Can I say this?

Post Reply New Topic

I never once said America "rigged" anything, so, I'm not sure why you even posted and got upset over it (as proven by your sarcasm). I merely wanted you to realize that America was the reason Iraq is where it is, currently. America started the war. I dont care what 'Iraq wanted' as it took 22 years to do it (so timing kind of proves America didn't care too much before).

And why do you care if America had anything to do with the hanging of Saddam or not? Had it BEEN in America, he would have been zapped to death, anyways

Corvus, you keep noting the fact that he was executed for something that occurred many years ago. So what? Ted Bundy was executed for murders he committed years before.

In addition, Saddam ordered murders up to the day he was deposed. The fact he wasn't convicted of those crimes in a court doesn't mean he didn't do it. Most dictators are never convicted in a court.

very true, especially not the ones that are installed and supported by the US.

Maybe he WASN'T executed and the guy in the videos was one of his many doubles or perhaps the whole thing was a setup and no-one actually died. If you were as rich (anywhere upto $40 Billion) and cunning as Saddam, would you allow your days to come to such an ignominious end?

a very valid point andy. we in the west have been well aware of saddam's doubles for quite a long time. so we must surely entertain the possibility.

Watch me get disappeared now.

hahaha teleported by a thought beam into a black helicopter....

Didn't the USA support Saddam back in the 80s? Do British people consider Tony Blair to be George W. Bush pet Poodle?

They should of sodomized Saddam, then mountain hicks or hillbilles rape him in the butt and the mouth. Like in the movie Deliverance.

Why especially? The trial of a dictator, with the presence of the dictator, is almost unprecedented. The only other cases I can think of off the top of my head are Charles I (much more unfair trial), Louis XVI (again, more unfair), and Slobodan Milosevic (not unfair, but a farce of a trial that would have lasted a decade and ended up with the dictator dying rather then getting formally punished). First off, in terms of getting dictators out of power, the Bush adminstration, regardless of your politics, has had it's successes. It removed dictators in both Haiti and Liberia without a gun being fired. It is true that they ended up being flown off into exiled. However, that was a requirement of them stepping down without any bloodshed, and was agreed to by the opposition.

All dictators want to avoid being tried, regardless of who supports him. There have been cases of dictators been tried and and convicted in absentia. The most recent example is Ethiopia's brutal communist warlord Mengistu Haile Merriam.

The sequence of events is as follows. The Shah of Iran falls and is replaced with the radical Ayatollah Khomeini on the 1st of April, 1979. On November 4, , the American Embassy is seized by radical students (this is technically a declaration of war). They would be held for 444 days (52 of them for the long haul). In September 1980, Saddam Hussein orders the invasion of Iran in an effort to annex a rather small amount of territory along the coast. He believes he will penetrate deep into Iran and they will capitulate to his demands. The Carter administration authorizes military aid to Iraq. Saddam's plans quickly fall apart. The Reagan administration (the hostages are released on the day of Reagan's inagural; Reagan had promised to bomb the Iranians) continues military aid to the Iraqis. Eventually the Iranians are able to push back into Iraqi territory and capture the city of Basra. Both sides use harsh tactics (Saddam orders horrible human rights violations, and the Iranians have young boys lead "suicide charges"). Eventually Saddam pushes the Iranians back but a ceasefire is not agreed to until 1988.

The majority of military aid Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war came from the Soviet Union (61%), followed by France (18%), China (5%), Brazil (4%), and Egypt (also 4%). The United States provided approximately 0.6% of direct military aid to Iraq.

The United States, like the Soviet Union, also provided some aid to Iran (as Henry Kissinger once said about the Nazi-Stalinist war, "it was too bad they could not defeat each other") covertly as was later found at in the Iran-contra scandal. Israel, who was an enemy of Saddam Hussein, also provided funds to Iran.

what dictator did the bush administration remove from haiti, if i may ask? if you are talking about aristide, if you remember, it was your government who installed him in the early 90s, and he was elected in 2001, granted the other parties may have boycotted the elections, and as i remember, he fled the country of his own accord. please correct me if i am mistaken, but i would hardly class the role of the US in haiti as being benevolent.

Aristide was no democrat and the decision to reinstate him was a terrible mistake by the Clinton administration. As the Weekly Standard writes:

You can read more of Aristide's corrupt and undemocratic deeds in this editorial (link) that was written before he resigned under U.S. military pressure and flew off into exile.

Its the fact so many years past and he lived as a free man. He committed crimes and no one cared then, but now we do. This is all my point is.

After they found out Ted Bundy was killing people, how long did it take to go after him? 22 years?

And it's not like we were hounding Iraq for him all that time, either. Never waiting for the right time, no one talked about it, but then attention was given and here we are. It was no secret 22 years ago (or, less, if they discovered it after)

during his first spell in power he certainly was elected democratically. but my main point is, you can't really claim as a victory for us diplomacy the removal of a tyranical leader who your country had installed just a few years earlier, regardless of whose administration reinstated him. the bottom line is, it is not the business of one nation to be installing dictators in another.

No one cared? Is that really the case? I bet his domestic opposition (that he oppressed and murdered) did. Many people in the United States, notably the "neoconservatives", have been calling for his removal for years, and were generally more lukewarm about supporting him in the Iran-Iraq war in the first place then the "realists."

I still am somewhat baffled by this criticism. "No one cared then, yet they do now." Priorities change to due circumstances, however that does not mean one's personal ethical beliefs do. Lincoln always opposed slavery but did not start out the American Civil War with the intention to free the slaves yet the situation changed so that it was made possible.



Maybe not the best example. However, there are many cases of murderers that killed years before and are convicted based on new evidence. Sometimes these murderers were suspected of the crimes at the time.



Aristide won the 1990 election legitimately but he was a thug thereafter. I don't claim that reinstating a man who proceeded who then got "re-elected" through blatantly fraudulent elections was a "victory" for American foreign policy any more then the American abandonment of the South Vietnamese was. I am not a nationalist and would not praise U.S. foreign policy across the board. However removing him, creating the possibility of (perhaps) a government responsible to the people in Haiti, and avoiding further bloodshed in that nation is something that I certainly praise. In addition, it is not as if U.S. troops are occupying and ruling the country (although Haiti's most prosperous time's have been under U.S. occupation). The (very small) amount of U.S. troops were quickly withdrawn.

haha!! before america's medling with the political map of vietnam, there were no "south vietnamese".