Saddam's Appeal Failed

[poopipe]

foregone conclusion?

discuss...

[yoyoyo]

To be honest, death seems like the easy way out for him.

Edited December 26, 2006 by yoyoyo

[Barbara Logan-Price]

i think they should make him leader of iraq again at least when he was there they were shit scared of him and there wern't as many deaths

[Dr Dig]

you guys mite laugh at my ignorance but what has he done. i think i heard he ordered deaths and things back in the day but what are the exact charges. If it sounds like i sympathise with him i dont

[Gavyn.]

i think they should make him leader of iraq again at least when he was there they were shit scared of him and there wern't as many deaths

i think you're semi right, when he was around there was hardly any farmers growing herion and canabis now theres loads there was hardly any looting and theft because they knew if they stole even an apple theye'd lose a hand. He stopped hundreds of things like that but infairnes he killed like half of all the people in iraq so should be punished but not by the americans i don't see what he's done to them he should be punshed by iraq and imprisoned

[dave85]

Nevermind saddam, he's definately a foregone conclusion, the real bet is on how long before his laywers turn up mysteriously dead....

[Haz]

you guys mite laugh at my ignorance but what has he done. i think i heard he ordered deaths and things back in the day but what are the exact charges. If it sounds like i sympathise with him i dont

I think he was charged with the murder of 130-odd Kurdish people, on the books, that's all he can be proved to have done, however, he also, apparently, I don't know for sure, prosecuted and executed hundreds possibly thousands more, but there's no concrete proof of that.

[Barbara Logan-Price]

I think he was charged with the murder of 130-odd Kurdish people, on the books, that's all he can be proved to have done, however, he also, apparently, I don't know for sure, prosecuted and executed hundreds possibly thousands more, but there's no concrete proof of that.

that was while he ruled and how many civilians,troops and others have died in this war against terror?

bout 1000 maybe more so really the sutuation has gotten worse

Edited December 26, 2006 by alex!beastytrials

[dave85]

Saddam's regime was very likely responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people. Just because no one kicked up a fuss doesnt mean it didnt happen.

[poopipe]

Saddam's regime was very likely responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people. Just because no one kicked up a fuss doesnt mean it didnt happen.

yeah thats pretty much the size of it as far as i remember from the last time round - he had a bit of a tendency to nerve-gas kurds, invade the neightbours and oppress anybody who wasn't one of his mates.

your average tyrannical despot really.

according to my iraqi mate he did bring a fair degree of stability to the bits of iraq he wasn't torturing or murdering and as long as you were on his good side could be a fairly benevolent ruler. Much like hitler he wasn't all bad.

I was half expecting him to either get away with a life sentence or to have the trial run on till he cacked it of natural causes - like what happened with milosovic - but I've been pleasantly surprised

[Si-man]

whens it happening then??

And how??

Better be on the net

[Token]

whens it happening then??

And how??

Better be on the net

Everything you say has a sadistic edge to it, like there's evil that lies within.

Quite a turn on really.

[Si-man]

haha

Nah, i just like watching people get killed, and he was abit of a twatty

[-RoBBo-]

It would be the best Xmas present ever if it was televised

[Tomm]

A quick thing to ponder:

Would you have a life of luxury in return for five years on death row at the end of your life? I mean, Saddam's done alright for himself, he's lived like a King for what, 50 years? But is it worth it now, when it comes to the crunch?

I say... Probably not.

[Si-man]

A quick thing to ponder:

Would you have a life of luxury in return for five years on death row at the end of your life? I mean, Saddam's done alright for himself, he's lived like a King for what, 50 years? But is it worth it now, when it comes to the crunch?

I say... Probably not.

thats why they need to make it last as long as possible, and make it as painful as possible.

lend him me (and im not gonna shag him before any of you dirty slags say it)

[yoyoyo]

whens it happening then??

And how??

Hanging sometime in the next 30 days starting today.

To the people above, don't forget those who 'dissapeared' after a visit from Saddams police.

[PaRtZ]

To the people above, don't forget those who 'dissapeared' after a visit from Saddams police.

whos that then? i forgot

[MadManMike]

Happy Christmas Saddam!

Giftwrapped ticket to hell for you...

[br3n]

A lot of people wont agree but just because he ran his country differently to the west it must automatically be wrong, Bush/Blair order their soldiers to war and we've all heard about guantanamo so where is the difference?

Its a different culture and you cannot say that unethical, if its a culture with different ethics to start with.

No wonder all the eastern countries hate the west...

[poopipe]

A lot of people wont agree but just because he ran his country differently to the west it must automatically be wrong, Bush/Blair order their soldiers to war and we've all heard about guantanamo so where is the difference?

Its a different culture and you cannot say that unethical, if its a culture with different ethics to start with.

No wonder all the eastern countries hate the west...

your argument is flawed from the beginning, he's not being tried in a western court for a start so if his behaviour was acceptable in the arab world he'd have gotten away with it.

I was originally going to launch into a tirade about how evil the b*****d is but im typing one handed with a baby dangling over my shoulder so my arms are getting tired - ask the internet

[1a2bcio8]

I find it very difficult to think of Sadam's trial without considering the hypocricy that exists in such a process. I also wouldn't trust that Sadam is being tried on Iraqi terms, even if they do say that he is. Although I am making somewhat of a cynical presumption here I think that when dealing with the US, a cynicism is probably the more accurate assumption to work from. A pessimism should always be the base of operations if interested in working towards a likely truth ESPECIALLY regarding politics.

The trouble is, I've been led to consider the behaviour of America in Latin America, Aisa and the Midle East across the current and last century. Directly and via proxy, America sometimes or usually with the help of the UK and other developed countries (the 'civilised' ones), has caused a ludicrous amount more death and suffering regarding plans of hegemony. Dictatroships have been installed, under the name of democracy but in a climate of threat of death/torture and which are thus not meaningful, through US action, in order to maintain corporate control of resources in places like Nicuragua and Guatemala. The people in these countries live in terrible conditions where you can't say anything against the government without a very definite threat of torture and then death. People are arbitrarily killed every day to maintain control through fear. The American government will still claim such countries are democracies because it benefits them to do so.

It's not difficult to question Iraq as being a meaningful 'democracy'. When you consider the conditions under which people had to vote. Regarding the prerequisites of a meaningful democracy or election, they fail on at least, a climate of fear/threat of death/torture and additionally the fact they were, at the time, occupied by foreign armed forces. There's so much that can be said about American behaviour that I think each of you would consider outweighs anything Sadam has done if only you knew about it.

It's additionally worth remembering that Sadam was previously supported whilst he was commiting the 'crimes' he's now being charged with. America and the UK previously didn't care providing he sold arms for them like he was supposed to and also helped them out with oil (I'm not entirely sure on the oil bit but I think so). Once he started doing his own thing - I think he nationalised Oil for one thing? - all of a sudden this same behaviour was demonised. Probably for the purposes of a justification in regaining control of this country and its resources and not letting an example of rebellion pass.

I just find it interesting that we can talk about the offical 'bad' guy but I don't think I have ever seen a similar discussion of America and Britian. Indoctrination? Ignorance? Before I read an alternative view I operated as an extension of the mainstream news. Talking in their terms and assumptions. There is an alternative view though and it turns the popular view on its head.

Why are America in Iraq? Are their intentions good?

I'm not saying I agree with Sadam, just that his behaviour is a lot less meaningful in that negative sense when compared to the behaviour of those that demonise him. It just so happens he represented or controlled something America wanted and so we've all been lead to consider his bad side, where before we ignored it.

If intereted in alternative views, check out:

znet

Edited December 27, 2006 by rowly

[poopipe]

cynicism .. from the hippy ?

(the following is not specifically aimed at rowly..)

I should have guessed this thread would turn into a debate about whether it was a good idea to go invade iraq or not really. Forget that, it's been ranted about more than enough times on here and the same thing gets said every single time.

In creating the thread I was rather hoping I'd hear a couple of opinions on whether people thought the trial would be corrupt or not.

this is something rowly touched on ...

It's pretty obvious that there was a whole lot of pressure from various world governments to ensure that Saddam was found guilty but two factors suggest to me that it might not be as insipid and corrupt as it may at first seem.

1: he didn't end up in the UN courts like all the other war criminals do

2: he got the death penalty

Western governments are far too "civilised" to give anyone the death penalty (publicly at least) and to be honest I can't see them allowing the death penalty to be handed out in any place they want to pretend they have any control over.

If anything, the verdict strikes me as being a bit of an embarrassment to the US .

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

Basically the first trial was shit, the second was equally so.

They were both a shambles for the case to be heard properly it would have had to take place in another country with an average law system (somewhere in the EU).

The out come is what he 'deserves' though so I suppose no harm done.

[1a2bcio8]

Sorry for spoiling your post poopipe

I can't comment in great deal about the trial as I've not followed it closely. The outcome seemed inevitable from the outset though to be honest.

The reason I relate America to anything regarding Sadam is because his current situation and the way we percieve him is based upon a system which is actually worse than him - certain western governments in varying degrees. It seems inevitable in my mind not to think of that when you consider Sadam and where he is, and what people think about him.

Imagine a room in which rapist one is telling rapist two how bad he is and how he should be punished for what he's done. Then imagine other people in that room agreeing with rapist one about rapist two but unable to correlate the similarities between those rapists. Perhaps they think, "rapist one rapes for his country or the greater good! he means well! but rapist two rapes for himself! he is evil!". Or perhaps those people don't know that rapist one is actually rapist. What would all the people in that room think if they knew that rapist one was actually a rapist and raped simply for the fact that he got something out of the act, only for himself, that harmed somebody else? That he couldn't care less what happened to those whom he raped and that he is telling rapist two these things because it deflects attention away from the truth of his intentions. Perhaps rapist one is even so deluded that he thinks his rape is righteous? Who knows.

Do you understand what I'm getting at though? Things seem so distorted, relative to my percption of what the potetnial truth is, that when you mention Sadam with certain assumptions that seemingly ignore a paralel in our country and others, I feel motivated to say something. Rapist one, relative to what most of you would consider bad, seems to be the worst rapist, yet we all focus on rapist two, assuming enough good, or being ignorant enough to ignore rapist one. I just want to try and make everyone a bit more aware of the first rapist.

I'm not saying a definite about America, just what seems most likely regarding an alternative view of history and the present. At the very least the alternative view should be considered, at least when you think what it might represent. Of course that's relative to each and everyone of you regarding your cares and concerns.