Saddam Hussein executed

[biggiy05]

It's been confirmed. He was executed before sunrise Saturday morning in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html

[Jigglysaint]

Man, that must have been one hell of a hangover!

[Dragon Omega]

( Enter cricket chirping ) ...no.
I think a beheading would have been more fitting, but maybe they wanted him to suffer.
Mya. :mischief:

[MottZilla]

( Enter cricket chirping ) ...no.
I think a beheading would have been more fitting, but maybe they wanted him to suffer.
Mya. :mischief:

Hanging doesn't have suffering. The trap door drops from under them and the force when they go down snaps the neck. Death is instant. Hanging used to be stranglation, but it's long since evolved into something much more efficant. So he got off easy.

[AtmaWeapon]

I did knot expect it to take very long for this to happen, this is good noose!

[Revfan9]

Do we feel better now?

...No? Ah well. Let's find someone else to kill then and see if that works.

[MottZilla]

Apparently I've heard the opposite, that they hanged him the old fashion way where they are strangled to death, not neck breakage. That's a step up. Although maybe they didn't intend that and they are just bad at it.

[Breaker]

Do we feel better now?

...No? Ah well. Let's find someone else to kill then and see if that works.

Don't be ignorant. The Iraqis executed him. In a sense, we're somewhat responsible for capturing and turning him over to the Shiites, but then again, a guy that murdered and tortured as much as old Saddam did kinda deserved to die.

[MottZilla]

Indeed. No one can say Saddam didn't deserve it. But the whole thing stinks pretty bad. They killes him too early and in a half-assed behind the bushes way. They should have completed his Genocide trial with him alive before killing him. They keep saying he got a fair trial, which I highly doubt. I just think this shows we are trading one horrible dictator and his assholes for a new group of assholes.

Seriously, there are already contridicting reports of what happened. On one hand they say he was submissive and broken. On the other he wasn't afriad and was defiant. Which the fuck is it? And this is very common in the Arab world.

And Saddam being gone and now dead certainly doesn't justify invading Iraq. Not that he wasn't bad again, but just because some asshole (Bush) wants to invade another country for his own personal vandetta is no reason to do it. Really while we're executing people Bush should join him.

[Revfan9]

I just think this shows we are trading one horrible dictator and his assholes for a new group of assholes. Really while we're executing people Bush should join him.

My point precisely, MottZilla.

[Breaker]

Not that I really give a shit to argue about Bush, but I hate the pussy ass arguement that the president is invading a country because of a "personal vendetta". The fact that you think politics and the world in general is that black and white isn't saying much for your IQ.

Nobody wants to invade Iraq.

The truth, however, is that third world countries in the middle east can't get their stupid fucking shit together and create self-sustaining economies for themselves. Instead, they bomb the fuck out of one another and threaten the free world, thus forcing us to step in and straighten their god damn messes out for them.

You might not be able to wrap your fucking heads around it, but other (peaceful) countries depend on our military to defend them against hostile countries like Iraq and Iran. We (the US and our allies) are the only thing preventing them from developing a nuclear aresenal and killing millions of innocent people. If we were to let that happen, then your arguement would be the exact opposite and you'd be critizing Bush and our government for doing nothing.

You know why?

Because deep down we're all stupid fucking hypocrites that can't be satisfied with anything, least of all our government. That's part of being an American.

I'm sure many of you would rather say "fuck the rest of the world" and concentrate only on domestic issues within our own borders, but unfortunately you live in the wrong fucking country for that. Move to China, Cuba, or Venezuela. I'm sure you'd fit right in with the god damn isolated communists. You'd only have to give up your rights, having a Starbucks every 10 blocks, and free personalized checking accounts.

Stop listening to your stupid ex-hippy parents and think for yourselves. I know for a fact not all of you can possibly be this stupid on your own.

[MottZilla]

No one said we should never do anything about the Middle East. It clearly is a problem. But they clearly were determined to fight this war as soon as possible and as stupid as possible. Rather than planning this thing out, and getting proper support from allies they fucked everything they possibly could up. Lets not forget that the first Bush not finishing the job the first time was part of the problem. They fucked this all up, but won't be held accountable by anyone.

As far as the middle east goes, the reason we have to be involved is because we were already involved giving these animals modern weaponry for whatever retarded reason. People fucked everything up really well for us. There are no easy fixes unless we could all agree to completely bomb the entire middle east into oblivion without mercy.

It doesn't really matter though because the world is full of idiots.

[Glitch]

http://pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video

[The_Amaster]

Nobody wants to invade Iraq
Really?
Cause it seems that the Bush admin(No, he's not the only one to blame), tried really hard to do something they didn't want to do. You know, ignoring information, faking other information, and lets not forget the fact that Iraq just happens to have oil, and while we're there, why not pick some of it up, with things like the "Oil for Food" program.

(A quick aside, as this is one of my favorite little arguments that people are stupid: Bush claimed that we would be in and out in a few months. In WWII, the Allies thought that they could defeat the axies in a few months. Guess what, long war. In the civil war, the north thought that they could beat the south in a few weeks. Guess what, long war. In the revolution, the Brittish thought that they could stop the resistance in a few months. Guess what? Long war! PEOPLE DON'T LEARN!!)

[Breaker]

Do you not use oil?

[The_Amaster]

My point is that there were ulterior motives to the war.

[Breaker]

There were many motives behind going into Iraq and toppling Saddam's regime. One of them was the fact that he was a mass murdering son of a bitch. Regardless of whether or not he had "weapons of mass destruction", he was committing genocide and clearly hostile toward the US and it's allies.

If you're still arguing over whether or not invading Iraq was justified, then I can't wait for you to shit your pants when we inevitably go to war with Iran next. They've openly admitted to having WMDs and wouldn't mind nuking Israel and the rest of us to hell.

[Archibaldo]

Oil = Spoils of war.

[erm2003]

I don't think there is anyone who can really say they aren't glad that Saddam is out of power. He was an evil ruler who committed many crimes against the people of his country and has been considered an international threat.

The problem I have had is the main crimes he has been convicted of at this point were genocide crimes from the 1980s. So if they knew Saddam was doing these things then and they thought it was wrong, then they should have taken care of it then.

The U.S. went into Iraq under the pretenses that they were harvesting WMDs and were helping the Taliban, both of which were unfounded in various studies AFTER we went in. Sure we have taken out this dictator, but if that is really what this mission was about there are other rulers in Asian and African countries who are committing similar crimes against their own people.
Here is one example: http://www.africaaction.org/campaign_new/darfur.php

So why haven't we taken care of those problems too? It's not really that hard to see why we really invaded in the first place.

[The_Amaster]

Well, Iran is a bad idea right now, but we really dont't have much choice. Like you said, Iran has WMDs, and have admitted to them, but we can't afford to go there. We are overextended as it is, between Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and many others. Iran is just another slice of bread for the already thin butter.

And oil may have been spoils of war, but that doesn't change the fact that it was one of the motivators for going into Iraq in the first place.

[MottZilla]

There were many motives behind going into Iraq and toppling Saddam's regime. One of them was the fact that he was a mass murdering son of a bitch. Regardless of whether or not he had "weapons of mass destruction", he was committing genocide and clearly hostile toward the US and it's allies.

If you're still argueing over whether or invading Iraq was justified, then I can't wait for you to shit your pants when we inevitably go to war with Iran next. They've openly admitted to having WMDs and wouldn't mind nuking Israel and the rest of us to hell.

The thing is, I would support military action against Iran. Unlike Iraq, they actually have potential for Nuclear weapons. I saw Saddam and Iraq as basically playing a game of jumping the hoops to stay in power in his sandbox and ultimately not any threat to us. Perhaps he hated us and wanted to do something, but I'm sure ultimately he was aware that he shouldn't do anything to give us reason to come back. Afganistan made sense, Iran would make sense, but Iraq not so much. Sure there was a evil dictatorship and no one will miss him. But the more immediate threats I don't think included him and we have a limited amount of resources to put into these things which probably would have been better spent finding terrorists like Bin Laden. Saddam didn't have those planes fly into those towers.

So really it's not that Saddam wasn't bad, it's that he was lower on the ladder of threats really. While they were busy throwing our money at their personal target, we could have been spending those resources are stopping more immediate dangers. That's really what my point is.

[AlexMax]

Hooray. Saddam is dead. Now what...


The truth, however, is that third world countries in the middle east can't get their stupid fucking shit together and create self-sustaining economies for themselves. Instead, they bomb the fuck out of one another and threaten the free world, thus forcing us to step in and straighten their god damn messes out for them.

Western countries don't have a particularly good history of 'civilizing' other lesser countries. The only difference between now and a hundred to two hundred years ago is that this time, they have the potential to play with nuclear weapons. Mark my words, as soon as we leave Iraq, no matter if it's six months or six years from now, the government we backed is going to start oppressing its people and turn into something no better than Saddam. Off the top of my head, the only examples of a 'lesser' country that a western country occupied that ended up modernized was Japan and South Korea. (Japan actually did a good job of modernizing on its own before WW2, since they were afraid that the US was going to colonize them. Unfortuniatly, the US then issued them an ultimatum which would have neutered their plans for future expansion, so they then had little choice but to go to war and get the shit kicked out of them). You can probably think of more examples of success, and I can think of many more failures, such as India, Iran, Iraq, and Cuba, where a western country put in some puppet government that oppressed its people, only to be driven out by a communist or fundamentalist nutcase who also oppressed its people. You can't win in these sorts of situations, and the best thing to do is - unless they are directly threatening western nations - is let them sort out their own problems and not play internation policeman.

As for nuclear weapons, it's a part of international politics. What the fuck else are they supposed to do, just sit on their hands and wait for another country to invade them? Nuclear weapons are a bargining chip more than anything else, it's so they can get other countries to fucking listen to them. Hopefully, the threat of mutually assured destruction will keep their finger off the button, I mean, it's not like the people who are in the position to push the button want to die themselves (as long as they can get someone else to shoot the other guy for him).


You might not be able to wrap your fucking heads around it, but other (peaceful) countries depend on our military to defend them against hostile countries like Iraq and Iran. We (the US and our allies) are the only thing preventing them from developing a nuclear aresenal and killing millions of innocent people. If we were to let that happen, then your arguement would be the exact opposite and you'd be critizing Bush and our government for doing nothing.

The evidence that Iraq was a threat to us was very neubulus at best, selective hearing at worst. Bush wanted a reason to go to war, and he got one, and went to war with that pretense. That is what he sold the american people on, to get them to agree that the war was the right thing to do. What the fuck do you expect americans to do when we find out that, oh my, there aren't any there, and, oh my, turns out that the 'evidence' was shakey at best.


You know why?

Because deep down we're all stupid fucking hypocrites that can't be satisfied with anything, least of all our government. That's part of being an American.

It's a part of being an American when the politicians who represent us are old as hell and completely disconnected with reality. These elected men and women lack integrity, which hopefully a new generation of elected representatives can bring to the table. Until then, I have voted and will continue to vote for the party that's not in power, so congress is too deadlocked to actually get anything done, unless one of the two parties can do a damn good job of convincing me that they are worth electing. The republicans haven't shaken off the neocons yet, and the deomcrats can't seem to find anything to cling to except "WE HATE BU$H LAWL", which won't win elections either.

It's not disagreeing with your government. It's about being an informed voter. Unfortuniatly, this seems to be lost on the vast majority of "YEE HAW GIT ER DUN!" warmongers and ex-hippie "lawl bush is dum" left-wingers.


I'm sure many of you would rather say "fuck the rest of the world" and concentrate only on domestic issues within our own borders, but unfortunately you live in the wrong fucking country for that. Move to China, Cuba, or Venezuela. I'm sure you'd fit right in with the god damn isolated communists. You'd only have to give up your rights, having a Starbucks every 10 blocks, and free personalized checking accounts.

"IF YOU DONT LIKE AMERICA, YOU CAN GIT OUT" (http://www.planearium2.de/scripts-701.htm)

[Breaker]

The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

[mikeron]

That giant noose made me LOL.

EDIT: So did this: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=294738&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

[Breaker]

I wonder if the noose will end up on ebay.