Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1956977.ece


Arabs were sharply divided today over the death sentence against Saddam Hussein, with some praising the verdict as heavenly justice but others - sharply critical of the US - claiming the decision was unfair.

Some analysts said the message behind the sentencing is that Washington is determined to continue its mission in Iraq and will not be intimidated by insurgents fighting it.

"If there had been no verdict, or if the verdict had been commuted, then it would have consolidated all talk about US failure in Iraq," said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi journalist.

On the street, reaction was mixed. Some Arabs felt that Saddam, as a leader, should have had the freedom to run his country as he saw fit. They pointed to the rise of violence since he was removed from power by the US-led invasion in April 2003.

"If Saddam is condemned to death, then they must make it fair and sentence Mr. (US President George) Bush to death ... and they should send Israel's Ehud Olmert to death too because of what he did in Lebanon. If this is fair, let Saddam go to death," said Amman jeweller Ibrahim Hreish, speaking passionately about the verdict.

"If Mr. Bush made the world a better place in the past four years, then let Saddam go to death," he said.

Ziad al-Khasawneh, the former head of Saddam's defense team said the death sentence had been expected right from the start of the trial.

"It was pre-planned. What has taken place in this trial right from the outset until today's verdict is illegal and is meant to undermine the legitimate president of Iraq and give legitimacy instead to the US occupation of an Arab country," said al-Khasawneh, a Jordanian who sympathizes with the now-defunct Arab Baath Socialist Party in Iraq.

Iraqis living abroad were also divided over the sentencing of their former president, who ruled Iraq with an iron fist for almost three decades.

"He deserves the death penalty," shouted Salah Hassan, 50, a Sunni Muslim Iraqi businessman who lives in Jordan.

"He is the cause of the bloodshed taking place in my country now," he said as he sipped black tea at a smoked-filled coffee shop in the bustling and narrow streets of downtown Amman. "Saddam is a criminal and sentencing him to hang is just a very soft punishment."

But Jassim Ali, a 29-year-old unemployed Shiite Iraqi who lives in Jordan, called the sentencing unfair.

"It's too harsh. Why is Saddam being tried?" he said. "The ones who should be tried and sentenced to death are the current Iraqi government leaders. They're traitors. They're American puppets."

In Kuwait, the tiny emirate that Saddam occupied from August 1990 to February 1991, many were jubilant.

"This is justice from heaven. He should have been hanged a long time ago. This is the smallest punishment for someone who executed tens of thousands of people," said Abdul-Ridha Aseeri, who heads the political science department at Kuwait University.

Aseeri said the sentence "should be a lesson to other Arab leaderships," but he would not name any.

"For the first time in modern history, an Arab ruler or former ruler is put on trial," Aseeri said.

Kholoud al-Feeli, 40, a Kuwaiti communications specialist, wanted Saddam to rot in jail instead of being hanged.

"Death to him is merciful. I wanted life in prison. He will die but people (he hurt) will continue to suffer," she said.

Meanwhile the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, said that Saddam's trial was fair, but would not comment on the guilty verdict or death sentence for fear it could inflame tensions in his volatile nation.

"I think the trial was fair," Talabani said from his hotel in Paris, where he is on a six-day visit.

He would not respond to the verdict which automatically goes to appeal. "I must respect the independence of the Iraqi judiciary ... because my comments could affect the situation," he said.

"The hanging of Saddam Hussein will turn to hell for the Americans," said Vitaya Wisethrat, a respected Muslim cleric in Thailand, where a bloody Islamic insurgency is raging in the country's south.

"The Saddam case is not a Muslim problem but the problem of America and its domestic politics," he said.

"The Americans are about to vote in a midterm election, so maybe Bush will use this case to tell the voters that Saddam is dead and that the Americans are safe. But actually the American people will be in more danger with the death of Saddam."

Today's verdict, which had been widely expected, was welcomed by key US allies, who said Saddam got what he deserved for crimes against humanity committed during years of brutal dictatorship.

"I welcome that Saddam Hussein and the other defendants have faced justice and have been held to account for their crimes," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in a statement. "Appalling crimes were committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice."

Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, called Saddam "an evil tyrant" and said the death sentence - which will be subject to an automatic appeal before he can be hanged - came as no surprise.

But Amnesty International questioned the fairness of the trial, and international legal experts said Saddam should be kept alive long enough to answer for other atrocities. Only then, they said, will Iraqis brutalised by years of his despotic rule see true justice done.

"The longer we can keep Saddam alive, the longer the tribunal can have to explore some of the other crimes involving hundreds of thousands of Iraqis," said Sonya Sceats, an international law expert at the Chatham House foreign affairs think tank in London.

"The problem really is that this tribunal has not shown itself to be fair and impartial - not only by international standards, but by Iraqi standards. There is significant evidence of political pressure," she said.

Chandra Muzaffar, president of the Malaysian-based International Movement for a Just World, also voiced concerns that Saddam's trial was flawed because it "violated many established norms of international jurisprudence, such as in the way the court was constituted and how the charges were brought against Saddam."

"But Saddam was undoubtedly a brutal dictator, and even though I wouldn't subscribe to the death penalty, he deserves to be punished severely for the enormity of his crimes," said Chandra, a well-known Muslim social commentator.

Chandra said there was bound to be a violent reaction in Iraq to the verdict.

"We would expect a reaction from the resistance in Iraq, whether it is immediate or not, in the form of suicide bombings or other violence," he said.

In Russia, the Kremlin-allied head of the international affairs committee in the State Duma, or lower house of parliament, told Ekho Moskvy radio the sentence will deepen divisions in Iraq.

But the official, Konstantin Kosachyov, said he doubted that Saddam would actually be executed.

"A death sentence will apparently split Iraqi society even further," Kosachyov said. "On the other hand, it seems to me that the death sentence against Saddam Hussein will probably not be carried out. It will be stopped one way or another, either by the president of Iraq or by other means. It is most of all a moral decision - retribution that modern Iraq is taking against Saddam's regime."

Some saw the verdict as intentionally timed to coincide with Tuesday's pivotal midterm elections in the US Congress, where Democrats are fighting to regain control.

"The Bush administration, which has lost the trust of the American people, needs some sort of victory," said Abbas Khalaf, Iraq's ambassador to Russia during the Saddam era, denouncing the proceedings as "a purely political trial."

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain,

said: "There are concerns about whether Saddam Hussein was ever going to

receive a fair trial in Iraq given the sectarian tension that are rife. Several

of his defence lawyers were assassinated during the proceedings and that we

stated at the out set we preferred for him to tried in an international court.

"Furthermore, there will be many in the Muslim world who will be asking when those responsible for launching the calamitous war in Iraq, in which tens of thousands on innocent people have died, will also be brought to justice."

I fear that Saddam's sentence to death is going to ignite more bloodshedding conflicts in the area.

I just watched it, Death by hanging! I dont think theres a better way for the sob to go.

Justice done  : ok:

Yup no brainer.  A horrible man who deserves what he gets.

of course he got the death penalty, did you guys expect anything else?

More than likely yea................

....so it was wrong for Saddam to execute people..... but a US kangaroo court can do it...and have it called 'justice'

God bless our hypocrisy, may it forever keep us from seeing what we truly are

Saddam's getting off wasy.  They should put him through the same torture and abuse he put thousdands of Iraqis through.

you can only hope..


last i checked it was an Iraqi Judge, Iraqi Jury and the Iraqi people who tried him.

Since when did dealing with reality equal "hope"?

They already tightened security in Baghdad before the verdict, so by your "logic" that would mean our own military is "hoping" the place would get more violent too.  ::)

You HOPE for more bloodshed?  I have seen you type some pretty ignorant things before but this takes the cake.

WOW!  This coming from someone who "served?"

borat ? is that you ?

You hope for more bloodshed?  Thats pretty dispicable.  Innocent civilians and American soldiers may die, but you "can only hope." 

I know the following should go to "your favourite poem thread" but I chose to post it here. I don't mean to start a politics conversation, just a reminder that pain is universal, above politics, religions and leaders. Thank you.

Tortures
by Wislawa Szymborska

Nothing has changed.
The body is susceptible to pain,
it must eat and breathe air and sleep,
it has thin skin and blood right underneath,
an adequate stock of teeth and nails,
its bones are breakable, its joints are stretchable.
In tortures all this is taken into account.

Nothing has changed.
The body shudders as it shuddered
before the founding of Rome and after,
in the twentieth century before and after Christ.
Tortures are as they were, it's just the earth that's grown smaller,
and whatever happens seems right on the other side of the wall.

Nothing has changed. It's just that there are more people,
besides the old offenses new ones have appeared,
real, imaginary, temporary, and none,
but the howl with which the body responds to them,
was, is and ever will be a howl of innocence
according to the time-honored scale and tonality.

Nothing has changed. Maybe just the manners, ceremonies, dances.
Yet the movement of the hands in protecting the head is the same.
The body writhes, jerks and tries to pull away,
its legs give out, it falls, the knees fly up,
it turns blue, swells, salivates and bleeds.

Nothing has changed. Except for the course of boundaries,
the line of forests, coasts, deserts and glaciers.
Amid these landscapes traipses the soul,
disappears, comes back, draws nearer, moves away,
alien to itself, elusive, at times certain, at others uncertain of its own existence,
while the body is and is and is
and has no place of its own.

I wish that wouldn't get mentioned much more, gives the rest of us Vets a bad reputation.


Death by Valgon poetry

There is no denying Saddam deserves his sentence. He ordered tens of thousands of his own people to be killed while in power.

This from the same people who got upset by a botched joke by John Kerry, I am totally disgusted. Dont call our troops stupid, but hoping for their bloodshed and possible death is acceptable :no:

Same people?

You need to re-think that comment. This is coming from one person.

he deserved to die as does many others such as Ehud Olmert

I'm aware of that, and no offense to you Drew, but Brody and his stooges like to share a brain so I just automatically lump them all into the same group. I dont recall you being a member of that group, so it was not directed at you.

I am not for or against any political party. I am just against idiots trying to shove their opinions down our throats............................................ ok I guess I am against political parties. And Religious groups.

I think Brody was referring to SLC, meaning to say "I bet you hope there is more bloodshed".  Which, if that is the case is so fucking funny b/c Brody will have become the 2nd victim of a "botched joke" within one week. HAHAHAHAHAHHA

If I'm wrong and he was saying he hopes there is more bloodshed, well, then hes just king of all douches. 

I'm sure the irony would be missed...........bigtime.



Either option leaves him looking bad.

Just because you cant see the rest of the man, doesn't mean the sock puppet is alive....

...and a kangaroo court is a kangaroo court regardless of who's presiding - Saddam had no chance for a fair trial, and then to execute the man, wow, two wrongs must make a right in Baghdad

"two wrongs"???  The guy was a sadistic dictator.  The world is a better place without him.  He should be executed.  Hanging seems a bit dramatic but its no comparison to the suffering he inflicted.  As for a "fair" trial - I think his guilt is pretty apparent.  While I'm no fan of this war, lets not pretend Sadamm was innocent and Iraq was all rivers of chocolate with candy cane trees.

my point is simple - Saddam most likely was guilty, but executing him lowers us to his level

To claim this is 'justice' is self delusion.

I dont think the trail stands up to any kind of 'fair' standard - murdered defence lawyers for instance, accusations of bias leveled at the various judges involved  -the very nature of the trail itself

The trail needed to be heard in a neutral country, and life imprisonment, and not death, would be closer to justice

He kills Iraqis, Iraqis kill him - and yet when our puppet court does it, thats ''justice''

Frankly, my idea of justice is a bit more noble

We could make him read Rosesofvelvet.com everyday.

Or is that too inhumane also?

ok... im against saddam as much as you  people but i think death by hanging is kinda primitive.. Like you would have though we have aged more as a country but no were still doing hangings. i think i wouldve rathered them do a lethal injection as to hanging IMO

If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't the USA who sentenced him but the Iraqi government.  yes hanging is barbaric if you ask me, but so are a lot of sentences/punishments in islam/muslim countries.  When it comes to war crimes, I am a big proponent of the death penalty.

No, If you read it the way i wrote it! "YOU" not "I" 

We all know that you get off on all the death and destruction cause you think it helps you politically.


Im not going to defend this cause if you had any common sense, which you obviously lack you would know i was implying SLC Could only hope for more death.  "YOU" not "I"  If I was to say "I could only Hope" that would mean I want more death, but no I said "You could only hope"

Now as far as it being a botched joke, Its not. It wasnt meant as a joke but if you people want to make the lives of American soldiers a joke then so be it.

We all know SLC gets an extra skip in his step when he hears the news of another GI killed, Its purely political to him. He would have you think he supports the troops but he mocks them all the time.

No Saddam thread would be complete without a "blame america first" comment.  Who's gonna be the first to post that Bush should be the one on trial?  Any takers?

So you admit you were being serious when you said you hoped there would be more bloodshed?

It is Americas fault we are to blame for all the worlds problems. hell when something good happens and a evil man is sentenced to death its Americas  fault.

He doesn't have to hope for more bloodshed, there will be more bloodshed. A full blown civil war will erupt, the United States with "stay the course".....more and more people will die, George Bush will give speeches about how much safer the world is now that Saddam is dead for crimes from 25 years ago........Not to mention the fun North Korea and Iran will provide.......

Keep CNN tuned in.......so you know when to kiss your ass goodbye.

Give me a break.  We weren't the ones "hoping for more bloodshed".  I hope your men don't read that comment, they'd prob frag you.  You can "think" you know all about SLC being happy that US troops get killed, but at least hes never said so, unlike yourself who is hoping for it. 

Rather then apologize for your comments you just lash out at all your "enemies".  That was a pretty despicable thing to say.  Own up to your retarded comment and apologize to everyone.

go back and reread.

Yeah, yet another victory for American Democracy.

That ain't never gonna happen.

How so?

Bush said so, on the news earlier on, well he didn't use the term American but you can tell that fascist was thinking it.

That is about as rotten as it gets.

You should apologize for that.

I kind of agree, I don't think you get off to hearing about another dead American.  Although I do believe that as the situation gets worse, you get a smile "knowing you were right" and hoping the American people take some kind of action.  Can you deny that?

I'm sure no one is happy to be right about American soldiers dying.  :-[

Lets be careful here. We were not allowed to talk about politics & foregn policy for awhile since people were getting real personal with attacking each other. Do we want that to happen again?

Like someone with the intials HH and CC.

Of course not.

What do you mean by "take more action?"

This is not something I take lightly, nor is it something that I would ever be happy to be right on. I wish I was not right. How many dead now?

What did I say? 

If someone is going to say something stupid, I'm going to point it out.  Hoping for more bloodshed in Iraq is pretty stupid to say.

I think that is very fair.

Is anybody really going to disagree with that?

This is all a bullshit show.

Once the Coalition troops pull out, that piece of land known as Iraq is going to be annexed by Iran.

Back to the topic of Saddam being sentenced to death...... I think loss of life whoever it is, is a terrible thing..... the killing on both sides for the Iraqi people and the soldiers serving in a desperate country under extremely difficult circumstances is tragic..... the why's and wherefores about how all this came about can and probably will be debated for a long time to come.... but in the meantime..... a dictator who murdered thousands of people has been sentenced to die..... whilst normally I would say nothing is achieved by this.... in this case I will make an exception..... to the Kurds who were massacared in such numbers.... for those who were taken away never to be seen again simply because they dared to air their disagreement..... for the women who were executed for daring to bare their heads..... I say the world is better off without the orchestrator of those tragedies.....

This is my personal view..... Im not asking anybody to agree with it.........

Brody has been smited for his comments so let that be the end of it.  This thread is pretty political so keep the peace or i'll definately lock it.  Any questions can be taken to PM.


I think life imprisonment would have been much more suitable - maybe in some secret underground prison like Dennis Hopper's in 24.  Hanging seems pretty barbaric to me.

GWB is in a sticky situations tho
saddam is all he has. but boasting about it will do more harm than good. there is no way he will use that for the elections, altho they pretty much timed it the way they needed too.

saddam,
he is not dead yet.
and i hope the EU can do something about before it's too late. we want to bring democracy to them? what about bringing civilized manners and ending capital punishement?

Well, I'm not an advocate of the death penalty, but Saddam is.  Seems as though it came back to bite him in the ass, eh?

It did, but the whole eye for an eye is really not progression on anyone's part. I don't support the death penalty, but a guilty person should understand the why's of the sentence. Especially when he has systematically killed a lot of innocent people. I don't like the idea of killing him, although I do understand that if the country's legislation at the moment has a death punishment for the crimes he has commited, he should accept it.

Of course.  Perhaps in the future, with the evolution of democracy in Iraq, the people will abolish the death penalty.  Of course, with a democracy, it takes a long time to change the law.  Also, crimes are punishable by sentences that applied at the time that the crimes were committed.  At the time that Hussein conducted his systematic genocide, hanging was considered appropriate punishment for such a crime in Iraq.  So, he must face the music.

I'm hoping that Iraq reforms sometime in the future to eliminate capital punishment.  If that's not plausible, then the nation could at least vote to change how it kills people to a much more humane method.  Hanging is a pretty gruesome method of punishment, no matter how you look at it.

His conviction and death sentence relate solely to his 1982 massacre of 148 Shiites who were supposedly involved in an assassination plot against him back then.  I think it was a mistake on the part of the Iraqi Tribunal Council to not focus on the much more heinous crimes against humanity that he is said to be responsible for (gassing of Iraqi Kurds--killing 50,000-100,000, the 1991 massacre after a Kurdish Shiite uprising, the bombardment of villages, the employment of torture and disappearances, the waging of war against Iran, employing chemical weapons, and the invasion of Kuwait in 1990).

I agree hanging sounds very barbaric. And the timing of it (for a trial that has been going on for months) seems dubious as it 'just so happens' to fall the weekend before election day. Seems to me like the big "suprise" Karl Rove had hidden that really the majority of the American public are actually pretty indifferent to. I don't think this will affect voting much either way.

My other problem with it, is that yes Hussein was a cruel leader. Murdering many of his own people, and the US assisted in bringing him to justice. But now we have North Korea's leader, Kim Jung Il, who is known to do the same and worse to his people. And Somalia and other African countries ruled by dictators. Do we go after them also? 

And if this massacre took place in 1982, why didn't we go after him in the 80''s when Iraq was our ally during the Iran-Iraq war? And when Rumsfeld met with Hussein on December 20th, 1983 when Rumsfeld MET WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

problem is. this is no normal case.
the government has been placed by an exterior actor: the united states of america
without the clear consentement of the international society.
saddam is in his right not to accept it.
some lonely invador came, changed the rules of where you lived, and sentenced you along these new rules.

if this was done by the UN that would be something else.

one would be blind to think it's all about justice.

the world (and france number one) was providing iraq tanks and weapons to fight iran.
then it went the other way around.


anyway, this barbaric sentence just shows how stupid and retarded (in the sense of savage) the americans are, and they are comforting poor countries into the idea that you fight crimes by killing.

then in 5 years we'll we so shocked by discovering news about the iraq government sentencing to deaths hundreds of "terrorists"

By which laws did they convict him?

Does the US even have hanging as a punishment? I thought they went with Iraq's laws. Though I do understand that the case is far from normal.

who apply the laws ? what court? judge ? jury ?
it's all staged.
i'd like saddam judged and sentenced, but by an international court such as LaHague, no fake court.
they gave him to the lions.

Fox thinks an apology is in order. There are other vets on this board who were offended by it.

True.. It does seem from the outside that the only reason that there even was a trial was so that it would look more clean to the outside world. I guess it's being played with an 'end justifying the means'-card but it's not really the best way to go.

But his crimes were committed against his own country/people, not non-iraqis.  They should be the ones to try him, not an international court.  Whether or not the trial was fair and balanced is one thing, but i don't think you can argue his guilt.

Indeed, indeed

If we lower ourselves to his level then what right do we have to try him at all?

and Brody doesn't give two shits what fox thinks! And no you all took my post out of context, I think the vets would be more offended by you!

My one and only visit to this thread, i do not want to read the flamming i get.

We should of killed the guy years ago instead of wasting all this time and money in the place 15 or so years ago to be exact.

The guy is no good and tortured / killed many people, tried by his peers, hang the guy for all to see, and the next jerk off that gets out of line, throw another rope for him.

I'm leaving now, bye

Really I'm a nice guy but I was always and eye for eye type guy.

Couldnt agree with you more, job should have been finished 15 years ago but we made a mistake. shit happens.

Wow, what a coincidence that the verdict is 2 days before the election.  Just a little reminder to all the Republican base of why we went there?  While I'll agree that Sadam was not a nice guy, what he did was to his own people.  Why is that the business of the US?  With this type of thinking shouldn't Clinton, Reno, et al be put on trial for what happened to the Branch Dividians?

I kind of agree with Bill Maher in that Sadam is needed more today in Iraq than ever before.  I think we seeing why he ruled the way he ruled.

Everyone of you knows Brody wasn't asking for more bloodshed. ?No more than John Kerry was calling the military dumb (although I first I assumed he did in error). ?Brody's comment wasn't nearly as misleading as Kerry's botched joke. ?Does Brody really think SLC rejoices everytime CNN reports another death? ?You'll have to ask him, but I highly doubt it. ?The truth remains that many of you "appear" vindicated everytime something bad happens. ?Rather than lash out at the terrorist pieces of shit that wound our countrymen, you lash out at Rumsfield and Bush. ?I'll be the first to admit they fucked up, but they're the lesser of two evils/wrongs here.

Yep and don't forget Ruby Ridge, though Reno is to blame for this, not Clinton.  As much as I dislike him, he can't be blamed for every error or problem.... hint hint

hrm, ok,,,,

iyou guys are going to kill me for saying this, but I beleive that the world was a better, safer, more peaceful place when saddam was in power.  bush has killed several hundreds of thousands more people and has made it dangerous to be an american.

Honestly, for the greater good, I think saddam should be put back in power (he is the only one who has shown he can deal with the mess that is iraq) and bush should be tried for war crimes.

How is it more dangerous to be an American?  When was the last attack here?  Before we invaded Iraq 3000 people died, on American soil.  None have died here since due to Iraq.   Intended or not, all the Islam extremist are flocking to Iraq and it's there they are fighting.  I'd rather fight a proxy war in Iraq then in the streets of America.

High ranking officials have said the same thing.

I would not be surprised if the US installs another dictator in there to try and reign the place in again (and that has been discussed as well.)

sadly enough, george bush has killed more americans in iraq than were killed during 911  :'(

and he still can't tell us why we're there.

how can americans get so angry at saddam when bush does the same fucking thing to his people?

Show me where GOP officials have discussed this. ?If a dictator is installed, it will be by Democrats who will have gained control of congress after tomorrow.

Well the latest report from the National Intelligence Estimate says we are less safe and that Iraq has created more terrorists.

I'd take that pretty darn seriously.

American serviceman exist to defend American people. ?They are defending us by keeping the terrorist at bay in Iraq and not in our cities. ?Do I want to take a bullet for an Iraqi, fuck no. ?But I'll gladly do my service in Iraq to make sure they don't come over here.

RandallFlagg, I think you're forgetting something here:

(http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg)

We can't control who the terrorists decide to kill, but we can control who put the troops in their line of fire to begin with.  You can't kill what you can't shoot at.  Iraq has become a magnet for people who want to kill Americans.  It'd be a lot harder for them to do so if nobody was in Iraq to begin with.  They'd prob be killing each other.

I think its obvious that we're not applauding the insurgents when they get a kill.  To even think for a second that is the case is repulsive.  Those who disagree with the war do so b/c they don't want to see our troops, fellow americans, killed in the first place. 

Did you read Pat Tillman's brother (who like his brother served in the military) open letter regarding the war?  If not, you should.  Very strong words from someone who served and who lost a family member who also served.

Flagg, i'm also glad you realized that Kerry's words were taken out of context and I respect you for admitting you were wrong.  be nice if Brody could do the same - thats all I'm asking for.

Dude, IRAQ HAD FUCK ALL TO DO WITH TERRORISM.  In fact, that's what Saddam did well - he enforced law and order and kept that shit in check

I do take it seriously. ?That's why I'm not up in arms or screaming for the ACLU when suspected terrorists or "contacts" are being monitored.

It was in the paper some time ago............

Right.........bring up the Dems, it's all their fault..............even projecting into the future, it is their fault.

Yeah, instead they died OVER THERE! Almost the same amount that died on 9-11. 

They were not there until we got there. The NIE says that too................

actually, more have died in iraq than in 911

I'm not blaming anyone.  But if a dictator is installed, the Democrats will be in power.  How can I blame Bush, a Republican or anyone else if that course of action takes place.

Latest study that shows over 600,000 people have died in Iraq since the invasion.

I'm not saying it is going to happen. I'm saying that top officials from the Bush administration have come forward to say that it has been considered since Democracy is simply something that is not going to happen in Iraq.

We didn't put him in office, he was there long before that. ?It's unfair to use that picture in reference to who installed a dictator. ?Roosevelt met with Stalin, does that mean we supported a murdering, socialist regime?

yea, I saw that also, but in terms of actual Americans who have died, I think the number is well over 3000 now (does anyone has the most recent figure?)

Americans.......yea, and about 10,000 that are wounded.

That study is not conclusive and is an estimate.? I also find it unfair to count the deaths of enemy combatants as a reason to quit.? We're just killing too many of the enemy, it's not fair.? Soon enough there won't be anymore to fight ::)

OK, i stand corrected.  we only provided them with arms, gave them tons of monetary support to fight iran, and removed them from our list of states that sponsor terrorosts (1982)  :hihi:

The study was overseen by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. I'll take that well over any type of denial you guys are dishing out these days.

Of course we supported him. We put him into power and watched him kill the kurds with the gas we provided him.

RandallFlagg is a master of logic and can disprove any study that doesn't agree with his right wing agenda   :hihi:

EDIT: and he's especially talented in field outside of his formal academic education

I'm not denying its merit. ?I'm addressing its numbers. ?It accounts for enemy combatants. ?And the reality remains that it is an estimate based off of polls, not physical body count. ?Don' t kid yourself either. ?It doesn't matter where the study comes from, it backs up your beliefs so you're endorsing it. ?If I found a poll from them that hurt one of your aruments, you'd denounce it.

Killing too many of the enemy? ?Thise numbers are of the innocent men. women and children killed. ?Bush is a war criminal for this and so are his stooges. ?All this so Haliburton can make big money. ?I truly cannot comprehend how anyone with any reason or logic can still justify this war.

Randall, you do realize that this is an illegal war (geneva convention) started without a rational reason, right?  many of those 'enemy combatants' are trying to defend their fucking country against United States' terrorism.

Did you ever really read the study?

So if it were only 100,000 innocent civilians, would it be any less significant?

Have you no shame for what our tax dollars have done?

And for what?

right on  : ok:

i can't wait until 2008 when we have a new president and bush et al. are indicted on war crimes and can never leave the USA any longer.  no more cuban beach vacations  :'(

real cute nonlinear. ?It's unfair to bring up other discussions into the current one, in fact your argument consist of TWO logical fallcies; ad hominem and appeal to authority. ?I don't have any right wing agenda, and you'd know that (and you do) if you read my argument in the thread you referenced. ?You're quoting a study that accounts for the death of the enemy and using it as a reason to get out of Iraq and claim that we've killed too many people. ?That'd be like me mixing in Nazi soldier KIAs into civilian deaths due to alliance bombing. ?That's exactly what this study does.

wow, you sound like my mom or girlfriend  :hihi:

Will Clinton be in that group for the aspring factory?  How about his negligence with Bin Laden that caused 9/11.  Does that warrant any charges?

Don't address the point of my argument; just post some more smiley faces.

Actually no, I didn't quote that study, and although it does provide additional evidence that bush is a terrorist, I think the fact that he has killed 3000+  americans in Iraq (more than died in 911) is evidnce enough.

1) Clinton has never committed war crimes as defined in the geneva convention.  bush et al. have.
2) bush well knew about the threat of bin laden.  i mean, their families have cross-generation business ties.  and to be honest, no one can really say that they know who is responsible for 911 (but I'm not gonna go there)

You're correct, you didn't cite that study. ? ?I genuinely feel sorry for the hundreds of thousands of innocents harmed in this war. ?But if they'd have taken a stand (and they still can) against the assholes that force us to stay there then they'd be alive. ?This war is no different than Vietnam. ?The south vietnamese didn't give two shits the entire war and as soon as we left North Vietnam took over. ?The same thing will happen in Iraq. ?I support staying in Iraq until we can find another way to fight terrorist off American soil. ?With many Islam nations supprting the idea of one day ruling America and spreading Jihad, it won't be anytime soon. ?Let's fight them on their own land; bring the fight to them if you will.

Yea they can.  For someone who prides themself on their science background, you're ignoring alot of sciene that prooves that Bin Laden and his men were behind the act.  You're letting political bias hinder your professional judgement.

You are ignoring the most important thing about that latest intelligence estimate report. That terrorists were not in Iraq until we got there. We are not fighting them to keep them off USA soil. That is simply not true. They are there, because we are-period.

1) i haven't seen any evidence that bin laden planned 911, although to be honest I haven't tried to find any.  show me some.
2) assuming you can show me that bin laden was directly responsible, we still don't know who the ultimate puppet master is.

And yet Saddam is on trial, while Osama strolls around Pakistan planning his next attack.................

exactly  : ok:

I agree with you. ?They were not there before, but now they are. ?The Iraq war has created a focus point for all terrorist; they're all going to Iraq. ?So we can fight them in one location rather than spread out all over the world or in our back yard.

We are NOT gonna talk about who caused 9/11. :nervous:

Main focus point my ass. It has taken Iraq and decimated it. Leaving it wide open for Iran to stroll in and claim it's prize.

So you admit to have done no research regaring 9/11, yet you disbelieve the US Government because of a personal bias you have. ?How can I speak to that when you openly admit you have no clue but have already made a decision. ?The evidence is there, the film is there. ?There was a great article that prooved every conspiracy theory wrong. ?There was a great write up to counter loose change and point out all of the errors and erroneous assumptions. ?You're endorsing a side who made a decision based on ideology and tried to work backwards to justify it.

If that was the objective, then why Iraq? ?Why not just focus the efforts in Afghanistan, where they already were?

There's no reason too.  It's common knowledge who was behind it.

simma down honey!!!!

no, I haven't tried to find any of the evidence that shows bin laden planned 911 (does this even exist???  show me some!) 

but that doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about.  I keep up on current events and I read current media.   and I'm not talking about the atlanta sun or wherever you get your ideas from

I'm not saying it was the objective. ?But it is an intended or unintended side effect. ?Afghanistan isn't nearly as accessible as Iraq, nor is it on the border with as many terrorist nations as Iraq is. ?Again, I'm not saying we went to war with Iraq tto create a battlefield for every terrorist in the world, but we have. ?And that's alot better than fighting them in America or in 13 different nations.

also randall, quit throwing around the word "prove" because, despite all of your training in logic, you really don't understand what it means.

B/C not being able to justify Iraq means someone F'ed up.  When someone F's up they have to be held accountable.  This admin is incapable of placing blame and holding people accountable for their mistakes/inaction/incompetence.  Simple as that.

Lancet has been collecting numbers for decades for various wars, famines and other mass killings for the past 100 years and we, as a country have used them many times as a reference when going to the UN to get Resolutions to stop.

\

OH, so you know who is really responsible?  please share, as there are millions upon millions of americans who would like to know as well.

Can you people stop "QUOTE"ing the previous posts. Half the time it is unnecisary to re-post the previous post. And the other half of the time it's simply unrelated. It makes it annoying to read and comes off as confrontational. And lazy.

I've never heard of the atlanta sun? ?Is the the conservative version of the daily worker?

And yes, there are thousands of documents from Bin Laden training camps to flight schools where the terrorist attended. ?Not to mention Bin Laden's own videos.

And please, call me Flagg.  Have none of you seen or read The Stand.

Just quote the last comment you are replying to, that is enough................

OK Randall, since you've researched these 'documents,' please send me a literature cited so I can read them myself.

i mean c'mon, you've researched this, right?  (you're beginning to sound like tom cruise)

I thought this thread was about Saddams sentencing?

Why does it have to turn into a referendum on the Iraq war. ?I think we can all agree (both sides) that Saddam being put to death is a very good thing. ?

Dudes, take the who is behind 9-11 convo to PMs...NOBODY else wants to hear it and this is not the right place for it.

RESTORE PEACE AND CIVILITY IN IRAQ!  RESTORE SADDAM HUSSEIN!

EDIT: Actually guys, this argument started because some were arguing that saddam should be put back in power and that bush should be tried for war crimes.  so this war argument does relate to the topic

There are far too many to list or send. ?A simple google is a good start.

Equating peace and civility with Hussein is one of the dumbest and disgusting things I have ever heard.  You are the first person I have ever seen make this claim.

simple google = shit.

Plus, you never answered the second (and more important) part of my question...  Like I said, even if you can show that bin laden was directly involved (which let's ASSUME can be done), you still can't tell me who was ultimately responsible.

Nothing authorized us to commit mass murder in Iraq.

What gives us some kind of moral justification for the military mass murder of over 600,000 human beings? Not one God Damn thing.

Go ahead and pick one out for us.

It's funny how when people can't make an intellegent response they resort to name calling.  "you're dumb and disgusting."  ::)

They should both be tried for crimes against humanity.

Saddam for "you name it" and Bush for Iraq.

I didn't call you dumb or disgusting.? I called your comment as such, and it is.  Maybe we should have left Hitler in control of Germany so it wouldn't have been split into two factions and the East wouldn't have been miserable for 50 years.

Yea, I agree with you, however I think saddam can get us out of this mess bush has created.  I know that he's a bad guy, but so is every other state/world leader.   

do not comapre saddam to hitler...  if you want to make that comparison, use bush instead (seriously)

This is pathetic. The UN Weapons Inspectors, whose job it was to ascertain the weapons capability, said they did not posess weapons. The IAEA said they had no atomic programs. The CIA said the Iraqi Army was totally shot. They had no airplanes that could fly. The radio - controlled aircraft have been totally debunked. This is all old shit we've been through before. This country was not an imminent threat to the United States or anybody else, and the neo-cons knew it.

Wow, I mean wow. ?Is there anyone else on the board who will agree with our professor here? ?I'm willing to bet not. ?Equating Hussein with every other world leader is nuts. ?Although I know you don't care, up until this point I respected your opinion. ?Now you're just a nut job. ?You should stick to analyzing microbes, cause politics isn't your forte.

You are right, it is a huge mess that has been created. Actually even more dangerous a threat to us now, then before we invaded. Mostly because of Iran.

Only Saddam and Hitler committed genocide on their own people.  I don't know if you were trying to compate Bush and Hitler or Saddam and Bush, but either one is false.

Neither is Bush, or you, since you are walking lockstep with him right now.

So you condone reinstating Saddam as the leader of Iraq?  What about the hundreds of thousands who will be killed for supporting the US?  You can't be serious.

I did not say that.

Don't put words in my mouth.

again, I beg you: please don't talk about things you don't understand.  You know what I do... but you obviously have no idea what microbes are.  (i don't work with microbes, bud).  i don't mind if you insult me about my work, but please, at least get the right field.  you're just making yourself look silly, jumping up and down on the couch like that  :peace:

It is this kind of hubris and arrogance that got us into this position in the first place.

Randall's really good at that

I suggest you goto Iraq SLC and help your Iraqi brothern. ?At least then you'd be doing something rather than sitting on your ass selling homes in Florida. ?That's really making an impact on the world now isn't it.

Bush has killed more people in Iraq then Saddam has at this point.

RANDALL, BUSH HAS KILLED MORE AMERICANS THAN 911.....  how many times does it have to be said.

And it's not just about killing your own people, it's about taking advantage of the weakness and fear of the people to use it for the advantage of your own self interests.  that's where all these fucks are the same.

Ok, Nonlinear says : "I think saddam can get us out of this mess bush has created. ?I know that he's a bad guy, but so is every other state/world leader."

SLC says: "You are right"

How am I putting words in your mouth?

Well lets see here.

You are reciting Bush's failed plan word for word. Sticking to your guns with something that is going down the shitter. Something that the NIE estimate reported as created more terrorists and made us less safe. Iraq is also in the middle of a full blown civil war, yet you stick to the same failed agenda at all costs.

Do you concur?

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result(s). I might be eccentric, but I sure as hell ain't insane.

You are right............it's a huge mess that is created.

 ::)

Republican strategy = deflect from what is going on "in the now" by blaming everyone but themselves.

why do all of these right wing bush jockers have to play the traitor/unpatriotic card when they are criticized for fucking everything up?

even bush stopped that, randall... and quite some time ago, too.  get with the times, man!

That is the last resort when you are out of moves...............

We haven't had a terrorist attack on the US for over 5 years. ? I could give a shit about Iraqi democracy. ?I care and only care about America and most of its allies to a lesser extent. ?I am expecting us to keep the terrorist in Iraq and that my friend is working.

I never called him a traitor or unpatriotic (at least not in this thread or for quite some time).  I'm simply saying do something to make change, don't bitch from your home, sitting in a chair behind a computer screen.  If that's how we always did things, there wouldn't be a jew left in the world and German would be the official language of the EU.

Randall, can you tell me why we are in iraq?  can you tell me what iraq had to do with 911?  what threat anyone in iraq was to me or any of my friends or family?  if you support this load of shit so much, why are you sitting in midwest USA behind a computer typing in 'thu jungle' on a guns n' roses forum all day?  get out and serve your country! :rant:

i feel like sinead o'connor now, only with a picture of bush.  "fight the real enemy" :hihi:

You are in denial, just like you were in denial when I told you what would happen in Iraq years before.

When Iran gets it's hands on that place we are headed down the wrong path.

It is not a matter of if, but when. Bush is trying to move the goal posts to ensure he can claim some sort of "victory" but it is all smoke and mirrors my friend. Iraq is the recruiting ground for fanatics who see this as a holy war, an attack on Islam by the USA. It is Osama's wet dream come true. An absolute tragedy, and there is no end in sight. You talked the same way two years ago, and you still won't face up to facts: Bush fucked up BIG TIME and we have big problems because of it.

Part of being an American is speaking up. Voice = change, which you will probably see tomorrow.

BINGO.  Osama wanted us to come to afghanistan and beat us the way he beat the russians.  Things didn't work out for him there.  Instead we invade iraq and he gets a second chance.  THIS IS WHAT THEY WANTED and BUSH GAVE IT TO HIM.  The real war on terror was Afghanistan, and b/c of Iraq, THAT WAR is now being effected negatively.

The War in Iraq may be entering final meltdown stage. Bud Fox hopes what looks like a major sea change in the American public does not all turn out to be media hype, but from what Fox is seeing people are turning off from the yellow ribbon brick road back to reality. The country is finally facing the fact that the War in Iraq has been an act of arrogance, stupidty and mass murder.

We now have more than enough critical intelligence to back that statement 100 percent.

I'll be in Iraq next August.? Already have my unit and orders, thank ya very much.? Don't worry about ol' Flagg here.? I'll be at Ft Benning Georgia in February, training up.? I'm an active duty Army Officer, 2LT to be exact.? When are you going over non-linear?  I'm sure you're very worried about my safety and well being.

Edit:? There were 7 people viewing this when I posted.? Why did you all run away?? Did I say something?

Hi Randall, I've already sacrificed family members for this silly war.  I mentioned it when i first made that post, but i edited/deleted that sentence because, well, it just wasn't appropriate.  let's just say that I've lost a lot, ok?

Spare us. The time between my last post and yours is nearly 45 minutes, yet you don't see me claiming everybody instantly ran away from my heroic post.

I don't quite understand the argument that if you aren't serving, or have not served then you should keep quiet. What are you trying to say? Seems like an absolute insult to the very same people who laid their life down prior in order to grant us that very freedom in the first place. Maybe you would be more comfortable in a South American country?

In all honesty it is really a last ditch attempt to tell everybody to shut the fuck up.

Flagg, be careful over there when you go dude - seriously.  Is this your first tour in Iraq? If so I hope you still post, be curious to hear if your views change once you spend some time there.

nonlinear, I am sorry for your loss(es).  This was is so meaningless I'm sure its hard to come to terms with loved ones dying/losing limbs over a big lie.

Whether or not you know someone there, serve yourself or have written letters to troops and wore a big yellow ribbon, as americans we all have a say and a stake in this war (some stakes larger then others of course).  We're all Americans, lets not forget that.

at the risk of sounding callous, as a taxpayer i have a "stake" in this war too.  In addition to caring about US troops getting killed (and yes I do care a great deal, like I said, they are americans and they are serving this country, nothing but respect) this war has cost BILLIONS.  I can think of a million other things that money could have been used for to make us more safe (and keep our men/women alive).

i just wish all this fighting between western civilisation and all these terrorists groups would just piss off. Its annoying me, its like the end of the world is unfolding from whats going on or something.

I'm new here and I've been reading a lot of the posts in this topic and a lot of them have the same theme that "BUSH fucked up!".  Last I checked in the United States still has the War Powers Resolution which limits the ability of the President to deploy armed forces without the consent of congress 60 days after deployment.  And don't get into the "he tricked them with false security reports" because the governemnts of France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Russian, and Australia all had intelligence similiar to our own. We also live in a representative democracy, so regardless of which side of the political spectrum your representative lies, you can still persuade his vote to coincide with your own agenda if you get the majority of the constituents in the state/district to agree.  So instead of pointing fingers at the wrong people, ask yourself how much have you communicated to your representative of this situation?

what you have to ask yourself is how this crook can prey on fear, manipulate "democracy,"  wage an illegal war of terror, and not face any repercussions...

Nice name eddie dean.  I think people will be voicing their democratic opinions tomorrow.  However, the whole babble about "bush lied" is not justified.  He made a decision based on reasonable intel.  We dicked around and delayed long enough that it is very possible that the WMDs were moved into Iran.  I'm not saying there were there or that they were moved.  Simply that good intel indicated they were, and we allowed for ample time of movement.  We have found every component of a WMD in Iraq, just none assembeled.

And how exactly do you conclude that the President AND Congress of a sovereign nation commited an illegal act when:

1. the planned deployment accorded with the sense of Congress, as expressed in section 8147 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act

2. the planned deployment satisfied the requirements of the War Powers Resolution

I would love to hear what was illegal about these actions and how democracy was manipulated.

shut up Randall  :hihi:

And the right wing fascists that post here should remember that.

  huh?

800,000+, If Saddam killed that much over his reign as president people would have noticed, but since its part of the spread of American Democracy through out the Middle East, it's OK. Get your figures from a non-American source.

By the way I will not answer anyone who quotes me, if anyone wants to defend Bush over this then shame on them.

bush leads the US into a war. so he's hitler.

Dems vote FOR the war. they are good people.

so blame bush and hold him responsible, but give the dems a free ride.

makes no sense to me.

i have alot of respect for people like menendez who have been honest and not politicized an issue that is so critical.

Bush is the commander in cheif and therefore he is held responsible for the war.  I agree that the Dems are at fault too but for different reasons.  They are guilty of not having enough balls to stand up to Bush and ask the tough questions that needed to be asked.  That can be said for the entire Congress but that is another thread in and of itself.  Bush fear mongered his way to reelection by scaring the shit out of little old ladies and idiots that actually believe that their small town has a chance of being attacked by terrorists.  Bush has done nothing but stir up the terorists even more.  To quote Bill Maher from Friday's show, "BUsh is like the guy who throws shit all over your yard and then trys to sell you something to get rid of the flies."

You said that 4 years ago, but more emphatically at that time.

I'm sure you are right this time, because if the dems don't take both the senate and the house tomorrow there is just no hope for you guys at all.

Sorry to those keeping the peace around here - i've gotta lock this thread.  It's moving much to fast to moderate and it's way political anyway.