Saddam execution ?

[Former Member]

There is evidence that Saddam shipped poison gas to Syria in 2002. I know this to be a fact because I just heard it on talk-radio.

If this was Rush Limpbaugh's radio show I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. I think all that Viagra and "Hill-billy Heroin" he was popping has lowered his I.Q. to about 2 points above plant life.

John

[Bill Greenwood]

No one seems to share my idea, purely theorectical of a trade to IRAN. It may soon be a moot point. I thought Iran hated Saddam because he is a Sunni and they back Shiiites; also thought? he used gas/chemicals in that war. BDK, I don't see your point about shipment of gas to Syria even it is true. I think he got the gas from previous US shipments to Iraq, when the resident dictator there was US supported. Are you still hoping to find some WMD to justify the war? Don't the 3000 US soldiers dead, the 10,000 without eyes, legs etc., the dozen families who have to live with the knowledge that their sons murdered women and children outright, bother you? There's plenty of WMD from the White House, Words of Much Deception. If this war was so great, why lie about" known" nuclear and biological weapons to get us into it? As for the non violent part, there is nothing I've written along those lines. My opp to this war is the horrible carnage to out young people, the $600 billion wasted, and Bush's prisoner torture and other violations of American principles.

[Bill Greenwood]

No one seems to share my idea, purely theorectical of a trade to IRAN. It may soon be a moot point. I thought Iran hated Saddam because he is a Sunni and they back Shiiites; also thought? he used gas/chemicals in that war. BDK, I don't see your point about shipment of gas to Syria even it is true. I think he got the gas from previous US shipments to Iraq, when the resident dictator there was US supported. Are you still hoping to find some WMD to justify the war? Don't the 3000 US soldiers dead, the 10,000 without eyes, legs etc., the dozen families who have to live with the knowledge that their sons murdered women and children outright, bother you? There's plenty of WMD from the White House, Words of Much Deception. If this war was so great, why lie about" known" nuclear and biological weapons to get us into it? As for the non violent part, there is nothing I've written along those lines. My opp to this war is the horrible carnage to out young people, the $600 billion wasted, and Bush's prisoner torture and other violations of American principles.

[chico]

There is evidence that Saddam shipped poison gas to Syria in 2002. I know this to be a fact because I just heard it on talk-radio.

If this was Rush Limpbaugh's radio show I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. I think all that Viagra and "Hill-billy Heroin" he was popping has lowered his I.Q. to about 2 points above plant life.

John

That's true for essentially all "talk" radio. Limbaugh, Imus, Air America, even any of the sportstalk shows, they all follow the same format. A host picks a side (doesn't matter which) and has the hired callers phone in and spout on a topic. Then the host rants and raves about how so and so is ruining the country. It riles up the audience, then the host comes in with a soft and soothing acknowledgement that the core opinions (which happen to be his and the audiences) are right.

By the way, for only 27 easy payments of 69.99 plus shipping and handling you can read the book which is 200 pages of third-grade reading level drivel that says the same thing you hear every day, but occasionally uses big words and fits nicely on the back of your toilet!

People here at work get so freaking fired up over Limbaugh and the like (talk radio in general. Not singling out Left or Right.) stuff it's amazing. It's like getting riled up over pro-wrestling. It's mostly staged, and it exists only to sell ad space.

[k5083]

No one seems to share my idea, purely theorectical of a trade to IRAN.

The problem I see, Bill, is that if we think the Iranians will torture or kill him, then handing him over to them is morally no different from doing it ourselves -- plus it opens the door to criticism of being too cowardly to do our own dirty work. It is the same reason that we don't put people convicted of raping juveniles in the same prison blocks with the other cons. We know what will happen to them there and if the justice system has not seen fit to execute them officially, it is wrong to condemn them de facto by letting other prisoners get at them.

What do you think about taking this Swarthmore course that bdk recommends for us? I don't know what bdk thinks he knows about our views on terrorism, since terrorism has nothing to do with executing Saddam and very little to do with our whole Iraq misadventure, but the syllabus actually does sound interesting. I think I'll probably disagree with some of what is said there, but that's okay -- I'm not the type who avoids information or viewpoints that may challenge my beliefs. In that connection, why do you suppose bdk didn't offer to audit the course with us? Too busy, I guess.

I'll need a ride, though. I hear you have a two-seater that will do nicely. Can you pick me up before class? I'll chip in for the gas.

August

[cg51]

Just reported on the news, Saddam has been hung!

[k5083]

Yep. Quote of the year:

"Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him." --Al-Maliki

Haven't heard one that good since "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

August

[bdk]

If this was Rush Limpbaugh's radio show I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

Sorry, no time to listen to Rush. He's on during the day and I have a job that doesn't allow me to pay attention during that time slot. I also have a problem with his substance abuse issue. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Yep. Quote of the year:

"Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him." --Al-Maliki

Haven't heard one that good since "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

So how would you recommend getting justice for a single person who is responsible for he death of what, about 1 million people? Too bad he is gone now. You missed an opportunity to protest to recommend returning him to power.

What do you think about taking this Swarthmore course that bdk recommends for us? I don't know what bdk thinks he knows about our views on terrorism, since terrorism has nothing to do with executing Saddam and very little to do with our whole Iraq misadventure, but the syllabus actually does sound interesting. I think I'll probably disagree with some of what is said there, but that's okay -- I'm not the type who avoids information or viewpoints that may challenge my beliefs. In that connection, why do you suppose bdk didn't offer to audit the course with us? Too busy, I guess.

Yup, too busy. "The Village" (the social safety net) isn't adequate to take care of my responsibilities. Besides, I have a T-6 to restore. Surely that is more important than an education. Besides, I don't want "those" kinds of people to tell me what to think.

Terrorism is in fact a part of the reason for the war.

Cline: Reasons for Iraq war stand the six-pillar test

By Andrew Cline

In the wake of U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer's report concluding that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a re-examination of the case for war made by President Bush is in order.

In the first presidential debate, Sen. John Kerry said, "The reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein." Yet before the war, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair consistently stated that Saddam had to be removed from power and that his holding WMD stockpiles was only one reason this must be done.

Bush and his prime ally in the war, Blair, frequently cited intelligence -from the CIA and foreign agencies, including French, German and Russian intelligence services and the United Nations - that indicated Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. How entrenched was the belief that he had WMD? Duelfer notes that three days before the invasion of Iraq - which was three months after Saddam informed his lieutenants that he had no WMD - the United States received word from foreign intelligence sources that Saddam planned to use WMD against coalition troops.

Nearly everyone believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles. But neither Bush nor Blair rested the case for war entirely on this belief. They based the case for attacking Saddam on six pillars:

o Saddam possessed WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report).

o He had ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).

o He had never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire (confirmed by the United Nations).

o He was engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix).

o He intended to develop additional WMD programs (confirmed by Duelfer).

o Saddam's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush made clear that he believed war was justified even if Saddam was not an immediate threat to the United States: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations will come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

This is the essence of the Bush Doctrine, which holds that the United States reserves the right to use military force pre-emptively. That is, the United States can and must act against perceived threats before those threats turn into wounds.

In the first presidential debate, Kerry said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."

Kerry appears to confuse pre-emption with unilateral action. There is a tremendous difference. American presidents always have reserved the right to the unilateral use of force. But the Bush Doctrine represents a new step in that it reserves to this country the right to eliminate a threat that is not, to use Bush's word, "fully" developed.

With respect to Iraq, Bush clearly and repeatedly stated that Saddam must be removed from power before his regime posed an "imminent" threat to this country and the rest of the world - meaning that action was justified even if he was not directly imperiling the United States with WMD as, say, Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev did in 1962. Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen agreed, as did about 30 other nations that joined the war effort.

Notably, Kerry does not directly dispute the Bush Doctrine itself. In the first debate, he even conceded that America has a right to act pre-emptively (though it is unclear whether he understood what he was saying). Yet he simultaneously says that the absence of WMD in Iraq proves the war was unjustified. One cannot hold both of those positions and remain intellectually consistent.

Under the conditions Bush and Blair laid out before the war, Saddam's pursuit of WMD and his connections to terrorist networks (not to mention his 12-year violation of the gulf war cease-fire) were sufficient grounds for his removal from power - regardless of whether active WMD stockpiles were buried beneath the Iraqi sand.

Remove the WMD pillar that partially upheld the rationale for war, and under the Bush Doctrine the rationale still stands on the remaining five pillars.

Cline is editorial page editor of The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News in Manchester, N.H.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1251050/posts

[Ztex]

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

[Bill Greenwood]

K5083: While I can respect your more pure ideology, as a practical matter I don't see much difference in him being executed by IRAQ or IRAN. Saddam was such scum that it is hard for me to regard him as human. There is a small chance that we could have gotten something in trade for him. What's his name Ahm-also-nuts, would be difficult to deal with, but the wizard of Crawford, as for as we know, has made no effort to follow the report that rec. beginning negotiation with Iran and Syria.

[k5083]

Yeah, well, like I said at the top, he deserved it, good riddance, etc. Certainly it's fair to say that "justice" has been done at least in a primitive sense of that term. I still consider it a mistake politically, but then, the Iraqi government has already made enough mistakes that I doubt whether it will last long enough for this one to have any impact.

On to the next tyrant!

August

[daveymac82c]

Saddam.... hmm....

I don't like him. I'm glad that has been punished for his utter disrespect for human lives.

I just hope that his hanging doesn't spur more violence in Iraq than there already is. My thoughts are with all the soldiers over there trying to help with the rebuild efforts.

Happy New Year,

David

[tom d. friedman]

he's dead.... goodbye, good riddance,........ tens of thousands of innocent victims of his tryanny are vindicated.

[RMAllnutt]

I have no sympathy for the man, and am not at all sad that he is dead, but I think execution was too good for him. It only makes a martyr out of him. I'd rather have seen him condemned to sit the rest of his life in a cell, cut off from contact with the rest of the world... left to rot in his concrete prison with a big guy named Bubba as a roomate...

That being said, our reasons for getting involved in the war were totally misguided. I think that the neo-cons somehow thought that overthrowing Iraq would be cheap and easy, and that Iraq could be used as a base for establishing democracy in the middle east. That they chose to lie to us about this is unforgiveable. It not only discredited them as our leaders, but did great diservice to us as a nation.

They used the pure fabrication of critical evidence of WMD in Iraq, and the idea that Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda. The latter was totally debunked by the 9-11 commission, and this fact was oft repeated by commission members. Even the White House has admitted this BDK (albeit very quietly).

The fact that the Bush regime totally ignored all points of view other than their own narrowly focused perspectives is utterly criminal. So many lives have been lost or ruined, money wasted, and worse. The most dangerous thing that we have done is create an entire region of highly trained jihadists, who will most definitely be coming after us in the future. There seem to be no end to them now... thanks to Bush.

We have made our war on terror orders of magnitude harder, and more perilous. Going in to Iraq was a collossal error. What we needed to do was focus on Afghanistan, and establish a clear victory there. We had global support and justification for that action... and we had the right. We could also perhaps have slowly established democracy there. You can't force it upon a people totally unused to the concept... they have to want it first, and earn it too. The true irony, is that in all the Middle East countries we have pressured to hold free elections; Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq, the voters have elected non-secular Islamist movements... all decidedly unfriendly to the USA. How smart was that???

Going in to Iraq was hardly the UN's fault BDK... I have no clue where you come up with such rubbish. Going the UN route was the only way that legitimacy could have been developed for going in. Establishing legitimacy for going in to Iraq was the only way that we could have achieved a truly global coalition, and broad support for the war, as we did very successfully in the first Gulf War... heck we even had the Egyptians, Saudi's and Syrians in on that one. While these nations did not contribute significantly to the military victory, it did make it a lot less problematic for other arabs, which was vital in preventing the sort of support mechanism that the insurgents now enjoy in Iraq.

As it was, we rushed it... did not give time for the weapons inspectors to do their job... precisely because I think those who had war on their mind saw that it wasn't going the way they wished.

Instead they tried to get a quick victory, and a war on the cheap. Now we have a nightmare situation, and the security and safety of the United States has been significantly jeopardized, not to mention our prestige. We have also done great damage to our military. I have no greater admiration, nor support for the men and women of our military than I do now. What they have done, and under the circumstances which they face is truly remarkable, and they deserve the admiration and respect of all our people.

We now have perhaps the most awful decision to make. I honestly don't see how any "victory" can be culled from the awful mess that Bush and his fellow bunglers have got us involved with. Even the Russians, who are are as brutal and vicious as they get, couldn't stay in Afghanistan... so clearly getting meaner, or sending more troops will hardly do the trick now. Also, precipitous withdrawal of our troops will only make the matter worse... so, on this issue, I cannot see any solution which could possibly offer us a respectable exit from Iraq. Bush, Blair and all their cronies should be utterly ashamed of themselves. They all belong in gaol in my opinion. But they will probably all award themselves medals of freedom, and sit back fat and happy in retirement, without a thought for all of the soldiers, marines and airmen, their families and friends whom they've ruined.... not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who've also perished.

Think of what a trillion dollars invested in alternative energy methods could have achieved... we could happily ignore the Middle East in a decade if such efforts had been made instead.... Oh well.

Richard

Last edited by RMAllnutt on Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[tom d. friedman]

richard, you make many valid points. happy new year anyway!! best, tom