Saddam Hussein arrested - Page 10

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2003, 16:47

4th or 5th?

China and then Iraq? There's a bit of a difference.

1 million poorly armed militia doesnt make one of the world's largest armies either me thinks.

besides, if he had one of the world's largest armies, if he was even remotely dangerous, i doubt the us govern. would do anything

Harry Tuttle · December 14, 2003, 16:47

Well, mixed emotions really. I feel sorry that he looks so pathetic, really a shell of a man - any man. But then again I feel sorry for Charles Manson, just for the fact that the guy is crazy as all hell.

Immediate emotions aside, and remembering the pure hate that came out of this man, I have to say that I would never shed a tear if he was shot in front of a firing squad. The guy is now someone totally without control of his destiny or life. - As it should be for someone like him.

What you sow is what you reap.

Dis · December 14, 2003, 16:47

well we can agree on that. We showed what happens to a million man army in gulf war I. They are sitting ducks without an adequate air force to protect those million men.

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2003, 16:48

they werent dangerous as an opposing force to begin with. plus the embargo blah blah

Dis · December 14, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Well, mixed emotions really. I feel sorry that he looks so pathetic, really a shell of a man - any man. But then again I feel sorry for Charles Manson, just for the fact that the guy is crazy as all hell.

Immediate emotions aside, and remembering the pure hate that came out of this man, I have to say that I would never shed a tear if he was shot in front of a firing squad. The guy is now someone totally without control of his destiny or life. - As it should be for someone like him.

What you sow is what you reap.

well I'm inclined to agree for the most part. It would be a mistake on my part to show pity. The enemy can use weaknesses like that.

But was he really a man of pure hate? I think he was a weak leader myself; who appointed men who were full of hate. Of course he did nothing to stop the atrocities his men created, but that may be more out of weakness, rather than evilness.

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
What you sow is what you reap.

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2003, 16:53

opposition to america is not hate.

killing 1 million kurds is

Oerdin · December 14, 2003, 16:53

I wonder how the rest of the Arab world will react. I half suspect they will be sad to see the Americans won yet again.

Nubclear · December 14, 2003, 16:54

I return home today with a very bad feeling...
I was out doing some christmas shopping, when I overheard this conversation:

Quote:

"Did you hear? The caught Saddam."
"Yeah I heard. Isn't Bush great? He caught Saddam! Clinton didn't even catch Saddam. Now it's only a matter of time before we find Bin Laden!!!"

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2003, 16:54

and blow you up some more

hahaha dumb arabs

Dis · December 14, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I return home today with a very bad feeling...
I was out doing some christmas shopping, when I overheard this conversation:

what's wrong with that? aside from the misconception about Clinton's role in this. Eventually we may get Bin Ladin. What's the problem with that?

Harry Tuttle · December 14, 2003, 17:11

Dissident: I think he was full of hate, or at least a domineering sense of the world that equated to hate. Saddam did some bad things (I'm sure he didn't think of them as evil at the time i.e. sociopath 101).

And no, Clinton didn't catch Bin Laden or Saddam. He just told others to push buttons to fire missiles to blow up radar stations and to not confront the problem of Saddam.

-----But anyways.....

Boris Godunov · December 14, 2003, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
And no, Clinton didn't catch Bin Laden or Saddam. He just told others to push buttons to fire missiles to blow up radar stations and to not confront the problem of Saddam.

Clinton didn't have the luxury of a national catastrophe on the scale of 9/11 occuring so he could make a convincing case to Americans and the rest of the world to go to war in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, nor to dupe people into thinking such a thing was somehow related to going after Saddam.

GhengisFarb™ · December 14, 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by laurentius
And I think he should be tried in the Hague. Afterall it wasnt just iraqis he committed atrocities against.

Absolutely not. He should be tried by his fellow Iraqis, his "peers" and the survivors of his reign of terror where he murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians. Funny how all the people and countries who supported him in this last war and tried to keep him in power to continue mass murdering his own people all seem to be on the news pleading for him to be tried in the Hague.

The current American Administration and the Iraqis seem to see eye to eye on this. The Iraqis should try him.

They also seem to see eye to eye on a three phase trial system:
1) Try his a$$.
2) Convict his a$$.
3) Kill his a$$.

Kuciwalker · December 14, 2003, 17:23

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
ur venting an awful lot of disgust over something that as all reports indicate the US will do what you want.

maybe turn the frenzy level down a notch.

I was venting an "awful lot" of disgust against Sava's and GePap's suggestion.
I am glad Bush wants Saddam to get judged in Iraq. And I hope his admin wil sincerely try to avoid as much interference as possible.

Harry Tuttle · December 14, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Clinton didn't have the luxury of a national catastrophe on the scale of 9/11 occuring so he could make a convincing case to Americans and the rest of the world to go to war in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, nor to dupe people into thinking such a thing was somehow related to going after Saddam.

True, but he did have Bin Laden blowing up U.S. embassies overseas and attacking our ships in port. Oh yeah, and driving truck bombs into the World Trade Center garage... And on Saddam's side we had him shooting at our patrolling aircraft, killing innocents (I'll give you that one, they weren't American, so it must be OK)

, funding terrorist groups in Israel, and threatening our allied countries in the Mideast.

Did Bush have it easier? Yes, but not that easy. Remember, the U.S. did it without the help of our usual Allies.

laurentius · December 14, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

What did you think, that he was our hero? A dictator helped by evil USA, evil USSR and Mitterands corrupt adminstration? I dont think so.

I really like the way you didn't say "Evil France", too.

Haha, you noticed that.
Yes, evil France is not included in my leftist vocabulary

Inverse Icarus · December 14, 2003, 17:44

(i just wanted to show off the avatar)

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 17:48

I've just read John McCain had an interesting suggestion: first a trial in Iraq, and then a trial in the Hague for those crimes going further than Iraq's borders.

Probably the best idea so far

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 17:48

Uber:
Vetlegion beat you to it

Japher · December 14, 2003, 17:50

Quote:

1) Try his a$$.
2) Convict his a$$.
3) Kill his a$$.

4) Then Nuke his remains

laurentius · December 14, 2003, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Absolutely not. He should be tried by his fellow Iraqis, his "peers" and the survivors of his reign of terror where he murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians. Funny how all the people and countries who supported him in this last war and tried to keep him in power to continue mass murdering his own people all seem to be on the news pleading for him to be tried in the Hague.

The current American Administration and the Iraqis seem to see eye to eye on this. The Iraqis should try him.

They also seem to see eye to eye on a three phase trial system:
1) Try his a$$.
2) Convict his a$$.
3) Kill his a$$.

You know there is a reason why victims are not allowed to give out the sentences

Inverse Icarus · December 14, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Uber:
Vetlegion beat you to it

f*ck.

Nubclear · December 14, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by laurentius

You know there is a reason why victims are not allowed to give out the sentences

Japher · December 14, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

there is a reason why victims are not allowed to give out the sentences

Because all of his victims are dead?

Alex · December 14, 2003, 18:01

why trial him? I mean, he is going to be convicted anyway, no matter if they will leave him rotting in a cell for the rest of his sad days, or if they will just sentence him to death, so why set up a judgement for this? a bit hypocritical, IMO.

of course, they could say that there is a "symbolism" behind SH being submitted to a court, meaning that "we, the liberators of the world and justice-doers" don't execute people without a fair trial. blah. they should fry his a$$ and spare us from all the circus.

unfortunately, the resistance will continue to fight, I think that only a small part of the guerilla were loyal to Saddam. most of them just want to get rid of the invaders.

Dis · December 14, 2003, 18:04

now time for my pessimistic post of the day.

This is great news, but I don't think this will impact the attacks in any way. Attacks may actually increase. Many attacks are being perpetrated by foreigners entering in the country. Al Quida is responsible for much of it. As they said- they plan on making Iraq the battleground against the U.S.

GhengisFarb™ · December 14, 2003, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher

Because all of his victims are dead?

According to their own customs the victims ARE allowed retribution.

Chemical Ollie · December 14, 2003, 18:05

This is great news, but I don't think it will change much in practice. Some Western reporters in Iraq even think it will make more people join the resistance, now when they don't have to worry about Saddam coming back if US should decide to leave.

Both Vetlegion and ÜberkruX beat me to the Saddam Claus avatar. I had even posted it when I saw theirs...

EDIT: And Dissident beat me to posting exactly the same analysis as me while I was writing it.