Saddam to be freed?

Originally posted by Boatphone
You are correct the U.S. did "use" Saddam when we needed to. We did this to protect our own interests. Sometimes a nation must pick between the lesser of two evils. Any sane leader who is going to do his duty to protect his conutry will do this. Its the real world out there not some kiddy cartoon.

I can hardly call a SANE leader, mister Ronald Reagan!

And his contribute to World Peace!

No revisionist history lessons today, Souljah, k?
Your disdain and subsequent disapproval at the news that Saddam will not be freed is dully noted.

Since your party to celebrate Saddam's release has been squelched, you are invited to attend the parties that will undoubtedly be experienced during Saddam's upcoming trial. Where shall I send the invite?

Btw, your reasoning for Saddam's release are what? Lack of WMD evidences, despite the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children he murdered, maimed, and shredded? Been to Iraq? Asked any of those survivors if they feel Saddam should be released? I thought not, cause you probably wouldn't be here trying to give your revisionist history lesson, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Seekerof]

President Reagan did more for world peace than most. How about ending the cold war. "Peace through Strenght"!!

This post is about Saddam, not about anything else.

So why do you Souljah continue with the question that Saddam was not guilty because he had relations with the US?

Look at the facts. Plain as day, guilty as sin. FACT

I fully agree that Saddam is Guilty. Everyone knows it...

Seekerof,

I am only trying to point out, that there are Several More Dangerous Men still at large! And that World should fear those men, not some dictator from Middle East. He was just a puppet. And everybody is sooo concerned about the people that he killed - wow, what a concern. What about half a million dead children in Iraq during the UN sanctions blockade? Who is responsible for that?

Again it shows how this man was used by the USA, for their interests in Middle East.

Anyway, I am done with history lessons.

Originally posted by Souljah
Seekerof,

I am only trying to point out, that there are Several More Dangerous Men still at large! And that World should fear those men, not some dictator from Middle East. He was just a puppet. And everybody is sooo concerned about the people that he killed - wow, what a concern. What about half a million dead children in Iraq during the UN sanctions blockade? Who is responsible for that?

Again it shows how this man was used by the USA, for their interests in Middle East.

Anyway, I am done with history lessons.

I'd say that Saddam is guilty for the deaths of a half-million children in Iraq by causing the blockade by not allowing the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. Or maybe it was the U.N. for dropping the ball on the whole operation.....

Originally posted by Seekerof
No revisionist history lessons today, Souljah, k?
Your disdain and subsequent disapproval at the news that Saddam will not be freed is dully noted.

Since your party to celebrate Saddam's release has been squelched, you are invited to attend the parties that will undoubtedly be experienced during Saddam's upcoming trial. Where shall I send the invite?

seekerof

You bad seek real bad

Where is the party?? I want to attend espicially if it ends in his hanging that is.

Originally posted by Boatphone
President Reagan did more for world peace than most. How about ending the cold war. "Peace through Strenght"!!

'Peace through Strength'?

Sounds a lot like the strength through slogans of the Nazi party to me.

I really think that Gorbachev had more to do with ending the cold war, even the Pope probably. Reagan just typified the infatuation of the American people for third rate actors. Besides I thought this thread was about Saddam. Have he and the devil made up yet?

Originally posted by Boatphone
President Reagan did more for world peace than most. How about ending the cold war. "Peace through Strenght"!!

Oh yea, he was your regular Peace lover right?

Reagan forcefully confronted the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the détente observed by his predecessors Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. Sensing that planned economies could not compete against market economies in a renewed arms race, he made the Cold War economically and rhetorically hot. The administration oversaw a massive military build-up that represented a policy of "Peace through strength." The Reagan administration set a new policy toward the Soviet Union with the goal to win the Cold War through a three-pronged strategy outlined in NSDD-32 (National Security Decisions Directive). The directive outlined Reagan's plan to confront the Soviet Union on three fronts:
1. Economic - decrease Soviet access to high technology and diminish their resources,
2. Military - increase American defense expenditures to strengthen the US negotiating position and force the Soviets to devote more of their economic resources to defense,
3. Clandestine - support anti-Soviet factions around the world from Afghanistan resistenace fighters in his early years to Solidarity later in his presidency.

Support for anti-communist groups including armed insurgencies against communist governments was also a part of administration policy, referred to by his supporters as the Reagan Doctrine. Following this policy, the administration funded "freedom fighters" such as the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua, and Jonas Savimbi's rebel forces in Angola. The administration also helped fund central European anti-communist groups such as the Polish Solidarity movement and took a hard line against the Communist regime in Cambodia. Covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran Contra Affair, while overt support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua vs United States.

At the same time, the administration considered paramilitary groups resisting Israeli occupations, such as Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, Palestinian guerrillas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and left-wing guerrillas fighting US-backed right-wing military dictatorships in Honduras and El Salvador to be terrorists. The Reagan administration also considered guerrillas of the ANC's armed wing Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK or Spear of the Nation) and other anti-apartheid militants (e.g. the PAC) fighting the apartheid government in South Africa to be terrorists.

Really nice president huh?

You are hijacking this thread, Souljah. Not nice. Saddam is guilty and will be executed at the end of his trial. No appeals.

As much as you attempt to fashion a defense of "The devil made me do it!" for this barbaric murderer, it will not work.

It's funny, I think this is a case of doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons. Unless everything we've been told is a lie, Hussein was a brutal dictator who used fear to control his citizens. He committed atrocities including purges and torture. The gas issue has not been completely proven out, but it's immaterial. Same with WMD. I think we should be engaging in a good old fashioned witch hunt for the cherry pickers in the CIA though, they know who they are. Their honorable colleagues have packed up and gone already, most of thoes left are clueless or compromised - that's my perception based on what I've been able to put together.

And Souljah is right, we're not targetting people equally. If this was a just society, there would war crimes trials for the US/French Officials who nurtured Hussein, sold him those weapons and precursor chemicals, and told him they couldn't care less if he invaded Kuwait (then attacked him directly afterwards). There would be some action taken to prevent this from happening again, for example, perhaps we should go around the world installing dictators, arming their men, training them, and then losing control of them. That would be a damn fine start.

I mean, if we want to talk about brutal dictators who use fear to control their citizens... C'mon folks, this is hypocrisy as its finest - pointing your finger is all well and good, but you have yet to notice the mirror in front of you.

There are some other nations we should be invading in short order. Is it even possible to invade oneself? I think we should certainly attempt it, in all fairness.

I actually thought 9/11 might be the start of a military coup, but it turned out not to be. I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again, I have more faith in our armed services right now than I have in our elected/appointed officials. I think we'd be a lot better off with generals in the halls of power until we can fix our democratic process and return a semblance of honor to our institutions. America has always been hyporcritical in its dealings, but that doesn't alter the fact that we can change. We should change, for the better.

It's a new age yaknow?

Lets get one thing straight Saddam will get lynch mob justice . Using the word justice and Saddam togther is a joke. How soon people forgot that Nazi leaders were jailed at Numerbeg for "waging war" dosnt that make Bush and his croines war crimnals?
Something to ponder..........

[edit on 3-4-2005 by xpert11]

No one will be satisfied,
everyones view of "justice" is diffrent frankly myself I think we should send him to iran with the US flag tatoo'd onto his chest....lets see how long he lasts...

Originally posted by devilwasp
No one will be satisfied,
everyones view of "justice" is diffrent frankly myself I think we should send him to iran with the US flag tatoo'd onto his chest....lets see how long he lasts...

i guess he would just put a t-shirt on

Originally posted by kalki
i guess he would just put a t-shirt on

You know the iranians hate him...right?

dude almost everybody hate this guy.. i was kidding

Originally posted by kalki
dude almost everybody hate this guy.. i was kidding

No these guys have a sort of blood thing against him
Heh you got me with the T-Shirt bit though...
Rock on dude/t

Originally posted by slink
As I said, I can't believe 100% that he is guilty of those crimes because I don't know if it is just American propeganda against Saddam.

It was only iraq which used its chemical weapons on Iran. Iran didn’t have any chemical weapon at that time and therefore did not use any.

Saddam should have met the same fate his sons did. Killed by the hands of a US Marine.

He said that he would never surrender. Ok that didn't happen.
Hiding in a whole like the rat that he is. If you don't believe what you hear then you should go out and ask some of the Iraqi people what it was like under his regime.