Okay, what was the point?

Seriously, we have Saddam - what the hell are we going to do with him?
We can't try him for weapons of mass destruction, because he didn't have any - and even if he did, who would we be to point the finger?
Can we try him for torturing his people? I mean if our government doesn't see anything wrong with torturing people(so long as it doesn't happen on our soil), again we're not ones to be pointing fingers.
I'm trying to think, we got saddam out of power - but what can we actually do with him now? Have him say he's sorry that he was really awful leader? Maybe have him play himself in movies glorifying how we kicked his ass?
George W. B. wants the death sentence - but if we gave the death sentence to every shoddy leader, well George wouldn't be around either. So what? :2cents:
I guess Saddam will just become a janitor or something, we can't really do anything else with him.

Can we try him for torturing his people? I mean if our government doesn't see anything wrong with torturing people(so long as it doesn't happen on our soil), again we're not ones to be pointing fingers.

It's out of line to compare how terrorist suspects were treated in Cuba to how Sadam treated his own people. Sadam threw innocent people into huge paper shredders and several graves with thousands have been found all over the place. His son asked a girl to prom and she said no, so Sadam's son cut her into tiny pieces and fed her to his dog. I think we can get him for torturing his people.

George W. B. wants the death sentence - but if we gave the death sentence to every shoddy leader, well George wouldn't be around either.

I think Sadam deserves the death sentence just a little bit more than George W.

It's out of line to compare how terrorist suspects were treated in Cuba to how Sadam treated his own people. Sadam threw innocent people into huge paper shredders and several graves with thousands have been found all over the place.
That's like saying Truman personally dropped the atom bombs on Japan - torture is torture, period - it doesn't matter who it happens to. I know that a "suspect" is totally different than somebody who's innocent and has yet to be proven guilty of anything.

I think Sadam deserves the death sentence just a little bit more than George W.
True, but is he one to speak?

Who cares what happens to Saddam?There's far more terrorist activity in Iraq now than there ever was under his rule.If this is still the war on terrorism, all it has achieved so far is maddening enough Muslims to start fighting in earnest.

That's like saying Truman personally dropped the atom bombs on Japan

Maybe....but THAT made Truman a hero. He saved THOUSANDS more than were killed there. Saddam is responsible for far more than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He should fry.

The last time I checked - we weren't trying him at all. The Iraqis are.

Maybe....but THAT made Truman a hero. He saved THOUSANDS more than were killed there. Saddam is responsible for far more than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He should fry.
He killed hundreds of thousands because they were a percieved threat to the U.S. (though they weren't, but it hastened the end of the war) Saddam killed a hundred thousand of his own people (or more, but it seems there's no accuracy of the count) because he thought they were a threat to his country (and probably 99% weren't) and he's an asshole for doing it. (of course whereas the atom bombing of innocent people seems pointless, at least all the needless waste of human lives ended the war several months earlier than it would have ended otherwise - whereas Saddam's killing like most executions was probably 99.999% worthless)
The last time I checked - we weren't trying him at all. The Iraqis are.
Of course only after we got Saddam, set up their new government, and held the man responsible - basically we're the ones putting him on the stand (though we will not be making the decision as to what happens to him).
Seems like more splinters before planks nonsense to me.
Anyway most dictators never go to trial, so what exactly should the end result be?

bagwanshrirashnish- You're actually low dude. The estimated casualties for the invasion was 250,000 to 1,000,000. Of course many, many more Japanese would have died also. No one ever realizes that. It's easier to dwell on the negative.
http://www.animationlibrary.com/Animation11/Transportation/Planes/spitfire.gif

That's like saying Truman personally dropped the atom bombs on Japan - torture is torture, period - it doesn't matter who it happens to.
I'm not sure but torturing someone to death seems a bit more harsh than torturing someone to the point of cuts and briuses. Either way it's wrong but I'd rather walk out alive than be carried out in a can of Alpo.

don't forget that he left part of his country in ruins while his estate was worth more that alot of big businesses. wait we do that too..

don't forget that he left part of his country in ruins while his estate was worth more that alot of big businesses. wait we do that too..
Uh...no...We as a capitalist governemnt make our own money. Who ever is rich enough to own a mansion that is worth more than a big business is from their hard work, or luck. Either way the government has little to do with it..

don't forget that he left part of his country in ruins while his estate was worth more that alot of big businesses. wait we do that too..
The difference is that there were few free market economic forces at work with Saddam. He deliberatly impoverished the Shiite and Kurdish parts of the country to control them and lmit the strength of his opposition.
He spend vast sums on his own estate as a method of propeganda to reinforce the impression of his overwhelming image of power and control over the nation, again, as a method of influencing and controlling the population. Dictators and monarchs have done this for thousands of years.

true. I didn't know about that. Well now i do.

He spend vast sums on his own estate as a method of propeganda to reinforce the impression of his overwhelming image of power and control over the nation, again, as a method of influencing and controlling the population. Dictators and monarchs have done this for thousands of years.
To clarify ..

'He' being Saddam, not GWB

What's with bringing Truman and the atomic bombs into this thing? What does that have to do with Sadam?

Seriously if you see Truman's dropping of the bombs the same as Sadam's treatment and actions of his country then you need help. Truman killed people with the bombs to end a war. Sadam was just a sick twisted psycho.

What's with bringing Truman and the atomic bombs into this thing? What does that have to do with Sadam?

Seriously if you see Truman's dropping of the bombs the same as Sadam's treatment and actions of his country then you need help. Truman killed people with the bombs to end a war. Sadam was just a sick twisted psycho.

I think you should re read the original context of the mention of Truman, and what it was in response to, you silly person.
Saying Saddam personally tortured and murdered all of the people who were killed under his regime, is like saying Truman himself dropped the atom bombs on Japan - they were both ultimately responsible for those actions, but they did not actually do the deeds themselves.
Nowhere was it mentioned that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people was anything like killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no reason. In fact it was noted that in Truman's case a solution to a problem was being sought (even if the solution was unacceptable, and illogical) whereas Saddam's regimes executions and torture served to solve nothing.

Totally neutral comment here: Hussein's wack sons Tweedledum and Tweedledee actually did personally lay hands on in the torture cells so say surviving victims.

Okay, like what happened at the Nuremburg Trials after WWII I have no problem seeing Hussein be put to death (note this is one of the rare instances where I do support the death penalty, maybe one of the only ones) because he clearly violated human rights. What he did exceeded torture considering that torture usually doesn't end up in death, and if it does, that's not torture, it's murder. Fact is Saddam killed thousands of innocents for reasons that still aren't clear to any rational human being.

However, here's a question for the conservatives out there, or at least those who supported the war in Iraq. If our final answer to why we invaded Iraq (remember WMD's and 9/11 links fell through on further investigation) is human rights, why did we not present that case to the UN? Why oh why did we ally with Pakistan who is EQUALLY guilty of human rights violations AGAINST THE SAME ETHNIC GROUP (if you didn't guess it, it is of course -drumroll- the Kurds).

I don't think anyone here is or was "for" the war. We look at it as a fact that our guys are unfortunately there and we want them to survive at any rate.

I personally feel the UN would have dicked around till doomsday given any substantial possibilities that Iraq had WMD. We must remember that the ex-head of their nuclear program who escaped the country detailed all the impetus given to making a bomb- not to turn lights on though the use of nucllear power. Given that and the knowledge that bio-warfare programs did exist and stocks of the stuff were around- are they in Syria now?- we were led to believe it. Geez Saddam postured with the threat that he had the shit!

At the end of WW 2 the Russians grabbed a ton of advanced German technology. In the reams of documents they got was the plans for the A-9/A-10 ICBM capable of reaching the eastern coast of the US. And we knew the Germans had a nuclear program but no idea of its status. Stalin threatened the West with those blueprints as a delivery device for the A-bomb they'd recently developed.

Knowing the general effectiveness of the A-4 (V-2) rocket, if we'd have asked Werner von Braun, which no doubt someone did, he'd have said "yeah, they could have built it."

That brings us to allying with less than desirables. History's biggest case in point- Russia with the Allies in WW 2.

I wonder why the flacid UN didn't "DO SOMETHING" about Rhwanda and now with Sudan. Mass murders and genocide.

Okay, like what happened at the Nuremburg Trials after WWII I have no problem seeing Hussein be put to death (note this is one of the rare instances where I do support the death penalty, maybe one of the only ones) because he clearly violated human rights.
The death penalty violates human rights. China is offender #1 in that regard - why not get rid of them?

Why oh why did we ally with Pakistan who is EQUALLY guilty of human rights violations AGAINST THE SAME ETHNIC GROUP (if you didn't guess it, it is of course -drumroll- the Kurds).
Or why didn't we take down a bigger offender? period. Iraq was just a speck compared to North Korea or Burma.

Iraq was a bigger threat i guess. n korea and china have not shown any major public signs to my knowledge.

I wonder why the flacid UN didn't "DO SOMETHING" about Rhwanda and now with Sudan. Mass murders and genocide.
Assuming that wasn't just a rhetorical question, the answer is that countries like the US have been bent on inaction. But to be fair, it is unjust to single out the US on this, Belgium, Britain, France, China, every majory power in the UN didn't want to involve themselves. The reason they were all bent on inaction is apathy (I mean, 1 million down and no one's economy seemed to notice) and the fact that no one sees any solution to Africa and if they do, not enough people can get behind one plan to push it through to the outher countries.


The death penalty violates human rights. China is offender #1 in that regard - why not get rid of them?
For the most part I agree, and you might ask how I can only partly agree. First of all, one could make the argument that under the philosophies of any social theorist during the enlightenment, by killing someone, or to be safe, exacting a calculated murder of multiple people, is clearly breaching the "social contract" once this has been abridged, anything is fair game. Then again, there are the inalienable rights of life liberty and property. You know what, fuck it, do away with the death penalty, I just argued myself into a corner, sweet. I guess the only justification for killing a person like Saddam is that so long as he is alive, his old regime in the minds of some people lives. So by killing him, you kill one of the last traces of his reign.

Porsche guy- Yeah I'm not talking about any one country doing something. The danged UN is in theory of its mandate perfectly made to address this type of situation so as not to involve any one foreign govenrment with the attendant possibility of prejudicial action that would result in economic favor for that nation. Here is a summit staffed by representatives of the world's nations that can't or won't confront the situation and draft a resolution.

It's sadly kind of like if the other nations of the world don't care enough to even do that much, what good are they really? Looping back to the original question- why approach the UN for assistance on the topic of WMD, Iraq or whatnot when they don't address events as blatantly obvious as genocide and massacre in Rwanda and Sudan? I mean friggin masses of bodies were floating down a Rwandan river for days on end. Some fuggin thing is goin on upstream!

Since Hussein is an Iraqi, try him under the laws of Iraq. It's true that there may be a US-installed government now in power that sees Hussein as evil and will dole out the harshest punishment. Does anyone (besides a few formerly in-power people in Iraq) actually want Saddam back in power?