No, but we choose who they had the choice of to be elected, and if a candidate showed up that wasn't "pro-US" he and his followers will be declared "terrorists."  Do you thikn the US would allow al Sadr to lead Iraq?

Well, you wouldn't allow Unabomber to run for Congress either, now would you?

 

 

Take Palastine for example.  Hamas is the rightly elected government, but do the US recognize that fact?  No, because they are a terrorist organization.

Are you really that ignorant, or are you twisting facts on purpose?

 

The Palestinian Hamas-led government has proven unable to unite and govern Palestine on its own merits, as it has failed to normalize political relations with the other primary political force of the country, Fatah. But then again, if they had, they would have proven they aren't as fundamentalist as they claim, and would therefore caused a big let down in many of their voters. Such is the nature of fundies.

 

At any rate, Hamas' case is a purely internal one. The US had nothing to do with it.

 

 

The bottomline we are sticking our nose where it does not belong and we are doing so on false pretenses set up by the Bush Administration.  The only right thing to do is leave.

 

Well, you wouldn't allow Unabomber to run for Congress either, now would you?

 

Run for congress, yes. If he wins, I would let him serve as well.

 

"We're doomed!"

Edited December 30, 200619 yr by 213374U

We are doomed because you post an advert about web hosting?

 

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Edited December 30, 200619 yr by Sand

Just pretend it is there.

Let's NOT discuss the US in this topic, because that will just make me close it.

You are just no fun...

"meh... the country he used to rule has decended into anarchy. Personally I'm not sure if we're better off with, or without him in charge."

 

Oh, please. When Saddam first got into power in Iraq; Iraq was one of the mosta dvanced Middle Eastern countries. By the end of his rule, the country was one of the least advanced. His rule was rather poor. The country was/is better off without him. There would have been likely no war with Iran, Kuwait (lol), and the two other wars as well if Saddam was anything resembling a good ruler.

 

 

"It will, however, stir up more ethnic violence."

 

Nonsense. It might be used as an 'exuse'; but it would do anything of the sort. Those committing 'ethnic violence' don't need any more excuses. They have enough - they hate each other. Saddam Hussein's execution won't chnage this either way.

 

 

"It's also a great example of how the Shi'ite community isn't in any way above their Sunni neighbors, what with that mockery of a trial and all..."

 

Yeah. A trial that finds the obvious guilty guilty is a mockery, and putting to death someone who has mass murdered thousands if not millions (depending on what numbers you believe) is somehow considered immoral? LMAO

Edited December 30, 200619 yr by Volourn

If you believe the death penalty to be wrong you can't pick and chose, you have to apply the same standard to everyone.

 

He might just as easily have been thrown in an oubliette in Abu Girab, the only purpose served here is a public spectacle of vengance. Not that i'm sad to see him go, he got what was comming to him, I just don't want government to be the one to deal out karma like that.

"It will, however, stir up more ethnic violence."

 

Nonsense. It might be used as an 'exuse'; but it would do anything of the sort. Those committing 'ethnic violence' don't need any more excuses. They have enough - they hate each other. Saddam Hussein's execution won't chnage this either way.

They hate each other, and this is another reason that will be used to raise children in sectarian hatred. Are you familiar with the concept of martyr?

 

 

Yeah. A trial that finds the obvious guilty is a mockery, and putting to death someone who has mass murdered thousands if not millions (depending on what numbers you believe) is somehow considered immoral? LMAO

As per usual, Volo misses the point completely. The finality of a judicial system is twofold: to impart justice (which has undoubtedly been served in this case, and is not what I was disputing), and to establish an organism that, by means of a formal set of proceedings guarantees equality (at a legal level at least) between all members of the community. Without this, we just get back to "the end justifies the means". Neither of these facets is more important than the other, as they both are needed for a fair judicial system to exist.

 

In this case, it is the proceedings that are under suspicion. The establishment of a credible judicial system is one of the first and most important tasks a new government must complete if a stable, credible democracy is to be achieved. This case is a perfectly good example of the opposite. But I guess all these subtleties mean nothing to you. It's so much easier to adopt a gung-ho attitude of "all bad guys must die!", and go to sleep thinking that the world is a better place with one less genocidal dictator.

 

Sweet dreams, Volo.

Edited December 30, 200619 yr by 213374U

"Let's NOT discuss the US in this topic, because that will just make me close it."

 

What ?

 

Thats pretty stupid.

Because it's not the scope of the thread, and it invariably ends in flames. )

Yes it is. If you have half a brain.

True, the puppet regime can't be mentioned without the puppet master

If Saddam was worth a damn he'd have gone out Tony Montana style instead of in a hole and from a rope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah. And if I was heavier and better at boxing I'd be a heavyweight boxer.

 

I've been asleep most of today, recovering from revelry. But I intend to be celebrating this with due deference this evening.

 

And Meta is right. Standard policy includes shutting threads that go way off base. This is about Saddam Hussein being punished.

Yes it is. If you have half a brain.

"Saddam Hussein Goes to Meet Allah"

 

That's the title of the thread, in case your half a brain can't follow a discussion AND remember what it's about. Discussing the involvement of the US in this case might be justified, but discussing the US and its policies in general outside of Iraq (and outside this incident) is not the scope of the thread.

 

You want to discuss the US, it's fine. Go start a thread about it, I'll be sure to participate. But don't hijack this one.

However, his execution won't bring back the dead to them. It will, however, stir up more ethnic violence. It's also a great example of how the Shi'ite community isn't in any way above their Sunni neighbors, what with that mockery of a trial and all...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be pretty pissed off if a guy killed my whole family/relatives/friends but sits in the jail and gets fed while enjoying medical care too. Nope. The authorities owned it to the folk to execute him.

I wonder how long we'll have to wait before we get to see actual footage of that bastard hanging.

"

That's the title of the thread, in case your half a brain can't follow a discussion AND remember what it's about. Discussing the involvement of the US in this case might be justified, but discussing the US and its policies in general outside of Iraq (and outside this incident) is not the scope of the thread.

 

You want to discuss the US, it's fine. Go start a thread about it, I'll be sure to participate. But don't hijack this one."

 

I don't appreciate having you dictate to me what is and is not in the scope of the discussion without having any notion of what I intend, lets just leave it at that.

 

Suffice to say that aforemetioned people with brains might have a larger scope than yours.

Edited December 30, 200619 yr by Gorgon

'I wonder how long we'll have to wait before we get to see actual footage of that bastard hanging."

 

It's to be expected, and we probably would have seen a nice fat closeup, like Chauchesco, if not for the networks being a little squeamish about it.

Well I think it is time for a broom, a dustbin and time-out in the sandbox ...