Do you know what I heard? Someone actually said that Saddam Hussein was not a threat.
How ignorant can people be? I mean, if they actually took the time out of their day to study him they'd see all of the horrid things he did. This man clearly wasn't sane!
He and his idiot sons slaughtered hundreds for the pure heck of it, his daughters would become engaged and to celebrate he'd kill the groom! The people of his country were afraid to not vote for him. Getting rid of Saddam was not a "political ploy", as I heard on man comment. But for humanity's sake. Look of all the things this man did and they they have the audacity to tell me that he "wasn't a threat."
Yeah, tell that to all the people who lost their lives.

Sorry, I just needed to vent.

Wow, what total bs. I can't believe they're even putting him on trial. I don't support the death penalty but I wouldn't be upset if he got that sentence. They should just let that monster rot in jail.

Nevi


Someone actually said that Saddam Hussein was not a threat.

You have to look at this in context of current world events.

This man clearly wasn't sane!

Nevi, being a tyrant does not necessarily make you insane. Take Hitler for example.

Getting rid of Saddam was not a "political ploy", as I heard on man comment.

Again, you can't call these people ignorant when you clearly don't understand the context of the situation. America, much of the west and inversely much of the east have several varying and differently directed threats towards them. America, at the moment, is quite clearly under the greatest threat from terrorists and fundamentalists. This was certainly the situation at the time of the Iraqi invasion. Iraq do not have or hold Islamic fundamentalists. There was no funding from Iraq to terrorists. Bin Laden and Hussein have a strained relationship to put it nicely.

So while their greatest threat came from the increasing potential for terrorist attacks from countries such as Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, they decide to attack Iraq, a country rich in oil, well suited and situated in the middle east for military operations and most importantly has nothing to do with terrorists.

At the time of the Iraq Invasion, Iraq was not a distinct threat to the US or western countries. This is not to say they weren't, they always were to some extent, but we cannot simply eliminate every threat against us. We have to look at threats of greatest significance and act against them. In consideration of that context we can say, relatively, that Iraq was no threat. That is the truth of the matter.

Weapons of Mass Destruction you say? Were they found? Was anything even remotely in connection with them found? Did weapons inspectors not say that nothing was happening? The Iraq invasion was a disgrace. It outright broke international law and the US should have been reprimanded for it. And just to add to all this turmoil we are now on the brink of civil war in Iraq, with Irani fundamentalists stirring trouble to swing things in their favour. The US may have swayed things further against them. Do not call these people ignorant Nevi, if you are as well.

Yeah, tell that to all the people who lost their lives.

Tell that to all the Iraqis who died as a direct result of this war.

Tacoma

I can't believe they're even putting him on trial

I understand your consternation but we live in a western society which is based upon the principle of rule of law. If we are seen to break our own principles and statutes then how can we possibly have any right, in any way, to dictate our doctrine to other nations. All humans have the right to a fair trial. This is not given to everyone and it is disgusting, but we must do our best to ensure that it does. Even with tyrants like Suddam Hussein.

You think Hitler was sane? The man had serious mental issues. Anyone who purposely kills many people, his dog, his mistress and himself is not right in the mind.

I never said anything about weapons of mass destruction.

Let, me explain what Saddam and his two good for nothing sons did.
They slaughtered over 200 people buried them in the sand without so much as wrapping their bodies in any kind of sheet or anything. And they were left to decay without their poor families ever knowing what happened to them. That was until the American troops came, all of the bodies were recovered and given proper burials.

I do believe that Suddam Hussein should be given a fair trial, that wasn't what I was implying.
I was simply out raged at the fact that some people thought that Suddam wasn't a threat. Anyone who has killed, or had people killed is a threat, even to themselves. Take Hitler for example.

Nevi

You think Hitler was sane? The man had serious mental issues. Anyone who purposely kills many people, his dog, his mistress and himself is not right in the mind.

I suppose you haven't read psychologist's reports on Hitler's actions, thoughts and last days. Your statement assumes that Hitler carried out those acts himself. There is no proof of any kind that Hitler ever killed a man. He certainly gave the orders to do so for others but there is a distinct mental and emotional difference between committing an act and directing one. I am not saying that Hitler was a good man or should somehow be excused from his crimes because of this, only that his ordered murder of millions is not a sign of insanity in any form. At the most Hitler may have suffered from some form of anxiety disorder or depression which are not mental illnesses. Suicide is also not a sign or necessity of mental illness. Many people kill themselves who are emotionally distraught or depressed but that is not the definition of a mental illness.

Hitler had perverse ideologies and twisted beliefs in the spirit and reality of man. The study of eugenics around his time and his misinterpreted readings of philosophers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger (sp?) added to his mindset, but that, again, does not necessitate mental illness. Hitler was the driving force for shocking things but there has never been surmountable proof of any mental illness on his part.

I never said anything about weapons of mass destruction.

I know. But the argument that Hussein was not a threat usually finds itself reverting to the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction that were the initial reason for the war. I was removing this point in advance. I apologise for the presumption though.


Let, me explain what Saddam and his two good for nothing sons did.
They slaughtered over 200 people buried them in the sand without so much as wrapping their bodies in any kind of sheet or anything. And they were left to decay without their poor families ever knowing what happened to them. That was until the American troops came, all of the bodies were recovered and given proper burials.

Let me tell you how the families of the thousands of dead Iraqis feel. They are angry, hurt and emotionally distraught that a nation would have the arrogance to fabricate false evidence and lies against a country in order to invade that country for possible (I would argue likely) political purposes. The actions of the US directly killed thousands of Iraqis. However indirectly it will kill thousands more. I am somewhat shocked Nevi, that you justify that with the burial rites of 200 people.

I am not arguing that Hussein was a good man or that he did no deserve to be dethroned. He did, there is no doubt about that - he was an instigator of genocide. But the action should have been made and completed to stop the genocide and remove those responsible immediately, at the time of the Kuwait Invasion. That should have happened at the time of the Gulf War.


I do believe that Suddam Hussein should be given a fair trial, that wasn't what I was implying. I was simply outraged at the fact that some people thought that Suddam wasn't a threat. Anyone who has killed, or had people killed is a threat, even to themselves. Take Hitler for example.

Ok, firstly please read my posts more carefully. That wasn't directed at you. You'll notice that above it in bold was written Tacoma. That was for her, not you. Please read more carefully next time.

One again, as I mentioned above, they are not saying that Suddam Hussein wasn't a threat. It has to be taken in context. He was not a threat in relevance with world events at the time. He was still a threat. So before you attempt to use my own repsonse against me next time in a farcical attempt at wit, please ensure that you know what it is I'm talking about and understand the context of the situation. Otherwise you simply sound ignorant. It seems to be a recurring theme.

I would also like to add that Hitler did not kill his wife/woman/whatever. She killed herself in the underground shelter that they were in the same night that Hitler shot himself.