to popular belief, it will not be an American puppet.
Lets not confuse the hatred some of you have for the US with the reality that is modern Iraq. The Americans didn't have a very good plan or really defendable goals in the court of public opinion, but who really is going to say Iraq was better off with Saddam?? Really, at least people in Iraq have a chance to fight for their freedom now. A democratic system was never going to be on any horizon for the people of Iraq without bloodshed, and while they may not get it this time, it will be at least fought for. Contrary to what you read in much of the press, Basra and the south, and the Kurdish lands to the north have done MUCH better and if there is chaos around the Sunni Triangle, it is the fault of Iraqi's at this point. If the US pulled all their soldiers out 2 mins past the time they caught Saddam, I doubt it would have made a difference. The people of Iraq have to come to the conclusion that they are tired of fighting, and it is obvious to me, that has not happened.
One other point. Capital punishment is not a great way to deal with a criminal. It is cruel, barbaric, and in the opinion of many, inhumane. Tell that to the families of those who lost loved ones to Hussein over the last 20 years. How many people are in that number? How about the ones he fed into recycling plant shredding machines? The women who were brutalized, raped and murdered? All you bleeding hearts out there were very content to look the other way when that was going on but now you cry over a thug being hung? Waste of a good rope if you asked me, I would have just tossed him naked into the streets of a Kurdish town and let them look after him....
I may not advocate Capital Punishment in civilized nations of the west, but in the case of a thug such as this, give me a break. IF they didn't hang his sorry hide, people in that country would keep waiting for him to take over again. They had to see him dead, and it was their courts, their people and their decision. Iam sure the Americans would have just dumped him in Gitmo if they had a choice....IF they really wanted him dead, their Marines would have done the job when he was in the hole...
As much as I was not fully supportive of NATO involvement in the Balkans (and remember that it was a NATO action), I think there are sound reasons as to why there was less opposition to military action then than there were in relation to Iraq. I'm afraid I just don't believe the 'conspiracy theory' in relation to Clinton's reason for supporting that action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihai
Yes there were reasons. That's why it was a NATO operation. In Iraq Bush couldn't even get NATO's acceptance. That's why he came up with the Coalition of the "Willing" from largely rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid and couldn't afford to say "no thanks".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell