Turns out Saddam was really a sweet guy...

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Beachboy
They left out the part about how he loved kittens and rainbows. :roll:

The liberal media is determined to turn Iraq into another Vietnam even if they have to invent stuff.

How does anything he did in custody have anything to do with his brutality as a dictator: :roll:

I find this to be hugely disgusting.

I find your lame attempt to link this to "the liberal media" to be one more lame ass piece of mindless fluff from one more futile neocon sycophant. Pathetic!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure there are some folks around here who would rather have given Saddam a hug than the rope around his neck...

I'm sure that's not your last moronic comment here.

Not one person in this forum thinks the way to deal with Saddam was with a hug.

The forum is for people to advance each other's understanding of the issues; when you post nonsensical lies about the other posters, you are a drag down on the discussion.

When you fail to understand the point of view of the liberals so badly, you are not going to learn anything.

Your low respect for human life makes you a copy of the terrorists, and makes you part of the problem that ensures the killing will go on.

Of course, it's almost never much good talking to people who are too determined to kill. They vew any other position as 'appeasment' as their paranoia allows only one option.

Both sides have the same type of people.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: Slick5150
You're completely missing the point there. It was a story about the man behind what he has been portrayed as in the public constantly. Apparently, and I have no reason to believe it isn't true, fed birds and told jokes. Ok, fine. The fact that you classify that as some sort of propaganda just verifies you have completely blocked out any other possibility about the man other than what Bush would like you to believe, that he spews blood and eats children in his spare time.

Heck, John Wayne Gacy's neighbor's thought he was a hell of a nice guy. I'm sure Hitler was a charming guy too if you met him at a dinner party. :laugh:

Nothing is black and white in this world but I think it's way to early to pretend this @sshole had any redeeming qualities. He raised a couple of rapists and basicly raped Iraq as hard as he could. Anybody remember that stuff about 3 tractor trailer trucks loaded down with hundreds of millions of dollars leaving Iraq before he was removed from power? This was money stolen from the "Oil for food program" which means he starved his own people to line his own pockets.

Hey, that reminds me. I always heard this whole Iraq thing was about oil. How come we don't have that free oil yet? I'm tired of paying for gas.

It's pretty funny. I was just going to mention that Gacy used to be a clown for childrens hospitals in his free time.

 

[lotus503]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Beachboy
They left out the part about how he loved kittens and rainbows. :roll:

The liberal media is determined to turn Iraq into another Vietnam even if they have to invent stuff.

How does anything he did in custody have anything to do with his brutality as a dictator: :roll:

I find this to be hugely disgusting.

I find your lame attempt to link this to "the liberal media" to be one more lame ass piece of mindless fluff from one more futile neocon sycophant. Pathetic!

The only problem with people choosing sides is common sense is the fat kid that gets picked last.

Thats mine you can use it

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: Slick5150
So, you're saying you know more about his behavior than the nurse who looked after him?

I think there are a few thousand dead people who know him even better.

It is pretty disturbing that Americans are fixated on Saddam.. .. we put the man in power and helped him keep power and now Bush and the Neocons decided to kill AT LEAST FIFTY THOUSAND IRAQI'S ..

WHY WHY WHY... did WE AMERICANS kill so many Iraqi Citizens?

I think if you were being honest , you would divide that into two catagories to make your question reflect facts.
Amount of Iraqis the US has killed vs amount of Iraqis other muslums have killed.
I think you will find the porportions not nearly what you made them out to be.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: Slick5150
So, you're saying you know more about his behavior than the nurse who looked after him?

I think there are a few thousand dead people who know him even better.

It is pretty disturbing that Americans are fixated on Saddam.. .. we put the man in power and helped him keep power and now Bush and the Neocons decided to kill AT LEAST FIFTY THOUSAND IRAQI'S ..

WHY WHY WHY... did WE AMERICANS kill so many Iraqi Citizens?

Yeah, everything is Bush's fault. We get that. :roll:

And the Iraqi's are killing themselves. Don't you get dizzy from all the spinning? :laugh:

Then why do we have 150,000 troops there.. You must have been one of the prisoners in abu ghraib who we americans tortured and gave the baathist treatment to?

i hardly call humiliation and fear equal to torture. Abu ghraib is now in the hands of the Iraqis and the "prisoners" there are begging for the Americans to come back.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hmm I came away with a different conclusion than the OP did when I read that article. To me it demonstrated how pathetic Saddam was. He didn't come across sympathetic, more like a broken shell of the strong and vicious Dictator he once was. Then again it seems obvious to me that the OP was looking to make more out of it than it really was.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Beachboy
I was with you up until the "illegal war" stuff which is just more liberal parrot talk.

I'd like a cracker.

What exactly is parrot about the fact that I was curious about the legality of the war, so I want and did some research on the relevant treaties, read the UN Charter that we signed until I found the relevant sections, read arguments from the leaders on both sides of the issue, and formed an opinion that we are legally bound to the UN charter as a treaty which our constitution says is the law of our land, that the UN charter bans the sort of aggressive war we launched, and that the war was therefore illegal?

Be honest - you could care less that is was illegal and you are attackinng that position just making up your own facts simply because you don't care that it was illegal. Right?

I might be the only one but I am glad all that nonsense is going down on the other side of the globe. The New York Times probably wishes all those car-bombs were going off in Manhattan. Maybe I'm the odd one for rooting for the home team.

I'd say that's a very immoral point of view; and uninformed as well, since you beg the question whether the alternative to the 'war there' is war here.

LBJ said the same thing about Viet Nam: if we dont't go to war there in Viet Nam, then the war tomorrow will be in Hawaii and then San Francisco. But is it true? You assume it is.

You talk about 'rooting for the home team'. Is it 'rooting for the home team' to agree to their beating the hell out of the other team before the game to make them forfeit?

You are wrong to equate doing the right thing morally, for the world, with being 'against the home team', saying your onl choices are to choose war or being a traitor.

Going to war unnecessarily is the act against your own nation. The love affair with war, and the lack of diligence in debunking war propaganda, is the problem.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: Slick5150
You're completely missing the point there. It was a story about the man behind what he has been portrayed as in the public constantly. Apparently, and I have no reason to believe it isn't true, fed birds and told jokes. Ok, fine. The fact that you classify that as some sort of propaganda just verifies you have completely blocked out any other possibility about the man other than what Bush would like you to believe, that he spews blood and eats children in his spare time.

Heck, John Wayne Gacy's neighbor's thought he was a hell of a nice guy. I'm sure Hitler was a charming guy too if you met him at a dinner party. :laugh:

Nothing is black and white in this world but I think it's way to early to pretend this @sshole had any redeeming qualities. He raised a couple of rapists and basicly raped Iraq as hard as he could. Anybody remember that stuff about 3 tractor trailer trucks loaded down with hundreds of millions of dollars leaving Iraq before he was removed from power? This was money stolen from the "Oil for food program" which means he starved his own people to line his own pockets.

Hey, that reminds me. I always heard this whole Iraq thing was about oil. How come we don't have that free oil yet? I'm tired of paying for gas.

But that's the point, you DO seem to have a need to view Saddam as either totally bad or totally good. The article did nothing to suggest that feeding birds and telling jokes somehow made up for his abusive rule of Iraq, but you read it that way because, in your mind, ANY coverage of Saddam that doesn't detail how bad of a guy he was is supporting the idea that he has all sorts of redeeming qualities. But that wasn't the point of the article at all, and I think if you took a step back from your rabid view of this you might see that.

I wouldn't classify myself as rabid on this topic but whatever.

I think it is disingenuous of the media to try and twist opinion of the average person who probably isn't as smart as most of the folks posting on this website. Why do we need this story about what a kind old man he was and how he tended his weeds, fed his stolen breadcrusts to birds, and told jokes? I still think it's entirely inappropriate to try and paint a human side to this brutal man.

That's my point, nobody is trying to "twist" anything...they are simply presenting facts to paint a more complete picture of the man. The average person is smart enough to realize that this doesn't make him a good guy, I find it silly that you think so little of the "average person" that some stories from Saddam's nurse will change their minds into thinking he's just a swell guy.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure there are some folks around here who would rather have given Saddam a hug than the rope around his neck...

And I am sure you would be the one who would. Now don't try to transfer your secret attraction for Sadam to the rest of us.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: MrMajestyk
The 'public' execution of Saddam, the taunting, and filming via cellphone, was degrading and an insult to common decency. By allowing it, we have joined the ranks of the Saudi's who regulary stone people to death. If the Iraqi's themselves had overthrown him, then fair enough, do a 'Coucescu' on him. But Saddam was served up to them by coalition forces, and we should have been there to see he got a fair trial AND execution.

Isn't it typcial? The man was in charge of a system of terror and murder, and some people are concerned about "common decency" of his execution.
Naturally, the soul-seraching follows, and the conclusion is obvious: it is all our fault; throw in a mention of the Saudis, and you have a perfect argument. It's all like the 9/11 "what did we do to deserve this?" argument.

I can't wait for a movie showing Saddam's final days: his pain and misfortune; how he lived in a hole for months; how he was mistreated by his captors; how he was brutally executed. I think Mel Gibson will be a shoe-in for directing such a film.

EDIT: BTW, the majority of Iraqis probably did want to overthrow him, but obviously couldn't.

Yes, the practice of common decency or humanity was supposedly the reason Iraq was invaded and Sadam was deposed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: MrMajestyk
The 'public' execution of Saddam, the taunting, and filming via cellphone, was degrading and an insult to common decency. By allowing it, we have joined the ranks of the Saudi's who regulary stone people to death. If the Iraqi's themselves had overthrown him, then fair enough, do a 'Coucescu' on him. But Saddam was served up to them by coalition forces, and we should have been there to see he got a fair trial AND execution.

Isn't it typcial? The man was in charge of a system of terror and murder, and some people are concerned about "common decency" of his execution.
Naturally, the soul-seraching follows, and the conclusion is obvious: it is all our fault; throw in a mention of the Saudis, and you have a perfect argument. It's all like the 9/11 "what did we do to deserve this?" argument.

I can't wait for a movie showing Saddam's final days: his pain and misfortune; how he lived in a hole for months; how he was mistreated by his captors; how he was brutally executed. I think Mel Gibson will be a shoe-in for directing such a film.

EDIT: BTW, the majority of Iraqis probably did want to overthrow him, but obviously couldn't.

Yes, the practice of common decency or humanity was supposedly the reason Iraq was invaded and Sadam was deposed.

I think the problem is that people like dna believe that we can have different morality for different people. If we treat Saddam like Saddam would have treated a person to be executed, that doesn't make us bad people, because he's a bad guy. I tend to view things a little more absolutely...if we're the good guys, we better damn well act like it. Period, end of story. No whining, no complaining, no excuses about "well the rules don't apply THIS time".

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the problem is that people like dna believe that we can have different morality for different people. If we treat Saddam like Saddam would have treated a person to be executed, that doesn't make us bad people, because he's a bad guy. I tend to view things a little more absolutely...if we're the good guys, we better damn well act like it. Period, end of story. No whining, no complaining, no excuses about "well the rules don't apply THIS time".

Huh? Different morality? How did you get that?

Problem is that you guys have such a major issue with some of those people on tape telling him to go to hell -- that's really the end of the civilized world, right?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: dna
Huh? Different morality? How did you get that?

You said,

Originally posted by: dna
he man was in charge of a system of terror and murder, and some people are concerned about "common decency" of his execution.

which directly implies that you don't see anything wrong with treating Saddam indecently (ie: immorally).

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the problem is that people like dna believe that we can have different morality for different people. If we treat Saddam like Saddam would have treated a person to be executed, that doesn't make us bad people, because he's a bad guy. I tend to view things a little more absolutely...if we're the good guys, we better damn well act like it. Period, end of story. No whining, no complaining, no excuses about "well the rules don't apply THIS time".

Huh? Different morality? How did you get that?

Problem is that you guys have such a major issue with some of those people on tape telling him to go to hell -- that's really the end of the civilized world, right?

I "got that" because you said that "common decency" shouldn't be a concern because Saddam was a bad guy. If you didn't view it as very "fluid" morality, what difference does it make how bad or good he was?

But if anyone is making too big a deal out of this, it's you. Certainly it seems distasteful, but I see very few people who think so making as big a deal out of it as you are making out of our reactions. In any case, the main objection I'm hearing is more practical...the manner in which Saddam's execution was carried out serves no real purpose and has an excellent chance of making a bad situation in Iraq even worse. It might have been good to satisfy the obvious need for revenge, and while you may or may not think that's a bad thing, I can't see how the real world effects of this are up for debate.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

In the end I just don't believe that more than one in a hundred Americans knew that Saddam was ostensibly executed for his role in the 1982 killing of 148 Shiite Muslims, nor did they care.

I remember these killings. The photographs, anyway. Sadam left the bodies of the young men he'd executed dangle on the noose for days. I hadn't known that the human neck would stretch out that way over time. Like a twist of tissue paper at the top of a Christmas present.

Sadam's death is unlamentable. But, codpiece justice and death-as-photo-op regards is what matters to us still living. The administration's actions and words with respect to the execution of Sadam have not advanced American interests -- largely because of their prior actions and baldfaced, brutal hypocrisy. A certain decent silence -- advertised as based on respect for the present (nominal) Iraqi government -- would have been more supportive of that government. Every time I look at the Bush administration's behavior, it seems as though they have no aim to truly empower the current Iraqi regime. It suggest they are either grossly incompetent, or that their true aim from the get-go was strictly destabilization of the mideast, not strategic intervention. The only "sensible" interpretation I have is that Bush feels his political weakness, and must throw rhetorical "red meat" to his base at every opportunity, irrespective of whether it works against foreign policy goals for him to do so.

What a sorry excuse for a President to put himself in this position -- a minimal display of respect for opponents over the years would have allowed him the political strength to act without excess regard for his "base" when necessary.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I "got that" because you said that "common decency" shouldn't be a concern because Saddam was a bad guy. If you didn't view it as very "fluid" morality, what difference does it make how bad or good he was?

Now that's not exactly what I said, was it?

Let me make it very simple; pick one:

1. Hundreds of thousands murdered and tortured to keep Iraq under Saddam's control
2. Saddam being told to go to hell right before he's hanged

Now tell me how "common decency" plays such an important factor in your choice in comparison to the other option.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I "got that" because you said that "common decency" shouldn't be a concern because Saddam was a bad guy. If you didn't view it as very "fluid" morality, what difference does it make how bad or good he was?

Now that's not exactly what I said, was it?

Let me make it very simple; pick one:

1. Hundreds of thousands murdered and tortured to keep Iraq under Saddam's control
2. Saddam being told to go to hell right before he's hanged

Now tell me how "common decency" plays such an important factor in your choice in comparison to the other option.

That is EXACTLY what you said. You got all huffy because people were complaining about "common decency" in his execution. And why? Because Saddam was a bad guy...the implication being that, because he's a bad guy, "common decency" need not be observed.

But I see where you're going wrong...you think this is "pick one". Because for some reason it's impossible for someone to think Saddam was a terrible guy who murdered and tortured thousands of people AND that this is no reason to sink down by his level when we get around to executing him. I don't know about you, but I don't have any problem holding both of those views at the same time...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: MrMajestyk
The 'public' execution of Saddam, the taunting, and filming via cellphone, was degrading and an insult to common decency

I agree. you can't demand fair treatment, human rights, the rule of law for yourself and your family, but then turn around and deny that to another human being.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I agree with beach boy.
Yes it is an interesting human story.
There are always stories like this after someone is executed. About how so and so was a model prisoner and talked to the guards about their kids and such. That does redeem them for all the bad things they did in their lives.

But let?s not try to humanize Saddam and make him seem like a great guy.
Did this article mention the guy Saddam had chopped up and returned to his family in pieces because he suggested that Saddam ?temporarily step down? as a means to ending the war with Iran?

Saddam did what he had to in order to keep power?

Bush is responsible for the deaths of 50,000+ Iraqis.. now what? .. you know that statement is correct.

How many more are we as americans responsible for when we let our govt sell weapons to both sides in a war >>Iran - Iraq War.. and we told Saddam we were on his side but we also sold weapons to the Iranians..

I don't consider Bush responsible for deaths to Iraqi civilians that died at the hands of insurgents or terrorists.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: dahunan
It is pretty disturbing that Americans are fixated on Saddam.. .. we put the man in power and helped him keep power and now Bush and the Neocons decided to kill AT LEAST FIFTY THOUSAND IRAQI'S ..

WHY WHY WHY... did WE AMERICANS kill so many Iraqi Citizens?

Link to each official death report of the 50,000 Iraqi's.

BTW, I don't support the war, but I really find it hard to believe that U.S. troops are personally responsible for THAT many deaths.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: dahunan
It is pretty disturbing that Americans are fixated on Saddam.. .. we put the man in power and helped him keep power and now Bush and the Neocons decided to kill AT LEAST FIFTY THOUSAND IRAQI'S ..

WHY WHY WHY... did WE AMERICANS kill so many Iraqi Citizens?

Link to each official death report of the 50,000 Iraqi's.

BTW, I don't support the war, but I really find it hard to believe that U.S. troops are personally responsible for THAT many deaths.

One side feels that because we started the fight; anything that happens afterwards is our fault.

Deniability of responsibility.

Saddam prevented such a civil war by being preemptive. Stopped it outside of the media limelight quickly.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Because for some reason it's impossible for someone to think Saddam was a terrible guy who murdered and tortured thousands of people AND that this is no reason to sink down by his level when we get around to executing him.

Thank you for proving my point: comparing a few "bad words" said in his execution to his lifetime achievments as if they were equivalent.

Under the circumstances there was more "common decency" involved than is usually afforded in that region; had the Shiia caught him themselves, then he would have gotten the same treatment the contractors got in Faluja: shot, burnt, dragged in the street, and then hanged of a pole.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Because for some reason it's impossible for someone to think Saddam was a terrible guy who murdered and tortured thousands of people AND that this is no reason to sink down by his level when we get around to executing him.

Thank you for proving my point: comparing a few "bad words" said in his execution to his lifetime achievments as if they were equivalent.

They do this because it strikes gold, in their view, for another way to bash and assault ?neo-cons? for Iraq. Saddam will be put on a pedestal before libs have the decency to not trash their own country.

 

[MrMajestyk]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

I remember these killings. The photographs, anyway. Sadam left the bodies of the young men he'd executed dangle on the noose for days. I hadn't known that the human neck would stretch out that way over time. Like a twist of tissue paper at the top of a Christmas present.

That is exactly what kept Saddam in power and strangely enough why Bush/Blair are going to fail. The sight of those atrocities sent a powerfull message to Saddam's enemies. Undermine me and this is what you'll get.

Because 'we' are civilised and upholders of international law etc, we cannot stoop, openly anyway, to such actions. The abuse of a few prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and the Brits beating up a few rioting kids is not going to frighten anyone. Iraq has been ruled in the past with an iron fist and it will be in the future. But it won't be Bush and Blair doing the punching.