Saddam’s execution is unfair, illegal and a plan against Kurds

mimo2005 · 12-29-2006, 07:03 PM

Saddam’s execution is unfair, illegal and a plan against Kurds

http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=13817

Did you see this one coming ?

~~Ben123~~ · 12-29-2006, 07:41 PM

Haha no I didn't...

I'm counting down... 3,2,1 snap.

I'm quite giddy right now, 650,000 Iraqis who have died are finally seeing a glimpse of justice, so are their families... This is the best news in several months pertenant to Iraq.

It's fair.

According to Iraqi law its legal.

It's sad that all Kurds will not see Saddam go to trial, but by Iraqi law he must die before 70... so if the Kurds wanted him to stand all trials for all charges, he would die a natural death. Now he gets to die a painful, shameful, scummy death. Justice in Iraq.

A plan against Kurds? Uh no!

mimo2005 · 12-29-2006, 07:49 PM

this article is more than saddam hanging ,
it s about the futur , it seems shiia will have hard time to control the kurd or definitely stop them from being independant . Wait and see .

~~Ben123~~ · 12-29-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimo2005

it seems shiia will have hard time to control the kurd or definitely stop them from being independant .

I would love to see Kurdistan formed. What's wrong with Kurdish independance.

mimo2005 · 12-29-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben123

I would love to see Kurdistan formed. What's wrong with Kurdish independance.

Ask their neighbors

enoctis · 12-29-2006, 08:16 PM

I'm sure you've all heard a few phrases that are quite pertinent here:

1. "Don't believe everything you [read]."
2. "There are two sides to every story." (actually 3 if you include the truth...)

His death is definitely just; how could you possibly consider it to be otherwise? He indirectly killed countless numbers of people for an unworthy reason. Why would anyone claim that his death is unfair, or a "plan"? Illegal might have some objectionable backing, in leiu of the fact that the genocide hasn't been tried, but none-the-less; who cares? Death is death, why keep a criminal alive to hear the verdict of another trial when the end result will be the same?

I swear some people live sheltered lives.

mimo2005 · 12-29-2006, 08:24 PM

it is official : Saddam executed .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?stuffandthings

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ein/index.html

**40sondacurb** · 12-29-2006, 08:31 PM

Won't many Arabs liken a Kurdish state to Israel? It's the same sentiment of "they're not from here, so what the hell are they doing starting a country?"

~~Ben123~~ · 12-29-2006, 09:35 PM

I liken an Islamist state to Israel. Legal, but a theocracy. But what do the media, some Arabs, and Jimmeh Carter have in common? Anti-semetism. A theocracy is OK as long as it is not the Jews.

yustr · 12-29-2006, 09:50 PM

Guys, you're all missing the point. The Kurds are upset because now those responsible for the slaughter of so many of their tribe will go unpunished. In their view there are other villains besides Saddam. Now there'll be no investigation. No justice. It'll be swept under the rug for only history to remember...oh and generations of Kurds will grow up with rumor and legend of this atrocity perpetrated by whoever happens to be the opposition this year...

Just wait till our ally Turkey decides that an independent Kurdistan on their southern border is untenable. If they invade - and they surely will at some point - which side do we take? We're protecting both!!! And we know diplomacy has not been the strong suit of the Bush administration.

Saddam executed...I hope you can sleep better knowing that...

To me it's just another sad chapter in the tragedy. (And no, my heart does not bleed for Saddam - I've no doubt he was a killer. But as has been said, their are many who are worse and for some reason they're allowed to go on killing...)

~~Ben123~~ · 12-29-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

their are many who are worse and for some reason they're allowed to go on killing...)

I agree emphatically. We should go in and kill their leaders as well, you seem to subscribe to Ann Coulters theory, correct? Look what a great thing we have done in Iraq! It is glorious, we removed evil and replaced it with justice and freedom.
I'm glad to see that there are people out there who still agree that justice needs to be served and that we should not be so selfish. You are a great person. And I mean that.

Quote:

Saddam executed...I hope you can sleep better knowing that...

I can't but now many who still feared him can.

yustr · 12-29-2006, 10:18 PM

Ben, you obviously don't know me very well if you think I would agree with Ann Coulter on anything.

Ignoring the morality and the violation of international law, the problem with just "go in and kill their leaders as well" is figuring out when to stop. What's the rational for going in? Just being a despot won't do because there are many pro-western despots: Egypt and Saudi Arabia come to mind. Also, who's to say who takes over isn't worse than the guy we just assassinated? We can't allow that to happen so we better occupy the place until we can figure it out. Pretty soon we're trying to occupy nearly every country except maybe Lichtenstein...

~~Ben123~~ · 12-29-2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

We can't allow that to happen so we better occupy the place until we can figure it out.

Bingo!

And I would not call Saudi Arabia an ally, they use Sharia law, which is sickening, and they have supported terrorism, but they are playing on the fence... the US will sit back, because they will fall to one side or the other.

mimo2005 · 12-30-2006, 02:35 AM

Ben123 , for some reason you seem talking like your friend jeffdrummer , sometimes i even wonder if you are the same or maybe a clone .

Wich country gave ( or sold or help to acquire ) the weapons and the chemical arsenal to saddam to kill the kurds ?

USA , USA , USA .

~~Ben123~~ · 12-30-2006, 06:51 AM

We gave Saddam Hussein weapons so that he coul Kurds? So then America supports genocide? We did arm Saddam way back when, but not with chemical weapons, and not so that he could slaughter innocents.

Look at Saddam, he looks like a chicken.

yustr · 12-30-2006, 07:35 AM

Quote:

The United States implemented a policy of support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. At various times, the support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement and warfare against Iran.

The United States was among several powerful countries that supported Iraq during the war, including Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany.

Quote:

German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade.

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[9]

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[10] The government secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi supergun, precipitating the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known.

And the band played on...

From Wikipedia

~~Ben123~~ · 12-30-2006, 08:00 AM

1) Mustard gas has been illegal since it was used in Ypres. I would doubt that Britain intentionally broke international law for an "impotent dictator" to kill the Kurds

2) Even though we supported Saddam in 1980's until the first Gulf War, it was like America supporting Iran until about 1970, or supporting the Soviet Union to the point of giving them our best weapons from about 1940, until the Soviets occupied Hungary. We have the right to change our alliences when our allies behaviors did - like Saddam.

3) Saddam was about as good of an ally as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He was the best ally we had, and essentially our only foothold in the Middle East.

4) Yes we gave them computers, they were an ally who was developping, see #2-3.

5) We gave them culture samples, not so that they could cause a worldwide pandemic, or so that they could be barbarians and torture their own people, but so that they could develop their own medicine and pharmaceuticals. (As your source said) It was hard to control the misuse of what we gave him, since he was an ally and we were trying to solidify the allience.
Imagine if someone said, "I want my and your family's quarrel to end." And he gave you $500. You thank him, and get on. The next day he comes to your house and says, "So where is that $500? You aren't misusing it for drugs are you? I know your type." You would be offended and tell him to leave and your quarrel would go on. The same with Saddam. There was a certain standard of care that we did in fact use - this led to the first Gulf War.

6) And Britain gave them arms (not mustard gas) so they could defend themselves should Iran invade, which if you remember, was a very real concern there. Iraq abused this - as they abused nearly everything we gave them. This led to the first Gulf War.

7) The first Gulf War was not effective in stopping Saddam's tyranny - now we have done the proper thing and killed him. Now we must gain control of the nation - and we are, and Iraq will be a great power, and an ally of America in the Middle East.

~~Ben123~~ · 12-30-2006, 09:14 AM

20 Uses For A Saddam. Some are pretty funny.

http://www.imao.us/archives/007071.html

mimo2005 · 12-30-2006, 09:31 AM

I hope the shiit clerics keep the state of iraq "laic" as it was before where jewish , catholics and muslims lived together .

how about the situation of the refugees ?

Quote:

The neighboring countries, in turn, are under enormous financial stress from the rapidly increasing needs of the refugees. In Jordan, they now make up more than 10 percent of the population -- the equivalent of 30 million people flooding America's shores. These countries are increasingly unable to meet the refugees' basic needs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

~~Ben123~~ · 12-30-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimo2005

how about the situation of the refugees ?

I thought this was about Saddam?

Anyway, if people were killing my family, I would leave too. If we surrender the problem in Iraq will actually solve itself: everyone, including the suicide bombers will die.

"Death solves all, no man, no problem." Stalin

You have pointed out a key reason to stay in Iraq.

12-29-2006, 07:03 PM	#1 (permalink)
mimo2005 Manager, Emeritus Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 11,142 OS: xp	Saddam’s execution is unfair, illegal and a plan against Kurds Saddam’s execution is unfair, illegal and a plan against Kurds http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=13817 Did you see this one coming ? __________________ TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo"

12-29-2006, 07:41 PM	#2 (permalink)
~~Ben123~~ Register user Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Springville, NY Posts: 81 OS: Windows Vista/ Windows XP/ OS X 10.4.8	Haha no I didn't... I'm counting down... 3,2,1 snap. I'm quite giddy right now, 650,000 Iraqis who have died are finally seeing a glimpse of justice, so are their families... This is the best news in several months pertenant to Iraq. It's fair. According to Iraqi law its legal. It's sad that all Kurds will not see Saddam go to trial, but by Iraqi law he must die before 70... so if the Kurds wanted him to stand all trials for all charges, he would die a natural death. Now he gets to die a painful, shameful, scummy death. Justice in Iraq. A plan against Kurds? Uh no! Last edited by Ben123; 12-29-2006 at 07:50 PM.

12-29-2006, 07:49 PM	#3 (permalink)
mimo2005 Manager, Emeritus Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 11,142 OS: xp	this article is more than saddam hanging , it s about the futur , it seems shiia will have hard time to control the kurd or definitely stop them from being independant . Wait and see . __________________ TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo"

12-29-2006, 08:16 PM	#6 (permalink)
enoctis Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Ft. Hood, TX Posts: 59 OS: WinXP.pro My System	"The Media" - Big Brother's little sister... I'm sure you've all heard a few phrases that are quite pertinent here: 1. "Don't believe everything you [read]." 2. "There are two sides to every story." (actually 3 if you include the truth...) His death is definitely just; how could you possibly consider it to be otherwise? He indirectly killed countless numbers of people for an unworthy reason. Why would anyone claim that his death is unfair, or a "plan"? Illegal might have some objectionable backing, in leiu of the fact that the genocide hasn't been tried, but none-the-less; who cares? Death is death, why keep a criminal alive to hear the verdict of another trial when the end result will be the same? I swear some people live sheltered lives. __________________ "The ignorance of Mankind is no excuse for that of the Individual." ~enoctis enoctis.net

12-29-2006, 08:24 PM	#7 (permalink)
mimo2005 Manager, Emeritus Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 11,142 OS: xp	it is official : Saddam executed . http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?stuffandthings http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ein/index.html __________________ TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo"

12-29-2006, 08:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
40sondacurb Don't be a menace Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,285 OS: Vista sp2	Won't many Arabs liken a Kurdish state to Israel? It's the same sentiment of "they're not from here, so what the hell are they doing starting a country?" __________________ Donate to keep the forum running

12-29-2006, 09:35 PM	#9 (permalink)
~~Ben123~~ Register user Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Springville, NY Posts: 81 OS: Windows Vista/ Windows XP/ OS X 10.4.8	I liken an Islamist state to Israel. Legal, but a theocracy. But what do the media, some Arabs, and Jimmeh Carter have in common? Anti-semetism. A theocracy is OK as long as it is not the Jews.

12-29-2006, 09:50 PM	#10 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore Posts: 6,067 OS: XP Pro My System	Guys, you're all missing the point. The Kurds are upset because now those responsible for the slaughter of so many of their tribe will go unpunished. In their view there are other villains besides Saddam. Now there'll be no investigation. No justice. It'll be swept under the rug for only history to remember...oh and generations of Kurds will grow up with rumor and legend of this atrocity perpetrated by whoever happens to be the opposition this year... Just wait till our ally Turkey decides that an independent Kurdistan on their southern border is untenable. If they invade - and they surely will at some point - which side do we take? We're protecting both!!! And we know diplomacy has not been the strong suit of the Bush administration. Saddam executed...I hope you can sleep better knowing that... To me it's just another sad chapter in the tragedy. (And no, my heart does not bleed for Saddam - I've no doubt he was a killer. But as has been said, their are many who are worse and for some reason they're allowed to go on killing...) __________________ If there are lawyers or politicians involved, logic may be a very poor tool for reaching a conclusion.

12-29-2006, 10:18 PM	#12 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore Posts: 6,067 OS: XP Pro My System	Ben, you obviously don't know me very well if you think I would agree with Ann Coulter on anything. Ignoring the morality and the violation of international law, the problem with just "go in and kill their leaders as well" is figuring out when to stop. What's the rational for going in? Just being a despot won't do because there are many pro-western despots: Egypt and Saudi Arabia come to mind. Also, who's to say who takes over isn't worse than the guy we just assassinated? We can't allow that to happen so we better occupy the place until we can figure it out. Pretty soon we're trying to occupy nearly every country except maybe Lichtenstein... __________________ If there are lawyers or politicians involved, logic may be a very poor tool for reaching a conclusion.

12-30-2006, 02:35 AM	#14 (permalink)
mimo2005 Manager, Emeritus Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 11,142 OS: xp	Ben123 , for some reason you seem talking like your friend jeffdrummer , sometimes i even wonder if you are the same or maybe a clone . Wich country gave ( or sold or help to acquire ) the weapons and the chemical arsenal to saddam to kill the kurds ? USA , USA , USA . __________________ TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo" Last edited by mimo2005; 12-30-2006 at 04:15 AM.

12-30-2006, 08:00 AM	#17 (permalink)
~~Ben123~~ Register user Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Springville, NY Posts: 81 OS: Windows Vista/ Windows XP/ OS X 10.4.8	1) Mustard gas has been illegal since it was used in Ypres. I would doubt that Britain intentionally broke international law for an "impotent dictator" to kill the Kurds 2) Even though we supported Saddam in 1980's until the first Gulf War, it was like America supporting Iran until about 1970, or supporting the Soviet Union to the point of giving them our best weapons from about 1940, until the Soviets occupied Hungary. We have the right to change our alliences when our allies behaviors did - like Saddam. 3) Saddam was about as good of an ally as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He was the best ally we had, and essentially our only foothold in the Middle East. 4) Yes we gave them computers, they were an ally who was developping, see #2-3. 5) We gave them culture samples, not so that they could cause a worldwide pandemic, or so that they could be barbarians and torture their own people, but so that they could develop their own medicine and pharmaceuticals. (As your source said) It was hard to control the misuse of what we gave him, since he was an ally and we were trying to solidify the allience. Imagine if someone said, "I want my and your family's quarrel to end." And he gave you $500. You thank him, and get on. The next day he comes to your house and says, "So where is that $500? You aren't misusing it for drugs are you? I know your type." You would be offended and tell him to leave and your quarrel would go on. The same with Saddam. There was a certain standard of care that we did in fact use - this led to the first Gulf War. 6) And Britain gave them arms (not mustard gas) so they could defend themselves should Iran invade, which if you remember, was a very real concern there. Iraq abused this - as they abused nearly everything we gave them. This led to the first Gulf War. 7) The first Gulf War was not effective in stopping Saddam's tyranny - now we have done the proper thing and killed him. Now we must gain control of the nation - and we are, and Iraq will be a great power, and an ally of America in the Middle East.

12-30-2006, 09:14 AM	#18 (permalink)
~~Ben123~~ Register user Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Springville, NY Posts: 81 OS: Windows Vista/ Windows XP/ OS X 10.4.8	20 Uses For A Saddam. Some are pretty funny. http://www.imao.us/archives/007071.html