Saddam Sentenced to Death...

[Mama Sumae]

The worse thing they could do to sadam was done a long time ago, the moment they dragged him out of that hole his image was destroyed. Still they were stupid enough to give him a suit and show him fighting defiantly in court. In the end I must say that the current situation in Iraq serve us well we should by now learned something from our previous history and stopped poking around on other people affairs.

And i feel affairs is the rigth word since obviously they werent terrorists fanatics when we first arrived... between that we are still waiting for the weapons of mass destruction to show up.

[father smurf]

another martyr created

[Kezzer]

I prefer to be apathetic about the whole thing, there's no real right or wrong here as opinion is subjective. He's going to die either way. On one hand, it's bad that they're killing him because they're sending him to where he's always belonged (a grave for those who didn't get it), and on the other hand it's bad letting him live because of all the lives he's taken.

They've made their decision and it's going to happen so there's no point getting all worked up about it

[Taz]

I don't think Saddam Hussein should be executed. I'm against the death penalty in all cases.

Instead, I think Saddam Hussein should be tried for war crimes for gassing the Iranians during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war. This was at a time when he was supported by current and former members of the US administration.

This episode was specifically left out of the charges against Saddam Hussein as he would have been able to call on people like Donald Rumsfeld as a witness.

The gassing of civilians is an obscenity that is hard to comprehend. Those that supported the use of chemical weapons should be brought to justice.

[Bazzlad]

BTW bazzalad your hopelessly naieve if you think that the iraq war was intended in any way to stabilise the middle east situation. Indeed we are fortunate that only iraq is in civil war. had the WMD's been anything other than american fiction it is entirely possible that iraq would be a turkish ruled wasteland and jerusalem am arab-coalition held nuked city.

Lol and more lol.

To all you people who think that stability will/should instantly appear after the war, it won't. Nor should it. How many years of wars and infighting did we have before becoming Great Britain? What about Ireland and the IRA?

There will be more violence, there will be mini wars, but eventually, peace will win, especially now there isn't ONE all powerful dictator.

[Bazzlad]

The gassing of civilians is an obscenity that is hard to comprehend. Those that supported the use of chemical weapons should be brought to justice.

Cough. Mustard Gas. Cough.

Don't sensationalise something because the Americans did it (although in this case they only did it by proxy). We've all done it.

• United Kingdom against Bolsheviks in 1919;[2]
• United Kingdom against rebels in Iraq in 1920;[3]
• United Kingdom against rebels in Afghanistan in the 1920s;[citation needed]
• Spain against Rif insurgents in Morocco in 1921-1927;[1][4]
• Italy in Libya in 1930;[1]
• Soviet Union in Xinjiang, China in 1934 and 1936-1937;[2][4]
• Italy in Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) in 1935-1940;[1]
• Poland against Germany in 1939 during an isolated incident;[1]
• Germany against Poland and the Soviet Union in a few erroneous uses during the Second World War;[1]
• Japan against China in 1937-1945;[2]
• Egypt against North Yemen in 1963-1967;[1]
• Iraq against Iran in 1981 and 1983-1988;[1]
• Iran against Iraq in 1987-1988, possibly using captured Iraqi munitions;[1]
• Iraq against Kurds in 1988;[1]
• Possibly Sudan against insurgents in the civil war, in 1995 and 1997[1]

[Nick]

• Poland against Germany in 1939 during an isolated incident;[1]
• Germany against Poland and the Soviet Union in a few erroneous uses during the Second World War;[1]

Hahahahahahaha... and, er, ha.

Bazz, a little Googling will go someway.. a little knowledge will go a lot further...


Where'd you pull those facts from? The little German book of handy quotes and vilification?

Germany, an ISOLATED incident of gassing?

What amount the multiple millions of Jews they gassed?

Jeez, please think about what you're posting because you've just glossed over perhaps the most atrocious war crime and mass genocide in living history.

[Bazzlad]

Don't blame me, blame wikipedia. But the original point is still there.

[Byatt]

Cough. Mustard Gas. Cough.

Don't sensationalise something because the Americans did it (although in this case they only did it by proxy). We've all done it.

You'll note the handy lack of examples from 'civilised' nations post Geneva Convention adoption. But I agree, we shouldn't sensationalise it because the Americans did it, we should sensationalise every instance of it.

There will be more violence, there will be mini wars, but eventually, peace will win, especially now there isn't ONE all powerful dictator.

Your faith that the shaky democracy we've installed in Iraq is going to flower under such strain is admirable (or possibly not), but can you please explain to me how this miraculous process occurs, and how we can be certain we will like the sort of peace that will be formed, given the level of chaos in Iraq currently?

With, perhaps, an example of a similar conflict where this has eventually occurred? Your previous examples are colossally incongruent - for starters, much like your chemical weaponry examples they are extremely out of date.

Don't blame me, blame wikipedia.

Jeez, please think about what you're posting because you've just glossed over perhaps the most atrocious war crime and mass genocide in living history.

qft...

[Bazzlad]

A little reading will go a LONG way too Nick, it states, POLAND used gas in an ISOLATED icident of gassing.

Germany, an ISOLATED incident of gassing?

[Bazzlad]

Your faith that the shaky democracy we've installed in Iraq is going to flower under such strain is admirable (or possibly not), but can you please explain to me how this miraculous process occurs, and how we can be certain we will like the sort of peace that will be formed, given the level of chaos in Iraq currently?

With, perhaps, an example of a similar conflict where this has eventually occurred? Your previous examples are colossally incongruent - for starters, much like your chemical weaponry examples they are extremely out of date.

Oh sorry, I forgot that you were in Iraq before the Americans were there and are there now and can compare the stability. Have you ever considered the fact that murder in Iraq was glossed over if included in the world media before America and Britain invaded?

This miraculous peace process occurs like the Ireland, Northern Ireland, England one will. Slowly, with a lot of incidents - however, when was the last time you were scared to go to London in case an IRA bomb is there?

[MadduckUK]

According to a recent poll, nearly 70% of Americans in the US support the idea of a public broadcast of Saddam's execution. 11% say they would find enjoyment in watching the last moments of Hussein's life. 21% of Americans say they would watch Osama bin Laden being executed on a pay-per-view basis.

3: PROFIT!

[Taz]

I wasn't trying to sensationalise the gassing of the Iranians by Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. I was making a protracted point that the actual crimes for which Saddam Hussein will answer charges for have been cherry-picked so as not to cause embarrassment to his former friends.

Of course other nations have used questionable military practises in their efforts to keep the population under control!

However, this incident is specifically about Saddam Hussein and all his alleged uses of chemical weapons against civilians have been put forward to the court apart from one.

If the West hates Saddam Hussein for the Halabja incident in which he gassed civilians then the West should have hated him when he was gassing Iranian civilians using exactly the same chemical weapons. Donald Rumsfeld shouldn't have been shaking his hand in the middle of that war with Iran.

[GEOFFREYPRESTON]

i think we are off track a little!!!

Saddam should not be killed as many people have said as two wrongs do not make a right.

I do think he should be locked up isolated and the key thrown away, the only contact with him by anyone should be when he gets fed and then no contact
verbal or any other!!

[Byatt]

Apologies for the continuous derail...

Oh sorry, I forgot that you were in Iraq before the Americans were there and are there now and can compare the stability. Have you ever considered the fact that murder in Iraq was glossed over if included in the world media before America and Britain invaded?

So we should measure our success by what then?

This miraculous peace process occurs like the Ireland, Northern Ireland, England one will. Slowly, with a lot of incidents - however, when was the last time you were scared to go to London in case an IRA bomb is there?

Yes, because Northern Ireland is *just* like Iraq. If that's the one example you're going to use then I'm not going to debate this with you - my question was in some sense rhetorical as I don't believe there's a comparable conflict, some are similar, but none are similar enough.

This is my whole problem with your posts - you're almost as bad as your target audience because you too are oversimplifying.

For a start look at the scale of the thing - over the last 100 years less than 4000 people (that's civs and combatants) have been killed by the conflict. Currently the UK/US death toll for Iraq lies at 3,075 - in less than four years.

That's without even looking at Iraqi civilian casualties, but then, why would we count them if we can merely utter "more would have died under Saddam"?

Equally it's an unfair comparison given the age of the Irish conflict (as thousands were probably killed in the war to begin with), but it does give an idea of scale.

Secondly let's look a little more at the history of both regions. Ulster (as it was known before becoming Northern Ireland) first became occupied by the British in 1600(ish) after the nine years war. So, the initial occupation was more than four hundred years ago.

Equally this was a more traditional invasion, so as soon as the war was won sodloads of English/Scottish settlers came over and set up camp, so you automatically have a population that's more likely to go your way. As well as this, we're in the 1600s - no Geneva Convention so anyone who even vaguely looks dangerous you can hang up by his/her gonads.

This is a huge difference between the two conflicts - the machiavellian methods open for the British whilst subjugating Ulster and the presence of a sodload of government sympathisers...compared with

...Iraq, where you have an insurgency backed by numerous divisive elements from the same region, you don't have the loyal base sitting there cheering you on, you don't have the machiavellian methods (because we're the good guys), and you're in a time where Guerrilla warfare has become somewhat of an art form.

So, given that it took nearly three hundred years, with more effective (if more morally questionable) methods for the British to get a nearly peaceful N.I with constant occupation by British forces, and then another hundred for it to start looking vaguely civilised (which included a short guerilla war), do you expect peace in Iraq to form when neither the US or the UK public has the stomach for such a large military commitment to continue for something even approaching that long?

[neonplanet40]

I think the Problems in Northern ireland are alot more in depth than you make out (i study irish history) but i do get your point. they are totally different scenarios but i think the end result for both should be the same and that is get out! (very biased i know).

The British forces CANNOT contain Iraq and never will in my opinion. I expect them to send alot more troops to afghanistan in the near future too as they are starting to lose there grip there.

It is up to you people over there to tell your leader you want YOUR forces out of the middle east. The government is there to represent YOU so maybe you should vote for someone who represents the peoples interests rather than retaining ties with countrys like amercia that use you for the support that they need to make this war just for their own elections.

Do not get me wrong i am not niave enough to think that it is as easy as that. But the vast majority of people in england are against the war in iraq yet the government is still going ahead with it. Lets remember that a government is only a government with the people of the country backing them. Remember this at the elections.

I have slighty went of topic and i apologise