We Should Free Saddam

[Phi for All]

I think none of the poll choices are within my purview. I think Saddam Hussein is a thug, I don't think he is a terrorist sympathizer, I think he was a brutal dictator, I don't think that much of what is being heaped upon him is valid. He is probably guilty of much, but is a scapegoat for the rest.

 

I am content to let the courts decide.

[ecoli]

I don't see how you can compare Saddam Hussein to Starlin, and Hitler. My be if you compared Sharon to them two maybe you should have a valid argument. Saddam only killed those who committed treason. He didn't bomb refugee camps!

 

There's a difference between mistreating enemies of another country and mistreating enemies of a country where you're in charge. A leader of a country is supposed to represent and protect his people, not exploit and oppress them for their own gain.

[eruheru]

I don't see how you can compare Saddam Hussein to Starlin, and Hitler. My be if you compared Sharon to them two maybe you should have a valid argument. Saddam only killed those who committed treason. He didn't bomb refugee camps!

it doesnt matter who he killed. ultimately lives were ended without truely just cause. who are you to decide whose life is expendable over another?

[[Tycho?]]

I think none of the poll choices are within my purview. I think Saddam Hussein is a thug' date=' I don't think he is a terrorist sympathizer, I think he was a brutal dictator, I don't think that much of what is being heaped upon him is valid. He is probably guilty of much, but is a scapegoat for the rest.

 

I am content to let the courts decide.[/quote']

 

Yeah. Although I doubt much will come of these court precedings. Saddam received too much support from the US while he was doing his worst, so I bet a huge amount of important stuff just wont come up at all.

 

Although he probably deserves hanging, most dictators do.

[AL]

I don't see how you can compare Saddam Hussein to Starlin, and Hitler. My be if you compared Sharon to them two maybe you should have a valid argument. Saddam only killed those who committed treason.[/i'] He didn't bomb refugee camps!

 

While I may trivially agree that Saddam "only killed those who committed treason," it hardly vindicates Saddam of any charges of wrong-doing. What do you expect Saddam to say of the people he killed but that they were guilty of some high crime (treason may as well be it)? Even Hitler and Goebbels had propaganda "justifying" their killing of Jews (Mein Kampf makes it abundantly clear that Hitler viewed Jews as threats to national security). The comparison with Hitler is apt.

[AL]

There's a difference between mistreating enemies of another country and mistreating enemies of a country where you're in charge. A leader of a country is supposed to represent and protect his people, not exploit and oppress them for their own gain.

There is a practical difference, maybe -- from a political standpoint. There is certainly no moral difference. Mistreatment of people is mistreatment of people, regardless of the nationality of the people.

[JonM]

None of you know how many people he ordered to kill, none of you know what he really did and what he is really responsible for. This is what the trial is for...

 

Taking a look at my own government, and I can see many parallels, just on a smaller scale...

 

Treason is punishable by execution in the US,

1,000 criminals have been executed since 1977, Under Saddam, however many that were killed were considered criminals...

Saddam invaded Kuwait, we just invaded Iraq… whats the difference really?

The US government most likley uses tortue in places like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grab (look at that scandal too)

The US government oppresses many of its people too, we just do systemically and hide it well.

... And thats just what we know about...

 

 

Now of course the degree doesn’t match up anywhere near what he is accused of, but in principle there are similarities with every government...

 

Sure he was a tyrant, sure he did a lot bad things, but every government does bad things, he deserves a fair trial.

[bascule]

Life in prison sounds good to me...

 

As It Is Impossible To Prove Anythng We Should Just Free Saddam As It Is Meaning Less To Go For Legal Procedures

 

I guess the Kurds just gassed themselves, then?

[Phi for All]

I guess the Kurds just gassed themselves, then?

Let's say the USA was at war with Mexico. Mexico attacks us through Arizona and the president finds out that most of the citizens of Nogales, AZ helped the Mexican army infiltrate the border.

 

The Mexican army is entrenched in the streets and buildings of Nogales and the US army decides to use an area-denial gas to flush out the troops so the army can shoot them. The traitorous Nogalesites believe that if they leave the buildings they will probably be shot as well, so they stay inside and are killed by the gas instead.

 

Do the headlines read, "President Gasses Nogalesites" or do they read, "Army Defeats Enemy Threat"? This is the victor's version of what happened to the Kurds who were gassed during the Iraq/Iran war.

 

Do we know for certain that Saddam's troops would have fired on unarmed Kurds fleeing the gas? Or would the soldiers have focussed on the armed Iranians as training probably dictated? Gas is used to clear an area, and is not effective as a means to kill people unless they insist on staying.

 

I'm not blaming the Kurds mind you, or saying they got what they deserved. I'm just pointing out that perspective is tricky and probably best left to the courts.

[bascule]

I'm not blaming the Kurds mind you, or saying they got what they deserved. I'm just pointing out that perspective is tricky and probably best left to the courts.

 

Agreed. However OP seems to think the trial should be skipped...

[Phi for All]

Agreed. However OP seems to think the trial should be skipped...

You're right, I shouldn't be off tangent hunting.

 

If we skip the trial process for Saddam, won't that set a precedent for every alleged criminal of equal or lesser stature?

[flyboy]

i say we blow his freaking head off, or push him out of an airplane, or be the first man ever to be sent to mars and let him suffocate

[Callipygous]

Gas is used to clear an area, and is not effective as a means to kill people unless they insist on staying.

 

while im no expert im inclined to seriously doubt that. im sure gas can be plenty lethal if you get the right kind.

[ecoli]

while im no expert im inclined to seriously doubt that. im sure gas can be plenty lethal if you get the right kind.

 

which is why the gas they use to break up riots isn't the lethal kind. Gas spreads out, so unless your enclosed in a chamber, it'll diffuse.

[doG]

Gas is used to clear an area, and is not effective as a means to kill people unless they insist on staying.

Of all the atrocities committed against the Kurds during the Anfal' date=' Halabja has come to symbolize the worst of the repression of the Iraqi Kurds. Halabja was a town of 70,000 people located about 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. It became the target of conventional and chemical bomb attacks over three days in March of 1988.

 

During those three days, the town and the surrounding district were unmercifully attacked with bombs, artillery fire, and chemicals. The chemical weapons were the most destructive of life. [b']The chemicals used included mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun, and VX. At least 5,000 people died immediately as a result of the chemical attack and it is estimated that up to 12,000 people in all died during the course of those three days.[/b] See http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html for more...

Saddam is also rumored to have used cyanide in some areas.

[boxhead]

no positive response till now.

dont you think that it is really very difficult to prove whatever wrong or right saddam did during past 20 years. even in case of hitler he was not given a chance to prove anything from his side. the judgement and a court-case in hitler's case was also nothing more than a drama.

 

why should we repeat this drama again and again, most of the times US is more interested in such exercises, just to show the world it's muscle power.

 

either we should hang him or free him, there is no other option. third option is almot impossible.

[Phi for All]

while im no expert im inclined to seriously doubt that. im sure gas can be plenty lethal if you get the right kind.

Saddam is also rumored to have used cyanide in some areas.

Rumors aside, mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX are ALL area-denial gasses. You get gassed, you move out of the area, you live. If you stay long enough, you die. In military use they are used to flush people out of an area either so you can shoot them or so you can later secure an area or both.

 

They are NOT some sort of Hollywood one-whiff-and-you-drop-dead miracle agent. YT2095 used to have an excellent article written by a military expert on his website (it may still be there). It described what actually is a WMD and what was not, and also described the effects of most of these gasses. Even the Sarin gas which was used in the terrorist attack in Tokyo in 1995 proved lethal to twelve people out of 6000 exposed to it because it was in a crowded subway where people had trouble leaving the area.

[ecoli]

no positive response till now.

dont you think that it is really very difficult to prove whatever wrong or right saddam did during past 20 years. even in case of hitler he was not given a chance to prove anything from his side. the judgement and a court-case in hitler's case was also nothing more than a drama.

 

Hitlet was never tried. He commited suicide in a... (bunker IIRC).

 

I suspect that you are thinking about the Nuremburg trials, where many of Hitler's croonies and associates where tried, most of which consisted of them trying to use the old "I was only following orders" excuse. Which worked for no one, I'm glad to say.

[doG]

Rumors aside' date=' mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX are ALL area-denial gasses. You get gassed, you move out of the area, you live. If you stay long enough, you die. In military use they are used to flush people out of an area either so you can shoot them or so you can later secure an area or both.

 

They are NOT some sort of Hollywood one-whiff-and-you-drop-dead miracle agent. YT2095 used to have an excellent article written by a military expert on his website (it may still be there). It described what actually is a WMD and what was not, and also described the effects of most of these gasses. Even the Sarin gas which was used in the terrorist attack in Tokyo in 1995 proved lethal to twelve people out of 6000 exposed to it because it was in a crowded subway where people had trouble leaving the area.[/quote']

At least 5,000 people died immediately as a result of the chemical attack....

So you're saying these 5000 people had time to move out of the area? Some of these people did not make it from their front yard to their front door before they dropped.

[Phi for All]

Some of these people did not make it from their front yard to their front door before they dropped.

Your quote and your misleading vividness both come from the Kurdish Democratic Party website, complete with advertisers, hardly an unbiased, objective source. As for the bodies found in their own front yards, you have no idea how long they were trapped inside the gassed area.

Saddam is also rumored to have used cyanide in some areas.

This is completely false. One of the few facts the United States Defense Intelligence Agency uncovered is that Iraq did NOT have any blood agents (cyanide-based) but that Iran did. The Kurds were killed with a blood agent and Saddam was using mustard gas at the time. Plenty of both were used at Halabja, but this is not my point.

 

All the crap that's been spread in the media about mustard gas and nerve agents being instant killers is just wrong. It freaks people out, for some reason a lot more than the idea of flushing an enemy (or a civilian) out of hiding so you can blow them away with far cheaper bullets. It makes for better press and gets more sympathy to paint a picture of some invisible chemical/biological science being used to kill as opposed to the conventional weapons seen in action films and TV.

[bascule]

Oh man, I hate it when I totally inadvertently manage to derail threads like this.

[treva]

Oh' date=' and that makes it alright to kill then? So if I think the guy accross the road is commiting treason I just go over there witha rrifle and shoot him? Lets see NO.

 

He killed many peopel - what ever excuse you use its not acceptable!

 

War crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are the charges he is going down for and he deserves them all and much much more

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

 

What about the American government? What do they deserve?

[GrandMasterK]

We Should Free Saddam

 

That's the scariest suggestion I've ever heard in my life. If they let him go I'll be there with the british army ready to prove wrong the theory of not being able to destroy energy.

[GrandMasterK]

What about the American government? What do they deserve?

 

A reward for bringing the future faster? lol, jk.

[YT2095]

Rumors aside' date=' mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX are ALL area-denial gasses. You get gassed, you move out of the area, you live. If you stay long enough, you die. In military use they are used to flush people out of an area either so you can shoot them or so you can later secure an area or both.

 

They are NOT some sort of Hollywood one-whiff-and-you-drop-dead miracle agent. YT2095 used to have an excellent article written by a military expert on his website (it may still be there). It described what actually is a WMD and what was not, and also described the effects of most of these gasses. Even the Sarin gas which was used in the terrorist attack in Tokyo in 1995 proved lethal to twelve people out of 6000 exposed to it because it was in a crowded subway where people had trouble leaving the area.[/quote']

 

here`s the site you mentioned: http://www.yt2095.net/news/terror.htm