Alfa Romeo Forum banner

Saddam should he? shouldn,t he?

  • Hang.

    Votes: 12 35.3%
  • Stayed in prison.

    Votes: 15 44.1%
  • Left to run the country.

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • Or take this land as booty and send in wilcon persimmon etc.

    Votes: 1 2.9%
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know this is a delicate topic. But IS the world now a safer place, think of our boys n girls who are doing a sterling job in IRAQ and AFGANISTAN will they come under more fire , and will we.

Awaiting your reply,s

Sparkoniocv.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,126 Posts
Old news now - he's well hung :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
429 Posts
there are moral arguments either way about whether he should, or shouldn't have been ececuted, but i think the simple fact is, the "allies" HAD to do something with him.

if they'd dealt with him properly after the first gulf war, we wouldn't have been in this position now, to let him go again would have been political suicide.

i have no feelings either way about him as a person, i have to say, he did come across as being an educated, intelligent man.

so, he took money from the iraqi people and lived a life of luxury.
And our queen and her family live in a 2 up 2 down in a council estate, yes ? tony blair has a dingy flat in a tower block and lives on minimum wage ? perhaps they shouldn't be throwing such stones from their houses of glass !

his crimes against humanity were inexcuseable, however, and it is these for which he paid the ultimate price. i think the moral arguments will rattle on for a while yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
He should have been left to run the country. He was no threat to us (Britain that is) and had nothing to do with 9/11.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
yes there are moral arguments both ways but he has been convicted of a crime and has been punished according to the laws of the country, ironically the saw laws he used to use to repress the people of Iraq...

So that's that bit, as for should the US lead forces ever entered the country, I have no idea but best of luck to all of the personnel who are trying to make it a better, safer place...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,299 Posts
I feel that we should never have invaded Iraq as he didn't have weapons of mass distruction, was contained in his own country, but could still be used as a 'check' against other volatile countries in that region.

All the situation has now done however is to give a rallying point/cause to all the extremits, pushed moderates into becomming exremists abd caused unstability in that region.

It has made the world a much more dangerous place :( :( :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,878 Posts
Kevin Slegg said:
I feel that we should never have invaded Iraq as he didn't have weapons of mass distruction, was contained in his own country, but could still be used as a 'check' against other volatile countries in that region.

All the situation has now done however is to give a rallying point/cause to all the extremits, pushed moderates into becomming exremists abd caused unstability in that region.

It has made the world a much more dangerous place :( :( :(
Exactly. Let's keep our eyes on the big picture. Bush invaded a sovereign nation for 100% false reasons - there were NO weapons of mass destruction, Hussein had NO connection with Al Queda, and Iraq had NOTHING to o with the 9/11 attack. Thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died because of Bush's lies. :tut: :tut: :tut: People will continue to die in Iraq for many years to come because of Bush's lies. Was Hussein a criminally bad leader? Of course. There are dozens of coutries with leaders far worse than him. Does that give America the right to arbitrarily invade every country they want? Of course not. Actually, I suppose we don't really need to fear this because America only create wars for arbitraty reasons with countries that have oil or strategic value. For those who truly were happy to see Saddam swinging from the gallows, perhaps you should ask yourselves if you would be happy if Bush was the one swinging from the gallows. Personally, I think both of them should have spent the rest of their lives behind bars in the terrible prison systems they helped to create...
 
E

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Kevin Slegg said:
I feel that we should never have invaded Iraq as he didn't have weapons of mass distruction, was contained in his own country, but could still be used as a 'check' against other volatile countries in that region.

All the situation has now done however is to give a rallying point/cause to all the extremits, pushed moderates into becomming exremists abd caused unstability in that region.

It has made the world a much more dangerous place :( :( :(
My sentiments too. This time round Iraq was all about WMD's and they never found any, Saddam was hanged for crimes against his people. Crimes that didn't bother the western world when it suited to support him.
 
N

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
When are we sending troops into Zimbabwe to
get rid of that evil regime?

And what about North Korea? They've 99% got nuclear
weapons. A clear and present danger if ever there was
one!

Why did we single out Hussein & Iraq? Things that make you
go Hmmmmmm. :itchyChinSmiley:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Anyway the poor old US has a rude wake-up call
waiting for it once the Chinese start dumping their
bonds like so much junk stock and major markets
start using the Euro instead of the dollar. (Something
that Iraq did with it's oil just before the war started. Hmmmmm....)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,126 Posts
I have several mates in the RAF. They've been training for Korea for some time so it may be sooner than you think Nev. Agree with Zimbabwe (awful). Looking back, we should have hit Yugoslavia before the disgusting ethnic cleansing genocide that happened there! Appaling & embarasing!!

The downside of all this is that people flee to countries such as ours when displaced but get labled as dirt when they seek asylum here! In my experience (I work in this field), 90% plus of asylum seekers are proud, genuine people but as with life in general, the minority ruin it for the majority! Almost a rant over ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
morally i think he should have hung cos of how many people he has murdered but in a way it might have been better to let him run the country as he did keep it in control and stopped everybody fighting each other. remember though he did invade kuwait and saudi arabia which are friends of the usa and i believe he would have carried on invading other countries if the usa hadnt stepped in and thats how hitler started (saddam was a big fan of hitler btw )i wouldnt be surprised if he did have a hand in 9/11 but i know there is no real evidence of this. also saddam wasnt religious to start with but he knew he could rally support of other muslims if he pretended to be a supporter of islam which made him more powerful on the world front. all in all i`m glad he is dead
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,878 Posts
stedee said:
remember though he did invade kuwait and saudi arabia which are friends of the usa and i believe he would have carried on invading other countries if the usa hadnt stepped in and thats how hitler started
Actually Saudi was stealing oil from Iraq by drilling laterally under Iraq's border. Hussein, worried about what the US reaction might be if he took military action against the Saudis, talked to the the US to see what their reaction would be. Believe it or not, Bush Sr. told him that we would do nothing, that we considered it a border dispute and that he should do what he had to to secure his borders. In other words, the US egged Hussein on into attacking Kuwait, and then quickly formed an international coalition against Hussein's "atrocious" actions so we could attack him and still come out smelling like roses. Nasty stuff...

In terms of Hitler comparisons, I would say that on many levels, Bush Jr. is a far closer match... Some highlights from one of the literally dozens of artices which makes this comparison...

Compare and Contrast

by WAYNE MADSEN

Adolf Hitler would be proud that an American President is emulating him in so many ways. Hitler, it will be remembered, routinely ignored his military, other world leaders, and the clergy. Bush seems to think that this policy, which ultimately failed for Hitler, will work for him.

First, we should consider what Christian leaders are saying about Bush.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America, Frank T. Griswold III, says "I'd like to be able to go somewhere in the world and not have to apologize for being from the United States" and blasts George W. Bush for his saber rattling. Apparently, poppy Bush, an Episcopalian, believes that the head of his church is wrong and his wayward son is right.

From the Vatican, Pope John Paul II fires a shot over the bow of the Bush administration by declaring, "war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions."

In a television ad, the chief ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, Bishop Melvin Talbert, says that his fellow Methodist's rush to war "violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ.''

...

Content with ignoring the church, Bush has also decided to play with dynamite by ignoring some of America's top military minds.

One of them is retired General Norman Schwarzkopf, the military commander of Desert Storm. He told The Washington Post that he has yet to be fully convinced that war with Iraq is necessary. Schwarzkopf's comments mirror those of other retired top generals, including Anthony Zinni, Wesley Clark, John Shalikashvili, Brent Scowcroft, Joseph Hoar, and Merrill McPeak. Pentagon sources report that the obviously mentally ill Donald Rumsfeld threatened to fire some members of his Joint Chiefs of Staff for not supporting the war against Iraq. These included former Marine Corps Commandant and now NATO commander General James Jones and Army Chief of Staff General Erik Shinseki. Another recipient of Rumsfeld's wrath is the commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command General Charles Holland who Rumsfeld accused of having a "case of the slows" in carrying out Bush's war plans.

Pentagon sources report that morale among senior military commanders is at an all time low. Rumsfeld rubbed salt into open wounds when he ordered his "CINCs" (Commander-in-Chief) to drop that title, declaring that there is only one "commander-in-chief" and that is Bush. Neither did it help when Rumsfeld said military draftees never added any value to the service.

...

War making and saber rattling is not the only similarity of Bush to Hitler. The German leader, along with Joseph Goebbels, was also a master of propaganda. The Bush administration, obviously putting its propaganda arm, the White house Office of Global Communications, into full gear, convinced nine European leaders to take out an ad, billed as an 'article," in several European newspapers supporting the Bush administration. Some of the usual suspects signed on to the article, including Tony Blair, who, in addition to Barney and Spot, is Bush's favorite lap dog. But it is interesting to point out some of the other leaders who backed Bush. They include the Prime Ministers of Poland and Hungary and President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic. These countries, which joined NATO a few years ago with the provision that they buy billions of dollars of American warplanes, tanks, and other hardware, are virtual subsidiaries of America's military-industrial complex.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
quattrothedog said:
there are moral arguments either way about whether he should, or shouldn't have been ececuted, but i think the simple fact is, the "allies" HAD to do something with him.

if they'd dealt with him properly after the first gulf war, we wouldn't have been in this position now, to let him go again would have been political suicide.

i have no feelings either way about him as a person, i have to say, he did come across as being an educated, intelligent man.

so, he took money from the iraqi people and lived a life of luxury.
And our queen and her family live in a 2 up 2 down in a council estate, yes ? tony blair has a dingy flat in a tower block and lives on minimum wage ? perhaps they shouldn't be throwing such stones from their houses of glass !

his crimes against humanity were inexcuseable, however, and it is these for which he paid the ultimate price. i think the moral arguments will rattle on for a while yet.
ya, it makes me wonder as a non-brit why are u guys so dedicated to the Queen? She doesn't quite do anything and she gets taxpayers money. There are other countries that have monarchies overthrown. Britain is one of the remaining few.

anyway, imo, Iraq's invasion boils down to oil, simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,591 Posts
trento said:
ya, it makes me wonder as a non-brit why are u guys so dedicated to the Queen? She doesn't quite do anything and she gets taxpayers money. There are other countries that have monarchies overthrown. Britain is one of the remaining few.
Probably because Britain has a perfectly working political system with the Head of State above grubby day-to-day politics. The only thing I can see wrong with the UK's system is the political gerrymander that does not give 'equal' francise to all voters and this has nothing to do with the Queen. Unfortunately Voterdisfranchisement is not something that is particular to the UK. You should look at the very strange political boundaries set out for US elections.
I am also 'stuggling' to think of a democracy that works any better with a "President" in any form, elected or otherwise chosen and many of the "Monachies' overthrown were not what you call 'Deomocratic'. In Britain's case, throwing out the Queen would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water........

also if you think the Queen does nothing then you should study the British political system. You will be very surprised by what you find.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,591 Posts
Aside form any politacal reasons for or against the "war in Iraq' the execution of Saddam Hussein' as always in these cases, barbarises the State which orders the execution. In this case, the public humiliation of a Sunni Muslim by a Shi'ite Muslim will only fan the forces of discontent. The handing back the body for internment only compunds the supidity.
 
N

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I've been reading about the Dujail massacre.

I find it strange that he was executed for this one act and
not for any of the other (IMO) more terrible acts.
e.g. use of chemical weapons etc.

The Dujail story is a sad one, but the fact that the ruler of a
country was hit with an ambush and a 3-4 hour gun battle ensued
(while the country was at war) kind of puts it into some perspective.
(Does not justify or absolve, just puts it in context.)
The fact that many townsfolk were executed for this act (of treason)
and then the person who ordered those executions is later executed for that,
seems bizarre. :confused:


My theory is that this acts was the easiest to prove in a court and did not
raise the prospect of investigations into who was supporting/supplying
Hussein's regime in during the even more despicable acts.

I'm really concerned for Iraq and it's people. I can't see this
new year bringing any more hope to this broken country.
:( :( :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
BigFoot said:
Posted my views elsewhere on the forum. No good will come from the hanging...
Yes. Iraq is a country which shouldn't be invaded in the first place. It's very easy for the US to invade. but to stay there and rebuild it is another thing. Iraq itself is complex enough, the same goes for understanding how the arabs work.

when i was watching CNN before the invasion, it's funny how some US political figures cited Germany and Japan as good examples of success. But those nations were far less complex. I actually thought Vietnam was probably simpler to deal with. I mean the US left Vietnam and it's on the road to progress. I can't say the same if the US leaves Iraq. It's gonna be one big bloody mess.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top