|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Nov 7, 2006 10:10:32 GMT -5
Saddam Hussein was completely secular until he invaded Kuwait. Then he put "Allah is Great" on the Iraqi flag and started paying lip service to Sunni ideals. But religious, the guy was most definitely not. His extremism was motivated by power, not jihad.
That being said, no doubt the Sunni extremists will use this as a reason to flame up again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Nov 7, 2006 10:49:58 GMT -5
I disagree slightly. We've killed a lot of other big name guys and it hasn't led to any long term violence. I think Saddam being executed might actually settle the Sunni population down as it removes the illusion that he still might come into power again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 7, 2006 17:32:55 GMT -5
Saddam Hussein was completely secular until he invaded Kuwait. Then he put "Allah is Great" on the Iraqi flag and started paying lip service to Sunni ideals. But religious, the guy was most definitely not. His extremism was motivated by power, not jihad. Yep. And bin Laden has been on record referring to Hussein as an "infidel" and "a traitor to Islam." The idea of a bin Laden/Hussein link is quite frankly ridiculous and always has been. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Hussein went through an "epiphany" in the next few weeks or months. As others have said, the guy seems to have a knack for getting people on his side--to the point where even his prison guards seemed to be taking a liking to him. |
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Nov 7, 2006 20:10:15 GMT -5
Wonder if he'll ask Louis Farrakhan to come calling...
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 7, 2006 22:45:40 GMT -5
And yeah, you're right...Apparently the execution has a time limit...30 days to appeal...Still, I just hope it happens...As I said, in this day and age, You just never can tell...I have the slightest doubt....
Bin Laden calling Saddam an infidel...Will wonders never cease....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bazzy on Nov 12, 2006 5:28:20 GMT -5
Call me a killjoy . Want Saddam did was wrong . What about Bush (backed by Blair) and his weapons of mass destruction ? . Bombing innocent men , women and children . Everyday soldiers been blown up by booby trapped bombs etc . The troops are not wanted there , yet they still stay . Aint they just as guilty as Saddam ? . How much as it cost and how many have died ? . Isn't it worse now than ever (Iraq and terrorism) ? and who made Saddam (because we all feared Iran) ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 13, 2006 11:20:27 GMT -5
I cannot answer that, as I am a Canadian...Anything I say on the matter will possibly start a fight....
What I can say is that the US is the most powerful nation in the world, and proposing the that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world be tried/convicted/executed for crimes against humanity...Well, what if he says no..?
|
|
|
|
Post by thedragonreborn on Nov 13, 2006 12:20:20 GMT -5
From the International War Crimes Tribunal
Charges vs. George W. Bush
Crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against Humanity, High crimes in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International law, and the Constitiution of the United States.
So yeah Bush is basically just missing Genocide. He's still got 2 years though.
Rahl
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 14, 2006 13:12:22 GMT -5
He'd probably walk on a Genocide charge too....Even if he were found guilty....
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike M on Nov 14, 2006 13:48:15 GMT -5
Saddam Hussein was completely secular until he invaded Kuwait. Then he put "Allah is Great" on the Iraqi flag and started paying lip service to Sunni ideals. But religious, the guy was most definitely not. His extremism was motivated by power, not jihad. Yep. And bin Laden has been on record referring to Hussein as an "infidel" and "a traitor to Islam." The idea of a bin Laden/Hussein link is quite frankly ridiculous and always has been. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Hussein went through an "epiphany" in the next few weeks or months. As others have said, the guy seems to have a knack for getting people on his side--to the point where even his prison guards seemed to be taking a liking to him. I believe that bin Laden also called for all Muslims to join with Saddam when it looked like the US-led coalition was moving towards ousting him from power (which they subsequently did). The fact is that bin Laden talks out of both sides of his mouth and uses religion as a political tool, not a spiritual one. |
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Nov 14, 2006 18:15:17 GMT -5
Call me a killjoy . Want Saddam did was wrong . What about Bush (backed by Blair) and his weapons of mass destruction ? I'll quote John McEnroe..."You can't be serious?!" |
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 14, 2006 20:18:10 GMT -5
Call me a killjoy . Want Saddam did was wrong . What about Bush (backed by Blair) and his weapons of mass destruction ? I'll quote John McEnroe..."You can't be serious?!" LOL...I second that Paul And to be consistent, when Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy and the crew were harping about we need to get Hussein out of power and he had WMDs in 99 (yes the Dems did say that) and all voted for a regime change, signed by Clinton....I was 100% behind them. Even though I'm conservative, I realize we are the most powerful nation in the world and, like it or not, our job is to fight evil. If the Dems had led that attack, I would have supported them 100%. Make that 150%! |
|
|
|
Post by bmurderh8s on Nov 15, 2006 10:22:52 GMT -5
I'll quote John McEnroe..."You can't be serious?!" LOL...I second that Paul And to be consistent, when Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy and the crew were harping about we need to get Hussein out of power and he had WMDs in 99 (yes the Dems did say that) and all voted for a regime change, signed by Clinton....I was 100% behind them. Even though I'm conservative, I realize we are the most powerful nation in the world and, like it or not, our job is to fight evil. If the Dems had led that attack, I would have supported them 100%. Make that 150%! Actually, believe it or not..It is NOT our job to fight evil or spread democracy. It's not our responsibility to police the rest of the world. we too often stick our nose in others' business. If we are so worried about weapons of Mass Destruction why haven't we invaded North Korea...they actually have them. We are so concerend with everyone else, we ignore the problems we have right here in the USA. All the homeless and jobless. Richest country in the world, yet we have one of the higest poverty rates in the world. Believe me...our government would outsource each and every one of us if they thought they could make a quick buck out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Nov 15, 2006 10:27:54 GMT -5
LOL...I second that Paul And to be consistent, when Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy and the crew were harping about we need to get Hussein out of power and he had WMDs in 99 (yes the Dems did say that) and all voted for a regime change, signed by Clinton....I was 100% behind them. Even though I'm conservative, I realize we are the most powerful nation in the world and, like it or not, our job is to fight evil. If the Dems had led that attack, I would have supported them 100%. Make that 150%! Actually, believe it or not..It is NOT our job to fight evil or spread democracy. It's not our responsibility to police the rest of the world. we too often stick our nose in others' business. If we are so worried about weapons of Mass Destruction why haven't we invaded North Korea...they actually have them. We are so concerend with everyone else, we ignore the problems we have right here in the USA. All the homeless and jobless. Richest country in the world, yet we have one of the higest poverty rates in the world. Believe me...our government would outsource each and every one of us if they thought they could make a quick buck out of it. I agree. There are many dictatorship/totalitarian governments that we've never threatened to invade or think they should have democracy. The ONLY reason we went to Iraq was to cash in on the oil. If Iraq's land was a toxic waste dump, do you think we would've gone over there? Now I'm not advocating that Iraq was better with Saddam, but let's not kid ourselves as to why we went there. Saddam ruled Iraq for decades. |
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 15, 2006 11:12:50 GMT -5
Actually, believe it or not..It is NOT our job to fight evil or spread democracy. It's not our responsibility to police the rest of the world. we too often stick our nose in others' business. If we are so worried about weapons of Mass Destruction why haven't we invaded North Korea...they actually have them. We are so concerend with everyone else, we ignore the problems we have right here in the USA. All the homeless and jobless. Richest country in the world, yet we have one of the higest poverty rates in the world. Believe me...our government would outsource each and every one of us if they thought they could make a quick buck out of it. I agree. There are many dictatorship/totalitarian governments that we've never threatened to invade or think they should have democracy. The ONLY reason we went to Iraq was to cash in on the oil. If Iraq's land was a toxic waste dump, do you think we would've gone over there? Now I'm not advocating that Iraq was better with Saddam, but let's not kid ourselves as to why we went there. Saddam ruled Iraq for decades. Yep, we are raking in the barrels of oil aren't we. That was the only reason...you are absolutly correct. Smart guy...that Payback |
|
|
|
Post by Highway61Revisited on Nov 15, 2006 17:37:34 GMT -5
I think it's intellectually dishonest to not believe that one of the reasons we went to Iraq was over oil. Now clearly it didn't work out, but what exactly has in this war? It was mismanaged from the beginning and the reason for being there has been spun out of control and we find ourselves questioning why exactly we've found ourselves in this quagmire.
It assured some votes, that's for sure. It assured a lot of money being donated to the Republican party with those fat contracts that certain corporations have been raking in.
It's been the very definition of mis-managment, inadequacy and incompetence.
Also, jumping on Bazzy for making Bush/Bliar analogous to Saddam, isn't exactly right. The sheer number of lives taken in this war are all over the hands of both men. Like it or not, Bush was cherry picking when it came to intelligence shared with the Senate and House during the lead-up to the war. In fact post-war we've all discovered that it was pretty much common knowledge that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD.
All in all, the power has swung to the center/left in this country and we'll see exactly how it is handled. Hopefully, and I'm putting all my trust in the feckless Democrats, they will do SOMETHING to improve this situation. As of right now, however, it just looks like a big blunder.
Should be interesting to see how they spin it at the Bush 43 library though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 15, 2006 17:45:06 GMT -5
I'm curious....I wonder if Bush realizes or even cares that he's cost so many people their lives...If you asked him I'm sure he would...but what about day to day..? Do you think he actually considers it..?
(Honest question, no sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 15, 2006 17:49:55 GMT -5
I'm curious....I wonder if Bush realizes or even cares that he's cost so many people their lives...If you asked him I'm sure he would...but what about day to day..? Do you think he actually considers it..? (Honest question, no sarcasm) Oh you Canucks! Keep drinking your beer! For those who don't know...this is sarcasm at Splattercat since we are friends! I love my Canuck buds! |
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 15, 2006 17:51:38 GMT -5
Actually, I'm a Canadian of Irish/Scottish descent who doesn't drink...
By all rights I shouldn't exist... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 15, 2006 17:54:22 GMT -5
Actually, I'm a Canadian of Irish/Scottish descent who doesn't drink... By all rights I shouldn't exist... ;D LOL...blasphamy!!! You should be banned to, uhhh, some non drinking beer country! lol |
|
