Saddam Hussein: Captured

An interesting point, the same argument was made against putting Nazis on trial for the holocaust that took place in their own country. Occasionally, you get a dictator so bloody that he gets put on trial for crimes against all humanity.

I don’t think they will put Saddam in the usual international courts, however. The Iraqis who have been tortured by Saddam will want to have their own trial of the man, so we can see why they’re so upset with him.

Putting mass-murderers in prison is the most sane thing we do. :wink:

Here comes Saddam Claus! :cool_laugh:

:grin: I was thinking the same thing when I saw him with that beard.

They should send him to Guantanamo Bay, I’m sure Castro could give him a few tips on grooming.

You would be amazed how fast things can be done, as long as people pay enough for it… :smile:

though i must say i personally do not know much about dna analysing

Cause US is world police… sigh
I find it amazing how USA/Bush whine about weapons of mass destruction, when USA is the country that has the biggest and highest amount of weapons mass destructions weapons in the whole world…
Why is it ok for some countries to have this weapons?? I have yet to see USA care about the weapons israel have…

I still think Saddam is an VERY bad person, and should have had any power of a country…But however using the excuse about weapons of mass destruction to goto war is bullshit…

I think a good example is World War 2, when the Americans and Nazis were racing to see who gets the atomic bomb first. Why would it be ok for the Americans to get an atomic bomb and not Hitler? Why is it ok for a country like Britain to have nukes and not a country where they commit genocide against their own people? Why is it bad for a country to have nukes if it enslaves neighboring countries and puts them in concentration camps, but peaceful countries are allowed to have nukes?

I think the questions pretty much answer themselves. :wink:

yes but there is a difference between having some nukes for defending yourself which i feel america has the right to and saying that its bad to have weapons of mass destruction when they have alot more than any other country in the world yet seem to be the most against them
i mean wtf do they plan to do with the thousands of nukes they have i can accept them having tens or even hundreds but thousands?
doesnt look good for anyone in the world

It’s Cold War leftovers. Everyone wanted to make sure we had more than the Soviets, to feel safer and to deter them. Of course they all felt the same way and it created an arms race. Mostly, we make newer and better nukes, and you have to make new ones every so often, which adds to the total. But they get retired after a time.

What about when USA dropped a nuke in japan? That was total unecessary… killed tens of thousands of innocent civilian people and hurted/tortured many more just for revenge… Even today people are suffering because of this… Weapons of mass destructions is NEVER used for peace, it is made to wipe out entire populations…

And why should not other countries have the right to have nukes for defending themself also?

“Putting mass-murderers in prison is the most sane thing we do”

Yeah,but at what cost?I dont see how it could be the best way through killing thousands.If we follow this way we may run out of people to actually look for mass murderers.You dont use a tank to kill a fly.

At the time, it was believed using atomic weapons to end the war with Japan quickly would cost the fewest lives. This is still widely believed to be the case, since the Japanese military leaders were not interested in surrendering.

Perhaps other countries only want nukes to protect themselves, and have no hostile intentions, but we cannot necessarily trust them.

The military action in Iraq may not be the best way to get rid of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, but it is the best way that anyone knows of. :cool:

" The military action in Iraq may not be the best way to get rid of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, but it is the best way that anyone knows of."

Dont tell us you actually believe it.Thats the best way to fix all those businesses behind it not to find and bring one person to judge.Just look around whats happening now…all the countries are racing to whos gonna be rebuilding it:(.
Im not buying it and i suggest we all stop doing it cuz soon we may run out of people on earth to actually look for mass murderes.
Saying that killing thousands of people for a sake of capturing one man, puts the person thinking like that in one line with him.
How can civilizied country or countries for that matter still apply such methods???After centuries of wars and sufferning we didnt learn anything:(

But everyone should trust the allmighty USA? I hate it when other countries think they are better than everyone else and ontop of that force other countries to behave the way “USA” call the proper way.
But i guess they know what is best for us… sarcasm

And btw… I strongly believe that the IRAQ war was all about money… i really doubt it had anything to do with helping the iraqies… None of the “proof” of mass destruction weapons turned out to be true…

I still think it is nice that Saddam is gone though…

Well said.

I agree, the United States tackled this situation with all the strategy and grace of an ogre with a club, but were the civilian casualties truly unreasonable in stopping this tyrant from tormenting the country any longer?

I think their families should answer this question and all the rest shall listen

There are countries where there is injustice… but why dosent america do anything about it?? what about in Columbia how the drug lords pretty much run the country??

There are thousands of people dying every day from hunger and easiely preventable diseases… why dosent america have a strong interest in saving these people??

I cant wait for the day when America has compleate control… and i dont have to think very much cause i will have the media control me. yay!

U.S.A SURPASSES ALL GENOCIDE RECORDS!\

KUBLAI KHAN MASSACRES 10% IN NEAR EAT

SPAIN MASSACRES 10% OF AMERICAN INDIANS

JOSEPH STALIN MASSACRES 5 % OF RUSSIANS

NAZIS MASSACRE 5% OF OCCUPIED EUROPEANS AND 75% OF EUROPEAN JEWS

U.S.A MASSACRES 6.5 % OF SOUTH VIETNAMES & 75% OF AMERICAN INDIANS

Coming from an American: (who reads american textbooks and american TV)
It made us win the war. I need to read up more on WWII, but I believe we developed the Nuke just month(s) before germany would have, and if we didnt use the nuke, the axis could have won and the entire world would be under facist rule.

An interesting fact: The japenese did not surrender after the first atomic bomb, and only to the second when we said we had another one… we didn’t.

german scientist went to america… well the changed sides… something like that…

but i guess in the end u could say…

that that person stoll my chocolate bar so i am going to punch them in the face.

its funny how this weapon of mass destruction is “making peace”

As far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, think about how difficult it is for one country to trust another. Why should you trust another country? The United States has sent hundreds of thousands of its young men to fight and die in wars throughout its history and has liberated dozens of countries. Many countries in Europe and Asia would not be free today if not for the sacrifice of the United States. Yet the governments from those very same countries often distrust the United States. So how can you expect the U.S. to trust some ruthless dictator with nukes? Not easily.

The only way to get rid of a regime like Saddam’s is through warfare. The liberation of Europe and Asia by the United States and other allied nations in World War 2 cost the lives of many civilians in the very countries they were trying to liberate. But ask people living in France or Belgium or the Netherlands whether they would rather still be under Hitler’s rule in order to spare those civilians. Not likely. And they would have lost even more civilians than that under the rule of a bloody dictator. The same goes for Iraq, if he were still in power Iraq would have lost even more civilians than were killed in the bombings to free the country.

Everyone knows this. However, many countries feel a strong sense of guilt because while countries like the United States and Britain were sending young men into dangerous situations, their own countries sat back and did absolutely nothing. How do you justify this inaction? You must make up excuses. The common one is, “well, the United States bombed Iraq and it killed innocent civilians. You can’t kill innocent civilians, so we had to do nothing.” This ignores the fact that innocent civilians would be dying at an even faster rate in Iraq if Saddam were still there. So the media of these countries show nothing but gruesome images of civilians killed in the bombings, as a way of alleviating their own guilt for allowing these same civilians and more to be killed under Saddam’s rule.

Imagine if the American media did this during World War 2. “We’re sorry, we can’t invade France and drive the Nazis out of there, because some innocent people might die! We’d rather Hitler kill all of the innocent people. Better luck next time.”

Instead, the United States did liberate Europe, and some innocent civilians had to die in order for it to happen. But the world became a much safer place because of it, and most of the world’s countries had to do nothing but sit back and let the Allies take care of it for them. They didn’t have to raise a finger. The only thing they may have needed to do was make a few excuses for their own inaction and treat their guilt over it. :wink:

Fear not, the United States spends millions in research and development of technologies for more and more accurate weapons systems to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. Long gone are the days when a country like the U.S. would need to carpet-bomb the entire city of Baghdad and hope they got some military targets while the whole city was destroyed.

But no matter how good the technology gets, there will always be at least one innocent civilian who is killed in the bombing. And all throughout Europe, that person’s image may be televised to explain to its people “this is why we don’t fight.” In the meantime, their television cameras don’t pan for one second over the mass graves left behind by the dictator.