His Excellency Saddam Hussein, Urges Iraqis Not to Hate the People of the West

Originally posted by XphilesPhan


oh yes! *beats my chest* A'merica bad.....Saddam good!

Pardon my ignorance but . . . who say in any of this post that Saddam is good.

Is just that . . . he should no be hang by himself . . .

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
So your "against it but not" how confused. Let me ask you, if your in the proccess of commiting a crime, is it "dishonourable" to leave the job unfinnished?

Is it dishonourable to shoot a man, beat him up, then leave him there without giving him first aid?
You clean up your own mess...thats the first thing I learned.

If your old master tells you to beat up a weak old lady in the street, and you already started the job, what would be more honourable, to stop and turn on your master, or to "finnish the job".

Neither, the honourable thing to do would be to help her,but since I am not a fighter I would never get into that situation. I heal/repair..damaging should only be left to extremes.

By being a part of this war, you have already tarnished the image of scottland, and by not admitting when you where wrong, you look as small as an cockroach nothing more.

The image is already tarnished, its the futures job to clean it up as best as possible but then again who is going to accept a "sorry for blowing up your country card" nowadays?

You won't finnish your job anyway because IT IS THE HONOUR OF IRAQ THAT WILL NOT BE TARNISHED! so in the end, you'll be leaving with your tails between your legs, too bad if you had left sooner you may have gotten away with a bit of dignity.

Oh I wouldnt be so sure syrian, we have faced mightier enemies than the insurgency, we beat the nazies, napolean and we beat the romans.

Sounds like you are a decendent of someone who collaborated with the the english, their word is like gods word to you isn't it?

Actually no , my decendants where part of williams army, since my decendants wher sutherlands. True one of my decendants did send many scots to thier deaths in america and canada but thats another story. Oh and syrian, just to point out a fatal faw you made...tony blair and most of the cabinet is scottish You where saying?

Because everything they said about wallace has to be true. Go hug the queen why don't you.

Actually it is true, read up about stirling bridge and york. Hug the queen? Why would I want to hug her?

As for what he did to an english lord i haven't heard of it, if it was an english lord trying to subdue a rightful resistance movement, i'm sure he got what he deserved.

Lol you saying its ok to boil a man then use his flesh as a bag? Riight and whos the more inhumane person?
Whether or not he got what he deserved is something diffrent.

Do your worst !!!

Where is the "gentlemanly" aspect to this war, you are not fighting a force that is equal in power to you, you chose to pick on the weekest country like a bunch of cowards.

There are no more gentlemans in war after WW1, thats why I am not in the military. Lol weak? Iraq had the worlds 4th largest army, bigger than our own lol!

Gone are the days where you could be "an officer and a gentleman" devilwasp. Don't forget when 10 of your men, beat near to death to iraqi boys half your size as they where pleading for you to stop.
[/quoe]
Actually they arent gone, there are just fewer gentlemen today. You mean those "boys" who threw hand grenades at them....yes.....

Your countries images is really not tarnished righ?, HAH that's what is to be laughed at.
[edit on 28-12-2006 by Syrian Sister]

Yeah I mean its not like we invented concentration camps or used slavery for say 200 years is it?
End sarcasm.

I support Saddam Hussein because I support the expansion of The West. By that I do not mean Christianity-religion but the kinds of society that can be seen from Japan to Germany to the U.S.
It’s not just obvious; but as the violence in Iraq proves everyday you cannot have a western society without it being ruled by a strong man. There are a host of reasons for this and all of them have been well studied and put to the test in history (most notably during colonial times).
But amongst them is the sectarian differences as well as the culture of the religious fundamentalist. In America they say things like “God put fossils on earth trick us” but because they aren’t that many of them; it doesn’t make much difference. Also its because they tend to be Christian Religious Fundamentalist and this markedly different to the ideology culture of the Muslim Fundamentalists; and though there are many of them they share certain things in common such as convictions that stoning women to death for the Mob courts idea “adultery” is right.

They are truly backward people; and they are not backward only because they support these evil practices but also because they want to impose their beliefs on you and on me.
And signature of a religious fundamentalist is that aren’t too bothered about how this is done.

This is one of the primary reasons for violence in Iraq. Under Saddam Christians and different kinds of Muslims were allowed to live together, and even integrated because the sorts of people who round up all the shop keepers in a district and only let their type go (whilst disembowelling, torturing and ultimately killing the rest) where themselves tortured and killed. These people were put into mass graves and this in my view is the right thing to do; because as they want to impose their culture on Secular Muslims or none Muslims I want to do the same to them. (If they didn’t want to impose their culture I wouldn’t care less about imposing mine).
When we removed Saddam and his political party from power, and put in its place anarchy and democratically elected government of sectarian differences and therefore its own anarchy; the Religious extremists in Iraqi society were given free rain.

It wasn’t long before they were telling secular (and extremely Westernised) (primarily Sunni) women to wear things like they veil. But there Sunni as well as Shiite extremists; anyway in the end most of Iraq’s and women have co-operated because of the disgusting things which still frequently happen to those who do not. But their hearts and their husbands never co-operated.
They saw our occupation which has created or “liberated” this situation; and they saw the Iraqi government which itself contains Iraqi extremists. They thought to themselves we don’t like this situation; and we don’t like those who have “liberated it”. And so we will attack the occupation and we will attack the Iraqi government; and we will conduct reprisals against those religious fundamentalists areas; just as they conduct reprisals against those who do not co-operate with them. And we may even blow up the stupid Mosques of these backward people.

But the Shiites and to some degree Sunni extremists have retaliated against this resistance from within; and that is why Iraq is in a state of civil-war.
And they have no shortage of recruit’s ether; not least from once the innocent people (on all sides) who have been caught up-suffered in all this.

Frankly I am pissed with the leadership of the West that we have held both the spreading and development back in the Middle East (through challenging movements such as the Ba’th Party Ideology) (which did you know? pre-dates Saddam).

We have held its development back through a host of lies and false reasons; but the principle real reason (as many Ba’thist will tell you) is because we fear a Westernised Arab world because it would be a second super power, because (at the very least) it would be a both richer and more powerful than it can ever be today. The suggestion is that the primary reason for this fear is what a strong Arab world might do to Israel.

However I believe this fear is completely irrational (or at least erratic) because Israel has nuclear bombs; and as the current state of the world shows western people (or westernised governments) can comprehend the power and evil of the atomic bomb (rationally). Religious fundamentalists on the other hand do not; or at least do not with anything like the same kind of predictable certainty.
But so it is our wish has been granted. Years of quite well documented western foreign policy have prevented any kind of Arab westernisation unification movement. And now we have Iran to contend with; and when that’s not there; the problem still will be dormant; or expressing itself elsewhere (and that problem of religious backwardness-extremism, division, poverty and sectarianism could have been avoided if only we had let (or perhaps should still let) the political ideology of the west grow from its political seeds into Arab government.
I really do not care if it’s a dictatorship; just that’s it’s a better government than the religious extremists; and if that is a dictatorship it is not ruled by one dictator but many across borders. This is my vision of the Middle East; and it is strongly shared by the Ba’thists.

And in the end all those of who disagree with me will be ridiculed by the fact Iraq will have a dictatorship; and that dictatorship will be religious fundamentalist (quite Iranian style if Iraq’s majority have their way) or it will be secular if the minority have the way. I only wish that we choose the secular one; and as far as material standards of living (not to mention things like woman’s rights) it’s the secular one which is better for all (accept the most hardened extremist).

Kurds…
I know Saddam did wrong with the Kurds but that was in the 1980’s not 2003. It was a tragedy that happened in the context of a tribal society, the Iran Iraq war, and the Kurds being funded (and armed) by Saddam’s (and increasingly ours) Iranian enemy.
It happened against the back-drop of Saddam having already tried to negotiate with the Kurds back in 1974; and despite the negotiations being generous (they offered the Kurds autonomy and a fair share of Iraq’s oil for instance) the negotiations had failed principally because Iran had increased the bribes to the Kurds tribal leaders.
And it was the violence coming from the Kurds which ended the land between Iran and Iraq and which therefore caused the Iran Iraq war.

Kuwait…
Used to be part of Iraq for thousands of years; before the early 1920’s when the British separated it from Iraq because it was an area of high oil concentration and we feared what the implications of Iraq having so much oil would mean for the future (Kuwait by the way was only formally given independence from Britain in the 1960’s).
Kuwait should have cut back their oil production (like Saddam told them too) because of Iraqi Iran Iraq War debt that could not be properly paid back because of the low oil price Kuwait had caused. Because if they had it’s a near certainty the Kuwait war would never have happened.
Equally it was obviously a huge strategic mistake on Saddam’s part; because invading Kuwait he feared he could not pull the troops out without the Iraqi army turning on him (you have to remember many were dormantely looking for a excuse anyway because of factors like many of them being Shiite and not Sunni like Saddam).

Oil for Food
However our U.N sanctions against the WMD’s Saddam got rid of killed far more people than the 1991 Gulf War ever did. As for oil for food programme; well because Saddam did get rid of his WMD’s the need for) it was completely unjust. Saddam in a bid to find the money to keep his regime (and therefore prevent today’s statistically far more murderous anarchy) was in my view completely just in raiding it; particularly because the majority of oil food programme money did successfully go to Iraqi people anyway.

“Remove Saddam 1991” Can You Think?
Many people often say “we should have got rid of Saddam back in 1991”. I'm sorry but I often wonder whether the microbes in a glass of water have more intelligence than you. The reason for this is because getting rid of him would have destroyed his command and control structure. This would mean their would be lots of WMD’s (notably biological weapons which can kill millions) in the hands of Iraqi generals and even officers; plus without a proper command control structure it is almost inevitable they could be stolen from wherever they are stored.
This would mean we would have germ weapons in the hands of terrorists as well as the black market. You cannot negotiate with terrorists; especially when they’re demands are ether genocide or conflicting. This would mean Israel (and perhaps any other western target) would be on the receiving end of them some time soon (independent of the consequences to the people or the Arabs).
That is why I think people who say “Remove Saddam 1991”. Frankly the whole of the Iraq war could have only made sense if we knew Saddam had disarmed.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

A lot of Iraqis feel that Saddam may come back to ppwer - or that he still wields power.

As long as Saddam is alive - he will have power through his party. This would undermine the government itself.

Here in America, you kill someone you can likely face the death sentence. Well I am sure Saddam is responsible for at LEAST one death.

Now, some of you may counter this with my own president - well the difference there is, and it is a big difference - is that he never issued an order to slaughter hundreds, if not thousands of defensless people.

Iraqis are killing Iraqis - that is the FACTS.

I can wait to get out of the country and watch the religious fanatics spiral down the the darkages.

Originally posted by crisko
Well I am sure Saddam is responsible for at LEAST one death.

Saddam Hussein received a death sentence for his role in the murder of 148 people in the Iraqi town of Dujail.

washingtontimes.com...

He is actually responsible for many more, but there's no sense belaboring the point.

Saddam was tried and convicted under Iraqi law.

ive read about that on world net... and there is NOTHING exellent about saddam

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


He is actually responsible for many more, but there's no sense belaboring the point.

Saddam was tried and convicted under Iraqi law.

Regardless, the trial was a sham and had it been anyone else, anywhere in the world, there would be significant grounds for, at the very least, a retrial.

Government interference, US interference, defence lawyers being killed off.

Anyone who calls the trial fair is lying.

For there to be any justice for what was done under Saddam, there has to be a fair trial, considering ALL the evidence.

So far, he has been convicted of killing people who had just tried to kill him.

That's it!

Hardly a genocide.

According to international law, he should have gone to the Hague, but lo, there is no death sentence in Europe and we all knew the outcome of the trial before it even began.

Originally posted by stumason
According to international law, he should have gone to the Hague, but lo, there is no death sentence in Europe and we all knew the outcome of the trial before it even began.

As I said before mate the charges are debatable.

One question I have to ask though, why hague? Couldnt we have like done the whole "Hang you from a yard arm" off the victory?

Or mabye just stuck in the tower of london?

Hanged by Sunday
Saddam Swings Soon

I guess they've decided the sooner the better.

Fine he is being punished. Great. I'm overjoyed.

Now let's get someone like him back in there!

Yeah, umm, I don't think anyone should be called "his/her excellency",
anyways, that's beyond the point.


I honestly think it was a huge mistake for us to topple his government.

Regardless of who he killed or not, Iraq was whole hell of alot better
a place when he was ruling.

People did'nt fear for their life on their daily commute to work,
there were'nt suicide bombers blowing themselves up and killing dozens
every day.

[edit on 12/29/2006 by iori_komei]

[edit on 12/29/2006 by iori_komei]

Friendly Reminder

I don't want yall to forget that we need to discuss/debate the subject not each other. I do not want personal bickering sinking this thread.

Thanks Everyone

Quicksilver

[edit on 12*29*2006 by Quicksilver]

You have voted Syrian Sister for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

For this post, all of it, but particularly this passage:

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

I'm don't support saddam, he was a dictator, he may have kept things secular and stable aswell as some other good things, but the represive way he ruled was wrong, the ends don't justify the means. And the idea that Iraq would have fallen apart without him is just some silly new idea, Iraq existed as a free and united country before he was born, and they have resisted occupation and gained independce before and still remained one nation! Besides i still maintain he was a US asset, just as his enemies are today.

Other than that, it's a show trial, we supported him at his worst, and plenty of our people should be swinging for it too.

And, yeah, "his excellency" is a bit OTT it seems to me. The guy was a thug. BUT he was a clever thug who did have the interests of his country at heart, which all the Saddam-haters here seem to forget. And I'm sure these same people would have been all for him in the days when our governments supported him. They would have been saying "oh, but we need a strong man there" as reports of mass murders came in.

And Stumason... if you've ever noticed any of my posts you'll know I don't stick up for the US, and am just as inclined to doubt almost anything that they have to say... but Saddam did kill rather a lot of people and there have been mass graves found in Iraq. HOWEVER, it's not entirely clear that these don't date back from the Iran/Iraq war or from the Kuwait invasion casualties when the "Coalition" slaughtered a retreating army (which might well be a war crime, but I'd have to look it up to be sure).

Originally posted by Liberal1984
His Excellency Saddam Hussein …

That’s the single most disgusting thing I have heard this whole Christmas season. His Excellency?

Originally posted by Liberal1984
I support Saddam Hussein

Then you support this –

- www.pbs.org...
- www.npr.org...
- www.moreorless.au.com...
- www.state.gov...
- www.usaid.gov...
- www.cnn.com...
- www.9neesan.com... (disturbing pictures)
- news.bbc.co.uk...
- www.blackfive.net...
- www.foxnews.com...
- sportsillustrated.cnn.com...
- iraqikurdistan.blogspot.com...

*NOTE - the blog about Kurdistan goes through at times, and other times not. It's fickle.

Under Saddam Christians and different kinds of Muslims were allowed to live together,

Under that dictator Christians and Muslims suffered mass murders (hundreds of thousands of them) and had state sponsored mass rape, so no one was 'living together'. They are just being murdered together.

Kurds…
I know Saddam did wrong with the Kurds but that was in the 1980’s not 2003.

Unwarranted genocide shouldn't have a statute of limitations put on it's penalty. You are saying he should have gotten away with it because it wasn't recent enough for you??

Kuwait…
Used to be part of Iraq for thousands of years ... Kuwait should have cut back their oil production (like Saddam told them too0

So what if it was part of Iraq a long time ago? You are blaming the victim.

Oil for Food
However our U.N sanctions against the WMD’s Saddam got rid of killed far more people than the 1991 Gulf War ever did.

Prove that with credible statistics. Good luck with that. The statistics put out by Saddam’s regime labeled ANY death during that time as connected to the sanctions. It was pure propaganda. There are no credible figures from that time period.

... the majority of oil food programme money did successfully go to Iraqi people anyway.

No. Billions went into building Saddam’s palaces and buying UN Security Council votes. Iraqis didn't see the Oil for Food program money. That's a fact.

“Remove Saddam 1991” Can You Think?
Many people often say “we should have got rid of Saddam back in 1991”.

The UN tied the hands of the coalition going in to liberate Kuwait. They said not to go to Baghdad to get Saddam even though he was a legitimate target due to the fact that he was the aggressor. Bush 41 should have ignored the corrupt UN and gone and gotten Saddam then.

This would mean their would be lots of WMD’s (notably biological weapons which can kill millions) in the hands of Iraqi generals and even officers;

That's not how it works. If a coalition army comes in and defeats the Iraqis then the WMD would be in the hands of the victorious invading army. The Iraqi 'generals and officers' would either be dead or captured. If they tried to escape with massive quantities of WMD they'd be caught.

Are you saying that there were WMD and that the liberation of Iraq based upon those WMD was justified?

I'm sorry but I often wonder whether the microbes in a glass of water have more intelligence than you. ...

Considering that you said this - I support Saddam Hussein - You really should reconsider that statement. Glass houses Liberal.

edited to fix link



[edit on 12/29/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by rich23
BUT he was a clever thug who did have the interests of his country at heart,

Rich ... Saddam had his OWN interests at heart, not that of Iraq. Please take note of the links I provided in the previous post to Liberal. How could a man who mass murdered his own people - by the hundreds of thousands - and who had mass torture and mass rape - have their best interests at heart? The mass graves say something else. So do the numerous palaces that Saddam had built with the Oil for Food money he stole from the Iraqi people.

I provided just a few of the many links that show the mass death he left as his legacy.

.... which all the Saddam-haters here seem to forget.

These are things that the Saddam-backers here seem to forget.

What good was killing another man ever going to do? he should be locked away in a prison.

^Thankyou rich23 i'm glad there are people who read my posts.

Sorry Quicksilver but i wrote this up before i read your post. It won't happen again. I cut it down in half as not to disturb you

i've said my peace on saddam so..

Devilwasp.

Is it dishonourable to shoot a man, beat him up, then leave him there without giving him first aid? You clean up your own mess...thats the first thing I learned.

Let me give you a sitaution that is more closely annalogous to reality. An intruder enters your home, steals your stuff, shoots your brother, rapes your sister, and beats you up, then while continuing to occupy your home and treating it as if it were his, he procceeds to give you medical attention. Would it then be honourable of you to accept that "help" from him?

NO, ofcource NOT! Iraqies have more of sense of honour than you, and they will continue to hate you and continue to fight you. What you have already done is UNFIXABLE, and you continue to intrude, so if you want to do something right for a change you should just BACK OFF.

who is going to accept a "sorry for blowing up your country card" nowadays?

Exactly. So maybe you are begining to understand. You are not fixing anything by contiuing to do something that is fundementally wrong, and you are shooting at people who have every right to be angry, and every right to fight you.

Oh I wouldnt be so sure syrian, we have faced mightier enemies than the insurgency, we beat the nazies, napolean and we beat the romans.

Heh, you've occupied Iraq before, and they have beaten you before, or have you forgotten? In this situation it is your side which is the imperialist, you are the invaders like the nazi's and the romans. The Iraqi resistance has a weapon that is more powerful than you or the nazi's or the napolean, they have the determination of the righteous, who can take on a super power with only a rock and fight till the last drop of blood. The power is in that.

Lol you saying its ok to boil a man then use his flesh as a bag? Riight and whos the more inhumane person?

Wasn't it a belt? And i read it was his men not him specifically. I can't side with such dishonourable acts but i'll bet you they had a very legitimate reason to be so angry, and it doesn't change the fact that william was a hero who fought for his land.

Lol weak? Iraq had the worlds 4th largest army, bigger than our own lol!

HAH!!!! you mean, when you attacked it?? What a twist on the glaringly obvious, you are really trying to squirm out of it aren't you? Let push it even more then, your side was so dishonourable and coward, that they completely disarmed the country using the UN even from the smallest missile, leaving it with no chance to defend itself a few weeks before they declared war.

Yeah I mean its not like we invented concentration camps or used slavery for say 200 years is it? end sarcasm

I don't see how your sarcasm makes sense since you did use slavery for 200 years, if not more.

-----------

Anyway, this will be my last post in a short while since i'm going away. If someone decent reads this, tell the others not to make up crazy stories like they did last time, i'm not in guantanamo bay under terrorism charges, i haven't been shot by the spooks (yet) and nor have i been abducted by aliens.
I'll be back, wether you like it or not.

Rich, marg, liberal, *nod*

[edit on 29-12-2006 by Syrian Sister]

Originally posted by marcopolo
What good was killing another man ever going to do? he should be locked away in a prison.

No a darn thing.

We changed Saddam's detention and torture jail for massive killing and open street executions.

We changed Saddam's executions of his enemies, now you can kill anybody in the streets that you don't like.

Guess what, Saddam was a killer and now everybody in Iraq can kill for free.

Funny how the actual situation in Iraq now is look at better than the life of the people while under his regime.

I try very hard to understand this kind of mentality about who got the right to kill who as long as we agree with what is done to Iraq to be good patriots and support our government.

I guess I will be a good girl and wave my flag when the news come that he has been executed.

Just like any good american patriot should do.

[edit on 29-12-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by rich23
You have voted Syrian Sister for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Nice to see you run yellow.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

I'm don't support saddam, he was a dictator, he may have kept things secular and stable aswell as some other good things, but the represive way he ruled was wrong, the ends don't justify the means. And the idea that Iraq would have fallen apart without him is just some silly new idea, Iraq existed as a free and united country before he was born, and they have resisted occupation and gained independce before and still remained one nation! Besides i still maintain he was a US asset, just as his enemies are today.

Iraq was formed after WW1 - did you fail history? Really ithe ignorance scale here is off the charts.

Oh wait -you meant the eight years is was peaceful from 1931 to 1939?

LOL you guys can be funny.





[edit on 29-12-2006 by crisko]

[edit on 29-12-2006 by crisko]

Originally posted by crisko

Oh wait -you meant the eight years is was peaceful from 1931 to 1939?

LOL you guys can be funny.

I like you point, the one about the funny remark.

So tell me what will you call Iraq right now after liberation the garden of eden.