(UPDATE: Saddam executed) Saddam to be hanged by Sunday

check CNN, Iraqis are starting an investigation on who leaked the video clip and it seems to be authentic.

 

The US should completely pull out and let them kill themselves. We gave them one job - Saddam's trial - and they screwed that up.

 

I am late to this thread, but let me just say that the 'execution' (more like a public lynching, really, by masked Shi'ite thugs and mass murderers) could not have been carried out any worse than it has. Just wow! This is the first time that I am truly convinced the U.S. has lost any and all control of Iraq. The true power that runs that country is Al-Sadr and his band of thugs/murderers.

This inept administration and their client-government in Iraq has literally turned a mass murderer/tyrannical leader in Saddam Hussein into a martyr/pop icon of sorts across the Arab world; heck, even in India and across Europe -- as well as other non-Muslim nations -- there is an international outrage over this mockery of justice.

I am still speechless...

 

Oh give me a break, here come the Saddam apologists. The United States gave Saddam 12 YEARS to comply with countless UN resolutions. He refused at every step. Don't you make this sound like we were the ones that didn't live up to our end of the bargain -- Saddam didn't live up to his. No one in their right might would have taken a certifiable madman's word that he had destroyed his WMD without proof. That's exactly the scenario we found ourselves in, at a time when national security was an intense issue. Our nation's security demanded that Saddam be removed, and the Congress AGREED and acted in bipartisan fashion.

You make me sick, how you stick up for a murderous dictator who killed, raped and tortured so many people. It's amazing the depths to which you will stoop (lying and selective amnesia) to make Saddam look like a hero.

 

Trader_J, do you seriously think you deserve a break today, or any other day? When have I ever "stood up" for Saddam. Now you're calling me a liar, you worthless clown, as you lie while doing it. I would tell you to go **** yourself, but that would put me within a few hundred miles of the low level at which you reside. Instead, I'll wish you a Happy New Year.



D&D. Light a Candle... the Air is Foul.

 

No, Decktard, you are the worthless, lying clown, all too willing to align yourself with any and all enemies of our great nation in an attempt to score political points for your party of America hating libpigs. Your attempts to de-legitimize the punishment of a proven mass murderer proves my point. Your post reads like the talking points of a pro-Saddam propagandist. What happened to supporting our troops abroad? Are your party's political polls and focus groups telling you that it's out of style this season? It's better to undermine and subvert our military operations by eroding popular support at home? Congratulations, you can high-five and chest bump your teammates in your effort -- radical Islam.

 

Goodness, Trader_J... have you been drinking? I'm tempted to report your posts, but I don't want to bother the admins. You aren't worth it. Not worth much at all, really.



D&D. Civility is more than a Word.

 

Nice, you tell me to go F myself, then you put in a tagline about Civility.

No cred.

TOODLES, ROOKIE

 

Standard operating procedure for you, Trader_J. Say hi to texxx, will ya?



D&D. Ain't Life Grand?

 

A murderous dictator that prevented civil war. The U.S. stands up for the Chinese gov't which has done far more harm to it's people then Saddam does to his own. We support lots of dictators, including the murderous Saddam before he invaded Kuwait.

Don't you think it's a double standard to cry about one murderous dictator and gloss over the one that's our ally? Really, we don't sit on such a high moral ladder as you'd like to claim.

We interfered in the natural evolution of a nation - and created a mess. For all Saddam was, he was also a secularist who looked to the west as the next step in Iraqi culture. He was staunchly against Terrorism. He hated Al Qaeda. He found Muslim fanatics a threat.

We took him out why? because he wouldn't comply with U.N. resolutions? The kind of resolutions that Israel fails to comply with?

There are so many double standards that your response is loaded with - I mean, you can do better then that as a conservative. Just admit the whole war was a collosial mistake. That's the only fact. The war has resulted in more innocent civilian deaths than died under Saddam.

Think about it....since the first persian gulf war - Saddam hasn't done anything but play a cat and mouse game. He didn't invade anyone, he didn't even gas his own people. And he abided by disarming and not having any WMD. He was just playing a game to look bold in front of the world.

That's not justification for war.

We messed up. Just admit it man. This war was a terrible mistake. History will record it as such. Most of the country knows it. The rest of the world knew it from the beginning.

Why hold on?

 

OMG. NewYorker just made complete and total sense. That can't be good.

 

All of your post was complete and utter bullschit, framed with the benefit of holier-than-thou, Birkenstock General hindsight, but I shall choose to focus on this particularly egregious nugget of inaccuracy.

If Saddam disarmed, then why did he make zero effort to prove that he disarmed? Why did he boot inspectors out of the country? Why did he defy UN resolutions for 12 years? Why was he dismantling his rockets at a purposefully slow pace? After 9-11, when security tensions were at a peak, how could anyone advise the President that the best course of action to defend against a murderous dictator, who was openly hostile towards the US, was to believe him at his word (WITH NO PROOF), that his WMD were destroyed? Particularly when this same hostile dictator had openly rebelled against our country for 12 years! RIDICULOUS. No one in their right mind would have done that. That's what makes yours and the liberals' hindsight analysis such complete and utter bullschit. It's easy for the Birkenstock Generals to lob grenades at our troops and leaders today, but AT THE TIME OF THE DECISION, our leaders made the right choice, given the information available.

So defend Saddam and his leadership tactics all you want, but recognize that your arguments of Saddam the peacemaker (HELLO, ever heard of Iran or Kuwait) are totally ludicrous. I'm not even touching on the outright LIE that you put forth about Saddam being against terrorism. He funded it. It's proven. So you are dead wrong on that point as well. That fact that you have Batman agreeing with you only further diminishes your cred.

 

I agree there is a lot of hypocrisy in US foreign policy but I have a harder time seeing Saddam as part of a natural evolution of a nation. While Saddam did a lot of things that would seem good from a Western secular progression his regime was a political dead end as it was based upon authoritarian rule and a cult of personality. Whether we took him out or not Saddam's reign couldn't have lasted forever and given the fractious nature of Iraq once he died or his whichever of his sons took over as the strong man its likely Iraq would've fractured like Yugoslavia.

None of this is to say that we should've taken Saddam out but that is based upon the inherent problems with trying to invade and occupy and Iraq rather than whether Saddam deserved to stay in power.

 

Saddam funded terrorism? Where?

And, as for Saddam not abiding by resolutions. It's called power politics. He lied about all sorts of weapons capacities in order to boost his image in the Middle East as some sort of regional hegemon.

Saddam was a horrible person who murdered his own people and committed many atrocities but he's not unique in this world of ours nor was he the threat to the world that the administration portrayed him to be. There were no weapons of mass destruction and for you to say "oh well we did what we thought was right at the time" is nonsense. You judge an action by its consequences not whether or not it sounded good at the time. There were no weapons, the country is a wreck, our troops are dying, and the world hates us because of what we did. I have yet to see a positive that came of this war. (and spare us the lunacy of the argument that we are making the terrorists fight us there instead of here)

Also, you're missing the whole point of NewYorker's post. There are countries all over the world that commit genocidal actions, many times on a greater scale than Iraq. You have countries that have broken resolutions and promises about WMD (Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea..). And yet, Iraq becomes our focus.

And more frustrating than the failure of the war is the fact that our administration was utterly incompetent throughout the entire process. They turned a very difficult reconstruction campaign into a video game and basically put a torch to Iraqi infrastructure and stability without any plan to fix it. The vaunted strategy of America was "stay the course" whatever the hell that meant. And that was the problem. Our government insisted on reducing a complex issue like Iraq to three words that formed an absurdly cartoonish phrase that pitted half of our country as terrorist sympathizers versus the other half that supported freedom. Our government has insisted on treating the population as a braindead stepchild that can be bullied into supporting a campaign with nonsensical phrases and half truths that began to sound more and more like the Iraqi information minister's routine claims of Iraq's pending victory over the American infidels.

[/END RANT]

 

Umm.. there were inspectors in Iraq in 2002 who had pretty much free access to the whole country. Those inspectors were pulled out when the US made it clear that they were going to invade. Judging by the fact that WMD weren't found proves that he actually did abide by the UN resolutions but as the saying goes, you can't prove a negative.

The inspectors in 2002 were of the opinion he was complying. That's not Saddam's word that is the word of the inspection program that the US pressed for in the resolution that the US supported in Fall of 2002.

That statement makes no sense unless you believe that Iraq was under US control during that time.

Actually the made the best choice given the information they chose to accept while ignoring any information that said that Iraq wasn't a threat, unlikely to be one and that the occupation was going to be very difficult. Any decision is easy when you choose only to listen to the information that supports your bias.

I don't agree with Saddam's leadership tactics or other decisions and won't defend but that doesn't mean that the US had to take him out then. There were a range of choices besides invade or leave him be.

 

If you consider his payments to the families of suicide bombers funding terrorism, which I would, then he did fund terrorism. That said many of our allies like the Saudis and Emirates also financially support Palestinian groups that engage in terrorism.

 

This statement above is 100% wrong. Abiding by the US resolutions would have implied that there would not have been resistence, 12 years of misconduct, evidence of the destruction of the WMD's, accounting for this destruction, and willful compliance by Saddam. Again, the bottom line is that we didn't have the benefit of hindsight, as you now do, AT THE TIME A DECISION had to be made. So your argument falls.

 

There were no US resolutions. You don't know what you are talking about. There were UN resolutions, and the UN was handling it.

So if Saddam had WMD at the time, the UN would have found out. The end result would have been 3003 US troops still alive, Saddam Hussein disarmed, contained, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis still living.

 

tj keeps desperately trying to play the hindsight card because his position has been proven so completely wrong. It is the one thin and fraying rope he has left.

Of course it is only convincing to his fellow wingnut twits because it ignores the indisputable fact that there were weapons inspectors on the ground reporting that they had the access they needed to verify there was not a WMD threat from Iraq.

So we don't need hindsight to know that invading Iraq was unnecessary and a monumental blunder. One that our soldiers and people of Iraq have had to pay for in blood, while tj and the rest of the 101st Chairborne wack off to Saddam snuff p*rn.

 

Yeah the "hindsight" argument is pretty funny considering that the WORLD didn't believe the decider's arguments and thousands of Americans knew it not to be true and said so from the beginning!