The story of Saddam

Jorgen Sigvardsson

It would be interesting to see if they angle the english news differently than the arabic version. Any arabic speaking fellow here who can do the comparison? -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Michael A Barnhart

Chris Losinger wrote: but, remember: up until fairly recently, the case against Saddam also included: Agreed. The case against Saddam was clear enough with out these items so why add them and discredit your case. It still bothers me. Yes I support what the US is doing. It could have been with so much more support. ""

Ed Gadziemski

He's right up there with Stalin and Hitler. No wait, they were nice guys compared to Saddam Time for a little perspective. Hitler had 11 million people put to death in concentration camps. That's more than half the entire population of Iraq. The war against Hitler caused the deaths of more than 50 million people (combatants and non-combatants). Stalin, it is estimated, was responsible for the deaths of 20 million Russians, equivalent to the entire population of Iraq. Saddam is an amateur. Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Nitron

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I fear that way too many innocent people will die during this war yet consider the number of people who died in wars (or genocide/terrorist acts) throughout history, and double or triple digit casualties don't sound too bad. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Lost User

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I wish I could link a TV program, but I can't. Damn! What kind of computer wizard are you?? ;P ;P Mike Mullikin :beer:

"I'm not calling you a liar but....I can't think of a way to finish that sentence." - Bart Simpson

Michael A Barnhart

Ed Gadziemski wrote: Saddam is an amateur. Well, The other 2 had more to work with. As far as I am concerned all of these plus others do not rate the be called human even with all of our faults. ""

Richard Stringer

Ed Gadziemski wrote: Saddam is an amateur. OK - I'll buy that. But lest stop him BEFORE he turns pro and it costs 10 million or so lives. Richard In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. Orson Welles

Stan Shannon

With all due respect, Chris, you overstate the claims Bush ever tried to make about nuclear weapons or the al-Queda. There has been amply evidence that Saddam has made every effort to acquire or build nuclear weapons. Some of the intel that the Bush adminstration put out may have not been precisely accurate, but it still seems a rather minor fault in trying to build a solid case agaisnt Saddam. The same goes for possible al-Queda links. No proof exists, but there is evidence that the two, Hussein and bin Ladin, are willing to tolerate the other's existence long enough to achieve a common goal. I don't think the Bush administration ever overstated the possible linkage between the two. We are at war with Iraq because Saddam could, at any time, decide to lash out with terrorist attacks against targets of his choosing. He certainly has the will and the means to do so. It is simply the kind of situation that the U.S. is no longer willing to tolerate. Hopefully, once we win this conflict, we will find out the truth. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Brakanjan

It's true, Saddam is a madman who loves war and hates his own family if they were to oppose him. But is it really necessary for a war? I live in South Africa, next to Zimbabwe. There Rob Mugabe is starving 2 million people because he chased 3000 white (and a few black ones) farmers away from their farms. These farms are now accupied but 16 year old war veterans (the war was 20+ years ago) that knows sh-- about farming. Mugabe is one of the richest people on earht, owning almost all the estate in Zim. Resently he called a national lottery, which he (what luck) won. No one in Zim is allowed to show any protest (a world famous Zim cricketer is wanted for treason - payable with death), no opposition is allowed etc etc. The list goes on. So why no war in Zim and remove this dictator? 1) No oil 2) No oil 3) No oil or is there other reasons? WMD? Mmm. So just because there is no "threat" of WMD, 2 million people will starve at the hands of a dictator. So: Remove one dictator or remove all of them, not the ones next to the oil.

Lost User

Personally, I think Mugabe should be next, but it should really be African nations that deal with it - unless there no consensus at all in Africa? If this is the case, then the UK/US should topple Mugabe as soon as possible. People are starving and people are being brutalised - and I am of the belief that thre free world has an obligation to help (and yes, that includes helping countries that have "No oil").

When I am king, you will be first against the wall.

Paul Watson

Letting the US/UK topple Mugabe will simply alienate every single African country even more than they already are from the west. It will give fodder to Mugabes claims, it will push the fence sitters to his side and simply destroy the slight gains in African diplomacy that have been made over the last few years. The US especially totally underestimates how much it is hated outside of it's borders. The US may have the intentions of the Dali Lama but in no way can Africa or the ME be convinced of the States' benevolence. Mugabe must be toppled by his own people and by other African states. Nobody else.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Paul Watson

I still don't think oil is the be all and end all of the Bush campaing for Iraq. From what we have been reading he has a much bigger plan to use Iraq and Afghanistan as a base for converting the ME to being States Friendly. Also remember Sadam has tried to assasinate Bush snr. Mugabe can't even get rid of the MDC party, never mind plan a hit on Bush jnr. Sadam has also invaded Kuwait and done a lot of things Mugabe can only dream of doing. Very different situations. Mugabe still is a tyrant and needs to go, but Bush is not picking on Sadam and not Mugabe because of oil. It is because Mugabe is only big in his dreams, in the reality of the world he is a tinpot dictator in some offbeat African country that has no affect on the rest of the world. Thabo and his pals need to get rid of Mugabe, musn't think or want Bush to.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Lost User

Paul Watson wrote: Mugabe must be toppled by his own people and by other African states. Nobody else. And this is likely is it Paul? There seem to people outside of Zimbabwe that think Mugabe is a hero for seizing the white farms! How likely is it that African nations will get together and do something about him? I don't think it is likely at all. And as for the civilian population uprising ... well, that would be ideal but then I have heard people say the same about the people of Iraq - but it is bloody difficult to achieve when you have the barrel of a gun pointing at you. The people of Zimbabwe need help, and if Africa is unwilling to provide the necessary assistance, then someone else needs to. It is criminal that the people of Zimbabwe have been left to rot by the rest of the world. I agree that Africa SHOULD sort out it's own problems, but how long should others stand by waiting? Zimbabwe used to be the jewel in Africas crown until that brutal pig started to screw the country into the ground. The fact that the rest of the world has stood by, stroked their chins and done sweet FA is shameful.

When I am king, you will be first against the wall.

Chris Losinger

Stan Shannon wrote: you overstate the claims Bush ever tried to make about nuclear weapons or the al-Queda. in the words of Mrs. Cartman, "wha wha wha???" "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. [FALSE] Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. [DISCREDITED] Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. " clearly one can't "explain" a fabrication that one didn't even fabricate himself, right? maybe GWB didn't know they were false at the time. that could explain why he's dropped the nookyaler angle in recent speeches. Stan Shannon wrote: of the intel that the Bush adminstration put out may have not been precisely accurate or outright fabrication. Stan Shannon wrote: The same goes for possible al-Queda links. No proof exists, but there is evidence that the two, Hussein and bin Ladin, are willing to tolerate the other's existence long enough to achieve a common goal. please, employ at leat a little restraint. evidence of toleration and support of terrorism isn't exactly cause for war - as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan and Iran are very all thankful for. Stan Shannon wrote: We are at war with Iraq because Saddam could, at any time, decide to lash out with terrorist attacks against targets of his choosing. i hope you realize that there will never exist a situation where that can't be said of someone. i stand by my point: GWB took what we are now seeing as a (more than) valid humanitarian cause and mixed it up with lies and innacuracies and shamefully attempted (and succeeded in the minds of the US) associations with 9/11. it's not that people suspect Iraq was involved with the planning/finance of 9/11 - 50% of americans think the guys with the boxcutters were Iraqi! this is in spite of what the intel community, state department and everyone else says. GWB and followers have managed to conflate the two issues. i think it's despicable. and that's why i've resisted this war for so long - i don't trust GWB, not a bit. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber,

Paul Watson

It is tough no doubt and there are no easy answers. UK/US come in and topple Mugabe. Momentary joy for those directly involved but the rest of Africa becomes more polarised against the west, the cycle continues, a new dictator arises and the US/UK has to come in again. We won't learn if we constantly need the UK/US to come in and sort our shit out (same with ME.) From what we have seen even outside of Africa when the west meddles things go horribly pear shaped down the line. Thanks for the intentions but maybe we all need to learn that it is not a good idea. Anyway. Mbeki seems to have pulled his finger a bit. They have not admited Zim back into the Commonwealth as was feared and Mbeki has publicly said that Mugabe is going about the land reclamation the wrong way. Soft words, but it is a step. Sam Num-homophobic-jobo is being widely seen as a nut and not to be taken seriously, so that is good. And not to take anything away from Zim's plight but there have been far worse, and stil are, atrocities in Africa that have not recieved any attention. I want him gone as much as you do Robert, probably more actually. But we all know a UK/US invasion is not the way, it will just lead to worse things. No easy answers, will have to carry on battering away at our African governments to do something.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Brakanjan

Fair enough, but then, on what bases do you (the US?) remove dictators. Why just this one? What does a person have to do to be classified as a dictator and removed? And where does the UN fit in, aren't they the ones who were suppose to prevent these things. I'm not anti-american, but I have a problem with invading another country. Paul Watson wrote: Thabo and his pals need to get rid of Mugabe, musn't think or want Bush to. I doubt (know) Thabo don't want to.

Paul Watson

Brakanjan wrote: Fair enough, but then, on what bases do you (the US?) remove dictators. Why just this one? What does a person have to do to be classified as a dictator and removed? Million dollar question and the reason I am opposed to the US just going it alone.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Lost User

The US are not alone. ;)

When I am king, you will be first against the wall.

Rob Graham

Chris Losinger wrote: the humanitarian issue has always been there, but only recently are we seeing really how bad it is. I suspect that fewer people would have believed the humanitarian case (before they got to see "live" examples on the "nightly news rant") than accepted the other allegations. And the International Community has been less willing to intercede militarily for humanitarian reasons (Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Ivory Coast...), than it has for "security" issues (WMD and the like). (WHY is that? Are not the humanitarian issues, in the long run, far more important than the "threat of the moment"?) And I think that in the end, many of the others (WMD at least) will prove to be largely true. Even though the military is presently downplaying it, one must wonder what would have been made in a 100 acre, electrically fenced compound, all of whose buildings were carefully disguised as sand dunes. And staffed with at least two General officers from the military.. doesn't sound much like a civilian chemical enterprise. The Al-Quaeda connection does still seem sketchy, though. Even the bunch in the North seem likely to have been protected more by the Kurds or Iran than Saddam... War is delightful to those who have no experience of it. Desiderius Erasmus

Rob Graham

Brakanjan wrote: So why no war in Zim and remove this dictator? 1) No UN resolution. 2) No international outcry. 3) Would you expect the US do do this? How could they justify this, most of the world won't accept that Saddam is a threat to the US, what would they say if the US took on poor defensless Mugabe. My guess is the US would be accused then of starting a race war...(even by the US African american community). 4) You want the US to pick ANOTHER fight with Chirac? The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and these are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard