Saddam Hussein...

arek p. wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

arek p. wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: ...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world???

exactly, besides how to kill him could be perceived as a step to Iraq's democracy, its fookin stupid.

From our stand point, I understand the confusion on this. But the Iraqis feared even speaking his name, and believed that once the US left he would come back into power. Saddam alive kept many of the Iraqis from taking part in the rebuilding of thier country. If he got life in prison, the Iraqis would still fear him. With Saddam dead, many can move forward, as thier personal nightmare of him is over.

maybe youre right, Iam not a Middle East expert, maybe Iraqis feel safely now. I am sure many of them are pleased with his dead, fine; but is this execution solving at least one Iraq's problem

Good question. The one part of planning for battles that can not be understood until attacking is the human element. I hope the execution does good, I think it will, but to what exent and will it make a large enough impact....well, your guess is as good as mine.

The USA gave Saddam to his Shite enemies to hang, Saddam and the Bath party are Sunni as well as Al-Quiada ... how does this hanging show an example of democracy to Itaq and and show that they want an end of sectarian violence? Yes, Iraq is so much more civilized and modern now...

Rednecks in America are happy thou ..."yee haw!"

hey sickos, it's saddam video!

Spotnick wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

arek p. wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: ...does anybody really think that Saddam's execution will really do anything good for the world???

exactly, besides how to kill him could be perceived as a step to Iraq's democracy, its fookin stupid.

From our stand point, I understand the confusion on this. But the Iraqis feared even speaking his name, and believed that once the US left he would come back into power. Saddam alive kept many of the Iraqis from taking part in the rebuilding of thier country. If he got life in prison, the Iraqis would still fear him. With Saddam dead, many can move forward, as thier personal nightmare of him is over.

Yeah, now they have to deal with Al-Quaida instead... much better!

You may not like Saddam, but truth is, in the middle east, Iraq was probably better to its people than most countries over there. At least in Iraq, women were allowed to go to school and a lot of other things.

I'm not saying things were done right, but compared to other countries, it was a bit better...

Now though, it's complete chaos, nobody would like to live in the Iraq of today.

True, but sometimes to make something better you have to make a shit storm.

I have a theory that Saddam's not really dead, he's just in hiding so he can keep putting out albums of "unreleased material" for his fans to convince themselves that he's sending them messages about his real fate via his songs.

No, wait, that's my theory concerning Tupac. My bad

Taboo # 7 wrote: I have a theory that Saddam's not really dead, he's just in hiding so he can keep putting out albums of "unreleased material" for his fans to convince themselves that he's sending them messages about his real fate via his songs.

No, wait, that's my theory concerning Tupac. My bad

I thought they were one and the same

saddam was a sack of shit,i hope the cunt rotts in hell. and im not going to temper that with the (they should have hanged bush n blair)as well argument. would either of them have survived killing over 300,000 of their own people?? i think not.

mike powell wrote: saddam was a sack of shit,i hope the cunt rotts in hell. and im not going to temper that with the (they should have hanged bush n blair)as well argument. would either of them have survived killing over 300,000 of their own people?? i think not.

Well I understand Bush has just passed 3,000 in terms of troops.

At least Saddam gained his power thru his own assholeness, Bush was an asshole loser who given his power to be a tool. I could just hear Bush cackling and boasting about the execution while praising his god ..."heh heh heh"

James Thomas wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Sorry, sounded like I was directing that towards a NOOLer, I meant here as in the US. In watching the news and talking to people, there are a few that bought into Saddam's letter and they cry as if he was some innocent that is getting a great mistrial, by the W the big bully. Saddam deserved what was coming to him, wish we could do it with a lot more of the dictators out there.

Suppose it depends which of your friends won't let you have their oil next.

Hey, you forgot these:

http://ambit.typepad.com/

http://www.adamzelwin.com/F%20The%20French.htm

http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/000200.html

Oh yeah, you also forgot to post copies of the oil contracts France, Germany and Russia had with Saddam.

Well, for a man who is brutal and heartless, I'm glad that Saddam is dead. No different from Nuremberg.

The man who secretly recorded Hussein's execution to be executed?

The things go even worse after the capture of Hussein who was a secularization monolith in the world of a radical religion, according tohttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1573593,00.html.

It's an open question. Let's see what's happening in Somalia - almost the same scenario as in the Sudan has occured.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: The man who secretly recorded Hussein's execution to be executed?

Oh FFS... I doubt it.

How can you casually hold up a mobile phone (and a quality one, at that) in a hanging chamber without being noticed?

If this wasn't allowed and agreed beforehand on the specific basis it would be leaked on the net, then I'll eat my hat. Looks distinctly to me like official sources using 'unofficial' multimedia to spread the video.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Well, for a man who is brutal and heartless, I'm glad that Saddam is dead. No different from Nuremberg.

I just saw a movie-- Casualties of War-- based on a horrific war crime in Vietnam. Four American soldiers kidnapped a teenage Vietnamese villager, gang-raped her, and then killed her to cover up their crime. One soldier refused to participate, and became the "bad guy" for his not participating. He reported the incident up the chain of command, but his commanding officers weren't interested. Eventually, there was a court martial, but the sentences for two of the soldiers were greatly reduced, and two of the sentences were overturned.

Shortly after that atrocity was reported, American soldiers murdered over 500 civilians in the village of My Lai, mostly the elderly, women, and children. The slaughter was stopped by one American helicopter crew, who trained their machine guns on their fellow Americans and said they'd shoot if the killing continued. The Lieutenant who stopped the massacre died one year ago this weekend.

Only one soldier, Lieutenant Calley, was convicted for his role in the civilian massacre, despite evidence that his Captain not only gave the orders, but was also involved in the killings. Calley served 3 1/2 years of house arrest at Fort Benning.

Colin Powell, who organized the original My Lai coverup, went on to a distinguished career as an admired American hero.

Nearly 40 years later, American marines gang rape and kill an Iraqi teenager, before killing her and her family to cover up their crime....

Not to say that German, or Japanese, or Serb, or Iraqi war criminals shouldn't be tried. Just that we seem to have one standard for their war criminals, and another standard for our.... well, we don't really like to acknowledge that we have war criminals, all the way up he chain of command, much less punish them.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Not to say that German, or Japanese, or Serb, or Iraqi war criminals shouldn't be tried. Just that we seem to have one standard for their war criminals, and another standard for our.... well, we don't really like to acknowledge that we have war criminals, all the way up he chain of command, much less punish them.

Ultimately in the end... all armies are internally as bad when it comes to war crimes. The main problem with court martialling troops during a war, rather than after it, is troop morale. However, I wish some redress was made to show the shone doesnt shine out of the Allied forces asses.

Watched a repeated documentary over Xmas period, re: the Xmas Day Truce over the trenches between UK and German troops in WW1, when opposing troops played football against each other, exchanged gifts and cards etc, and buried their dead. Reminded moi of how often balanced opposing forces can be in terms of right and wrong, and the complete futility of it all.

The U.S. says it won't submit to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction because it won't subject U.S. soldiers to politically-motivated war crimes trials.

If we won't submit to international jurisdiction, and we won't try those responsible-- yeah, Abu Ghraib was just some trailer trash girl and her buddies, it had nothing to do with higher-ups-- then we're giving American war criminals a pass.

The marines charged with the Iraqi rape/murder are facing a death penalty, though.

Bet they don't see the end of a rope, the way Saddam did....

I only saw clips of Casualties of War and almost watched it today. Very disturbing. Funny that my post is being quoted. Anyway, after I posted my response, there was a National Geographic Special on Saddam's brutal regime. I won't change my mind on what I've said about Saddam being executed. However, with all of this talk about war crimes, I can say that America and other free countries must make an example of how vital it is for their militaries to accept their responsibility for atrocities.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Very disturbing.

Yep, as you can prolly tell from my post.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The U.S. says it won't submit to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction because it won't subject U.S. soldiers to politically-motivated war crimes trials.

If we won't submit to international jurisdiction, and we won't try those responsible-- yeah, Abu Ghraib was just some trailer trash girl and her buddies, it had nothing to do with higher-ups-- then we're giving American war criminals a pass.

The marines charged with the Iraqi rape/murder are facing a death penalty, though.

Bet they don't see the end of a rope, the way Saddam did....

Thats always the victors spoils though. Even if a victory is a distinctly 'hollow' and ongoing claim in this case. Perhaps the said offenders should be tried in Iraq, where a 'democratic' (ha-ha!) government has been established. After all, these crimes took place in the place. Fucking weird and 'selective' is all this democracy lark.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Anyway, after I posted my response, there was a National Geographic Special on Saddam's brutal regime. I won't change my mind on what I've said about Saddam being executed.

No need to, it was just the Nuremberg reference that brought our own atrocities to mind....

However, with all of this talk about war crimes, I can say that America and other free countries must make an example of how vital it is for their militaries to accept their responsibility for atrocities.

Exactly. We're supposed to be the good guys.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Funny that my post is being quoted.

Yes... unusual too; amazing it was Commie quoting you too.

Comrade, you also need to remember that Vietnam had many different circumstances. If you look at war, it is a brutal and ugly thing. You throw in tens of thousands of people together you will have your small percentage that are going to do horrific things. Also, before Vietnam, there wasn't any televised battles before, and although it is by no means right, it was considered by many as common place.

Today's standards have changed things drastically. The military is fully aware of the impacts of media coverage now, and there are more regulations and convictions than you are made aware of. Iraq will not be lost by military strength or death toll, it will be won or lost by media coverage (which is how Vietnam was lost).

Though I think we should not cover up our mistakes, I care not for this movie you speak of. It comes at a time in which hollywood is trying to press anti-war sentiment. If the movie wasn't trying to be politically charged, I wouldn't mind, but its the subconscience message I don't like.

Being a moderate, I also have to agree that Hollywood is biased to wars lately. The only war movie that I can say is the best is Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." The man knows how to instill reality in the film. Pretty soon, Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima" would join my list.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Being a moderate, I also have to agree that Hollywood is biased to wars lately. The only war movie that I can say is the best is Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." The man knows how to instill reality in the film. Pretty soon, Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima" would join my list.

I agree with "Private Ryan" being the most authentic war movie or one of them...for at least the first thirty minutes or so when the D-Day landings are going on. Then it devolves into an almost standard "buddy war movie" in which the platoon is slowly whittled down on a mission that either works or doesn't for the viewer. I'm not saying that the movie as a whole is less for it, but the second act seems almost routine war-movie schtick compared to the you-are-there momentum of the landing scene. The battle scene at the end doesn't hold up compared to the landing scene (it's probably not supposed to).

I would recommend "Das Boot" myself, just because it gives a good insight into what some types of warfare are like (long periods of boredom punctuated by intense and sudden combat that can come at any time). Also try the 1930 version of "All Quiet on the Western Front" on for size; for a Hayes Code-era war film it's pretty honest to the book. "MASH" (the movie, not the TV show) is a comedy of course, but it's a reaction against the horror and senselessness of war.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: The only war movie that I can say is the best is Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." The man knows how to instill reality in the film.

How is relying on a lot of cliched soldier-boy stereotypes and 'Greatest Generation' schmaltz "realistic"?

I think by far the best, and nothing, I mean nothing comes close is Band of Brothers. granted an HBO mini series, but it is one "movie' that actually uses military tactics (that Hollywood tends to screw up all the time). If you haven't seen it, it is a complete must see, even if you don't like war movies, it will blow you away.

EdelBrock wrote: Though I think we should not cover up our mistakes, I care not for this movie you speak of. It comes at a time in which hollywood is trying to press anti-war sentiment. If the movie wasn't trying to be politically charged, I wouldn't mind, but its the subconscience message I don't like.

It's not an anti-war film. It's a film about a soldier trying to maintain his own morality-- when the men in his squad commit a war crime-- in the face of extreme pressure to both participate, and to look the other way.

Taboo # 7 wrote: I would recommend "Das Booty" myself