Possibly as this post is being written, Saddam Hussein is hanging by the neck until death. At the very least, it seems that by the end of the evening Saddam Hussein will be dead.

According to an Al-Arabia Saddam Hussein has died.

Hey, they just hung dumbass.

Saddam Hussein, that is.

Cool.

"cool" .. never heard that adjective used to describe hanging before.

Anyway, I can think of a few more "dumbasses" more deserving of that fate.

True, but we must play the hand we're given. We can hang the rest later on.

You know what we need more of at executions?
Dancing.

Capital punishment is barbaric and disgusting. Hanging a prisoner of war is even more revolting (not to mention illegal). Whether it's Hitler, Saddam, Osama, or Jesus, execution is wrong and makes me ashamed to be part of the human species.

You know what we need more of at executions?
Dancing.

They're apparently doing so in Dearborn, Michigan...
News video showed a crowd of Iraqi-Americans having a celebration.

How many Iraqis were killed in an illegal act of war while trying to get at Saddam?

Also, when you say that they hung "dumbass" you really need to be specific.

Yeah. I just saw that.
That's to be expected (although the weirdness of arab culture raises its head in the women just hanging out in the cars while their men party out there for hours on end...)

Anyway.
I'm just wondering about this 'dancing around the body' business.

Remember. These are the guys who bit the heads off frogs and ate the liver out of still living rabbit in a public ceremony for Najaf...

We really need to get the fuck out of Iraq.

Also, when you say that they hung "dumbass" you really need to be specific.

heh.
Did you click the thread with fingers crossed?

They're apparently doing so in Dearborn, Michigan...
News video showed a crowd of Iraqi-Americans having a celebration.

Dancing in Dearborn, Michigan. Boy, that's a significant event and relevant to peace in the Middle East.

We afforded Saddam the easiest way out. He should have been assigned a life of hard labor, poverty, obscurity, and hopefully reflection. But instead we killed him, because killing is wrong. His death will accomplish nothing for peace.

Dancing in Dearborn, Michigan. Boy, that's a significant event and relevant to peace in the Middle East.

Did I so much as imply that it was ?

He asked about dancing...
I mentioned the dancing...

You got a problem vit da dancing, bubby ?

Yeah. I just saw that.

We really need to get the fuck out of Iraq.



Agreed



heh.
Did you click the thread with fingers crossed?

No, too realistic for that.

It's a shame. Hundreds of thousands dead and millions contaminated in order to protect them from a madman. And then I feel that the biggest reason that they killed him was to prevent him from telling the world everything that he knows.

Saddam is (was) Irrelevant. His Execution will make him a martyr and "we" gave him power and influence by this action. Another stupid decision was made. Instead of removing him from the spotlight and allowing Saddam to fade away, they made him a martyr to motivate insurgents and terrorists. Stupid!

Meh.
Might as well kill him.
Can't win for losing in a situation like this.
Six of one. Half a dozen of another.

Meh.
Might as well kill him.
Can't win for losing in a situation like this.
Six of one. Half a dozen of another.

That quote could also be the conclusion from the Bush admin iraq strategy planning group. "... Meh ..."

-And the conclusion of the apathetic, complacent and complicit American public, who are perpetuating this sort of leadership: "Meh" may become the epitaph for our empire.

We don't have an empire.

We don't have an umpire either.

Hey, they just hung dumbass.
In the context of world events, Saddam is not the first to come to mind when you say 'dumbass'.

Capital punishment is barbaric and disgusting. Hanging a prisoner of war is ...
his status, if it's even important, was not "PoW". just to make it clear.

in the past 6 months the TV appearances of a suave Saddam, dressed like mix of Sean Pen + Robert DeNiro, have created an image of this peaceful sophisticated cultural cool old man

my mom and grandma and girlfriend, who aren't really into politics, all felt sorry for him and were against executing him (despite being bombed by him in 1991 when we all lived in Israel). i felt sad too for some reason. maybe because to me, it wasn't Saddam the Butcher who was being executed. it was that nice old man instead. my very vivid imagination showed me how he was choking and gasping for air, the facial expressions he must have made, the nervousness and helplessness he must have felt right before... it's very sad if you think about it.

but we must not forget what he has been executed for, and that if you put whipped cream on a shit cake it still still a shit cake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2004/10/14/wirq14big.jpg

We don't have an empire.

We don't have an umpire either.

Do we have a vampire ?

my very vivid imagination showed me how he was choking and gasping for air, the facial expressions he must have made,

Hanging is, perhaps, one of the most humane forms of execution possible.
Death comes quick as the neck is broken.
That is, of course, assuming a good execution. Shoddy executioners might place the knot behind the head rather than to the side which would result in a slow, suffocating death.

There was a woman named Half-hung Mary (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277707.shtml) who was hanged as a witch by her friends and neighbors in early Salem. She was hung poorly and swung in the town square all night long. She still lived the next morning and apparently the townsfolk lost their fire when looking at the consequences of their act in the light of day. They cut her down and she lived a goodly number of years more...

Hmm.
Know something?
I don't think I've ever heard Saddam Hussein's voice.
Isn't that odd?

I heard if for the first time today on fox

You know what we need more of at executions?
Dancing.

That's why they used to have lions and tigers. So they could dance around the arena.

I'd personally love to see saddam dance, lions or not.

I can think of a few more "dumbasses" more deserving of that fate.
Do tell.

Capital punishment is barbaric and disgusting. Hanging a prisoner of war is even more revolting (not to mention illegal). Whether it's Hitler, Saddam, Osama, or Jesus, execution is wrong and makes me ashamed to be part of the human species.
Life feeds on life.

Rocks ain't brain food -- though there are plenty of folks around who seem to support that proposition.

How many Iraqis were killed in an illegal act of war while trying to get at Saddam?
Umm, Congress voted for the war. Don't you read?

We afforded Saddam the easiest way out. He should have been assigned a life of hard labor, poverty, obscurity, and hopefully reflection. But instead we killed him, because killing is wrong. His death will accomplish nothing for peace.
The wrong killing is wrong.

The right kill, in the right killing place, at the right killing time.

Adjust your skirts, boys. There are men present.

Perhaps MetaKron is implying that the Bush administration did not implement the Iraq War Resolution as agreed. Or that the invasion of Iraq violated UN resolutions.

We really need to get the fuck out of Iraq.
We can be assured that by "we" you don't mean "you".

What you want, and can't have, is demonstrably not a compelling argument for why others shouldn't want what they want because they -- unlike you -- can have it.

Perhaps MetaKron is implying that the Bush administration did not implement the Iraq War Resolution as agreed. Or that the invasion of Iraq violated UN resolutions.
Congress doesn't conduct wars. Congress says, "Okay" and then gets out of the way.

The UN is irrelevent. The US Constitution says nothing at all about the UN.

If the UN wants to determine US foreign policy for the US it should run for election as US President like every other citizen.

Oh, wait. The UN isn't a US citizen. ;)

Perhaps MetaKron is implying that the Bush administration did not implement the Iraq War Resolution as agreed. Or that the invasion of Iraq violated UN resolutions.

After that the Bush administration and various rather strange people lied to us about information that could easily be found on the net, and a lot of people simply swallowed it whole.

Hey, they just hung dumbass.

Saddam Hussein, that is.

Cool.

Oh,I thought you ment Bush...

Umm, Congress voted for the war. Don't you read?

The war in Iraq is illegal according to International law.

It could have been legal only in two cases:
self defence against an act of aggression or after the UN would have sanctioned that.

Hundreds of thousands dead and millions contaminated in order to protect them from a madman.
Proof? Links?
...I feel that the biggest reason that they killed him was to prevent him from telling the world everything that he knows.
What exactly did he know that he didn't get a chance to tell us?

Be specific and provide source links.

Congress doesn't conduct wars. Congress says, "Okay" and then gets out of the way.

The UN is irrelevent. The US Constitution says nothing at all about the UN.

If the UN wants to determine US foreign policy for the US it should run for election as US President like every other citizen.

Oh, wait. The UN isn't a US citizen. ;)
Any country is bound to public international law and the agreements it has entered in to.
The constitution does not have to say anything about that.

The war in Iraq is illegal according to International law.

It could have been legal only in two cases:
self defence against an act of aggression or after the UN would have sanctioned that.
International "law" can go screw itself. And the UN, too.

US law is what the US operates on.

Treaties are secondary, at best.

Wishful thinking is nonsense -- your assertions, too.

The U.S. also pretended that it was enforcing international law.

There's legal and then there's legal. I swear, only someone like Bush would have played this game.

Congress doesn't conduct wars. Congress says, "Okay" and then gets out of the way.
The mechanism in this case was the Iraq War Resolution. It was not a blanket approval of military action in Iraq, there were conditions to be met, one of which was to let the UN resolution be carried out. This meant the inspection process should be allowed to work.

So, the US congress passed a resolution that included implementation of a UN resolution. That makes it US law.

As for Saddam, I think Bush himself said it best:



"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the -- the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003.

The U.S. also pretended that it was enforcing international law.

There's legal and then there's legal. I swear, only someone like Bush would have played this game.
Playing to the gallery is an expectation of the gallery. It makes the gallery feel engaged, and makes the the gallery feel that it's an important part of a process that doesn't actually need it to function properly.

The mechanism in this case was the Iraq War Resolution. It was not a blanket approval of military action in Iraq, there were conditions to be met, one of which was to let the UN resolution be carried out. This meant the inspection process should be allowed to work.

So, the US congress passed a resolution that included implementation of a UN resolution. That makes it US law.
The Congress doesn't conduct war. Whatever "conditions" it might have imagined it was offering as constraining factors on the war-fighting abilities of the President -- other than funding -- were constitutionally quite ignorable.

The UN is irrelevent.

When the congress signs a bill, it becomes the law of the land until repealed or the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional.

The conditions were not imagined, they are a matter of public record.

Any country is bound to public international law and the agreements it has entered in to.
The constitution does not have to say anything about that.
The US is not founded on international law. It's founded on the US Constitution.

International "law" and treaty obligations are secondary considerations, at best.

When the congress signs a bill, it becomes the law of the land until repealed or the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional.

The conditions were not imagined, they are a matter of public record.
Separation of Powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers), dude.

Put that publicly-funded education to work, for a change.

That will teach all dictators not to get out of line....

Separation of Powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers), dude.

Put that publicly-funded education to work, for a change.

I'm not the one arguing that the invasion was illegal, but the issue is not as clear cut as you believe.

Since the overwhelming bulk of Americans (and the rest of the world as well) have low IQ genes, Americans did not pick up on the contradiction between Bush's claim that he wanted to invade Iraq for reasons that included bringing "Human Rights" into Iraq, and Bush then allowing death by hanging, a practice not part of "Western Human Rights" that Bush was defending.

'Hey, they just hanged dumbass'

It's pretty barbaric - they could've kept him alive and used him in medical experiments instead.

The US is not founded on international law. It's founded on the US Constitution.

International "law" and treaty obligations are secondary considerations, at best.
All countries are founded on the basis of the general principles of international law as well as are bound to international customs by default.
It doesn't matter on what ground a country is founded, be it an order of a monarch or a constitution,
the international law determines what is a country and what is not, as well as what rights does it have.

If the USA is disregarding some of its obligations toward the international community, then it just is showing its immaturity and inabilty to acknowlidge the great responsibility it has towards other countries.

Oh, and international law is no bollox, it is applied every moment by each country, including the USA, because in general it benefits all.

Hey I was looking for a video of the saddam hussein execution, and was wondering if anyone has seen it or knew where I could see it or get ahold of it?
Yeah Im just board and wanna get it :D haha

look for it yourself you lazy asshole

If I find it, I'll be posting it in the other thread I made about the execution.

Avatar:

Nonsense. International law has no foundation - indeed, it is merely a despotism of idealogues sitting in comfy chairs in an ugly building on the East River.

There are only laws of nations. They represent the sovereignty of the populace and the state. International law is a pipe dream.

Moreover, designation of rights is not up to -any- body. RIghts are absolute to the individual. A government can only accept the existence of said rights, not legitimize them or produce them.

Charles Wong:

Hanging is hardly against the conception of human rights in America. Hanging was practiced up till the 60's. Moreover, it is a very humane way to execute someone. Much moreso than the electric chair and quicker, cheaper, and ultimately more effective than lethal injection.

Avatar:

Nonsense. International law has no foundation - indeed, it is merely a despotism of idealogues sitting in comfy chairs in an ugly building on the East River.

There are only laws of nations. They represent the sovereignty of the populace and the state. International law is a pipe dream.

Moreover, designation of rights is not up to -any- body. RIghts are absolute to the individual. A government can only accept the existence of said rights, not legitimize them or produce them.

All rights and law is an illusion. And it's only so powerful as powerful people believe it to be.
The foundation of international law is the interests of the international community.
If one subject doesn't apply it in a particular case, it doesn't invalidate the law.
As for the non-existance of international law, I apply it every day at my job at the ministry of foreign affairs.

Do yall like my new avatar? LOL

Ive already looked, but it seems that ogrish.com has been cancelled! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Ragnarok:

LOL! I like!

Avatar:

Rights are not illusions - they are the unfettered freedom of an individual. The individual only sacrifices the expression of these rights for discourse with other human beings. If it does not suit him, he acts with freedom - and suffers the consequences.

The international community does not exist, as those interests you speak of rarely, if ever, are widespread enough to be considered international.

Moreover, you may apply it at your NATO job, but you fail to recognize that were it not for the compliance of the memberstates - specifically the US - such laws would be meaningless.

Anyway, if someone gets the uncensored execution video, please post it here. I feel it my duty to see it.

Rights are not illusions - they are the unfettered freedom of an individual.
Imo, the concept of rights in that case would not be needed. That concept was invented to form specific societies. Rights are not objective.
You don't have a right to be alive, you just are.

International community is interdependently and naturally formed by all international subjects.

Moreover, you may apply it at your NATO job, but you fail to recognize that were it not for the compliance of the memberstates - specifically the US - such laws would be meaningless.
Same equally applies to national laws and national subjects.

Avatar:

What is a right but a "simply being alive"? One's rights can be violated - one can be killed, one can be stolen from - but this does not invalidate the fact that ultimately, every individual is completely free (note: this is not a claim of a freedom of the will) and has the control to do whatever they want and will only do what they don't want in favour of something else. That is to say, one can never strip them of this freedom, they can only limit it for themselves.

Same equally applies to national laws and national subjects.

In a national community, unless the totality of the nation is against the law, the law is enforced. In the international community, there exists no force that can impose it. Accordingly, there is no international law, merely an international anarchy offset by times when a few nations get together to impose nonsense on others.

One's rights can be violated - one can be killed, one can be stolen from - but this does not invalidate the fact that ultimately, every individual is completely free (note: this is not a claim of a freedom of the will) and has the control to do whatever they want and will only do what they don't want in favour of something else.
Just because we imagine that there is a right not to be killed, robbed, etc.
In a national community, unless the totality of the nation is against the law, the law is enforced.
Not really.
For example, dogs must be registered in Latvia.
I don't register the dog.
The law is in place, but I live as if there is none, I disregard the law.

Same for international law, only the enforcement capabilities are far, far less efficient, but they theoretically are there.

No enforcement doesn't mean that there is no law.

Avatar:

They can be forced physically by circumstance to accept a loss by the brute fact of it, but their rights are found in the unfettered freedom they hold to do as they wish at any time.

One has freedom of speech as no one can one can force one not to think and to act on those thoughts, for instance.

Regarding your dog:

Presumably, if a policeman found you did not have a registered dog, he'd enforce it through fining and other such measures, yes?

What if NATO found out something bad about one of their members? Hardly would it impact them, no? The United States and Britain especially, no?

Besides international law is not national law.
It shouldn't and it can't be the same as national law.

Avatar:

They can be forced physically by circumstance to accept a loss by the brute fact of it, but their rights are found in the unfettered freedom they hold to do as they wish at any time.

One has freedom of speech as no one can one can force one not to think and to act on those thoughts, for instance.
If I can do something does that mean that I have a natural right to do that thing?
If I can think, does that mean that I have a right to think?
Why invent that concept if I can simply say = I can think. With a right or without a right to think I can, so why add that rights part to that?



Regarding your dog:

Presumably, if a policeman found you did not have a registered dog, he'd enforce it through fining and other such measures, yes?

What if NATO found out something bad about one of their members? Hardly would it impact them, no? The United States and Britain especially, no?
If one NATO member should attack another NATO member, it is automatically expelled from NATO and declared war to by all other members.
If other members don't do that, they have changed the NATO agreement, i.e., there is no more NATO.
Same for national law - if someone kills a person, but others don't give a damn about that, nothing has happened, the law simply did not work. Happens.

But international law mostly works, it doesn't in some extreme cases.
Nobody is reporting that when it works, only the cases when it doesn't, so there is an impression that it mostly doesn't, which is untrue - just from my experience.

AAnd then I feel that the biggest reason that they killed him was to prevent him from telling the world everything that he knows.

I would have to agree with that. The right thing to do was to send him to the world court in the hague.

After a possible sentence he should have been interrogated by an independent panel of specialists to determine what really happened in Iraq. Who supported the regime in Iraq. What the system was like in Iraq. How Saddam viewed his role in Iraq, etc. To make sure his role and of foreign influences that in Iraq was properly documented for future generations.

Now everything Saddam could have told us is lost and no way of getting the information back.

Needless to say I oppose any death penalty.

Avatar:

If I can do something does that mean that I have a natural right to do that thing?

Yes.

A violation of that right by another mayn't be wrong, though. We have the right to kill anyone we wish, but we'll be killed in turn for doing so.


If I can think, does that mean that I have a right to think?

Yes. We are our own vindicators.

Why invent that concept if I can simply say = I can think. With a right or without a right to think I can, so why add that rights part to that?

It is necessary to stress the radical freedom of the individual and the willed restraint.

If one NATO member should attack another NATO member, it is automatically expelled from NATO and declared war to by all other members.

Unless they say "screw that".

If other members don't do that, they have changed the NATO agreement, i.e., there is no more NATO.

Thus NATO has no power but for the consent of its members and no way to enforce it but the force of their members.

Same for national law - if someone kills a person, but others don't give a damn about that, nothing has happened, the law simply did not work. Happens.

Save there is an actual body of law that people refer to in this case and, in general, that body of law and the government that supports it, has a monopoly of force. In NATO no such thing is present.

But international law mostly works, it doesn't in some extreme cases.
Nobody is reporting that when it works, only the cases when it doesn't, so there is an impression that it mostly doesn't, which is untrue - just from my experience.

I can name a dozen cases where international law did not work at all, and egregious cases of such, in fact.

Why is thread "STICKEY"?:confused:

IT OF LITTLE LASTING INTEREST. (Does not interest me enough even now to read. - This was "in the cards" from the day he was captured.)

I can name a dozen cases where international law did not work at all,
Of course, and I can do the same regarding national law.
And I can name hundreds of cases where international law has worked.
Neither suggests that either of these types of law doesn't work at all,
international law is different and is less developed.
You can see a probable future of general international law by observing regional international law within the EU.
It is necessary to stress the radical freedom of the individual and the willed restraint.
Sorry, I don't see such a neccessity, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Strange how grainy and impossible to see the video footage of the corpse is...

Avatar:

Considering international law was based on the premise of holding people accountable for "crimes" that are imposed without consent, the lack of ability to do so outside of Nuremburg and Saddam Hussein, in essence, it is not so convincing that international law has a place.

Moreover, the EU was flawed from the start. The lack of an ability to pass a constitution is proof positive that the EU will never amount to a unified Europe. Matters of sovereignty will rise to the forefront.

Strange how grainy and impossible to see the video footage of the corpse is...

They should hang it from the Big Ball at Times Square in New York as we bring in the new year:

http://www.timessquarenyc.org/nye/images/historyBall.jpg

Tip yer hat to 'ol Sadam. If you live by the sword you die by the sword.

Killing Saddam... wow that achieves a lot doesn't it? A brutal world made all the more brutal by pointlessly putting someone to death.

Moreover, the EU was flawed from the start. The lack of an ability to pass a constitution is proof positive that the EU will never amount to a unified Europe. Matters of sovereignty will rise to the forefront.


Europe is already unified. It is not supposed to be one Europe in the sense that you think it should be.

Killing Saddam... wow that achieves a lot doesn't it? A brutal world made all the more brutal by pointlessly putting someone to death.

The world is a better place without him. :(

The world is a better place without him. :(

really? did the fighting stop in Iraq? :confused:

The world is a better place without him. :(

The world would be a better place without Bush, does that mean we should hang him?

really? did the fighting stop in Iraq? :confused:

I think the human tortures and mass graves stopped for the most part. Would you rather pin a medal on Sadam?

The world would be a better place without Bush, does that mean we should hang him?

If he wants to nuke your hometown, then yes we should hang him.

How long do you think it will be before New York sees an atomic bomb?

I give it 15 years or less. It is going to happen. I'm glad I don't live there.

Avatar, what you call International Law is nothing more than treaties that have been entered into by consenting parties, and are enforceable only so long as those parties in their own best interest are willing to abide by them, once the best interest of any country is failed to be served by such treaties or laws they will abrogate said treaty or law, it has been done throughout history,which then means that if the other party to the Treaty or international law wish's to enforce said law or treaty, they must do so by force and compel compliance by active means, if they do nothing then the Treaty or law is no longer valid, and the world moves on, and all countries are founded on their own principles of international ones, you cannot found a country on international principles, because then you don't have a country, countries serve their own self interest first last and always, now give proof of any country that is founded on international principals, you can't do it! The founders of any country do so for their own principles and care not a whit for any one else's principles for establishing their own rule.

A famous Feinstein quote from the 90's:

"Why are we spending millions of dollars to fight imaginary boogiemen?"

Woody, if the Democrats take the Presidency it will be a whole lot sooner than that.

Woody, if the Democrats take the Presidency it will be a whole lot sooner than that.

I'm just glad it's the blue states that get the islamic jihad

New York, Pennsylvania, Washington , DC -- all blue ;)

Now if we could just get all the libs in one place, and put them in control of our military defenses -- the problem would be taken care of by some islamic terrorists.

Well they ain't gonna want to bomb the dumbass states are they?

Well they ain't gonna want to bomb the dumbass states are they?

Nah, they're after the american "immoralists." I'd say they're right on target. Hope yer blue.;)

Nah, they're after the american "immoralists." I'd say they're right on target. Hope yer blue.;)

I think they mean the people that invaded their territories. And the people that supported that more than anybody else where the dumbass rednecks like yourself.

I think they mean the people that invaded their territories. And the people that supported that more than anybody else where the dumbass rednecks like yourself.

Sure dude, sure.

Use some smarts -- they're after the big targets like New York and Washington. They want maximum damage.

really? did the fighting stop in Iraq? :confused:

Nope.
Another day, another "Wha~Bang"...

Car bombs target Shiites (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/iraq.main/)

Car bombs struck markets in a Shiite area of Baghdad and a southern Shiite town, killing at least 55 people, hours after former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was executed for crimes committed during his rule.

Sure looked like "closure", tho' - for a second or so...
;)

what you call International Law is nothing more than treaties that have been entered into by consenting parties
Treaties become national law when entered into. The fact that countries don't always obey them is irrelevent to the fact that breaking them is a violation of national as well as international law.

People break laws too, when it is convenient for them. That doesn't mean that a criminal is not a criminal.

Why is thread "STICKEY"?
I know lots of people are going to weigh in on the subject. It may have been inevitable, but it could have consequences for the conflict in Iraq.

spider, how then do you enforce said treaty? If a Nation State decides that it is in their best interest it will abrogate any treaty, it is done all the time. Show me any time in history were a state has not voided a treaty when it served it's purpose? That is the History of Nations, Treaties Made and Treaties Broken, and the time when the offended parties took up diplomacy by other means to enforce their ends of the Treaties, The reason you most treaties are entered into it to gain time, advantage, or defense commitments to hold another Nation State in check. Any war in history will give ample proof of this. Treaties are only valid if:

1. The Nation States Live up to their agreements.

2. It serves the interest of said State.

3. One of the States can enforce the provisions of said treaty on the other parties to the treaty.

Other than that the real value of a treaty is the paper it is written on- to wipe your ass when you run out of toilet paper.

No, they are valid even if the nations do not live up to them. If they don't, they suffer the consequences. There are usually consequences built in to the agreement. If nothing else, their reputation suffers and they will not be able to make treaties as easily in the future.

Living up to any treaty/law is a social compact.
Failing to live up to any treaty/law has consequences.

Nope.
Another day, another "Wha~Bang"...

Car bombs target Shiites (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/iraq.main/)

Car bombs struck markets in a Shiite area of Baghdad and a southern Shiite town, killing at least 55 people, hours after former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was executed for crimes committed during his rule.

Sure looked like "closure", tho' - for a second or so...
;)

The War with Hitler did nothing to stop war. I Guess we should have learned to like him instead, right Killjoy? Who do ya like better Sadam or Adolph?

So you think Saddam death will end the current bloodshed?

really? did the fighting stop in Iraq? :confused:

Obviously some of Saddam's people need to meet the same fate.

So you think Saddam death will end the current bloodshed?

No, IT WASN'T ENOUGH. It's obvious that more people need the same sentence.

String 'em up cowboys!!!!!!

Buffalo Roam, international law consists of general principles of international law, international customs, conventions (including treaties), soft law and other sources,
it's by no means only treaties.

Nope.
Another day, another "Wha~Bang"...

Car bombs target Shiites (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/iraq.main/)

Car bombs struck markets in a Shiite area of Baghdad and a southern Shiite town, killing at least 55 people, hours after former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was executed for crimes committed during his rule.

Sure looked like "closure", tho' - for a second or so...
;)

So tell me Killjoy, what do you think about someone that goes out and randomly kills 15 people in a fish market? The victims' only crime that day is that they happened to like fish. Shame on them Killroy. Shame Shame. The bombers were obviously right to do this weren't they?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_bomb_1

Let's say you are down at your local Walmart, and somebody blows up theseafood section of the grocery store. What would your reaction be then? How do you make any reasonable connection between that and some politically motivated blame game?

Buffalo Roam, international law consists of general principles of international law, international customs, conventions (including treaties), soft law and other sources, it's by no means only treaties.

So ....who decided all of these damned laws? And has everyone on the planet agreed to them or weren't we all allowed to vote? And if we didn't vote, then what's that tell you about those fuckin' laws and rules?

I would also ask ...where's the enforcement for those laws? And if no one enforces them, are they really laws?

Baron Max

The War with Hitler did nothing to stop war. I Guess we should have learned to like him instead, right Killjoy? Who do ya like better Sadam or Adolph?
Adolph's boys had better uniforms... I dig them SS togs... and those helmets...
Yowsa !!!

The results didn't turn out like we thought they would then, either...
Or did they ?

So tell me Killjoy, what do you think about someone that goes out and randomly kills 15 people in a fish market? The victims' only crime that day is that they happened to like fish. Shame on them Killroy. Shame Shame. The bombers were obviously right to do this weren't they?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_bomb_1

Let's say you are down at your local Walmart, and somebody blows up theseafood section of the grocery store. What would your reaction be then? How do you make any reasonable connection between that and some politically motivated blame game?
You been spending too much time trotting along the bottom of the river, there, your 'potamus-ness.
Who said anything about the bombers being "right" ?

I merely agreed with the thought that executing Saddam doesn't represent any milestone - no wait... " benchmark " which indicates that we have come any closer to ending the violence, or " MISSION ACCOMPLISHED "

The nazi's were hung with piano wire, yes?

Courtesy of David1971:

pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video

The nazi's were hung with piano wire, yes?

Plain old rope, as far as I know.

'cept Jolly Herman -

He took da Pill

Courtesy of David1971:

pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video

Gee whiz...

Couldn't somebody dredge up a decent cam-corder ?

BTW:
http://pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video

Yes Avatar,

Buffalo Roam, international law consists of general principles of international law, international customs, conventions (including treaties), soft law and other sources,
it's by no means only treaties.

And as soon as any country finds one of these isn't in their best interest they will abrogate any and all of the high toned words that are used to describe so called international law, and how do you enforce said law in that country? by force, if it in your interest? sit and pass U.N. sanctions? for all the good they have ever done, sit and cry because they aren't playing fair? Yes tell me all the good that has been accomplished by International Law that isn't backed up by a Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove,

Courtesy of David1971:

pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video
I was sorely tempted to close it after 10 seconds, then after 23. But I thought, "No - what is it that they're all so proud of?"

And there was nothing to be proud of there, really. Pretty sickening - one more death amongst countless others (including the 70-odd people killed by the 4 car-bombs exploded in his memory).

What will it change? I mean, really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6212727.stm

I asked: "WHY is this thread STICKY?"
YOU answer:
...I know lots of people are going to weigh in on the subject. ...
That is all them more reason for it NOT to be STICKY. --- I.e. if they do, then it will automatically stay near the top of this forum.
Moderators should be logical.

By making it STICKY, you are forcing it to stay at the top even if people* get tired of the subject. UN-STICK IT !!!

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE when it sinks into the archieves - that is not your job.

-----------------------
*I already am!

The show's over. Cut him down, spidergoat.

The show's over. Cut him down, spidergoat.I was banded from Chroot's forum.* - That is why I am here. I have just started to post at www.elitetrader.com under name billdick, so if I am banned, it will sciforum's loss; MHO, of course.;)
-----------------------------------
*I tried to discuss the possiblility that many** small (few stellar massses) black holes exist and why they can not be detected. Chroot likes to keep his forum free of speculation, and he knows what is "fact" and what "is not." - So out he me threw. :mad: Note how I carefully avoided ending with a preposition. - I do not want to make a "bad English" post, (to add to my crimes here.):D

**Perhaps 20 times more mass in total than all the visible universe. - I.e. they are they "dark matter." I have posted here why I think each of the first generation stars made at least a dozen when dying. Reason has to do with the way fusion depends upon temperature (exponentially, but approximately as T^4 for their core temperatures.) and density (almost exactly as (rho)^2) and the statistically fluxations in both that cause the final collapse to not be exactly at mass center of the star (as theory always assumes to get any solution to very complex problem). These first stars were in the 100 to 300 solar mass range, typically. Perhaps in several "death cycles" make 14 Black Holes of average 2.5 solar masses or a 10 to 40% fraction of their mass is left as Black Holes, which have grown some as time passed. There were many more made when matter first formed in the dense early universe's density fluxations, MHO.

I thought hyperwaders was referring to Saddam, not Billy_T?

I thought hyperwaders was referring to Saddam, not Billy_T?Doesn't mater. - If I am cut down I will go like Saddam, no blind fold and head held high. Perhaps even claiming martyrdom (to truth and logic.)

Adolph's boys had better uniforms... I dig them SS togs... and those helmets...
Yowsa !!!

The results didn't turn out like we thought they would then, either...
Or did they ?


You been spending too much time trotting along the bottom of the river, there, your 'potamus-ness.
Who said anything about the bombers being "right" ?

I merely agreed with the thought that executing Saddam doesn't represent any milestone - no wait... " benchmark " which indicates that we have come any closer to ending the violence, or " MISSION ACCOMPLISHED "

So what? Who claimed it would end violence? Violence never ends.

People, people: please.

A dumbass - a dictator - was hung.

Now, isn't that really a good thing? Isn't the world just a little better shorn of even one power-mongering idiot? Don't complain about the dictators we haven't hung yet; just be happy about the ones we have hung. I mean, it certainly would be nice if Pol Pot or Hitler or Stalin or Pinochet or any of the rest could have swung, but for many of them this isn't going to happen. So let's just be content with what we have.

Happy New Year.

By making it STICKY, you are forcing it to stay at the top even if people* get tired of the subject. UN-STICK IT !!!

Personally, I have noticed a tendency for sticky threads to become less conspicuous. Perhaps that is just a personal issue. My eye tends to slide down past the sticky topics without even seeing them. Why? Because they've been there forever and are not indicative of new posts in the thread....

Look, stuck or unstuck is really irrelevent. I have noticed that some members seem more concerned about the placement and number of threads on the screen than the ideas they contain. There might be some interesting psychological principle involved.

Personally, I have noticed a tendency for sticky threads to become less conspicuous. Perhaps that is just a personal issue. ...I agree. I seldom read a "sticky." So no, it is not just you or “personal.”

My bitch is that sticky threads take up space. Often I must go to page 2 etc. to get to the "good stuff" that has had time to "season."

PS - I must say, that for a moderator, you show signs of intelligence, not reading sticky threads either, etc. More on this, in “Ban Billy T” thread, which is now where it belongs - down with all the other nonsense in the cesspool.

Courtesy of David1971:

pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video


Hey Thanks... Now that i have it I'm not sure that i wanna see it actually? lol but thanks anyway

Saddam the madman
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6222159.stm

Sgt Ellis looked after the former Iraqi leader - whom they called 'Victor' - in 2004 and 2005 at a camp near Baghdad.

The prisoner rarely complained during his time in captivity, he said.

When he was allowed to go outside, Saddam Hussein saved bread scraps from his meals to feed to the birds, Sgt Ellis said.

The former leader also watered a patch of weeds.

"He said he was a farmer when he was young and he never forgot where he came from," Sgt Ellis said.

He said Saddam Hussein never gave him trouble and complained little.

"He had very good coping skills," Sgt Ellis said.

Saddam talked about when he used to read bedtime stories to his young children and recalled giving his daughter medicine for an upset stomach.

His sons Uday and Qusay were killed by US troops in 2003.

The former leader did not talk about dying and had no regrets about his regime, saying what he did was for Iraq.

Sgt Ellis said Saddam Hussein once asked him why the US had invaded when "the laws in Iraq were fair and the weapon

When the nurse had to leave because his brother was dying, Saddam Hussein hugged him and said he would be his brother.


Clearly we are dealing with an evil man. He fed bread to birds. Disgusting.

Doesn't that just show the cold lack of remorse for his crimes? And also the intent to further this 'grandfather' image so as to stir up an 'uproar' at his execution?

Do you not believe that he is guilty of the crimes he has been convicted of?
You're denying that he's a brutal killer? And responsible for the death of thousands upon thousands of people?

Just because he fed some birds while imprisoned?

The question is more: how can we know the extent of his crimes if he never got a proper trial.

And Bush seems to have no trouble portraying his 'nice' image despite being a bigger criminal than Saddam.
http://www.volpin.it/photogallery/georgewbush/bush-dog.jpg
Bush pretending not to be in control of the world and being responsible for the death and misery of thousands and thousands of people.

...Bush pretending not to be in control of the world and being responsible for the death and misery of thousands and thousands of people.Saddam also killed "thousands and thousands" but "swung" for only 148 deaths* because at least half of these "thousands and thousands" had the US's help for him achieve, perhaps even US supplied the gas he used, but certainly US supplied the locations of Iranian troops from US satellite data.

I have noticed that not much is said about were he got the gas for use during the eight year, US-backed, war against Iran. Saddam was the CIA's man back then. Rumsfield had private planning talks with Saddam several times and the photo of them shaking hands, after some agreement, is widely known. It is little wonder the US pupet government now in Iraq did not bring him to trial for any of his major crimes (use of gas warfare) as he might have told where he got the gas, who supplied the Iranian target loctions, etc.
---------------------------------
*Most of whom had just tried to kill Saddam a few days earlier in a Kurdish revolt, or were at least active supporters of this coup attempt.

PS do not get me wrong. I am glad Saddam is gone, but sorry the US had given so little serious thought as to what would be needed to give Iraq a better government - US has given Iraq a "death sentence" in that the civil war will split the country and the creation of Kurdistan will then trigger a second civil war in southern Turkey. - All of this I predicted in Emails to CNN and letters to NYTimes before the invasion had even been launched! Both expressed my strong doubts that there were any WMDs. Saddly, I have been correct thus far. About 6 months ago I gave more a detailed prediction as to start of the civil war in Turkey, posting it here. - within two years after the creation of Kurdistan.

Saddam was the CIA's man back then. Rumsfield had private planning talks with Saddam several times and the photo of them shaking hands, after some agreement, is widely known. ....

Are you saying/implying that no one can ever change? Saddam was, in fact, a friend of the US, but he changed. Why is that so difficult for you and others to comprehend?

Baron Max

Are you saying/implying that no one can ever change? Saddam was, in fact, a friend of the US, but he changed. Why is that so difficult for you and others to comprehend? Baron MaxNot hard to comprehend that people can change, but I think Saddam did not. He was taking care of "Number 1" consistently. (while on the CIA's payrole and later when he saw better deals in selling oil for food & medicines via UN program with a big dollar fraction going into his pocket, etc.)

You are too much of a realist to think Saddam was helping US out of friendship - perhaps you are not quite sober yet?

Not hard to comprehend that people can change, but I think Saddam did not.

Your opinion is based on what??

He was taking care of "Number 1" consistently.

Of course! And at one time that was consistent with what the US wanted and/or needed. But then he changed ....and no longer worked with the US on any-damned-thing!

You are too much of a realist to think Saddam was helping US out of friendship .....

There is no such thing as "friendship" in international politics. Of course he was helping/working with the US at one time ....but then he changed. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Have you never had a friend change? Never heard of anyone's friends changing? Ever??

Baron Max

to BM:

If that is what you meant by "he changed" then we agree, but I would say "circumstances changed" and he continued unchanged. I.e. consistently looking out for number 1 (totally without any moral constraints all the time etc.) Right now he is trying to cut a deal with the Devil to return to Earth as an experienced agent of evil. IMHO he is unchangable and never has changed.

Baron Max, you can never get a man of science to change, they believe themselves to be smarter than any other living being on the planet.

Baron Max, you can never get a man of science to change, they believe themselves to be smarter than any other living being on the planet.Hey - facts are facts - what can you do? --Oh, wait, I have an idea:

The poll is still open. - Go to the cesspool. (Not only an insult, I mean it literally also.):D
There find Poll: "Ban Billy T - (for being arrogant and disrespectful)" and vote.

Last time I looked it was only 8 of 26 for the ban - you can help the the "ban him cause" if you have not yet voted. ("Billy who? & I don't care" were in the lead)
:cool:

...LOL! I already voted, I think. And i'm sure I voted for "Billy who?" ...LOL!

Baron Max

This is getting rather surreal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6224531.stm

John presscot stated in the absence of Tony Blair.

"I think the manner was quite deplorable really," he said. "I don't think one can endorse in any way that, whatever your views about capital punishment.

"Frankly, to get the kind of recorded messages coming out is totally unacceptable, and I think whoever was involved and responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves."

You can hang someone, but you can't film it illegally to show how much of a farce it was.

Can someone please give this man a brain?!

...to show how much of a farce it was.

Hangin' Sadman was a "farce"???? Huh? What the fuck does that mean?

Baron Max

Hangin' Sadman was a "farce"???? Huh? What the fuck does that mean?

Baron Max

I'm sorry. I forgot you only watch the biased newschannels.

for instance:
"It defies imagination that the Appeals Chamber could have thoroughly reviewed the 300-page judgment and the defence's written arguments in less than three weeks' time... The appeals process appears even more flawed than the trial...

International human rights groups have expressed concern about a legal process where guilt does not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", as in international trials. Instead, the Iraqi tribunal has only to be "satisfied" of guilt.
Questions have been raised about the quality of some of the prosecution evidence and testimony, and there are allegations that some witnesses have been coached by prosecutors.

The tribunal was set up under occupation and some have questioned the extent of legal consultation prior to the tribunal's creation.

The assassination of three defence lawyers and the replacement of the original chief judge in the Dujail case also raised questions.

and from wikipedia:
Critics, including Saddam's sole remaining legal counsel Khalil al-Dulaimi, have alleged that American officials have a heavy influence on the court. [44] In a statement, Khalil said, "this court is a creature of the US military occupation, and the Iraqi court is just a tool and rubber stamp of the invaders." [45]
Khalil al-Dulaimi and various international commentators have alleged that the date on which the verdict was read live to the world, November 5, 2006, was deliberately selected and expedited by the Bush Administration in order to influence the U.S. midterm elections which occurred two days later. This has been called a November Surprise. [45][46]
The television link of the trial is provided by a U.S. company which frequently edits out the sound of what Saddam and the others say, and sometimes edits the video as well.[47]

The human rights organization Amnesty International criticized the death sentence and said the trial was "deeply flawed and unfair." The process was marred by "serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal," Malcolm Stuart, director of Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa program, said. "in particular, political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court." [48] The specific concerns raised by Amnesty International include the status of the trial as a "Special Trial" (unconstitutional according to the Iraqi Constitution), political interference in trial proceedings by the removal of a judge mid-trial, exclusion of members of the defense team at points in the trial, assassination of multiple members of the defence team, and the closure of the trial before the defence team had completed presenting its legal case.

Oh, so if there's a couple of people in the world who think the trial and the execution was wrong, then .....that makes it a "farce"?? Or a couple of personal opinions expressed in Wiki-whatever, then ...that makes the trial and execution a "farce"?? Hmm? Okay.

Baron Max

Oh, so if there's a couple of people in the world who think the trial and the execution was wrong, then .....that makes it a "farce"?? Or a couple of personal opinions expressed in Wiki-whatever, then ...that makes the trial and execution a "farce"?? Hmm? Okay.

Baron Max

You think it isn't a farce which makes it not a farce?

You think it isn't a farce which makes it not a farce?

I'm still trying to figure out why you or anyone would consider it a "farce"?

Baron Max

I'm still trying to figure out why you or anyone would consider it a "farce"?

Baron Max

Turn your brain on. Watch the muppet show. And consider again.

Turn your brain on. Watch the muppet show. And consider again.

Sorry ....still don't see it. Why was it a "farce"? I don't get it.

Baron Max

Good to see the “sticky glue” on this thread did not stick. Thread can now die a dignified death, when the people decide not to use.

Saddam tried for such a death, but the Shea taunts prevented that and greatly re-enforced the convictions of some that this was just a Shea government getting even, not justice.

Interesting that those who made the taunts are known and not punished, but the person with the cell phone camera, who let the world know what happen at the end is being is being hunted down like a dog for punishment.

They do this sort of thing in Brazil still. - It is much more likely you will go to jail if you, (usually a newspaper reporter) illegally tap some politician’s phone, make video record of him taking bribe without his consent, etc. than he is to go to jail for miss use of public funds or his position.

The cell phone person is in big trouble, not the taunters. Brazilian reporter is in big trouble, not the crooked politician he exposes. I am too old to be shocked by this any more. Power corrupts - that is just the way it is.:(

I can imagine. It's rather shocking that this mentality is shared by the No.2 in the UK though. You would expect for politicians to at least once in their lives done a course or seminar on ethics. But the corruption has apparently fried their brains beyond shame.

Saddam was executed for the deaths of 149 Shiites. I wonder when Bush will be hanged for the deaths of 300,000 plus Iraqis? How many Americans did Saddam kill? How many has Bush killed? 3,000 and counting. Hmm.

I can imagine. It's rather shocking that this mentality is shared by the No.2 in the UK though. You would expect for politicians to at least once in their lives done a course or seminar on ethics. But the corruption has apparently fried their brains beyond shame.
I think Prescott was objecting more to the manner in which the execution was carried out - the taunts, etc. - rather than the filming of it in itself. Prescott is (rightly) regarded as a bit of a buffoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott#Controversies) in the UK but I think he was right on this occasion to voice his concern about how the execution was handled. You disagree?

I think Prescott was objecting more to the manner in which the execution was carried out - the taunts, etc. - rather than the filming of it in itself. Prescott is (rightly) regarded as a bit of a buffoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott#Controversies) in the UK but I think he was right on this occasion to voice his concern about how the execution was handled. You disagree?

Well, ask the BBC

In a BBC interview, UK Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott called it "deplorable" and "totally unacceptable" that video clips of the execution had surfaced on the internet.

This sentence leads me to think Prescott found the fact insulting that the clips ended up on the internet.

Well, what he actually said was this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2119453.ece

I think the manner was quite deplorable really. I don't think one can endorse in any way that, whatever your views about capital punishment.

...

Frankly, to get the kind of recorded messages coming out is totally unacceptable and I think whoever is involved and responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves.

...

I am just making the point that, in fact, those circumstances of the hanging of Saddam... without doubt, to have those kinds of comments is unacceptable and whoever is responsible should be condemned for it.

...

In tense exchanges, Mr Prescott refused to discuss the matter further, insisting: "I couldn't have given you a clearer answer.

I am sure it will be controversial but I have given you my view. I don't think we can say any more than that.
But, in any case, you need to read between the lines on this one. Prescott is no fan (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219716.ece) of the Bush administration, but has to be careful not to upset Blair. You should interpret his remarks in this context.