I am a former soldier of 15 years in US Army, from Gulf War I to present. I found out over there my service was used, rather abused for other purposes than to oust some dictator. Sure he did some awful things, but remember what Bush Jr said about those that support them terrrists and smoking them out, finding them and bringing them to justice...there is so much more than what meets the eye and what we are led to believe on Faux News gvt propaganda channels
...history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men?
No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don't gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn't invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead - and thousands of Western troops are dead - because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality.
In the aftermath of the international crimes against humanity of 2001 we have tortured, we have murdered, we have brutalized and killed the innocent - we have even added our shame at Abu Ghraib to Saddam's shame at Abu Ghraib - and yet we are supposed to forget these terrible crimes as we applaud the swinging corpse of the dictator we created.
Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.
And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted uranium shells and our "bunker buster" bombs and our phosphorous, the murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of our "victory" - our "mission accomplished" - who will be found guilty of this? Such expiation as we might expect will come, no doubt, in the self-serving memoirs of Blair and Bush, written in comfortable and wealthy retirement.
Hours before Saddam's death sentence, his family - his first wife, Sajida, and Saddam's daughter and their other relatives - had given up hope.
2006-12-31 05:54:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Maybe the death penalty is an easy way out. Death by hanging means he would have endured a couple of minutes (max) of pain, but if he spent the rest of his life behind bars, then that surely would be a greater punishment. It would force him to reflect upon his tyrannical dictatorship, and also he would have to spend the rest of his life without his bereaved sons, Udday and Qusay.
The manner of his death is certainly by no means equivalent to that of the vast majority of his thousands of victims. He barbarically tortured people in ways beyond belief. He killed people by putting them in tree shredders, and publicly hung others by lamp posts for days which made them ultimately look reminiscent of Giraffes.
Finally, I'm very glad that it was not an American judicial trial that led to Saddam's death penalty.
2007-01-02 07:32:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by antowide 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
enable's ask a Kurd what they think of. On March sixteen, 1988, the Kurdish city of Halabja replaced into attacked with a mix of mustard gasoline and nerve brokers, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or heavily debilitating 10,000 greater. (see Halabja poison gasoline attack) [14]. The attack handed off alongside with the 1988 al-Anfal campaign designed to reassert critical administration of the greater often than not Kurdish inhabitants of areas of northern Iraq and defeat the Kurdish peshmerga revolt forces. u.s. now maintains that Saddam ordered the attack to terrorize the Kurdish inhabitants in northern Iraq ([15]), yet Saddam's regime claimed on the time that Iran replaced into responsible for the attack[9] and the U. S. supported the declare till the early Nineties.
2016-10-06 06:27:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that he should not have been executed during the holy days.
I do not think that he should have been made to suffer and endure pain.
Everyone should remember that his trial and sentencing was done by the judicial system of the sovereign nation of Ira, and by nobody else.
2006-12-31 05:54:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by steve 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that Saddam desserved what he got. But Who gave the americans the power to overthrow him? Well if George Bush put Saddam to trial he should face the trial because he is doing the same thing Saddam did years ago in kuwait. Right?
2006-12-31 05:54:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by Crystal 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
"They" should make the same for Bush and Blair, which are two idiots that have sent to be killed more than 3.000 young men in Iraq.
Why the international court should not judge Bush for the stupid death of thousand of civils and militars, given that he and his advisers have lied to the international community, in order to invade the Iraq?
Why would not the American union of Lawyers condemn Bush for his lies before and during his time in power?
American society is in general, unfortunately, totally in allienation state.
Ie
2007-01-02 07:47:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fantastic.
2006-12-31 06:35:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think if there is any one out there who should have endured such pain...it would be him. Still..its a somber time any time a life was taken...even if the man whose life was taken TOTALLY DESERVED IT!!
2006-12-31 05:51:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He is a horrible person and he has killed thousands. He deserves to be drug around on the back of a vehicle until all his body parts are dismembered.
2006-12-31 05:47:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Eric 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
As a head of state to turned his country into a modern and moderate one, he should have been granted amnesty.
2006-12-31 05:48:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6
·
0⤊
1⤋