Why should we cut Saddam a break?

[Mr.Wuggles]

Well I still think we should kill him

[bronto]

this is basically a spam thread, you could have posted this in snipeys one.

[jn.loudnotes]

Try thinking before you say something.

we should kill him

Why do you think that Mr. Wuggles?
Would you like to back that up?
How can you demand the murder of someone of whom you have only heard 3rd person hearsay?
How do you know he is worthy of death?
Do you simply believe everything you're told?
What have you been told that makes you think "we" should kill him?
Who is "we"?
Why are "we" supposed to do the killing of him?
Who decides whether Saddam Hussein should be killed?
Do you?
What would we be cutting him a break from?
Why shouldn't we cut him a break?

[tasty]

Well, if we had signed onto the International Criminal Court, we could have a formal way of trying and convicting him in a civil, legal, and internationally agreeable way. But who needs due process when you have American vigilante justice...

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Don't give me that shit Tasty. Do you not believe that smaller weaker countries would use the ICC to take potshots at Americans becase that is what we are, Americans?

Also, what makes you think that Saddam would adhere to anything such as the ICC (btw, nothing prior to July can be prosecuted by them) when he is out torturing and executing Coalition troops and his own people.

Saddam is a tyrant that must be taken out of power, one way or another - that is the only way this conflict will end.

[[V] Silverblade]

i think the question is why the US didnt put an end to his regime back in 1991?

oh, i forgot, it might have something to do with heavily increased weapon sales from america to iraqs surrounding countrys after 1991...

the problem with usa is, everytime they say they do it for the human rights or to help suppresssed people some other people find out that they gain millions of dollars from it... in every single conflict since WWII.

more than a coincidence?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

That is something that bugs me.  The US sells more military equipment as the next 5 countries combined...our history of the who we've sold/given it to is essentially a who's who list of our enemies or international problems.  Perhaps we might think to stop arming these people so we don't need to disarm them.

[Mattster]

Yes we should kill him. There is only one problem though. There is an unwritten rinternational war rule. You cant kill the leader of a country, prime minister, president etc.

[jn.loudnotes]

There are no rules in love and war. . .

As long as we're directing bombings at Saddam personally, trying to "decapitate" his regime, it seems very hypocritical to object at some of the unconventional Iraqi combat tactics, and their treatment of POWs.

[Mr.Wuggles]

ugh its pretty obvious loudnotes that your anti-consevitave.... i mean sorry if i offended u with my idea but the only way saddam is going to co operate is to stop opressing his ppl and he refused so he needs to be punished

and also its quit obvious he has ties with north korea
and thats REALLY bad

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Mattster, you are retarded, please refrain from posting.

Bondo, the French and Russians have armed them more than we have. Also, all that we are selling them is second rate equipment (during the Iran/Iraq war), while lining our pockets with their money.

Wuggles, cut it with the spam, I have deleted many posts already.

[tasty]

Wuggles, you have no justification whatsoever for anything you say, and that was loudnotes point. Instead of addressing his point, you merely pointed out that he disagrees with your viewpoint and proceeded to support none of what you said before. Also, it is not obvious that there is any link at all between Saddam and N Korea, that is retarded.

Sin, obviously Iraq did not sign onto the International Criminal Court. That doesn't mean that a world majority couldn't use it to prosecute him. No, I don't believe that the ICC would be used to take potshots at America simply because we are America. I could see it being used to take potshots at military atrocities though, and I don't think we should be exempted from such treatment just because we are America.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Sin, I wasn't refering specifically to Iraq, I was talking about on a global scale.  And how new or effective a product really shouldn't make a difference, a weapon is a weapon, whether new or 50 years old.  Besides, nuclear bombs are more than 50 years old, hardly cutting edge.  We may not have been the primary armer of Iraq, but we did contribute, and we did contribute to Israel helping their UN violations that they do on a daily basis, we did contribute to Al Queda, we did contribute to Fidel Castro.  I'm not saying we alone are responsible for the danger they pose, but we certainly aren't innocent.  I take issue with selling weapons or providing military equipment in general.

Loud, as far as I've heard, in the course of war it is actually legal to target political figures...or perhaps just the commander in chief types who actually have say on the battles.

Still, there is something to be said about the targeting of so many non-combatants being rather distasteful.

One thing I was confused by is that the news people said there was a distinction between POWs and Enemy Combatants.  I am not seeing what the difference is (other than that POWs are protected by the Geneva rules but Enemy Combatants aren't)  It would seem to me that once an enemy combatant is taken prisoner, they are then a POW.  Unless they are saying since this isn't technically a war (no declairation of war) that it isn't necessary to label them as POWs.  If that is the case than Iraq isn't breaking any rules as long as they aren't catogorizing the "enemy combatants" as POWs.

[Cossack]

Iraq will act ruthless, their country, their homeland is being invaded, fuck international rules. This is no game to them, this is in many of their views weather they are an independent people or not.

Hell if the Americans invaded Russia I would brutally torture any invader I got my hands on, even if Zhironovsky or Stalin were my leader. I would decapitate them, wrap their heads in a ziplock bag, and mail it to the US general. Sick you say? This is how people act when their homeland is being invaded. Geneva Convention means nothing, especaily in this "unauthorized by the U.N." War. To cite the Geneva Convention imbecilic.

[0 Kilz:M:]

?That's easy...Pez, cherry flavored Pez?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

You bring up a good and important point Cossack...While we (Americans) see the bombs dropping on TV, people dying on TV, and Arab hostilities on TV...Iraqis are seeing the bombs drop in person, seeing the dying in person, and thus are being hostile, in person.  If we were being attacked and people I loved were being killed even though they had nothing to do with the war, you can be sure as hell I'd want to fight, even with Bush as President.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Cossack, you say that, but you truely wouldn't know what you would do if you had a Stalinesque type leader. We can all make these broad statements, but if Stalin or someone assocatied with the power in Government were to say...rape and beat your mother, and torture your family, I doubt you would take up arms for Stalin unless you had a gun to you or your families back.

I highly suspect that once the Iraqi people realize Saddam is done for, they will uprise once again like they did after the Gulf War...but they just need assurances that Saddam and his army will finally be wiped out.

Also, if another country were to invade your country, you could only pray that the invader used precision weapons and surgical strikes like we are doing right now.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

The type of precision targeting that targets markets full of innocents?  I wouldn't be to thankful for that.

[Cossack]

Ask the millions of Russians that died who were in the Gulag, or their families executed what they would do for Russia? They do not fight for Sadaam they fight for Iraq. Rommel did not fight for Hitler, he fought for the fatherland. I can safely say if anyone invaded my country I would be that pissed off and that angry, they would not need to threaten my family. Only time will show who is right. I stand by my word, if my country were invaded, I would fight the invader regardless of who my leader is, and so would you sin. You would fight anyone who invaded America. You would fight that invader marching through the streets of California and bombing your neighbors, regardless of who your president is.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Cossack - that is true, but Rommel wasn't afraid of Hitler unlike say the common Jew.

Bondo, you sound like Iraqi TV. To think that we targeted a marketplace is preposterous unless Saddam himself was walking through it. I know of two marketplace bombings, and one was definitely caused by teh Iraqi SAM's, while the second one was still under investigation.

If we wanted to kill Civilians and"target" them, the city of Baghdad would be nothing more than a giant crater in the ground.