Saddam killed by hanging

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Point of historical correctness, our courtship of Saddam dates to Jimmy Carter.  We were hiding in the wings when the Iraq/Iran war started in the latter part of 1980, months before Reagan took office.

Looking at our relationship with Iran and the USSR(which was backing Iran) at that time, it only made sense to look to Saddam for hope as our savior in the ME at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Good stuff here too.

Carter's influence on that war is questionable. It's possible that he instigated that war, I just find it highly unlikely.  The war started about 4 months before Carter left office in January 81.  Or about 10 months after the US embassy was taken.

USSR eventually backed both sides, as did we (covertly of course).

Other than Hussein, I'm not sure there's anyone else I'd blame for that war.  Hussein did, after all, invade Iran.  Not sure that either Reagan or the Soviets should be applauded for their part, but they probably shouldn't be blamed too much either.  Blaming Carter would be a bit of a stretch.  Probably much easier to blame the British for drawing that damnable Iraq map in the first place.

[shadows]

Who has the plates for the $100 dollar bills along with the paper to print the bills, as he needed them, in his war with Iran?   We accuse him of building several homes.   Saddam was able to print as much money as he needed, Iraqi is a oil rich now.  
We held Saddam captive until the exile Iraqi government in England was reinstalled, at the cost of thousands of American casualties, liken the Pharisees turning Christ over to the Romans we turned him over to the civil war government we are trying to reinstall so his blood will not be on our hands.
We cannot stop the war because if we did there would be no people's paid trips for the politicians to check on the Iraqi civil war  we are loosing.   We have become as barbaric as any of those we refer to as heathens in early histories of the species call man.
We are bombed daily with propaganda of what has been done there while covering up our deeds of the past.  Ours vile deeds are always covered up by our noble justification,    
 

[Conan71]

What set me off watching the news last night was the talking heads being appalled that Saddam was "taunted" as he was led to the gallows and wasn't allowed to "die with dignity".

How many of his victims tortured and killed at his behest by his Republican Guard and at his hands as a street punk growing up died with dignity?

I'm not spouting cliche "eye-for-an-eye" crap, I'm just saying this guy was a total animal and was deserving of no pity.

[truth4freedom]

So much loathing and self hatred here, and Wiki used as a credible source. What are you drinking? It amazes me how liberals are entirely prone to blame the US first and foremost for every evil that has occurred in this earth. We have to play dirty in the sand box because that's how they play. They know no other way, and obviously they don't want democracy handed to them, they like their tribal warring.

Riddle me this. We have to support either Shi'ite or Sunni in our holy war to keep them fighting each other and not us. So which do you advocate for? Our dance between supporting Saddam and Iran has more to do with the fact that once either the Sunni or the Shi'ite's dominate the other, they then will turn full force on Israel and us. Wouldn't it make sense to play both sides and keep them at each others throats instead of ours? I know you moral relativists think that we can just talk to them and they will listen to your awe inspiring wisdom, but that's simply ridiculous in the light of historical atrocities committed by command of the qura'n and its adherents. So, who do we support?

[MichaelC]

On certain things, I'd take the Pepsi Challenge against most of you folks.  Wikipedia is a good place to start for most on this board (since most know virtually nothing about the Middle East, yet some talk about it so much).  Better to get the general concept first, then dive into details.  Rather than locating any document from any source that supports ones preconceived notions of history (henceforth known as David Dukeism).

I'm a Historian.  My focus is Soviet Union/Russia primarily, Poland second, and way more Middle East that probably anybody on this board would ever want to know.

Can't help it that I have to dumb it down for folks.  Most people don't have the time nor desire to study this stuff.  And I don't blame them.

[Conan71]

Michael,

I'd agree with you about Wiki.  It does pretty much break things down into a digestable form, and it's quick.  Though I'm usually wary of factual errors and it does tend to over-simplify at times.

[MichaelC]

I'm with you Conan.

Carter's involvement, or non-involvement in Iran-Iraq War is quite possibly way too broad to be a Doctoral Thesis.  Not a two sentence relativistic statement on an online encyclopedia.

I don't know if (or how much) the Carter Administration was involved.  It's certainly possible, might be some fun reading there for those select few who actually like that kind of stuff.  The generalities of the Reagan Administration's involvement are a little closer to "common knowledge."

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

If Saddam was so bad, why did the U.S. prop him up early during his dictatorship?

If you're going to get mad at somebody about this, get mad at Reagan.

Check out who's shaking hands with Saddam. It's Donald Rumsfeld.

Now, where is Waterboy to tell me I'm re-writing history again by citing facts?

You just can't get over that I outed your propensity for revision and stretching facts to the extreme![] Some believe that Reagan was already dealing with ME players during those few months before he took office. Why would you not consider that as relevant as a lame duck president having possible contact?

[truth4freedom]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

On certain things, I'd take the Pepsi Challenge against most of you folks.  Wikipedia is a good place to start for most on this board (since most know virtually nothing about the Middle East, yet some talk about it so much).

Wiki? Since nearly anyone can edit it and most of those that do are Soros loving lib scum, it's not only chock full of factual errors, it's worse than CNN, FoxNews, The New York Times, and the Tulsa Whirled put together when it comes to useless propaganda. That's the last place I would recommend researching anything. For the Middle East, I would recommend memri.org, jihadwatch.org, and dogpile.com. Also, I have numerous people I post with on other sites that have been to the Middle East on numerous occasions and one actually even speaks Farsi!

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC  
Better to get the general concept first, then dive into details.  Rather than locating any document from any source that supports ones preconceived notions of history (henceforth known as David Dukeism).

aka MichaelCism

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC
I'm a Historian.  My focus is Soviet Union/Russia primarily, Poland second, and way more Middle East that probably anybody on this board would ever want to know.

I've already found out too much. Where did you receive your degree?

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC
Can't help it that I have to dumb it down for folks.  Most people don't have the time nor desire to study this stuff.  And I don't blame them.

I do, and have. You're certainly riding mighty high on your horse there pardner. Who are these mythical people you're having to dumb it down for?

Wiki [}:)]
[/quote]

[RecycleMichael]

Don't be challenging people's credentials without a willingness to show yours.

Truth4freedom, what makes you an expert in all things Middle East?

Oh, you say that you "have a number of people that you post with on other sites. One of them actually speaks Farsi".

My bad. Go on, expert.

[truth4freedom]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Don't be challenging people's credentials without a willingness to show yours.

I never claimed to be an expert, did I? I also didn't assert that I had to dumb down my knowledge to reach the intellectual level of other forum members.

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael
Truth4freedom, what makes you an expert in all things Middle East?

Nothing. I study it as much as I can and share my opinion. What makes you?

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael
Oh, you say that you "have a number of people that you post with on other sites. One of them actually speaks Farsi".

My bad. Go on, expert.

I also have a friend in Kurdistan teaching English, opening an internet café', and doing missions work. He also writes for some local papers, and they put on a womens conference recently.

I try and keep as informed as possible. No one's perfect!

Once again, I never called myself an expert.

[RecycleMichael]

I am not an expert on the Middle East. I am an expert on very few things (fashion, pig latin and beef jerky).

I did get my undergraduate degree in Political Science during the Carter presidency years.

My favorite professor during those years convinced me that the Middle East was the single biggest contributor to international tensions in my lifetime. He was right.

[altruismsuffers]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

I have been reading the new history book published by one of the leading publisher of a monthly magazine.   It denotes the rise and fall of all super powers since history begin.  Saddam was accused of killing  hundreds in the area where history begin.  It seems to have been because a group sought to assassinate him.  Now in the shadows seems that one of the causes of this war was someone wanted to kill daddy.   We have caused the death of hundreds of thousands of their women and children up to now.

We have set a precedent in the trials of the leaders of Germany and now Iraqi.   Every super  power has come to an end and when this one comes to an end will the conquer find cause to execute the  politicians in power at that time?   Or destroy all of the people present at that time?  

Preach on brother.  Arrogance will get us no where.  Bush should be put on trial and hanged for the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis.  He is just as guilty as Saddam if not more.  (Warning this message will be flagged by the CIA the FBI and possibly other Secret covert operations, You may be guilty by association just for reading it)

[altruismsuffers]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

As bad as he was and deserving of the hanging, for some reason I can't bring myself to watch the video. I just have a weak stomach for such stuff. I suppose if I was a family member of one of his tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of victims, I'd have been on the front row hoping for a slow death.

He was convicted for killing 148 people.  It was retaliation for a assasination attempt back in the 80's when we were still providing him the chemical weapons he probably used.  Why didn't we stop him when it was happening instead of supplying him weapons?  Why didn't we stop him after he massacred so many people after the gulf war when we encouraged them to rise up and then did nothing to help them...  Oh wait if we would have took care of him then we  wouldn't have had a reason to invade Iraq and set up permanent military bases to control the region and the oil.  The time just wasn't ripe then, but after 9/11...I guess anything goes.

[altruismsuffers]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Point of historical correctness, our courtship of Saddam dates to Jimmy Carter.  We were hiding in the wings when the Iraq/Iran war started in the latter part of 1980, months before Reagan took office.

Looking at our relationship with Iran and the USSR(which was backing Iran) at that time, it only made sense to look to Saddam for hope as our savior in the ME at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Good stuff here too.

Carter's influence on that war is questionable. It's possible that he instigated that war, I just find it highly unlikely.  The war started about 4 months before Carter left office in January 81.  Or about 10 months after the US embassy was taken.

USSR eventually backed both sides, as did we (covertly of course).

Other than Hussein, I'm not sure there's anyone else I'd blame for that war.  Hussein did, after all, invade Iran.  Not sure that either Reagan or the Soviets should be applauded for their part, but they probably shouldn't be blamed too much either.  Blaming Carter would be a bit of a stretch.  Probably much easier to blame the British for drawing that damnable Iraq map in the first place.

This is a good point.  This is exactly how Usama got his start.  The CIA was funding the "freedom Fighters", as dubbed by Reagan, by funneling money through Pakistans ISI.  This was the beginning of the Taliban and Al-Qaida as we know it today.  The whole purpose was to fight the Russians covertly in Afghanistan.  It worked, but then when you get the 9/11 attacks (if you believe the official conpsiracy), you get one hell of a case of blow back.