1121 replies to this topic

[Ubermedic]

all i knw is saddam shouldnt of had an instant death. to make it fair. he doesnt have any human rights after he took away 1000's of human rights for no apparent reason, other than he didnt like them. so he shouldnt of been entitled to a humane death. cause he is not human, he is an animal.

Yes, he did not have any rights to kill. But why do you think americans have rights to kill?

Who has any right to kill any one?

Creator u are blaming americans for the hanging os saddam but u are wrong

I'm not blaming americans for hanging of Saddam. I'm just showing you "another side of the medal". Americans executed Saddam because he killed 1000 kurds. But americans themselves killed 60 000 arabs. And they say it's ok. Americans are worse than Saddam because they killed more people.

Iraqi's executed saddam. Americans Captured him. If'd the Iraqi's hadn't done anything we'd of charge him with war crimes and the UN would've tried him.

BUT it was his own peaple "iraqi" that actuly sentanced and did the hanging

They did the hanging under american rule. They did what they were said.

American rule? Americans have the country under control. Not like we are their new dictators or anything.

I've stressed before the huge difference between intentionaly killing civilans, and collateral deaths. Both are tragic, but they ARE NOT the same. The weapon used is not the point. Blown up, Gassed, Shot... they are all horrible. The differnce is who was it meant for? There is nothnig immoral about attacking a military target, and while collateral civilian deaths are tragic they are part of war.

You are wrong. It's the same. The logical chain is:
1) Any war brings collateral deaths.
2) Americans know that any war brings collateral deaths.
3) Americans start a war.
4) Now sum 1st, 2nd and 3rd points. What will you get? The answer is: "Americans deliberately go kill civilians. They know about possible collateral deaths, but they start a war anyway".

Russia attacked the middle east a while back.
So pray tell creator. What makes this statement not true for Russia?
and if so. Why can Russia kill civilians and America can't?

Also
1) Any war brings collateral deaths.
2) Every country knows that any war brings collateral deaths.
3) America is attacked by middle eastern extremists.
4) America returns the favor by invading middle eastern countries.
5) Now sum up 1-4 and you get "America retaliates for deliberate attack on civilians"

I'm glad to see someone so well versed in middle eastern culture and the such but
blind (somewhat) anti-americanism doesn't really sit well with me.

Edited by Ubermedic, 06 January 2007 - 11:16 PM.

[Death_Pheonix]

Anyways killing saddam was justified and dose not make us as bad as him we kill him = 1 man he killed 1000's of innocents.

do i need remind you of world war 2, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 100,000's of civilians were killed most of them after days, months of the bombs, with a much horrible death than poison, the target were civilians, which is why they were dropped on civilian targets. now why wasn't the President at that time hanged? because its ok for America to do it, but as soon as somebody else does it, thats not on Americas leash, they get hanged.
if you can call 1000 of Saddam's killings Genocide, then we can assume the same for the United States of America, the country of freedom.

the list is endless of examples of genocide.

don't try and respond with the Nazis, for their crimes they got systematically wiped out. War is War, and you cant justify Saddam's hanging because a lot worse has been done, without punishment.

Russia attacked the middle east a while back.
So pray tell creator. What makes this statement not true for Russia?
and if so. Why can Russia kill civilians and America can't?

Also
1) Any war brings collateral deaths.
2) Every country knows that any war brings collateral deaths.
3) America is attacked by middle eastern extremists.
4) America returns the favor by invading middle eastern countries.
5) Now sum up 1-4 and you get "America retaliates for deliberate attack on civilians"

I'm glad to see someone so well versed in middle eastern culture and the such but
blind (somewhat) anti-americanism doesn't really sit well with me.

but then again most of the U.S atrocities that were far worst than Saddam's were before 9/11, like Japan (nukes), Vietnam (agent orange/land mines) and don't even mention the Food for Oil scheme, that starved his people and not Saddam

Edited by Death_Pheonix, 07 January 2007 - 01:37 AM.

[Phoenix911]

but then again most of the U.S atrocities that were far worst than Saddam's were before 9/11, like Japan (nukes), Vietnam (agent orange/land mines) and don't even mention the Food for Oil scheme, that starved his people and not Saddam

Agent orange that was used o.O i never knew that, even tho i watched and read tons about vietma war and such i never heard/read of it being used.
And landmines u can not say america only practicly all countrys have or still use landmines, And landmines are not a weapon aimed at civis, they are more often placed in places they know that the "enemy" will more than liky pass though.
Also i know that landmines are now a ban'd weapon from the geneiva(sp?) convention but alot of countrys still use them and wont make it public.

[Death_Pheonix]

Agent orange that was used o.O i never knew that, even tho i watched and read tons about vietma war and such i never heard/read of it being used.
And landmines u can not say america only practicly all countrys have or still use landmines, And landmines are not a weapon aimed at civis, they are more often placed in places they know that the "enemy" will more than liky pass though.
Also i know that landmines are now a ban'd weapon from the geneiva(sp?) convention but alot of countrys still use them and wont make it public.

yeah agent orange was used to try, and clear foliage, were the Viet Cong were hiding, its just that it was hard to distinguish, between the enemy and the people, and as a result millions died, i learned in history that the Veit Cong had the peoples trust and allegiance, simple village folk would go and repair bridges and roads, for the Viet Cong, it was the people unification that beat the US back. and yes i agree the US did place mines in those problems but it killed 1000's and its just that they still kill people today (unexploded mines)

I'm not trying to pay out the US or Call them Genocidal Bastards, I'm just saying nearly every country has committed atrocities, its just the bully countries get off it, and the small country's (or Dictators) like Iraq get punished and bullied. I laugh at peoples ignorance when they say "Look what he did he deserves Death!" when your own fucking former president killed 100'000s of Japanese, he didn't get anything for it.

PS: its interesting debating over 2 different timezones!

[Capt.Drake]

Agent Orange you know what Agent Organge was used on the MAerican motherland before for farming pruposes and the clear the side of Intersates and so on so there was no reason to don't use it.
Millions dead, no I don't think that that number is far to high you know that's stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just a question at this point, how many people who wokred on the roof of the Tchernobyl Reactor to close it died cause of Radiation and only of that? I mean where scientists are 100% sure that's it only of that working!

[Creator]

it colleteral damage, in any war,

Colleteral damage is just justification. You can kill anyone you want and say it is colleteral damage.

Who has any right to kill any one?

Do you understand English? You said that Saddam had no rights to kill. But Americans had started the war. Why? Probably they think they have rights to kill.

Iraqi's executed saddam. Americans Captured him. If'd the Iraqi's hadn't done anything we'd of charge him with war crimes and the UN would've tried him.

It's just another justification. "It were not us. It were them". Americans have country under control, government under control and dictate rules they need.

Russia attacked the middle east a while back.

What war are you talking about? Afganistan? It was civilian war there. USSR agreed to help afganistan people to defeat majakheds and end this war one and for all. But americans did not allowed to do it. In 1988 USSR army left Afganistan and the war continued without them.

America is attacked by middle eastern extremists.

Really? Ask yourself why? Why middle eastern extremists did not attack India, China, Japan and Australia? Why USA? USA carries out very offensive politics in middle east region. They bombed Lebanon(1982), Lybia(1986), Iraq(1991) And so on. Do you think arabs must sit still and do nothing? The 11th of September is continuation of this politics.

This is the list of american activity in this region for the last 20 years:
Sudan 1998 Antiterrorist operation
Somalia 1992-1994 Attempt to take part in civilian war
Kuwait 1991 Desert Storm
Lybia 1989 Destruction of some Lybian civilian planes
Iran 1987-1988 War against Iran
Lybia 1986 War vs Lybia
Iran 1984 Destruction of some Iranian civilian planes
Lebanon 1982-1984 War vs Lebanon
Lybia 1981 War vs Lybia
Iran 1980 Small conflict vs Iran

10 wars within 20 years. Is it ok?

Edited by Creator, 07 January 2007 - 01:50 PM.

[olli]

creator, you are misunderstanding some things. colateral damge is not done deliberatly. say there is a millitary HQ in a town. an army bombs it, (the base) as it is a millitary target. civillians will live around that target. if the bomb as a large warhead, and the explosion is large, it may be large enough for the explosion effect to cut into the area where people live, and they die. the civillains arent bombed or shot deliberatly. america doesnt just land in iraq and then shot every civilian and call it collateral damage.

[Pendaelose]

I'm not blaming americans for hanging of Saddam. I'm just showing you "another side of the medal". Americans executed Saddam because he killed 1000 kurds. But americans themselves killed 60 000 arabs. And they say it's ok. Americans are worse than Saddam because they killed more people.

Saddam's Body count was 1.26 million. 1.26 MILLION vs the 60,000 you blame the US for, AND of the 60,000 less than 30% are due to the US. No one has killed more Iraqis than Iraqis.

In the first 2 years the US was responsable for 37% of the civilian casualties, almost exclusivly due to air strikes. After the first year the numbers dropped sharply as only 6.6% are killed by american gunfire. The vast majority of the current casualties are due to the in-fighting between the Sheites and Sunnies, which frankly was going on in full swing BEFORE the US got there. The only difference is while Saddam was in office it was the Sunnie governemt and Sunnie military killing Sheite and Kurd civilians.

BUT it was his own peaple "iraqi" that actuly sentanced and did the hanging

They did the hanging under american rule. They did what they were said.

No, they WANTED to hang him. Don't read a website' spend some time talking to the locals. Sure, there will be riots and protests by the 20% of the population that loved his genocide efforts, but the rest are glad he's dead. Mostly because they were the targets of his genocide. There are some things that you just have to spend some time with the locals to see for your self.

I've stressed before the huge difference between intentionaly killing civilans, and collateral deaths. Both are tragic, but they ARE NOT the same. The weapon used is not the point. Blown up, Gassed, Shot... they are all horrible. The differnce is who was it meant for? There is nothnig immoral about attacking a military target, and while collateral civilian deaths are tragic they are part of war.

You are wrong. It's the same. The logical chain is:
1) Any war brings collateral deaths.
2) Americans know that any war brings collateral deaths.
3) Americans start a war.
4) Now sum 1st, 2nd and 3rd points. What will you get? The answer is: "Americans deliberately go kill civilians. They know about possible collateral deaths, but they start a war anyway".

No. there is a huge difference. Targeting a tank knowing that 3 or 4 pedestrians will be caught with it is simply war. Targetting 3 or 4 civilians because they are Kurds is genocide. These ARE NOT the same.

Knowing Civilians will die when you engage the enemy is wholey different than declaring civilians your enemy. The effort is made to keep civilian deaths as low as possible while still performing the mission, is simply not the same as the mission being to kill as many civilians as possible.

If the US was on a genocide mission we could have easily killed every single arab in Iraq. Just use nukes until it turns the sad to glass, or we could use chemical weapons in mass. It would have been easy, could have done it with few or even no casualties, but that wasn't the goal.

The man could never be safely imprisoned for life

Why? Everything is possible.

everything is possible, but some things are not practical. Keeping him alive won't stop the fighting, and I don't think its prudent to scarafice another thousand lives over Saddam's remaining years to keep him in a prison.

he was a beacon of hope alive.

He IS much greater beacon of hope now. His death was sensation for islamic world. Now some people are able to introduce Saddam as a holy martyr who died for Allah from the hands of unfaithful ones. I'm afraid that in some years he will become al idol, like Abu Ul Wakhab.

We'll see. I don't doubt he'll become a martyr, but I think it will have little effect on the fighting. These people have been at each others throats for decades. These people have been killing each other for control of the country ever sense the Brits forced the region under one flag.



I found an interesting site created as a parrody of the IraqiBodyCount.org. http://www.republica....net/stats.html I'll agree readily they are as biased as the body count site, but they still raise a very good point.

[Crimsonia]

No, they WANTED to hang him. Don't read a website' spend some time talking to the locals. Sure, there will be riots and protests by the 20% of the population that loved his genocide efforts, but the rest are glad he's dead. Mostly because they were the targets of his genocide. There are some things that you just have to spend some time with the locals to see for your self.

This is a rather fascinating debate, I'll say. I hope you guys have room for one more.

Edited by Pendaelose, 07 January 2007 - 11:22 PM.

[Pendaelose]

This is a rather fascinating debate, I'll say. I hope you guys have room for one more.

Theres always room for more.

btw, I had to edit your post, that was a HUGE reply quote for a very small respons.

As for new commers, I spent a year in Iraq imediately following the invasion and spent time talking to the locals. Thats how I know for sure they were so very glad to hang him.

[Crimsonia]

Oh, sorry, then. I wasn't sure how the quote system worked so.. :\

Anyway, context and justification changes with the given scenario. Saddam killed, lets just say for the sake of arguement, 100k Kurds. Now, that sounds like genocide, right? Suppose these Kurds did something to Saddam. Perhaps they were terrorists in his eyes, as he is in ours. Now, suddenly, genocide becomes justification. He may have been a sadist, but the end result in the same as life in prison, albeit slightly quicker and more painful.

That's pretty much the summary of what I said. Not to say this is the absolute truth, but there have been times the USA Intelligence was.. inaccurate, at best. Red Scare, anyone?

[Ubermedic]

Who has any right to kill any one?

You said that Saddam had no rights to kill. But Americans had started the war. Why? Probably they think they have rights to kill.

If a man points a gun at me takes a shot and misses I'd immediately know that it was me or him.
If a man takes his gun to a race. Kills them. Says he hates me. Openly despises me. and Has been known
to kill people. I'd begin to wonder if it was me or him.
I do not think I have the right to kill. But if it comes down to it I can say in full belief I could kill someone.
I believe my current government however is power mad.
I hope one day that I blow up an entire oil company. For it is my current belief that if we continue to be under their thumb we will all one day be destroyed.

Iraqi's executed saddam. Americans Captured him. If'd the Iraqi's hadn't done anything we'd of charge him with war crimes and the UN would've tried him.

It's just another justification. "It were not us. It were them". Americans have country under control, government under control and dictate rules they need.

I understand your point of view Creator but remember we are trying to allow the country to stand on it's two feet (Well. Except for their oil...)
We said "Hey, You guys get first shot. It'll look good for the papers."
but what we forgot was that we let his rivals get into control.
So of course they killed him.

Russia attacked the middle east a while back.

What war are you talking about? Afganistan? It was civilian war there. USSR agreed to help afganistan people to defeat majakheds and end this war one and for all. But americans did not allowed to do it. In 1988 USSR army left Afganistan and the war continued without them.

Really? Cause I remember us funding O'Sama's Fight against the Russians.
Oh and did you notice.
We started most of our operations after you guys left.
I mean come on. We can't have people liking Russia more then us RIGHT?

America is attacked by middle eastern extremists.

This is the list of american activity in this region for the last 20 years:
Sudan 1998 Antiterrorist operation
Somalia 1992-1994 Attempt to take part in civilian war
Kuwait 1991 Desert Storm
Lybia 1989 Destruction of some Lybian civilian planes
Iran 1987-1988 War against Iran
Lybia 1986 War vs Lybia
Iran 1984 Destruction of some Iranian civilian planes
Lebanon 1982-1984 War vs Lebanon
Lybia 1981 War vs Lybia
Iran 1980 Small conflict vs Iran

10 wars within 20 years. Is it ok?

Well Creator. To be blunt. America wants that oil.
But you are oversimplifying things to a bluntly Anti-American point of view.
We are (Somewhat) trying to bring peace to a war torn country.
HOWEVER. We are waging it all wrong. We put the power in the Politicians hand.
Not the generals. All these times if we'd not tried to wage a political war we'd of actually done something.
Also you forgot Desert shield. The operation right before storm in which we defended. Of course this led to Storm.

Besides. None of these are sanctioned wars. Our congress would never allow them to make it to full war status.
Although our congress has been too loose with it's definitions. So they say "It's not a war. It's a CONFLICT"
Hence why we fucked up.

Edited by Ubermedic, 08 January 2007 - 02:05 AM.

[Death_Pheonix]

Agent Orange you know what Agent Organge was used on the MAerican motherland before for farming pruposes and the clear the side of Intersates and so on so there was no reason to don't use it.
Millions dead, no I don't think that that number is far to high you know that's stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really stupid read this, Casulties of Pesiticide according to this 4,000,000 people were effected, and if you look bellow you will see that indeed millions were killed. obviously history lessons in Germany aren't up to date. So approximately 5.1 million total Vietnamese casualites. minus 1.1 million military deaths, thats 4 million civilians killed!

Saddam's Body count was 1.26 million. 1.26 MILLION vs the 60,000 you blame the US for, AND of the 60,000 less than 30% are due to the US. No one has killed more Iraqis than Iraqis.

how about the 4 millions civilians killed in Vietnam! even if it wasn't completely the United States Fault, at least 50% would of been, but thats still more than Saddam's 1.6 million.

where did you get 1.26 million?, according to the media reports it was in the thousands! i might be wrong but even that figure sounds ridiculous! that figure is exaggerated, that website you provided, looks really phony, even a American Propaganda site would be better. EDIT: now that i look at it closer, it is a bloody Republican Website, full of Propaganda against the democrats. of course they would post those figures, to justify the invasion, and continuing fatalities

Edited by Death_Pheonix, 08 January 2007 - 02:43 AM.

[Ubermedic]

Death. Agent Orange has been effecting since it's use.
The USA has recently begun sending clean up units to help clean the everlasting problem with agent orange.
http://forums.revora...showtopic=41375

[Phoenix911]

Death please remember that wiki altho useful can be wrong and or figures not right and so forth. It is the users that post the info on there and everyone has the power to edit topics.
So basicly if u are "ONLY" getting your intel from that one site then please remember some of it may or may not be wrong.

[Pendaelose]

[

Saddam's Body count was 1.26 million. 1.26 MILLION vs the 60,000 you blame the US for, AND of the 60,000 less than 30% are due to the US. No one has killed more Iraqis than Iraqis.

how about the 4 millions civilians killed in Vietnam! even if it wasn't completely the United States Fault, at least 50% would of been, but thats still more than Saddam's 1.6 million.

where did you get 1.26 million?, according to the media reports it was in the thousands! i might be wrong but even that figure sounds ridiculous! that figure is exaggerated, that website you provided, looks really phony, even a American Propaganda site would be better. EDIT: now that i look at it closer, it is a bloody Republican Website, full of Propaganda against the democrats. of course they would post those figures, to justify the invasion, and continuing fatalities

most of those deaths were a result of when he deverted the irigation from the wetlands in south Iraq. The land became a dessert and the people died of thirst and hunger. He did it intentionaly as a response to an uprising in the southern Sheite regions.

And as for where I got the number from, I did about 45 minutes of research this morning. Most sites agreed on the 1.26 or 1.3 figures. The only site showing a lower count was a .ru site which showed 300,000 but it did not count the deaths in the south after the water was diverted.




Agent Orange was horrible. I'm certain some bastard in a lab knew, or some polititian knew, but the troops being ordered to use it had no clue what it would do. They were covered with it even more than the VC, and nobody gave them any warning. Vietnam is not the only place with problems because of it, alot of Vets at home are still suffering.

I think the worst part of A.O. is its efects can be passed on through generations. Its currently effecting its 4th generation of victims, but even counting those numbers its still less than you said. The highest number I could find was 3 million, including the decendants of those sprayed.



While looking for Agent Orange numbers I found this, an interesting statistics site on the US involvment in Vietnam.
http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html

[Death_Pheonix]

most of those deaths were a result of when he deverted the irigation from the wetlands in south Iraq. The land became a dessert and the people died of thirst and hunger. He did it intentionaly as a response to an uprising in the southern Sheite regions.

And as for where I got the number from, I did about 45 minutes of research this morning. Most sites agreed on the 1.26 or 1.3 figures. The only site showing a lower count was a .ru site which showed 300,000 but it did not count the deaths in the south after the water was diverted.

Agent Orange was horrible. I'm certain some bastard in a lab knew, or some polititian knew, but the troops being ordered to use it had no clue what it would do. They were covered with it even more than the VC, and nobody gave them any warning. Vietnam is not the only place with problems because of it, alot of Vets at home are still suffering.

I think the worst part of A.O. is its efects can be passed on through generations. Its currently effecting its 4th generation of victims, but even counting those numbers its still less than you said. The highest number I could find was 3 million, including the decendants of those sprayed.


While looking for Agent Orange numbers I found this, an interesting statistics site on the US involvment in Vietnam.
http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html

well we will never truly know, the link i provided was from a Vietnamese source, he said the showed less figures to "soften the blow of the war" all we can conclude is that horrible things have been done done by most countries, and know one can know all the facts. The internet is a useless source, its full of crap. we can just assume, but we will never truly know how many people Saddam killed, or how many Vietnamese died, all we can take those figures from are shitty secondary sources like the net.

war is horrible and just shouldn't happen, but it is inevitable because were human. i can tell you now if IRAN was a superpower, they would be a lot worse than the US.

[Capt.Drake]

You know I've recently read some stories about Nam, and do you know what an Admiral said whose son died because he ordered Agent Orange spraying?
He said he would do it again, becasue it rescued more Soldiers then if he wouldn't have done it!

[Death_Pheonix]

Wow, Hilary Clinton for president, i think she will win, because shes a woman and every woman win the Us will vote for her.

[Ubermedic]

Wow, Hilary Clinton for president, i think she will win, because shes a woman and every woman win the Us will vote for her.

Well that's the exact reason I have to get a sniper rifle.
Honestly. She is one of the most backward ass dumb fucks I've ever seen or heard of.
Just cause Bill made president (And got a blowjob) she thinks she knows whats good for everyone.
I'd vote for a woman. I'd vote for a man. But I'd never vote for a hilary.
Fuckin' Bitch she is. Just seeing her name makes me angry.