T
train
Guest
no - give him a working parachute - but make so that he can't physically open it unless he does something nearly impossible while dropping towardds earth - that way if he doesn't open it, it's not our fault...
C
chocobo_cid
Guest
Or get him really drunk, like that one CSI.
K
kirby_1111
Guest
Too easy. We/They should do something original. Like make him write personal letters to the families of all the people he had killed. That should take him at least the rest of his sorry life to do.
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
If we're goign to give Iraq soverignty, we better do it and mean it.
Let Iraq decide what to do with him.
Let Iraq decide what to do with him.
M
mythosx
Guest
Answer me one thing gentlemen. No one in America and I mean no one really cares 2 cents about anything that happens on elsewhere in the world. Where did all of a sudden these aqcusations and concerns for the well being of enslaved and murdered Iraqis of 15 years ago come from? Is it just the media hype engine at work? Is it just bush trying to pull **** out of his behind to cover it for his ineptitude? I am curious. 2 years ago no one talked anything about this stuff. Now, everyone wants to "right the wrongs" of Saddam. If we want to kill him we kill him we should try him. If we want them to try him then just leave it be. Our current administration has a lot to answer for and alot to take care of in the coming months. It will be interesting to see what happens. Too many eyes are on the president and he isn't slick enough to pull any fast moves. Tried to do a head fake but Micheal Moore checked him. I do admit that movie is a bit biased to the other extreme. But even if the movie was partially true W has a lot to answer for.
I think people were concerned, they either didn't want to go to war to correct those wrongs and risk American lives or they weren't heard loud enough (or both). Now that Bush decided to invade and put the US in the current situation, it's more "what can be done now" than "why or where was everyone x years ago".
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
Bush isn't pulling somthing out of his butt to cover his story.
Saddam really did murder his own people 15 years ago.
And Rumsfeld really did meet with Saddam Hussien to discuss weapons deals.
and the reagan administration and Bush Sr Administration really did sell him the weapons he used against his own people.
So the concern for the Iraqi people on the part of bush is absoloutly crap.
The murder was real.
They've taken fact and distorted it to justify their actions. This is what's known as "PR"
Saddam really did murder his own people 15 years ago.
And Rumsfeld really did meet with Saddam Hussien to discuss weapons deals.
and the reagan administration and Bush Sr Administration really did sell him the weapons he used against his own people.
So the concern for the Iraqi people on the part of bush is absoloutly crap.
The murder was real.
They've taken fact and distorted it to justify their actions. This is what's known as "PR"
M
mythosx
Guest
Do you even play magic, Donkey?
Actually, I know all this to be true however, my point is most Americans did not know about any of this just a year ago. Most of us learned all this as the news brought this to light now. It just feels like America is just one big hype engine.
Actually, I know all this to be true however, my point is most Americans did not know about any of this just a year ago. Most of us learned all this as the news brought this to light now. It just feels like America is just one big hype engine.
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
you're absloutly right about the hype machine, but do you know how deep the rabbit hole goes?
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy.html
buy this book.
You can get it borders if you must.
Read it.
You will be enlightened to the lies all around you, all the time. there are "news shows" that are actually paid advertisments. What are they selling? Thoughts, empty rhetoric and disinformation. They are selling what they want you to beleive. An example of this is "The Point" which airs sporadically on CBS.
There is a giant invisible machine all around you, and this book sprays blaze orange all over it.
Really, after reading this book, I felt like I was just freed from the matrix. I know, cheesy reference, but I don't know of anything else that fits off the top of my head.
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy.html
buy this book.
You can get it borders if you must.
Read it.
You will be enlightened to the lies all around you, all the time. there are "news shows" that are actually paid advertisments. What are they selling? Thoughts, empty rhetoric and disinformation. They are selling what they want you to beleive. An example of this is "The Point" which airs sporadically on CBS.
There is a giant invisible machine all around you, and this book sprays blaze orange all over it.
Really, after reading this book, I felt like I was just freed from the matrix. I know, cheesy reference, but I don't know of anything else that fits off the top of my head.
I didn't say Bush was "making it up". I said people were concerned but at the time, they weren't important enough to get their voices heard.
None of that is new. The US supplied the Afghan rebels with arms and equipment to fight the Soviet Union in the '80s, and a lot of it is probably still being used to fight Karzai and the central government's power. The US supported tons of Latin and South American dictators before eventually deciding that wasn't in their best interest and democracy was (in some cases) and even took steps to invade (like Panama).
US policy shifts to support those where it is in the US' best interest. That's the one consistent underlying theme in all its policies. Iraq was the lesser of two evils in the 80's, so the US supported them. Today, it's one of the greater (or was).
None of that is new. The US supplied the Afghan rebels with arms and equipment to fight the Soviet Union in the '80s, and a lot of it is probably still being used to fight Karzai and the central government's power. The US supported tons of Latin and South American dictators before eventually deciding that wasn't in their best interest and democracy was (in some cases) and even took steps to invade (like Panama).
US policy shifts to support those where it is in the US' best interest. That's the one consistent underlying theme in all its policies. Iraq was the lesser of two evils in the 80's, so the US supported them. Today, it's one of the greater (or was).
A
Astranbrulth
Guest
Another interesting question, should Saddam hang or not.
If the question were asked in a vacuum, I would agree with Train: Yes! Most definitely.
But! There are many complicating factors:
(1) It should be Iraqis to decide what happens to him ... and after the 2005 elections, so that the process is untainted by US involvement. At the moment it smacks too much of a GWB publicity stunt. He is still not in Iraqi custody, because the US does not trust them. And the US is dictating the terms of the media coverage of the trial. What's up w/ that?
(2) Morally speaking, there are people in the government of the US that aided & abetted his excesses. Furthermore, they launched a war on Iraq that has killed tens of thousands, ostensibly in the name of securing / liberating the country. Rumsfeld especially springs to mind. Yet, those are the reasons that Saddam gave when slaughtering his opponents. And now he is Satan. Should they not also be hauled into the dock with him?
I think there is a very mature attitude prevailing in the CPA forums as compared to the howling wilderness of the internet forums. I find almost all of your views have merit:
** Reverend Love "No the U.S. will do what we damn well please because the world can't stop us."
Sad but true. We have regressed to the old might makes right days again.
**DUke ... well I'll have to rephrase that ... basically, how come are US excesses excused in the name of liberty in the Middle East when a bunch of guys flying aeroplanes into the WTC in protest to American troops on their home soil are terrorists?
Well what can I say? Except for ... yes, they are terrorists ... but then, US actions in the ME are often no less despicable. Why is America always defending itself in somebody else's country? You guys know better.
**Shiro "Trying Bush would be hard to do, even if Bush was formally charged with many war crimes."
True. There is about the same chance of that happening as of me beating Kai head to head.
** Istanbul: "Imprisoning Saddam Hussein will make him a political prisoner, encouraging countless hostage situations "
For sure, again. Not only that, but the IP are so infiltrated with insurgents I'd guess he'd be free in a month.
Mythosx raises some very interesting questions, namely "Where did all of a sudden these aqcusations and concerns for the well being of enslaved and murdered Iraqis of 15 years ago come from?"
I'd like to answer them in a fashion.
The current war in Iraq is an ideological one, launched by those that call themselves Neo Conservatives. They view the fall of the USSR as a golden opportunity to launch a similar crusade like the Communists did: (a) in order to convert all countries to capitalist liberal democracies, (b) to ensure that the USA is basically in the position of world dictator, retaining a virtual monopoly on military power and economic resources like oil and (c) using unilateral dictatorial methods to achieve this. They believe that despite using Saddamite means to achieve their ends, the final product will be untainted by the creation process and smell like roses.
I know I sound like a wacky conspiracy theorist, but true to God, it's all true. They are not shy to spell their policies out in black and white, as in sites like Project for a New American Century and the Heritage Foundation. They spelt out the policy of the Bush government long ago, as way back as 1997. From invading Iraq to establish troop bases, to invading Iran, and/or Syria , to invading N Korea and forcibly reuniting the two.
What can I say? Their control of "official" media like TV and news is pretty heavy handed, and that is why everybody in the US was in a panic over Iraq. For example, if you are a reporter and are invited to cover a conference ... and criticise the Neocon policies ... you don't get invited again. Only recently are embarrassed editorials coming out wondering if they were all played for suckers. And the media WAS, those that claimed to be independent, anyway. You guys were grilled good.
I urge whoever wants to know more about these 'folks' to check this link out:
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm
It is a bit slanted towards US domestic concerns ... but it provides excellent primer material for those who want to know who is deciding foreign / domestic policy on your behalf, and why.
Back to Iraq, now.
Saddam is the Iraqi's problem.
As Spiderman said "Personally, I don't think it is or should be up "to us/the US". " I agree with this.
But ... what must NOT happen is that another dictator of the same mould, like that ex Baathist / thug / CIA man Allawi gets installed as a dictator. Will that not make a mockery of the remaining wobbly reasons for war? I am VERY interested to see what is going to happen in 2005. Are the elections going to be rigged? Are they going to be postponed time and time again, citing security reasons as in Afghanistan? We will see.
( PS ... I particularly liked the idea of having Saddam personally write letters of condolence to all his victim's families. Clever, Kirby_1111 That would be an ironic and fitting punishment. He ought to also include peronal information about the victim and reasons why it was a bad idea to kill that person. That way he could not get away with a 1 size fits all approach. And it would add a face and persona to the nameless victims. I'd also like to see Bush (or Rumsfeld) doing the same, btw. At least an A4 page per person.When he is finished, in about 60 years time, he can go free. He should be +- 120 by then.)
--Astranbrulth--
If the question were asked in a vacuum, I would agree with Train: Yes! Most definitely.
But! There are many complicating factors:
(1) It should be Iraqis to decide what happens to him ... and after the 2005 elections, so that the process is untainted by US involvement. At the moment it smacks too much of a GWB publicity stunt. He is still not in Iraqi custody, because the US does not trust them. And the US is dictating the terms of the media coverage of the trial. What's up w/ that?
(2) Morally speaking, there are people in the government of the US that aided & abetted his excesses. Furthermore, they launched a war on Iraq that has killed tens of thousands, ostensibly in the name of securing / liberating the country. Rumsfeld especially springs to mind. Yet, those are the reasons that Saddam gave when slaughtering his opponents. And now he is Satan. Should they not also be hauled into the dock with him?
I think there is a very mature attitude prevailing in the CPA forums as compared to the howling wilderness of the internet forums. I find almost all of your views have merit:
** Reverend Love "No the U.S. will do what we damn well please because the world can't stop us."
Sad but true. We have regressed to the old might makes right days again.
**DUke ... well I'll have to rephrase that ... basically, how come are US excesses excused in the name of liberty in the Middle East when a bunch of guys flying aeroplanes into the WTC in protest to American troops on their home soil are terrorists?
Well what can I say? Except for ... yes, they are terrorists ... but then, US actions in the ME are often no less despicable. Why is America always defending itself in somebody else's country? You guys know better.
**Shiro "Trying Bush would be hard to do, even if Bush was formally charged with many war crimes."
True. There is about the same chance of that happening as of me beating Kai head to head.
** Istanbul: "Imprisoning Saddam Hussein will make him a political prisoner, encouraging countless hostage situations "
For sure, again. Not only that, but the IP are so infiltrated with insurgents I'd guess he'd be free in a month.
Mythosx raises some very interesting questions, namely "Where did all of a sudden these aqcusations and concerns for the well being of enslaved and murdered Iraqis of 15 years ago come from?"
I'd like to answer them in a fashion.
The current war in Iraq is an ideological one, launched by those that call themselves Neo Conservatives. They view the fall of the USSR as a golden opportunity to launch a similar crusade like the Communists did: (a) in order to convert all countries to capitalist liberal democracies, (b) to ensure that the USA is basically in the position of world dictator, retaining a virtual monopoly on military power and economic resources like oil and (c) using unilateral dictatorial methods to achieve this. They believe that despite using Saddamite means to achieve their ends, the final product will be untainted by the creation process and smell like roses.
I know I sound like a wacky conspiracy theorist, but true to God, it's all true. They are not shy to spell their policies out in black and white, as in sites like Project for a New American Century and the Heritage Foundation. They spelt out the policy of the Bush government long ago, as way back as 1997. From invading Iraq to establish troop bases, to invading Iran, and/or Syria , to invading N Korea and forcibly reuniting the two.
What can I say? Their control of "official" media like TV and news is pretty heavy handed, and that is why everybody in the US was in a panic over Iraq. For example, if you are a reporter and are invited to cover a conference ... and criticise the Neocon policies ... you don't get invited again. Only recently are embarrassed editorials coming out wondering if they were all played for suckers. And the media WAS, those that claimed to be independent, anyway. You guys were grilled good.
I urge whoever wants to know more about these 'folks' to check this link out:
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm
It is a bit slanted towards US domestic concerns ... but it provides excellent primer material for those who want to know who is deciding foreign / domestic policy on your behalf, and why.
Back to Iraq, now.
Saddam is the Iraqi's problem.
As Spiderman said "Personally, I don't think it is or should be up "to us/the US". " I agree with this.
But ... what must NOT happen is that another dictator of the same mould, like that ex Baathist / thug / CIA man Allawi gets installed as a dictator. Will that not make a mockery of the remaining wobbly reasons for war? I am VERY interested to see what is going to happen in 2005. Are the elections going to be rigged? Are they going to be postponed time and time again, citing security reasons as in Afghanistan? We will see.
( PS ... I particularly liked the idea of having Saddam personally write letters of condolence to all his victim's families. Clever, Kirby_1111
That would be an ironic and fitting punishment. He ought to also include peronal information about the victim and reasons why it was a bad idea to kill that person. That way he could not get away with a 1 size fits all approach. And it would add a face and persona to the nameless victims. I'd also like to see Bush (or Rumsfeld) doing the same, btw. At least an A4 page per person.When he is finished, in about 60 years time, he can go free. He should be +- 120 by then.) --Astranbrulth--
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
I had to laugh when you said that.
Are you really serious?
US ForeignPolicies have almost NEVER been to benefit the US people. It's always been for political or financial reasons.
Do you honestly think that invading Iraq was in YOUR best intrest? Do you think that supporting Saddam while he gassed people was in your best intrest? Do you think that training Osama Bin Laden and supporting the Mujahadeen were in your best intrest? How about the Niceraguan Contras? Do you think the CIA's funding them to overthrow the legitimatly elected government and buying cocaine to sell to drug lords was in your best intrest? Or the covert operations in Panama? Were those in your best intrest? How about Clinton bombing Iraq for a failed assasination attempt on Bush Sr (when really it was to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal), was that in your best intrest?
Come on, really, you must be dellusional to think that.
M
mythosx
Guest
Again donkey, do you even play magic?
All wars are always fought for financial gains. Politics is a type of warfare that involves words, opinions and ideas. This is the basics of the art of war. So I don't understand, why you feel you needed to reiterate that Donkey.
All wars are always fought for financial gains. Politics is a type of warfare that involves words, opinions and ideas. This is the basics of the art of war. So I don't understand, why you feel you needed to reiterate that Donkey.
D
Donkey Rhubarb
Guest
Politics is not a kind of warfare.
Politics is a form of public servic, or should be.
Warfare involves people killing people.
Don't get them confused.
Vietnam was a war.
C-Span is the congress. Nobody dies when somebody disproves what someone else says. Nobody dies when congresspeople plan the budget.
Politics is a form of public servic, or should be.
Warfare involves people killing people.
Don't get them confused.
Vietnam was a war.
C-Span is the congress. Nobody dies when somebody disproves what someone else says. Nobody dies when congresspeople plan the budget.
I'm taking it that DR does NOT play Magic, since he appears to ignore the question and I haven't seen him post in Magic-related forums. Not sure how he found his way here... either a search engine or perhaps an alias of another regular here?
DR: I can see how you might interpret "US best interests" as the US people, but that's not what I meant. I meant the US as a body, as a country. Iran in the late '70s and 80's, after the overthrow of the Shah and hostage-taking and the Ayatollah declaring the US as the "Great Satan", was deemed more of a threat to the US than Iraq. Since Saddam hated Iran, the US found a somewhat imperfect "ally" and foil to Iran in the Middle East.
Same thing with Afghanistan - the name of the game was stopping the spread of Communism. If training bin Laden meant that he'd fight the Soviets and thus do the "grunt" work, that was good enough for the US.
Same thing with your other examples. Check the underlying policy of the US of the time, not what the "people wanted" - that's generally why we elect people, so they presumably carry out the majority of the people's wishes.
DR: I can see how you might interpret "US best interests" as the US people, but that's not what I meant. I meant the US as a body, as a country. Iran in the late '70s and 80's, after the overthrow of the Shah and hostage-taking and the Ayatollah declaring the US as the "Great Satan", was deemed more of a threat to the US than Iraq. Since Saddam hated Iran, the US found a somewhat imperfect "ally" and foil to Iran in the Middle East.
Same thing with Afghanistan - the name of the game was stopping the spread of Communism. If training bin Laden meant that he'd fight the Soviets and thus do the "grunt" work, that was good enough for the US.
Same thing with your other examples. Check the underlying policy of the US of the time, not what the "people wanted" - that's generally why we elect people, so they presumably carry out the majority of the people's wishes.
T
TUPoliGrad04
Guest
You see I'm a very strong believer in the W ideology, but in this case we have a very sticky situation. You have more then one country involved and we shouldn't be able to just kill him on that basis, unfortunatley he isn't guilty until proven..and anyway doesn't the "new" Iraq now carry that jurisdiction?
Which last time i checked Iraq now is dictated under a lesser form of democratic reasoning, which has something to do with Islamic law in a sense, i'm a bit uncertain though.
Which last time i checked Iraq now is dictated under a lesser form of democratic reasoning, which has something to do with Islamic law in a sense, i'm a bit uncertain though.
I
Istanbul
Guest
If you think YOU'RE uncertain, imagine what it must be like for the Iraqi citizens.
"Hey, is such-and-such illegal?"
"...uh...beats me!"
M
mythosx
Guest
Istanbul has a point. It has also been addressed by much of the press. With the formation of the new government, what laws would they be using to prosecute him with? Old laws would mean the old regime was still in place. New laws? That would take too long to create. It sure is a pickle.
DR - Art of war is applied to all conflicts and interactions bewteen any two parties. Whether they are physical or mental, the teachings still apply. I am of course referring to the book by Sun Tzu.
DR - Art of war is applied to all conflicts and interactions bewteen any two parties. Whether they are physical or mental, the teachings still apply. I am of course referring to the book by Sun Tzu.
T
train
Guest
Saddam's going to perish...
C
conservative_infidel
Guest
I agree. But I believe it will be one of his own that takes the law into their own hands. Now even though I am a fan of the death penalty, would prefer to see him enjoy life in prison under harsh circumstances--solitary confinement, hard labor, and images of his former luxuries.