View Full Version : Saddam Hussein condemned to death.
Dreadnought
05-Nov-06, 11:25
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm
...although I can't help wondering if many thousands of lives could have been spared if his captors had just shot him dead in his bolt-hole.
Now its going to get a lot worse, if our troops thought it was bad now, then I think they are in for a shock
Golachs right. The politicians have a problem now. The aftermath.
I think this could be a perfect opportunity for the politically correct animals amongst us to take over the world.
I'm uncomfortable with state sponsered executions so for me the best thing that could happen now would be for the relevant authorities to have a little touch of what I am feeling and save Saddam his moment of martydom. They could say, no more killing as an example to the people who are infected by the killing bug. I'm not daft enough to expect that to happen but someday something similar will need to happen.
Kingetter
05-Nov-06, 12:07
How can Britain, with no death penalty (except for treason possibly?) involve itself in/condone the execution of a death penalty? Is it 'the exception that proves the rule'? or 'special exemption'?
How can Britain, with no death penalty (except for treason possibly?) involve itself in/condone the execution of a death penalty? Is it 'the exception that proves the rule'? or 'special exemption'?
Excuse me?? What as Britain got to do with this sentence? Saddam was tried and convicted by his own countrymen
Kingetter
05-Nov-06, 12:21
Excuse me?? What as Britain got to do with this sentence? Saddam was tried and convicted by his own countrymen
I know what you're saying, but are British troops still there? If so, does that not matter?
percy toboggan
05-Nov-06, 12:30
If they are going to execute him they should do it quickly. It is a nettle which has to be grasped.
Surely, no-one could have imagined a different outcome to this tragic tale. The death of a despot, and the disintegration of a 'nation' A nation concocted by westerners which clumped together ill fitting partners. You can only sweep muck under the carpet for so long.
Be done with him.
Dreadnought
05-Nov-06, 12:39
If they are going to execute him they should do it quickly. It is a nettle which has to be grasped.
Surely, no-one could have imagined a different outcome to this tragic tale. The death of a despot, and the disintegration of a 'nation' A nation concocted by westerners which clumped together ill fitting partners. You can only sweep muck under the carpet for so long.
Be done with him.
Unfortunately if Hussein is now hanged, screaming 'God is great!', as his intention now appears, the extremists in Iraq and around the world will have their martyr. It would have been much better to put a single bullet in him when he was found, cowering like a coward in a hole in the ground.
Kingetter
05-Nov-06, 12:41
Unfortunately if Hussein is now hanged, screaming 'God is great!', as his intention now appears, the extremists in Iraq and around the world will have their martyr. It would have been much better to put a single bullet in him when he was found, cowering like a coward in a hole in the ground.
Or possibly as 'friendly fire'?
pultneytooner
05-Nov-06, 12:46
Excuse me?? What as Britain got to do with this sentence? Saddam was tried and convicted by his own countrymen
Iraq was invaded by the allies to find w'm'd and to remove saddam and his dictatorship with a democratic government so I would say it has a lot to do with the allies.
Can anyone tell me what laws Saddam has broken?
He has been indicted of killing his own people? Now that is not an offence in my eyes. It may be morally wrong but not an offence.
percy toboggan
05-Nov-06, 15:58
Can anyone tell me what laws Saddam has broken?
He has been indicted of killing his own people? Now that is not an offence in my eyes. It may be morally wrong but not an offence.
What do you mean by 'his own people'
Were they chattels and playthings to be despatched at will? Gassed in their thousands or bombed out of existence. Tortured for his own entertainment perhaps. He has been found guilty of mass murder for starters. Is this not enough?
Your 'eyes' seem suspect at best, and I'm being charitable. Congratulations , you have provided me with the most baffling comment I have read for a long time.
Bluenose I don't mean to be cheeky or sound sarcastic but the last time I checked the mass killing of people was murder and is murder not an offence?!?! If Tony Blair went around killing or ordering the killing of the British public who did not agree with him, would you stand for that or want to live in such a country? I think not.
I am talking about legalities here not morals or ethics.
In a sovereign country the parliament or the dictator or whoever happens to be in charge makes the rules. As soon as you start imposing retrospective justice you have lost.
I do not condone what Saddam has done but I question whether anyone has the right legally to convict him.
Dreadnought
05-Nov-06, 16:50
I am talking about legalities here not morals or ethics.
In a sovereign country the parliament or the dictator or whoever happens to be in charge makes the rules. As soon as you start imposing retrospective justice you have lost.
I do not condone what Saddam has done but I question whether anyone has the right legally to convict him.
The justice system of Iraq is what has convicted him. Iraqi judges, Iraqi lawyers.
Saddam's sentence comes with nice timing with the US elections............ with Bush behind in the polls.:roll:
The trial was a farce, did anyone really expect a verdict any different than was dished out? What was the prupose of the trial? The whole saga from WMD through regime change to the trial is a joke - why oh why did they just not put a bullet in him when they found him.
I am talking about legalities here not morals or ethics.
In a sovereign country the parliament or the dictator or whoever happens to be in charge makes the rules. As soon as you start imposing retrospective justice you have lost.
I do not condone what Saddam has done but I question whether anyone has the right legally to convict him.
Everyone has a right to an opinion but very occasionally that opinion so clearly ridiculous one has to wonder what brainstorm occurred. Bluenose has obviously lost it completely when it comes to any sort of logic regarding Sadam. One can look at the limitations of the legal system in certain countries but one cannot ignore that he killed thousands of his own people - Iraquis and Kurds - but he also broke international law and gassed tens of thousands of Iranian men, women and children - not his own people Bluenose so here another element of your argument falls.
Everyone has a right to an opinion but very occasionally that opinion so clearly ridiculous one has to wonder what brainstorm occurred. Bluenose has obviously lost it completely when it comes to any sort of logic regarding Sadam. One can look at the limitations of the legal system in certain countries but one cannot ignore that he killed thousands of his own people - Iraquis and Kurds - but he also broke international law and gassed tens of thousands of Iranian men, women and children - not his own people Bluenose so here another element of your argument falls.
I am 100% with you Cattach
pultneytooner
05-Nov-06, 20:52
Right, that's saddam gone now let's all hope for the day when bush and blair are called to answer for their actions, the pair of warmongering morons.
willowbankbear
05-Nov-06, 20:52
Shame for the poor guy.
In which way? I bet he didnt feel remorse for the arocities he committed , so he`s no a poor guy, he was very rich guy actually
I am talking about legalities here not morals or ethics.
In a sovereign country the parliament or the dictator or whoever happens to be in charge makes the rules. As soon as you start imposing retrospective justice you have lost.
I do not condone what Saddam has done but I question whether anyone has the right legally to convict him.
Well the English Civil authorities tried and executed Charles I, his defence echoed Saddam's, ie he questioned the legitimacy of the Court.
As war changes the constitution of a country, a new country is born so all such arguements/defences fail to have substance.
I notice that nobody questions the right of a certain Country to put it's ex-President on trial and that neither we, or any Country in Europe, complained about him being returned to a Country which, at the time, still had the Death Penalty.
In fact, the European Countries were only too keen to see him sent back as quickly as possible so he could face trial.
I don't remember anybody questioning that right of the Country in question to try him for offences carried out whilst he was Head of State.
If the arguement that a President can do no wrong because he is in charge is right, does anybody wish to defend Nixon over Watergate?
His only crime was to tell a few fibs afterwards about a simple burglary where nobody even got a scratch, let alone died.
Does anybody want to explain why America had no legal right to do what they did in his case?
Sorry, willowbankbear, can't say a thing about my previous post. I would hate to risk being accused of sarchasm, it's not in my nature.
I notice that nobody questions the right of a certain Country to put it's ex-President on trial and that neither we, or any Country in Europe, complained about him being returned to a Country which, at the time, still had the Death Penalty.
In fact, the European Countries were only too keen to see him sent back as quickly as possible so he could face trial.
I don't remember anybody questioning that right of the Country in question to try him for offences carried out whilst he was Head of State.
If the arguement that a President can do no wrong because he is in charge is right, does anybody wish to defend Nixon over Watergate?
His only crime was to tell a few fibs afterwards about a simple burglary where nobody even got a scratch, let alone died.
Does anybody want to explain why America had no legal right to do what they did in his case?
Sorry, willowbankbear, can't say a thing about my previous post. I would hate to risk being accused of sarchasm, it's not in my nature.
Sadam was found by the Americans who have got a death penalty in their country and he was not sent back anywhere by the UK. He was found in Iraq and held there and at an American base in the gulf so I do not know where you are coming from as far as Britain is concerned. Also I have not heard any British politician commenting on the sentence which was delivered by the legitimate govenment of Iraq. A government voted for the people of Iraq albeit with some linitations caused by the military situation.
To sum up - he was caught in Iraq, he was tried there and he was sentenced there.
Also I have not heard any British politician commenting on the sentence which was delivered by the legitimate govenment of Iraq.
I heard on the radio that Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, condoned the sentence.
pultneytooner
05-Nov-06, 23:57
I heard on the radio that Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, condoned the sentence.
We should all agree with margaret beckett then.:lol:
Sorry Cattach, I was referring to the fuss that seems to be being made over the right of Iraq to try him and the fuss over the sentence.
There was a suggestion to the effect that, because what happened occurred when he was President, he committed no offence.
In fact, there has been a comment to the effect that, because he was only butchering his own people, his actions were quite acceptable.
I have no doubt, sorry, I have already seen that the Professional Hand-wringers are out in force on the News Channels. I was just wondering if they would be so anxious to fall over themselves to defend certain other Leaders who have been put on trial by their own people.
I don't think anybody can complain he wasn't allowed his say, from what appeared on the News he never shut up!
The only problem I ever found with the Iraqi Court Proceedings was that Saddam and his idiots were allowed to get away for so long trying to play Monty Python for the Media to swallow.
oldmarine
06-Nov-06, 04:37
Saddam's sentence comes with nice timing with the US elections............ with Bush behind in the polls.:roll:
I don't believe it will help Bush'es party come this next Tuesday. Look for a great political party change.
cullbucket
06-Nov-06, 05:05
Would be nice if George Bush could be held accountable for some of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed in this illegal war. Or even just brought to task along with Blair for simply lying to us, the general public in the run up to war. Or even get in a wee bit of trouble for blatantly ignoring the Geneva convention in Guantanamo....When you are the biggest dog on the block, you can make your own rules and nobody holds you accountable...
Ach weel, nobody said it was a fair world....
Right, that's saddam gone now let's all hope for the day when bush and blair are called to answer for their actions, the pair of warmongering morons.
Those days will be here soon they are called Election Days, something the Iraqi people never had for 30 years
I've just heard GWB saying to his red state faithful, "My decision to remove Saddam was the right one", hmm, I thought it was all about WMD? Well, Tony thinks it was.....:roll: [evil]
I'm converted now.
You are all missing the point.
Under Iraqi law Saddam committed no offences.
Yes I agree the man is a t**t but I cannot agree with retrospective justice.
And will everyone who voted to allow the UN to pass laws please pm me
Nuremburg? The victors write history and create retrospective law.
Let us have a hypothetical discussion The Scottish Parliament passes a law tomorrow that having sex with someone under the age 20 is illegal and it applies from 1950.
I am guilty and most of you are.
Dreadnought
06-Nov-06, 13:17
You are all missing the point.
Under Iraqi law Saddam committed no offences.
Yes I agree the man is a t**t but I cannot agree with retrospective justice.
And will everyone who voted to allow the UN to pass laws please pm me
Nuremburg? The victors write history and create retrospective law.
Let us have a hypothetical discussion The Scottish Parliament passes a law tomorrow that having sex with someone under the age 20 is illegal and it applies from 1950.
I am guilty and most of you are.
So, if they had come to trial, you would have let Hitler get off on a technicality too as he didn't break any German law? Or Pol Pot because he did not break Cambodian law..?
pultneytooner
06-Nov-06, 13:37
Those days will be here soon they are called Election Days, something the Iraqi people never had for 30 years
I was thinking more of impeachment not non election.
Dreadnought
06-Nov-06, 13:49
Those days will be here soon they are called Election Days, something the Iraqi people never had for 30 years
The Iraqis had elections. But they were only allowed to vote for the Ba'ath party. Much like the old Soviet system of you could only vote for the Communist party.
pultneytooner
06-Nov-06, 13:51
The Iraqis had elections. But they were only allowed to vote for the Ba'ath party. Much like the old Soviet system of you could only vote for the Communist party.
Not very democratic then.
Bit like the old model T ford, 'any colour as long as it's black'.
Dreadnought
06-Nov-06, 13:57
Not very democratic then.
Bit like the old model T ford, 'any colour as long as it's black'.
Well it was a kind of democracy. You voted for which representative you wanted, but all representatives were members of the Communist party, or in the case of Iraq, the Ba'ath party.
willowbankbear
06-Nov-06, 13:58
Q .What does everyone think Saddams last meal will be
Will the Hanging be live on TV
If not where will have the "show"?
DO you think its all going to kick off after wards
Will he have a big funeral or a cremation?
Q .What does everyone think Saddams last meal will be
Will the Hanging be live on TV
If not where will have the "show"?
DO you think its all going to kick off after wards
Will he have a big funeral or a cremation?
1. Kurds and wheyt on a minute, he's already had the Kurds.
2. Live only until the trap door opens!
3. On the X factor
4. He will kick off at the time if not afterwords
5. Up to his neck in sand - within minutes just like the folk he gassed.
The execution will allow Bush and co. to exit in the style of the late John Wayne. "Slap leather, you varmint" bam!!! - Sadam staggers out of the saloon, gut shot, stares at his hemmorrhaging life as it pours onto the dusty sidewalk, and topples over the hitching rail, stone cold dead, his face contorted in one last agonising spasm, as a couple of horses look on curiously.
Seriously, folks, most Republicans and a lot of Democrats support the death penalty.
The US can say "mission accomplished" (yet again) and ride off into the sunset.
Dreadnought
06-Nov-06, 16:17
The US can say "mission accomplished" (yet again) and ride off into the sunset.
Leaving behind them a freshly made martyr and recruitment call for Islamic extremists the world over...
Leaving behind them a freshly made martyr and recruitment call for Islamic extremists the world over...
You can argue the politics all you like. Yes he will become a martyr. There is an argument that as long as he lives, he's 'beaten' the system and is still some kind of figurehead.
He needs to die. He deserves death. It's as simple as that.
Dreadnought
06-Nov-06, 17:33
He needs to die. He deserves death. It's as simple as that.
And what of the thousands who will die as a result of his execution? Do they deserve death?
And what of the thousands who will die as a result of his execution? Do they deserve death?
What is your evidence that something like that may happen? What are you basing that on? It might happen.
What also might happen is an uprising fighing for there glorious leader as he resides in an Iraqi prison.
What if he was ever released or even was rescued from prison? I'd imagine a few thousand might die then.
We can't base every decision on all the multitude of things that may happen. He killed thousands of innocent people and should die for it.
Dreadnought
06-Nov-06, 17:52
Perhaps you didn't read the first post in this thread..?
Perhaps you didn't read the first post in this thread..?
What this bit?
'Shortly after the verdict there were jubilant scenes in the Shia district of Sadr City, and in the holy city of Najaf.'
Who's to say that if they'd let him live, the Shiites wouldn;t have kicked up causing thousands of yadda, yadda, yadda....
It's all guesswork. No-one knows what will happen and any of the different possible permutations relying on whether or not he was hanged.
The long and the short of it is he is an evil man who killing thousands of innocents who deserves to die.
Dreadnought
06-Nov-06, 18:25
No, this bit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm
...although I can't help wondering if many thousands of lives could have been spared if his captors had just shot him dead in his bolt-hole.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm
...although I can't help wondering if many thousands of lives could have been spared if his captors had just shot him dead in his bolt-hole.
i was working on that train of thought myself , and i would put Saddam in the same school as Adi Amin, Hitler & probably Gengis Khan, but to have shot him in his bolt hole,[ which would have been what he deserved] would have made his captors not much better than him.
'...although I can't help wondering if many thousands of lives could have been spared if his captors had just shot him dead in his bolt-hole.'
Dreadnought, your answer is in the quotation - 'I can't help...'. This is someone's opinion, not based on fact.
It would have obviously been good if he had been shot in his bolt hole but the long and the short of it is that no matter how evil he is, he deserves a fair trial.
It has now been decided that he should die by his own people and above board. Can you imagine how much more trouble there would have been if they had just shot him in that bolt hole?
Dreadnought
06-Nov-06, 19:04
Dreadnought, your answer is in the quotation - 'I can't help...'. This is someone's opinion, not based on fact.
Erm... it is my own opinion. I wrote that.
Can you imagine how much more trouble there would have been if they had just shot him in that bolt hole?
I don't think there would have been half the trouble, or deaths, that there has been. The extremists would not have their martyr (an unshaven coward hiding in a hole in the ground is hardly brave martyr material), and we would not have had months of suicide bombings in Iraq designed to attack Iraq's fledgling government.
Instead untold thousands have died, and Saddam will go to the gallows screaming 'allahu-akhbar' (God is great) and create a martyr for the extremists.
Far better to sling him in a cell, away from the world's eyes, and never mention him again.
danc1ngwitch
06-Nov-06, 20:10
man !!! oh wot damage he can do... ( ops or woman )
Were he to be executed it would be quite remerkable if he became a martyr.
Iraq has a history of assassinated heads of state and not one of them has become a martyr to anything.
It's just another squalid dictator biting the dust and in thier heart of hearts every Arab knows this. Of course that's not going to stop Sunni from alarming western media outlets by martyr talk.
Wring his neck and he'll be forgotten in a fortnight.
The civil wars have already begun and they are all about tomorrow's strong man - not yesterday's toppled demagog.
Wring his neck and he'll be forgotten in a fortnight.
I have a thick wad of money to wager that your statement will be incorrect.
Saddam Who? [lol] I notice that, despite all the kidnappings, executions and terrorism nobody has used them to demand his release or tried to free him!
You are all missing the point.
Under Iraqi law Saddam committed no offences.
I am sure murder was still illegal even under Saddam's regime.
If I remember correctly, he came to power by "persuading" his predecessor that he should stand down in his favour.
He then called a Party Conference where he declared that he had discovered there were "Traitors" in their midst.
He commenced to name the "Traitors" who were then removed, taken outside and shot.
When a sufficient number had been removed, he thanked the rest of the Party Members for their loyalty.
There were no objections to his Leadership!
Such a nice guy, so kind and caring! I wonder where he got the idea from?
Scorrie, you said something about a thick wad of money. Give me some and I'll say whatever you want!
Scorrie, you said something about a thick wad of money. Give me some and I'll say whatever you want!
Sorry, it's a wager, not a donation.
If you wish to maintain the status that matches your name, it's best not to take on an ex-bookie ;o)
Gogglebox
07-Nov-06, 21:49
You are all missing the point.
Under Iraqi law Saddam committed no offences.
Yes I agree the man is a t**t but I cannot agree with retrospective justice.
And will everyone who voted to allow the UN to pass laws please pm me
Nuremburg? The victors write history and create retrospective law.
Let us have a hypothetical discussion The Scottish Parliament passes a law tomorrow that having sex with someone under the age 20 is illegal and it applies from 1950.
I am guilty and most of you are.
But he wasnt democratically elected to the post - - -he didnt appy to
Wanted Despot and Dictator
Must be cable of reducing population
and instilling fear and compliance in Citizens - -Apply Within
He ousted the previous incumbent and changed all the rules to suit himself - -anyone who argued didnt argue twice, they were shot, anyone who as much as banged their fist in disgreement at the meeting was removed and was shot. Did you see the hidden sketchy video shown on news recently when someone aspoke out at a rally and was taken away and shot
It seemed to solve a lot of his problems when it came to democracy
Murder may not have been an offence in Iraq but only as he changed it. Murder is wrong in any faith that a country is founded upon.
Although it does have its appeals we wouldnt have to put up with daft opposition parties or dosy cabinets giving equal balance and rationale to a decision!!
there is a fair bit of hypocrisy in what has happened though and i do think it would have been better if he had died in battle ie down his hidehole!!
His supporters will claim long after his death he was hanged in a kangaroo court and this decision will be avenged. How and by Who, no doubt our shores and the familes of our soldiers will find out the answers
I think it probaly was a no win situation and also why i found the comments when he was found " We got im" quite repulsive as the americans racked up the self interest points little thinking of the implications for the world.
Large scale death will again occur because of this mans death.
Its someones mums, dads sons and daughters.
willowbankbear
07-Nov-06, 22:11
Who gets to pull the trapdoor from under him ?
Ive been wondering & so have some others, Imagine having that on yer cv? I Hung Saddam t-shirt rights an all that
j4bberw0ck
07-Nov-06, 22:28
How interesting that Saddam is now issuing statements urging Iraqis from all the different ethnic and religious groups to unite.
Not the action one might expect of a wannabe martyr, surely?
Under German Law none of the defendants at Nuremberg had committed any offences. Perhaps they should have all been released and just allowed to go home.
Sounds like a fair comparison to me, after all, when you're in charge you can do anything you want because you make your own rules.
Can anyone tell me what laws Saddam has broken?
He has been indicted of killing his own people? Now that is not an offence in my eyes. It may be morally wrong but not an offence.
Didn't Vladimir Putin gas his own innocent people in a cinema when trying to stop a terrorist/hostage situation a few years back?
Is he next?
j4bberw0ck
07-Nov-06, 23:53
Hmm... in what way, exactly, is that similar to Saddam Hussein gassing 10,000 Marsh Arabs, shooting and gassing an estimated 200,000 Kurds, shooting his brother-in-law (personally), handing signed death sentences to judges before trials started, turning loose his two psychopathic sons on people who opposed him - while those people were confined in cells, in chains........
In trying to relieve a terrorist hostage-taking, different rules apply, I feel. But even if they don't, Putin is hardly Saddam Hussein. I suppose some of Putin's decisions in Chechnya aren't full of kindness and concern for wellbeing, but how would you see him being brought "to justice"?
Don't think I ACTUALLY wrote that he was Saddam Hussein. Not being a native English speaker I can see how what I wrote might be read as that. What I wrote was in reference to a previous quote (which was copied) about killing his 'own' people. Putin did the same . . .
Don't think I ACTUALLY wrote that he was Saddam Hussein. Not being a native English speaker I can see how what I wrote might be read as that. What I wrote was in reference to a previous quote (which was copied) about killing his 'own' people. Putin did the same . . .
To be fair, Putin did this with a view to actually saving people's lives in the wider picture.
For a simple comparison, look at the nuclear bombs dropped by the US in WWII. What people don't realise are the numbers of lives saved by the US dropping these weapons. A ground offensive against an island nation happy to throw suicidal plane pilots at the enemy would have resulted in many many more hurndreds of thousands of lives lost.
Sometimes the end justifies the means. Putin was perhaps heavy handed but malicious? I don't think so. Saddam on the other hand...
Dreadnought
08-Nov-06, 17:30
To be fair, Putin did this with a view to actually saving people's lives in the wider picture.
For a simple comparison, look at the nuclear bombs dropped by the US in WWII. What people don't realise are the numbers of lives saved by the US dropping these weapons. A ground offensive against an island nation happy to throw suicidal plane pilots at the enemy would have resulted in many many more hurndreds of thousands of lives lost.
Sometimes the end justifies the means. Putin was perhaps heavy handed but malicious? I don't think so. Saddam on the other hand...
The US didn't have to target civilians. They could have dropped the bombs on purely military targets. The effect would have been the same.
The US didn't have to target civilians. They could have dropped the bombs on purely military targets. The effect would have been the same.
I actually agree with you on this lad. I can only think the thought process was that hitting military targets might not have been enough to stop the Japanese.
I seem to remember from doing my military history during my Naval Officer training that the sharp shock was needed to stop them. Either way, you are correct, they should have at least went for a military target in the first instance.
By the by, my point was, comparing Putin to Hussein is unfair. I believe Putin was acting for the overall good of his people in his own heavy handed way. There was much press after what happened in that school assault saying Putin could have handled things a lot better but no-one considered what he was doing as evil. He was honestly trying to do the best thing I believe.
Saddam Hussein was entirely evil in his actions. There can be no justification for some of the things he did.
George Brims
08-Nov-06, 19:18
Leaving behind them a freshly made martyr and recruitment call for Islamic extremists the world over...
Unfortunately it's a wee bit more complicated than that. Despite the fervent attempts of the Bush administration ot link Saddam to Al Qaeda, the Muslim extremists actually didn't like Saddam and his Ba'athist cronies. They wanted him out of power (but had more urgent things on their minds so they never did much about it), and he distrusted them intensely (had his secret police watching Al Qaeda people inside iraq). Of course that's not to say the screaming mullahs will not try to stir things up based on his execution.
George, can congress now pass a bill to hang George W Bush? It looks like it may even get Senate approval (have I got tht the correct way round?)
The US didn't have to target civilians. They could have dropped the bombs on purely military targets. The effect would have been the same.The accuracy, or rather the lack of it, made that virtually impossible. The US was not the only ones to bomb civilians during WW2.
A look at this site, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1892714.stm , explains why cities and other large population areas were targetted.
The Germans changed from Military Targets to bombing London simply on the grounds that you could not miss it however inaccurate you were.
Bombing accuracy was such that a bomb landing within quarter of a mile of it's intended target was more by good luck than by good accuracy.
To imply that the US was the only Country to target civilians, and not only by bombing, is simply not sustainable.
Dreadnought
08-Nov-06, 20:10
The accuracy, or rather the lack of it, made that virtually impossible. The US was not the only ones to bomb civilians during WW2.
A look at this site, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1892714.stm , explains why cities and other large population areas were targetted.
The Germans changed from Military Targets to bombing London simply on the grounds that you could not miss it however inaccurate you were.
Bombing accuracy was such that a bomb landing within quarter of a mile of it's intended target was more by good luck than by good accuracy.
To imply that the US was the only Country to target civilians, and not only by bombing, is simply not sustainable.
The US only had to demonstrate the power of their new weapon. They did not have to target civilians to do that.
George, can congress now pass a bill to hang George W Bush? It looks like it may even get Senate approval (have I got tht the correct way round?)They have been known to Impeach Presidents for far less serious things than Saddam Hussein carried out against his own people.
I have no doubt that were a President to be Impeached for using the US Armed Forces (He would in fact have no Power to enable him to do so) in an attempt to remain in power and had thousands of his own people slaughtered in the process he then would be Impeached.
The Law would not need to be changed to do that and I have little doubt as to what the sentence would be.
President Bush was not even allowed, under US Law, to send Federal Troops to assist the States affected by hurricane damage without permission of the State Governor.
The US only had to demonstrate the power of their new weapon. They did not have to target civilians to do that.That was, in fact, considered and turned down as impractical.
Okinawa, one of the Islands of Japan, was secured at the beginning of July. The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought.
There were 94,000 and 150,000 civilian deaths. Many were ordered, by the Japanese Army to commit suicide rather than surrender whilst others were ordered towards the battlefield to show that Japanese Civilians stood alongside their Army.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1666601,00.html
It was over four weeks later that Hiroshima was bombed on the 6th August. Three days later Nagasaki was bombed. The following day the Japanese surrendered.
The Japanese had shown no inclination to surrender after Hiroshima and even after Nagasaki there was a serious attempt by the Military to take control of the Mikado and to prevent his recorded statement announcing the Surrender from being broadcast. It was only by luck that they were prevented from succeeding because, if my memory serves me, one of the Imperial Staff managed to smuggle the recording out of the Palace past them.
I recall a Japanese Soldier being found in the jungle on one of the Pacific Islands some 20 or thirty years after the war ended. He was still “hiding from the Enemy". He refused to believe that the War was over and that any "Proof" he was shown was simply propaganda in order to trick him into surrendering.
The Japanese had to trace his old Commanding Officer and take him to order the soldier to accept the Surrender.
To try to give the impression that the Americans were the only ones who killed civilians is demonstrably incorrect as the above indicates.
The accuracy of the historical facts are not difficult to check and are easily available for anybody to find.
I would, however, absolve Saddam Hussein from any involvement whatsoever in the above.
j4bberw0ck
08-Nov-06, 23:13
The US bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was entirely justified when seen through the eyes of those who found themselves, in 1945, with a war that would cost tens of thousands of lives to end, and possibly possessing a weapon capable of a knockout blow. I agree with JAWS that it was only strikes on the Japanese islands themselves that would make any difference. 1945 didn't have the benefit of satellite TV coverage, the internet and all the media channels we now take for granted.
I watched a prgramme on TV a couple of years ago that alleged - on, apparently, good authority - that a B39 overflew Hiroshima on several consecutive days before the bomb was dropped, at high altitude. The result was that people ignored the aircraft; when the bomb was dropped and airburst, people had become accustomed to it and simply carried on their normal business - and so were caught in the streets.
The logical conclusion is that it had been decided to study the effect of the bomb on an unprotected target - gruesome stuff, but considering the bomb was going to be dropped anyway, why not get some extra data on the "performance" of a brand new weapon? When you get down to it, it's no more immoral than using data obtained from Nazi concentration camps from immersing Jews in iced salt water until they died, and then trying to revive them - research that underpins much of the medicine to treat divers and people suffering from hypothermia.
Not nice. Simply realistic.
Dreadnought
08-Nov-06, 23:41
To try to give the impression that the Americans were the only ones who killed civilians is demonstrably incorrect as the above indicates.
No-one is saying that. I said there was no need to target a civilian population centre. It was bad enough to do it once, but twice?
oldmarine
09-Nov-06, 01:21
That was, in fact, considered and turned down as impractical.
Okinawa, one of the Islands of Japan, was secured at the beginning of July. The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought.
There were 94,000 and 150,000 civilian deaths. Many were ordered, by the Japanese Army to commit suicide rather than surrender whilst others were ordered towards the battlefield to show that Japanese Civilians stood alongside their Army.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1666601,00.html
It was over four weeks later that Hiroshima was bombed on the 6th August. Three days later Nagasaki was bombed. The following day the Japanese surrendered.
The Japanese had shown no inclination to surrender after Hiroshima and even after Nagasaki there was a serious attempt by the Military to take control of the Mikado and to prevent his recorded statement announcing the Surrender from being broadcast. It was only by luck that they were prevented from succeeding because, if my memory serves me, one of the Imperial Staff managed to smuggle the recording out of the Palace past them.
I recall a Japanese Soldier being found in the jungle on one of the Pacific Islands some 20 or thirty years after the war ended. He was still “hiding from the Enemy". He refused to believe that the War was over and that any "Proof" he was shown was simply propaganda in order to trick him into surrendering.
The Japanese had to trace his old Commanding Officer and take him to order the soldier to accept the Surrender.
To try to give the impression that the Americans were the only ones who killed civilians is demonstrably incorrect as the above indicates.
The accuracy of the historical facts are not difficult to check and are easily available for anybody to find.
I would, however, absolve Saddam Hussein from any involvement whatsoever in the above.
Jaws: You see this in its true fact. I fought during the battle for Okinawa. It was my fourth battle during the war in the Pacific. I observed that the closer we got to the Japanese Empire home islands the fiercer they fought. By the time our Marines landed on Iwo Jima and Okinawa the Japanese Navy, Air Force and Army were committing suicide to take us out with them. I saw kamakazi planes hitting our Navy's ships as suicide bombs to take out our Navy. I saw banzai attack after attack charging in on us in suicide waves to take us out. My country had developed three atomic bombs. The 1st one was dropped as a test bomb in the New Mexico desert. That left only two bombs. The first one dropped on Hiroshima did not get the military leaders attention enough to give up. After the 2nd and only remaining bomb was dropped, the Japanese Emperor told his people it was time to surrender. The Japanese military argued against it. The Emperor being a God-like figure for the Japanese people was fortunate to sway the people into agreeing with him. When our troops later landed in Japan they saw fortifications that would be manned by old men, women and children. Being fanatical people they would have resisted to the end. Most of us believed that millions of lives were saved on both sides as a result of dropping those two bombs. So called experts of later generations tried to argue that it was un-necessary to drop those bombs. I and everyone like me who were there believed differently. We believed that most of us would not have safely made it home without using those two bombs. I still believe that to be true.
When you get down to it, it's no more immoral than using data obtained from Nazi concentration camps from immersing Jews in iced salt water until they died, and then trying to revive them - research that underpins much of the medicine to treat divers and people suffering from hypothermia.
Not nice. Simply realistic.
I had heard a story that that sort of urban myth was perpetrated by groups who have links with the far right who were trying to put an intellectual vaneer on butchery of the worst kind. Any meaningful 'medical research' to come out of Nazi barbarism has been rejected by the BMA et al as unreliable as well as unethical.
EDIT And the myths were spread by victims of torture by the forerunners of Germany's pharmaceutical companies who are now hoping to get compo, as far as I know anyway. I kind of think that there is some sort of 'research' may have been archived for educational purposes but they aren't expressly advertising the fact for fear of upset and I don't think it would be valuable in a modern medical sense anyway.
No-one is saying that. I said there was no need to target a civilian population centre. It was bad enough to do it once, but twice?
Contrary to popular myths about Hiroshima having no military value, it had in fact a large Military Base and Nagasaki was, and still is, one of Japan’s largest and most important ports.
Hiroshima deaths are estimated at 135,000 and Nagasaki deaths at 50.000.
To give those figures some perspective the Siege of Leningrad alone accounted for upto 630,000 civilian deaths. At Stalingrad the Germans lost 400,000 troops, the Soviets had 750,000 Military Casualties and the civilian deaths can only be imagined as they are simply described as “an unknown number”.
Total civilian deaths by Nation for WW2 can be found at http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civilian_casualties_of_world_war.htm
It gives some interesting figures which are worth looking at to compare total civilian deaths caused by that war.
Again, a quick check of historical facts, totally devoid of moral comment, gives some insight into the attitude of various Countries towards the unnecessary killing of Civilians for whatever reason. It is interesting to compare the total civilian deaths in Japan of 350,000 with that of the Country it invaded in 1937, China, which stands at 10,000,000 civilian deaths at the hands of the Japanese.
In Nanking alone, once the Japanese were in control of the city, they slaughtered over 300,000 men, women and children. By their own admissions, throwing babies onto campfires was considered a “sport” and that was one of the milder things they did. Again, the historical accuracy is easily obtainable, there are many sites carrying the details.
Oldmarine, I have always found it interesting that those who are willing to wag the finger and to pontificate later about how everything that was done at the time was wrong and evil are never to be found at the time.
You, and all those like you certainly have my gratitude. I look at what those you were fighting against were capable of doing to civilians and as a result know who I place on the Moral High Ground.
No-one is saying that. I said there was no need to target a civilian population centre. It was bad enough to do it once, but twice?
They had 72 hours to announce surrender after the first bomb and for whatever reason they did not. Ths simple fact is that both bombs, perversly, saved hundreds and thousands of lives. The same goes for Putin.
Hussein had no reason to kill the people he did other than hate.
How did Sadman Hussein get tied up with radiation? Has he been condemned to Death by Irradiation?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.